News Forum - Russia’s FM Sergei Lavrov warns US not to supply Ukraine with arms

[Rookiescot]

Just now, DiJoDavO said:

And yet, it wasn't pointed at as the main source of these problems. The whole news was Covid, Covid Covid up to a point I almost literally had to puke. Nowadays it's Putin's turn. Next the biggest world (western) problem is China. Global warming will be soon again too. It only has to wait its turn.

Because innocent people are dying there as we speak. Bombing is bombing. And no active involvement? No 'active involvement' like in Ukraine. But in the meanwhile povide all the weapons. That's one way to make your money and get away with the terrible outcome of it. 

Western bombs being used in Yemen, pff, ok, who cares. Russian bombs being used in Ukraine, not ok. That's nowadays the main narrative. 

How about all of it is not ok? And all are equally and openly discussed in the media? 

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt deflection.

Where is the evidence the Ukraine wanted nukes?

[EdwardV]

3 hours ago, Fanta said:

“Russian forces pounded away at the vital port of Odesa, Ukrainian officials said Tuesday, as part of an apparent effort to disrupt supply lines and weapons shipments.”

They bombed a shopping mall. Maybe Ukraine was parking tanks in it? 

Besides the question of why is Russia using so many expensive hypersonic missiles to attack buildings. What's the point of targeting Odesa? It's port has been shut since very early in the war, it's out of the way from the main weapon entry points in Poland. It's one thing to conduct a extensive bombing campaign to degrade a target, but lobbing a half dozen missiles a week at buildings? It's not even like the Russian army is headed there anytime soon. If anything they are currently getting further away.   

[Fanta]

1 minute ago, EdwardV said:

They bombed a shopping mall. Maybe Ukraine was parking tanks in it? 

Besides the question of why is Russia using so many expensive hypersonic missiles to attack buildings. What's the point of targeting Odesa? It's port has been shut since very early in the war, it's out of the way from the main weapon entry points in Poland. It's one thing to conduct a extensive bombing campaign to degrade a target, but lobbing a half dozen missiles a week at buildings? It's not even like the Russian army is headed there anytime soon. If anything they are currently getting further away.   

Ask Associated Press - they wrote it. 

[EdwardV]

1 hour ago, Fanta said:

“Either we are part of an alliance like NATO and also make our contribution to strengthen this Europe, or we have only one option; to rearm ourselves,” Germany’s DPA news agency quoted Melnyk as saying. “How else could we guarantee our defence?”

That's hardly proof. 

There is no evidence Ukraine did anything but point out the obvious. That they either need some type of alliance or they need some form of deterrence. The fact of what is going on right now proved that out. It certainly doesn't justify an invasion. 

[Fanta]

5 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

That's hardly proof. 

There is no evidence Ukraine did anything but point out the obvious. That they either need some type of alliance or they need some form of deterrence. The fact of what is going on right now proved that out. It certainly doesn't justify an invasion. 

I didn’t make the claim they were actively seeking nukes. Short of a signed PO what proof is there.  A luser asked for proof that Ukraine said they wanted them hence the link. No-one is going to sell Ukraine nukes anyway.

EDIT: maybe Kim Dim Sim might sell them because he clearly doesn’t give a flying f*ck what anyone says. Shipping could be a problem. 

[Rookiescot]

3 minutes ago, Fanta said:

I didn’t make the claim they were actively seeking nukes. Short of a signed PO what proof is there.  A luser asked for proof that Ukraine said they wanted them hence the link. No-one is going to sell Ukraine nukes anyway. 

Yes you did. You posted a link to try and back up a fellow Czar Putin apologists claim that the Ukraine wanted nukes.

It is a fake claim and indeed a lie.

Why are you lying?

[EdwardV]

3 minutes ago, Fanta said:

I didn’t make the claim they were actively seeking nukes. Short of a signed PO what proof is there.  A luser asked for proof that Ukraine said they wanted them hence the link. No-one is going to sell Ukraine nukes anyway. 

Ok but the link doesn't prove Ukraine wanted nukes. What it does prove was Ukraine's desperation to save off what they saw was coming (which turned out to be true). 

The supposed justification for invasion being about nukes is right up there with chemical weapons. Like you correctly point out, Ukraine can't buy nukes. Means at the very least if they wanted to create them from scratch, we are talking about a decade long process. One that can't be hidden. One that would have made them a pariah in the world. The excuse was absurd at the time, hasn't aged well either.  

[EdwardV]

19 minutes ago, Fanta said:

Ask Associated Press - they wrote it. 

That's why they wrote "apparent effort". I asked your opinion since there doesn't seem to be much logic behind either "apparent" or "effort". I'm guessing you don't have one which is fine. Thanks anyway.  

[JamesR]

13 hours ago, Smithydog said:

By your remarks you clearly indicate you think that bias cannot deliver any factual information. 

If so, then obviously you don't watch, read or listen to any media to be informed as your internal cognitive bias would seem to prevent you believing any media source whatsoever. How are we then to take any of your comments as being supportive of anything or believe they are untainted by your own cognitive bias?

Bias is a two-way street. It would seem your internal cognitive bias is hiding the reality from you . 

"Bias is a two-way street"

True which is exactly what I have been saying all along, there is no point getting into any further cycle discussions as we are just repeating the same thing but in different words.

[DiJoDavO]

49 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Yes you did. You posted a link to try and back up a fellow Czar Putin apologists claim that the Ukraine wanted nukes.

It is a fake claim and indeed a lie.

Why are you lying?

Haha, so that's why I said. I can come up with a news article and you will say it's a false claim. 

So I was right. It's of no use to come up with links or anything if your bias already shows there's no room for other points of view. 

Ukraine mentioned they wanted them. Why are you so against this? They may just talk about it, right? They may jave the desire to get such weapons, right? It's still Putin who's bad for invading. No matter what reason. If you think it's a bs reason, ok. But don't say that they didn't mention anything about nukes. 

Besides that... What does Putin even have to gain by randomly attacking another country knowing that the whole world was against him already in the first place. They somehow had to feel threatened, or else it's just too stupid for a person as calculated as Putin. 

[EdwardV]

4 minutes ago, DiJoDavO said:

Ukraine mentioned they wanted them.

Except that's not what the link said. It was: 

“Either we are part of an alliance like NATO and also make our contribution to strengthen this Europe, or we have only one option; to rearm ourselves,” Germany’s DPA news agency quoted Melnyk as saying. “How else could we guarantee our defence?”

No where does that say Ukraine wanted nukes. It's not even implied.

The clear message was let us in an alliance for protection, or we will need to head down another path. Yes the implication is nukes, but it's not said as a statement of desire or intent. The follow up statement at the end of the quote makes that clear. The desire was an alliance, not nukes.  

The idea Russia needed to invade to keep Ukraine from something they didn't have and didn't want is ironic and incredibly sad. No doubt that irony is lost on those who support Russia. 

[vlad]

5 hours ago, Fanta said:

Russia has stepped up attacks on Odessa. The port is already blockaded.

“Russian forces pounded away at the vital port of Odesa, Ukrainian officials said Tuesday, as part of an apparent effort to disrupt supply lines and weapons shipments.”

https://abc7.com/russia-ukraine-war-mariupol-steel-plant/11833907/ 

What are they bombarding Odesa port with? If there using Warships they must be miles offshore and not able to visualize targets. So it is my guess that indiscriminate targets will be hit as there too frightened to come close ashore to pinpoint targets.

[DiJoDavO]

Alright I've found what I was looking for. Not exactly the same article as I've read. That article had directly  linked this speech to that outcome that they were looking into the possibility to make their own nuclear weapons. 

The speech he held was on February 19th. Russia invaded just a few days later. 

The speech could be linked to that though if you know what the deal they had signed was about. 

https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/ukrayina-iniciyuye-provedennya-konsultacij-u-mezhah-budapesh-73001

Part of that deal was that Ukraine had to give up its nuclear weapons and in exchange they would get security when being attacked. When Zelensky goes out and says that this deal will not have any value at all if they didn't get the help (pay attention that this was before Russia invaded them), this could be seen by Russia as a first step towards nuclear weapons. 

Also pay attention that from your point of view this doesn't matter at all. From Russia's point of view, this could be received as a threat and it was one of the red lines they said not to cross. 

Now, Russia wants the Ukraine not to be a threat anymore. The west is using Ukraine as a threat for Russia by providing them weapons. So Russia keeps attacking them. If the west stops, Putin will stop. But the other way around, the west will only stop providing weapons when Putin stops. 

Russia's point is that Russia can stop, but the west won't stop as it has been proven time after time that the west is not trustworthy, because they come closer and closer to Russia's border. Just look up any map of the expansion of NATO. 

Now we can say Zelensky said the things he said because Russia annexed Crimea. But in Russia's point of view, all the countries around Russia are one by one 'annexed' by NATO. And that had been going on long before 2014.

These are also things directly related to Russia, and compared to what the USA does on the other side of the world, Russia actually has more of a reason to attack if we talk about involvement. Even though bombing and killing is obviously the wrong choice any time. 

[vlad]

Russia can't be trusted they have been caught out lying by the world by denying an invasion to using cluster munitions committing war crimes and it is Putin who used the Nuclear weapon option not the West or Ukraine and poisoning opponents to Putin.

[EdwardV]

10 minutes ago, DiJoDavO said:

Part of that deal was that Ukraine had to give up its nuclear weapons and in exchange they would get security when being attacked. When Zelensky goes out and says that this deal will not have any value at all if they didn't get the help (pay attention that this was before Russia invaded them), this could be seen by Russia as a first step towards nuclear weapons. 

Wow did you ever get that wrong. The deal to give up nuclear weapons in exchange for security was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Russia broke that agreement when they invaded Crimea in 2014. The statement from the Ukrainian ambassador was in 2021. To pretend the security agreement was still valid into 2021 is absurd. That's beside the fact at no point did Ukraine state they wanted nuclear weapons. 

[Fester]

3 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Utter Gibberish. False Pseudo Drivel.
No Sensible Rational Thought.          Anti-Western, Pro-Putin Rubbish. 
Smoke & Mirrors Deceit & Distraction. 
Ghastly Chalatan Lunacy.Evil.

Yup, more deflectors thun t' Starship Enterpise lad!

[vlad]

3 hours ago, DiJoDavO said:

But if I back it up with a news source (even a western one) the way I see you write things, would make you immediate go into defence how it's Putin's propaganda. So actually it doesn't really matter at all isn't it In 2020 the news told us that every problem in the world was created by Covid. In 2022 every problem in the world started with Putin. And without thinking, everyone agrees. No questions allowed. No critical view on western media allowed. 

The west says Putin has to stop, so they will stop sending weapons. Putin says the west has to stop sending weapons, so then he will stop fighting. 

Whoever has the most peace in his heart will stop first. Guess what, no one does, and yet, everyone is picking one side. One side of 2 wrong options. Sending weapons is not willing to make peace as well. 

By the way, how is Yemen doing in 2022?

Bro before you carry on you are required to use links to back up your claim. Some members on here are appeasers to Putin and even showing links from film crews on the ground in Ukraine is not enough for these some even suggest their setup. I will give you something to think about regarding honesty. The Russian Flagship  The Moskva in the Black Sea was sunk off Mariupol. The first reports from the Kremlin were that" it sustained a fire that spread enveloping the Ship causing it to sink while it was being Towed " Turns out it was hit by 2 Missiles fired from a Ukrainian shore battery. Just 1 of many lies spread from the Kremlin.

[DiJoDavO]

5 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

That's beside the fact at no point did Ukraine state they wanted nuclear weapons. 

So, again prolly didn't read the whole piece, I said that the article I read that time was directly linked to this. I can't find that article anywhere anymore but I remember that it was from a credible news source. There you go, like always, they create panic. 

But if you read the article and know more about the situation, can place yourself in other situations, you might understand that Russia can feel threatened by things like this. 

I also know for sure you haven't read the whole post because later in it I mentioned Crimea. Read it again but more careful instead of stopping at the point you don't agree with. 

Crimea was invaded so, yes to pretend it was still valid in February 2022, not 2021 as you said, would be nonsense. 

But, Russia has seen many deals being thrown into the bin too by the west. The eastern expansion from NATO, which they feel like how the west felt with the annexation of Crimea. This happened long before 2014 (fyi when Crimea was annexed). 

So, again, it's not just one perspective we have. They have their reasons too. We just justify everything we do, because it's us. They justify themselves because it's them. Who is it to speak the complete truth then if we have our point and they have their point? Of course we say we. They say that they have the truth, but then again, you have 2 truths. Then we can say they are wrong because they are the east. They say we are wrong because we are the west. Then who is it to say who is wrong? 

Oh yes! Only our governments and our media speak the truth! 

[DiJoDavO]

23 minutes ago, vlad said:

Bro before you carry on you are required to use links to back up your claim. 

Done. If you read full comments, you would notice. 

[EdwardV]

Ukrainian forces took out a second T-90M, the top Russian tank: 

 

Ukraine has reportedly blown up a second Russian T-90M tank, one of the most advanced types that Russia has in service, just days after destroying what was said to be the first one. Ukraine's Defense Ministry posted a video on Twitter Tuesday showing an aerial view of a tank far in the distance just before it was struck and engulfed in flames that sent a black mushroom cloud of smoke into the air. The ministry said that territorial defense fighters used a Swedish Carl Gustaf handheld anti-tank grenade launcher to destroy the tank near Staryi Saltiv in Ukraine's Kharkiv oblast (or province) and thanked Sweden for the assistance.

Ukraine Blows Up Russia's Best Tank With Help From Sweden (msn.com)

The link contains the video showing the T-90M on a road with it's gun pointed off to one side, and the rocket hitting it from the other. The Kharkiv area is where the Ukrainians have had a lot of success pushing the Russians back.

India was suppose to buy almost 350 of these tanks. Wonder if they are reconsidering? Probably doesn't matter much since the plant shut down.  

 

[EdwardV]

4 minutes ago, DiJoDavO said:

So, again, it's not just one perspective we have.

I get it.

Russia couldn't let Ukraine join NATO, it was an existential threat to them. However NATO was never happening for Ukraine, the argument that's why Russia invaded is a red herring. As long as Russia occupied Crimea, Ukraine wasn't eligible for NATO. Never mind countries like Germany were dead set against letting them join. The truth is Russia felt Ukraine just being a western democracy was an existential threat to them and that's why they invaded. 

The problem is as you point out, there are two sides. Once Russia invaded, the west had no option but to respond. See they feel an occupied Ukraine was an existential threat to NATO. That's a whole lot of Russian weapons right next to even more NATO countries. Keep in mind, prior to this event, NATO didn't have any permanent troop deployments in it's eastern most members. 

Now all bets are off. There are already plans to make a permanent NATO base in Poland, The expected requests for membership by both Finland and Sweden, and of course the West can't seem to send enough weapons into Ukraine. Unintended consequences. 

[dimitri]

1 hour ago, EdwardV said:

Russia couldn't let Ukraine join NATO, it was an existential threat to them.

 

How can NATO be a threat for Russia?  If you think about it, it's complete nonsense.

 

There are 2 kinds of war. Nuclear and conventional. A nuclear war NATO or Russia cannot win. It will be the end of everything. Ukraine doesn't matter in this case.

 

A conventional war?  Russia is too big to attack. Napoleon tried it, Hitler tried it. They both failed. It is estimated that you need about 8 million soldiers to attack and occupy Russia. NATO doesn't have that. 

 

You see the problems Russia is facing in Ukraine. Ukraine is also big. They had about 150k/200k soldiers who attacked. It wasn't enough. It is estimated that they needed a couple of million to attack and occupy Ukraine.

 

In the west there is also no wish to start a war with Russia. Who would volunteer to be a soldier in an army attacking Russia?  And for an attack by NATO, agreement is also needed from all member countries. It is not going to happen.

 

NATO is not the reason why Russia attacked Ukraine. It's an excuse used by Russia, but it is not the real reason.

 

[EdwardV]

8 minutes ago, dimitri said:

How can NATO be a threat for Russia?  If you think about it, it's complete nonsense.

Wait wasn't that my point? Regardless, Russia see's a threat under every bed and in every bush. It's part of their ethos. I'm not saying it's a rational fear, just acknowledging it exists for them. Good, bad or indifferent, they have been complaining about NATO's eastward expansion for the last twenty plus years. Yes it's an excuse, but that doesn't mean there also isn't something behind it. 

 

13 minutes ago, dimitri said:

A conventional war?  Russia is too big to attack. Napoleon tried it, Hitler tried it. They both failed. It is estimated that you need about 8 million soldiers to attack and occupy Russia. NATO doesn't have that. 

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. What is the distance from Warsaw to Moscow? Now look and see what it is from Kyiv to Moscow. Russia survived in the past by trading territory for time. If you attack in June, you are at Moscow by December. Not good. If Ukraine is part of a hostile force, you leave Kyiv in June, you are in Moscow for dinner. Keep in mind, Russia has the second worse demography in the world. They are in a terminal demographic collapse and they know it. There will be one hundred million less people in Russia by the end of the decade. Worse yet, what there is left will be much older on average too. Is there anything to worry about today, no. What about a decade or two from now? You can't answer that and neither can I. However those running the Kremlin need to be able too do so. 

 

19 minutes ago, dimitri said:

NATO is not the reason why Russia attacked Ukraine. It's an excuse used by Russia, but it is not the real reason.

Again that's my point. I'm one of those who actually believe Ukraine wasn't even the real objective. That happens to be the conquest of the Baltic States, and the occupation of parts of Romania and Poland. You just have to take Ukraine first. 

No doubt this invasion was completely unjustified. A brutal naked aggression against a sovereign country that wasn't threating them. However that doesn't change the geopolitical reason Russia felt the need to attack Ukraine. They just figured wrong and it is likely to lead to Russia's defeat (unless they mobilize then it flips back into their favor, slightly).  

 

[Poop]

Russian satellite tv displayed messages that the blood of Ukraine is on the hands of Russia.

Then a major Russian news website changed all their headline stories to say the truth about Putin's war in Ukraine.

Slowly more an more brave Russians are standing up to their dictator. There may be hope for Russia yet...

 

[Poop]

He seems to think that it is the Ukrainians responsibility to remove all their women and children from the villages before Russia drops their inaccurate bombs over them. 

Apparently it is their fault that Russia invaded or it is NATOs fault, but no how could it possibly be Putin's fault. Putin is innocent. 

Apparently Russia can bomb all the schools, hospitals, maternity wards they want as long it is was due to a misguided or inaccurate bomb. That is ok in his mind, which tells you he has a pretty scary mind....

Whether, you targeted the school or not you are guilty, it really is that simple. 

I guess in his mind because you wiped out all of Mariupol that is fine as long as it was not targeted? 

What utter nonsense but hey he is good at the nonsense.

Plus he really has a love for pigs, lol.