Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 35 of 82 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 851 to 875 of 2047

Thread: Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

  1. #851
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I don't think Putin would have escalated that far with a reasonable compromise being offered in the last 8 years.
    And I see no proof for serious ambitions beyond the current or former GUS states.
    Both NATO and Russia have Red lines, and it was so far never Russia which crossed those of NATO, but always the other way around.
    If the same rhetoric some use these days would have been applied in the Cold War, we would have had a nuclear catastrophy decades ago, because it creates a vicious cycle.
    NATO already pushed things to the limits in Ukraine, now they need to create a way out for Russia which allows an acceptable peace for all sides. The maximal demands from the Selenski regime are simply not helpful, they never were.
    There needs to be an open discussion about serious peace talks.
    A NATO membership of the Ukraine in its current official borders without any agreement with Russia Was just never a serious peaceful option, everybody knew it.
    Russia just stepped up once it became clear that there won't be an acceptable compromise coming from the Ukraine anyway.
    And the Ukrainian regime never stepped down from their maximal demands and both together brought us to that point.
    Russia and Ukraine acted irresponsible in this conflict and while I simply want peace in Ukraine I'm absolutely against risking a nuclear war.
    You make the mistake of thinking that Putin is a reasonable man who would have taken the democratic path back in the Nineties but for imagined wrongs perpetrated by the arrogant, triumphalist West.

    Putin was as much a kleptocrat as any of his crooked oligarchic friends, probably worse in fact.

  2. #852
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    Vladimir Putin is more like that cowardly tyrant Ivan the Terrible than Lenin (who supported Ukrainian self-determination).

  3. #853
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,497


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    Vladimir Putin is more like that cowardly tyrant Ivan the Terrible than Lenin (who supported Ukrainian self-determination).
    As if Lenin was a friend of humanity, he was destroying and killing more in Russia than Putin ever did. You really want to compare Putin with Lenin? The Bolshevists always promised freedoms at the beginning, but in the end they took more away than the Tsarist regime before and this didn't start with Stalin, but with Lenin already. And if looking at the brutality of the civil war, there is also no way you can say that Lenin would have been better than Putin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    You make the mistake of thinking that Putin is a reasonable man who would have taken the democratic path back in the Nineties but for imagined wrongs perpetrated by the arrogant, triumphalist West.

    Putin was as much a kleptocrat as any of his crooked oligarchic friends, probably worse in fact.
    He is definitely not as bad as Yeltsin was, because Putin had to deal with an Oligarchy the catastrophy of Yeltsin created. There is a nice saying, for Eastern Europe they call it oligarchs, in the west we're calling them philanthropists.

    The Ukraine is as much an oligarchic country as Russia, actually even more so, because there was no stronger political force than the few oligarchs which controlled the media. So you might say that two oligarchic and in part corrupted states with two irresponsibly acting regimes have now a war on the back of their people. That's something one could say, but not more. And Putin if anything controlled the oligarchs in his country better than other politicians in the East. Which is also why some of them wanted to shoot him down, not because they want a better social existence or more seriously taken democracy for the people. Its quite telling that especially the UK supported those "oppositional" oligarchs and tried to establish media and social networks to support their influence. The Yeltsin catastrophy was of course a trauma for Russia, because weakness and corruption was never that bad before or afterwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Obviously Putin needs force to 'get them back', is that force the norm Riverman? Are you longing for the world of Von Metternich?
    No, if Putin would prove to follow that path as a hardliner, I wouldn't agree with him at all. The problem is that the Ukraine made no acceptable offer to Russia as far as I know. I think they should have the freedom to organise themselves as they want, but not with the minority groups which don't want to belong to this state, not with the Russian base Sevastopol possibly taken away from Russia and if they would be allowed to join NATO at all, not in the current borders. That would be a fair compromise. They got territories which don't even belong to the historical Ukraine, with people which don't want to be part of this state and with areas of vital interest to Russia.

    Why had they to cut Crimea from water supply? Why did they kill Donbas leaders? Why did they shell Donbas areas and never really implement the Minsk agreement? Why did they proceed banning all pro-Russian media and began to persecute pro-Russian people? Why did they took such an aggressive stance towards Russia and ostentatiously said they will joing NATO anyway and don't care for Russian concerns at all, consider them a hostile state?

    If they were not on war course why did they do these things, with a president which got voted for with the promise of bringing an end to this conflict and peace?

    This means its absolutely not about Russia just "bringing Ukraine back" with force out of nothing, this was a serious series of conflicts and provocations between these states. With both sides to blame. Many wars in the recent years started by far less than that.

    Putin had no right for this level of escalation, but the West threatened him with basically the same measures even if he would have just entered Donbas, which had no perspective for ending that way without negotiations. The West should have supported Ukraine in negotiations, and its right for self-determination, but also making clear that a compromise with Russia is what they want too and that they don't support a hardliner position which risks everything and calculates such a war. No license for Kiev to do what they want and get maximal support anyway. That's the problem. Yes, we support Ukraine, but no unconditional support if they act irresponsible themselves. And that's exactly what happened and why especially Germany and France kept back for so long, to not pushing them to the confrontation.

  4. #854
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    As if Lenin was a friend of humanity, he was destroying and killing more in Russia than Putin ever did. You really want to compare Putin with Lenin? The Bolshevists always promised freedoms at the beginning, but in the end they took more away than the Tsarist regime before and this didn't start with Stalin, but with Lenin already. And if looking at the brutality of the civil war, there is also no way you can say that Lenin would have been better than Putin.



    He is definitely not as bad as Yeltsin was, because Putin had to deal with an Oligarchy the catastrophy of Yeltsin created. There is a nice saying, for Eastern Europe they call it oligarchs, in the west we're calling them philanthropists.

    The Ukraine is as much an oligarchic country as Russia, actually even more so, because there was no stronger political force than the few oligarchs which controlled the media. So you might say that two oligarchic and in part corrupted states with two irresponsibly acting regimes have now a war on the back of their people. That's something one could say, but not more. And Putin if anything controlled the oligarchs in his country better than other politicians in the East. Which is also why some of them wanted to shoot him down, not because they want a better social existence or more seriously taken democracy for the people. Its quite telling that especially the UK supported those "oppositional" oligarchs and tried to establish media and social networks to support their influence. The Yeltsin catastrophy was of course a trauma for Russia, because weakness and corruption was never that bad before or afterwards.



    No, if Putin would prove to follow that path as a hardliner, I wouldn't agree with him at all. The problem is that the Ukraine made no acceptable offer to Russia as far as I know. I think they should have the freedom to organise themselves as they want, but not with the minority groups which don't want to belong to this state, not with the Russian base Sevastopol possibly taken away from Russia and if they would be allowed to join NATO at all, not in the current borders. That would be a fair compromise. They got territories which don't even belong to the historical Ukraine, with people which don't want to be part of this state and with areas of vital interest to Russia.

    Why had they to cut Crimea from water supply? Why did they kill Donbas leaders? Why did they shell Donbas areas and never really implement the Minsk agreement? Why did they proceed banning all pro-Russian media and began to persecute pro-Russian people? Why did they took such an aggressive stance towards Russia and ostentatiously said they will joing NATO anyway and don't care for Russian concerns at all, consider them a hostile state?

    If they were not on war course why did they do these things, with a president which got voted for with the promise of bringing an end to this conflict and peace?

    This means its absolutely not about Russia just "bringing Ukraine back" with force out of nothing, this was a serious series of conflicts and provocations between these states. With both sides to blame. Many wars in the recent years started by far less than that.

    Putin had no right for this level of escalation, but the West threatened him with basically the same measures even if he would have just entered Donbas, which had no perspective for ending that way without negotiations. The West should have supported Ukraine in negotiations, and its right for self-determination, but also making clear that a compromise with Russia is what they want too and that they don't support a hardliner position which risks everything and calculates such a war. No license for Kiev to do what they want and get maximal support anyway. That's the problem. Yes, we support Ukraine, but no unconditional support if they act irresponsible themselves. And that's exactly what happened and why especially Germany and France kept back for so long, to not pushing them to the confrontation.
    It was Stalin who was the butcher especially in Ukraine with the destruction of the kulaks.

    Putin not as bad as Yeltsin as a kleptocrat? Both as bad as each other.

    Ukraine is a sovereign state, end of story, and it's Putin who is the war criminal.

  5. #855
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,497


    Country: Austria



    Another issue which being largely ignored is the long pressure and attacks on pro-Russian people:
    By early August, at least 730,000 had fled fighting in the Donbas and left for Russia.[33] This number, much larger than earlier estimates, was given by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Numbers of internal refugees rose to 117,000.[33] By the start of September, after a sharp escalation over the course of August, the number of people displaced people from Donbas within Ukraine more than doubled to 260,000.[34] The number of refugees that fled from Donbas to Russia rose to 814,000.[35] The UNHCR expressed concerns over the displaced refugees as the winter sets in and was providing supplies to help them cope with the winter.[36]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huma...to%20814%2C000.

    Ukraine was escalating the situation as Russia did, but even worse, since they refused to accept the status quo as of 2020 instead of finding a peaceful solution.
    The Ukrainian regime is by no means just a victim of an unprovoked aggressor, that narrative is nothing but propaganda.
    They are both to blame for the escalation. Still Russia went to far, but its not as simple as good vs bad, not at all.

  6. #856
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    The Crimea was part of Ukraine until Putin stole it in 2014.

  7. #857
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,622


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I said it on the first page of this thread and I still believe it; the West will let Ukraine go.

    All of these sanctions avoid the one thing that Putin needs to prop himself up: his oil and gas sales.

    Western Europe will not endanger those because it would impact its own economy; the deal it still no doubt hopes it will be able to implement one day is still waiting.

    The U.S., with a President who was so risk averse he didn't want to go in after Bin Laden, will not lead the way. Nor will he put up a no-fly zone, which at least we did for the Kurds.

    All of this despite the fact there is a written agreement on the table, guaranteed by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K., that Ukraine's sovereignty would be respected.

    In light of that fact does anyone really believe the west will suddenly find its courage and moral compass because of another piece of paper, the NATO agreements?

    If I were a leader of one of the former Eastern Bloc countries, I wouldn't believe it for a second and I would start preparing now.

    The rest is just theater.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  8. #858
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    All of this despite the fact there is a written agreement on the table, guaranteed by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K., that Ukraine's sovereignty would be respected.
    Do you understand this statement, Riverman and Malaparte?

  9. #859
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,657

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post

    No, if Putin would prove to follow that path as a hardliner, I wouldn't agree with him at all. The problem is that the Ukraine made no acceptable offer to Russia as far as I know. I think they should have the freedom to organise themselves as they want, but not with the minority groups which don't want to belong to this state, not with the Russian base Sevastopol possibly taken away from Russia and if they would be allowed to join NATO at all, not in the current borders. That would be a fair compromise. They got territories which don't even belong to the historical Ukraine, with people which don't want to be part of this state and with areas of vital interest to Russia.

    Why had they to cut Crimea from water supply? Why did they kill Donbas leaders? Why did they shell Donbas areas and never really implement the Minsk agreement? Why did they proceed banning all pro-Russian media and began to persecute pro-Russian people? Why did they took such an aggressive stance towards Russia and ostentatiously said they will joing NATO anyway and don't care for Russian concerns at all, consider them a hostile state?

    If they were not on war course why did they do these things, with a president which got voted for with the promise of bringing an end to this conflict and peace?

    This means its absolutely not about Russia just "bringing Ukraine back" with force out of nothing, this was a serious series of conflicts and provocations between these states. With both sides to blame. Many wars in the recent years started by far less than that.

    Putin had no right for this level of escalation, but the West threatened him with basically the same measures even if he would have just entered Donbas, which had no perspective for ending that way without negotiations. The West should have supported Ukraine in negotiations, and its right for self-determination, but also making clear that a compromise with Russia is what they want too and that they don't support a hardliner position which risks everything and calculates such a war. No license for Kiev to do what they want and get maximal support anyway. That's the problem. Yes, we support Ukraine, but no unconditional support if they act irresponsible themselves. And that's exactly what happened and why especially Germany and France kept back for so long, to not pushing them to the confrontation.
    Why should the Ukraine when Russia started a war with the Ukraine without reason why it's up to the Ukraine to offer something.

    That would the same as a thief comes in your house and that you would be accused not to offer him a drink, sounds quote absurd to me.

    No one has threatened Putin but it happens that the majority of the Eastern European countries seem to prefer NATO and the EU, do you wonder why?

    Yes of course Putins see it as a threat, freedom a d democracy is threatening for autocrats. And the agenda of Putin is clear revanche. Once again must that agenda be leading for the rest of Europe I guess not, Putin go home.

  10. #860
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,657

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I said it on the first page of this thread and I still believe it; the West will let Ukraine go.

    All of these sanctions avoid the one thing that Putin needs to prop himself up: his oil and gas sales.

    Western Europe will not endanger those because it would impact its own economy; the deal it still no doubt hopes it will be able to implement one day is still waiting.

    The U.S., with a President who was so risk averse he didn't want to go in after Bin Laden, will not lead the way. Nor will he put up a no-fly zone, which at least we did for the Kurds.

    All of this despite the fact there is a written agreement on the table, guaranteed by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K., that Ukraine's sovereignty would be respected.

    In light of that fact does anyone really believe the west will suddenly find its courage and moral compass because of another piece of paper, the NATO agreements?

    If I were a leader of one of the former Eastern Bloc countries, I wouldn't believe it for a second and I would start preparing now.

    The rest is just theater.
    I guess the dumbest thing to do now is to rush in as US or NATO, because that would be a real risk of ww3 and even more a nuclear disaster. When you offer a type like Putin not a way to a kind of opt out he is like any authoritarian leader who is defeated: a time bomb. No one in the Kremlin has the position to say no.

    No one wants this, and we are very close to it:



    That's the whole dilemma, as the Ukraine is no member of NATO....that would have made it differently.

    The West is already gone to the limit, the sanctions go for Putin sees this most probably as a severe threat and it is. And these sanctions go also to the expense of the EU economy no doubt. And different countries deliver already lots of weapons. A no fly zone means a battle between west if the Russians and the NATO, would simply mean ww3.

    As more often the people of especially Ukraine but also Russia pay the price of war, that's undeniable true. And if that nucleair thing was not at stake it would have made it all very different.

  11. #861
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    454


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I said it on the first page of this thread and I still believe it; the West will let Ukraine go.

    All of these sanctions avoid the one thing that Putin needs to prop himself up: his oil and gas sales.

    Western Europe will not endanger those because it would impact its own economy; the deal it still no doubt hopes it will be able to implement one day is still waiting.

    The U.S., with a President who was so risk averse he didn't want to go in after Bin Laden, will not lead the way. Nor will he put up a no-fly zone, which at least we did for the Kurds.

    All of this despite the fact there is a written agreement on the table, guaranteed by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K., that Ukraine's sovereignty would be respected.

    In light of that fact does anyone really believe the west will suddenly find its courage and moral compass because of another piece of paper, the NATO agreements?

    If I were a leader of one of the former Eastern Bloc countries, I wouldn't believe it for a second and I would start preparing now.

    The rest is just theater.
    I am not a leader of a former Eastern Bloc country, but I don't believe it either.
    On the first page of this thread I predicted that Putin would invade Ukraine, because he knew the west didn't have the guts to support Ukraine with military means.
    The west does not only give the wrong signal to Putin, but to all dictators all around the world.

  12. #862
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    1,054


    Country: Albania



    I am so glad that RT was banned. China and Russia does not tolerate pro-American new networks either.

  13. #863
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    1,054


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Bkz it's a third world country. Where do all the Russian billionaires who bled their country dry go to live?

    Even those just high in the food chain prefer the west. I recently saw a video of a "famous" Russian television host all upset because Italy seized his villa in Lake Como. I hope they never give it back no matter what happens.

    If you're getting paid to spread disinformation like all those twitter accounts during the last U.S. Presidential election, I'm sure you're praying you're not called back to Russia.

    Russia can't give the average Russian a decent standard of living, it can't make a decent car, it can't even make, as we've seen, a decent tank or figure out how to supply them and their men, and that if there are rivers in the way of the advance of your tanks you better have engineers with you to rebuild the bridges. Their planes as well as their atomic bombs also aren't what they were said to be, as we learned about the latter during the disarmament inspections.

    They can, of course, carpet bomb cities full of civilians, civilians they claim are their countrymen, and freeze and starve them to death. They also can just throw their soldiers into the line of fire, wave after wave of them, as they did in WWI and WWII instead of having decent war materiel and intelligent strategy.

    It's a Potemkin country. Who the hell would want to live there? It's not like the U.S., which they so hate, but where people are willing to take their children and cross a desert on foot to reach it even if they risk death.
    Most former communist countries including Soviet ones are garbage. So a greater Russia with former Soviet border would mean a greater pile of garbage.

  14. #864
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Location
    Poznan
    Posts
    5,379

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L617
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6a

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    2 members found this post helpful.
    There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

  15. #865
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    546


    Country: Greece



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    One piece of nonsense was saying that the Ukrainians are using human shields when actually over a million women and children have been sent to safe countries and the men are determined to resist the illegal onslaught.

    A partisan war is never dirty but an invasion is.
    In Mariupol people cannot leave (about 200.000 people according to the Red Cross) and Russians and Ukrainians blame one another.

  16. #866
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,497


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Why should the Ukraine when Russia started a war with the Ukraine without reason why it's up to the Ukraine to offer something.
    If they want to leave a community they belonged to, and from which they got the Crimea in the first place, because it became only part of the Ukrainian federal state in the 1950's by order of the Soviet Union. The majority population of the Crimea is more in favour of Russia than Ukraine, and when a structure like the Soviet Union breaks up, former federal state borders don't necessarily reflect the ethnic and historical borderlines of the past. Even more, it was always agreed upon that the Ukraine won't acquire nuclear weapons, won't become part of the NATO and won't question the Russian bases, especially the naval base on Crimea, which is vital for Russia. All of that were agreed upon by all parties, it wasn't even considered that those elements were broken and Ukraine would become anti-Russian, with a president which won't do any compromise with Russia and would join NATO in the current official borders and kick Russia out of its naval base in the future.
    Nobody should say this was the deal back then, because it was not.

    The Ukraine independence was based on mutual respect with Russia, not an Ukraine, in the current borders, changing sides completely. And if NATO and Western secret services supported that course, it was clear it would lead to an escalation of some sort. Nobody should do as if they are surprised by this. This is not just in Putins brain, this was known by all sides and no suprise. Without having reached peace and an agreement with Russia, which would have cleared all that mess up, there is no way the Ukraine in the current borders would have just joined the NATO without Russian interference.

    Many people warned about the situation, about the course of USA and UK and the Selenski regime. Not just extreme right, extreme left, many people all around in many Western countries, because it was a confrontation course with Russia and for what?

    Also, the have to offer a way out for Crimea and Donbas at least, but didn't even keep up the Minsk Agreement and stepped up with their aggression in autumn last year, while the West blackmailed Russia not to help its allies openly, while they got shelled and hundreds of thousands of pro-Russian Ukranian citizens had to flee. Nobody said anything about that obvious transgression of the Ukrainian regime? Why? I'm honestly asking why they didn't intervene back then and held the Selenski regime back from escalating that situation. Instead, they delivered weapons and promised the Ukrainian all kind of military back up for their confrontation course with Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    In Mariupol people cannot leave (about 200.000 people according to the Red Cross) and Russians and Ukrainians blame one another.
    Indeed, and because all other sources from the Russian side get banned, we only get the propaganda from one side, while ignoring the point of view from the other. Like before all those refugees came to the West because of the escalation which happens now, during the last years hundreds of thousands of pro-Russian Ukrainian citizens had to flee their home or being shelled from the Ukrainian side with artillery. An objective international press should cover the whole truth and check all news, whether they come from the Ukrainians or the Russians. Not buying every lie from the Ukrainians (like the snake island incident), while ignoring all news from atrocities and issues the Russians experience from the Ukrainian side.
    This is just no black and white, good vs. evil conflict, it absolutely is not. Both sides did their part which led to the current escalation and don't do enough for a peaceful solution.

    Just an example of what nonsense being spread if not both sides being heard:

    Ukrainian government sources initially stated that 13 border guards, representing the entirety of the Ukrainian military presence on the island, were killed after refusing to surrender.[23][24]
    Russian defence media presented an alternative version of events, claiming that 82 Ukrainian soldiers had been taken prisoner after surrendering voluntarily,[14] and had been taken to Sevastopol.[25] Russian ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov claimed that the prisoners had been signing pledges promising not to continue military action against Russia, and would be released soon.[26]
    The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine later announced that the guards might instead have been captured,[27] based on the Russian reports that they were being held as prisoners of war.[28] On 27 February it issued a statement saying that they believed "that all Ukrainian defenders of Zmiiniy Island may be alive".[25] On 28 February 2022, the Ukrainian Navy posted on its Facebook page that all the border guards of the island were alive and detained by the Russian Navy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Snake_Island

    These are typical propaganda lies spread by the Ukrainian side which shouldn't be left undisputed. Just like the "all Ukrainian males stay behind and are ready to die..." Yes, they being dragged out and away from their families if they don't want to die for the Selenski regime. Just some recent reports about husbands or 18 years old sons which weren't allowed to leave the country and can be glad if they don't get beaten up or probably even shot for just trying. And more and more reports of mobs trying to find "Russian spies" and mistreat and torture people they suspect or simply don't like. But all of that finds no way into the Western mainstream media, which even brought up the fact that Selenski opened the prisons and armed criminals as a normal behaviour.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-Ukraine.html

    If people ask why I write more about the Russian side of things: Not because I think they are more right, but because they being simply underrepresented and the media coverage and public opinion is that skewed and one sided I simply can't stand it any more. For pro-Ukrainian statements anybody gets a medal at this point, but for even correcting false propaganda from the Ukrainian and UK-USA side, you being smeared as troll and whatnot. That's just the kind of atmosphere I can't stand. This is absolutely not about good vs. evil, especially if looking more carefully at what the Selenski regime did in the last years and how they conduct war themselves.

  17. #867
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    454


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    I am so glad that RT was banned. China and Russia does not tolerate pro-American new networks either.
    RT banned won't change much. It can be easily opposed by the other media.
    Free press in China and Russia is what we need.

  18. #868
    Regular Member firetown's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-08-11
    Posts
    730


    Country: USA - California



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    That's nothing but Gesinnungsterror ("conviction terror") in German and its really shameful. You could argue if they make active propaganda for Putin/the Russian war, that this might be inacceptable. But that they need to actively denounce their president, country and people, in such a dire situation, just for keeping a job which has absolutely nothing to do with the war and dispute, and all of this only because they are Russian citizens, this is shameful indeed.
    Again, I would probably understand if people have troubles with an active Putin supporter, but that there is sort of a Generalverdacht (general suspicion) and pressure on the people in the sense of Gesinnungsterror, to "confess openly" and speak bad about Russia, just because of their citizenship or ethnicity, it speaks for itself. If people defend such measures already, they shouldn't speak about human, liberal and democratic values. That's hypocrisy.
    I hate to sound like I am taking Germany's side, but isn't this a business decision?
    Didn't he get uninvited by Rotterdam, New York and others first?
    They asked him to please denounce the war and he refused.
    What measure does the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra need to take to avoid going down with him?

  19. #869
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,622


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    I guess the dumbest thing to do now is to rush in as US or NATO, because that would be a real risk of ww3 and even more a nuclear disaster. When you offer a type like Putin not a way to a kind of opt out he is like any authoritarian leader who is defeated: a time bomb. No one in the Kremlin has the position to say no.

    No one wants this, and we are very close to it:



    That's the whole dilemma, as the Ukraine is no member of NATO....that would have made it differently.

    The West is already gone to the limit, the sanctions go for Putin sees this most probably as a severe threat and it is. And these sanctions go also to the expense of the EU economy no doubt. And different countries deliver already lots of weapons. A no fly zone means a battle between west if the Russians and the NATO, would simply mean ww3.

    As more often the people of especially Ukraine but also Russia pay the price of war, that's undeniable true. And if that nucleair thing was not at stake it would have made it all very different.
    I completely agree with Bicicleur.

    If a treaty signed by the U.S., the U.K. and Russia guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty isn't saving Ukraine, then neither will a NATO agreement save the other Eastern Bloc countries.

    If Western Europe, and the U.S. under Biden, don't have the guts to use military force to enforce one treaty, they won't have the guts to use it to support the NATO agreements. God, they won't even apply the sanctions to his oil and gas sales.

    You may think we are being "dumb", but I'll go easier on you, and just say you're being naive.

    As I said, the Eastern Bloc countries had better start preparing NOW.

  20. #870
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    802


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by firetown View Post
    I hate to sound like I am taking Germany's side, but isn't this a business decision?
    Didn't he get uninvited by Rotterdam, New York and others first?
    They asked him to please denounce the war and he refused.
    What measure does the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra need to take to avoid going down with him?
    what's the problem with Germany?

  21. #871
    Regular Member firetown's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-08-11
    Posts
    730


    Country: USA - California



    Quote Originally Posted by Ailchu View Post
    what's the problem with Germany?
    I was accused of Gesinnungsterror



  22. #872
    Regular Member vandalorum's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-04-14
    Location
    Rochester
    Posts
    158

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a2a1 (M284+)

    Country: USA - New York



    never watched RT

  23. #873
    Regular Member vandalorum's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-04-14
    Location
    Rochester
    Posts
    158

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a2a1 (M284+)

    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by aalexa View Post
    ? lol! esti un extrateresru putinist? Traducere te rog !
    definitely... not, but I do not trust any propaganda, they even translate different than others speak those days
    you know, I mean in so called free world

  24. #874
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,657

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I completely agree with Bicicleur.

    If a treaty signed by the U.S., the U.K. and Russia guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty isn't saving Ukraine, then neither will a NATO agreement save the other Eastern Bloc countries.

    If Western Europe, and the U.S. under Biden, don't have the guts to use military force to enforce one treaty, they won't have the guts to use it to support the NATO agreements. God, they won't even apply the sanctions to his oil and gas sales.

    You may think we are being "dumb", but I'll go easier on you, and just say you're being naive.

    As I said, the Eastern Bloc countries had better start preparing NOW.
    On the whole this is not true the Dutch F35's are already flying on daily basis in the Baltics etc and this is the contribution of a smal country like the Netherlands. So sure it makes a difference if a country is member of NATO. So if Putin is invading in Poland or the Baltics he is in war with the NATO. That's the core of the T in NATO.

    Upscaling of the war is, see the nuclear treat, very tricky business. That's fare from being naive. War is imo not bravado or simply follow the (moralistic) impulses....it is taking calculated risks (Verantwortungsethik in stead of Gesinnungsethik). The consequences can be devastating.

    No one has any 'advantage' when the war in the Ukraine gets upscaled to a world war.

  25. #875
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,497


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by firetown View Post
    I hate to sound like I am taking Germany's side, but isn't this a business decision?
    Didn't he get uninvited by Rotterdam, New York and others first?
    They asked him to please denounce the war and he refused.
    What measure does the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra need to take to avoid going down with him?
    There are many such cases around, like one of the more prominent here being Netrebko, first she lost her engagement for the Bavarian state opera
    https://www.stern.de/lifestyle/leute...-31666472.html

    Now her concerts being called into question:
    https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/baden-...tgart-100.html

    And this goes down to the very common people. Russia didn't start this war on its own, the Ukrainian army didn't respect the peace treaties, the Minsk agreement and attacked in Donbas too. People need to be aware of every step which led to this point, even if the biggest step to the current escalation was done by Putin/Russia, there were many preceding events which led up to it.

Page 35 of 82 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •