Russia Invades Ukraine

[highlandjambo3]

3 hours ago, highlandjambo3 said:

America have previously always claimed to be the police of Europe, our protectors, our guardians and told the world so, we would often just roll over and let them tickle our bellies, quite possibly not such a good thing in hindsight but it suited everyone.  In reality they enjoyed the control and influence stretching around the globe.  Now the orange man thinks we will now buckle and tremble at the thought of them no longer willing to stand by our side……..we’ll get them to ***, NATO is a fairly formidable force and able to stand on its own two feet.  If the Sherman’s no longer feel the need to be our protectors then they can ship all their stuff back to the USA and shit  the door on their way out.

😂😂😂I should proof read more often 🙄

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Seems dementia don doesnt mind a shite deal when’s it’s not his country. Should have thrown in a blowy for vlad whilst he’s at it.

[Cruyff]

Trump riding roughshod over the Ukrainians like he owns the world. 

 

What he is proposing is basically a surrender deal rather than a peace treaty where America and Russia share the spoils, in this case Ukraines rare minerals and resources. 

 

Europe needs to man the **** up! What a bunch of shitehawks. 

[Debut 4]

1 hour ago, Cruyff said:

Trump riding roughshod over the Ukrainians like he owns the world. 

 

What he is proposing is basically a surrender deal rather than a peace treaty where America and Russia share the spoils, in this case Ukraines rare minerals and resources. 

 

Europe needs to man the **** up! What a bunch of shitehawks. 

Fully agree.  It’s like it’s part of long term plan to take the USA back to their isolationist stance prior to WW2.  (When you factor in other rhetoric from Trump and his outlook on other issues)
 

Let’s get the Russia problem sorted on our own terms and gtf out the road.  

Edited February 13, 2025 by Debut 4

[Debut 4]

3 hours ago, Libertarian said:

But you kept telling us that Russia was about to collapse both economically and militarily. Ukraine is winning and will win you kept telling us. It was obvious to anyone who knew anything about Ukraine that the Ukrainian people were being used and sacrificed by the West to damage Russia. No thought was given for the million dead Ukrainians and the destruction of the Ukraine. All those in the West who swallowed the propaganda and who cheered the Ukrainians on carry the blame.

You are absolutely delusional.  Russia was always coming back for “their”

old territories, hell or high water.  

[Taffin]

1 hour ago, Cruyff said:

Trump riding roughshod over the Ukrainians like he owns the world. 

 

What he is proposing is basically a surrender deal rather than a peace treaty where America and Russia share the spoils, in this case Ukraines rare minerals and resources. 

 

Europe needs to man the **** up! What a bunch of shitehawks. 

 

Ukraine is a sovereign state and is entirely able to do whatever it pleases. If they go along with it, it's because they've chosen to.

[periodictabledancer]

1 hour ago, Cruyff said:

Trump riding roughshod over the Ukrainians like he owns the world. 

 

What he is proposing is basically a surrender deal rather than a peace treaty where America and Russia share the spoils, in this case Ukraines rare minerals and resources. 

 

Europe needs to man the **** up! What a bunch of shitehawks. 

He's sucking up to Vlad. Dont forget, Trump is/was a major prop developer in Moscow so everything he says and does will be with one eye on how his crime syndicate can make more money out of his Russian connections given no major western banks will touch him. 

[Luckies1874]

15 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Ukraine is a sovereign state and is entirely able to do whatever it pleases. If they go along with it, it's because they've chosen to.

 

 

Yep, that and the fact they will have little choice. As soon as the thus far never ending US funding tap ran dry and / or was turned off there was always going to be an inevitable conclusion to this. It's interesting to see the reactions of the great warmongers on both sides of the Atlantic, arseholes like Alastair Campbell and John Bolton and how upset they are that attempts to end the conflict have commenced. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 hours ago, Libertarian said:

But you kept telling us that Russia was about to collapse both economically and militarily. Ukraine is winning and will win you kept telling us. It was obvious to anyone who knew anything about Ukraine that the Ukrainian people were being used and sacrificed by the West to damage Russia. No thought was given for the million dead Ukrainians and the destruction of the Ukraine. All those in the West who swallowed the propaganda and who cheered the Ukrainians on carry the blame.

Time to take that Ukraine flag avator for some I guess . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Time to take that Ukraine flag avator for some I guess . 

Take down * 

[PortyJambo]

3 hours ago, highlandjambo3 said:

😂😂😂I should proof read more often 🙄

I thought you got it right the first time 😁

[kingantti1874]

As predicted 2.5 years ago. Ukraine can’t win, unpleasant as it is they will need to cede territory and they will never be able to join NATO. 

[escobri]

So the Nazis ain't making it to Moscow then? 🤣🤣

[Cruyff]

2 hours ago, Debut 4 said:

Fully agree.  It’s like it’s part of long term plan to take the USA back to their isolationist stance prior to WW2.  (When you factor in other rhetoric from Trump and his outlook on other issues)
 

Let’s get the Russia problem sorted on our own terms and gtf out the road.  

Europe should withdraw all support defending American interests in the Pacific. 

 

Infact, I think this is quite dangerous because it kinda forces European allies to get more involved or, it divides Europe further. 

2 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

Ukraine is a sovereign state and is entirely able to do whatever it pleases. If they go along with it, it's because they've chosen to.

Of course but they're being backed into a corner to accept it.

 

Yeah, they were always going to have to cede Crimea, Donetsk & Luhansk. That's nor the issue. The issue is they are being given no security guarantees. 

 

2 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

He's sucking up to Vlad. Dont forget, Trump is/was a major prop developer in Moscow so everything he says and does will be with one eye on how his crime syndicate can make more money out of his Russian connections given no major western banks will touch him. 

Putin will play him. He's getting what he came for and will try again given Ukraine is getting no security guarantees. 

[Cade]

Ukraine was given "security guarantees" in 1994 and as it turns out they weren't worth a shite.

Which is why they'll not settle for that kind of wishy washy deal again.

It's NATO or nothing.

And if the USA is going to veto NATO membership then Russia will have carte blanche to ignore (another) deal and go again in a few year's time, unless the other guarantors take unilateral action.

[kingantti1874]

19 minutes ago, Cade said:

Ukraine was given "security guarantees" in 1994 and as it turns out they weren't worth a shite.

Which is why they'll not settle for that kind of wishy washy deal again.

It's NATO or nothing.

And if the USA is going to veto NATO membership then Russia will have carte blanche to ignore (another) deal and go again in a few year's time, unless the other guarantors take unilateral action.

Ukraine was given security guarantees, but NATO promised not to expand eastwards.  Ukraine will have zero choice to be honest.  Russia done have the capability to go again. If this war has demonstrated anything it’s that they don’t actually have the capability to invade Europe.  They lost a million men, and the vast majority of their weapons, and a significant chunk of their navy for about 50 miles. Even they aren’t that stupid

[JudyJudyJudy]

6 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

but NATO promised not to expand eastwards.

Yep

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

6 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Ukraine was given security guarantees, but NATO promised not to expand eastwards.  

 

Russia has no right to dictate what organisation a sovereign state should join, on threat of invasion no less.

 

This is like blaming the victim for not doing what the bully wants, rather than blaming the bully for being a *****.

[Debut 4]

3 minutes ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

Russia has no right to dictate what organisation a sovereign state should join, on threat of invasion no less.

 

This is like blaming the victim for not doing what the bully wants, rather than blaming the bully for being a *****.

Aye.  The narrative for some seems to be that countries were forced into NATO.  
 

Many sought membership.  I wonder why?

[Cade]

NATO never promised anything about non expansion.
It's a voluntary and defensive alliance. Nobody has ever been forced or coerced or bullies or otherwise enticed to join (unlike the Warsaw Pact)
Each and every member gets a full veto over any others joining.

Many Eastern European nations joined as soon as they could after the fall of the USSR because they know what it is to live under a foreign yoke.

Finland and Sweden joined because Russia is on the march again.

 

The idea that anybody should be blocked from joining NATO just because the Russians don't like it is ludicrous.

The idea that there should be "buffer states" who cede their sovereignty to Russian and Western decision makers and are not allowed to choose their own path is just as ludicrous.

The idea that poor wee bullied Russia feels threatened because eastern Europe is inviolable is also ludicrous. They didn't invade anyone else who shared a border with them when they joined NATO. It's a gobshite excuse.
The ONLY way that Russia could feel "threatened" by NATO is if they had plans to reconquer parts of the USSR. Which they obviously did. They would have invaded whether or not NATO had expanded or whether or not Ukraine has express NATO aspirations. It's all just a pish excuse, peddled by idiots.

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

33 minutes ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

Russia has no right to dictate what organisation a sovereign state should join, on threat of invasion no less.

 

This is like blaming the victim for not doing what the bully wants, rather than blaming the bully for being a *****.

Absolutely correct.

[Dennis Reynolds]

48 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Ukraine was given security guarantees, but NATO promised not to expand eastwards. 

 

False.

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Ukraine was given "security guarantees" in 1994 and as it turns out they weren't worth a shite.

Which is why they'll not settle for that kind of wishy washy deal again.

It's NATO or nothing.

And if the USA is going to veto NATO membership then Russia will have carte blanche to ignore (another) deal and go again in a few year's time, unless the other guarantors take unilateral action.

Jeezo man, you are so desperate to prolong the killing that you can't see the writing is on the wall. 

You complain that Ukraine was given security guarantees, so were Russia that Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join NATO. You seem upset about one but willing to ignore the other.

Ukraine will end up with whatever deal the US & Russia settle on and if Zelensky is lucky, he will get to carry on as president. He may get to appear at peace talks but everyone knows it's bluster and that peace now while retaining a bravado of not losing is better than the alternative scenario which is continuing a war they will never ever win.

Russia hasn't won either, they have lost so many men and have seen their economy destroyed amidst sporting boycotts. 

Putin will frame it as victory but it isn't, Zelensky will frame it as not a loss which is true. 

[Dennis Reynolds]

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

You complain that Ukraine was given security guarantees, so were Russia that Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join NATO. 

 

Is this in writing anywhere other than twitter?

[Malinga the Swinga]

22 minutes ago, Cade said:

NATO never promised anything about non expansion.
It's a voluntary and defensive alliance. Nobody has ever been forced or coerced or bullies or otherwise enticed to join (unlike the Warsaw Pact)
Each and every member gets a full veto over any others joining.

Many Eastern European nations joined as soon as they could after the fall of the USSR because they know what it is to live under a foreign yoke.

Finland and Sweden joined because Russia is on the march again.

 

The idea that anybody should be blocked from joining NATO just because the Russians don't like it is ludicrous.

The idea that there should be "buffer states" who cede their sovereignty to Russian and Western decision makers and are not allowed to choose their own path is just as ludicrous.

The idea that poor wee bullied Russia feels threatened because eastern Europe is inviolable is also ludicrous. They didn't invade anyone else who shared a border with them when they joined NATO. It's a gobshite excuse.
The ONLY way that Russia could feel "threatened" by NATO is if they had plans to reconquer parts of the USSR. Which they obviously did. They would have invaded whether or not NATO had expanded or whether or not Ukraine has express NATO aspirations. It's all just a pish excuse, peddled by idiots.

And what you propose is non stop killing on both sides whilst securely hiding away thousands of miles from danger. A cowards charter to see others die because you don't like what is happening.

It's harsh, it's not pleasant but it's the reality facing the Ukrainian people.

[Taffin]

32 minutes ago, Cade said:

NATO never promised anything about non expansion.
It's a voluntary and defensive alliance. Nobody has ever been forced or coerced or bullies or otherwise enticed to join (unlike the Warsaw Pact)
Each and every member gets a full veto over any others joining.

Many Eastern European nations joined as soon as they could after the fall of the USSR because they know what it is to live under a foreign yoke.

Finland and Sweden joined because Russia is on the march again.

 

The idea that anybody should be blocked from joining NATO just because the Russians don't like it is ludicrous.

The idea that there should be "buffer states" who cede their sovereignty to Russian and Western decision makers and are not allowed to choose their own path is just as ludicrous.

The idea that poor wee bullied Russia feels threatened because eastern Europe is inviolable is also ludicrous. They didn't invade anyone else who shared a border with them when they joined NATO. It's a gobshite excuse.
The ONLY way that Russia could feel "threatened" by NATO is if they had plans to reconquer parts of the USSR. Which they obviously did. They would have invaded whether or not NATO had expanded or whether or not Ukraine has express NATO aspirations. It's all just a pish excuse, peddled by idiots.

 

This is all true, but sovereign states are ultimately responsible and accountable to themselves. The realpolitik is that Ukraine are entirely in control of their own destiny; if they cannot defend themselves (be that unilaterally or by pact) they'll be bullied by others. It's completely within their own gift whether they join NATO, cede territory to Russia or otherwise.

 

With due respect, calling others idiots after a litany of posts from yourself on this thread, as though you have the warfare acumen of a modern day Scipio Africanus, which have then mainly proven to be total fantasy... is a bit rich

Edited February 13, 2025 by Taffin

[Malinga the Swinga]

4 minutes ago, Dennis Reynolds said:

 

Is this in writing anywhere other than twitter?

James Baker, the secretary of state for US in 1990 promised that NATO would not expand past borders of Germany and remain out of Iron Curtain. This was promised verbally but never in writing although it's acknowledged it happened and existed.

Now NATO says that promise is invalidated because after fall of USSR, all bets were off and any promises made can be ignored.

NATO, and by that I mean US, saw an opportunity with Obama and Biden in charge to push for expansion and the monies they thought they'd benefit from.

So there you have it, promise made which one side says still holds and the other says no it doesn't because you are weaker and we don't want to keep it.

Good luck resolving that which is what Trump, of all people, is trying to do

 

[Mikey1874]

5 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

This is all true, but sovereign states are ultimately responsible and accountable to themselves. The realpolitik is that Ukraine are entirely in control of their own destiny; if they cannot defend themselves (be that unilaterally or by pact) they'll be bullied by others. It's completely within their own gift whether they join NATO, cede territory to Russia or otherwise.

 

Just on the technical point its not true it's within Ukraine's gift to join NATO. Current NATO members have a veto. US, Hungary, Turkey etc need to agree to it first. 

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

James Baker, the secretary of state for US in 1990 promised that NATO would not expand past borders of Germany and remain out of Iron Curtain. This was promised verbally but never in writing although it's acknowledged it happened and existed.

Now NATO says that promise is invalidated because after fall of USSR, all bets were off and any promises made can be ignored.

NATO, and by that I mean US, saw an opportunity with Obama and Biden in charge to push for expansion and the monies they thought they'd benefit from.

So there you have it, promise made which one side says still holds and the other says no it doesn't because you are weaker and we don't want to keep it.

Good luck resolving that which is what Trump, of all people, is trying to do

 

 

Russia promised several times never to invade Ukraine. 

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Just on the technical point its not true it's within Ukraine's gift to join NATO. Current NATO members have a veto. US, Hungary, Turkey etc need to agree to it first. 

 

Correct, sorry I should say 'its in their gift to apply/try/want to join'.

Edited February 13, 2025 by Taffin

[Dennis Reynolds]

2 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

James Baker, the secretary of state for US in 1990 promised that NATO would not expand past borders of Germany and remain out of Iron Curtain. This was promised verbally but never in writing although it's acknowledged it happened and existed.

Now NATO says that promise is invalidated because after fall of USSR, all bets were off and any promises made can be ignored.

NATO, and by that I mean US, saw an opportunity with Obama and Biden in charge to push for expansion and the monies they thought they'd benefit from.

So there you have it, promise made which one side says still holds and the other says no it doesn't because you are weaker and we don't want to keep it.

Good luck resolving that which is what Trump, of all people, is trying to do

 

 

So Ukraine promised not to join NATO before they were even an independent country. Gotcha.

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

Correct, sorry I should say 'its in their gift to apply/try/want to join'.

 

Already done that.

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Russia promised several times never to invade Ukraine. 

I have never said they didn't, I have never said Russia had any right to invade Ukraine, they didn't imo, and I have never said 1 thing about them being honourable in any way.

That said, them breaking a promise doesn't mean NATO, again really US, didn't break their promise.

 

[Mikey1874]

10 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

I have never said they didn't, I have never said Russia had any right to invade Ukraine, they didn't imo, and I have never said 1 thing about them being honourable in any way.

That said, them breaking a promise doesn't mean NATO, again really US, didn't break their promise.

 

 

Extract

 

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia/myth-03-russia-was-promised-nato-would-not-enlarge

 

Why is it wrong?

In July 1990 the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, agreed to a united Germany’s incorporation into NATO. The US secretary of state at the time, James Baker, had previously told Gorbachev that NATO’s jurisdiction would not move beyond the inner German border, but Washington retreated from this position after examining the practicalities of part of Germany being outside the Alliance. As part of the deal reached by Gorbachev and the West German chancellor, Helmut Kohl, no forces of other NATO countries could be deployed on former German Democratic Republic (GDR) territory until after Soviet forces had left, and then only temporarily. There would also be no deployment of nuclear weapons. Moscow also received financial sweeteners, including 12 billion Deutschmarks to resettle returning troops.

However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later.

The disappearance of the USSR created an entirely different geopolitical reality that quickly exposed differences between Western countries and Russia on how to manage European security and, in particular, on the role of NATO. From the end of 1993, Russian diplomacy voiced increasing opposition to NATO’s further enlargement, but accepted that it could not stop the process. Its chief lament was that several leaders of NATO countries in early 1990 had ruled out the possibility of NATO enlargement, and that the West had misled Russia. As Russia’s former foreign minister, Yevgeny Primakov, noted later with regret, there was no legal force to the statements by Western leaders even though, in his view, legally based commitments would have been possible at the time.35

The NATO enlargement myth also contains an important distortion of fact: while the Russian Federation became the de facto legal successor to the USSR after the latter’s collapse, Russia existed in different borders and its security interests were not synonymous with those of the USSR. Indeed, Russian leaders at the time did not want the West to regard the new Russia as a truncated form of the USSR, but rather as a country that had regained its sovereignty and was returning to its European roots after the tragedy of Bolshevism. In addition, the USSR signed the Charter of Paris in November 1990 with the commitment to ‘fully recognize the freedom of States to choose their own security arrangements’. The NATO–Russia Founding Act, signed in 1997, similarly pledged respect for the ‘inherent right’ of all states ‘to choose the means to ensure their own security’.

 

Moreover, NATO’s Kosovo campaign in 1999 did far more to shape anti-Western attitudes in Russia than NATO enlargement did. Coinciding with a period of extreme weakness in Russia, it represented a crushing defeat for Russian diplomacy, which had persuaded the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milošević, that Russia could protect Serbia, a supposedly traditional ally, from NATO. Russia’s leaders chose to use the episode as evidence of a revived threat to Russia from the West – but were careful to distinguish NATO from the EU. Friendly relations with the EU offered the prospect of weakening the transatlantic relationship. However, despite the debacle of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and growing difficulties in Washington’s relations with Europe, the EU did not embrace Russia.

At the NATO summit in 2008, Moscow could see clearly that France and Germany, among others, restrained Washington’s effort to put Georgia and Ukraine on a path to membership of the Alliance. Despite NATO’s ill-advised assurance to both countries in the summit communiqué that they would join NATO, there was in reality no prospect of this ever happening without Moscow’s de facto consent. Yet despite their efforts to avoid a crisis over enlargement, Paris and Berlin then saw Russia invade Georgia in 2008 and cut off gas to Europe in 2009 because of a dispute with Ukraine. If Moscow wanted to demonstrate that it could be a reliable security partner for the EU, this was not the way to do so.

By 2013, Russia had shifted to conservative nationalism. It viewed itself as the guardian of European values of a different era, and was hostile not just to NATO but to the EU as well. The EU’s Third Energy Package, which came into force in 2009, and its anti-trust investigation of Gazprom in 2011 had changed the tone in relations with Brussels. This was the backdrop for Russia’s reckoning with Ukraine, and provided the ultimate proof that Russia did not regard its neighbour as a fully sovereign country (in this case, with the right to determine its own relations with the EU). Russia still bore the features that Mearsheimer had highlighted from the 1990s. Yet these weaknesses did not stop Russia from rebuilding its military capabilities and its confidence to enforce its writ in a major country neighbouring the EU.

History over centuries points to the fact that Russia generates its security by exerting influence over neighbouring states. Its military establishment has imbibed the lesson that Russia should always fight defensive wars beyond its own territory. There is no evidence that, in the absence of EU and NATO enlargement, Russia would have suspended its traditional security thinking. At the same time, without the enlargement of both organizations, Europe would once again have struggled to remain stable. Germany and its Central European neighbours would have found themselves pulled in two directions, with serious consequences for the wider region. Russian policymakers who argue that NATO enlargement damaged Russia’s security interests disregard the fact that an unstable Europe would have increased rather than mitigated Russia’s security problems.

Despite his public opposition to enlargement at the time, Andrey Kozyrev (Russia’s foreign minister after the collapse of the USSR until 1996) recently stated: ‘The United States and NATO were on the right side of history by admitting new democracies to the Alliance and being willing to find an accommodation with Russia. It was Moscow that returned to its antagonism toward NATO.’36

What is its impact on policy?

Repeated references to the West’s alleged breach of faith towards Russia help preserve an anti-Western consensus in Russia. Meanwhile, timid responses by NATO leaders over the years have allowed myth to become supposed ‘fact’.

This passivity was visible in a general tendency up to 2014 to shy away from confrontation with Russia, in the belief that NATO enlargement had been hard for Moscow to accept and that there was no point in rubbing salt into old wounds. This failure to speak openly with Moscow was at odds with the emphasis placed by Germany and others on dialogue with Russia as a confidence-building measure.

The narrative of Western deceit towards Russia sits alongside what Moscow describes as the West’s ‘anti-Russian’ sanctions as an example of how Western policies towards Russia are presented as unfair and counterproductive. The purpose is to convince the European members of NATO that a good relationship with Moscow is worth more in security terms than standing up for what Russia regards as the outdated security principles of the 1990s. Germany’s pursuit of direct gas supplies from Russia in the face of strong opposition from its allies in Central Europe is a case in point. President Macron’s desire to ‘ease and clarify’ Europe’s relations with Russia is another.

What would good policy look like?

Russian policymakers are more conscious of history than their Western counterparts are, in part because they understand the power of owning a historical narrative and deploying it to gain advantage. For example, in recent months Moscow has been spinning a heavily biased interpretation of why Stalin entered into a non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1939.37 Its purpose is to blame others for the start of the Second World War – in particular Poland, whose historical narrative of that period challenges Russia’s.

Governments of NATO countries need to recognize that history matters, and that Russia is manipulating the facts about NATO for a purpose. Calling out the myth would be a good place to start. This requires senior officials not just to be well briefed and confident of the facts but ready also to challenge their Russian interlocutors when they present false narratives. At the same time, NATO member states need to educate opinion leaders in their own countries rather than relying on NATO to do the job for them. Defence against disinformation begins at home.

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

4 minutes ago, Dennis Reynolds said:

 

So Ukraine promised not to join NATO before they were even an independent country. Gotcha.

Again, not something I have ever said but you know that. It appears it's okay for NATO, which again is the US, to use semantics to break a promise because it's what NATO, the US, wanted at that time. Now NATO faces a problem because the US doesn't have a leader who wants to underwrite an expansionist program whilst Ukraine faces a problem as one of the main conditions of joining NATO is resolving all border issues with it's neighbours, something that even before the wrongful invasion was highly unlikely.

Don't forget that Zelensky is only on power because the CIA orchestrated, allegedly, an illegal coup to overthrow a legally elected government because it was perceived to be in US interest to do so. How we all cheered when it happened because it was seen by us in West as a peaceful revolution whilst others saw it diametrically the opposite.

Look, Russia was totally wrong to invade Ukraine, it's 'getting rid of Nazis' claim is laughable, but NATO knew what could happen but US arrogance pushed them down this path and here we are with hundreds of thousands dead and some folk on a Hearts website basking in moral indignity because a deal needs to be made to stop the killing.

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

I know it must really upset those who cheer the deaths of Russians in this conflict but a peace deal will be made and Ukraine will cede land. Both sides will claim they won but neither have.

That's reality.

[Mikey1874]

11 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Again, not something I have ever said but you know that. It appears it's okay for NATO, which again is the US, to use semantics to break a promise because it's what NATO, the US, wanted at that time. Now NATO faces a problem because the US doesn't have a leader who wants to underwrite an expansionist program whilst Ukraine faces a problem as one of the main conditions of joining NATO is resolving all border issues with it's neighbours, something that even before the wrongful invasion was highly unlikely.

Don't forget that Zelensky is only on power because the CIA orchestrated, allegedly, an illegal coup to overthrow a legally elected government because it was perceived to be in US interest to do so. How we all cheered when it happened because it was seen by us in West as a peaceful revolution whilst others saw it diametrically the opposite.

Look, Russia was totally wrong to invade Ukraine, it's 'getting rid of Nazis' claim is laughable, but NATO knew what could happen but US arrogance pushed them down this path and here we are with hundreds of thousands dead and some folk on a Hearts website basking in moral indignity because a deal needs to be made to stop the killing.

 

 

The people wanted it. Rejected pro Russian Government. Didn't need the CIA.

 

And again Putin invaded Ukraine as he feared the Russian people would want it too. 

 

Not sure what you are basking in. 

[trotter]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

but NATO promised not to expand eastwards.  

So shall we be on the lookout for Russia invading Finland next? Seeing as the Scandinavian part of NATO has expanded eastwards, directly onto Russia's border as it happens. 

[Footballfirst]

26 minutes ago, trotter said:

So shall we be on the lookout for Russia invading Finland next? Seeing as the Scandinavian part of NATO has expanded eastwards, directly onto Russia's border as it happens. 

NATO already had a Scandinavian border with Russia, in the north of Norway.

[JudyJudyJudy]

58 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

must really upset those who cheer the deaths of Russians in this conflict

One of the genuine low points on this forum history . 

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The people wanted it. Rejected pro Russian Government. Didn't need the CIA.

 

And again Putin invaded Ukraine as he feared the Russian people would want it too. 

 

Not sure what you are basking in. 

Your naivety is put on. The US and it's intelligence agencies had been agitating for regime change because they disliked pro Russian Ukrainian government. It's what the US does or tried to do wherever it encounters a government it doesn't want.

The pretence it was all the people is garbage but you know that.

Some of the areas Russia annexed are happy to be under Russian control although that annexation was illegal. If they have a vote and decide they formally want to be part of Russia, then you'll happily go along with that I guess, bring as it's what the people want.

It's also true there are those on here who get kicks out of watching videos of others being killed. Sorry but that's sick and sad behaviour however you try to deflect it.

Peace is what's required, not the continued killing on both sides.

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

16 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Your naivety is put on. The US and it's intelligence agencies had been agitating for regime change because they disliked pro Russian Ukrainian government. It's what the US does or tried to do wherever it encounters a government it doesn't want.

The pretence it was all the people is garbage but you know that.

Some of the areas Russia annexed are happy to be under Russian control although that annexation was illegal. If they have a vote and decide they formally want to be part of Russia, then you'll happily go along with that I guess, bring as it's what the people want.

It's also true there are those on here who get kicks out of watching videos of others being killed. Sorry but that's sick and sad behaviour however you try to deflect it.

Peace is what's required, not the continued killing on both sides.

Wasn't it a case though that the majority of pro Ukrainian voters were forced to flee westward and the pro Russian population that stayed were joined by others from over the border. I wouldn't trust referendums set up by the Kremlin either.

You are right about reveling in the death of Russian soldiers when most of them are conscripts, that's very wrong. The high ranking generals are a different case completely.

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

28 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

 

Some of the areas Russia annexed are happy to be under Russian control although that annexation was illegal. 

 

Source? 

 

Here's mine that says 82% of those living in occupied areas have a negative attitude to Russia, while only 6% are positive.

 

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/834975.html

[Hømme]

Irony being since Russia did this NATO membership has increased. 

 

**** them. Never forget Bucha which wouldn't have happened without orders from higher up. 

[Lone Striker]

3 hours ago, Cade said:

Ukraine was given "security guarantees" in 1994 and as it turns out they weren't worth a shite.

Which is why they'll not settle for that kind of wishy washy deal again.

It's NATO or nothing.

And if the USA is going to veto NATO membership then Russia will have carte blanche to ignore (another) deal and go again in a few year's time, unless the other guarantors take unilateral action.

Maybe I'm misreading his latest ramblings, but Trump seemed to be threatening to pull the USA out of NATO at one point because of  the "unfair funding burden" -  yet here he is threatening to veto Ukraine's hope of joining NATO while also threatening to have the USA leave NATO.   

 

Just in case the world starts to form the opinion that Trump's a pacifist,  remember that he's threatening to invade Panama and Greenland - 2 countries  who have never posed a threat to the USA.

 

In many respects though, whether Ukraine is in or out of NATO doesn't really matter.  The West has to make a decision if Putin tries again - sit back and let him take another chunk of Ukraine.... or get involved  militarily to support Zelensky's troops.

 

Either way, the European countries need to step up "bigly" in terms of their military funding and intelligence gathering whether they like it or not. Trump is unreliable as an "ally" .    In that respect neither Trump nor Putin can be trusted by Europe.

 

 

[Cade]

Trump's also now spouting off about new nuclear arms treaties between USA, Russia and China to reduce stocks and spending on nukes (a welcome thing to be sure) but also saying that a reduction in US troops in eastern Europe could be part of any deal.

If I were a Baltic nation, I'd start digging trenches now.

[The Maroon Jacket]

19 minutes ago, Cade said:

Trump's also now spouting off about new nuclear arms treaties between USA, Russia and China to reduce stocks and spending on nukes (a welcome thing to be sure) but also saying that a reduction in US troops in eastern Europe could be part of any deal.

If I were a Baltic nation, I'd start digging trenches now.

So is Trump saying that Europe must stick up for themselves and spend much more on defence than they are now just incase the shit hits the fan, because they are just going to sit back as nothing to do with them 

[Luckies1874]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

Maybe I'm misreading his latest ramblings, but Trump seemed to be threatening to pull the USA out of NATO at one point because of  the "unfair funding burden" -  yet here he is threatening to veto Ukraine's hope of joining NATO while also threatening to have the USA leave NATO.   

 

Just in case the world starts to form the opinion that Trump's a pacifist,  remember that he's threatening to invade Panama and Greenland - 2 countries  who have never posed a threat to the USA.

 

In many respects though, whether Ukraine is in or out of NATO doesn't really matter.  The West has to make a decision if Putin tries again - sit back and let him take another chunk of Ukraine.... or get involved  militarily to support Zelensky's troops.

 

Either way, the European countries need to step up "bigly" in terms of their military funding and intelligence gathering whether they like it or not. Trump is unreliable as an "ally" .    In that respect neither Trump nor Putin can be trusted by Europe.

 

 

 

 

A whole lot of speculating in this post. 

 

Trump and the USA should be the least of Europe's worries right now but of course the leaders and politicians from numerous countries, including our own, are more than happy for the distraction as their nations continue to go to shit. 

Edited February 14, 2025 by Luckies1874

[SectionDJambo]

41 minutes ago, Howdy Doody Jambo said:

So is Trump saying that Europe must stick up for themselves and spend much more on defence than they are now just incase the shit hits the fan, because they are just going to sit back as nothing to do with them 

European countries do need to spend more on defence. It’s obvious that we can’t rely on America now. 
That said, if another 9/11 were to happen to the Americans, would we also be ok to just let them get on with it themselves?  NATO has only been mobilised to respond to an attack on one of its members once, and it wasn’t for a European country. 
The Special Relationship didn’t amount to much, either, when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, as I recall.

If this is the way it’s to be, then maybe it’s time for the UK to get closer with Europe for defence and trade, and stop pretending that we are equal partners with America.

[JFK-1]

Personally I have always thought Europe should always spend comfortably more on defence than Russia at all times. Got more people than them got more money than them got better technology than them, it should be doable. But regarding current developments that's not even a real factor in what Trump is doing, absolutely nothing to do with his machinations and threats on NATO.

 

That's just a line he throws out to offer some sort of justification for single handedly creating a situation of peril in Europe the continent hasn't seen since the 1930's and it's end result. He's deliberately inflicting a dangerous geo political upheaval on "allies" of the US. 

 

It's not about military budgets so it's anybody's guess what it is really about. All I can come up with is that Trump has always been not just accommodating to Putin but publicly  going much further into almost humiliatingly obsequious every chance he gets. If he has ever once said anything remotely critical of Putin I haven't seen it. What I have seen is a stream of praise on how smart Putin is.

 

Following the invasion of Ukraine Trump was the guy who said it was a genius move by Putin, and now Ukraine is expected to accept that guy as a neutral mediator? That guy, who aside from being an in your face Putin fanboy, that guy we know holds grudges against anybody who remotely slights him in any way. And probably holds a grudge against Ukraine and Zelensky for their part in his impeachment case over trying to get them to launch frivolous investigations of the Bidens for military aid.

 

Trump first visited Moscow in 1987, a trip almost guaranteed to have been engineered by the KGB,  before the collapse of the Soviet Union and you can be guaranteed the KGB have material on him. Potentially material someone so entirely devoid of morals plus so ignorant and thin skinned as Trump would find unbearable were it to be revealed. It's where the rumours of "golden showers" with Russian hookers come from.

 

This Politico article for anyone who may be interested details the routine KGB procedure of enticing influential westerners to Moscow as well as going into Trumps visit. These westerners were treated with the greatest respect and had lavish treatment bestowed on them including effusive praise of the individual, sounds like a Trump dreamland. A dream an impulsive idiot like him would jump into honey traps and all.

 

The Hidden History of Trump’s First Trip to Moscow

 

In 1987, a young real estate developer traveled to the Soviet Union. The KGB almost certainly made the trip happen.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-first-moscow-trip-215842/