suppose to be warm winter and the west has flooded europe with liquid natural gas to point where they don't have storage and tankers are waiting to unload
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
As long as you protect Norway... invetor of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, offshore oil and gas and the producer of the most powerfull weapons in the world.
We have 110+ wells oil and and gas.......untapped cause climate.10 movable megestructures ...... gas and oil drills, retired. Size of 50 US carries.
Ohhhh fuck im drunk.... feels good! We can't use these, due to one climate concerns.... it's war so that's no problem. We could open massive, i mean massive underwater wells......they are ready to go. Granted theres is no contry in the world more suted than the one who invented offshore drilling. Unfortunatly we have to much gas........ but a weak as pipe for delivery. Gave that to Russia........... 20-30% of europes needs.
Russia was cheaper........ we all fucked up. We assumed Russia would behave! We just gave gas rights to Russia, while dumping money into russian nuclear plant cleanup...... manytimes our yearly budget.
I don't give a shit anymore....... ungratefull cunt's saved from nuclear meltdown dare to point weapon on Norway! We spendt....... trillions after the fall to clean up Russias nuclear bullshit and vanton disregard!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
European states are in an energy war with themselves. They're the ones who canceled the cheap Russian energy supply, nobody else. They were pressured into it by the Americans but they still did it, it's on them. Now Germany (the industrial heart of Europe) has the highest inflation in 70 years with negative GDP growth forecasted for next year. Fools.
Warning: watching that American youtuber speak on geopolitics will make you dumber.
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"European states are in an energy war with themselves."
"Warning: watching that American youtuber speak on geopolitics will make you dumber."
And as you've repeatedly shown, youre truly a fountain of wisdom.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
you're so into this idea of 'punishing Russia' that you've failed to grasp the basics of what's happening.
the economic war the Europeans have been waging on Russia has turned into an economic crisis in Europe, hence they're waging economic war on themselves.
...or have you watched a so many American youtube influencers that you just can't get it no matter how clearly it's explained?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
For some it might be that simple, that is if you don't see Russias invasion as a problem.
Some think it's a problem and don't want to finance such endeavors.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
"...if you don't see Russias invasion as a problem"
which is why the Europeans apply the same standard to the US as it destroys country after country.... wait... the Europeans do wage economic war on the US when they invade countries, right?
or is this moral high ground you try to envoke in fact just a narrative you've bought into?
one that relies on ignoring everything that happened prior to Feb 24 this year & also ignoring the complete lack of effort in the west to negotiate a peaceful settlement since then..... hmm....
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
Yes, they should apply the same standards with the US.
Both the US and Russia are the biggest cancers on this earth when it comes to war.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
the US is. It's waging a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, playing nuclear chicken on the doorstep of the only other country that has enough firepower to delete us all.
Russia is nowhere near 2nd in that running. It'd be UK, easy. Then probably France, just based on engaging in military aggression in recent decades, if that's how you wanna measure it.
imo it's the US's stated aim to remain numba wan and cut the legs out from any near-peer rivals at nearly any cost that'ss one of the most dangerous things facing humanity today. The so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine they hatched in the 1990s during their unipolar moment.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
The US and Russia / USSR rivalry has brought us nearest to a nuclear holocaust than any other war.
You wanna play favorites and root for your favorite super power?
It's nice to pretend your team is always right and can do no wrong. Thats really what enables wars, buying in to that narrative.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
I'm not playing any kind of favourites
I'm measuring them based on military aggression in the past 30 years, since the Russian Federation has only existed that long. It's not the Soviet Union although somehow the rivalry was prolongued. I blame that mostly on the US. They have an explicit doctrine of not tolerating any state that even may become a peer. Russia under Putin has made solid efforts to normalize relations with the West imo & been turned back at every turn. In security terms Russia's maintained a defensive posture this whole time - this is reflected in a lot of things from their diplomacy, to their military doctrine & hardware. Their insistance of not allowing NATO expansion into Georgia & Ukraine is completely justified, as many serious experts admit. Even if it wasn't, negotiations over how to handle these countries as neutral buffer state should have been the go-to, just because Russia's opinion on the matter is significant. NATO expansion is an act of aggression when it maintains a hostile posture towards the next country over. This is basic geopolitics.
Also I may need to change my #3 from France to Israel. That's a close one & would depend on how it was measured.
Here's some homework for you:
NATO EXPANSION: THE DEFINITIVE FACTS
Not told by the Russians; but by William Burns, who’s the present head of the CIA.
1. In 1989, when he was a top aide to James Baker, negotiating the reunification of Germany, this is what Burns said:
“With President Bush's support, Baker sold the concept to German chancellor Helmut Kohl and foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in early February, agreeing to use Two Plus Four negotiations to press for rapid German unification and full NATO membership, while reassuring the Soviets that NATO would not be extended any farther to the east, and would be transformed to reflect the end of the Cold War and potential partnership with the Soviet Union.
Baker maintained that Soviet interests would be more secure with a united Germany wrapped up in NATO, rather than a Germany untied to NATO and perhaps with its own nuclear weapons. He also said that there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction or forces "one inch to the east" of the borders of a reunified Germany.”
2. Discussing how the Russian foreign policy establishment felt about NATO expansion in 1995, under Yeltsin, long before Putin was on the scene, this is what Burns said:
“Hostility to early NATO expansion”, we reported just after the Budapest outburst, “is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here”.
3. When Bubba Clinton went ahead with NATO expansion, despite warnings from the American embassy in Moscow that it was A BAD IDEA, this is what Burns said:
“No less a statesman than George Kennan, the architect of containment, called the expansion decision “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era”.
Where we made a SERIOUS STRATEGIC MISTAKE - and where Kennan was prescient - was in later letting inertia drive us to push for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, despite Russia's deep historical attachments to both states and even stronger protestations.
That did indelible damage, and fed the appetite of future Russian leadership for getting even”.
So what your saying is the invasion is justified. Worth the lives, materials and economic turmoil on both sides?
I mean objectively speaking since we aren't picking favorites here.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
I'm saying that the US (and friends) engineered the conditions that caused it, knowing full well that military intervention was a strong possibility. They wanted it to happen & they want it to continue. Every move they've made & keep making supports this view.
If you make your retarded friend walk up to a bear and poke him with a stick & he snarls & walks away, then you both follow him repeat this behaviour over & over again then finally he swings at your friend, who caused the violence?
Is it just as retarded to try & point fingers at people saying they're morally wrong for justifying the bear's behaviour when they've not even mentioned moral implications?
tl;dr: A bear is a bear. Don't be retarded.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
Just stop with the west engineered this...... why would we build up Russia, just to fight her again!? After the fall of the wall, where would Russia be without the west's help?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
in what way did the west build up Russia?
the US was trying to engineer a total economic collapse there in the 1990s, backing Yeltsin as he rigged elections & funneled the state's wealth into the hands of corrupt oligarchs.. they wanted that wealth to end up on Wall St but it didn't quite pan out that way. Since 2014 the US & its NATOstan vassals have waged economic war against Russia.
Meanwhile it's Russia who's been providing Europe with cheap, reliable energy that's been supporting European industry & prosperity in recent decades. The Europeans in all their wisdom are now cutting this off & you can see the result... all-time high inflation in the Eurozone
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
We saved Russia and the world after the wall fell....... not USA or nato...... the entire world! Russia would be unlivable, dead zone.... no mans land..... along with its neigbors!
Not sure you where alive for Boris..... he was fucked up 24/7 in a drunken stupor he engaged the entire russian atomic comman due to a sounding rocket! A rocked witch was shared with russia several times.
Quite frankly wallstreet don't give two shits about russia or Russian investments. Saudi and well the sandpeople cabal, we need to have a talk.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Raining Blood (Long Spike)
where would russia be without the help of the west? it would be non-existent. if it wasnt for the west, ethnically russians would be speaking german and ethnically chinese would be speaking japanese. sucking from tit of the west while pretending they don't need them.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
that's quite the dellusion of grandeure from a Canadian
interesting that neither of you want to attempt to answer the question..
in what way did the west build up Russia?
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
Can you live in a nuclear wasteland?...... no everyone's dead! I'm guessing you were born long after the fall of the wall! It wasn't Canada, it was Norway who spearheaded the rescue of Russia..... Norwegian scientist who oversaw nuclear plants...... Norwegian roughnecks that cleared out rusty subs leaking nuclear fuel.
Every atomic plant was scrutinised by the world top minds and handled appropriately!
If we wanted Russia dead..... in a time where it was laying belly up...... we let you implode!
Prove me wrong!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
Canada didn't have the same access to Russia as Norway at the fall, but the pumped millions upon millions securing nuclear plants...... one of the first to to put hands on the madness that was Russian nuclear waste!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
Litteraly dead..... then again the Chariman has no fucking idea just how much effort it took to clean up Russian subs. It was a rusty wasteland 3 min away from meltdown ..... 30 years of constant neck-breaking work ...guessing he's too young to even comprehend the stakes.
Look at our nuclear subs..... we are soo, soooo mighty! dagger in the back.....spit me in the face and pretend it's rain.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"is it just as retarded to try & point fingers at people saying they're morally wrong for justifying the bear's behaviour when they've not even mentioned moral implications?"
It's an apt analogy, but then again we would like to think that we humans are a bit more sophisticated than an animal, but yeah, it's usually not the case. One pushes policies and alliances and the other responds with war.
What do you think would have happened if Russia didn't attack Ukraine?
What is Russia gaining now that it's at war? In other words what kind of cost-benefit would you give Russia for this?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
Eloquent and on point! How do you do it!?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
"One pushes policies and alliances and the other responds with war"
the US pushed a coup in Kyiv, hand-picked a neo-fascist regime that went to war on the largest ethnic minority of the country. Then they pushed weapons, trainers & bases into Ukraine in preparation for the war that's unfolding now while feeding the civil war that's been ongoing for 8 years while Russia tried the whole time for a peaceful settlement to the conflict. War was pushed by US-NATO, Russia has responded with more war after exhausting all other options.
"What do you think would have happened if Russia didn't attack Ukraine?"
Once again you want to pretend history began on Feb 24, 2022. The conflict in Ukraine didn't even begin at that point. It began on Feb 22, 2014, right after the US orchestrated the overthrow of a neutral/Russia-leaning government in Kyiv & installed a pro-West fascist regime that immediately went about banning Russian language & treating anyone who objected as terrorists.
However, I'll bite. Had Russia not intervened this year, NATO proxy Ukraine was going to launch another major "anti-terrorist" operation in the Donbass that would have devastated the region. Russia would have had to step up their support for the Russian-Ukrainians there in some form or another. To just watch it all go down & do nothing would have been too much to stomach politically for the Kremlin and in security terms would have put them on even more shaky ground. Next would have been a NATO/Ukraine military buildup to take Crimea which would threaten Russia's Black Sea fleet. Sevastopol is not on the table. Russia has never pretended they wouldn't defend it even at high cost. This goes back centuries, unlike the failed state of independent Ukraine which has existed for all of 31 years, arguably 23 years since it became a US/NATO client regime in 2014.
For those in the cheap seats - history did not start this year, nor 2014, nor 1991. The CIA's involvement with ultranationalists incl Nazis in Ukraine as a way to fuck with Russia goes back to the 1940s. Their decades of work there blossomed in 2014. These things are all related & the effort to isolate Russia's intervention in Feb 2022 as the root of the problem is ignorant &/or intellectually dishonest.
"What is Russia gaining now that it's at war?"
Nothing. It's a net loss for practically everyone involved other than the US who are making money hand over fist with their LNG exports into Europe, onshoring German industry & consolidating their political, military & economic grip over the Europeans. Sometimes I find it amusing how European colonizers who fled to the New World have come back & neo-colonized Europe, just from a historical perspective.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
bla bla bla..... man, sleeping pills, tranqs even heroin.... nothing makes me drowsy like a wall of Bullshit from Danman....*yaaaaaaawns* and no hangovers.......surely some money in this?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
silence in the cheap seats, Eurocuck
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
I turned my head and there you where......... hussssssh, there's a farce going on!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
""What is Russia gaining now that it's at war?"
Nothing. It's a net loss for practically everyone involved other than the US who are making money hand over fist with their LNG exports into Europe"
For once we agree on something. Though US too is having to pay premium for gasoline.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
Most of what I say is just factual history with a bit of spice because it's annoying I have to keep going over it. We should be in agreement of the history. I notice you never dispute it, you seem to just want to ignore it.
The crux of where our opinions differ imo is that you see things only in moralistic/ideological terms (with your convenient timeline as mentioned, and a large dose of double standards) & you fail to recognize the realities of geopolitics. These guys can articulate it better than I can...
PROFESSORS STEPHEN F. COHEN AND JOHN MEISENHEIMER INTERVIEWED
If you don't know History of Conflict in Ukraine, then you don't know anything pic.twitter.com/dciusrzD94
— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) October 12, 2022
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"We should be in agreement of the history. I notice you never dispute it, you seem to just want to ignore it."
What do you want me to say? I don't dispute it, nor am I defending what the US did.
Still funny how in you balanced and objective reasoning, the blame only falls on the US. This is why it's hard to take you seriously when you say youre not playing favorites....not to mention all your pro russia posts for the past 8 months here.
"The crux of where our opinions differ imo is that you see things only in moralistic/ideological terms (with your convenient timeline as mentioned, and a large dose of double standards) & you fail to recognize the realities of geopolitics."
Yeah I guess I look at these things from the perspective of how much needles death and suffering it's causing.
How geopolitics plays out comes down to the people in charge and their moral values.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
"the blame only falls on the US"
pretty much. If I'm being generous it'd be as low as 75% but really it's more like 90-95% their doing imo.
"all your pro russia posts for the past 8 months"
I don't think I've posted anything about Russia on here. Maybe a couple of speches by Putin/Lavrov in raw format. I've also posted the odd NATO spox statement if I think it's relevant. Any military analysis videos I post are objective. Oh, I show the Chechens because their propaganda's interesting. Oh, Pattrick whatshisname is pro-Donbass because he lives there & by extension that's pro-Russia. I wanna show the other side of the story a little bit. There's an unhealthy amount of ignorant NATO simps on here. I've not seen you ever complain about this.
"Yeah I guess I look at these things from the perspective of how much needles death and suffering it's causing."
There's been needless death & suffering going back to at least 2014. Zelensky even made fun of it..
Zelensky,back in 2015 that it was a good idea to laugh at the water and energy blockade Crimean people was suffering, so funny it was worthy for a TV sketch.
"How geopolitics plays out comes down to the people in charge and their moral values."
sort of but not really when you're dealing with a cynical empire like the US & their cohorts like UK. It's a competition of power & they really only speak in the language of force. Just take a look at their handiwork in West Asia & North Africa this century. On the other hand the Russians have bent over backwards trying to avoid this war in Ukraine, insisting on a peaceful settlement until that was an impossible task & they had to step in or witness a horror unfolding against Russians right across their border, in a land that never really should have been part of undependent Ukraine & has asked to be annexed into Russia for the past 8 years (Russia told them no & tried to organize an outcome involving autonomy, Germany was also on board with this, on paper at least although Merkel was a bit soft on Kyiv & didn't hold them to it). Russia's govt's copped a lot of criticism from their own citizens for not intervening in 2014 and then for spending 8 years wasting time & allowing NATO to lay the groundwork for what's now unfolding. Arguably it may have been better for them to rip the bandade off in 2014 when Ukraine barely even had much of a military. Russia wasn't economically ready for the assault they've had to withstand from the US & their minions though I don't think.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
Post a clip, the crux..... is where you take a qiant squat over spiked and just shit over everything. I have some shame for my druken rablings.........i know when i fucked up.
From start to end....... you just been wrong, it should be statistily impossible to consistently be so fucking wrong...... there you are thoug
In other news: got fucked by a beaver....... Reach out to my only fans. beaveerupp the butt.com?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
say something of substance if you have any balls, eurocuck
your vague hocus pocus mumbo jumbo voodoo is wasting my pixels
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
Eu is in agreement with it self, gas and oil. They found a price roof for energy! An agreement like never before.There is no energy war in the EU states, anything but!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"pretty much. If I'm being generous it'd be as low as 75% but really it's more like 90-95% their doing imo."
Maybe the Ukrainians have it wrong then. They shouldn't be fighting the people leveling their cities but the yanks.
"I don't think I've posted anything about Russia on here."
This is again where basic self reflection skill would be required.
"There's been needless death & suffering going back to at least 2014. Zelensky even made fun of it.."
Maybe Putin can do a similar skit? Plenty of material to go with.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
"Maybe the Ukrainians have it wrong then. They shouldn't be fighting the people leveling their cities but the yanks."
It all depends on who you call "the Ukrainians". The country is divided along ethnic & political lines. If Donbass is supposed to be part of Ukraine why have they been fighting the Kyiv regime since 2014 and side with Russia? Are they Ukrainians or nah? They don't want any part of this "Ukraine" business, they want out. Crimeans never wanted to be part of an independent Ukraine, which is why they were eventually granted autonomous status in the 1990s, just to stay as part of it & not rock the boat. The Kyiv regime claims Crimea but they're not Ukrainians there & never have been.
The rest of Ukraine can make their choices. Many have fled, around 10 million so far, roughly. Some are willing to fight the Russian side & I don't blame them. Many have been conscripted & don't really have a choice. Fighting-age men (up to 60 years old) were banned from leaving the country & then it changed to a fee of $5k to leave which not everyone can afford.
One more reality check: Ukraine is providing the cannon fodder but NATO is the one actually fighting Russia. They've so far provided 9X Ukraine's annual military budget worth of military assistance this year, are providing NATO's advanced intelligence apparatus, command & control assistance & a host of other things, many of which are more advanced than what Russia has. 8 years ago Ukraine barely had a military & amongst those who were part of it the morale was devastatingly low. That's another reason it could have been a better option for Russia to intervene back then. That Nazi battalions were just thugs back then, not trained up to NATO standards & equipped with deadly force & incorporated into a US/NATO-led military.
Also, their cities aren't being levelled. Mariupol was an exception & it's currently being rebuilt. It wasn't as bad there as what US/NATO's done to many places like Fallujah, Mosul or Raqqa. None of which they made any effort to rebuild & in Raqqa they didn't even make an effort dispose of dangerous ordinance or deal with the dead bodies.
"This is again where basic self reflection skill would be required."
Right back at ya. Maybe reflect on why you keep defaulting to moralistic view when none of this really has to do with that framework but the media is all about it & giving a completely skewed interpretation of the facts, often resorting to outright disinfo. It's so controlled that RT was blanket banned right across the West at the onset. I'm bringing some different perspectives to this site, you have enough cartoonish Western propaganda spam on here already, none of which I've ever seen you take issue with.
6 months ago you were insisting that Ukraine has a right to join NATO (which was the common narrative at the time, which by pure coincidence you happened to repeat) & therefore should be able to if they want, despite any objections Russia may have ... I'm wondering if you still hold that view?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"It all depends on who you call "the Ukrainians"".
Ok lets just say people inside of Ukraine borders who don't want to be invaded by Russia.
"Also, their cities aren't being levelled. Mariupol was an exception...."
Keep on spinning. Love hearing your balanced, unbiased, not-picking-a-side analysis of the situation :)
"Right back at ya. Maybe reflect on why you keep defaulting to moralistic view when none of this really has to do with that framework..."
Nothing to do with that "framework"?
Yeah it's all about how you want to frame it, isn't it. Like a politician who is far removed from the reality thats happening on the battlefield.
It's fine if you don't want to question the morality of war, just don't expect everyone to agree with that. It's nicer to think in terms geopolitics than it's with innocent people being blasted to bits.
"6 months ago you were insisting that Ukraine has a right to join NATO (which was the common narrative at the time, which by pure coincidence you happened to repeat)"
If all the NATO nations agree to take them in and they meet the requirements then they have that right, yes.
I've said many times that it's very unlikely to happen and would be better if it didn't. The US has been pushing this a long time but theres always been resistance and for good reason.
Currently Ukraine is too corrupt to join NATO and would actually have Russia have their way with this.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
> "Also, their cities aren't being levelled. Mariupol was an exception...."
"Keep on spinning."
LOL. You're so full of it. Not only was your "Ukrainian cities are being levelled" just a spin job, you had to cut out the comparison I made to cities that were actually leveled & the fact that Marioupol is being rebuilt rn which undermines your argument. It's like this is the first war you've paid attention to, you don't know what you're seeing, you take Western press spin as gospel, and your response is just as they intended (moral outrage directed at Russia). Ukrainian cities are not being leveled. Stop overreacting to the fakenews.
"It's nicer to think in terms geopolitics than it's with innocent people being blasted to bits."
you'll never understand the geopolitical aspects if you insist on focusing on the moral outrage of the results without looking past it to find out what the causes are. Really all you're doing with that shallow moralistic framing is trying to politicize the suffering. It's cartoonish. If you care so much about the suffering caused by this NATO proxy war then you must be pissed off that they're directing so many resources into perpetuating it & making no effort at all to reach a negotiated settlement, huh?
"If all the NATO nations agree to take them in and they meet the requirements then they have that right, yes."
Wrong. This doesn't hold up no matter how you want to argue the case. Not even from a legal/technical point of view. You can't enhance your own security at the expense of others. This principle is built into the Helsinki Accords - the foundation of security in Europe for the past handful of decades. We don't even need to look to the 'bear in the woods' analogy but since you accept it we can - you have to at least respect the bear, it's common sense. Anything less is retarded & dangerous. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. For years the yanks have dismissed all of Russia's concerns & US client states have muddled along without sticking to their word - see Minsk Accords.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
n0val33t (Old Spike)
Ukraine has and is getting supplied with weapons that can penetrate deep into Russia ..... what set of rules for these missiles use, no one knows. It's something everyone should worry about.... no hiding from this war, it can turn hot before you wake up and have a chance to reply, how sad would that be...... Imagine a big plume some 1000 miles away and your unable to finish your drivel in time......oopsydaisy, all this time spent on text walls just poof, litteraly the only extention of your life apart from kicking dead pets around (just assuming)
*yawn* enyone else tired?..... Every time i read this guys regurgitated blaaaaah....... *yawns* sweet dreams
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"LOL. You're so full of it. Not only was your "Ukrainian cities are being levelled" just a spin job..."
Maybe when I do a Google image seearch it's all just some AI-created conspiracy images of destroyed buildings all around the country. After all, Google is a western company so maybe they are in on it.
Or maybe you just take things too literally. "leveled" doesn't mean an atom bomb kinda of destruction where nothing is left.
Still, it's fun to see how you spin it and try to down play it.
"you'll never understand the geopolitical aspects if you insist on focusing on the moral outrage"
Geopolitics explain the situation and thats fine. What I don't agree is that it SHOULD justify the death & destruction.
As I said, you like to think of the situation like a politician, far removed from the realities of the war. Sitting confy behind his desk. At the other side is the foot soldier in the trences taking a shelling or a civilian who just get caught in the cross fire.
Maybe geopolitics would be different if we put the people responsible for it, in the front lines. You know more in touch at what it's actually to be at war. Though, some of them are afraid to leave their place because of covid.
"Wrong. This doesn't hold up no matter how you want to argue the case."
Like I said I pretty much agree with you on this, but you you seemed to dismiss it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
"it's fun to see how you spin it and try to down play it."
IMO you were being overly dramatic by using that term because it's just not happening (yet). Only Mariupol could fit that description imo. I've paid pretty close attention to it this year & just don't like it being mischaracterized. It's not a defending Russia thing it's just defending reality as I see it.
"As I said, you like to think of the situation like a politician"
no, I look at it analytically & objectively. Poltiicians are sleazebags, more like marketing people, espcially western warmongering politicians who abuse people's empathy with half-truths & falsehoods to support proxy war & imperialism in general.
"Sitting confy behind his desk. At the other side is the foot soldier in the trences taking a shelling or a civilian who just get caught in the cross fire."
I'm well aware. Innocents dying is the most cut n dry worst thing & it happens a lot all over the world. Ukraine isn't the worst place that this is happening, not even close. However the majority of people being harmed in Ukraine is the soldiers. The ratio is like 25:1 or something. It's almost exclusively soldiers copping it, which also sucks but it's less unacceptable for some reason. It all fucking sucks & is a waste but how much do you want me to virtue signal about it on here when we don't even agree on what caused it?
"geopolitics would be different if we put the people responsible for it, in the front lines"
yeah it sucks that isn't the case these days. I would prefer it.
> "Wrong. This doesn't hold up no matter how you want to argue the case."
"Like I said I pretty much agree with you on this, but you you seemed to dismiss it. "
..The "Ukraine has a right to join NATO" is one of the core arguments at the root of the conflict, I'm not at all dismissing your opinion on it - I addressed it & tried to refute what I thought was your strongest argument for it, the legal/technical side. If you wanna put an argument together for it go ahead. Arguing can be a good way to learn.
just FYI, one of the main reasons I dismiss moral arguments or emotional appeal ones is that they're subjective & pretty much a waste of time. Since they're really just personal opinions it goes nowhere when you disagree... plus it doesn't even matter what opinions you or I have, we're just on the sidelines with this stuff. Both our countries are weaponizing Ukraine to fuck with Russia on behalf of the yanks & we probably disagree on whether this is ethical or not.... we'll also both fry if this goes nuclear.... beyond that neither of us is really involved.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Site Moderator)
"no, I look at it analytically & objectively."
Yes, you keep saying that :D It might be that you truly believe that about yourself.
Maybe if you'd assign more responsibilty to the Russian side, I'd take you more seriously. It all comes off as very one sided. I get it, you want to counter western propaganda, but in the end it just become Russian propaganda.
"but how much do you want me to virtue signal about it on here when we don't even agree on what caused it?"
You don't have to virtue signal at all.
Really the disagreement between us comes down to this. If we have country "X" doing stuff that isn't causing immediate death & destruction but country "Y" doesn't like that and respond with actual death & destruction, I'm assigning more blame to the one that is doing the actual death & destruction, where as with you it's the opposite.
Take this to the extreme to make my point more clear.
Country "Y" has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Country "X" does a pre-emptive nuclear stike to country "Y" because they pose a potential threat.
Things are relatively fine till people start getting paranoid and actually using force.
".The "Ukraine has a right to join NATO" is one of the core arguments at the root of the conflict"
Don't know about the legal/technical side of Ukraine joining NATO. Maybe there is something that would legally prevent it from happening.
Theres a reason though, why countries want to join NATO. Russias just reinforcing that idea by attacking.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
"It all comes off as very one sided"
I know what it looks like on here but I don't care. Most on here won't tolerate any straying from the normie western line & say a lot of stupid one-sided shit which I'm happy to push back on without worrying about how it comes off. I also upload shit to put some balance/different perspectives on here. At least you get that it has to do with being a counter to western propaganda (& fw people who've internalized it).
"If we have country "X" doing stuff that isn't causing immediate death & destruction but country "Y" doesn't like that and respond with actual death & destruction, I'm assigning more blame to the one that is doing the actual death & destruction, where as with you it's the opposite."
The death & destruction didn't begin in 2022. It began when the yanks overthrew the Kyiv govt, installed a neo-fascist client regime, supported them in a civil war against a major ethnic minority & moved NATO training facilities in, turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO state despite Russia's insistence that Ukraine joining NATO was a red line.
Russia responded by exhausting every avenue they could to bring about a peaceful settlement centered on the Minsk Accords. These efforts lasted 8 years and that time was being used by Kyiv to build up a NATO-backed military. This was admitted in 2015 by former president Poroshenko and then in 2019 Zelensky announced they were going to attack Donbass again ... they were gearing up to do it when Russia intervened. The videos showing both these things are below:
— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) July 1, 2022
These admissions from the US client govt in Kyiv show that they were not interested in a negotiated settlement under the Minsk Accords & that the NATO backers of Minsk were not able to force them to honour the agreements they signed. They were the side responsible the violence being the only way for Russia to resolve the situation. In saying that, Russia is not blameless, I just put the lion's share of the blame on the side that brought this situation about, based on what I see as an objective history of events, including the promise not to expand NATO to the east in 1991, NATO's destruction of Serbia in 1999, their support for jihadi rebels in the Chechen wars, their invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, use of jihadis in Syria, thei rdestruction of Libya, Yemen and so on. Who the fuck would want those guys right next door when they refuse to negotiate & their stated aim is to be your enemy????
"Things are relatively fine till people start getting paranoid and actually using force."
Force was being used in Ukraine since 2014. That's relatively fine because Russia doesn't have boots on the ground yet?
"Theres a reason though, why countries want to join NATO. Russias just reinforcing that idea by attacking."
There are reasons why Russia insists NATO doesn't surround them too. If you weigh up the amount of aggression committed by the Russian Federation and by NATO since 1991, it's not even close. NATO is a major destabilizing force in the world & Russia has every right to insist it's not surrounded by it imo, especially in Ukraine and Georgia. Not that it even matters what my opinion is, it's Russia's call & they say nyet on those 2. They've made it crystal clear that those 2 countries joining NATO are redlines for them - but NATO (USA) refused to withdraw their applications... almost like they wanted this proxy war to take place don't you think?
Comments
(Old Spike)
suppose to be warm winter and the west has flooded europe with liquid natural gas to point where they don't have storage and tankers are waiting to unload
(Old Spike)
As long as you protect Norway... invetor of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, offshore oil and gas and the producer of the most powerfull weapons in the world.
We have 110+ wells oil and and gas.......untapped cause climate.10 movable megestructures ...... gas and oil drills, retired. Size of 50 US carries.
Ohhhh fuck im drunk.... feels good!
We can't use these, due to one climate concerns.... it's war so that's no problem. We could open massive, i mean massive underwater wells......they are ready to go. Granted theres is no contry in the world more suted than the one who invented offshore drilling. Unfortunatly we have to much gas........ but a weak as pipe for delivery. Gave that to Russia........... 20-30% of europes needs.
Russia was cheaper........ we all fucked up. We assumed Russia would behave! We just gave gas rights to Russia, while dumping money into russian nuclear plant cleanup...... manytimes our yearly budget.
I don't give a shit anymore....... ungratefull cunt's saved from nuclear meltdown dare to point weapon on Norway! We spendt....... trillions after the fall to clean up Russias nuclear bullshit and vanton disregard!
(Site Administrator)
European states are in an energy war with themselves. They're the ones who canceled the cheap Russian energy supply, nobody else. They were pressured into it by the Americans but they still did it, it's on them. Now Germany (the industrial heart of Europe) has the highest inflation in 70 years with negative GDP growth forecasted for next year. Fools.
Warning: watching that American youtuber speak on geopolitics will make you dumber.
(Site Moderator)
"European states are in an energy war with themselves."
"Warning: watching that American youtuber speak on geopolitics will make you dumber."
And as you've repeatedly shown, youre truly a fountain of wisdom.
(Site Administrator)
you're so into this idea of 'punishing Russia' that you've failed to grasp the basics of what's happening.
the economic war the Europeans have been waging on Russia has turned into an economic crisis in Europe, hence they're waging economic war on themselves.
...or have you watched a so many American youtube influencers that you just can't get it no matter how clearly it's explained?
(Site Moderator)
For some it might be that simple, that is if you don't see Russias invasion as a problem.
Some think it's a problem and don't want to finance such endeavors.
(Site Administrator)
"...if you don't see Russias invasion as a problem"
which is why the Europeans apply the same standard to the US as it destroys country after country.... wait... the Europeans do wage economic war on the US when they invade countries, right?
or is this moral high ground you try to envoke in fact just a narrative you've bought into?
one that relies on ignoring everything that happened prior to Feb 24 this year & also ignoring the complete lack of effort in the west to negotiate a peaceful settlement since then..... hmm....
(Site Moderator)
Yes, they should apply the same standards with the US.
Both the US and Russia are the biggest cancers on this earth when it comes to war.
(Site Administrator)
the US is. It's waging a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, playing nuclear chicken on the doorstep of the only other country that has enough firepower to delete us all.
Russia is nowhere near 2nd in that running. It'd be UK, easy. Then probably France, just based on engaging in military aggression in recent decades, if that's how you wanna measure it.
imo it's the US's stated aim to remain numba wan and cut the legs out from any near-peer rivals at nearly any cost that'ss one of the most dangerous things facing humanity today. The so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine they hatched in the 1990s during their unipolar moment.
(Site Moderator)
The US and Russia / USSR rivalry has brought us nearest to a nuclear holocaust than any other war.
You wanna play favorites and root for your favorite super power?
It's nice to pretend your team is always right and can do no wrong. Thats really what enables wars, buying in to that narrative.
(Site Administrator)
I'm not playing any kind of favourites
I'm measuring them based on military aggression in the past 30 years, since the Russian Federation has only existed that long. It's not the Soviet Union although somehow the rivalry was prolongued. I blame that mostly on the US. They have an explicit doctrine of not tolerating any state that even may become a peer. Russia under Putin has made solid efforts to normalize relations with the West imo & been turned back at every turn. In security terms Russia's maintained a defensive posture this whole time - this is reflected in a lot of things from their diplomacy, to their military doctrine & hardware. Their insistance of not allowing NATO expansion into Georgia & Ukraine is completely justified, as many serious experts admit. Even if it wasn't, negotiations over how to handle these countries as neutral buffer state should have been the go-to, just because Russia's opinion on the matter is significant. NATO expansion is an act of aggression when it maintains a hostile posture towards the next country over. This is basic geopolitics.
Also I may need to change my #3 from France to Israel. That's a close one & would depend on how it was measured.
Here's some homework for you:
NATO EXPANSION: THE DEFINITIVE FACTS
Not told by the Russians; but by William Burns, who’s the present head of the CIA.
1. In 1989, when he was a top aide to James Baker, negotiating the reunification of Germany, this is what Burns said:
“With President Bush's support, Baker sold the concept to German chancellor Helmut Kohl and foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in early February, agreeing to use Two Plus Four negotiations to press for rapid German unification and full NATO membership, while reassuring the Soviets that NATO would not be extended any farther to the east, and would be transformed to reflect the end of the Cold War and potential partnership with the Soviet Union.
Baker maintained that Soviet interests would be more secure with a united Germany wrapped up in NATO, rather than a Germany untied to NATO and perhaps with its own nuclear weapons. He also said that there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction or forces "one inch to the east" of the borders of a reunified Germany.”
2. Discussing how the Russian foreign policy establishment felt about NATO expansion in 1995, under Yeltsin, long before Putin was on the scene, this is what Burns said:
“Hostility to early NATO expansion”, we reported just after the Budapest outburst, “is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here”.
3. When Bubba Clinton went ahead with NATO expansion, despite warnings from the American embassy in Moscow that it was A BAD IDEA, this is what Burns said:
“No less a statesman than George Kennan, the architect of containment, called the expansion decision “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era”.
Where we made a SERIOUS STRATEGIC MISTAKE - and where Kennan was prescient - was in later letting inertia drive us to push for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, despite Russia's deep historical attachments to both states and even stronger protestations.
That did indelible damage, and fed the appetite of future Russian leadership for getting even”.
extra for experts - read what Lavrov told Burns in 2008 after Bush accepted Ukraine & Georgia's application to join NATO: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
(Site Moderator)
So what your saying is the invasion is justified. Worth the lives, materials and economic turmoil on both sides?
I mean objectively speaking since we aren't picking favorites here.
(Site Administrator)
I'm saying that the US (and friends) engineered the conditions that caused it, knowing full well that military intervention was a strong possibility. They wanted it to happen & they want it to continue. Every move they've made & keep making supports this view.
If you make your retarded friend walk up to a bear and poke him with a stick & he snarls & walks away, then you both follow him repeat this behaviour over & over again then finally he swings at your friend, who caused the violence?
Is it just as retarded to try & point fingers at people saying they're morally wrong for justifying the bear's behaviour when they've not even mentioned moral implications?
tl;dr: A bear is a bear. Don't be retarded.
(Old Spike)
Just stop with the west engineered this...... why would we build up Russia, just to fight her again!? After the fall of the wall, where would Russia be without the west's help?
(Site Administrator)
in what way did the west build up Russia?
the US was trying to engineer a total economic collapse there in the 1990s, backing Yeltsin as he rigged elections & funneled the state's wealth into the hands of corrupt oligarchs.. they wanted that wealth to end up on Wall St but it didn't quite pan out that way. Since 2014 the US & its NATOstan vassals have waged economic war against Russia.
Meanwhile it's Russia who's been providing Europe with cheap, reliable energy that's been supporting European industry & prosperity in recent decades. The Europeans in all their wisdom are now cutting this off & you can see the result... all-time high inflation in the Eurozone
(Old Spike)
We saved Russia and the world after the wall fell....... not USA or nato...... the entire world! Russia would be unlivable, dead zone.... no mans land..... along with its neigbors!
Not sure you where alive for Boris..... he was fucked up 24/7 in a drunken stupor he engaged the entire russian atomic comman due to a sounding rocket! A rocked witch was shared with russia several times.
Quite frankly wallstreet don't give two shits about russia or Russian investments. Saudi and well the sandpeople cabal, we need to have a talk.
(Long Spike)
where would russia be without the help of the west? it would be non-existent. if it wasnt for the west, ethnically russians would be speaking german and ethnically chinese would be speaking japanese. sucking from tit of the west while pretending they don't need them.
(Site Administrator)
that's quite the dellusion of grandeure from a Canadian
interesting that neither of you want to attempt to answer the question..
in what way did the west build up Russia?
(Old Spike)
Can you live in a nuclear wasteland?...... no everyone's dead! I'm guessing you were born long after the fall of the wall! It wasn't Canada, it was Norway who spearheaded the rescue of Russia..... Norwegian scientist who oversaw nuclear plants...... Norwegian roughnecks that cleared out rusty subs leaking nuclear fuel.
Every atomic plant was scrutinised by the world top minds and handled appropriately!
If we wanted Russia dead..... in a time where it was laying belly up...... we let you implode!
Prove me wrong!
(Old Spike)
Canada didn't have the same access to Russia as Norway at the fall, but the pumped millions upon millions securing nuclear plants...... one of the first to to put hands on the madness that was Russian nuclear waste!
(Old Spike)
Litteraly dead..... then again the Chariman has no fucking idea just how much effort it took to clean up Russian subs. It was a rusty wasteland 3 min away from meltdown ..... 30 years of constant neck-breaking work ...guessing he's too young to even comprehend the stakes.
Look at our nuclear subs..... we are soo, soooo mighty! dagger in the back.....spit me in the face and pretend it's rain.
(Site Moderator)
"is it just as retarded to try & point fingers at people saying they're morally wrong for justifying the bear's behaviour when they've not even mentioned moral implications?"
It's an apt analogy, but then again we would like to think that we humans are a bit more sophisticated than an animal, but yeah, it's usually not the case. One pushes policies and alliances and the other responds with war.
What do you think would have happened if Russia didn't attack Ukraine?
What is Russia gaining now that it's at war? In other words what kind of cost-benefit would you give Russia for this?
(Old Spike)
Eloquent and on point! How do you do it!?
(Site Administrator)
"One pushes policies and alliances and the other responds with war"
the US pushed a coup in Kyiv, hand-picked a neo-fascist regime that went to war on the largest ethnic minority of the country. Then they pushed weapons, trainers & bases into Ukraine in preparation for the war that's unfolding now while feeding the civil war that's been ongoing for 8 years while Russia tried the whole time for a peaceful settlement to the conflict. War was pushed by US-NATO, Russia has responded with more war after exhausting all other options.
"What do you think would have happened if Russia didn't attack Ukraine?"
Once again you want to pretend history began on Feb 24, 2022. The conflict in Ukraine didn't even begin at that point. It began on Feb 22, 2014, right after the US orchestrated the overthrow of a neutral/Russia-leaning government in Kyiv & installed a pro-West fascist regime that immediately went about banning Russian language & treating anyone who objected as terrorists.
However, I'll bite. Had Russia not intervened this year, NATO proxy Ukraine was going to launch another major "anti-terrorist" operation in the Donbass that would have devastated the region. Russia would have had to step up their support for the Russian-Ukrainians there in some form or another. To just watch it all go down & do nothing would have been too much to stomach politically for the Kremlin and in security terms would have put them on even more shaky ground. Next would have been a NATO/Ukraine military buildup to take Crimea which would threaten Russia's Black Sea fleet. Sevastopol is not on the table. Russia has never pretended they wouldn't defend it even at high cost. This goes back centuries, unlike the failed state of independent Ukraine which has existed for all of 31 years, arguably 23 years since it became a US/NATO client regime in 2014.
For those in the cheap seats - history did not start this year, nor 2014, nor 1991. The CIA's involvement with ultranationalists incl Nazis in Ukraine as a way to fuck with Russia goes back to the 1940s. Their decades of work there blossomed in 2014. These things are all related & the effort to isolate Russia's intervention in Feb 2022 as the root of the problem is ignorant &/or intellectually dishonest.
"What is Russia gaining now that it's at war?"
Nothing. It's a net loss for practically everyone involved other than the US who are making money hand over fist with their LNG exports into Europe, onshoring German industry & consolidating their political, military & economic grip over the Europeans. Sometimes I find it amusing how European colonizers who fled to the New World have come back & neo-colonized Europe, just from a historical perspective.
(Old Spike)
bla bla bla..... man, sleeping pills, tranqs even heroin.... nothing makes me drowsy like a wall of Bullshit from Danman....*yaaaaaaawns* and no hangovers.......surely some money in this?
(Site Administrator)
silence in the cheap seats, Eurocuck
(Old Spike)
I turned my head and there you where......... hussssssh, there's a farce going on!
(Site Moderator)
""What is Russia gaining now that it's at war?"
Nothing. It's a net loss for practically everyone involved other than the US who are making money hand over fist with their LNG exports into Europe"
For once we agree on something. Though US too is having to pay premium for gasoline.
(Site Administrator)
Most of what I say is just factual history with a bit of spice because it's annoying I have to keep going over it. We should be in agreement of the history. I notice you never dispute it, you seem to just want to ignore it.
The crux of where our opinions differ imo is that you see things only in moralistic/ideological terms (with your convenient timeline as mentioned, and a large dose of double standards) & you fail to recognize the realities of geopolitics. These guys can articulate it better than I can...
(Site Moderator)
"We should be in agreement of the history. I notice you never dispute it, you seem to just want to ignore it."
What do you want me to say? I don't dispute it, nor am I defending what the US did.
Still funny how in you balanced and objective reasoning, the blame only falls on the US. This is why it's hard to take you seriously when you say youre not playing favorites....not to mention all your pro russia posts for the past 8 months here.
"The crux of where our opinions differ imo is that you see things only in moralistic/ideological terms (with your convenient timeline as mentioned, and a large dose of double standards) & you fail to recognize the realities of geopolitics."
Yeah I guess I look at these things from the perspective of how much needles death and suffering it's causing.
How geopolitics plays out comes down to the people in charge and their moral values.
(Site Administrator)
"the blame only falls on the US"
pretty much. If I'm being generous it'd be as low as 75% but really it's more like 90-95% their doing imo.
"all your pro russia posts for the past 8 months"
I don't think I've posted anything about Russia on here. Maybe a couple of speches by Putin/Lavrov in raw format. I've also posted the odd NATO spox statement if I think it's relevant. Any military analysis videos I post are objective. Oh, I show the Chechens because their propaganda's interesting. Oh, Pattrick whatshisname is pro-Donbass because he lives there & by extension that's pro-Russia. I wanna show the other side of the story a little bit. There's an unhealthy amount of ignorant NATO simps on here. I've not seen you ever complain about this.
"Yeah I guess I look at these things from the perspective of how much needles death and suffering it's causing."
There's been needless death & suffering going back to at least 2014. Zelensky even made fun of it..
"How geopolitics plays out comes down to the people in charge and their moral values."
sort of but not really when you're dealing with a cynical empire like the US & their cohorts like UK. It's a competition of power & they really only speak in the language of force. Just take a look at their handiwork in West Asia & North Africa this century. On the other hand the Russians have bent over backwards trying to avoid this war in Ukraine, insisting on a peaceful settlement until that was an impossible task & they had to step in or witness a horror unfolding against Russians right across their border, in a land that never really should have been part of undependent Ukraine & has asked to be annexed into Russia for the past 8 years (Russia told them no & tried to organize an outcome involving autonomy, Germany was also on board with this, on paper at least although Merkel was a bit soft on Kyiv & didn't hold them to it). Russia's govt's copped a lot of criticism from their own citizens for not intervening in 2014 and then for spending 8 years wasting time & allowing NATO to lay the groundwork for what's now unfolding. Arguably it may have been better for them to rip the bandade off in 2014 when Ukraine barely even had much of a military. Russia wasn't economically ready for the assault they've had to withstand from the US & their minions though I don't think.
(Old Spike)
Post a clip, the crux..... is where you take a qiant squat over spiked and just shit over everything. I have some shame for my druken rablings.........i know when i fucked up.
From start to end....... you just been wrong, it should be statistily impossible to consistently be so fucking wrong...... there you are thoug
In other news: got fucked by a beaver....... Reach out to my only fans. beaveerupp the butt.com?
(Site Administrator)
say something of substance if you have any balls, eurocuck
your vague hocus pocus mumbo jumbo voodoo is wasting my pixels
(Old Spike)
Eu is in agreement with it self, gas and oil. They found a price roof for energy! An agreement like never before.There is no energy war in the EU states, anything but!
(Site Moderator)
"pretty much. If I'm being generous it'd be as low as 75% but really it's more like 90-95% their doing imo."
Maybe the Ukrainians have it wrong then. They shouldn't be fighting the people leveling their cities but the yanks.
"I don't think I've posted anything about Russia on here."
This is again where basic self reflection skill would be required.
"There's been needless death & suffering going back to at least 2014. Zelensky even made fun of it.."
Maybe Putin can do a similar skit? Plenty of material to go with.
(Site Administrator)
"Maybe the Ukrainians have it wrong then. They shouldn't be fighting the people leveling their cities but the yanks."
It all depends on who you call "the Ukrainians". The country is divided along ethnic & political lines. If Donbass is supposed to be part of Ukraine why have they been fighting the Kyiv regime since 2014 and side with Russia? Are they Ukrainians or nah? They don't want any part of this "Ukraine" business, they want out. Crimeans never wanted to be part of an independent Ukraine, which is why they were eventually granted autonomous status in the 1990s, just to stay as part of it & not rock the boat. The Kyiv regime claims Crimea but they're not Ukrainians there & never have been.
The rest of Ukraine can make their choices. Many have fled, around 10 million so far, roughly. Some are willing to fight the Russian side & I don't blame them. Many have been conscripted & don't really have a choice. Fighting-age men (up to 60 years old) were banned from leaving the country & then it changed to a fee of $5k to leave which not everyone can afford.
One more reality check: Ukraine is providing the cannon fodder but NATO is the one actually fighting Russia. They've so far provided 9X Ukraine's annual military budget worth of military assistance this year, are providing NATO's advanced intelligence apparatus, command & control assistance & a host of other things, many of which are more advanced than what Russia has. 8 years ago Ukraine barely had a military & amongst those who were part of it the morale was devastatingly low. That's another reason it could have been a better option for Russia to intervene back then. That Nazi battalions were just thugs back then, not trained up to NATO standards & equipped with deadly force & incorporated into a US/NATO-led military.
Also, their cities aren't being levelled. Mariupol was an exception & it's currently being rebuilt. It wasn't as bad there as what US/NATO's done to many places like Fallujah, Mosul or Raqqa. None of which they made any effort to rebuild & in Raqqa they didn't even make an effort dispose of dangerous ordinance or deal with the dead bodies.
"This is again where basic self reflection skill would be required."
Right back at ya. Maybe reflect on why you keep defaulting to moralistic view when none of this really has to do with that framework but the media is all about it & giving a completely skewed interpretation of the facts, often resorting to outright disinfo. It's so controlled that RT was blanket banned right across the West at the onset. I'm bringing some different perspectives to this site, you have enough cartoonish Western propaganda spam on here already, none of which I've ever seen you take issue with.
6 months ago you were insisting that Ukraine has a right to join NATO (which was the common narrative at the time, which by pure coincidence you happened to repeat) & therefore should be able to if they want, despite any objections Russia may have ... I'm wondering if you still hold that view?
(Site Moderator)
"It all depends on who you call "the Ukrainians"".
Ok lets just say people inside of Ukraine borders who don't want to be invaded by Russia.
"Also, their cities aren't being levelled. Mariupol was an exception...."
Keep on spinning. Love hearing your balanced, unbiased, not-picking-a-side analysis of the situation :)
"Right back at ya. Maybe reflect on why you keep defaulting to moralistic view when none of this really has to do with that framework..."
Nothing to do with that "framework"?
Yeah it's all about how you want to frame it, isn't it. Like a politician who is far removed from the reality thats happening on the battlefield.
It's fine if you don't want to question the morality of war, just don't expect everyone to agree with that. It's nicer to think in terms geopolitics than it's with innocent people being blasted to bits.
"6 months ago you were insisting that Ukraine has a right to join NATO (which was the common narrative at the time, which by pure coincidence you happened to repeat)"
If all the NATO nations agree to take them in and they meet the requirements then they have that right, yes.
I've said many times that it's very unlikely to happen and would be better if it didn't. The US has been pushing this a long time but theres always been resistance and for good reason.
Currently Ukraine is too corrupt to join NATO and would actually have Russia have their way with this.
(Site Administrator)
> "Also, their cities aren't being levelled. Mariupol was an exception...."
"Keep on spinning."
LOL. You're so full of it. Not only was your "Ukrainian cities are being levelled" just a spin job, you had to cut out the comparison I made to cities that were actually leveled & the fact that Marioupol is being rebuilt rn which undermines your argument. It's like this is the first war you've paid attention to, you don't know what you're seeing, you take Western press spin as gospel, and your response is just as they intended (moral outrage directed at Russia). Ukrainian cities are not being leveled. Stop overreacting to the fakenews.
"It's nicer to think in terms geopolitics than it's with innocent people being blasted to bits."
you'll never understand the geopolitical aspects if you insist on focusing on the moral outrage of the results without looking past it to find out what the causes are. Really all you're doing with that shallow moralistic framing is trying to politicize the suffering. It's cartoonish. If you care so much about the suffering caused by this NATO proxy war then you must be pissed off that they're directing so many resources into perpetuating it & making no effort at all to reach a negotiated settlement, huh?
"If all the NATO nations agree to take them in and they meet the requirements then they have that right, yes."
Wrong. This doesn't hold up no matter how you want to argue the case. Not even from a legal/technical point of view. You can't enhance your own security at the expense of others. This principle is built into the Helsinki Accords - the foundation of security in Europe for the past handful of decades. We don't even need to look to the 'bear in the woods' analogy but since you accept it we can - you have to at least respect the bear, it's common sense. Anything less is retarded & dangerous. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. For years the yanks have dismissed all of Russia's concerns & US client states have muddled along without sticking to their word - see Minsk Accords.
(Old Spike)
Ukraine has and is getting supplied with weapons that can penetrate deep into Russia ..... what set of rules for these missiles use, no one knows. It's something everyone should worry about.... no hiding from this war, it can turn hot before you wake up and have a chance to reply, how sad would that be...... Imagine a big plume some 1000 miles away and your unable to finish your drivel in time......oopsydaisy, all this time spent on text walls just poof, litteraly the only extention of your life apart from kicking dead pets around (just assuming)
*yawn* enyone else tired?..... Every time i read this guys regurgitated blaaaaah....... *yawns* sweet dreams
(Site Administrator)
(Site Moderator)
"LOL. You're so full of it. Not only was your "Ukrainian cities are being levelled" just a spin job..."
Maybe when I do a Google image seearch it's all just some AI-created conspiracy images of destroyed buildings all around the country. After all, Google is a western company so maybe they are in on it.
Or maybe you just take things too literally. "leveled" doesn't mean an atom bomb kinda of destruction where nothing is left.
Still, it's fun to see how you spin it and try to down play it.
"you'll never understand the geopolitical aspects if you insist on focusing on the moral outrage"
Geopolitics explain the situation and thats fine. What I don't agree is that it SHOULD justify the death & destruction.
As I said, you like to think of the situation like a politician, far removed from the realities of the war. Sitting confy behind his desk. At the other side is the foot soldier in the trences taking a shelling or a civilian who just get caught in the cross fire.
Maybe geopolitics would be different if we put the people responsible for it, in the front lines. You know more in touch at what it's actually to be at war. Though, some of them are afraid to leave their place because of covid.
"Wrong. This doesn't hold up no matter how you want to argue the case."
Like I said I pretty much agree with you on this, but you you seemed to dismiss it.
(Site Administrator)
"it's fun to see how you spin it and try to down play it."
IMO you were being overly dramatic by using that term because it's just not happening (yet). Only Mariupol could fit that description imo. I've paid pretty close attention to it this year & just don't like it being mischaracterized. It's not a defending Russia thing it's just defending reality as I see it.
"As I said, you like to think of the situation like a politician"
no, I look at it analytically & objectively. Poltiicians are sleazebags, more like marketing people, espcially western warmongering politicians who abuse people's empathy with half-truths & falsehoods to support proxy war & imperialism in general.
"Sitting confy behind his desk. At the other side is the foot soldier in the trences taking a shelling or a civilian who just get caught in the cross fire."
I'm well aware. Innocents dying is the most cut n dry worst thing & it happens a lot all over the world. Ukraine isn't the worst place that this is happening, not even close. However the majority of people being harmed in Ukraine is the soldiers. The ratio is like 25:1 or something. It's almost exclusively soldiers copping it, which also sucks but it's less unacceptable for some reason. It all fucking sucks & is a waste but how much do you want me to virtue signal about it on here when we don't even agree on what caused it?
"geopolitics would be different if we put the people responsible for it, in the front lines"
yeah it sucks that isn't the case these days. I would prefer it.
> "Wrong. This doesn't hold up no matter how you want to argue the case."
"Like I said I pretty much agree with you on this, but you you seemed to dismiss it. "
..The "Ukraine has a right to join NATO" is one of the core arguments at the root of the conflict, I'm not at all dismissing your opinion on it - I addressed it & tried to refute what I thought was your strongest argument for it, the legal/technical side. If you wanna put an argument together for it go ahead. Arguing can be a good way to learn.
just FYI, one of the main reasons I dismiss moral arguments or emotional appeal ones is that they're subjective & pretty much a waste of time. Since they're really just personal opinions it goes nowhere when you disagree... plus it doesn't even matter what opinions you or I have, we're just on the sidelines with this stuff. Both our countries are weaponizing Ukraine to fuck with Russia on behalf of the yanks & we probably disagree on whether this is ethical or not.... we'll also both fry if this goes nuclear.... beyond that neither of us is really involved.
(Site Moderator)
"no, I look at it analytically & objectively."
Yes, you keep saying that :D It might be that you truly believe that about yourself.
Maybe if you'd assign more responsibilty to the Russian side, I'd take you more seriously. It all comes off as very one sided. I get it, you want to counter western propaganda, but in the end it just become Russian propaganda.
"but how much do you want me to virtue signal about it on here when we don't even agree on what caused it?"
You don't have to virtue signal at all.
Really the disagreement between us comes down to this. If we have country "X" doing stuff that isn't causing immediate death & destruction but country "Y" doesn't like that and respond with actual death & destruction, I'm assigning more blame to the one that is doing the actual death & destruction, where as with you it's the opposite.
Take this to the extreme to make my point more clear.
Country "Y" has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Country "X" does a pre-emptive nuclear stike to country "Y" because they pose a potential threat.
Things are relatively fine till people start getting paranoid and actually using force.
".The "Ukraine has a right to join NATO" is one of the core arguments at the root of the conflict"
Don't know about the legal/technical side of Ukraine joining NATO. Maybe there is something that would legally prevent it from happening.
Theres a reason though, why countries want to join NATO. Russias just reinforcing that idea by attacking.
(Site Administrator)
"It all comes off as very one sided"
I know what it looks like on here but I don't care. Most on here won't tolerate any straying from the normie western line & say a lot of stupid one-sided shit which I'm happy to push back on without worrying about how it comes off. I also upload shit to put some balance/different perspectives on here. At least you get that it has to do with being a counter to western propaganda (& fw people who've internalized it).
"If we have country "X" doing stuff that isn't causing immediate death & destruction but country "Y" doesn't like that and respond with actual death & destruction, I'm assigning more blame to the one that is doing the actual death & destruction, where as with you it's the opposite."
The death & destruction didn't begin in 2022. It began when the yanks overthrew the Kyiv govt, installed a neo-fascist client regime, supported them in a civil war against a major ethnic minority & moved NATO training facilities in, turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO state despite Russia's insistence that Ukraine joining NATO was a red line.
Russia responded by exhausting every avenue they could to bring about a peaceful settlement centered on the Minsk Accords. These efforts lasted 8 years and that time was being used by Kyiv to build up a NATO-backed military. This was admitted in 2015 by former president Poroshenko and then in 2019 Zelensky announced they were going to attack Donbass again ... they were gearing up to do it when Russia intervened. The videos showing both these things are below:
These admissions from the US client govt in Kyiv show that they were not interested in a negotiated settlement under the Minsk Accords & that the NATO backers of Minsk were not able to force them to honour the agreements they signed. They were the side responsible the violence being the only way for Russia to resolve the situation. In saying that, Russia is not blameless, I just put the lion's share of the blame on the side that brought this situation about, based on what I see as an objective history of events, including the promise not to expand NATO to the east in 1991, NATO's destruction of Serbia in 1999, their support for jihadi rebels in the Chechen wars, their invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, use of jihadis in Syria, thei rdestruction of Libya, Yemen and so on. Who the fuck would want those guys right next door when they refuse to negotiate & their stated aim is to be your enemy????
"Things are relatively fine till people start getting paranoid and actually using force."
Force was being used in Ukraine since 2014. That's relatively fine because Russia doesn't have boots on the ground yet?
"Theres a reason though, why countries want to join NATO. Russias just reinforcing that idea by attacking."
There are reasons why Russia insists NATO doesn't surround them too. If you weigh up the amount of aggression committed by the Russian Federation and by NATO since 1991, it's not even close. NATO is a major destabilizing force in the world & Russia has every right to insist it's not surrounded by it imo, especially in Ukraine and Georgia. Not that it even matters what my opinion is, it's Russia's call & they say nyet on those 2. They've made it crystal clear that those 2 countries joining NATO are redlines for them - but NATO (USA) refused to withdraw their applications... almost like they wanted this proxy war to take place don't you think?