Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Russians say that it is West violated and not fulfilled every previous agreements. And they have pretty good reasons to think so.Russia has violated every previous agreement it made with Ukraine, so there is no reason to expect that a new agreement will lead to peace.
Actually, the war is winnable. Russia can occupy the whole Ukraine (and if necessary - significant part of Europe) as she did many times before.This war can end in only two ways: either Ukraine will surrender and except another brutal Russian occupation or Russia will finally decide the cost of the war is too great and withdraw in the hope of being able to do business with the rest of the world again.
The war is unwinnable by either side on the battlefield. While it is unlikely Ukraine can drive Russia back across the border, no part of the land Russia controls will be safe from Ukrainian attacks.
It took 20 million soldiers and 83K tanks to stop '3rd EU' expansion previous time. The current Russian losses are not even close to those numbers.imo there are two schools to opposing the US having any role in this. 1) Those who simply oppose any international force by the US ... despite Trump involving us in Yemen. The opposition is inconsistent, imo.
2) Those who believe Nato and/or Ukraine incited Russia's invasion. I think you and I would agree that Putin at age 70 simply decided the time was ripe, after Trump and Nato, to reacquire Ukraine that should never been allowed to think it could escape russia's orbit. And assuming Russia had overrun Ukraine, Moldova would have been next up. Followed by the former Prussia and Baltic states.
But I agree that any "settlement" to hostilities that Russia would make is just a false flag and a ruse to just buy Russia time to regroup.
But the question remains ... how does it end?
imo, the Baltics and newer Nato members are right .... Russia has to be seen, and Russians have to come to acknowledge, Russia lost.... something beyond 15K dead and a 1000 tanks or whatever the numbers actually are.
Actually, there are plenty of people who believe that the most important goal of American presence in Europe is to prevent ressurection of European Nazism (as well as the most important goal in Middle East is elimination of Jihadistes and terrorists). And for either goals we can cooperate (or, at least, coordinate our actions) with the Russians. And yes, really democratical solution of the Ukrainian conflict (and,wider, of the European security crisis) is granting equal rights (first of all linguistic rights) for the Russians, Tatars, Hungarians and Jews in Ukraine and in the liberalisation of the EU market.imo there are two schools to opposing the US having any role in this. 1) Those who simply oppose any international force by the US ... despite Trump involving us in Yemen. The opposition is inconsistent, imo.
2) Those who believe Nato and/or Ukraine incited Russia's invasion. I think you and I would agree that Putin at age 70 simply decided the time was ripe, after Trump and Nato, to reacquire Ukraine that should never been allowed to think it could escape russia's orbit. And assuming Russia had overrun Ukraine, Moldova would have been next up. Followed by the former Prussia and Baltic states.
But I agree that any "settlement" to hostilities that Russia would make is just a false flag and a ruse to just buy Russia time to regroup.
But the question remains ... how does it end?
imo, the Baltics and newer Nato members are right .... Russia has to be seen, and Russians have to come to acknowledge, Russia lost.... something beyond 15K dead and a 1000 tanks or whatever the numbers actually are.
Only those oligarchs who supported the war criminal, Putin, are losing their property if it is in the free world.
Yes. From their point of view - the stake is the very existence of the Russian people (or at least twenty million Russians in Ukraine).The problem with that is all indications are that Putin has adopted Stalin's policies. He doesn't give a damn about Russian lives. He'll be willing to lose millions of Russian soldiers in order to win in Ukraine, and the Ukrainian army can not sustain that.
The Russian high command (as well as ordinary soldiers) prefer to kill enemies of the Russian people i.e. western-backed Ukrainian militants and western mercenaries. And they are eager to kill Western soldiers as well.We can hope that some one in the Russian high command has the balls to give Putin a 9mm retirement, but that's unlikely.
You see, in the case of NATO occupation of the lands West from Dniepr - the Russians will, at least, use their proxies against NATO forces and, it will be full scale guerilla war, in which ordinary American soldiers can't see the difference between a Russian and an Ukrainian at all, and often will try to shoot them all just to survive. And the things can go really ugly with all those western ATGMs and Manpads (say nothing about tanks and jets) in the hands of irregulars with unclear loyalty. It will be much worse than Vietnam by itself, but what is much worse, it can easily and even almost inevitablely escalate to the level of a regional nuclear war.If NATO controlled all of Ukraine West of the Dnieper river, it would be a severe defeat for Putin. His dream of conquering Ukraine would be dead. Meanwhile, it would free up massive amounts of Ukrainian military resources to fight in Eastern Ukraine.
As usual you post nothing but bullshit. In 1990, Russia recognized Ukraine as an independent sovereign nation which included Crimea, and few years later signed a long term lease with Ukraine to keep its naval base in Crimea. In 1994, Russia signed a treaty that recognized these same Ukrainian borders and pledged to never violate them unless Russia was directly attacked. But this was before Putin came to power and now that Putin has demonstrated his contempt for international law and international treaties, only an idiot would suggest this war can be ended with a treaty signed by Putin's government.The Russians say that it is West violated and not fulfilled every previous agreements. And they have pretty good reasons to think so.
Actually, the war is winnable. Russia can occupy the whole Ukraine (and if necessary - significant part of Europe) as she did many times before.
Clearly, you're drinking way too much vodka.Tomorrow they'll try to steal property of Trump supporters or any other kind of opposition - 'homophobes', 'climate-sceptics', 'Christians', 'weapon-owners' and so on...
Actually, back in 1990, NATO promised do not expand eastward.As usual you post nothing but bullshit. In 1990, Russia recognized Ukraine as an independent sovereign nation which included Crimea, and few years later signed a long term lease with Ukraine to keep its naval base in Crimea. In 1994, Russia signed a treaty that recognized these same Ukrainian borders and pledged to never violate them unless Russia was directly attacked. But this was before Putin came to power and now that Putin has demonstrated his contempt for international law and international treaties, only an idiot would suggest this war can be ended with a treaty signed by Putin's government.
en.news-front.info
The Russia army has always been crap and has lost every major war since it was humiliated by the Japanese in 1905. In WWI Russian soldiers fled from the battlefield abandoning the treaties with the allies. In WWII, Russia was humiliated and defeated by the Germans, so that the US had to send Russia weapons and food and even uniforms until new military factories could be built beyond the Urals out of range of German bombers, but even them the Russian army couldn't win a battle until the US and UK bombed out German military factories in early 1943 so that Germany could no longer replace what it lost on the battlefield. As the remnants of the German army retreated west Russia simply changed the Nazi flags in eastern Europe with Russian flags and replaced the brutal, barbaric Nazi occupation of eastern Europe with a brutal, barbaric Russian occupation until the corruption and incompetence of the military and civilian leadership of Russia forced the dissolution of the USSR.
With this invasion of Ukraine Putin's Russia has demonstrated a level of incompetence that has astonished military experts around the world, and since Putin is firing his generals left and right, clearly even this slow witted little gangster has finally realized Russia's army is still crap. With Putin's army struggling to hold on to what little ground it is presently occupying only an idiot would suggest Russia could occupy all of Ukraine let alone eastern Europe.
There you go again, drooling out more Putin bullshit. The article you posted stated that there was an agreement among some NATO members not to accepted applications for membership from eastern European nations recently freed from a 45 year brutal Russian occupation, but it says nothing about an agreement with Russia regarding the issue. Gorbachev has been clear that there never was an agreement between the USSR and NATO or the US.Actually, back in 1990, NATO promised do not expand eastward.
Der Spiegel: Official document confirms that NATO promised not to expand eastwards
Vladimir Putin had earlier claimed that Moscow had been “hoodwinked and brazenly deceived” by Western countries by promising that NATO would not expand “not one inch eastwards”. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, however, vehemently claimed that no one had made such promises to the USSR It...
NATO did bombing campaign against Serbia, committed aggression against Iraq, invaded Syria, provoked Georgian aggression against South Ossetia (including attack against Russian peacekeepers and civilians), backed illegal coup in Ukraine, violated treaty between Maidan and Yanukovich, discriminated Russian in Ukrainian, violated Ukrainian Constitution by sending regular forces against Ukrainian civilians, didn't fulfilled Minsk agreements, violated Russia-NATO treaty and so on...
And no, we can see at the example of Georgia and Syria, that Russia can sign peace treaties and de-escalate situation.
Right now Russian Army don't fight a war at all. It's just a 'special operation' something like Chechnya or Syria. And yes, if the things will be getting serious, they easily can escalate to the levels of local, regional or even large-scale war.
Agreement or not, but the situation was pretty clear - if the West endanger Russia, Russia can fight back. The expansion of NATO (especially in the way of an anti-Russian crusade) endanger, first of all, Western countries.There you go again, drooling out more Putin bullshit. The article you posted stated that there was an agreement among some NATO members not to accepted applications for membership from eastern European nations recently freed from a 45 year brutal Russian occupation, but it says nothing about an agreement with Russia regarding the issue. Gorbachev has been clear that there never was an agreement between the USSR and NATO or the US.
Again, you express Putin's utter contempt for international laws and treaties. The only justification for an attack on another nation is an actual or imminent attack on Russia by that nation, and no such act occurred. NATO did not aggressively expand; it decided to allow eastern European nations that had suffered under a brutal Russian occupation to apply and join NATO to protect themselves from the Russia they had learned to hate and feat. There never was a direct security threat to Russia.Agreement or not, but the situation was pretty clear - if the West endanger Russia, Russia can fight back. The expansion of NATO (especially in the way of an anti-Russian crusade) endanger, first of all, Western countries.
and the US isn't. The US has been the most warring country in the history of the world.You are another Putin puppet. Nothing but lies. Putin could have entered talks to a mutual non-aggression pact. Putin is a thug who only believes in military might.
www.counterpunch.org
You're sort of on the right track.....
Of course no. There are plenty of possible reasons for military invasion in other countries, de facto accepted by the West:Again, you express Putin's utter contempt for international laws and treaties. The only justification for an attack on another nation is an actual or imminent attack on Russia by that nation, and no such act occurred.
Sure it was, and it still is. You see, the Russians learned to fight European invaders pretty well and they are trying to stop them now. And yes, Europeans already discriminate and kill ethnic Russians.NATO did not aggressively expand; it decided to allow eastern European nations that had suffered under a brutal Russian occupation to apply and join NATO to protect themselves from the Russia they had learned to hate and feat. There never was a direct security threat to Russia.
Such arguments can be made but the fact remains that under international law only an actual or imminent attack is justification for an attack on another nation. Yet again you express your contempt for international law and international treaties.Of course no. There are plenty of possible reasons for military invasion in other countries, de facto accepted by the West:
1) If a country join another military block and create a threat - as it was in Cuba;
2) If a country have it's own WMD program as it was with Iraq (and still possible to be in Iran);
3) If a country commit genocide of local minorities - as it was with Serbia;
4) If a leader of the country is a 'dictator' as it was in Libya.
In fact, the Russians used all those excuses, but what is even more important, they did recognize DPR and LPR and signed a treaty about collective self-defense (as Western countries did with Kosovo). Therefore, the Ukrainian attacks against DPR and LPR were pretty equal Ukrainian attacks against Russian Federation itself.
Sure it was, and it still is. You see, the Russians learned
Of course no. There are plenty of possible reasons for military invasion in other countries, de facto accepted by the West:
1) If a country join another military block and create a threat - as it was in Cuba;
2) If a country have it's own WMD program as it was with Iraq (and still possible to be in Iran);
3) If a country commit genocide of local minorities - as it was with Serbia;
4) If a leader of the country is a 'dictator' as it was in Libya.
In fact, the Russians used all those excuses, but what is even more important, they did recognize DPR and LPR and signed a treaty about collective self-defense (as Western countries did with Kosovo). Therefore, the Ukrainian attacks against DPR and LPR were pretty equal Ukrainian attacks against Russian Federation itself.
Sure it was, and it still is. You see, the Russians learned to fight European invaders pretty well and they are trying to stop them now. And yes, Europeans already discriminate and kill ethnic Russians.
to fight European invaders pretty well and they are trying to stop them now. And yes, Europeans already discriminate and kill ethnic RussianTj
Everything that I said is true.You may denie the reality, but it's not a really good way to survive in the real world.
Perhaps Putin's wishful thinking that NATO will not stand up to him and resist his aggression.Actually, the wishful thinking caused significant part of our problems.
Russia has already failed badly in their attempt to occupy all of Ukraine.Actually, the war is winnable. Russia can occupy the whole Ukraine (and if necessary - significant part of Europe) as she did many times before.
The expansion of NATO does not endanger anyone in either Russia or the West. All the expansion does is protect more people from Russian aggression.Agreement or not, but the situation was pretty clear - if the West endanger Russia, Russia can fight back. The expansion of NATO (especially in the way of an anti-Russian crusade) endanger, first of all, Western countries.
What collective defense treaty has Kosovo signed?In fact, the Russians used all those excuses, but what is even more important, they did recognize DPR and LPR and signed a treaty about collective self-defense (as Western countries did with Kosovo). Therefore, the Ukrainian attacks against DPR and LPR were pretty equal Ukrainian attacks against Russian Federation itself.
As I said, there are reasons for invasion de facto acceptable by the Western countries. Second, de jure Ukraine attacked DPR and LPR (recognized by Russia as independent states) and it was equal to the direct attack against Russian Federation itself.Such arguments can be made but the fact remains that under international law only an actual or imminent attack is justification for an attack on another nation. Yet again you express your contempt for international law and international treaties.
I have read that the West of Ukraine now looks down on the East in general thinking of them derogatively as 'slavs' but the Tartars are something else. They are the people who are the most Indigenous to Crimea. They were forced out after WW2 then allowed to come back after the break of the Soviet Union and since the take over by Russia in 2014 they are being forced out again. Most of them are fighting on the side of Ukraine in this war.The problem is that it matters for the citizens of Ukraine. Ethnic Ukrainians from the western regions do not consider ethnic Russians, Jews and Tatars from the Souther and Eastern Ukraine as Ukrainians. They try to force them to speak Ukrainian language only, because the language matters for them.
In democratic countries this problem usually solve by giving a some sort of cultural autonomy (like Quebec in Canada) or other forms of human right protection like the second state language (like Sweden language in Finland). But sometimes, as it was in Ukraine in 2014 one political, cultural or ethnic group start discrimination or even terror against another, and some times, those terrorised and discriminated groups (like Turks in Cyprus or Kosovars in Serbia) ask other states to protect them.
Just try to imagine scenario, in which after Shanghai Block backed coup in Canada, French-speakers establish French as the only legal language in Canada and start terror against English-speakers, calling them Americans and forcing to speak French only. Don't you think, that then English-speakers will fight back and American volunteers and, later, US government will defend them?
www.voanews.com
In April 2019, the Ukrainian parliament voted a new law, the Law of Ukraine "to ensure the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the State language". On 16 June 2019, the law entered into force. The law made the use of Ukrainian compulsory (totally or within certain quotas) in the work of some public authorities, in the electoral procedures and political campaigning, in pre-school, school and university education, in scientific, cultural and sporting activities, in book publishing and book distribution, in printed mass media, television and radio broadcasting, in economic and social life (commercial advertising, public events), in hospitals and nursing homes, and in the activities of political parties and other legal entities (e.g. non-governmental organizations) registered in Ukraine.[16] Some special exemptions are provided for the Crimean Tatar language, other languages of indigenous peoples of Ukraine, the English language and the other official languages of the European Union; as languages of minorities that are not EU official languages, Russian, Byelorussian and Yiddish are excluded from the exemptions.[16]
A long-term ban on the study of the Crimean Tatar language following the deportation of the Crimean Tatars by the Soviet government has led to the fact that at the moment UNESCO ranked the Crimean Tatar language among the languages under serious threat of extinction (severely endangered).[/quote]
Crimean Tatar language - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
