UN resolution towards Peace-keeping mission for Ukraine in the pipeline?

[Mushroom]

No one genocides the Russians in Ukraine better than Putin is doing it now.

Historically, the best nation at killing Russians has been Russia itself.,

 

[Silver Cat]

Actually no. During their Civil War less than 1% of their population was killed. Mongols at 1237-1241 killed roughly 10-20%, Germans at 1941-1945 killed 10-15%, Poles at 1604-1612 killed 25-35% of their population.

 

[Silver Cat]

Good piece of bullshit, dude.

You may not like it, but it's way better than yours.

 

[ESay]

You may not like it, but it's way better than yours.

At least I am not pushing Ukrainian propaganda as you do with Russian one.

 

[Silver Cat]

At least I am not pushing Ukrainian propaganda as you do with Russian one.

Sure you do.
And I'm not pushing Russian propaganda. They really have 'liberated' lands with millions of ethnic Russians with relatively low human losses.

 

[ESay]

Sure you do.
And I'm not pushing Russian propaganda. They really have 'liberated' lands with millions of ethnic Russians with relatively low human losses.

This relatively low human losses now far exceed 8 year long 'genocide of the Russians in Donbas'. Or your propaganda didn't tell you that yet?

 

[Silver Cat]

This relatively low human losses now far exceed 8 year long 'genocide of the Russians in Donbas'. Or your propaganda didn't tell you that yet?

'Better dead than red', you know. It depends on your definition of the word 'losses'. Ukraine lost almost ten million people since 1991. When Ukraine was a part of the USSR it was industrialised, rich and mostly Russian-speaking region. In 2021 it almost became wild lands. Those Russians who were converted into Ukrainians are 'losses' too (from the Russian point of view, of course).

 

[ESay]

'Better dead than red', you know. It depends on your definition of the word 'losses'. Ukraine lost almost ten million people since 1991. When Ukraine was a part of the USSR it was industrialised, rich and mostly Russian-speaking region. In 2021 it almost became wild lands. Those Russians who were converted into Ukrainians are 'losses' too (from the Russian point of view, of course).

What a gibberish. And nevertheless, your dictator killed way more Russians in one year, than 'Ukrainian Nazis genocided' in 8 years.

 

[Mushroom]

They really have 'liberated' lands with millions of ethnic Russians

Coprolite.

By that definition, if all the nations in Africa decided to invade the US, they would be "liberating lands with ethnic Africans".

All you are doing is trying to justify the war. In fact, the same justification in fact that Hitler used.

 

[Silver Cat]

Coprolite.

By that definition, if all the nations in Africa decided to invade the US, they would be "liberating lands with ethnic Africans".

All you are doing is trying to justify the war. In fact, the same justification in fact that Hitler used.

Yes. May be, their propaganda will say so. Same way Latin America will try to excuse their invasion in the USA with words about defense of their Spanish-speaking brothers, and same way as the USA 'defended' English-speaking colonists in Northern Mexico back in 1846 or ethnic Albanians in Serbia back in 1999.
It's a common thing. "We Russian-speakers, [English-speakers, Spanish-speakers, White People, Black People, Democrats, Royalists whoever else] are good, and they Ukrainian Nazies, [Spanish-speaking nationalist, Savages, Crasaders, Dirty Commies, whoever else] are bad. Therefore our war is justiful and we ready to spill our blood until reaching our goal"

Back in 1846 American didn't think if suppression and discrimination of WASPs in Mexico was justiful or not. They liberated English-speaking regions and paid the price of blood for it. Same way, the Russians think, that the current price of Novorussia liberation is more than acceptable.

 

[Mushroom]

May be, their propaganda will say so. Same way Latin America will try to excuse their invasion in the USA

Look, this is an area that is about reality, so how about sticking to reality?

If you want to spin all these elaborate fantasies that are only possible in your own mind, how about taking it elsewhere? Either conspiracy theory area, or maybe a fantasy one. But what you are saying is completely devoid of any kind of reality, and this is really not the place for your fantasies.

 

[Silver Cat]

Look, this is an area that is about reality, so how about sticking to reality?

If you want to spin all these elaborate fantasies that are only possible in your own mind, how about taking it elsewhere? Either conspiracy theory area, or maybe a fantasy one. But what you are saying is completely devoid of any kind of reality, and this is really not the place for your fantasies.

Ok. Mexican War was in reality, wasn't it? It's a good analogy of the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict. English-speaking population, discriminated and supressed by Spanish-speaking government, declaration of independence, invasion from the bigger northern neighbour. De jure, there is no difference between declaration of independence of Texas, and declaration of independece of DPR.

 

[Mushroom]

Ok. Mexican War was in reality, wasn't it? It's a good analogy of the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict. English-speaking population, discriminated and supressed by Spanish-speaking government, declaration of independence, invasion from the bigger northern neighbour. De jure, there is no difference between declaration of independence of Texas, and declaration of independece of DPR.

Oh good god, you have no idea about history, do you? Hell, you are trying to mash together two totally different conflicts over a decade apart as if they were a single conflict. And doing it very-very badly.

First of, was what became the Texas Revolution. As an FYI, not only was the US not involved in that at all, it was part of a much larger war that consumed all of Mexico known as the "Mexican Federalist War". It essentially was between different waring sides in Mexico, some favoring a single leader much in the way it had been under Spain who had complete autonomy like a King. The others wanted a Federal government, with a limited government in the style of the US.

In 1935, the Federalists unified behind Anastasio Bustamante, and the Centrists unified behind President General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. And it was not only "English Speaking" groups that revolted, you also had the Republica del Rio Grande, and the Republica de Yucatan. The first major battle of that was the Battle of Zacatecas, in which became a pattern that Santa Anna would continue to follow both those that surrendered as well as those not involved in the battle were slaughtered. That was about six months before Texas itself revolted, and it was incidents like that and others that followed that led them to revolt.

You are so very-very wrong. This was a major internal conflict in Mexico, and it started in the southern part of the country. And the US was not involved at all. And the Mexicans under Santa Anna were as happy to slaughter other Mexicans as they later would be when facing against the whites in the north. And at the end of that war, Santa Anna was captured, and forced to recognize the independence of Texas.

Texas would remain an independent nation for almost a decade, but a decade later Santa Anna rose to power again, and once again Mexico was in a state of revolt. And in 1842 staged an expedition into Texas, culminating in the Dawson Massacre after he repudiated the treaty and decided to take it back by force. Which culminated at San Antonio, where Santa Anna refused to accept the surrender and continued to shell the fort until all were wounded or dead.

Notice, this is 1842. 8 years after Texas won their independence. But by that time the rest of the country was once again in revolution so he returned home to put down uprisings in multiple other Mexican states, including Yucatan and Laredo.

The Mexican-American War was the one the US was involved in. That was in 1946. And after almost a decade of talks, Texas agreed to allow itself to be annexed into the US. And for the forth time, Santa Anna raised an army and invaded. But at that time, Texas was a part of the US so it was the US that responded.

Wow. you completely and utterly scream your lack of knowledge of any real history at all. Especially as you are actually combining two very different wars over a decade apart. Tell me, do you also confuse WWI and WWII, and try to tell people that Germany beat back the forces of the Czar until all of Europe attacked when Hitler rose to power? Because that is more or less what you just did.

Sorry, I can't take you at all seriously anymore. When you can't even tell the difference between the Mexican Civil War and Texas Revolution from the Mexican-American War, I know you are just making things up.

 

[Silver Cat]

Oh good god, you have no idea about history, do you? Hell, you are trying to mash together two totally different conflicts over a decade apart as if they were a single conflict. And doing it very-very badly.

First of, was what became the Texas Revolution. As an FYI, not only was the US not involved in that at all, it was part of a much larger war that consumed all of Mexico known as the "Mexican Federalist War". It essentially was between different waring sides in Mexico, some favoring a single leader much in the way it had been under Spain who had complete autonomy like a King. The others wanted a Federal government, with a limited government in the style of the US.

In 1935, the Federalists unified behind Anastasio Bustamante, and the Centrists unified behind President General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. And it was not only "English Speaking" groups that revolted, you also had the Republica del Rio Grande, and the Republica de Yucatan. The first major battle of that was the Battle of Zacatecas, in which became a pattern that Santa Anna would continue to follow both those that surrendered as well as those not involved in the battle were slaughtered. That was about six months before Texas itself revolted, and it was incidents like that and others that followed that led them to revolt.

You are so very-very wrong. This was a major internal conflict in Mexico, and it started in the southern part of the country. And the US was not involved at all. And the Mexicans under Santa Anna were as happy to slaughter other Mexicans as they later would be when facing against the whites in the north. And at the end of that war, Santa Anna was captured, and forced to recognize the independence of Texas.

Texas would remain an independent nation for almost a decade, but a decade later Santa Anna rose to power again, and once again Mexico was in a state of revolt. And in 1842 staged an expedition into Texas, culminating in the Dawson Massacre after he repudiated the treaty and decided to take it back by force. Which culminated at San Antonio, where Santa Anna refused to accept the surrender and continued to shell the fort until all were wounded or dead.

Notice, this is 1842. 8 years after Texas won their independence. But by that time the rest of the country was once again in revolution so he returned home to put down uprisings in multiple other Mexican states, including Yucatan and Laredo.

The Mexican-American War was the one the US was involved in. That was in 1946. And after almost a decade of talks, Texas agreed to allow itself to be annexed into the US. And for the forth time, Santa Anna raised an army and invaded. But at that time, Texas was a part of the US so it was the US that responded.

Wow. you completely and utterly scream your lack of knowledge of any real history at all. Especially as you are actually combining two very different wars over a decade apart. Tell me, do you also confuse WWI and WWII, and try to tell people that Germany beat back the forces of the Czar until all of Europe attacked when Hitler rose to power? Because that is more or less what you just did.

Sorry, I can't take you at all seriously anymore. When you can't even tell the difference between the Mexican Civil War and Texas Revolution from the Mexican-American War, I know you are just making things up.

Yes. That's the point. Ukrainian conflict wasn't started in 2022 out of blue, too.
There was 'Orange Revolution' back in 2004, won by pro-EU group, there were presidential elections of 2010 won by pro-Russian Yanukovich, there was 'revolution of dignity' in 2014, there were declarations of independence in Crymean Republic, Donetsk and Lugansk People Republic in the same year, there were brutal suppression of the Russian Spring in Kharkov, Dniepr and Odessa (including Odessa Massacre), there was annexation of Crymea and so on...

Do you really think, that people in Texas or California have right to declare independence (and then - rejoin with their kind) and people in Crimea and Donbass - don't have ?

 

[frigidweirdo]

In regards to the Chinese peace proposal I had already forwarded a week ago, that IMO - China's aim is very likely to point out the UN's responsibility towards ending wars.

In today's German news Media, it has been reported that members of the German national security council held a meeting in this regard.
Following a political talk-show having the same topic the day before.
Attendants were high ranking representatives of major German political parties.

It was in general positively taken into view , that indeed a UN resolution for a Peace-keeping mission should be brought onto way
Participants in this peace-keeping force would most likely be recruited from BRICS member states e.g. China. India and Brazil

It would make sense, since it is viewed as an additional safety guarantee, in regards for Russia not likely to order attacks onto an UN peace-keeping force consisting of BRICS members.

It would further enhance the chance for the UN to set the basis to enact "the peoples right for self-determination" since in an UN controlled and stabilized environment free and unhindered polls could be conducted. According to the UN Charter "the peoples right to self-determination" is clearly set above maybe wanted or dictated decisions by governments represented via Kiev or Moscow in regards to the inhabitants of Crimea, Donbass etc.

Immediate negative reaction came only from the Ukrainian side also including Ukraines Deputy foreign minister, refuting the idea with the argument, that Ukrainians never wanted such a peoples referendum.

China didn't go and speak with the Ukraine, that's how interested they are in a peace deal where Russia doesn't win all.

 

[Mushroom]

Yes. That's the point. Ukrainian conflict wasn't started in 2022 out of blue, too.

I see, you get caught with your pants down because you do not know history, then spin it in another direction entirely.

 

[themirrorthief]

I see, you get caught with your pants down because you do not know history, then spin it in another direction entirely.

you UN is just another organization scamming big bucks from USA

 

[Kruska]

China didn't go and speak with the Ukraine, that's how interested they are in a peace deal where Russia doesn't win all.

How would you know? obviously they. have, since Zelinsky has reacted positive towards China's proposal and a meeting between him and Xi is being scheduled.
Unless the USA threatens him with cutting down support - he will meet.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How would you know? obviously they. have, since Zelinsky has reacted positive towards China's proposal and a meeting between him and Xi is being scheduled.
Unless the USA threatens him with cutting down support - he will meet.

Zelensky is trying to do anything and everything to put his country is a better position, and no war is clearly a better position. So if China says it wants peace, then with peace talks going on Russia would have to stop fighting.

The Chinese foreign minister went to Europe, spoke with Putin, spoke to France, Germany, Hungary and Italy. Not the Ukraine. How can you talk about peace talks, and go to only one of the two sides, the one side that you happen to be very friendly with? The one side you gave support to in the war?

 

[Kruska]

Zelensky is trying to do anything and everything to put his country is a better position, and no war is clearly a better position. So if China says it wants peace, then with peace talks going on Russia would have to stop fighting.

The Chinese foreign minister went to Europe, spoke with Putin, spoke to France, Germany, Hungary and Italy. Not the Ukraine. How can you talk about peace talks, and go to only one of the two sides, the one side that you happen to be very friendly with? The one side you gave support to in the war?

How would you or I in that matter know as to what discussions were held on what level between China and Ukraine?

China does not support Russia, that's Western bull...propaganda - China has stayed and is neutral in this matter. China has not voted pro or contra in the UN - it has abstained
from casting a vote. It's therefore absolutely NEUTRAL.

Taking e.g. your mindset into account; China is supporting NATO since it did not vote in Russia's favor via opposing the UN resolution.

"But China’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Dai Bing, told the assembly Thursday: “We support Russia and Ukraine in moving towards each other. ... The international community should make joint efforts to facilitate peace talks.”

China unlike NATO and the EU however has openly and clearly addressed the linchpin in this Ukraine/Russia issue - NATO expansion eastwards. Unless NATO signals it's willingness to stop it's eastward expansion - what is China or anyone else supposed to talk to Russia about?