Will Putin "Stop after Ukraine"?

[Stann]

Russia’s only chance at worthwhile future is a definitive defeat in Ukraine, rejection of Putinism and acceptance of guilt the way Germany has accepted and internalized guilt.

All of which is unlikely.

Unfortunately , it's going to kill what's left of Russia. That's what fear , ignorance and hatred does , it destroys.

 

[Stann]

WRONG!

The Ukraine was never "taken by force" by Russia.
The Ukraine IS the original Russia, from around 900 AD to 1250 AD when the Mongols invaded.

In 1600, the largest and most aggressive evil country in Europe was POLAND!
Poland is the invader in the Ukraine.
But the native Russians finally defeated the Polish invaders around 1700.

But the Russians did not force the defeated Polish to leave, so their descendants are still the majority in western Ukraine.
That does not mean the ethnic Polish have any rights to the country that essentially IS Russia.
The Polish are NOT at all native.
The natives are all Russian.

The treaties said that Russia was to have use of Sevastopol forever, that the Ukraine was to never join an alliance hostile to Russia, and that native Russians would never be abused.
All 3 of these essential treaty points were violated by the Kyiv, and they essentially declared war by then also cutting off negotiations.

You have warped sense of history. NATO is not hostile to Russia. However it is hostile to nations that attempt to interfere with other nations right to exist and invade them. There's nothing good about what Putin's fears and paranoia against the West are doing to Russia and everyone else in the world.

 

[Nobody911]

It is a common theme of the Uniparty that when Putin is done with Ukraine, he will invade and attack some other country, then on and on until he re-establishes the old USSR.

In my tiny little mind, there is a major factor in this scenario that has not been given full consideration, and it is this:

Putin wouldn't dare attack a NATO country!

Doing so would unleash a firestorm that would render his pathetic fiefdom into a massive Stone Age village. And he must know that.

As for the dozens of little shit-hole countries that surround the Russian Federation, who really gives a shit if he invades them?

In short, the main threat cited by the Uniparty is nonsense. Our actions w/r/t Ukraine should focus on that situation entirely, and the solution will not be had with more funding, but rather forcing both parties to the bargaining table, knowing that neither one is going to get everything it wants.

There is no definitive proof or consensus among experts that Putin's ultimate goal is to re-establish the old USSR by invading and attacking other countries. It is important to approach this topic with caution and rely on verified information.

While it is true that Russia has been involved in conflicts and territorial disputes in recent years, such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, the motivations behind these actions are complex and multifaceted. Experts have provided various explanations for Russia's actions, including geopolitical considerations, historical ties, and national security concerns (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...hink-tank-reports-on-the-invasion-of-ukraine/).

Putin has publicly stated that he respects Ukrainians' desire for sovereignty and partnership with Russia. Additionally, the idea that Putin will continue to invade and attack other countries until he re-establishes the old USSR is a speculative claim that lacks concrete evidence.

It is important to approach discussions about international relations and geopolitical events with an open mind and rely on verified information from reputable sources.

Edit: The US military-industrial complex always made tons of money out of conflicts across the world. So, peace is highly unlikely. America First! lol.

 

[Stann]

There is no definitive proof or consensus among experts that Putin's ultimate goal is to re-establish the old USSR by invading and attacking other countries. It is important to approach this topic with caution and rely on verified information.

While it is true that Russia has been involved in conflicts and territorial disputes in recent years, such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, the motivations behind these actions are complex and multifaceted. Experts have provided various explanations for Russia's actions, including geopolitical considerations, historical ties, and national security concerns (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...hink-tank-reports-on-the-invasion-of-ukraine/).

Putin has publicly stated that he respects Ukrainians' desire for sovereignty and partnership with Russia. Additionally, the idea that Putin will continue to invade and attack other countries until he re-establishes the old USSR is a speculative claim that lacks concrete evidence.

It is important to approach discussions about international relations and geopolitical events with an open mind and rely on verified information from reputable sources.

Edit: The US military-industrial complex always made tons of money out of conflicts across the world. So, peace is highly unlikely. America First! lol.

The bottom line has never changed they invaded a sovereign nation.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.

The treaties said no alliances hostile to Russia.
The Ukraine tried to join NATO repeatedly.

The treaties said no abuse of ethnic Russians.
The Ukraine murdered over 30k ethnic Russians.

The treaties said no blockage of Sevastopol.
The Ukraine tried to prevent Russian use of Sevastopol in 2014.

If there were no US backed bribes, then what was Hunter Biden doing getting paid millions for?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.

The treaties said no alliances hostile to Russia.
The Ukraine tried to join NATO repeatedly.

The treaties said no abuse of ethnic Russians.
The Ukraine murdered over 30k ethnic Russians.

The treaties said no blockage of Sevastopol.
The Ukraine tried to prevent Russian use of Sevastopol in 2014.

If there were no US backed bribes, then what was Hunter Biden doing getting paid millions for?

WRONG

There were NEVER any such treaties

You are a liar

Questions are not evidence


You are a liar with no evidence

 

[AntonToo]

Putin has publicly stated that he respects Ukrainians' desire for sovereignty and partnership with Russia. Additionally, the idea that Putin will continue to invade and attack other countries until he re-establishes the old USSR is a speculative claim that lacks concrete evidence.

...Putin has also signed border agreement with Ukraine in 2003. Putin also publicly stated in 2008 that Crimea is part of sovereign Ukraine and that Russia has no claim to any Ukrainian territories.

How many countries Putin has to invade and annex before you realize there is evidence that he has no respect for borders and will keep invading other countries?

Reason for his invasion of Ukraine is quite simple and it has very little to do with NATO.

It has to do with EU - like it was with Poland, successful Ukrainian integration into EU and economic growth would mean that Russia was next. It's people are not going to tollerate Putin's corrupt cleptocratic governing while Ukranians are living better.

 

[Rigby5]

You have warped sense of history. NATO is not hostile to Russia. However it is hostile to nations that attempt to interfere with other nations right to exist and invade them. There's nothing good about what Putin's fears and paranoia against the West are doing to Russia and everyone else in the world.

Wrong, NATO now is still the colonial imperialists, France, England, and the US, that have invaded, abused, and terrorized hundreds of countries over the last century.

NATO has NEVER "defended" anyone, and instead murdered people like in Libya.

Putin's "fears" are totally valid, which is that the US wants to put nukes in the Ukraine, on Russia's border.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong, NATO now is still the colonial imperialists, France, England, and the US, that have invaded, abused, and terrorized hundreds of countries over the last century.

NATO has NEVER "defended" anyone, and instead murdered people like in Libya.

Putin's "fears" are totally valid, which is that the US wants to put nukes in the Ukraine, on Russia's border.

WRONG

NATO ius defensice only.
Your claim is a LIE

They murdered no one in Libya

The US does not want or need to put nukes any where near Russia's border.

 

[Rigby5]

...Putin has also signed border agreement with Ukraine in 2003. Putin also publicly stated in 2008 that Crimea is part of sovereign Ukraine and that Russia has no claim to any Ukrainian territories.

How many countries Putin has to invade and annex before you realize there is evidence that he has no respect for borders and will keep invading other countries?

Reason for his invasion of Ukraine is quite simple and it has very little to do with NATO.

It has to do with EU - like it was with Poland, successful Ukrainian integration into EU and economic growth would mean that Russia was next. It's people are not going to tollerate Putin's corrupt cleptocratic governing while Ukranians are living better.

Wrong.
The border treaties the Ukraine and Russia signed were dependent upon no abuse of ethnic Russians, no interference with the use of Sevastopol, and no alliances hostile to Russia.

By violating those agreements, the Ukraine committed acts of war, and has to now be destroyed.

And by the way, "the Ukraine" means "the borderlands", which is plural, so requires the article "the".
It is only in Ukrainian that no article is used or even possible, Aleks.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
The border treaties the Ukraine and Russia signed were dependent upon no abuse of ethnic Russians, no interference with the use of Sevastopol, and no alliances hostile to Russia.

By violating those agreements, the Ukraine committed acts of war, and has to now be destroyed.

And by the way, "the Ukraine" means "the borderlands", which is plural, so requires the article "the".
It is only in Ukrainian that no article is used or even possible, Aleks.

There were NO such border treaties

Therefore Ukraine violated no such treaty and Putin illegally started the war

 

[Rigby5]

WRONG

NATO ius defensice only.
Your claim is a LIE

They murdered no one in Libya

The US does not want or need to put nukes any where near Russia's border.

Wrong.
Qaddafi sent his troops to quell the unrest in Benghazi, and NATO illegally attacked and destroyed them entirely.

{...
The killing of Muammar Gaddafi took place on 20 October 2011 after the Battle of Sirte. Muammar Gaddafi, the deposed leader of Libya, was found west of Sirte after his convoys were attacked by NATO aircraft, as part of the 2011 NATO military intervention in Libya. He was then captured by National Transitional Council (NTC) forces and killed shortly afterwards.[1]
...}

2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Qaddafi sent his troops to quell the unrest in Benghazi, and NATO illegally attacked and destroyed them entirely.

{...
The killing of Muammar Gaddafi took place on 20 October 2011 after the Battle of Sirte. Muammar Gaddafi, the deposed leader of Libya, was found west of Sirte after his convoys were attacked by NATO aircraft, as part of the 2011 NATO military intervention in Libya. He was then captured by National Transitional Council (NTC) forces and killed shortly afterwards.[1]

That was legal

There was no murder

NATO is strictly defensivbe and your claiom of the US wanting or trying to put nukes on Russias border is a manufactured lie

 

[AntonToo]

There were NO such border treaties

Therefore Ukraine violated no such treaty and Putin illegally started the war

I’ve long ago put that shameless nutbag on ignore.

I don’t know who pays him to be on here and post what he does but he just lies again and again and again about all the same stuff that was proven bullshit to him many times over.

 

[Captain Caveman]

It is a common theme of the Uniparty that when Putin is done with Ukraine, he will invade and attack some other country, then on and on until he re-establishes the old USSR.

In my tiny little mind, there is a major factor in this scenario that has not been given full consideration, and it is this:

Putin wouldn't dare attack a NATO country!

Doing so would unleash a firestorm that would render his pathetic fiefdom into a massive Stone Age village. And he must know that.

As for the dozens of little shit-hole countries that surround the Russian Federation, who really gives a shit if he invades them?

In short, the main threat cited by the Uniparty is nonsense. Our actions w/r/t Ukraine should focus on that situation entirely, and the solution will not be had with more funding, but rather forcing both parties to the bargaining table, knowing that neither one is going to get everything it wants.

If Russia is struggling against Ukraine, have they got the ability/capability to continue onto other countries?

 

[Rigby5]

There were NO such border treaties

Therefore Ukraine violated no such treaty and Putin illegally started the war

That is silly.
Earlier when East Germany wanted to reunite, the ONLY demand was "no eastern expansion of NATO".
That was clearly main stipulation for all countries given independence from the USSR.
And right fully so.
Any country from the USSR joining NATO would be like Russia putting nukes in Mexico or Canada.
It would be an obvious act of war.

 

[Rigby5]

I’ve long ago put that shameless nutbag on ignore.

I don’t know who pays him to be on here and post what he does but he just lies again and again and again about all the same stuff that was proven bullshit to him many times over.

It is not hard to prove you are lying.

{...
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (Home | National Security Archive).
...}

Instead NATO added nearly a dozen former USSR countries.
He lied, the US lied, the Ukraine lied, you lied.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That is silly.
Earlier when East Germany wanted to reunite, the ONLY demand was "no eastern expansion of NATO".
That was clearly main stipulation for all countries given independence from the USSR.
And right fully so.
Any country from the USSR joining NATO would be like Russia putting nukes in Mexico or Canada.
It would be an obvious act of war.

WRONG

There was no stipulation for them to reunite. Russia had no say in it or ability to stop it

The Russians gave no one independance you MORON those nations simpoly left
The US does not want to put nukes on ther border you DUMBASS

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is not hard to prove you are lying.

{...
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (Home | National Security Archive).
...}

Instead NATO added nearly a dozen former USSR countries.
He lied, the US lied, the Ukraine lied, you lied.

That is not a treaty.

Baker and gorbachev are long since gone making such promises moot and irrelevant

YOU are the PROVEN liar

 

[Rigby5]

If Russia is struggling against Ukraine, have they got the ability/capability to continue onto other countries?

The US has supplied the Ukraine with billions worth of the latest US weapons, but Russia has no choice, since the Ukraine is inside the Russian defense grid.
They can never allow the Ukraine to join NATO.
They would have to nuke the US first, if that ever looked like it could happen.