Russia & Ukraine

Master Pu said:
Funniest shit is when Americans come on here to defend their own mainstream media as if it is an example of what uncensored media is supposed to look like. Grow up and smell the roses already, your way of thinking is constantly being manipulated, just differently than in Russia and China. In America you have Matrix which you are a part of.

This part of the movie is about you, the blind that aren’t aware that they are blind who are led by the blind who jointly believe that they have democracy, whereas in reality you were given toys to play with so you feel good about your life and the actual truth is often not what you are being spoon fed.

More...

You do understand the entire matrix movie is an allegory for being transgender and the red pill is actually “truth” of Neo being transgender.

FYI: the directors are transgender women who have spoken about this at length.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53692435

But please continue to tell us about how you take the red pill. Lol.
 
Back in the early 1980s in Ireland, which has a lot of delicious sheep, there was this ad warning by the government every spring.

I showed it to people in Romana recently to get past the language barrier and communicate what the mindset of too many soldiers becomes around civilians.

 
Master Pu said:
When USSR collapsed NATO should have been shut down and replaced with a new alliance that would have included Russia, but no, we can’t have that. So NATO remained and expanded against the promises that were given to not do this and now we have Ukraine conflict. Stop pretending that you care about Ukrainian nation, you really don’t give a f…
More...

No “promises” we’re given that NATO would not accept new members or stay out of former Soviet states. You’re attributing an off of the cuff remark made by one person decades ago. This was never, ever any policy or formal negotiations. Nothing ever existed for what you claim.
 
UsualName said:
No “promises” we’re given that NATO would not accept new members or stay out of former Soviet states. You’re attributing an off of the cuff remark made by one person decades ago. This was never, ever any policy or formal negotiations. Nothing ever existed for what you claim.
More...

Correct.

And the Soviets did not request such language in the treaty.

All sorts of "marketing" comments and aspirations get expressed as part of every deal making process. The current Iran deal or any other deal would be an example. What is settled upon in the language of the treaty or deal is where you end out.

What I object to is all the language here on this forum or elsewhere that caters to Putin by somehow suggesting that pissing Putin off is a violation of international law. It is not. I don't object to it if the purpose is to point out that we should know that certain things would aggravate Putin and cause him to take action but there are some that go beyond that and suggest that Americans or Nato violated international law or something by making Putin feel threatened or uncomfortable by doing things that are not supportive of his long range plans.

It arises in the context of Nato, but also in the context of "if Ukraine joins the EU or continues to act pro-western" we should know that that is unacceptable to Putin so the west is therefore a root cause of the war. Not. Again, pissing Putin off is not a crime and is even desireable at times.

I get that if an abused woman goes out wearing that dress or seeing her friends that have not been pre-approved that her abusing husband might get violent again. But if any portion of Ukraine survives, it will most decidedly be pro-western, and there will be *LOTS* more Nato power/members in the region than before the war- not less. More, not less. And yes that will piss Putin off and we will have to deal with it. And he will have to deal with responses to his dealing with it. Ukraine is a sovereign state. Until it isnt.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Correct.

And the Soviets did not request such language in the treaty.

All sorts of "marketing" comments and aspirations get expressed as part of every deal making process. The current Iran deal or any other deal would be an example. What is settled upon in the language of the treaty or deal is where you end out.

What I object to is all the language here on this forum or elsewhere that caters to Putin by somehow suggesting that pissing Putin off is a violation of international law. It is not. I don't object to it if the purpose is to point out that we should know that certain things would aggravate Putin and cause him to take action but there are some that go beyond that and suggest that Americans or Nato violated international law or something by making Putin feel threatened or uncomfortable by doing things that are not supportive of his long range plans.

It arises in the context of Nato, but also in the context of "if Ukraine joins the EU or continues to act pro-western" we should know that that is unacceptable to Putin so the west is therefore a root cause of the war. Not. Again, pissing Putin off is not a crime and is even desireable at times.

I get that if an abused woman goes out wearing that dress or seeing her friends that have not been pre-approved that her abusing husband might get violent again. But if any portion of Ukraine survives, it will most decidedly be pro-western, and there will be *LOTS* more Nato power/members in the region than before the war- not less. More, not less. And yes that will piss Putin off and we will have to deal with it. And he will have to deal with responses to his dealing with it. Ukraine is a sovereign state. Until it isnt.
More...

You know what never gets discussed is the geography of Russian aggression. The Russian population is mostly located in the west of Russia and they draw resources from the rich western states. Moscow eats your soup, or something like that is said.

But they have virtually no threat from the east on their major population centers. And from the west, invading Russia is damn near impossible due to winter weather - it’s one of the most effective natural defenses of any country.

And that is one of the reasons why the Russians have historically been aggressive- because they are under very little actual threat.

So it’s not so much about pissing off Putin, Putin or whatever Russian leader would most likely act in the same manner, as much as it is about there is very little actual military consequence for their aggression historically. This is just what Russia is by geography.
 
UsualName said:
Y, Putin or whatever Russian leader would most likely act in the same manner,
More...

Yeh, I dunno. Historically they are a confused bunch. They/especially Putin/ admire Peter the Great but Peter the Great was all about making Russia a western country- and yet he ended out going to war with half of them. There are cannons in town squares in the Ukraine left over from when the Swedish Army was there in the 1700's, fighting some earlier- day version of what is going on today.

They and Putin are a confused bunch. They think or "know" that it is the destiny of Russia to achieve greatness but they fuck up everytime they go for it and they do not even know or agree what it should look like.

I am sick of hearing about them. As you point out, they have plenty of turf in the east. Rent some u-hauls, move the whole frigging country somewhere out in the east, do whatever you need to do there, play "Russian World Greatness Games", whatever, just stay there and don't bother anyone and shut the fuck up. Come back when Putin is gone and try again.
 
Last edited:
From Washington Post:

Ukraine has about 7,000 unclaimed Russian corpses in morgues and refrigerated rail cars, according to Oleksiy Arestovych, adviser to the head of Ukraine’s presidential administration. He said his government’s figure of 18,600 Russian dead was based on Ukrainian reports from the battlefield and intercepted Russian military communications.

Ukraine tried to return the bodies of 3,000 Russian service members on the third day of the war, he said. “They said, ‘We don’t believe in such quantities. We don’t have this number. We’re not ready to accept them.’ ” Ukraine proposed an exchange several times, he said, but “they won’t discuss this at all yet.
 
Bugenhagen said:
Exclusive: Disgusted by the Russian invasion, David Gilmour speaks about band’s first brand new song in 28 years, which samples a Ukrainian musician now on the front line
More...
Waters, of course, didn't take part. He previously expressed support for Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. One week before the invasion, in his interview with Russia Today he stated that the possibility of the invasion was "“bullshit.... anybody with an IQ above room temperature knows [an invasion] is nonsense".

He did condemn the Russian invasion recently, tempering it of course with condemning "propaganda to demonise Russia".

Gilmour, when asked about Waters and his comments on Ukraine said: "Let’s just say I was disappointed and let’s move on. Read into that what you will."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top