Scott
Verified User
Not yet, but barring a nuclear holocaust, I can't see any other result.
No, that'd probably ensure a nuclear holocaust. Fortunately, Russia is headed by someone who is trying to avoid the worst possible outcomes.
The War in Ukraine
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Not yet, but barring a nuclear holocaust, I can't see any other result.
No, that'd probably ensure a nuclear holocaust. Fortunately, Russia is headed by someone who is trying to avoid the worst possible outcomes.
Scott
Verified User
At this point, perhaps. It clearly didn't do so when the U.S. did it in Japan. I think we can agree that it was best that the U.S. didn't use nukes in Afghanistan and that Russia has not used nukes in Ukraine.
Agreed.
If all Russia had done over the past decade in Ukraine was refrain to use nukes in Ukraine, I would agree that this would be a pretty low bar for wisdom. But they did so much more. Twice, they created agreements during the civil war stage of Ukraine's conflict to try to bring the conflict to an end. These were known as the Minsk agreements. Unfortunately, western countries just used this time to arm Ukraine and flout the agreements, despite their assurances that they would help implement them. Russia was paying attention and was pretty disappointed:
Angela Merkel admits that the Minsk agreements were only signed to give Ukraine time - Donbass Insider
Angela Merkel said that the Minsk agreements were not signed to be implemented but to give Ukraine time.
www.donbass-insider.com
This is why they aren't going to do any more 'gestures of good will". Either a comprehensive peace deal is done or they'll just keep on fighting.
I sometimes do the same thing in my posts here, but it gets tiresome to in every post restate that I am an enemy of the globalist mafioso.I agree with everything except for the "we" part. I certainly have never considered myself to be a part of the west's war in Ukraine. The fact that I was born in a NATO country doesn't change that. I could certainly agree that the globalist cabal has lost another war though.
Scott
Verified User
It's not just about how much money a given group has, but about what they're doing with it. Russia is using its money to protect the interests of Russians and Russian speakers, whether at home or abroad. NATO nations are essentially stealing their citizens wealth to protect the interests of western oligarchies with this insane military adventurism in Ukraine.
Scott
Verified User
I don't think you have to remind people of this, I think they get it after a few times. I just think it's good to point out that those who oppose the globalists are actually -winning- ever time the globalists lose a war.
Zilinskyy is one of those Russian speakers... Is Putin protecting him? There are an awful lot of Russian speakers in places like NYC, will we surrender them to Putin?
Someone is having insane military adventurism, but I think it is Putin with his invading of his neighbors.
Scott
Verified User
He was. He essentially abandoned the Russian language. Signs that he was headed in this direction were already seen way back in 2014, when he was still a comedian. I got into this in a thread I made here back in 2023:
Ukrainien President Zelensky more honest as a comedian
I've posted this material in a post here in the past (here), but that post talked of other things as well and think it deserves a thread of its own, as what's currently going on in Ukraine has a lot to do with its current President, even if he is a puppet in some ways... I strongly suspect that...
www.justplainpolitics.com
Quoting from the thread (text in all caps is Zelensky in one of his comedy skits):
**
“I AM LEARNING ENGLISH TO FORGET RUSSIAN WITH THE HELP OF AMERICAN MERCENARIES; THEY’RE ALL OVER THE PLACE.”
The USA has been involved in Ukraine ever since independence in the early 90s. They have been happy to support the anti-Russian prejudices promoted by Banderites and the evidence is that the USA was involved in the anti-democratic coup in February 2014.
**
Scott
Verified User
The U.S. and other countries hadn't been killing thousands of Russian speakers over the course of 8 years, unlike Ukraine.
Neoclitorus
Best
zellensky doesn't want peace.I've been participating in another thread in this sub forum for a while named, namely this one:
Thing is, the conversation there has moved away from the Ukraine peace deal and is now just focused on the war in Ukraine in general. I looked and didn't find a thread whose. name focuses on this more general topic and so I thought I'd start one and see how it goes, also moving over conversations in the aforementioned thread here as well. Some articles on the War in Ukraine that I found to be pivotal to my own understanding of the conflict are below:
Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”
As Russia actually do launch an invasion or “special operation” in Ukraine, we thought now was a good time to recap on how we got here. The historical, political and ethnic divisions in…off-guardian.org
Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate
In 2019, Zelensky was elected on an overwhelming mandate to make peace with Russia. As Stephen F. Cohen warned that year, the US chose to side with Ukraine’s far-right and fuel war.scheerpost.com
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative
Jacques Baud, a NATO expert, denounces western coverage of the Ukraine invasion.
Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace
The author explains manipulative U.S. post-war foreign policy to European MPs, explodes myths about Ukraine and urges an independent European foreign policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcMoDFU1xg&ab_channel=MichaelvonderSchulenburg This is an edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’consortiumnews.com
it's you CIA people being addicted to war, you fucking imbeciles.
Scott
Verified User
He only entered one neighbouring country, Ukraine, and only after being severely provoked into doing so. Furthermore, the immediate reason was to protect the Russian speaking citizens of the Donbass Republics, not to go on a military adventure. I may have shown you the following quote before- it's certainly one of the articles I reference in the opening post of this thread:
**
In fact, as early as February 16 [2022], Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.
If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.
That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.
The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.
In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge.
**
Full article:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative
Jacques Baud, a NATO expert, denounces western coverage of the Ukraine invasion.
scheerpost.com
Scott
Verified User
Certainly not in the form that he can get it.
"you CIA people"? You think people in this forum are working for the CIA?
Why engage in such hostile personal attacks? If you don't like what posters have to say, you can simply not respond to them.
Scott
Verified User
I also don't like that this war exists. The west has always been excessively negative about Russia's intent in the world. From what I've seen, Russia's main concern has been to protect its own interests- Germany was a long way away and it let it become part of NATO, under the promise that it would be the furthest eastern edge of this organization. The west, being the west, soon broke that promise and expanded all the way to Russia's border. Ukraine, however, was one broken promise too far. That, combined with Ukraine's killing of thousands of Russian speakers over the course of 8 years was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Neoclitorus
Best
of course.
eat shit spook.
I think I see you before on boob tube.
at least you know being called CIA is an insult.
Ukraine, and Georgia are the two countries Putin has officially invaded. Chechnya and Dagestan would be two more, if you consider them countries. He has also used more clandestine forces in Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Kazakhstan.
Then there are the terrorist campaigns... That is throughout the world.
Scott
Verified User
Ukraine, and Georgia are the two countries Putin has officially invaded. Chechnya and Dagestan would be two more, if you consider them countries.He only entered one neighbouring country, Ukraine, and only after being severely provoked into doing so. Furthermore, the immediate reason was to protect the Russian speaking citizens of the Donbass Republics, not to go on a military adventure. I may have shown you the following quote before- it's certainly one of the articles I reference in the opening post of this thread:
**
In fact, as early as February 16 [2022], Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.
If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.
That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.
The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.
In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge.
**
Full article:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative
Jacques Baud, a NATO expert, denounces western coverage of the Ukraine invasion.
You actually bring up a very good point- what makes a country a country? Let's not forget that prior to Russia's military operation in Ukraine, 2 regions of Ukraine had declared themselves to be independent republics- Donetsk and Luhansk. Let's also recall that 3 days prior to Russia's military operation in Ukraine, Russia recognized these republics. Then, on February 24, 2022, Russia went to war with Ukraine to -protect- these republics. It's all there in what I quoted to you in my last post, but I'm not sure if you read it.
Scott
Verified User
Interesting article from Joe Lauria, a regular over at Scheerpost, on how the war in Ukraine could end:
consortiumnews.com
Quoting the subtitle of the article:
**
A legally-acceptable peacekeeping force can only be set up through the auspices of the United Nations Security Council and that would mean both sides of the war agreeing, writes Joe Lauria.
**
Getting the UN Involved in Ukraine
A legally-acceptable peacekeeping force can only be set up through the auspices of the United Nations Security Council and that would mean both sides of the war agreeing, writes Joe Lauria. By Joe Lauria Special to Consortium News Britain and France say they want to send European troops
consortiumnews.com
Quoting the subtitle of the article:
**
A legally-acceptable peacekeeping force can only be set up through the auspices of the United Nations Security Council and that would mean both sides of the war agreeing, writes Joe Lauria.
**
Scott
Verified User
I imagine you got that notion from the western mainstream propaganda machine, but if you have an article that you think provides evidence for this assertion, by all means present it.
Ukraine fractured into pieces back in 2014 after the U.S. backed Euromaidan coup. Had that not happened, I see no reason why Ukraine wouldn't have continued as it was- the 8 year civil war that followed the coup and Russia's military operation in 2022 would have never happened. Alas, we can't turn back time, but we -can- learn from mistakes. In regards to President Zelensky, it looks like the tides are shifting against him. A good article on this can be seen here:
Petka the wiretapper
Assessing Azovites. Zaluzhny the peacebringer, Arestovych the clown, and Poroshenko the blackmailer. Black suitcases of cash from Moscow. 'Russian spy' wins again in Kiev courts
eventsinukraine.substack.com
I'm not currently paying for a subscription to this substacker, so I can only see the free part as well. Quoting the start of the article that's not behind the paywall:
**
Yesterday’s article had a look at recent polls on trust towards various political figures in Ukraine. Ex chief of the army Zaluzhny came first, followed by Zelensky, head spook Budanov, and leader of the Azov movement Biletsky.
Today, some more relevant news emerged - Bohdan Krotevych, another top Azov figure, was interviewed by the Guardian.
The article was a big takedown of current head of the army, Oleksandr Syrsky. Syrsky was placed in charge of the army to replace Zaluzhny back in early 2024. The idea was that Syrsky, a charisma vacuum yes-man, would not present the same problems that the excessively popular and independent Zaluzhny did. But Syrsky, nicknamed ‘the butcher’ for his love of sending troops on suicide missions, got into plenty of his own scandals. I wrote about Krotevych’s big 2024 showdown against Sodol, a top Syrsky general for his butchering ways (not against the Russians), back here.
Syrsky
This was manipulated by Zelensky PR-woman Bezuhla as a valiant struggle against the corrupt army bureaucracy, and Zelensky soon fired Sodol. But now Krotevych is going after Syrsky - Zelensky doesn’t have many options. I’ve written before about rumours he wants to get rid of Syrsky too, but it hardly seems wise to keep recycling army leaders like this. At some point, he’d have to make do on the constantly repeated Azovite slogan on the need for ‘motivated young nationalists in charge’ - ie, the Azovites. At that point, if Zelensky found Zaluzhny unbearably politically attractive, wait until a young nationalist with a sexy beard is in charge of the army…
Here’s what Krotevych had to say about Syrsky in today’s Guardian article:
“I started receiving from the high army command, from the commander-in-chief HQ, orders that became more and more borderline criminal, which I, in my good conscience, was unable to fulfil and follow,” Krotevych said.
the veteran told the Guardian that he had “70% decided to quit” the Ukrainian military because commanders were still “asking of soldiers things which they wouldn’t ask of themselves”.
He also criticizes Syrsky for placing soldiers in danger of Russian missile and drone strikes. This has been a constant problem in Ukraine, constantly resulting in massacres of both recruits at training centres and other units. For instance, on March 3 Ukraine’s army command admitted that a Russian missile attack had killed 19 soldiers at a rear unit. Following public uproar, a criminal investigation was opened. No doubt it will be just as successful in catching the culprits as usual. Anyway, here’s what Krotevych had to say about the problem:
“The general staff ordered that when a soldier’s shift [on he frontline] is over, they can’t rest in the rear, they have to rest 50 metres from the front,” Krotevych said, which he added was typically at a platoon forward observation base.
Forcing soldiers to recover so close to the front put “all these people in grave danger”, he argued. He accused the army command of being “criminally guilty of not understanding the principles of war right now” and in particular “how FPV drones work, how glide bombs work”.
He said similar thinking affected the positioning of larger headquarters. At one point, Krotevych said, Azov’s brigade headquarters was itself struck, after the unit had been “asking, insisting” that it be moved back because Russian forces were advancing. “They specifically told us no, and we got a direct hit.”
Finally, Krotevych had no praise for the Kursk operation, which he blames on Syrsky:
Krotevych said: “Syrskyi must go,” arguing that the military commander-in-chief, appointed in February 2024, had failed to break the Russian lines except into Kursk in August, where he had found “the weakest spot” and executed a simple “linear strike”.
Though Krotevych said the attack into Russia had made sense at the time, he accused Syrskyi of being overly focused on the attack “when we had huge issues” defending Pokrovsk in southern Donbas and “remaining there too long” as Moscow has gradually rolled up the salient, with Ukrainian forces incurring significant losses.
It’s hard not to see this as an attack on Zelensky as well. As I said, Syrsky is seen as Zelensky’s yes-man. While Zelensky’s media mouthpiece, the MP Mariana Bezuhla has been increasingly criticizing Syrsky, this is just her usual strategy - Zelensky is doing his best, but it’s these awful corrupt Soviet generals that are to blame. Likewise, it is absurd to pretend that the Kursk operation was simply Syrsky’s invention. Kursk all stinks of Zelensky - and London’s, as Kit Klarenberg points out - beloved strategy of PR warfare.
So now we get to the end of article - politics. Krotevych swears off political ambitions - Freud’s teachings on denial are relevant here. Instead, he apparently plans to get into the international man of mystery game:
Krotevych said he had no intention of entering politics himself. “I just want to destabilise Russia so it could not make war again,” he said.
The former soldier now intends to set up a private company, Strategic Operational and Intelligence Agency (Soia), obtaining intelligence on Russia, Belarus, North Korea and other countries unfriendly to Ukraine and acting as an expert liaison with the west.
And guess where he’ll be staying:
As part of that work, Krotevych said he hoped to spend time in London, though he stressed he was not aligned with Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, a predecessor to Syrskyi, who is considered a potential future candidate for Ukraine’s presidency.
I found this particularly funny to read. Krotevych here rejects any talk of linking up with Zaluzhny - but in an interview from only a few months ago to a top USAID-funded publication in Ukraine, Krotevych boasted that he’d been hanging out with Zaluzhny in London, and that he even gifted an antique British army knife to the general. Meanwhile, their wives had their own date together. Seems quite the alignment to me. In the same July 2024 interview, Krotevych promised that the public would be ‘hearing more of Zaluzhny soon’.
So I’ve taken Mr Krotevych’s advice - let’s have a look at Zaluzhny’s political prospects: why he has better chances than Zelensky to end the war, and a titillating new story about how Zelensky apparently tried to arrest him in 2023. This will also allow me to let loose against the insufferable Aleksei Arestovych.
But we won’t stop there - next, ex-president Poroshenko’s alliance with Zaluzhny, and Poroshenko’s own political hopes and threats. Zelensky has crafted up a new and impressively ridiculous scandal about Poroshenko’s black suitcases of cash flown in from Moscow - for their part, the president’s office is apparently confident in their gambit.
This will lead us onto an analysis of Poroshenko’s links with Trump, and the reasons why Trump is probably not too keen on the so-called ‘Petka the wiretapper’. As usual, it will bring us to a discussion of the deep politics of Russiagate.
Finally, some even deeper politics - how some of Ukraine’s most experienced ‘pro-Russian’ political operators continue surviving in the capital, with one of the toughest representatives having just defeated several more pro-western, Poroshenko-affiliated politicians and media publications in court. They have been forced to pay him tens of thousands of hryvnia to atone for spreading calumny about his being a Russian agent.
This will lead onto my conclusion on Zelensky’s future - perhaps not as bleak as some may hope, at least for Zelensky (for the country, another matter).
**
Last edited: