"We are fighting against the genocide of the Russian-speaking population" - Rus. Com.

And yet when the Soviet Union collapsed, the MAJORITY of Ukrainian people voted to be an independent and sovereign nation....Donbas non-withstanding.

Even the majority of -Crimeans- voted to become an independent nation, although it wasn't much higher than 50%. But let's remember that Russia -itself- chose to leave the Soviet Union. -Everyone- thought that the Soviet Union was essentially the Titanic that had struck its iceberg and it was time to abandon ship. Much more telling is the fact that in order to get these numbers, the fledgling Ukrainian government promised that the Russian language and customs of eastern Ukrainians would be respected. Clearly that was a promise that was brutally broken after Euromaidan.

They could've always relocated.

I remember watching a documentary where both pro European and pro Russian sides told each other they could either "go to Europe" or "go to Russia". What neither really thought much about is that for both sides, where they were was there home. It's not easy to just "relocate" somewhere else. That being said, many did. Those that stayed decided they'd rather weather a civil war then leave. It was their choice to make, sure, but I think we can all agree that they would have preferred simply avoiding the war to begin with. There's clear evidence that most western Ukrainians wanted the civil war to end long ago and that Zelensky was elected based on his promises to resolve the civil war diplomatically. The far right had other plans. Backed by the U.S., Zelensky walked back his promises and even initiated a renewed assault on the Donbass region days before Putin finally decided to start a military operation in Ukraine of his own. The rest is history.
 
Even the majority of -Crimeans- voted to become an independent nation, although it wasn't much higher than 50%. But let's remember that Russia -itself- chose to leave the Soviet Union. -Everyone- thought that the Soviet Union was essentially the Titanic that had struck its iceberg and it was time to abandon ship. Much more telling is the fact that in order to get these numbers, the fledgling Ukrainian government promised that the Russian language and customs of eastern Ukrainians would be respected. Clearly that was a promise that was brutally broken after Euromaidan.



I remember watching a documentary where both pro European and pro Russian sides told each other they could either "go to Europe" or "go to Russia". What neither really thought much about is that for both sides, where they were was there home. It's not easy to just "relocate" somewhere else. That being said, many did. Those that stayed decided they'd rather weather a civil war then leave. It was their choice to make, sure, but I think we can all agree that they would have preferred simply avoiding the war to begin with. There's clear evidence that most western Ukrainians wanted the civil war to end long ago and that Zelensky was elected based on his promises to resolve the civil war diplomatically. The far right had other plans. Backed by the U.S., Zelensky walked back his promises and even initiated a renewed assault on the Donbass region days before Putin finally decided to start a military operation in Ukraine of his own. The rest is history.

And when all is said and done, it's the SOS.......disgruntled folk not liking the new set up of a new nation, internal strife, two super powers playing proxy games.

Oh, and could you explain how the US backed Zelensky walking away from promises and initiated a military assault without sending weapons or troops? The same question can be posed to Putin prior to actual military action....something some would say was a reaction to that idiot G.W. Bush's actions around the world.
 
And when all is said and done, it's the SOS.......disgruntled folk not liking the new set up of a new nation, internal strife, two super powers playing proxy games.

I definitely agree on the super powers bit, but I also believe that the U.S. and various NATO allies were essentially "poking the bear" (aka Russia) for the past 8 years until finally decided that enough was enough.

Oh, and could you explain how the US backed Zelensky walking away from promises and initiated a military assault without sending weapons or troops?

First of all, the U.S. has been sending Ukraine weapons since the Trump administration. The following article from well known journalist Aaron Mate explains both this as well as the U.S.'s backing of Ukraine's far right and what this did to Zelensky's peace mandate:

Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost


The same question can be posed to Putin prior to actual military action....something some would say was a reaction to that idiot G.W. Bush's actions around the world.

I believe that Putin tried to resolve the civil war in Ukraine for 8 years without getting involved militarily. I strongly suspect that the Ukrainian military's renewed assault on the Donbass region literally days before February 24, 2022 was what decided Putin to start his military operation. I think that former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud does a great job of laying out the evidence that this is probably why he decided to start his operation when he did in the following article:

Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative | Scheerpost

I believe that his article is so important that I've made a thread of it in numerous forums, including this one, here:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com
 
I definitely agree on the super powers bit, but I also believe that the U.S. and various NATO allies were essentially "poking the bear" (aka Russia) for the past 8 years until finally decided that enough was enough.



First of all, the U.S. has been sending Ukraine weapons since the Trump administration. The following article from well known journalist Aaron Mate explains both this as well as the U.S.'s backing of Ukraine's far right and what this did to Zelensky's peace mandate:

Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost




I believe that Putin tried to resolve the civil war in Ukraine for 8 years without getting involved militarily. I strongly suspect that the Ukrainian military's renewed assault on the Donbass region literally days before February 24, 2022 was what decided Putin to start his military operation. I think that former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud does a great job of laying out the evidence that this is probably why he decided to start his operation when he did in the following article:

Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative | Scheerpost

I believe that his article is so important that I've made a thread of it in numerous forums, including this one, here:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

1. I do wish you would stop trying to portray Russia as some type of victim here. They sure as hell weren't resting on their laurels after Putin rose to power....the Shrub just gave him more of an excuse to step up the program.

2. Again, Ukraine's internal problems were happening BEFORE Trump took office.....no US arms shipped over, and to date no evidence of nefarious actions by our Intelligence agencies in that region (NOT that I wouldn't put it past them). Remember the heat Obama took for not going the aggressive confrontation route.

3. Sorry, but your belief in Putin is just that...belief. Your link has merit, but then there's this perspective from earlier last year:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine

Also, this aspect of the timeline of this situation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/18/world/europe/russia-ukraine-timeline.html
 
I definitely agree on the super powers bit, but I also believe that the U.S. and various NATO allies were essentially "poking the bear" (aka Russia) for the past 8 years until finally decided that enough was enough.

First of all, the U.S. has been sending Ukraine weapons since the Trump administration. The following article from well known journalist Aaron Mate explains both this as well as the U.S.'s backing of Ukraine's far right and what this did to Zelensky's peace mandate:

Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost

I believe that Putin tried to resolve the civil war in Ukraine for 8 years without getting involved militarily. I strongly suspect that the Ukrainian military's renewed assault on the Donbass region literally days before February 24, 2022 was what decided Putin to start his military operation. I think that former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud does a great job of laying out the evidence that this is probably why he decided to start his operation when he did in the following article:

Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative | Scheerpost

I believe that his article is so important that I've made a thread of it in numerous forums, including this one, here:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

1. I do wish you would stop trying to portray Russia as some type of victim here. They sure as hell weren't resting on their laurels after Putin rose to power....the Shrub just gave him more of an excuse to step up the program.

Russia as a nation has many things, good and bad. I'm against their stance against homosexuality if that means anything to you. But when it comes to the war in Ukraine, I strongly believe that it was the U.S. that started it 8 years ago, not Russia. At first, it was fairly covert, but there's clear signs that they played a significant role in the violent uprisings that led to the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing the country for his life. There's certainly evidence that a false flag operation was done on a certain day to falsely portray Yanukovych's government in an event, involving an American man who'd been and perhaps still was in the military. I personally think the following article is quite revealing in that regard:

The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence | globalresearch.ca

2. Again, Ukraine's internal problems were happening BEFORE Trump took office.....

Indeed, I'd say they stepped into high gear during Euromaidan. But they got turbo charged once the Trump administration started sending them weapons to forcibly try to regain territory in the east that had essentially seceded from them after Euromaidan.

no US arms shipped over, and to date no evidence of nefarious actions by our Intelligence agencies in that region (NOT that I wouldn't put it past them).

As mentioned previously, there is -some- evidence that they may have been involved in some of the darkest moments of Euromaidan. But there's also plenty of evidence that they were using "soft power" to oust former Ukrainian President Yanukovych as well. Here's an article that gets into that:

Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis” : Genuine grassroots revolution or NATO backed coup? Here are the facts to help you decide. | Off Guardian

Remember the heat Obama took for not going the aggressive confrontation route.

Indeed. Trump caved though. Had he not, I think it's highly possible that Russia may have never gotten involved militarily.

3. Sorry, but your belief in Putin is just that...belief. Your link has merit

Which one? I linked to 2 articles.


Took a look at the article. Right off the bat, I saw something I don't believe. I don't see any evidence that Putin has ever said that "Ukraine has no historical claim to independent statehood".


That article sums up Euromaidan in 3 sentences, and makes absolutely no mention of the evidence that most of the 100 people who were killed were killed during what appears to have been a false flag operation. Again, I suggest you take a look at the article from Global Research above if you haven't already done so.
 
Russia as a nation has many things, good and bad. I'm against their stance against homosexuality if that means anything to you. But when it comes to the war in Ukraine, I strongly believe that it was the U.S. that started it 8 years ago, not Russia. At first, it was fairly covert, but there's clear signs that they played a significant role in the violent uprisings that led to the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing the country for his life. There's certainly evidence that a false flag operation was done on a certain day to falsely portray Yanukovych's government in an event, involving an American man who'd been and perhaps still was in the military. I personally think the following article is quite revealing in that regard:

The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence | globalresearch.ca



Indeed, I'd say they stepped into high gear during Euromaidan. But they got turbo charged once the Trump administration started sending them weapons to forcibly try to regain territory in the east that had essentially seceded from them after Euromaidan.



As mentioned previously, there is -some- evidence that they may have been involved in some of the darkest moments of Euromaidan. But there's also plenty of evidence that they were using "soft power" to oust former Ukrainian President Yanukovych as well. Here's an article that gets into that:

Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis” : Genuine grassroots revolution or NATO backed coup? Here are the facts to help you decide. | Off Guardian



Indeed. Trump caved though. Had he not, I think it's highly possible that Russia may have never gotten involved militarily.



Which one? I linked to 2 articles.



Took a look at the article. Right off the bat, I saw something I don't believe. I don't see any evidence that Putin has ever said that "Ukraine has no historical claim to independent statehood".



That article sums up Euromaidan in 3 sentences, and makes absolutely no mention of the evidence that most of the 100 people who were killed were killed during what appears to have been a false flag operation. Again, I suggest you take a look at the article from Global Research above if you haven't already done so.

We are at an impasse in this discussion, because a repeated phrase you use is "I don't believe". I can't debate a belief, because it does not require adherence to facts and the logic derived from said facts.

Also, you can point to a lot of lip service and signing of promissory documents, but NO commitment of troops, etc. Yes, it was no secret that the Ukraine gov't was mulling over joining NATO and NATO/USA was making all types of pie in the sky promises if they did...but again, that does NOT excuse the history of Russian intent regarding the Ukraine after the fall of the USSR.

That's it....anything else is just a rehash on my part (and yours). You can have the last word, as I'll be moving on.
 
Russia as a nation has many things, good and bad. I'm against their stance against homosexuality if that means anything to you. But when it comes to the war in Ukraine, I strongly believe that it was the U.S. that started it 8 years ago, not Russia. At first, it was fairly covert, but there's clear signs that they played a significant role in the violent uprisings that led to the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing the country for his life. There's certainly evidence that a false flag operation was done on a certain day to falsely portray Yanukovych's government in an event, involving an American man who'd been and perhaps still was in the military. I personally think the following article is quite revealing in that regard:

The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence | globalresearch.ca



Indeed, I'd say they stepped into high gear during Euromaidan. But they got turbo charged once the Trump administration started sending them weapons to forcibly try to regain territory in the east that had essentially seceded from them after Euromaidan.

As mentioned previously, there is -some- evidence that they may have been involved in some of the darkest moments of Euromaidan. But there's also plenty of evidence that they were using "soft power" to oust former Ukrainian President Yanukovych as well. Here's an article that gets into that:

Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis” : Genuine grassroots revolution or NATO backed coup? Here are the facts to help you decide. | Off Guardian

Indeed. Trump caved though. Had he not, I think it's highly possible that Russia may have never gotten involved militarily.

Which one? I linked to 2 articles.

Took a look at the article. Right off the bat, I saw something I don't believe. I don't see any evidence that Putin has ever said that "Ukraine has no historical claim to independent statehood".

That article sums up Euromaidan in 3 sentences, and makes absolutely no mention of the evidence that most of the 100 people who were killed were killed during what appears to have been a false flag operation. Again, I suggest you take a look at the article from Global Research above if you haven't already done so.

We are at an impasse in this discussion, because a repeated phrase you use is "I don't believe". I can't debate a belief, because it does not require adherence to facts and the logic derived from said facts.

Have you ever considered asking why I believe things? I think of beliefs a bit like a programmer thinks of a program executings its functions. A programmer with sufficient knowledge of a given computer progamming language who has access to the source code would be able to understand why a computer program executes any given function. If you were to learn why I believe the things I believe, you'd then be able to question their basis instead of being stuck on the things I believe.

Also, you can point to a lot of lip service and signing of promissory documents, but NO commitment of troops, etc.

The U.S. had troops on the ground in Ukraine prior to Russia's military operation. I was able to find evidence of this article published a little under 2 weeks before Russia's military operation began after a quick internet search:

Pentagon orders departure of U.S. troops in Ukraine as Russia crisis escalates | CNBC

Yes, it was no secret that the Ukraine gov't was mulling over joining NATO and NATO/USA was making all types of pie in the sky promises if they did...but again, that does NOT excuse the history of Russian intent regarding the Ukraine after the fall of the USSR.

You'll have to get a bit more specific as to what you believe Russia's intent was regarding Ukraine if you want to have something to discuss there. I also think that it's important to note that Russia tried to resolve the Ukrainian civil war diplomatically for 8 years before finally deciding its best option was a military one shortly after Ukraine started a renewed assault on the Donbass region.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine was rejected for NATO membership. I remember it being about the corruption in their system. They were given time to cleanup their system. It appears Putin was not going to let them join so he attacked.
 
Have you ever considered asking why I believe things? I think of beliefs a bit like a programmer thinks of a program executings its functions. A programmer with sufficient knowledge of a given computer progamming language who has access to the source code would be able to understand why a computer program executes any given function. If you were to learn why I believe the things I believe, you'd then be able to question their basis instead of being stuck on the things I believe.



The U.S. had troops on the ground in Ukraine prior to Russia's military operation. I was able to find evidence of this article published a little under 2 weeks before Russia's military operation began after a quick internet search:

Pentagon orders departure of U.S. troops in Ukraine as Russia crisis escalates | CNBC



You'll have to get a bit more specific as to what you believe Russia's intenet was regarding Ukraine if you want to have something to discuss there. I also think that it's important to note that Russia tried to resolve the Ukrainian civil war diplomatically for 8 years before finally deciding its best option was a military one shortly after Ukraine started a renewed assault on the Donbass region.

1. Much ado about nothing on your part here.....just a long winded way of doing EXACTLY what I pointed out succinctly. You may think otherwise, but that's how it reads to the objective observer.

2. A clarification: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-pentagon-weapons-biden-1756387

3. A primer in response: https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-war-ukraine-identity-history-and-conflict
 
Ukraine was rejected for NATO membership. I remember it being about the corruption in their system. They were given time to cleanup their system. It appears Putin was not going to let them join so he attacked.

From what I've read, it seems pretty clear that the reason he attacked was not because Ukraine was about to join NATO but because Ukraine had started a renewed assault on the Donbass region. This is in line with what I quoted Russia's Sparta Commander saying in the first post of this thread. It's also in line with the evidence taht former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud gathered and wrote about in an article he wrote that I quote and link to in the following thread:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com
 
From what I've read, it seems pretty clear that the reason he attacked was not because Ukraine was about to join NATO but because Ukraine had started a renewed assault on the Donbass region. This is in line with what I quoted Russia's Sparta Commander saying in the first post of this thread. It's also in line with the evidence taht former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud gathered and wrote about in an article he wrote that I quote and link to in the following thread:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

That is wrong, this is a war between the US and Russia (really China as well).....the timing was the result of the Americans demanding war.

UKraine is just the battleground, which the West intends to rebuild into a WOKE UTOPIA...it will be a stipulation on the rebuilding funds.
 
Have you ever considered asking why I believe things? I think of beliefs a bit like a programmer thinks of a program executings its functions. A programmer with sufficient knowledge of a given computer progamming language who has access to the source code would be able to understand why a computer program executes any given function. If you were to learn why I believe the things I believe, you'd then be able to question their basis instead of being stuck on the things I believe.

The U.S. had troops on the ground in Ukraine prior to Russia's military operation. I was able to find evidence of this article published a little under 2 weeks before Russia's military operation began after a quick internet search:

Pentagon orders departure of U.S. troops in Ukraine as Russia crisis escalates | CNBC

You'll have to get a bit more specific as to what you believe Russia's intent was regarding Ukraine if you want to have something to discuss there. I also think that it's important to note that Russia tried to resolve the Ukrainian civil war diplomatically for 8 years before finally deciding its best option was a military one shortly after Ukraine started a renewed assault on the Donbass region.

1. Much ado about nothing on your part here.....just a long winded way of doing EXACTLY what I pointed out succinctly. You may think otherwise, but that's how it reads to the objective observer.

Anyone can say that their ideological opponent is in the wrong. What's harder is pointing out why you believe this.


A clarification of what? A response to what? I'm glad that you're posting links, but if you're not going to explain why you're posting them, I think it makes more sense to just let them go unclicked.
 
From what I've read, it seems pretty clear that the reason he attacked was not because Ukraine was about to join NATO but because Ukraine had started a renewed assault on the Donbass region. This is in line with what I quoted Russia's Sparta Commander saying in the first post of this thread. It's also in line with the evidence taht former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud gathered and wrote about in an article he wrote that I quote and link to in the following thread:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

That is wrong, this is a war between the US and Russia (really China as well).....the timing was the result of the Americans demanding war.

UKraine is just the battleground, which the West intends to rebuild into a WOKE UTOPIA...it will be a stipulation on the rebuilding funds.

I agree with you in part. Without the U.S. funding the Ukrainian far right since before Euromaidan, I doubt Crimea and the Donbass would have seceded from Ukraine to begin with and I certainly believe that Ukraine is simply being used as a pawn for western interests, particularly American ones, which includes "weakening" Russia. That being said, the Ukrainian far right is certainly playing their part. I think we can agree that Americans certainly don't want to have Americans dying in Ukraine. But as for Ukrainians themselves, that's another matter entirely. From an article by journalist Aaron Mate:

**
In Ukraine, the Biden administration is fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian,” retired senior US diplomat Chas Freeman says.

Chas Freeman, a retired senior US diplomat, analyzes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US role, and the geopolitical fallout. “Everything we are doing, rather than accelerate an end to the fighting and some compromise, seems to be aimed at prolonging the fighting,” Freeman says.

**

Full article:
US fighting Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’: veteran US diplomat | thegrayzone.com
 
I agree with you in part. Without the U.S. funding the Ukrainian far right since before Euromaidan, I doubt Crimea and the Donbass would have seceded from Ukraine to begin with and I certainly believe that Ukraine is simply being used as a pawn for western interests, particularly American ones, which includes "weakening" Russia. That being said, the Ukrainian far right is certainly playing their part. I think we can agree that Americans certainly don't want to have Americans dying in Ukraine. But as for Ukrainians themselves, that's another matter entirely. From an article by journalist Aaron Mate:

**
In Ukraine, the Biden administration is fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian,” retired senior US diplomat Chas Freeman says.

Chas Freeman, a retired senior US diplomat, analyzes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US role, and the geopolitical fallout. “Everything we are doing, rather than accelerate an end to the fighting and some compromise, seems to be aimed at prolonging the fighting,” Freeman says.

**

Full article:
US fighting Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’: veteran US diplomat | thegrayzone.com

The big thing is that the American leaders who demanded this war dont know two important things:

1) Russia and China are now part of a new imperial empire.

2) That the West is dying and that America gets weaker by the day.
 
Anyone can say that their ideological opponent is in the wrong. What's harder is pointing out why you believe this.



A clarification of what? A response to what? I'm glad that you're posting links, but if you're not going to explain why you're posting them, I think it makes more sense to just let them go unclicked.

1. As I said before, your "belief" peppers your selective use of information available. I've made my case why your assertions are not wholly accurate. You disagree and reiterate your previous assertions. The chronology of the posts shows this (with links to read fully and comprehensively), so to continue in this vein is essentially :bdh:


2. translation: You want a preamble to debate instead of going directly to the links to see the content...which were in response to your last segment of the previous post. Come back when you read them. If you refuse, then there's no point in further discussion.
 
Last edited:

Great clip. For those who'd rather bypass Twitter and get straight to the clip in question:
Gaetz introduces resolution to end military and financial aid to Ukraine, urge peace deal | Fox News

I'll be honest, when Gaetz and co were holding up nominating Kevin McCarty as speaker, I originally thought they shouldn't be doing it. But as things progressed, I began to see that what they were asking for made sense. Your clip validates this further for me.

As to the Progressives, I'm definitely somewhat dissapointed in them. On another site, I actually labelled myself as a progressive, though I did point out that I'm an anti war progressive, something that's pretty rare these days. I still think that Bernie Sanders and AOC have some good qualities, but I wasn't very impressed with either of them when it came to Covid or spending in Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
Great clip. I see that it's now been deleted. Your doing? It did talk about U.S. spending in Ukraine so I think it was on topic enough to be here. I'll put it up again for anyone who may have missed it:
Gaetz introduces resolution to end military and financial aid to Ukraine, urge peace deal | Fox News

I'll be honest, when Gaetz and co were holding up nominating Kevin McCarty as speaker, I originally thought they shouldn't be doing it. But as things progressed, I began to see that what they were asking for made sense. Your clip validates this further for me.

As to the Progressives, I'm definitely somewhat dissapointed in them. On another site, I actually labelled myself as a progressive, though I did point out that I'm an anti war progressive, something that's pretty rare these days. I still think that Bernie Sanders and AOC have some good qualities, but I wasn't very impressed with either of them when it came to Covid or spending in Ukraine.

These marxists who stole the progressive name are not progressives, they are liars, abusers, they seek power and dont believe in the truth....there is only power.....they have been very clear on this point.

I am a Progressive (non -UTOPIAN)
 
Back
Top