holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
This guy is the definition of misinformation
Things are heating up in the Donbass
- Thread starter holdover
- Start date
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
LOL yes. its called mathematics.
Go look up whats happening in the south, go look up whats happening in Bakmut today,
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Well, one of us is drastically mistaken.
Be interesting in a few months to find out who.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Your 100% correct. One of us is missing a lot of information. A few months should make things a bit clearer.
What specifically did he say that is wrong?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Well for 1 he said Russia is trying to expand back to soviet era footprints. which I believe is nonsense just based on the military preparedness alone .
He says this war was always going to happen. since when? since the Russians allowed Ukraine to become their own nation? Or when the Ukrainians broke the Maiden agreement allowing them to be free in exchange that they dont join NATO and threaten Russia? which is a flagrant violation of the treaty which will result in military action ? No, this war wasn't always going to happen , nor was Russia prepared for it unlike Ukraine. In fact Russia begged Ukraine to rethink its position, that it had no other option than to fight a war. and Ukraine told him to go fuck himself. It was completely avoidable.
The Russians launched 8 expansion's since 92, 2 of which were the Chechen wars, 1 was Georgia trying to join NATO , 4 was the seziure of the crimea when Ukraine was going to put a NATO port in the black sea basically 10 feet away from Russia and control of the straights . 5 was the Donbass war which were the people of donbass refusing to honor the ""selection "" of zelinsky as president . and was back by Russia . Not sure what the other 3 were.
Eventually they will come for Poland and Romaina. Ok thats a nice opinion but I dont see Russia claiming they are going to invade NATO countries .
But then he states the Russians are incompetant at fighting a conventional war. Well no shit, they weren't planning it as he states. they werent even ready for Ukraine.
He further says if they win , they know they cant beat NATO conventionally so they are going to launch nuclear weapons . Bullshit .
He states that if Russia fails to capture Warsaw and the Baltic states they will cease to exist in a few decades. Absolute garbage .
He's attempting to paint a picture of necessity for the Russians to launch a nuclear war in order to Justify why Russia must be stopped to the sheep . Hes pushing fearporn .
he states If the Russians win We WILL have a nuclear exchange. If the Russians believed that they would have launched already .
Hes a western propagandist
He says this war was always going to happen. since when? since the Russians allowed Ukraine to become their own nation? Or when the Ukrainians broke the Maiden agreement allowing them to be free in exchange that they dont join NATO and threaten Russia? which is a flagrant violation of the treaty which will result in military action ? No, this war wasn't always going to happen , nor was Russia prepared for it unlike Ukraine. In fact Russia begged Ukraine to rethink its position, that it had no other option than to fight a war. and Ukraine told him to go fuck himself. It was completely avoidable.
The Russians launched 8 expansion's since 92, 2 of which were the Chechen wars, 1 was Georgia trying to join NATO , 4 was the seziure of the crimea when Ukraine was going to put a NATO port in the black sea basically 10 feet away from Russia and control of the straights . 5 was the Donbass war which were the people of donbass refusing to honor the ""selection "" of zelinsky as president . and was back by Russia . Not sure what the other 3 were.
Eventually they will come for Poland and Romaina. Ok thats a nice opinion but I dont see Russia claiming they are going to invade NATO countries .
But then he states the Russians are incompetant at fighting a conventional war. Well no shit, they weren't planning it as he states. they werent even ready for Ukraine.
He further says if they win , they know they cant beat NATO conventionally so they are going to launch nuclear weapons . Bullshit .
He states that if Russia fails to capture Warsaw and the Baltic states they will cease to exist in a few decades. Absolute garbage .
He's attempting to paint a picture of necessity for the Russians to launch a nuclear war in order to Justify why Russia must be stopped to the sheep . Hes pushing fearporn .
he states If the Russians win We WILL have a nuclear exchange. If the Russians believed that they would have launched already .
Hes a western propagandist
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Russia has no right to tell Georgia, or Ukraine, or anyone what alliances they can and cannot join.
Would NATO have been justified in invading Belarus because they were aligning with Russia ? No, of course not. So Russia was not justified in invading anyone else either.
You don't get to tell your neighbors who they can be friends with.
Russia's naked aggression in Ukraine however *is* justification for NATO getting involved, even with boots on the ground if need be to stop it.
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
You are okay with sending regular US Army soldiers/boots to fight in Ukraine? Asking for a friend.
He predicted Russia would move as far back as 2014 in his first book "The Accidental Superpower." He has maintained this position all along in his other 3 books (which are well worth reading). There are also countless youtube videos where he makes this assertion going back many years.
The reasons have to do with russia's geography and demographics. The geography between berlin and moscow is essentially flat which invites invaders. From a demographic perspective the russian population is rapidly aging. They are literally a dying country with more deaths than births. The number of military age men is going to be much less in 2030 and beyond compared to right now. The russians want to expand their borders to make them shorter and to absorb certain geographic roadblocks. This will allow them to defend the borders with the reduced number of men in arms. The problem for NATO is ukraine is on the way to the final geographic targets the russians want - which are in poland and the baltic states.
I think he's absolutely correct the russians wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war against NATO. They have made a very poor showing against ukraine's third rate military. It's likely they would suffer significant losses against the combined NATO forces. If their conventional forces are destroyed and they believe this is a war of necessity why wouldn't they use nukes?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Actually Ukraine and the Polish border is pretty hilly . I cant tell how big the mountains are from the map
I have no Issues about that fact. But consider, The Russians allowed the Ukraine to break away thereby exposing themselves . then they want to secure it again later on. Ehhhhhhhh, I 'm not buying that as the reason to invade. So long as NATO stood away from that corridor the Russians were Ok with it. the problem began when NATO wanted to get closer to the Russian border. Thats been the real issue all along
I dont think they have any interest in the Baltic states , They are small countries , and were never a real threat to Russia Even with NATO.
I agree, NATO would beat the Russians , but not as easy as you would think by the virtue that NATO hasn't done a whole lot of spending the last 25 years . 1980's NATO forces would have spanked them pretty bad . the NATO countries are a lot weaker today. But once they could establish air supremacy, even locally . its set match.
Last edited:
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I didn't say it was a good idea.
I said if Russia's invasion of Ukraine was justified by them wanting to join NATO, then NATO would be justified in invading to stop them.
You can't claim Russia has a self defense right to invade but nobody else does.
My actual feeling is that Russia's invasion was not remotely justified despite whatever rhetoric they produce.
I also think it is in NATO's interest to stop them, regardless of whether Ukraine is a member or not. For reasons that were demonstrated repeatedly in the last century.
I think if NATO had taken the threat seriously 10 years ago we wouldn't be in this predicament today.
The areas in red are sounding Air raid signals as I type....
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
The Russians have been out of missiles since last March
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Chebureki Man
@CheburekiMan
Imagine being German and not comprehending that two of your NATO allies blew up your cheap gas supply and substituted it with their expensive gas supplies.
11:00 PM · Feb 9, 2023·
62.6K
Views
Chebureki Man
@CheburekiMan
Imagine being German and not comprehending that two of your NATO allies blew up your cheap gas supply and substituted it with their expensive gas supplies.
11:00 PM · Feb 9, 2023·
62.6K
Views
US is still occupying Germany. Defacto they are not a sovereign nation. As Russia was developing business ties with Germany, US became alarmed. Combination of Russian natural resources and German manufacturing capabilities were a threat to American industry.
Last edited:
Before We End Up In Wars With Russia And China Simultaneously, Let’s Review The Nuclear Balance Of Power…
"It has been said that there are no winners in a nuclear war, but the Russians and the Chinese have been feverishly preparing to fight one anyway."
"Unfortunately, the balance of power has changed dramatically over the past decade. Russia and China have both made enormous leaps forward, and that puts us in a very precarious position."
"It has been said that there are no winners in a nuclear war, but the Russians and the Chinese have been feverishly preparing to fight one anyway."
"Unfortunately, the balance of power has changed dramatically over the past decade. Russia and China have both made enormous leaps forward, and that puts us in a very precarious position."
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
Fill up your tanks!! Abrams that is.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/WWCYQH7RTVLQ7NAAYP5GH567XU.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Oil prices rise over 2% on Russian plan to cut output
Oil prices rose more than 2% on Friday and posted weekly gains of over 8%, as Russia announced plans to reduce oil production next month after the West imposed price caps on the country's crude and fuel.
www.reuters.com
Ukrainian troops equipped with devastating HIMARS are waiting for US targeting data before firing on Russian forces, officials say
One official told The Washington Post that Kyiv identifies targets and requests US coordinates. If the US doesn't provide them, Ukraine won't fire.
So that's confirmation that the US is doing everything but "pushing the fire button".
We supply the launcher, the missiles, the surveillance, the targeting data. A Ukrainian drives the truck and pushes the button.
Even if you're very pro Ukraine this should be deeply concerning to you.
I don't like this at all.
At what point does Russia say they can't let our US and NATO assets and our direct support be continually allowed to kill Russian service members and disrupt their objectives with immunity and at what point do they decide to shoot down our J-stars surveillance planes over the black sea? That's essentially putting us into a direct defacto state of war with Russia.
Last edited:
Award winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh (who broke the story of My Lai massacre) uncovered evidence and details of U.S. military carrying out explosion of Nord Stream Pipeline. It is no longer a claim, it is a historical fact. Plans to blow up the pipeline were made before Feb 24th of last year.
seymourhersh.substack.com
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now
seymourhersh.substack.com
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
On February 16, 2022, a full week before Putin sent combat troops into Ukraine, the Ukrainian Army began the heavy bombardment of the area (in east Ukraine) occupied by mainly ethnic Russians.
Officials from the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were located in the vicinity at the time and kept a record of the shelling as it took place. What the OSCE discovered was that the bombardment dramatically intensified as the week went on until it reached a peak on February 19, when a total of 2,026 artillery strikes were recorded. Keep in mind, the Ukrainian Army was, in fact, shelling civilian areas along the Line of Contact that were occupied by other Ukrainians.
We want to emphasize that the officials from the OSCE were operating in their professional capacity gathering first-hand evidence of shelling in the area. What their data shows is that Ukrainian Forces were bombing and killing their own people. This has all been documented and has not been challenged.
So, the question we must all ask ourselves is this: Is the bombardment and slaughter of one’s own people an ‘act of war’?
We think it is. And if we are right, then we must logically assume that the war began before the Russian invasion (which was launched a full week later) We must also assume that Russia’s alleged “unprovoked aggression” was not unprovoked at all but was the appropriate humanitarian response to the deliberate killing of civilians. In order to argue that the Russian invasion was ‘not provoked’, we would have to say that firing over 4,000 artillery shells into towns and neighborhoods where women and children live, is not a provocation? Who will defend that point of view?
No one, because it’s absurd. The killing of civilians in the Donbas was a clear provocation, a provocation that was aimed at goading Russia into a war. And –as we said earlier– the OSCE had monitors on the ground who provided full documentation of the shelling as it took place, which is as close to ironclad, eyewitness testimony as you’re going to get.
This, of course, is a major break with the “official narrative” which identifies Russia as the perpetrator of hostilities. But, as we’ve shown, that simply isn’t the case. The official narrative is wrong. Even so, it might not surprise you to know that most of the mainstream media completely omitted any coverage of the OSCE’s fact-finding activities in east Ukraine. The one exception to was Reuters that published a deliberately opaque account published on February 18 titled “Russia voices alarm over sharp increase of Donbass shelling”. Here’s an excerpt:
Quote: Larry C. Johnson, A Son of a New Revolution
The point we are trying to make is simple: The war in Ukraine was not launched by a tyrannical Russian leader (Putin) bent on rebuilding the Soviet Empire. That narrative is a fraud that was cobbled together by neocon spin-meisters trying to build public support for a war with Russia. The facts I am presenting here can be identified on a map where the actual explosions took place and were then recorded by officials whose job was to fulfill that very task. Can you see the difference between the two? In one case, the storyline rests on speculation, conjecture and psychobabble; while in the other, the storyline is linked to actual events that took place on the ground and were catalogued by trained professionals in the field. In which version of events do you have more confidence?
Bottom line: Russia did not start the war in Ukraine. That is a fake narrative. The responsibility lies with the Ukrainian Army and their leaders in Kiev.
Officials from the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were located in the vicinity at the time and kept a record of the shelling as it took place. What the OSCE discovered was that the bombardment dramatically intensified as the week went on until it reached a peak on February 19, when a total of 2,026 artillery strikes were recorded. Keep in mind, the Ukrainian Army was, in fact, shelling civilian areas along the Line of Contact that were occupied by other Ukrainians.
We want to emphasize that the officials from the OSCE were operating in their professional capacity gathering first-hand evidence of shelling in the area. What their data shows is that Ukrainian Forces were bombing and killing their own people. This has all been documented and has not been challenged.
So, the question we must all ask ourselves is this: Is the bombardment and slaughter of one’s own people an ‘act of war’?
We think it is. And if we are right, then we must logically assume that the war began before the Russian invasion (which was launched a full week later) We must also assume that Russia’s alleged “unprovoked aggression” was not unprovoked at all but was the appropriate humanitarian response to the deliberate killing of civilians. In order to argue that the Russian invasion was ‘not provoked’, we would have to say that firing over 4,000 artillery shells into towns and neighborhoods where women and children live, is not a provocation? Who will defend that point of view?
No one, because it’s absurd. The killing of civilians in the Donbas was a clear provocation, a provocation that was aimed at goading Russia into a war. And –as we said earlier– the OSCE had monitors on the ground who provided full documentation of the shelling as it took place, which is as close to ironclad, eyewitness testimony as you’re going to get.
This, of course, is a major break with the “official narrative” which identifies Russia as the perpetrator of hostilities. But, as we’ve shown, that simply isn’t the case. The official narrative is wrong. Even so, it might not surprise you to know that most of the mainstream media completely omitted any coverage of the OSCE’s fact-finding activities in east Ukraine. The one exception to was Reuters that published a deliberately opaque account published on February 18 titled “Russia voices alarm over sharp increase of Donbass shelling”. Here’s an excerpt:
Notice the clever way that Reuters frames its coverage so that the claims of the Ukrainian military are given as much credibility as the claims of the Russian Foreign Minister. What Reuters fails to point out is that the OSCE’s report verifies Lavrov’s version of events while disproving the claims of the Ukrainians. It is the job of a journalist to make the distinction between fact and fiction but, once again, we see how agenda-driven news is not meant to inform but to mislead.
Quote: Larry C. Johnson, A Son of a New Revolution
The point we are trying to make is simple: The war in Ukraine was not launched by a tyrannical Russian leader (Putin) bent on rebuilding the Soviet Empire. That narrative is a fraud that was cobbled together by neocon spin-meisters trying to build public support for a war with Russia. The facts I am presenting here can be identified on a map where the actual explosions took place and were then recorded by officials whose job was to fulfill that very task. Can you see the difference between the two? In one case, the storyline rests on speculation, conjecture and psychobabble; while in the other, the storyline is linked to actual events that took place on the ground and were catalogued by trained professionals in the field. In which version of events do you have more confidence?
Bottom line: Russia did not start the war in Ukraine. That is a fake narrative. The responsibility lies with the Ukrainian Army and their leaders in Kiev.
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
And here’s something else that is typically excluded in the media’s selective coverage. Before Putin sent his tanks across the border into Ukraine, he invoked United Nations Article 51 which provides a legal justification for military intervention. Of course, the United States has done this numerous times to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy to its numerous military interventions. But, in this case, you can see where the so-called Responsibility To Protect (R2P) could actually be justified, after all, by most estimates, the Ukrainian army has killed over 14,000 ethnic Russians since the US-backed coup 8 years ago. If ever there was a situation in which a defensive military operation could be justified, this was it. But that still doesn’t fully explain why Putin invoked UN Article 51. For that, we turn to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who explained it like this:
No, they haven’t, because to do so, would be an admission that Putin’s military operation complies with international law. Instead, the media continues to spread the fiction that ‘Hitler-Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet empire’, a claim for which there is not a scintilla of evidence. Keep in mind, Putin’s operation does not involve the toppling of a foreign government to install a Moscow-backed stooge, or the arming and training a foreign military that will be used as proxies to fight a geopolitical rival, or the stuffing a country with state-of-the-art weaponry to achieve his own narrow strategic objectives, or perpetrating terrorist acts of industrial sabotage (Nord-Stream 2) to prevent the economic integration of Asia and Europe. No, Putin hasn’t engaged in any of these things. But Washington certainly has, because Washington isn’t constrained by international law. In Washington’s eyes, international law is merely an inconvenience that is dismissively shrugged off whenever unilateral action is required. But Putin is not nearly as cavalier about such matters, in fact, he has a long history of playing by the rules because he believes the rules help to strengthen everyone’s security. And, he’s right; they do.
And that’s why he invoked Article 51 before he sent the troops to help the people in the Donbas. He felt he had a moral obligation to lend them his assistance but wanted his actions to comply with international law. We think he achieved both.
Here’s a bit more background from an article by foreign policy analyst Danial Kovalik:
So, has anyone in the western media reported on the fact that Putin invoked UN Article 51 before he launched the Special Military Operation?
No, they haven’t, because to do so, would be an admission that Putin’s military operation complies with international law. Instead, the media continues to spread the fiction that ‘Hitler-Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet empire’, a claim for which there is not a scintilla of evidence. Keep in mind, Putin’s operation does not involve the toppling of a foreign government to install a Moscow-backed stooge, or the arming and training a foreign military that will be used as proxies to fight a geopolitical rival, or the stuffing a country with state-of-the-art weaponry to achieve his own narrow strategic objectives, or perpetrating terrorist acts of industrial sabotage (Nord-Stream 2) to prevent the economic integration of Asia and Europe. No, Putin hasn’t engaged in any of these things. But Washington certainly has, because Washington isn’t constrained by international law. In Washington’s eyes, international law is merely an inconvenience that is dismissively shrugged off whenever unilateral action is required. But Putin is not nearly as cavalier about such matters, in fact, he has a long history of playing by the rules because he believes the rules help to strengthen everyone’s security. And, he’s right; they do.
And that’s why he invoked Article 51 before he sent the troops to help the people in the Donbas. He felt he had a moral obligation to lend them his assistance but wanted his actions to comply with international law. We think he achieved both.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Here’s something else you will never see in the western media. You’ll never see the actual text of Putin’s security demands that were made a full two months before the war broke out. And, the reason you won’t see them, is because his demands were legitimate, reasonable and necessary. All Putin wanted was basic assurances that NATO was not planning to put its bases, armies and missile sites on Russia’s border. In other words, he was doing the same thing that all responsible leaders do to defend the safety and security of their own people.
ere are a few critical excerpts from the text of Putin’s proposal to the US and NATO:
So, what can we deduce from Putin’s list of demands?
First, we can deduce that he is not trying to reconstruct the Soviet empire as the MSM relentlessly insists. The list focuses exclusively on security-related demands, nothing else.
Second, it proves that the war could have easily been avoided had Zelensky simply maintained the status quo and formally announced that Ukraine would remain neutral. In fact, Zelensky actually agreed to neutrality in negotiations with Moscow in March, but Washington prevented the Ukrainian president from going through with the deal which means that the Biden administration is largely responsible for the ongoing conflict. (RT published an article stating clearly that an agreement had been reached between Russia and Ukraine in March but the deal was intentionally scuttled by the US and UK. Washington wanted a war.)
Third, it shows that Putin is a reasonable leader whose demands should have been eagerly accepted. Was it unreasonable of Putin to ask that “The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and… military alliances.. in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security”? Was it unreasonable for him the ask that “The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories”?
Where exactly are the “unreasonable demands” that Putin supposedly made?
There aren’t any. Putin made no demands that the US wouldn’t have made if ‘the shoe was on the other foot.’
Fourth, it proves that the war is not a struggle for Ukrainian liberation or democracy. That’s hogwash. It is a war that is aimed at “weakening” Russia and eventually removing Putin from power. Those are the overriding goals. What that means is that Ukrainian soldiers are not dying for their country, they are dying for an elitist dream to expand NATO, crush Russia, encircle China, and extend US hegemony for another century. Ukraine is merely the battlefield on which the Great Power struggle is being fought.
There are number points we are trying to make in this article:
ere are a few critical excerpts from the text of Putin’s proposal to the US and NATO:
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what Putin was worried about. He was worried about NATO expansion and, in particular, the emergence of a hostile military alliance backed by Washington-groomed Nazis occupying territory on his western flank. Was that unreasonable of him? Should he have embraced these US-backed Russophobes and allowed them to place their missiles on his border? Would that have been the prudent thing to do?
So, what can we deduce from Putin’s list of demands?
First, we can deduce that he is not trying to reconstruct the Soviet empire as the MSM relentlessly insists. The list focuses exclusively on security-related demands, nothing else.
Second, it proves that the war could have easily been avoided had Zelensky simply maintained the status quo and formally announced that Ukraine would remain neutral. In fact, Zelensky actually agreed to neutrality in negotiations with Moscow in March, but Washington prevented the Ukrainian president from going through with the deal which means that the Biden administration is largely responsible for the ongoing conflict. (RT published an article stating clearly that an agreement had been reached between Russia and Ukraine in March but the deal was intentionally scuttled by the US and UK. Washington wanted a war.)
Third, it shows that Putin is a reasonable leader whose demands should have been eagerly accepted. Was it unreasonable of Putin to ask that “The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and… military alliances.. in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security”? Was it unreasonable for him the ask that “The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories”?
Where exactly are the “unreasonable demands” that Putin supposedly made?
There aren’t any. Putin made no demands that the US wouldn’t have made if ‘the shoe was on the other foot.’
Fourth, it proves that the war is not a struggle for Ukrainian liberation or democracy. That’s hogwash. It is a war that is aimed at “weakening” Russia and eventually removing Putin from power. Those are the overriding goals. What that means is that Ukrainian soldiers are not dying for their country, they are dying for an elitist dream to expand NATO, crush Russia, encircle China, and extend US hegemony for another century. Ukraine is merely the battlefield on which the Great Power struggle is being fought.
There are number points we are trying to make in this article:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
The aim of the Minsk agreement was to end the fighting between the Ukrainian army and ethnic Russians in the Donbas region of Ukraine. It was the responsibility of the four participants in the treaty– Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine– to ensure that both sides followed the terms of the deal. But in December, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview with a German magazine, that there was never any intention of implementing the deal, instead, the plan was to use the time to make Ukraine stronger in order to prepare for a war with Russia. So, clearly, from the very beginning, the United States intended to provoke a war with Russia.
On September 5, 2014, Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia all signed Minsk, but the treaty failed and the fighting resumed. On February 12, 2015, Minsk 2 was signed, but that failed, as well. Please, watch this short segment on You Tube by Amit Sengupta who gives a brief rundown of Minsk and its implications: (I transcribed the piece myself and any mistakes are mine.)
We just wonder if anyone in Washington realizes whet the fu** they’ve done?
www.zerohedge.com
On September 5, 2014, Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia all signed Minsk, but the treaty failed and the fighting resumed. On February 12, 2015, Minsk 2 was signed, but that failed, as well. Please, watch this short segment on You Tube by Amit Sengupta who gives a brief rundown of Minsk and its implications: (I transcribed the piece myself and any mistakes are mine.)
There’s no way to overstate the importance of the Minsk betrayal or the impact it’s going to have on the final settlement in Ukraine. When trust is lost, nations can only ensure their security through brute force. What that means is that Russia must expand its perimeter as far as is necessary to ensure that it will remain beyond the enemy’s range of fire. (Putin, Lavrov and Medvedev have already indicated that they plan to do just that.) Second, the new perimeter must be permanently fortified with combat troops and lethal weaponry that are kept on hairtrigger alert. When treaties become vehicles for political opportunism, then nations must accept a permanent state of war. This is the world that Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko and the US created by opting to use ‘the cornerstone of international relations’ (Treaties) to advance their own narrow warmongering objectives.
We just wonder if anyone in Washington realizes whet the fu** they’ve done?
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Read the above article from Zero Hedge, there are several points I have tried to make in this thread since the beginning, But haven't articulated them as well . The article is fact based, and can be backed up . As opposed to the view points and opinions Of this misinformation agent.
Although some of his view points are pretty good , they are just viewpoints. Intended to mislead the better educated people about the causes of the war.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If the Russian invasion of Ukraine was justified to keep NATO troops off of Russia's border, then a NATO invasion would be justified now to keep Russian troops off of the NATO border.
You can't have it both ways.
My opinion is that an invasion of a sovereign country because you don't like who they are allying with is never justified outside of a decared war. This would include the bay of pigs in Cuba, but that was a long time ago.
Furthermore, Russia's excuse that they need a neutral buffer is ridiculous. What does that buy them ? They are so outmatched by NATO that the concept of them mounting a serious defense is laughable. They could demilizarize all of continental Europe and it would maybe buy them a week if NATO got aggressive. Ukraine wouldn't give them more than a few hours.
Imaging Guatamala claiming they were justified in invading Mexico because they needed a buffer against the US LOL.
The aim of the Minsk agreement was to end the fighting between the Ukrainian army and ethnic Russians in the Donbas region of Ukraine. It was the responsibility of the four participants in the treaty– Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine– to ensure that both sides followed the terms of the deal. But in December, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview with a German magazine, that there was never any intention of implementing the deal, instead, the plan was to use the time to make Ukraine stronger in order to prepare for a war with Russia. So, clearly, from the very beginning, the United States intended to provoke a war with Russia.
On September 5, 2014, Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia all signed Minsk, but the treaty failed and the fighting resumed. On February 12, 2015, Minsk 2 was signed, but that failed, as well. Please, watch this short segment on You Tube by Amit Sengupta who gives a brief rundown of Minsk and its implications: (I transcribed the piece myself and any mistakes are mine.)
There’s no way to overstate the importance of the Minsk betrayal or the impact it’s going to have on the final settlement in Ukraine. When trust is lost, nations can only ensure their security through brute force. What that means is that Russia must expand its perimeter as far as is necessary to ensure that it will remain beyond the enemy’s range of fire. (Putin, Lavrov and Medvedev have already indicated that they plan to do just that.) Second, the new perimeter must be permanently fortified with combat troops and lethal weaponry that are kept on hairtrigger alert. When treaties become vehicles for political opportunism, then nations must accept a permanent state of war. This is the world that Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko and the US created by opting to use ‘the cornerstone of international relations’ (Treaties) to advance their own narrow warmongering objectives.
We just wonder if anyone in Washington realizes whet the fu** they’ve done?
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
It's obvious after reading this that very few people really know what the real facts are.
Here's a link to the original article, just for references sake...
Setting the Record Straight; Stuff You Should Know About Ukraine
I like the last line of the article...
"We just wonder if anyone in Washington realizes whet the fu** they’ve done?"