Ukraine

[Colin C No.3]

Your response to what the UK's international aim is?

Or was that your realistic take on what should happen in Ukraine?

An end to the illegal Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory, the withdrawal of all Russian troops and a renewed committment to the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memoradum including national borders.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

What are the Russian aims?

I said realistic, because we know that isn't an option in the terms you relate to.

There is a slight possibility Russia would go as far as Crimea and Donbas with an agreement of Ukraine not joining NATO. Though most likely that would also include those territories Russia now considers as Russian Federaton.

However, as it stands, NATO won't exclude Ukraine - mainly as the US currently says so.

So what your preferred option is, in the real world, is for fighting to continue costing tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives. Nice.

All it takes is for Putin to stop being a t**t or even better, die.

[Not Now Kato]

I thought the reason Russia invaded Ukraine was to wipe out Nazism not perpetrate it!
 
https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/10/25/this-is-what-genocide-looks-like-russian-torture-chambers-in-kharkiv-oblast/

If that article had any credibilty it would also be citing Ukraine crimes, Ukraine shelling of civilians, etc etc. It doesn't.

So you're suggesting it didn't happen then?  Really?

I'm sure various crimes happened, and I'm sure Ukraine manufactured many too. I'm also pointing out that to believe Ukraine is some relatively innocent party here is naiive. War creates lies, endless levels of propaganda, the thickest "fog", and also allows thugs to run riot - which happens with every military on earth. Sure, some peoples are more likely to play dirty than others, but if you're thinking Ukraine is any better than Russia on that score you haven't read or researched enough.

Meanwhile, like I said, that article is 100% one sided. That kills its credibility.

How on earth does something that is documented with evidence, irrespective of the 'side' documenting it, kill it's credibility?
 
If you believe that Ukraine are committing similar atrocities then please provide equivalent documentary evidence.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Your response to what the UK's international aim is?

Or was that your realistic take on what should happen in Ukraine?

An end to the illegal Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory, the withdrawal of all Russian troops and a renewed committment to the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memoradum including national borders.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

What are the Russian aims?

I said realistic, because we know that isn't an option in the terms you relate to.

There is a slight possibility Russia would go as far as Crimea and Donbas with an agreement of Ukraine not joining NATO. Though most likely that would also include those territories Russia now considers as Russian Federaton.

However, as it stands, NATO won't exclude Ukraine - mainly as the US currently says so.

So what your preferred option is, in the real world, is for fighting to continue costing tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives. Nice.

All it takes is for Putin to stop being a t**t or even better, die.

So you too are in favour of continuing with tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths. That's you, Wilts and BST - probs all got shares in the prosthetics industry, otherwise having that opinion doesn't look too good.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I thought the reason Russia invaded Ukraine was to wipe out Nazism not perpetrate it!
 
https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/10/25/this-is-what-genocide-looks-like-russian-torture-chambers-in-kharkiv-oblast/

If that article had any credibilty it would also be citing Ukraine crimes, Ukraine shelling of civilians, etc etc. It doesn't.

So you're suggesting it didn't happen then?  Really?

I'm sure various crimes happened, and I'm sure Ukraine manufactured many too. I'm also pointing out that to believe Ukraine is some relatively innocent party here is naiive. War creates lies, endless levels of propaganda, the thickest "fog", and also allows thugs to run riot - which happens with every military on earth. Sure, some peoples are more likely to play dirty than others, but if you're thinking Ukraine is any better than Russia on that score you haven't read or researched enough.

Meanwhile, like I said, that article is 100% one sided. That kills its credibility.

How on earth does something that is documented with evidence, irrespective of the 'side' documenting it, kill it's credibility?
 
If you believe that Ukraine are committing similar atrocities then please provide equivalent documentary evidence.

Amnesty Int has, and a few other incidents are well documented. However, most international orgs are at best influenced by the US, plus they aren't hanging out in places like Donetsk.

Ukraine's biggest weopon is propaganda. Without that the west would be less likely to be pouring money into the country. Playing the old "evil enemy" card is what EVERY nation does, always. Yes, in some cases there is truth in that, in most there is exageration, control of news services, lies, not looking at both sides.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You've lost me, AL. What was the point you were trying to make about the MSM?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Run it by me how "The UN is influenced by the USA" works BRR.

Only I'm sure Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Run it by me how "The UN is influenced by the USA" works BRR.

Only I'm sure Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council.

The UN is more than the security council.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So go on.  Talk me through how it is controlled by the USA

[Bristol Red Rover]

So go on.  Talk me through how it is controlled by the USA

I said influenced. It is the largest financial contributor - one of the two strengths the US has, the other being "careful or I'll blow your face off".

The UN has to pussy foot around the US because of the financial situation, and because without US compliance, many things it wants to do, other countries want to do, will be blocked - outside the UN mechanisms I mean.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Right. Got it.

So I'm surprised, say, China doesn't raise this issue when the UN produces such a clearly flawed report under pressure from the USA. Strange that they don't raise merry hell, no?

[wilts rover]

Your response to what the UK's international aim is?

Or was that your realistic take on what should happen in Ukraine?

An end to the illegal Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory, the withdrawal of all Russian troops and a renewed committment to the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memoradum including national borders.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

What are the Russian aims?

I said realistic, because we know that isn't an option in the terms you relate to.

There is a slight possibility Russia would go as far as Crimea and Donbas with an agreement of Ukraine not joining NATO. Though most likely that would also include those territories Russia now considers as Russian Federaton.

However, as it stands, NATO won't exclude Ukraine - mainly as the US currently says so.

So what your preferred option is, in the real world, is for fighting to continue costing tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives. Nice.

All it takes is for Putin to stop being a t**t or even better, die.

So you too are in favour of continuing with tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths. That's you, Wilts and BST - probs all got shares in the prosthetics industry, otherwise having that opinion doesn't look too good.

No. I just hate muderous imperialist facists.

What's your reason for not wanting Russia to end their illegal invasion? Putin's roubles in your inbox?

[Colin C No.3]

Hello to our resident fascist.

That's the UN's own investigation. What the f**k the MSM has to do with it, Lord knows. In sure your outburst makes sense to you.

Fascist.

You're the one who cannot bear anyone to hold any opinion different from your own. You've proved it time and time again. Brexit, Covid, BLM, Ukraine... The only acceptable point of view is yours you arrogant prick.

Isn’t it time you stopped pissing about with your avatar & showed your ‘true colours’ with a swastika?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Your response to what the UK's international aim is?

Or was that your realistic take on what should happen in Ukraine?

An end to the illegal Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory, the withdrawal of all Russian troops and a renewed committment to the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memoradum including national borders.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

What are the Russian aims?

I said realistic, because we know that isn't an option in the terms you relate to.

There is a slight possibility Russia would go as far as Crimea and Donbas with an agreement of Ukraine not joining NATO. Though most likely that would also include those territories Russia now considers as Russian Federaton.

However, as it stands, NATO won't exclude Ukraine - mainly as the US currently says so.

So what your preferred option is, in the real world, is for fighting to continue costing tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives. Nice.

All it takes is for Putin to stop being a t**t or even better, die.

So you too are in favour of continuing with tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths. That's you, Wilts and BST - probs all got shares in the prosthetics industry, otherwise having that opinion doesn't look too good.

No. I just hate muderous imperialist facists.

What's your reason for not wanting Russia to end their illegal invasion? Putin's roubles in your inbox?

Attack the person with daft statements whilst not answering the question. Hmmmm.... I'm guessing you think no Ukraine troops are dying in this conflict? Or maybe you think their lives are worth giving up?

[Bristol Red Rover]

I see the Russian MoD has accused the UK of attacking the Nord Stream Pipelines. No surprise if that is what happened though other countries would be involved too. Noteable that investigations are slow when the depth isn't that great.

The destruction stops Germany being swayed by Russia eg witholding gas supplies. The Norwegian gas supply is flowing but won't nearly cover the deficit from the Nord Stream attack. The US is shipping huge amounts (of fracked gas?) at the moment, though that could be limited over time. Obviously that US gas costs lots.

The argument for Russia having a motive to having destroyed it is slim at best. Something about it insisting on it being paid for in Rubles and Germany refusing this, so therefore Russia stopping supply by destruction rather than turning of the tap where it could potentially be fined. Unlikely when the threat of not supplying is potentially very valuable, and the threat of being fined is weak.

So we may be seeing the special relationship between the US and UK in action. A special relationship that causes greater hardship to UK citizens and serious consequences for Germans, and others. But one that benefits the US, and the UK's standing withh the US.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I got as far as the first 5 words...

[wilts rover]

Your response to what the UK's international aim is?

Or was that your realistic take on what should happen in Ukraine?

An end to the illegal Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory, the withdrawal of all Russian troops and a renewed committment to the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memoradum including national borders.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

What are the Russian aims?

I said realistic, because we know that isn't an option in the terms you relate to.

There is a slight possibility Russia would go as far as Crimea and Donbas with an agreement of Ukraine not joining NATO. Though most likely that would also include those territories Russia now considers as Russian Federaton.

However, as it stands, NATO won't exclude Ukraine - mainly as the US currently says so.

So what your preferred option is, in the real world, is for fighting to continue costing tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives. Nice.

All it takes is for Putin to stop being a t**t or even better, die.

So you too are in favour of continuing with tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths. That's you, Wilts and BST - probs all got shares in the prosthetics industry, otherwise having that opinion doesn't look too good.

No. I just hate muderous imperialist facists.

What's your reason for not wanting Russia to end their illegal invasion? Putin's roubles in your inbox?

Attack the person with daft statements whilst not answering the question. Hmmmm.... I'm guessing you think no Ukraine troops are dying in this conflict? Or maybe you think their lives are worth giving up?

Did you miss my question? And who else thinks asking BRR this is a 'daft statement':

What's your reason for not wanting Russia to end their illegal invasion?

[idler]

I see the Russian MoD has accused the UK of attacking the Nord Stream Pipelines. No surprise if that is what happened though other countries would be involved too. Noteable that investigations are slow when the depth isn't that great.

The destruction stops Germany being swayed by Russia eg witholding gas supplies. The Norwegian gas supply is flowing but won't nearly cover the deficit from the Nord Stream attack. The US is shipping huge amounts (of fracked gas?) at the moment, though that could be limited over time. Obviously that US gas costs lots.

The argument for Russia having a motive to having destroyed it is slim at best. Something about it insisting on it being paid for in Rubles and Germany refusing this, so therefore Russia stopping supply by destruction rather than turning of the tap where it could potentially be fined. Unlikely when the threat of not supplying is potentially very valuable, and the threat of being fined is weak.

So we may be seeing the special relationship between the US and UK in action. A special relationship that causes greater hardship to UK citizens and serious consequences for Germans, and others. But one that benefits the US, and the UK's standing withh the US.

Have you ever read Bellingcat?
Russia's lies and disinformation laid out for all to see regarding Syria and the downed passenger plane over eastern Ukraine.
Russia lied through their teeth over and over again with easily disproved versions of facts.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Wilts, I asked you, and others, what realistic solution you have to end this conflict. You just kicked off with so many diversions, never giving a reply.

All I can guess is that you can't work out any realistic solution,  or your preferred realistic solution is for tens or hundreds of thousands to die. Same goes for BST, and Colin.

Quite happy to reply to your questions, as always, when you answer that.

[i_ateallthepies]

Wilts, I asked you, and others, what realistic solution you have to end this conflict. You just kicked off with so many diversions, never giving a reply.

All I can guess is that you can't work out any realistic solution,  or your preferred realistic solution is for tens or hundreds of thousands to die. Same goes for BST, and Colin.

Quite happy to reply to your questions, as always, when you answer that.

And your preferred solution is for Ukraine to go belly-up and surrender with 'tens of hundreds of thousands to die' in a subsequent 'cleansing' operation by the Russian invaders?

[Not Now Kato]

Wilts, I asked you, and others, what realistic solution you have to end this conflict. You just kicked off with so many diversions, never giving a reply.

All I can guess is that you can't work out any realistic solution,  or your preferred realistic solution is for tens or hundreds of thousands to die. Same goes for BST, and Colin.

Quite happy to reply to your questions, as always, when you answer that.

Realistic solution? Russia should pack up and go home. There is nothing for them to win there.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Picture BRR's take in the 1930s.

How can you possibly suggest that we should take a stand against Hitler invading the Sudetenland? There are ethnic German people there. Hitler has a right to push back against encroachment. People will die if there's fighting.

How can you possibly say we should fight to stop Hitler invading Poland? The Poles have some very right wing people in charge. Hitler has a right to re-establish control over Danzig. If we fight, tens of thousands of people will die.

How can you possibly argue that we should take a stand against Hitler invading:
Belgium
Norway
Netherlands
France
Romania
Yugoslavia
Greece
Soviet Union.

The lack of understanding of the lessons of history is breathtaking.

[Not Now Kato]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ukraine-crisis-russia-base/

[Bristol Red Rover]

Wilts, I asked you, and others, what realistic solution you have to end this conflict. You just kicked off with so many diversions, never giving a reply.

All I can guess is that you can't work out any realistic solution,  or your preferred realistic solution is for tens or hundreds of thousands to die. Same goes for BST, and Colin.

Quite happy to reply to your questions, as always, when you answer that.

And your preferred solution is for Ukraine to go belly-up and surrender with 'tens of hundreds of thousands to die' in a subsequent 'cleansing' operation by the Russian invaders?

Interesting, I ask for solutions and get back interpretatons and criticisms of mine. Another in favour of death then? And like I said, the realistic solution.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Wilts, I asked you, and others, what realistic solution you have to end this conflict. You just kicked off with so many diversions, never giving a reply.

All I can guess is that you can't work out any realistic solution,  or your preferred realistic solution is for tens or hundreds of thousands to die. Same goes for BST, and Colin.

Quite happy to reply to your questions, as always, when you answer that.

Realistic solution? Russia should pack up and go home. There is nothing for them to win there.

So you think that proposal will work, interesting. Personally, I doubt that is remotely likely to be accepted by Russia without some significant pay off. Are you thinking it's likely? 80% likely? 20%?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Picture BRR's take in the 1930s.

How can you possibly suggest that we should take a stand against Hitler invading the Sudetenland? There are ethnic German people there. Hitler has a right to push back against encroachment. People will die if there's fighting.

How can you possibly say we should fight to stop Hitler invading Poland? The Poles have some very right wing people in charge. Hitler has a right to re-establish control over Danzig. If we fight, tens of thousands of people will die.

How can you possibly argue that we should take a stand against Hitler invading:
Belgium
Norway
Netherlands
France
Romania
Yugoslavia
Greece
Soviet Union.

The lack of understanding of the lessons of history is breathtaking.

Whatever, BST reading my mind, different times, and done and dusted. Still got no soluton for now?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Picture BRR's take in the 1930s.

How can you possibly suggest that we should take a stand against Hitler invading the Sudetenland? There are ethnic German people there. Hitler has a right to push back against encroachment. People will die if there's fighting.

How can you possibly say we should fight to stop Hitler invading Poland? The Poles have some very right wing people in charge. Hitler has a right to re-establish control over Danzig. If we fight, tens of thousands of people will die.

How can you possibly argue that we should take a stand against Hitler invading:
Belgium
Norway
Netherlands
France
Romania
Yugoslavia
Greece
Soviet Union.

The lack of understanding of the lessons of history is breathtaking.

Whatever, BST reading my mind, different times, and done and dusted. Still got no soluton for now?

Go on then. Explain to me why you would have supported Czechoslovakia over the Sudetenland, rather than telling them to suck it up because people would get killed if they resist.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Picture BRR's take in the 1930s.

How can you possibly suggest that we should take a stand against Hitler invading the Sudetenland? There are ethnic German people there. Hitler has a right to push back against encroachment. People will die if there's fighting.

How can you possibly say we should fight to stop Hitler invading Poland? The Poles have some very right wing people in charge. Hitler has a right to re-establish control over Danzig. If we fight, tens of thousands of people will die.

How can you possibly argue that we should take a stand against Hitler invading:
Belgium
Norway
Netherlands
France
Romania
Yugoslavia
Greece
Soviet Union.

The lack of understanding of the lessons of history is breathtaking.

Whatever, BST reading my mind, different times, and done and dusted. Still got no soluton for now?

Go on then. Explain to me why you would have supported Czechoslovakia over the Sudetenland, rather than telling them to suck it up because people would get killed if they resist.

This is about Ukraine. What is your idea for a solution there?

[Sprotyrover]

Germany never invaded Romania, they were in the Axis and Stalins Russia had annexed Bessarabia and Moldavia from Romania in 1939. So they were quite happy to invade Russia with Germany.

[Not Now Kato]

Wilts, I asked you, and others, what realistic solution you have to end this conflict. You just kicked off with so many diversions, never giving a reply.

All I can guess is that you can't work out any realistic solution,  or your preferred realistic solution is for tens or hundreds of thousands to die. Same goes for BST, and Colin.

Quite happy to reply to your questions, as always, when you answer that.

Realistic solution? Russia should pack up and go home. There is nothing for them to win there.

So you think that proposal will work, interesting. Personally, I doubt that is remotely likely to be accepted by Russia without some significant pay off. Are you thinking it's likely? 80% likely? 20%?

Of course it would work, if Russia pulled out of Ukraine that would be an end to the conflict. A difficult one for the West to induce Putin to do, but certainly possible from within Russia when the people get tired of the body bags returning and the loss of sons, (the Russian media can't suppress those issues forever).
 
It's impossible to predict the likelihood, but it is certainly a solution that would minimise the bloodshed on both sides.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Wilts, I asked you, and others, what realistic solution you have to end this conflict. You just kicked off with so many diversions, never giving a reply.

All I can guess is that you can't work out any realistic solution,  or your preferred realistic solution is for tens or hundreds of thousands to die. Same goes for BST, and Colin.

Quite happy to reply to your questions, as always, when you answer that.

Realistic solution? Russia should pack up and go home. There is nothing for them to win there.

So you think that proposal will work, interesting. Personally, I doubt that is remotely likely to be accepted by Russia without some significant pay off. Are you thinking it's likely? 80% likely? 20%?

Of course it would work, if Russia pulled out of Ukraine that would be an end to the conflict. A difficult one for the West to induce Putin to do, but certainly possible from within Russia when the people get tired of the body bags returning and the loss of sons, (the Russian media can't suppress those issues forever).
 
It's impossible to predict the likelihood, but it is certainly a solution that would minimise the bloodshed on both sides.

Given that Ukraine is suffering at least as many deaths as Russia, that's quite a cost. Russia is a long way from suffering a great public backlash. Ukraine has arguably being using tactics that are very expensive in life, whereas Russia tends to use tactics where manpower is protected. Anyway, not sure how it minimises bloodshed given that scenario is not going to happen this side of next spring/Summer.