# How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

#### Copernicus

As the value of the ruble tumbles, NATO appears to be rushing troops and equipment to its East European flank. A rapid deployment force of up to 8,500 troops is being readied for deployment. Those will be added to reinforce commitments by other European members. Lots of arms shipments are now arriving in Ukraine. Putin hasn't even started his invasion yet, and he has managed to kick the hornet's nest. If he doesn't get started soon, Ukraine will have more time to prepare, and his troops will get bogged down in mud, as the Spring thaw starts. After ringing Ukraine with Russian troops, is Putin still planning to pretend that Ukraine is leaving him no choice but to invade?

### Ukraine: US troops on high alert over stand-off​

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
According to EU investigation Georgia attacked South Ossetia with russian peacekeepers in it.
Yes, EU concluded that Saakashvili started that war. And he did so expecting NATO would help. Of course you don't know any of that because your MSM says Russia invaded Georgia and that was bad.

Convenient selection of a starting point.

South Ossetia fired artillery. Georgia responded by invading to stop the artillery.

The war started with the artillery, not the invasion.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
According to EU investigation Georgia attacked South Ossetia with russian peacekeepers in it.
Yes, EU concluded that Saakashvili started that war. And he did so expecting NATO would help. Of course you don't know any of that because your MSM says Russia invaded Georgia and that was bad.

Convenient selection of a starting point.

South Ossetia fired artillery. Georgia responded by invading to stop the artillery.

The war started with the artillery, not the invasion.
No, they have been firing at each other for 30 years. That was not new. Escalation and georgian invasion was new and it happened because of Saakashvili just got an invitation into NATO and thought he can solve that problem.

Last edited:

#### barbos

##### Contributor
No, but it is also not part of Georgia (Georgia thinks it is)
Wasn't that the same reason Russia took Crimea?
What do you mean? South Ossetia has never been part of independent Georgia.
Once USSR dissolved, they said "Nope, we don't want to be in Georgia and war started" Russia had nothing to do with it. Same with Abkhazia which was pretty much occupied by georgoians during soviet era, once USSR dissolved, Abkhazians immediately and very unceremoniously kicked georgians out.

Now, the question is, does Russia use this situation to its advantage - ABSOLUTELY!
Does not mean Russia created it. It was created during soviet era when land and people were moved without any consideration of what happens in the case of USSR dissolution

#### Copernicus

No, but it is also not part of Georgia (Georgia thinks it is)
Wasn't that the same reason Russia took Crimea?
What do you mean? South Ossetia has never been part of independent Georgia.
Once USSR dissolved, they said "Nope, we don't want to be in Georgia and war started" Russia had nothing to do with it. Same with Abkhazia which was pretty much occupied by georgoians during soviet era, once USSR dissolved Abkhazians immediately and very unceremoniously kicked georgians out.

Now, the question is, does Russia use this situation to its advantage - ABSOLUTELY!
Does not mean Russia created it. It was created during soviet era when land and people were moved without any consideration of what happens in the case of USSR dissolution
Barbos has again been taken in by the Russian misinformation machine. Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia were officially part of the Georgian SSR at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and most countries in the world recognize them as part of Georgian territory. They were engaged in civil rebellion with Georgia, but Russia intervened after Georgia elected a pro-Western leader. Russia was supposed to be there in a peacekeeping role to police a ceasefire. Instead, it stood by while South Ossetia broke the ceasefire by opening up artillery barrages on Georgian territory. Barbos may not remember the actual history, but maybe he does and simply wishes it were different.

#### SLD

##### Veteran Member
According to EU investigation Georgia attacked South Ossetia with russian peacekeepers in it.
Yes, EU concluded that Saakashvili started that war. And he did so expecting NATO would help. Of course you don't know any of that because your MSM says Russia invaded Georgia and that was bad.

Convenient selection of a starting point.

South Ossetia fired artillery. Georgia responded by invading to stop the artillery.

The war started with the artillery, not the invasion.
No, they have been firing at each other for 30 years. That was not new. Escalation and and georgian invasion was new and it happened because of Saakashvili just got invitation into NATO and thought he can solve that problem.
I do concur that Shrub’s reckless war mongering foreign policy was probably the stupidest moves in our history. I once said they’d one day lead to the downfall of the United States. Now it might end in nuclear holocaust. The stock market is swinging wildly. Down more than 2000 points since it’s high earlier this year. fears of war are in the air. But in the end this is Putin’s doing. And he is a damn fool if he thinks he can control this.

And as for Georgia, even Putin’s own defense minister admitted that they planned the war months before to ensure it would never join NATO.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
I do concur that Shrub’s reckless war mongering foreign policy was probably the stupidest moves in our history.
Shrub did not invent it. It has always been that way. And it was Clinton who started NATO moving east. US Presidents don't really determine foreign policies. They are figureheads who know nothing and rely on un-elected "experts" who are wholly owned by Military Industrial Complex.

And as for Georgia, even Putin’s own defense minister admitted that they planned the war months before to ensure it would never join NATO.
Well, these people always plan all kind of plans. And they always lie about it afterwards.
So it may not have been so much as admission but bragging.
But I am sure Putin knew about Saakashvili plan to invade South Ossetia before it happened.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
Ukraine dosn't owe Russia anything.
Not true. over 25 years Gazprom and other oil government controlled companies gave Ukraine $250bil in the form of discounts. Belarus got$150bil
That's not how discounts work. If I sell you a bicycle at a $50 discount, you get your bicycle and that$50 bucks remains in your wallet. You don't owe it to me in perpetuity.
Actually it works exactly like I wrote. Russia gave discounts on the condition of good behaviour. Now you can make a point how much of good behavior was that worth but it certainly more than zero. In my opinion, You pay support for 20 years you should get 20 years of good behavior after you stop, at least. In reality there Ukraine has always been shitty toward Russia even while getting support. I personally think russian expectations of getting something in return were foolish.
I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense. Apparently Ukraine was on good behaviour for 20 years (why else would Russia give it discount gas?), but for some reason now Russia thinks the behaviour has changed. Fine. Don't give the discount anymore. Or don't sell gas to Ukraine at all. It's Russia's prerogative. But there is no clause that Russia can go back to asking for reparations if Ukraine now starts behaving badly. But of course, Gazprom would just shoot itself in the foot if it stops selling gas, because it needs the money flowing. And in broader geopolitical picture, Russia needs Ukraine to remain dependent on Russian energy.

As for the ridiculous interpretation that Crimea was "rented" to Ukraine, there is no such treaty and it remained as part of Ukraine durng the dissolution of the Soviet Union. If anything, Russia should start paying rent to Ukraine for it.
I explained million times, Crimea was obtained by Ukraine illegally.
Yes it was de facto rented. The split was simply never finalized.
Yes, you "explained" that Crimea was obtained illegally because the Russian president at the time was very, very drunk, and you want a do-over. An ironclad legal loophole if there ever was one.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
It's unfortunate, but understandable from people who are at war with Russia. The anti-Russian sentiment is not the root cause, it's a reaction to the current situation.
Nope! Try again. That shit started pretty much after they got independence and never stopped.
In fact that process started in all former USSR republics. They thought it was a great idea to build their national identity on trashing Russia equating it with Soviet Union.

Baltic States had pretty comical incidents while doing so.
The fact that you brought Baltic countries as another examples shows that it's not really about Ukrainian nationalists behaving badly. It's about Russian occupation that all former USSR nations had to contend with, which rightfully pissed everyone off. The reason why it's probably worse in Ukraine is paradoxically because of the commonalities between the nations: the nationalist in Ukraine have to be more extreme, because they have less of their own history and culture to fall back on.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
It's unfortunate, but understandable from people who are at war with Russia. The anti-Russian sentiment is not the root cause, it's a reaction to the current situation.
Nope! Try again. That shit started pretty much after they got independence and never stopped.
In fact that process started in all former USSR republics. They thought it was a great idea to build their national identity on trashing Russia equating it with Soviet Union.

Baltic States had pretty comical incidents while doing so.
The fact that you brought Baltic countries as another examples shows that it's not really about Ukrainian nationalists behaving badly. It's about Russian occupation that all former USSR nations had to contend with, which rightfully pissed everyone off. The reason why it's probably worse in Ukraine is paradoxically because of the commonalities between the nations: the nationalist in Ukraine have to be more extreme, because they have less of their own history and culture to fall back on.
Mmm, I have never said it was about Ukrainian nationalists specifically.
It was about US running around Russia and throwing money at people to harrass Russia. So nationalist and nazi are perfect target for such financing. And yes, Baltic States have them.

Speaking of which, I remember Nuland doing negotiations with Right Sector (ukrainian nazi). She suggested them giving up weapons in exchange for US money for actually becoming a mainstream party. They ..... refused. But think about that.

You still don't believe me? How about right hand of Saakashvili saying the same thing I just told you? The fucking right hand of Saakashvili telling that US foreign policy in the region is basically giving money to anybody as long as they promise to hate Russia.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
But in the end this is Putin’s doing. And he is a damn fool if he thinks he can control this
Nope, it's West's doing.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
Yes, you "explained" that Crimea was obtained illegally because the Russian president at the time was very, very drunk, and you want a do-over. An ironclad legal loophole if there ever was one
It's more complicated than that. But basically yes. There was a lot of chaos right after dissolution of the USSR. In all republics including Ukraine. Drunk Eltsin was preoccupied with Tatarstan ignoring everything else, including Chehcnya where gangs of "freedom" fighters were literally murdering russian population who could not leave.

No need for do-over. Crimea had a right to leave Ukraine and then it was illegally stripped of that right. Not to mention that Sevastopol was not even part of Ukraine.
It's hard to believe but that's what happened. And the reason why it happened is because nobody in Ukraine/Russia/Belarus took USSR dissolution seriously, everyone thought, well, we will have this another union of independent states and we are all friends, we are all slavs, there is nothing to fight about. Basically as far as Belarus/Ukraine/Russia and even central Asia republics were concerned, dissolution did not happen at that time, it was just replaced with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States .
So Russia started to pay rent for the base which was not ukrainian and was not on Ukrainian land. I mean if you look at the map you would say yeah, it's natural for it to be ukrainian but it was not. That's crazy but that's what happened.

After NATO decided that they would like to have that base, Russia said - nope, you are not having it, hence Crimean referendum which was legal and results should be respected. Crimeans did actually vote to leave Ukraine and go back to Russia.

Last edited:

#### Copernicus

Barbos is so full of misinformation that it's hard to know where to begin. Sevastopol was always a part of Ukraine after it had lost its status as an autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and been moved into Ukraine by Khrushchev. I myself visited Crimea in 1965 as a grad student on a Russian language study tour, and our plane landed in Sevastopol, where the airport was to take us to Yalta. So I know very well that it was a Ukrainian city, although it had a majority Russian population and had special federal status, since it was home to the Soviet Baltic fleet back then. Crimea had not been a part of Russia since the Russian Revolution, as has already been pointed out by me earlier. The fact that Russia paid rent to Ukraine for the use of that port was acknowledgment by Russia that Sevastopol was a city in Ukraine. When barbos said "That's crazy but that's what happened", he was only right in the first part of his sentence. NATO never "decided" or said that they wanted to have that base and has not invited Ukraine into NATO, despite repeated attempts by Ukraine to join. And, of course, the "Crimean referendum" was never legal, since it was completely managed by Russia after it had illegally seized Crimea. Anyway, everyone except barbos here seems to be aware of the facts, but a great many people in Russia actually believe this kind of claptrap.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
Ukraine isn't going to attack Russia. Your theory doesn't pass the laugh test.
Maybe, maybe not. But Georgia did.
Can you elaborate? How did Georgia attack Russia? I’m unaware of any source even claiming that Georgian troops crossed the border into Russia. Please enlighten us.
According to EU investigation Georgia attacked South Ossetia with russian peacekeepers in it.
Yes, EU concluded that Saakashvili started that war. And he did so expecting NATO would help. Of course you don't know any of that because your MSM says Russia invaded Georgia and that was bad.
The same report that concluded that Georgia started the conflict, also explicitly said that Russia violated international law when it pushed to Georgian territory.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
Ukraine isn't going to attack Russia. Your theory doesn't pass the laugh test.
Maybe, maybe not. But Georgia did.
Can you elaborate? How did Georgia attack Russia? I’m unaware of any source even claiming that Georgian troops crossed the border into Russia. Please enlighten us.
According to EU investigation Georgia attacked South Ossetia with russian peacekeepers in it.
Yes, EU concluded that Saakashvili started that war. And he did so expecting NATO would help. Of course you don't know any of that because your MSM says Russia invaded Georgia and that was bad.
The same report that concluded that Georgia started the conflict, also explicitly said that Russia violated international law when it pushed to Georgian territory.
I can live with that, after all, West lives with bombing Yugoslavia and Iraq invasion.
Also, keep in mind that investigation itself came from EU. They tried to blame russia but couldn't. Of course that report has never been mentioned by MSM.
Plus, what is international law? Asking UN for going to war with Georgia?
You know their puppet master would have vetoed it regardless.

First Iraq War was legal only because Russia did not veto it.
Second was flat out illegal and so was bombing of the Yugoslavia. International law is dead, US/West murdered it.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense. Apparently Ukraine was on good behaviour for 20 years (why else would Russia give it discount gas?), but for some reason now Russia thinks the behaviour has changed. Fine. Don't give the discount anymore. Or don't sell gas to Ukraine at all. It's Russia's prerogative. But there is no clause that Russia can go back to asking for reparations if Ukraine now starts behaving badly. But of course, Gazprom would just shoot itself in the foot if it stops selling gas, because it needs the money flowing. And in broader geopolitical picture, Russia needs Ukraine to remain dependent on Russian energy.
Nonsense is all yours.
Neither Ukraine nor Belarus have ever had good behavior.
One of the reasons Russia was paying was because both counties were transit countries and Russia would have lost more by not paying. These countries knew that and used it to extort money from Russian government.
Initially gas contracts were written is such a way that Ukraine had no responsibility for anything and they were literally stealing gas from the pipe and Europe was saying "not our problem"
Then metering and control improved that they could not simply steal.
Then there was a threat of EU integration which would cost Russia more than it costs to Ukraine. Security costs too. There are a lot of reasons for Russia to tolerate shit from a string of Ukrainan governments. West is bitching about Nord Stream forgetting the fact that transit over Ukraine is 4 times (If i remember correctly) more expensive than over Poland. And transit over sea is way less expensive and decoupled from international relations than land transit.

I personally disagree with such policies. I think Russia should just cut every country out and demand reparations for all that money. But that's just me. I don't know all the implications of having NATO in Ukraine.

Last edited:

#### Harry Bosch

##### Contributor
It's unfortunate, but understandable from people who are at war with Russia. The anti-Russian sentiment is not the root cause, it's a reaction to the current situation.
Nope! Try again. That shit started pretty much after they got independence and never stopped.
In fact that process started in all former USSR republics. They thought it was a great idea to build their national identity on trashing Russia equating it with Soviet Union.

Baltic States had pretty comical incidents while doing so.
The fact that you brought Baltic countries as another examples shows that it's not really about Ukrainian nationalists behaving badly. It's about Russian occupation that all former USSR nations had to contend with, which rightfully pissed everyone off. The reason why it's probably worse in Ukraine is paradoxically because of the commonalities between the nations: the nationalist in Ukraine have to be more extreme, because they have less of their own history and culture to fall back on.
Mmm, I have never said it was about Ukrainian nationalists specifically.
It was about US running around Russia and throwing money at people to harrass Russia. So nationalist and nazi are perfect target for such financing. And yes, Baltic States have them.

Speaking of which, I remember Nuland doing negotiations with Right Sector (ukrainian nazi). She suggested them giving up weapons in exchange for US money for actually becoming a mainstream party. They ..... refused. But think about that.

You still don't believe me? How about right hand of Saakashvili saying the same thing I just told you? The fucking right hand of Saakashvili telling that US foreign policy in the region is basically giving money to anybody as long as they promise to hate Russia.
This is such a joke. I'm sorry to tell you this, but noone cares about trying to drum up hate for Russia! Russia's always think that they are the victims! If you want your neighbors to like you, treat them like a neighbor. Be nice. Don't feel that you are entitled to anything that you want just because you are the bully. If you need water for an area, negotiate for it. Trade fairly and with respect for your neighbor. If you have trade dispute, negotiate hard but fairly. Rely on a neutral court. Yes, you can mass your troops anywhere you want to within your country. But don't be so fucking stupid to get butt hurt when you mass your troops on a border; and then act the victim when the countries on the other side get alarmed at your actions. The reasons why all the countries on your border are moving west is that they are tired of being bullied, and they don't want to be conquered.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
It's unfortunate, but understandable from people who are at war with Russia. The anti-Russian sentiment is not the root cause, it's a reaction to the current situation.
Nope! Try again. That shit started pretty much after they got independence and never stopped.
In fact that process started in all former USSR republics. They thought it was a great idea to build their national identity on trashing Russia equating it with Soviet Union.

Baltic States had pretty comical incidents while doing so.
The fact that you brought Baltic countries as another examples shows that it's not really about Ukrainian nationalists behaving badly. It's about Russian occupation that all former USSR nations had to contend with, which rightfully pissed everyone off. The reason why it's probably worse in Ukraine is paradoxically because of the commonalities between the nations: the nationalist in Ukraine have to be more extreme, because they have less of their own history and culture to fall back on.
Mmm, I have never said it was about Ukrainian nationalists specifically.
It was about US running around Russia and throwing money at people to harrass Russia. So nationalist and nazi are perfect target for such financing. And yes, Baltic States have them.

Speaking of which, I remember Nuland doing negotiations with Right Sector (ukrainian nazi). She suggested them giving up weapons in exchange for US money for actually becoming a mainstream party. They ..... refused. But think about that.

You still don't believe me? How about right hand of Saakashvili saying the same thing I just told you? The fucking right hand of Saakashvili telling that US foreign policy in the region is basically giving money to anybody as long as they promise to hate Russia.
This is such a joke. I'm sorry to tell you this, but noone cares about trying to drum up hate for Russia! Russia's always think that they are the victims! If you want your neighbors to like you, treat them like a neighbor. Be nice. Don't feel that you are entitled to anything that you want just because you are the bully. If you need water for an area, negotiate for it. Trade fairly and with respect for your neighbor. If you have trade dispute, negotiate hard but fairly. Rely on a neutral court. Yes, you can mass your troops anywhere you want to within your country. But don't be so fucking stupid to get butt hurt when you mass your troops on a border; and then act the victim when the countries on the other side get alarmed at your actions. The reasons why all the countries on your border are moving west is that they are tired of being bullied, and they don't want to be conquered.
You are not listening, you are just repeating the same garbage I refuted.
You are the bad guys, not Russia.

#### Harry Bosch

##### Contributor
It's unfortunate, but understandable from people who are at war with Russia. The anti-Russian sentiment is not the root cause, it's a reaction to the current situation.
Nope! Try again. That shit started pretty much after they got independence and never stopped.
In fact that process started in all former USSR republics. They thought it was a great idea to build their national identity on trashing Russia equating it with Soviet Union.

Baltic States had pretty comical incidents while doing so.
The fact that you brought Baltic countries as another examples shows that it's not really about Ukrainian nationalists behaving badly. It's about Russian occupation that all former USSR nations had to contend with, which rightfully pissed everyone off. The reason why it's probably worse in Ukraine is paradoxically because of the commonalities between the nations: the nationalist in Ukraine have to be more extreme, because they have less of their own history and culture to fall back on.
Mmm, I have never said it was about Ukrainian nationalists specifically.
It was about US running around Russia and throwing money at people to harrass Russia. So nationalist and nazi are perfect target for such financing. And yes, Baltic States have them.

Speaking of which, I remember Nuland doing negotiations with Right Sector (ukrainian nazi). She suggested them giving up weapons in exchange for US money for actually becoming a mainstream party. They ..... refused. But think about that.

You still don't believe me? How about right hand of Saakashvili saying the same thing I just told you? The fucking right hand of Saakashvili telling that US foreign policy in the region is basically giving money to anybody as long as they promise to hate Russia.
This is such a joke. I'm sorry to tell you this, but noone cares about trying to drum up hate for Russia! Russia's always think that they are the victims! If you want your neighbors to like you, treat them like a neighbor. Be nice. Don't feel that you are entitled to anything that you want just because you are the bully. If you need water for an area, negotiate for it. Trade fairly and with respect for your neighbor. If you have trade dispute, negotiate hard but fairly. Rely on a neutral court. Yes, you can mass your troops anywhere you want to within your country. But don't be so fucking stupid to get butt hurt when you mass your troops on a border; and then act the victim when the countries on the other side get alarmed at your actions. The reasons why all the countries on your border are moving west is that they are tired of being bullied, and they don't want to be conquered.
You are not listening, you are just repeating the same garbage I refuted.
You are the bad guys, not Russia.
Do you honestly believe that the reason why e. European countries hate Mother Russia is only due to the CIA paying them secretly to hate Russia!? Honestly? It has nothing to do with Russia's actions?

#### barbos

##### Contributor
Do you honestly believe that the reason why e. European countries hate Mother Russia is only due to the CIA paying them secretly to hate Russia!? Honestly?
Yes, I not honestly believe that, I know that for a fact.
I told you about Saakashvili right hand. She said exactly that.

And why do you look surprised? Do you honestly believe that republicans in congress believe that Biden stole the elections from Trump?

You have basically half of the US believing utter crap. And this is situation where the other half is present. In case of Russia-West there is no other half, it's not allowed to voice their opinion.

In Nazi Germany absolute majority believed crap Hitler was spewing. So, no need to get surprised.

[removed video repeat]

Last edited by a moderator:

#### barbos

##### Contributor
Croatia is OUT!
Their president blasted Biden for the crap he is doing in Ukraine and said Croatia wants no part in this escalation.

Is not democracy and pluralism great?

Last edited:

#### Copernicus

Croatia is OUT!
Their president blasted Biden for the crap he is doing in Ukraine and said Croatia wants no part in this escalation.

Is not democracy and pluralism great?
The Croatian president, Zoran Milanović, has a record of aligning with Moscow's narrative on Ukraine and its sense of persecution and entitlement. I don't know enough about Croatian politics to know how popular he is within Croatia, but Croatia still remains a member of the EU and NATO. All he has said is that he will withdraw Croatian troops from any potential conflict in eastern Europe and that the West should take action to appease Putin. Not a lot is being said about him in the media, but I expect the story to ramp up as Russia incorporates it into its ongoing version of reality in Russia's propaganda story.

See: Croatian President Says Ukraine Should Not be Part of NATO

#### Copernicus

To put barbos's claims here in perspective, it is useful to look at the narrative that Russians are exposed to daily. It is interesting that Tucker Carlson has become something of a celebrity in Russia, and anti-Biden rhetoric in the US generally has been picked up and amplified. Russians no longer have access to a wide range of commentary on current events, although it is still possible to find some external perspective in online sources. Not everything can be easily censored on the Internet, but most Russians will get their news from TV and popular Russian news sites, which will promote the official narrative. And the Russian narrative is presenting a picture of NATO troop movements as largely unprovoked and aggressive, while their own posture in ringing Ukraine with troops is defensive. This CNN report paints a picture of the "mirror image" of current events that Russians are seeing:

The West fears Russia is about to attack Ukraine. But that's not the way Russians are seeing it on TV

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
Propaganda is still being used?

If the average American is anything like me (and they are) I don't know what information sources to trust & the snowball have grown so large it has taken on a personality of its own to one-day explode in our faces like snot bubbles.

#### Elixir

Do you honestly believe that the reason why e. European countries hate Mother Russia is only due to the CIA paying them secretly to hate Russia!? Honestly? It has nothing to do with Russia's actions?

Do you honestly think that if Barbos knew the truth, he’d be allowed to tell it?

#### TV and credit cards

##### Veteran Member
Russia Commences Training Exercise.

The Meet You in the Middle Live Fire Exercise has begun.
The Russian military earlier said it had launched exercises involving some 6,000 troops and at least 60 fighter jets in the Rostov and Krasnodar regions near Ukraine and in Moscow-occupied Crimea.
This after
Dmitry Peskov said that "the United States is escalating tensions," and warning that the Kremlin was watching "these U.S. actions with great concern."
Escalating tension by readying 8,500 troops for potential deployment to reinforce NATO. That's 8,500 with two zeros and Russia is quite literally up in arms about it.

Also, Biden is trying to get Olaf to back away from his Energy for Respect agreement with Russia by trying to get gas companies to redirect shipments to the EU and increase LNG production here at home.
And Germany continues replacing it's nuclear power with windmills and positive thinking.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
TV and credit cards

Croatia agrees with Peskov

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
If barbos' contributions to this thread accurately reflect Russian (i.e. Putin's) feelings, then there is no chance of a peaceful resolution without leaving the Ukrainian people royally screwed.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
If barbos' contributions to this thread accurately reflect Russian (i.e. Putin's) feelings, then there is no chance of a peaceful resolution without leaving the Ukrainian people royally screwed.
Actually there is and it was mentioned in the video I posted.
You need to actually point out it or describe it.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
If barbos' contributions to this thread accurately reflect Russian (i.e. Putin's) feelings, then there is no chance of a peaceful resolution without leaving the Ukrainian people royally screwed.
Actually there is and it was mentioned in the video I posted.
You need to actually point out it or describe it.
If the goal were to get people to consume propaganda, I expect that pointing out specifics would be against the agenda.

Staff member

#### Copernicus

This is why Tucker Carlson has become a media star with some talking heads on Russian TV. He isn't just a useful idiot. He is also a very effective one for their propaganda machine.

Soviet propaganda used to be so crude that it was laughable, but times have changed with social media and the internet playing such a large role in shaping opinions. The packaging of political narratives has become much more subtle and effective. For example, we all see that both the US and the UK have moved non-essential embassy personnel out of Kyiv as a precaution against a possible invasion, especially since Russian troops in Belarus are now within quick striking distance of Kyiv. I have seen reports in Russian news sources loudly proclaiming that the US and UK have "evacuated" (with quotes) their embassies. No mention of the fact that the vast majority of personnel have remained in place. So what many, if not most, Russians are hearing is a half-truth. There is just enough accuracy there to spin a false picture of what is actually taking place. Kyiv has complained that the embassy moves were "premature", given that Russian troops would still need a week or two to prepare an immediate attack, but the perception is the reality in the minds of so many Russian observers.

Unfortunately, the same is true for observers of Fox News talking heads like Tucker Carlson. He is an effective propagandist for his audience.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
It's unfortunate, but understandable from people who are at war with Russia. The anti-Russian sentiment is not the root cause, it's a reaction to the current situation.
Nope! Try again. That shit started pretty much after they got independence and never stopped.
In fact that process started in all former USSR republics. They thought it was a great idea to build their national identity on trashing Russia equating it with Soviet Union.

Baltic States had pretty comical incidents while doing so.
The fact that you brought Baltic countries as another examples shows that it's not really about Ukrainian nationalists behaving badly. It's about Russian occupation that all former USSR nations had to contend with, which rightfully pissed everyone off. The reason why it's probably worse in Ukraine is paradoxically because of the commonalities between the nations: the nationalist in Ukraine have to be more extreme, because they have less of their own history and culture to fall back on.
Mmm, I have never said it was about Ukrainian nationalists specifically.
It was about US running around Russia and throwing money at people to harrass Russia. So nationalist and nazi are perfect target for such financing. And yes, Baltic States have them.

Speaking of which, I remember Nuland doing negotiations with Right Sector (ukrainian nazi). She suggested them giving up weapons in exchange for US money for actually becoming a mainstream party. They ..... refused. But think about that.

You still don't believe me? How about right hand of Saakashvili saying the same thing I just told you? The fucking right hand of Saakashvili telling that US foreign policy in the region is basically giving money to anybody as long as they promise to hate Russia.
So suddenly Saakashvili's cronies are reliable sources?

You've really bought the whole "blame the west" Russian propaganda hook, line and sinker. Yes, the US pours money to various countries around the globe, maybe a bit more in Europe as a vestigial anti-communist propaganda machinery like RFE. So what? So does Russia with its support of right wing extremists in France and Greece for example. And the example of Right Sector just shows that the money goes to building up institutions and moderating extremists, not paying them off "as long they promise to hate Russia". The vast majority of the money goes to education and anti-corruption measures, not some imaginary anti-Russian plot.

#### Jason Harvestdancer

##### Contributor
Since Dementia Joe seems to be stumbling towards war with Russia, I hope at least one of those in agreement with him can answer this one question.

What is the vital US interest in Ukraine?

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
Yes, you "explained" that Crimea was obtained illegally because the Russian president at the time was very, very drunk, and you want a do-over. An ironclad legal loophole if there ever was one
It's more complicated than that. But basically yes. There was a lot of chaos right after dissolution of the USSR. In all republics including Ukraine. Drunk Eltsin was preoccupied with Tatarstan ignoring everything else, including Chehcnya where gangs of "freedom" fighters were literally murdering russian population who could not leave.
So what? There was a lot of chaos after WW2 when Russia annexed various plots of land to itself. Russia should immediately return Konigsberg to Poland and Karelia and Pechengsky to Finland on the same basis. In fact, there is a lot of chaos presently so every international treaty could be declared null and void if that would be any kind of pretext.

No need for do-over. Crimea had a right to leave Ukraine and then it was illegally stripped of that right. Not to mention that Sevastopol was not even part of Ukraine.
It's hard to believe but that's what happened. And the reason why it happened is because nobody in Ukraine/Russia/Belarus took USSR dissolution seriously, everyone thought, well, we will have this another union of independent states and we are all friends, we are all slavs, there is nothing to fight about. Basically as far as Belarus/Ukraine/Russia and even central Asia republics were concerned, dissolution did not happen at that time, it was just replaced with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States .
So Russia started to pay rent for the base which was not ukrainian and was not on Ukrainian land. I mean if you look at the map you would say yeah, it's natural for it to be ukrainian but it was not. That's crazy but that's what happened.

After NATO decided that they would like to have that base, Russia said - nope, you are not having it, hence Crimean referendum which was legal and results should be respected. Crimeans did actually vote to leave Ukraine and go back to Russia.
Ukraine was never going to join NATO, and it only became a remote possibility after Russia had already annexed Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine. Typical Russian propaganda tools: blame US and NATO conspiracies for your own assholery. Ukraine can only be blamed for being too naive to think Russia would honor the treaties it had signed.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
So suddenly Saakashvili's cronies are reliable sources?
Yes, they are. And she is not the only one, It's been MO of US all over the world.
Even in old EU they were buying people
.You've really bought the whole "blame the west" Russian propaganda hook, line and sinker. Yes, the US pours money to various countries around the globe, maybe a bit more in Europe as a vestigial anti-communist propaganda machinery like RFE. So what? So does Russia with its support of right wing extremists in France and Greece for example.
Russia does the same. But they are obviously less successful and their goal is not so much to succeed but to send a passive-aggressive message: "We are doing what you're doing, how do you like that?"

And the example of Right Sector just shows that the money goes to building up institutions and moderating extremists, not paying them off "as long they promise to hate Russia".
Such a bullcrap.

The vast majority of the money goes to education and anti-corruption measures, not some imaginary anti-Russian
So as long as majority goes into education it's fine?
And how is that working for you in Ukraine?

Or let say in Afghanistan?

Last edited:

#### barbos

##### Contributor
So what? There was a lot of chaos after WW2 when Russia annexed various plots of land to itself.
Sorry to disappoint you, but that's how wars work. You win - you get some land.
So for that reason Japanese moaning over these islands is unwarranted.
US gave it to Russia as pay for entering a War which Japan lost.
Same with Europe. Russia got stuff it lost during WW1 back and some more .... from you You probably made a right move to switch sides in the end of WW2, otherwise you would have been in the same position as Baltic States
All agreed with GB/USA. There was no chaos, it was all discussed and agreed upon in Yalta which is ironically in Crimea
You want to get what you lost? Make Russia lose WW3.

Ukraine was never going to join NATO
Bucharest memorandum disagrees.

blame US and NATO conspiracies for your own assholery.
No need to invent conspiracies. It's all in the open.

[removed video repeat]

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Copernicus

Since Dementia Joe seems to be stumbling towards war with Russia, I hope at least one of those in agreement with him can answer this one question.

What is the vital US interest in Ukraine?
As a supporter of Dementia Donny, you probably see the resurrection of the Cold War and old Soviet empire in a much kinder light than most Americans. However, I do think that right wing ideologues have also found common cause with some of the left wing ideologues, who also have a more sympathetic view of Russian talking points.

Ukraine is not "vital" to US interests, and that is why we won't be sending any troops in to defend it in case of Russian invasion. It is important to us, because we pledged to support its security back in 1994 in exchange for the denuclearization of that country. Ever since then, we have been working with Ukraine to help it fight corruption and establish a liberal democracy. They are an important ally, but not vital in the sense that we need to get involved in a war to save them from its aggressive neighbor. We also need to stand up for the right of other nations to live in peaceful coexistence--something that Russia currently does not see as being in its own interests.

#### Copernicus

So what? There was a lot of chaos after WW2 when Russia annexed various plots of land to itself.
Sorry to disappoint you, but that's how wars work. You win - you get some land.
So for that reason Japanese moaning over these islands is unwarranted.
US gave it to Russia as pay for entering a War which Japan lost.
Same with Europe. Russia got stuff it lost during WW1 back and some more .... from you. All agreed with GB/USA.
You want to get what you lost? Make Russia lose WW3.

Ukraine was never going to join NATO
Bucharest memorandum disagrees.

blame US and NATO conspiracies for your own assholery.
No need to invent conspiracies. It's all in the open.
The Bucharest Memo says nothing about Ukraine joining NATO. As usual, barbos is confused about what actually happened. Russia wanted a guarantee in the Memo that Ukraine would not join NATO, but that guarantee never made it into the memo.

Regarding Sakhalin Island, the US never "gave" Stalin anything. Stalin decided to enter the war in the Pacific only after Japan was on the brink of defeat, and he only did so to grab what he could from Japan's crumbling empire. The Soviet Union was taking advantage of its status as an ally to grab more territory for itself--exactly what it did in Europe when it occupied East European countries and turned them into satellite states with puppet regimes. The Red Army even had to be coaxed into leaving Austria.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
So suddenly Saakashvili's cronies are reliable sources?
Yes, they are. And she is not the only one, It's been MO of US all over the world.
Please specify who "she" is and what she said exactly? With links to sources.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
Please specify who "she" is and what she said exactly? With links to sources.
It was long time ago, I don't remember her name. And she did say all of that.
It was not such a big deal, I mean as if someone did not know that already.

I am really surprised that you think it's a big deal. Even wikipedia admits that USAID has a problem of being CIA infested, forget about State Department.

And Nuland with Right Sector? And that sex video of former russian prime minister? I posted it years ago, probably before 2014. And not so secret visit of CIA director to Ukraine and then ukrainians all of a sudden changing russian "separatists" to "terrorists" It all hapened, it just was not reported to you. It will be..... in 50 years but not now. It was well reported in Russia, russian propaganda would not miss that.
You can talk about democracy all you want but 145 millions of people simply don't trust you at all. THEY DON'T TRUST YOU!

I can spend time and find 10 year old links and it would be in Russian to which you say - that's fabrication. Or better ignore it like you did at the time and doing now.

So, don't ask for links. And start paying attention to the current ones. American journalists and professors saying the same thing I am saying.

React to the links/videos I post NOW.
Croatia is OUT! I posted it yesterday - zero reactions from you.

Last edited:

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
So what? There was a lot of chaos after WW2 when Russia annexed various plots of land to itself.
Sorry to disappoint you, but that's how wars work. You win - you get some land.
So for that reason Japanese moaning over these islands is unwarranted.
US gave it to Russia as pay for entering a War which Japan lost.
Same with Europe. Russia got stuff it lost during WW1 back and some more .... from you You probably made a right move to switch sides in the end of WW2, otherwise you would have been in the same position as Baltic States
All agreed with GB/USA. There was no chaos, it was all discussed and agreed upon in Yalta which is ironically in Crimea
You want to get what you lost? Make Russia lose WW3.
Russia lost the Cold War but that didn't seem to count. Technically, you don't get some land in wars. You occupy land during war, and you may or may not get to keep that land (or get some unoccupied land as a bonus) after the war in a peace treaty. But peace treaties are not the only kind of treaties. Ukraine got to keep Crimea based on treaties it had with Soviet Union, and because they agreed to nuclear disarmament. Ukraine kept its end of the bargain (giving up on nukes), Russia didn't.

Ukraine was never going to join NATO
Bucharest memorandum disagrees.
Bucharest memorandum doesn't mention NATO either way so I don't know what you mean by that. I was referring to the facts on the ground. Ukraine was not in any negotiations to join NATO, and popular support to do so was minimal. It's just an ex post facto excuse that Russian propagandists use to justify their annexation and invasion... which in turn sharply increased public sentiment for joining NATO in Ukraine (although it still isn't likely by any means).

#### barbos

##### Contributor
Russia lost the Cold War but that didn't seem to count.
Actually it did. Russia (Soviet Union) lost rather tight control over Eastern Europe and then dissolved. And Cold "War" is not a war. I wish WW2 was cold and my grandfather did not have to perish without a trace.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
Bucharest memorandum doesn't mention NATO either way
Incorrect!

#### barbos

##### Contributor

She was a closest ally of Saakashvili during and after revolution of 2003.
After 2008 war accused Saakashvili in that War and went into opposition.
Her talk about American money I can't find but it was a passing remark in some of her criticism of Saakashvili. Again, nobody in Russia was shocked by such revelation.

She is basically sane Angella Merkel style politician. Saakashvili is a batshit crazy Hitler style populist who happened to play democracy card, but really just wanted to stay in power by changing constitution to suit his ambitions. And yes, Saakashvili was handpicked by US, he is a US trained lawyer who worked in US. Go figure.
Both are main figures of 2003 revolution.

#### barbos

##### Contributor

CNN journalists and their archenemy Geography

#### Copernicus

Bucharest memorandum doesn't mention NATO either way
Incorrect!
The confusion here comes from barbos, who used the term "Bucharest memo", which is easily confused with "Budapest memo". Barbos was really referring to the . There is no "Bucharest Memo". In my earlier post above, I was taken in by the confusion and referred to the "Bucharest Memo", when I was really intending a comment on the 1994 "Budapest Memo". The Bucharest Summit did discuss NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, but no such plan was ever proposed. Instead, NATO has moved to cooperate more closely with Ukraine and Georgia without offering any membership plan. They do not rule out NATO membership in the future, but that is not currently on the table. Again, there was no "Bucharest Memo". That was a confusion that barbos introduced.

Last edited:

#### Copernicus

CNN journalists and their archenemy Geography
That's weird. I listened to the CNN clip of Amanpour's report several times, and the is no mention of Kharkiv (Russian name "Kharkov"). I doubt that barbos listened to the English. He just found this on RT. So I don't know where they got this idea that a CNN journalist (not the whole network) somehow misspoke about the location of Kharkiv. Maybe they tweeted out the wrong news clip in their haste to make fun of CNN?

#### TV and credit cards

##### Veteran Member
Croatia is OUT!
Their president blasted Biden for the crap he is doing in Ukraine and said Croatia wants no part in this escalation.

Is not democracy and pluralism great?
And their foreign minister, Gordan Grlić-Radman came back and said the president does not speak for Croatia, he speaks for himself.
Croatian troop deployment is controlled by the defense ministry and approved by parliament.