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

[barbos]

Fair enough. Hopefully you recognized that before Russian invasion, Ukraine was about 50-50 east and west. I personally have a Ukranian friend that was very pro-Russian. We argued about it or years. Then when Russia attacked, the entire country united to fight Russians. Russian invasion has ensured that Ukraine will never be neutral. Their defensive weapons will be pointed eastward in anticipation of attack for generations.

I don't really care. These people are incapable of self-governing. It's the same story with chechen war.
Full occupation and full eradication of all ukro-nazi ideology.

Germans were pretty united in 1945. Japanese were 100% united even after 2 nukes.


Having said that, they are not as united as you think. Far from it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Fair enough. Hopefully you recognized that before Russian invasion, Ukraine was about 50-50 east and west. I personally have a Ukranian friend that was very pro-Russian. We argued about it or years. Then when Russia attacked, the entire country united to fight Russians. Russian invasion has ensured that Ukraine will never be neutral. Their defensive weapons will be pointed eastward in anticipation of attack for generations.

I don't really care. These people are incapable of self-governing. It's the same story with chechen war.
Full occupation and full eradication of all ukro-nazi ideology.

Well, I really see no reason to not assume that a large portion of Russians believe exactly as you do: full occupation and full eradication. Therefore, do you understand why people don't trust Russian requests of "peace". If your side really wants peace, they withdraw your troops and stop invading. Then maybe in a generation or two, people will start trusting your side.

 

[barbos]

Well, I really see no reason to not assume that a large portion of Russians believe exactly as you do: full occupation and full eradication. Therefore, do you understand why people don't trust Russian requests of "peace". If your side really wants peace, they withdraw your troops and stop invading. Then maybe in a generation or two, people will start trusting your side.

last time I checked it was 30%, then 51% was "I trust Putin"
No, I don't understand why people don't trust Russia. Well, actually I understand, but not for reasons you gave.

In fact, I have a question for you. Do you understand why russians don't trust the West?

 

[barbos]

If your side really wants peace, they withdraw your troops and stop invading.

You repeat this BS over and over again.
Russia would not have invaded if it was not for US led nazi coup in 2014.
The whole damn thing was US provocation, same as you did in Afghanistan in 1979.

 

[barbos]

Ukraine Tried to Coerce Danish Reporter to Make Propaganda - "Ukraine’s intelligence service asked a respected Danish journalist to prove she was not a pro-Russia propagandist by making pro-Ukraine propaganda."

Denmark’s leading chronicler of the war in Ukraine, Matilde Kimer, who has reported for Danish television from the front lines of the conflict since the Russian aggression began in 2014, revealed last week that Ukraine’s intelligence service had canceled her work permit and would only return it if she agreed to let the spy agency direct her reporting.

You look surprised.

Reminded me the interview of the head of Mozart group which (I am paralyzing) said "I am out of here!"

 

[Patooka]

Dumbass (ukrainian) ambassador to UK gave interview to NewsWeek.
In which he admitted lying about ukrainian losses, admitted that West use Ukraine in their War on Russia. Who knew being a fucking moron is now fashionable and acceptable in the West.

In case anyone is curious why barbos doesn't source any of his ramblings, here's why. Vadym Prystaiko never said any of the things barbos is alleging. How do I know this? Because here is the fucking Newsweek article;

Putin's war plan reaching "critical moment"—Ukraine ambassador

Vadym Prystaiko said Kyiv must "fight through" to victory and urged foreign partners to ignore Russian cease-fire proposals.

www.newsweek.com

Nothing barbos posts is accurate or even remotely linked to reality. This proves that.

 

[Jayjay]

If your side really wants peace, they withdraw your troops and stop invading.

You repeat this BS over and over again.
Russia would not have invaded if it was not for US led nazi coup in 2014.

There was no "nazi coup". The people were protesting against Yanukovich, a Russian puppet who refused to sign the EU association agreement. And later, when the protests didn't die down, ordered his goons to fire on the protestors killing over a hundred people. And then he fled the country.

And it certainly wasn't "US led", as evidenced by the leaked Nuland call: the United States was little more than a bystander. (EDIT: Specifically, not the call itself as much as the fact that the things they planned in that call didn't happen. Meaning that the US influence on Ukrainian government or the opposition movement was limited.)

The whole damn thing was US provocation, same as you did in Afghanistan in 1979.

There certainly is a historical precedent of Russia blaming non-existent "provocations" for all the wars that it has started. The real reason behind is of course age-old Russian imperialism and the fascists that are now in power in Russia.

 

[Jayjay]

There's still a few more hours of the non-existent "ceasefire". I'm going to make a prediction that Russia will strike immediately after midnight against civilian targets, just like it did only a few hours before the "ceasefire" started.

This is what Russian soldiers themselves think of the ceasefire:

 

[Copernicus]

Here is Zelensky's masterful New Year speech, a nice antidote for those tired of following the wackadoodle nonsense spouted by pro-Putin propaganda. The world ignored Stalin's genocidal Holodomor in Ukraine, when over 3 million Ukrainians were liquidated through a deliberately imposed famine. Exactly 90 years later, the world is paying attention to Putin's genocidal attack on Ukraine.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That is a powerful video.

 

[barbos]

There was no "nazi coup". The people were protesting against Yanukovich, a Russian puppet who refused to sign the EU association agreement. And later, when the protests didn't die down, ordered his goons to fire on the protestors killing over a hundred people. And then he fled the country.

Complete and utter western lie.
There was nazi coup orchestrated by Nuland&Co.
People were not protesting at the time.
Yanukovich DID NOT order any goons. otherwise he would not have immediately left after event.
Goons were ordered by nazis, that's accepted as fact in Ukraine itself.
Yanukovich was in his legal right when he refused to sign criminal agreement with EU criminals. Yes, I am not joking. "Agreement" was specifically designed for Yanukovich to either refuse to sign or face 100% certain loss in the next elections.
Lituanian president at the time (soviet era cunt by the way) pretty much admitted it to him.

 

[barbos]

There certainly is a historical precedent of Russia blaming non-existent "provocations" for all the wars that it has started

Dude, it was admitted by the US perps (Brzhezinski) that they did it.
Deal with it.

 

[barbos]

And it certainly wasn't "US led", as evidenced by the leaked Nuland call: the United States was little more than a bystander.

Give me a fucking break. That cunt admitted that she was all over it.

 

[barbos]

There's still a few more hours of the non-existent "ceasefire". I'm going to make a prediction that Russia will strike immediately after midnight against civilian targets, just like it did only a few hours before the "ceasefire" started.

Why are you so fixated on that? It was a joke but not for reasons you mentioned.

 

[barbos]

In case anyone is curious why barbos doesn't source any of his ramblings, here's why. Vadym Prystaiko never said any of the things barbos is alleging

He totally said what I said he said:

"The West now has a unique chance," Prystaiko said. "There are not many nations in the world who would allow themselves to sacrifice so many lives, territories and decades of development for the purpose of defeating the archenemy."

He agreed with Putin and Mearsheimer: West is using Ukraine in THEIR war on Russia.

 

[Patooka]

He totally said what I said he said:

Now you are digging yourself into a deeper hole.

"The West now has a unique chance. There are not many nations in the world who would allow themselves to sacrifice so many lives, territories and decades of development for the purpose of defeating the archenemy",

is not the same as,

"In which he admitted lying about ukrainian losses,(never happened) admitted that West use Ukraine in their War on Russia.(also didn't happen) Who knew being a fucking moron is now fashionable and acceptable in the West."

So not only are you being misleading (I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't being intentionally misleading), you took the quote out of context. The full quote and context is

Kyiv must make its commitment to liberating all Ukrainian territory—including Crimea—clear to foreign partners, the ambassador said. "We have to be extremely strong and focused on bringing over this message, that we are not trading our lands. The West now has a unique chance," Prystaiko said. "There are not many nations in the world who would allow themselves to sacrifice so many lives, territories and decades of development for the purpose of defeating the archenemy." He continued: "I understand the problem of Russia's nuclear arsenal, that in the end they can push the button and destroy the whole planet. I even understand what Elon Musk is saying and worrying about. But that's what we face now or later. They're not becoming better"

So no mention of lying about casualties (I'm sure because you're such an honest guy you'll retract that part of your accusation) and Prystaiko in full context is saying the West can either deal with Russia's fascism now, or deal with Russia's fascism later when it is in a stronger position. No one is being used - that's how coalitions work. That you find such a concept an anathema says more about you than you realise.

 

[Jayjay]

There was no "nazi coup". The people were protesting against Yanukovich, a Russian puppet who refused to sign the EU association agreement. And later, when the protests didn't die down, ordered his goons to fire on the protestors killing over a hundred people. And then he fled the country.

Complete and utter western lie.
There was nazi coup orchestrated by Nuland&Co.
People were not protesting at the time.

I don't know what batshit insane propaganda outlet you get that idea from, but plenty of protests were still going in February 2014:

And it wasn't a nazi coup, because while there were nazis on both sides, they were always an insignificant minority. Even the right-wing parties like Svoboda got beat in the next elections and fell into obscurity. If it had been a "nazi coup", how come the nazis didn't take power afterwards?

Yanukovich DID NOT order any goons. otherwise he would not have immediately left after event.
Goons were ordered by nazis, that's accepted as fact in Ukraine itself.

Bullshit. Berkut were the personal guard of the president, and soundly in Kremlin's leash. Later that year Berkut forces were seen fighting with the pro-Russian separatists in Donbas. There is no way some footbool hooligans or "nazis" would have been able to infiltrate the Berkut and start shooting people.

Russian propagandists, and their useful idiots, keep peddling this idea that there is a vast nazi conspiracy that nobody can ever catch in the act, but it somehow manages to infiltrate all levels of government (both in Ukraine and in western nations), control the judiciary that their own never get caught, is able to hide all the evidence of their wrongdoing, and whose main agenda according to Russian propaganda is to... indiscriminately kill their own people?

When pressed for evidence, you of course never give any. Just empty assertions and even stupider conspiracy theories.

Yanukovich was in his legal right when he refused to sign criminal agreement with EU criminals. Yes, I am not joking. "Agreement" was specifically designed for Yanukovich to either refuse to sign or face 100% certain loss in the next elections.

He got elected on a pro-EU platform. That's part of the reason why people got so mad about it.

And while he may have been in his legal rights to refuse to do what he was elected to do, it's always a political decision. The protesters were within their legal rights to protest also, and didn't deserve to get shot for it.

Lituanian president at the time (soviet era cunt by the way) pretty much admitted it to him.

I doubt it. Almost every time you say someone in the west "admitted" something, it turns out to be false or twisting their words, like you did with Merkel recently. I'm not even going to bother to check it out this time.

 

[Jayjay]

There certainly is a historical precedent of Russia blaming non-existent "provocations" for all the wars that it has started

Dude, it was admitted by the US perps (Brzhezinski) that they did it.
Deal with it.

Zbigniew Brzezinski? He was long retired at the time. And this is what he had to say about Russia's annexation of Crimea:

On March 3, 2014, between the February 22 ousting of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych and the March 16, Crimean referendum, Brzezinski authored an op-ed piece for The Washington Post entitled "What is to be done? Putin's aggression in Ukraine needs a response." He led with a link on Russian aggression; he compared Russian President Vladimir Putin's "thuggish tactics in seizing Crimea" and "thinly camouflaged invasion" to Adolf Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938, and characterized Putin as a cartoon Benito Mussolini, but stopped well short of advocating that the U.S. go to war. Rather, he suggested that NATO should be put on high alert and recommended "to avert miscalculations". He explicitly stated that reassurances be given to "Russia that it is not seeking to draw Ukraine into NATO."

In retrospect, he was absolutely right. Putin was acting exactly like Hitler.

 

[Jayjay]

And it certainly wasn't "US led", as evidenced by the leaked Nuland call: the United States was little more than a bystander.

Give me a fucking break. That cunt admitted that she was all over it.

When did she "admit it"? It wasn't in the call transcript that Russia leaked for sure. And the things she and Pyatt planned in the call didn't actually happen, which means their ability to influence events was limited.

 

[Jayjay]

There's still a few more hours of the non-existent "ceasefire". I'm going to make a prediction that Russia will strike immediately after midnight against civilian targets, just like it did only a few hours before the "ceasefire" started.

Why are you so fixated on that? It was a joke but not for reasons you mentioned.

Well, I was right n my prediction: right after midnight, Russia hit UN humanitarian mission in Zaporizhzhia, a school and a cultural center in Kharkiv, and shelled civilian buildings in Donetsk region. The last one was close to front line so they could've been military targets, but clearly, killing civilians in back on the menu for Russia.

The ceasefire was a joke, because there never was any ceasefire. In the frontlines, Russia continued to push forward as usual. And elsewhere, it was just reloading.