It's a war. Calling it something else is very Dick-Cheney.
You can't point out that they are trying to take Odessa by force _and_ that they want peace, within the same discussion.
Discussion
It is a war. Not a full scale one though (yet).
I can say that because at this point the west has to offer guarantees if they want peace (they don't). It is not Russia that violated the agreements. It is the west. Since the west doesn't want peace, Russia tries to achieve its goals militarily.
You seem to lose yourself in words. Resolving problems with violence is the strongest indicator against peace. Diplomacy is the way of handling problems when one is intrested in peace.
Putin has no crediblility that at any point he was ivtrested in peace, since he entered Ukraine in 2014.
How can you say that when for for example Putin after the mediation of Merkel stopped the conflict in Ukraine while 30000 ukrainians were surrounded and were about to be eliminated, to sign the first Minsk agreement. Both Merkel and Holland admitted that they used the two Minsk agreements in order to buy time for Ukraine until they build a better army. You have one side, the western-ukrainian side that never honours the agreements and they push war and you have the other side,Putin's side, that always is ready to give peace a chance. And it is Putin that does not invest in peace? What do you expect him to do? To give them again time to rearm? Putin did not wake up one morning and said let's invade Ukraine. It is NATO that is the aggressor here (as always).
Ok it seems some topics are difficult to discuss. I assume you award the peace price to Putin, when I follow your wording.
Words will be just words. People will most of the time tend to elect freedom of speech over authoritarian government when having the option. So who should be in the position to stop Ukraine asking for closer relations with europe? When they want to, I think there can be no legitimate contract that prohibits this.
This is the core problem Russia has always had.
They always have to use violence and walls and negative-treaties to bind Europeans to them, as _most Europeans don't want to live like Russians_. It's simply not appealing. If anything, they want to live more like the USA.
Very true.
Agree. Maby not the last sentence, looking at the USA in the current state. With a government attacking the press every time they report critically, ordering equipments of mass surveillance of all their citizen from ICE and committing raids, where officers are by no means identifyable by citizens, so they have no legal responsiblity to their actions.
It seems as if at least the current US government has a big attraction to how Putin organizes his government. There are defnitly parallels to them suppressing their citizen, even when it is not yet at their level.
Well, we don't want to be the USA, but we'd prefer to be like them, than like Russia. On balance.
Maby more true in the past. I think currently with the shifting powers and rapidly falling support from USA, Europe starts to build their independent way of existing. And I support these efforts.
I hope in the path to independence and ramping up military investments, European countries can deflect fascist governments. Since military independence is kind of worth nothing, when the fascist and authoritarian states grow within and then just have the right tools of military to ensure their position in power.
The propaganda machine that designates my government who’s enforcing laws & holding media accountable for spewing hatred. Shifting ideology to socialism and marxism is laughable. It’s like comparing our debt based system to bitcoin, the foundation isn’t built on true value at all. As we can see based on recent judge rulings & successful lawsuits. Don’t listen to the same media that’s based on the printing machine.
No i don't award Putin the peace price, i don't like the role Russia plays on Sudan for example (still better than UAE) as i have already mentioned. And it is not words, Russia promoted peace with facts as i mentioned. What stops you admitting it? Nobody stops Ukraine to have trade relations with eu (there is also a speech from Lavrov saying it) and russian people support Putin, that is clear.
Reread what you wrote. You think Russia is being generous, for _allowing_ Ukraine to trade with the EU.
Russians have to support Putin. They're in a war and it's not like there's an effective opposition for them to support, instead. Russians have no Plan B, and they have learned to accept that.
Also, they like territorial conquest and he keeps telling them that the Empire will live again. So long as the Empire expands, at no direct cost to the ethnic Russians, they will like him. Everyone likes free shit.
But the free shit is about to get expensive, and then we'll see how much they like it.
No i am not telling Russia is generous, i am pointing that Russia has safety issues by the aggressive NATO expansion eastwards, which is the problem.
I could agree with the rest you said.
Yeah, all those eastern countries were tricked or forced to join the only military pack which can protect them.
It has nothing to do with a fact that they were all subjugated to russia's overwhelming love and care for years.
I don't understand why they would want to join.
/s
Thankfully they are not subjucatted now. Only proxy war candidates 😋
It is quiet obvious to see a diffrence between the state Poland, Finnland or Estland is into compared to Ukraine.
So yes they are clearly better off, being part of the alliance, than Ukraine is not till now.
I didn't saw any threats from modern Russia to these countries. I saw them being aggressive against Russia lately though and that was because they were part of the aggressive alliance. So, feeling insecure because you are next to a more powerful country is one thing, being aggressive is another. Also what was Sweden or Denmark afraid of? Anyway time will tell if they chose the right side
What offensive action (not words, not defensive) have been done by Finland, Estland or Poland?
Russia was proofen to be active in the German government digital infrstructure. Russia most probably violated polish airspace and evidence shows that Russia also destroyed the civil aircraft MH17 where 298 civilians died.
I've heard someone even claim that Putin is very humanitarian in his bombing.
It's quite simple - NATO did not threaten Russia with violence, let alone invade. The boots of Russian soldiers crossed the border. So it is very clear who is the attacker. Talking yourself out of this simple fact leads to cognitive dissonance.
They also keep telling me that Crimea held a referendum.
Yeah, _after_ the Russian military annexed the island, so that the Russians were the only poll observers. And the referendum had no option for simply remaining part of Ukraine. They left the choice of "do nothing, we like it this way" off of the ballot!
The Russians reported a record turnout of 83-89%, with a mind-boggling 97% choosing to join the Russian Federation. 🥴
In Putin's Russia, ballot mark *you*!
Before Crimea annexation percentage of russian friendly and western friendly were almost equal as it seemed by the elections. After that, the russian friendly side had minus two million russian friendly voters
For clarification:
There is no valid election with two choices, where the second choice is selected at a rate _nearthe margin of error_. That is statistical nonsense. Absolutely everyone voting would have had to have had the same opinion, because 3% would tend to mark the other box by accident, and that would cover all of the votes for that selection.
This is maths.
So why did Russia invade? What do you think?
Because Putin is a psycho and wants more power. He's mourning the loss of the glory of soviet empire and wants to be remembered as a great leader.
There's no sane way to justify lost of life on both sides, spending almost a third of state budget, 5% of GDP on war effort because Ukraine might join NATO which thus might threaten Russia with war.
So instead, let's go to war for sure, get under international sanctions, impoverish the citizens and risk their lives and well being. Oh, what a great leader.
My guess - small penis, daddy issues, possibly both.
Push war? Which soldier crossed the border? West-ukrainian soldier went to Russia? Or did Russian soldiers cross the border to Ukraine?
Does Putin push peace by bombing residential buildings?
Peace is quite simple - Putin takes his soldiers back to wherever they came from and poof, magic, there's peace!
He wants the whole coastline, so I'm not holding my breath.
Besides, if the war ends, then he has to deal with some pretty awful domestic issues, like the fact that he spent all of the pension money on bombs and oil revenues have collapsed.
True. This is might an explanation, why Putin does not want peace, while not legitimating any action of Putin in anyway.
It's not like he can be removed from office, through a ballot. He'd have to retire or be incapacitated.
And how would he justify martial law, without a war?
But I think in a state like Russia, we know there is a lot of corruption. And it is obvious, that there are rich russians, which are willing to challange Putin. As last seen with Pirogin and Wagner marching towards Moscow. Maby there is no good free media to show the potential russian powers to replace putin. But I would be very surprised, when Pirogin was the last to contest him.
Since I assume the paranoia of Putin is not helping him to make friends easily. So it is a good setup for enemy alliances to strengthen within Russia.
So you have no idea why Russia invaded.
Theodore Postol for example was the leading USA rocket scientist and advisor to the white house for several presidents. He said more than once in interviews that what NATO have done justifies drastical measures by Russia. Maybe you should listen to him, i believe you can make a little research.
Peace is quite simple yes. It takes NATO to stop being aggressive and supporting nazis and terrorists.
This is a bonus (he says something at around 12th minute of the video if i remember correctly)
There was no credible threat of violence.
The response is not proportional to the threat.
Parroting "justifications" does not change the simple fact that it's Putin that attacked.
If I walk in front of your fence (not on your property) with a scary rock, it does not justify you shooting me and bombing my home, whatever story you made about the rock and what I might do with it.
With violence, the key is proportionality of response to threat. Invading a foreign country because they talk to someone is very disproportionate.
Plus if he was really worried about NATO and Ukraine being friends and a threat to Russia, going to direct war with them is the least rational response. If there "might" be a war, turning might into certainty is clearly not a good strategy. This tells me my explanation is probably closer to the truth.
I believe daddy issues and power trip explains it better than complicated 5D chess.
So tldr: was someone bombing Moscow? No. Then it's not important what was going on in Putin's head to justify whatever story he made to bomb Kyiv.
Inappropriate response of this type is not even terrorism, I would call it war crime.
Proportionality is important. Don't talk yourself into justifying actions of psycho murderers.
Russia made clear at the fall of communism that NATO must never push East. That was promised and then broken. NATO has aggressively pushed East for a long time. The ‘22 War never had to happen, NATO wanted it to, and scuppered peace talks. Putin is no Saint, but NATO is an aggressor. Ukraine is a very corrupt country, sadly being used and destroyed by Western countries hell bent on taking out Putin with no regard for Ukraine
Who started shooting? NATO or Putin?
Maybe reread what i wrote. NATO forced the Russians to act by scuppering the peace talks. This was the point. NATO wants War. Putin always said he won’t tolerate NATO pushing East. NATO are warmongers. Central banking Forever Wars.
What peace talks? There was no war.
Putin always said that he won't tolerate a free country to associate with whoever they want? And NATO is warmonger? I think the one that does not tolerate a free country to do whatever fuck they want on their territory and bombs it instead is a warmonger. Maybe the word means to you something else than to me.
Minsk peace accords scuppered by Johnson on orders from ‘America’. There could have been peace in ‘22 with no War. It was totally possible to have avoided this current War
It was very possible. Putin could have chosen not to invade.
It's quite strange how many complicated stories you have to invent to justify mass murder.
When the soldiers stay home, there's no war. When the border is respected, there's no war.
This war was entirely Putin's making. He gave the order.
Not as simple as that. Everything I’ve listened to, read, seems a general consensus that’s not the case. Anyway differing opinions but we both don’t want war period 🤝
Let's not overcomplicate things. He needed better survey results. Every time he conquered a chunk of Ukraine, his numbers shot up.
When a known serial killer sits on your fence pointing his gun to your windows, are you justified to worry? If yes what would you do?
You know i have already suggested to you to listen to an ex white house safety advisor about the safety concerns that the aggressive alliance, NATO, is violating and also i gave you a link that shows that USA knew that they are violating these safety concerns and that it would eventually lead to war...
Are you aware about that Ukraine is not the first country modern Russia was intruding?
The only difference to Tchechenia is, that Ukraine is closer to europe. But was is the same is that Russia expands their territory without any respect to international trieties.
Russia invests all their power to get access to the five seas and come back to emperialmgreatness.
Check out the Arte documentary about Putins plan to connect the five seas:
https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/119518-000-A/putin-and-the-five-seas-war/
And this plan is no reaction to other military powers at all. When Russias propaganda mentions international law to legitibize their war, this is kind of a non-argument, when they are concistantly violating international law.
I will watch it to see your position and thanks for the suggestion. Maybe not today though. Then i will comment about it (stay tunned if you are interested 😋).
Until then i am aware about the fact that the Georgian government said sorry about the 2008 war that Georgia caused under NATO influence.
It wasn't the government, but it was a political leader. Russia already occupies part of Georgia and his job is to convince the remainder that Russia is preparing to invade it and that they shouldn't fight back and risk ending up like Ukraine.
The country is hardly a democracy, anymore. Sad to watch.
There are Hungarian politicians who say the same: if Russia invades you, you shouldn't fight back. Defending yourself is stupid, they say, because it's okay to become Russian vassal state, instead of have your own country. At least, then the Russians don't bomb you.
They all talk like rapists.
Russia is occupying Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, for years, now, and they have recently threatened Kazakhstan for being too independent-minded.
Ah yeah it was the governing party leader. And he said that they attacked (which is true), not you don't fight against Russia. And why it is not a democracy?
I see Donbass as liberated, not as occupied. Not sure about Cherson or Zaporyzia though.
Moldova is certainly under eu "occupation", not the opposite.
I have no idea about Kazakhstan, maybe i missed that.
Part of Georgia was taken by the Russians and their partisans. They then tried to take it back (and failed: it's still Russian). That was what he was referring to: that it was wrong to try to reclaim their own territory.
Russian partisans now run the rest of the country and it is losing independence. The parliament currently only has one party in it and they are banning and imprisoning the opposition.
Then you missed the western NGOs, Samantha Power's visit, eu leaders trying to interfere in the country etc.
Words are not violence, even if they are on an official press statement.
Words (hostile speeches) are not violence, sending weapons is not violence, funding violent regime changes in foreign countries is not violence, establishment of military bases is not violence, spying is not violence, fake news and propaganda is not violence, blackmail is not violence,sanctions is not violence, freezing accounts is not violence, but all them lead to violence and war. Saakasvilli sent troops because of such things. Georgia was ment to be a proxy as Ukraine is.
This seems a good list of Russian activities. But by no means it gives legitimacy to Russian actions. I am really done arguing with you. As you are clearly not making effort to accept Russia as the main offender I will only respond by reporting your notes, when you continue with unconfirmed baseless assults and publishing russian propaganda unfiltered.
Unconfirmed baseless assults.
Read your comments. It is just that.
nostr:npub1cm87c625x3tzqu2qzf7e845749k58u7xvx2gc8ym0wmg9sytwwuqdrzwm4 is allowed to remain unconvinced and hold to his own opinion. That is not diverging from dialectec.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, just to remain civil and constructive, which he has been.
I don't need his agreement, to know that I am right. 😁
Totally he is allowed to post whatever he wants. But I do not see any point in letting pure propaganda notes be unreported.
I think when I learned something from twitters downfall into a noisechannel, than it is that everyone is to publish their notes.
So I am also allowed to report his notes as my free speech. And I am hardly oblidged to read his notes.
Clearly as of my goal, I will report notes, that creat unconfirmed stories that collide with well documented stories in a way, that it is clear desinformation or a simple lie.
I totally respect genuine commenter, the open their opinion. One can opinate that the russian Agression is legit. But to me it is not open for discussion if Russia invaded Ukraine or not. Same with Georgia or Tchechenia. And I am not open for discussion if Russia committed horrible warecrimes in Butcha.
Who does not respect that facts exist should not expect that I respect notes disreguarding proven facts.
You can report all you want. Nostr is a free country.
Yes you can report all you want. Maybe you should not forget to report your notes too, since they definitely create unconfirmed stories that collide with well documented stories in a way, that it is clear desinformation or a simple lie. Especially after bringing Butcha as an example where the western propaganda was trying to convince us that russians were bombarding themselves, while denying to participate to an international investigation about the case and insisting to make only their own. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs someone was saying and if this is not a baseless accusation then what is it?
Reporting on Nostr is always a double-edged sword, as some people will block excessive reporters from their feed or their relays.
Nobody likes a tattle-tell.
Yeah, but a cold conflict is still much better than a hot one.
Exactly. During the cold war there were some measures taken by both sides for example. There was some balance.
After the fall of the soviet union someone is pushing for hot wars etc.
Russia. Russia has been pushing for hot wars. Because, as I have pointed out, it doesn't have much appeal to anyone, so it can't use propaganda effectively.
To win a cold war, you need an inspiring narrative, and Russia doesn't have one.
You are committing the same logical fallacy. You claim that the invadad country can have caused a war. No one can cause a country to attack nor can anyone stop a country from attacking. If Russia invades a country, it is all Russias decision to do so.
I think on every legal level this is common sense. Also when a person kills someone, there is no law that lets the murderer blame someone else. He committed the action therefore he has to go to jail. Russia entered foreing borders with their military, therefore they entered war. No other party is to blame for this.
Exactly
So you say Russia is to blame for the 2008 war with Georgia also?
People in a country: We don't want to be Russian. We are fine, as our own country.
Russia: *sends in the tanks*
People in a country: Why did you invade us?
Russia: You said you didn't want to be Russian. That made us scared. We were very frightened. Why did you have to attack us?
People in a country:
Your mistake is in thinking that other people being happy is justification for killing them, merely because it makes you upset.
That is a literal fact, well documented. Otherwise show some reliable proof, to justify your argument.
I watched the first 6 minutes or so. What a crap!🤮 Especially the claim thhat Putin was bombing Syria was glorious 😵💫
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
And in Reuters, Moscow clearly approves that they were bombing syrian locations: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria/russia-says-no-evidence-of-civilian-deaths-in-its-syria-bombings-idUSKCN0VI0UW/
You know the first link you provided writes at the beginning: "On 30 September 2015, Russia launched a military intervention in Syria after a request by the regime of Bashar al-Assad for military support in its fight against the Syrian opposition and Islamic State"
...
But Putin was bombing Syria...
Glorious...
Also the most important.
Merry Christmas be healthy, stay safe, don't be a proxy and make as many reports as you want. I don't care about that.
Happy christmas to you as well. Maby we understand some things differently. But as I see it is rather on how we read things.
It is great we keep a respectful conversation. Happy christmas to you and your family ✌️
How is invading Ukraine keeping the serial killer out? If anything, it's more likely he'll attack.
And why didn't they attack? Russia is now weak, attacking them would be easiest now.
I think it's more likely that this story is total bullshit. A story made up to justify murder, even though they were not attacked.
What story was bs? And how Ukraine ended up having one of the strongest armies in Europe? Arming Ukraine has been admitted also so...
Ukraine built up it's military _after_ being invaded, not before.
United Kingdom and the USA are actually obliged to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression, and have failed to do so.
"United Kingdom and the USA are actually obliged to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression"
Why?
Because that was the deal Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for, while the US that can actually defend themselves without nukes kept a fuckhead sized arsenal
Russia was a part of that deal in 1994 too…
Pretty sure there’s no deal n e more lol
Did you have a stroke and forget to type your whole train of thought in between the beginning and end of this comment?
Or are you trying to imply the deal was "we will defend you as long as you don't get attacked, but if you get attacked the deal is off"
"Or are you trying to imply the deal was "we will defend you as long as you don't get attacked, but if you get attacked the deal is off""
When the attacker is as part of an agreement yeah pretty sure it’s null and void…
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
Stop wasting my time if you can't explain your points. Trolling doesn't make you cool
I made my point… you under no circumstances give up weapons for peace as you get neither afterwards…
Why don’t you stop eating people’s time…
Well, that's what they're effectively telling Ukraine to do, again. They have built resilient fortresses along the border to the Russian-controlled lands, that Russia hasn't been able to take. They call those areas "the meatgrinder", if you get the drift, and it's nearly stopped the advancement.
So, Russia is trying to get them to give those fortresses up by treaty, in exchange for Russia pinky-swearing that it will be friendly and nice to them, forever, in exchange.
But Ukraine did that last time, and the whole Russian-pinky-swear treaty thing didn't really work out well for them. Now, everyone screams at them, that they are war-mongers, but if Russia mows them over, 5 minutes after they abandon the fortresses, those same people will be like, Oh, nobody could have seen that coming... Woops.
Well no. And i don't think anyone, including ukrainians disagree with that. Except if you mean that the ukrainian army grew in numbers with the conscripts. Other than that, they were building an army and fortresses like the one in Avdiivka for years before the invasion.
The START treaty expired in 2009 and only the US and Russia reiterated their commitment to Ukraine's border integrity.
Okay, so where are the US forces, to reinstate the Ukrainian border? The border is no longer integer.
US security guarantees are not worth the paper they are written on.
Russia sends in tanks. USA sends a tweet.
Russia and the USA agreed to continue to respect the Budapest Memorandum, which has as its first clause:
> Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders
We’ve given them almost 190 billion dollars…
No, actually, you haven't. Most of that money was spent in the USA or by the US military in Europe. 20% was loans, not grants. Some it was promised, but not yet sent, as it can take years for contracts to clear. They've received more like $75 billion, directly to the Ukraine government.
Anything "associated with Ukraine" gets paid from that budget line item, but the Ukrainian government never sees most of it. But they _have_ received weapons and recon, which have been game-changers, so they don't usually complain.
It works like this:
Congress agrees to $50 billion in "military aid to Ukraine". The US Defense Department spends the money on developing a new weapons system, training troops on that system, producing the system, delivering the system to its arsenals. It makes room for that system by removing the older stuff, that was scheduled for decommision. It sends the older stuff to Ukraine.
The older stuff, that it would have had to pay to dispose of, gets sent to Ukraine. Same thing Germany did. Sent them everything they wanted to get rid of.
Another thing the US does, is that it loans Ukraine money, on the condition that Ukraine spend that money buying American arms. (EU does the same thing.) So, it's a defense industry stimulus package. That's why these "presents to Ukraine" often get approved by people who don't like Ukraine: the money actually goes to Americans, not Ukrainians.
The USA has probably made money off of "helping Ukraine", in fact, as everyone can see that the US-made stuff is vastly superior to the Russian-made stuff, and now they're completely swamped with weapons orders for high-grade stuff that goes for like $80 million a pop.
Welcome to the new world order
What in the..
I mean I get that our corrupt agencies and gov supported gain of function research out there and who knows what else but no my brothers and sisters and I aren’t going to die for the warmongering any longer. The US is going to focus on South America as our sphere of control changes. We can no longer babysit the EU. Yes, we caused this problem and for that I do feel bad but it’s not the right move to push a nuclear power into a corner.