https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-rHBRwdql8" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-rHBRwdql8

I'd never heard of this guy until yesterday evening when I read the DSOTM redux thread and your post.

I only listened to the first 30 mins, but it's amazing how this guy come to the same conclusions of the whole crisis as I have for years. But I agree  much more with your link of yesterday than today's link (I have some doubts about his views) 

I just think he guy is not on enough about internal NATO pressure put on the members to buy US fighter jets (the F-35) and other death instruments, and forced Germany (thx Ursula), Netherlands & Belgium to buy a cat in a bag for a fortune, thus torpedoing the Franco-German jet program a few years back (thx again Ursula). 

As the US will let us fly this satellite-controlled jetfighter if they don't us to.

===============

But what's more shocking to me is that we can (unwillingly, of course) agree about something 

^ This crisis benefits the arms industry in many ways. One of them is to channel a lot of old, deprecated hardware to the Ukraine, or from the US to Europe (and then the Ukraine). The Russians promptly destroy it (they own the airspace in the area, so they will shoot down any F-16 as soon as it lifts off), and so a stream of junk (and dead Ukrainians, sadly) means an opportunity for arms manufacturers to get wealthier western states to buy more modern gear. 

But the outlook seems to be rather grim, indeed, whatever our takes on it...

* Le Monde Diplomatique is a French language monthly that publishes background articles coming from multiple international sources, and regularly publishing contradicatory positions one next to the other. Interestingly, they published Mearsheimer article with the banner "An analysis censored by the European media", which is probably "newspeak" for saying "unpublished as yet", because Mearsheimer's positions have been mentioned/quoted/published regularly before.

I wish I had more time for Monde Diplomatique... Quality journalism ... something rare in these web days.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/international-issues/germany-went-from-the-best-to-the-worst-performing-developed-economy/

Of course. But still, I am more interested in WHAT is being said than in WHO says it. 

mmmmhhh!!!....

Don't agree really

Conspirationists (didn't say he was one) can say intelligent things for the wrong motives (did not say he does)

Just as important to realize who this dude is than at least consider his PoV (which I like, because it fits what I've known of the situation since the USSR broke down, and 00/10's events in that post-soviet buffoon state).

We've got enough to deal with Poland and Hungary being total jerks inside the EC about this situation (and previously). 

If either state wants to do a Prexit/Polexit or Hungarexit, fine with me: be my guest. I'll jump with joy.

I can agree with the Poles suffering as much from the Russians than the Germans over centuries, but it's ridiculous (and bloated) to think Putin would be interested in invading  their country, even if conducted these conspirationist religious zealots/extremists.

What a nothingburger. Please name these Fascists, otherwise the entire post ist just a brain fart.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. Russia has historically wanted a buffer on its western borders, either by taking it themselves or installing a "friendlier" leader in those countries bordering it on the west. Russia likes to have geographic choke points to defend itself and there really isn't a good one in the area of Belarus and Poland being a generally flat plain, so they would rather have a buffer. I know this way of thinking is antiquated, but Russia has had to defend itself for many centuries from invaders: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1605, Sweden in 1707, France in 1812, and Germany in 1914 and 1941.

Hi,

It's not only antiquated, it is also bizarre, considering how modern warfare works. That kind of distance and plain field is a good deal better for all the aerial assaults and bombs, that do not have to be next to the location at all. Thus anyone thinking that a mass of land is helpful to this or that is a weird perception, and I think it might just be an old thought kinda seeping through.

In fact, a large empty field is much more attractive, though nowadays, just like old days, it exposes you all the way. Time waste crossing it?

Russia's invasion is not about war. It's about getting more for their economy and steal as much as possible. It's been like that for many centuries for them. In the end, this is likely to end in an Ukraine loss since they do not have the economy or the ability to manufacture and improve their supplies as the Russians continue to do, even if slower ... a war of attrition is favorable to the Russians, even with all the threats. Any serious nuclear threat or bomb is probably going to end the war in favor of Ukraine over night, and maybe that is the best solution regardless of how awful the end result would be for everyone, not to mention a whole section of a country that is not useful for hundreds of years because of the nuclear fall out. 

Either way ... the result is not going to be good I don't think. It never is in Africa or the Middle East, and I'm not sure it is going to be much better anywhere else.

I was friends with a family from Lithuania, and Irene, always said that the real evil was with the Russians, but that might have been because Russia really messed up with Lithuania and still messes in their politics. But she was no fan of the Germans and what they did, which she felt the folks in between were probably the next victims!

The map above is taken from Wikipedia's Ukraine page, so it's not a pro-russia deformation map.

What Putin really wants are the lands given by the USSR to its Ukraine Republic (the ones mainly populated by Russian-descent (therefore in blue). That's where 99% of the fighting is done.

As you can see, he's barely touched the lands in Yellow, if only to pressure Kiev (which Russia's first historical capital, if you remember well), despite being given to Ukraine to those "Liittle-Russians" for centuries by the Tsars. 

As for buffer state, it's clear that Belarus is it. No need to go to Poland. Poland is grossly overestimating its worth.

As you can also see, Crimea was Russian (as were cities on the Black Sea like Odessa - constructed by the Tsar in the XIXth C) and remember that Krutchev was Ukrainian.

^ I'm not sure what your point is other than illustrating Ukraine's territorial evolution in history. I hope you don't want to legitimize some of Russia's recent annexations, with this... If that is the case, than we could also legitimize that Belgium should be Spanish (or Dutch, if we would go back to the 17 Provinces...).

The last internationally recognized borders (and that includes a recognition by Russia!) date from 1991. In my opinion these are the only borders that should be taken into account in the current international and diplomatic considerations, especially to avoid all kind of so-called historic considerations that everyone can adapt to his or her own liking since the nation-states are a rather recent phenomenon anyway. Ukraine's current borders have been defined in 1991.

Sure, you bet it was, a big brain fart.   

Why--  Did I hurt some feelings?   Well that's free speech for ya.

Hi,

European history is a mess in these things. Essentially (for example) Spain would be 2 or 3 countries were it not for the nasty governments for many years and their "control" ... which is still happening, with Madrid continuously punishing Barcelona (soccer) for things the Madrid folks have done for hundreds of years! It's just pathetic, and I hope that Madrid gets its due one of these days, and loses a third of the country, which should have been apart already were it not for Madridistas and their guns, not to mention a dictator making sure no one steps out of line including artists that were massacred!

France would likely be 2 or 3 countries, if they had not been able to control the folks in Brittany. And even today, folks like Alan Stivell still fight for their rights which were taken away from them at least 200 years ago.

Italy could have been another issue ... when you consider their differences (north and south) and the cultural issues involved, it is a weird miracle that they managed to stick together, which suggests that there was/were a lot of guns controlling everything and making sure that any small insurrection did not make it past GO and collect their $200. 

The rest of Europe is worse ... when you consider what happened to many of the countries.

I'm just saying that your post was entirely meaningless. I can also say that I'm against fascists. Doesn't mean anything until I also disclose who I think these fascists are. How you read hurt feelings into any of this is anybody's guess.

Well, I wish you all the best in your fight against the fascists, if in fact they truly are fascists.

^ Thanks.  Hope your country never elects a disturbed sociopathic traitor like the U.S. did.   

Hi,

Not to mention how many "governors" also fit the bill!

^ Yeah, well, if the people of a state elect a particular governor, that's who they get.   Democracy in action the way it should be.   But a Right-wing national party that has lost the popular vote for the last twenty years or so that is so out of control & desperate that their leader tries to subvert your Constitution, that's a bigger problem.

Maybe.  I'm not a Potter fan.  He's more like Palpatine.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatculture.com%2Ffilm%2Fstar-wars-finally-answers-how-palpatine-returned-from-the-dead&psig=AOvVaw1YiFF2p3HJ7yQacdBaMDI8&ust=1696717754613000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCICH16m84oEDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAu" rel="nofollow">

^ I see--  I think the tricks around here are being played by you.   

Do I seriously believe what ?   That Donald Trump is in reality a Sith Lord ?   That's fiction, Mike, from a movie.   And besides we all know Trump wouldn't make it past the first trials of Sith training.  

I'll answer Suitkees' comment later, when I go more time.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Well, after this short reminder of why one shouldn’t feed a troll, maybe we could get back to Ukraine, where there are actual fascists.

Though he (Wlado) should look into his own side for his own neo-nazis before giving lessons, Putin is relatively right with this "nazi" claim.  It's little secret that most of the death camps were established in actual western Ukraine & southern Poland (provinces of Silesia, Galicia, Ruthenia, Bessarabia etc...), because anti-jew progroms were common since the middle of the XIXth C (entire villages massacred). But those people were not nazis before WW2. I suspect that the Third Reich established their death camps there (as opposed to Alsace or North Holland) because they knew it was fertile grounds for such things.

I've said this before in other  Ukr threads here, but after Chicago, Toronto is the second-biggest Ukrainian city outside Ukraine (and third biggest Polish city outside Poland). When, during the 80's, I lived in the Jane & Bloor Street and High Park area, this was "Little Kiev" (my personal expression) and I had many Ukrainian-descent friends/buddies/acquaintances (and even a GF for a few months), and believe me, when I looked in their dad or grandad's library, there were tons of Hitler/Reich-related books. There is little reasons to imagine that it was different in the US (Chicago/Wisconsin) or southern Manitoba/Winipeg area. One of my best buddy was actually born in Chicago. I also understand many of these grandfathers still alive in the early 90's went back to their homelands to finish their lives free of any problems. I can easily see some Russian authorities (probably still communists back then) seething & fuming at this "returning-home thing", but not being able to do anything about it, since the fall of USSR.

Canada and the US didn't search deep enough the background of these "refugees" when welcoming these populations who were fleeing communism at the start of the cold war, instead of being sent to goulags in Eastern Siberia by the Soviets.

And then there is the Azov (or whatever) Bataillon/militia, but I'm sure the same thing exist 300km across the border.

Sean Trane wrote: What Putin really wants are the lands given by the USSR to its Ukraine Republic (the ones mainly populated by Russian-descent (therefore in blue). That's where 99% of the fighting is done. As you can see, he's barely touched the lands in Yellow, if only to pressure Kiev

Those areas are where 99% of the fighting happens now, but certainly not at the start of the invasion; I'd hardly call the heavy fighting in and around Kyiv as well as other major urban centres like Sumy and Chernihiv in 2022, not to mention the repeated bombings of Lviv and other western cities and the countless civilian massacres, "hardly touching". I know Putin has since claimed that the Kyiv offensive was merely a distraction from the main Russian offensive in the south but this could just as well be post-hoc saving face after its failure to put a quick end to the war by rapidly storming across these areas.

Sean Trane wrote: which Russia's first historical capital, if you remember well

This is also not accurate. Kyiv is the historical capital of Rus', which modern Russia is obviously named after but of which it is not a direct successor and certainly not the only descendant; it has never been the capital of Russia. In a distant past the Russian tsars claimed to also be the legitimate successors of the Roman emperors but obviously no one in their right mind would call Rome the historical capital of Russia.

 

How legitimate do you think these referenda were? I think not one bit, but I admit I didn't go there personally to check.

They sure can, not that I care much, I sure don't mind being 'the ass-hat here'.  I ain't no politician.   Unfortunately Trump is and gave nuke sub secrets to some punk-ass Australian who has shared it with countless others.   

So don't tell me about who the traitor is, how to judge American politicians, or about reality in any shape or form.

Probably not any more so than were the separation from USSR (not Russia) referendums of 91. 

But it was openly admitted that 95% of the population in Crimea was Russian still in 2014. 

Less so, for the four Oblasts, but still over 50% were.

But 91 was also a vastly different context as well. By 2008, Ukraine had become a hostile country to the Russian culture, pushed by  NATO and the West in general.

The ex-Soviet republics/countries had no idea of what an open democracy (election and/or referendum) was then in 91.

Probably none do still today, with the possible exception of Estonia and Lithuania (Latvia still hasn't  given the 300 000 non-citizens in its territory), if you're looking at Central Asia "Istans" or what is currently happening in the Caucasian mountain ranges.

BTW, Europe & NATO is doing nothing to help Armenia , because its gas & oil feeding it is coming from Azerbaidjian, instead of Russia. 

BTW, the only country that chose not to join that ex-USSR "Commonwealth" in 91 was Georgia (and paid the price of it by being invaded in Abkasia & South Ossetria). 

BTW again, the 91 Ukrainian referendum Wikipedia page was last modified in may of this year, which shows revionism to fit (skew) the truths of today.

===============

Mmmhhh!!!... I don't really have time to participate fully to this thread (got a life outside the web), so I may end my posting here.

This will avoid me getting involved in the potential naqsdtyness this thread is likely to veer into.

.

It's quite some difference if a referendum is held and the way it is carried out and its results are widely acknowledged by everyone involved, or whether a country invades another one and in the middle of fighting or occupation the army runs around and organises a referendum that - surprise, surprise!  - has a result that benefits that army.

Of course we can't rule out that a good number of people changed their opinion in the meantime. You may speculate about reasons why people voted something in the earlier referendum that they may have later regretted, but you can do this for every democratic voting and it doesn't change matters. People freely vote for something, then it happens, that's democracy in action. Migration as a consequence of war and occupation will also have played its role between then and now. In any case the 2022 referenda aren't really anything to go by. 

But it was openly admitted that 95% of the population in Crimea was Russian still in 2014.  Less so, for the four Oblasts, but still over 50% were.

So what? Are you saying a majority shouldn't count because ethnic origins are more important that what people vote? I know Ukrainians of Russian origin who a very anti-Putin and pro-Ukraine.

But 91 was also a vastly different context as well. By 2008, Ukraine had become a hostile country to the Russian culture, pushed by  NATO and the West in general.

I think that the "pushed by NATO and the West" bit lacks some respect for the eastern European people. If I remember correctly, you have written similar things about the NATO extension, but in the first place it was the Polish, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Czech, Bulgarian etc. people who wanted to join NATO, and for very good reasons, or so it seems these days.

I think that one can be critical of the American/NATO drive to expand their influence. I certainly don't see this as a force for the good in general, but at the same time we should acknowledge that a major driver was what was going on in the eastern European countries and what they and their politicians wanted. Expanding NATO was problematic for sure but don't ignore that there were very good reasons for doing it, and sometimes bold decisions need to be made and whatever you can decide comes with risks and disadvantages. You blame NATO now for what happens, but none of us can know what would've happened had NATO let the eastern European countries alone.

The ex-Soviet republics/countries had no idea of what an open democracy (election and/or referendum) was then in 91. Probably none do still today, with the possible exception of Estonia and Lithuania (Latvia still hasn't  given the 300 000 non-citizens in its territory),

The Latvian situation is difficult and we also need to acknowledge that during Soviet times there was a major effort to put Russian people there to get hold of the country (and many Latvians were resettled or driven out of the country). I can see why the Latvians are very reluctant to give them the leverage to change things their way now (I'm not saying I think they're right; understanding pros and cons for me often has priority over promoting one or the other side). Other than that, there are already many Latvian citizens of Russian origin, it isn't the case that none of them is integrated into Latvian society.  

After Crimea voted to join Russia.  Ukraine cut off all freshwater supplies to Crimea.  

^ I will agree that the western meddling in the 2014 Euromaidan uprising may well have been a mistake and contributed for sure to the situation we have now. (Not that Russia didn't try to manipulate events their way as well, they were just less successful.)

From 2014 to Dec 2021,  the American-backed Ukraine government killed 14,000 Ukrainians in the Dombass.

Where's that information from? I have read quite a bit on this and you generally find a number of around 14,000 dead on both sides combined, that includes victims of the Russia-supported rebels. Russia actively supported these rebels, so it doesn't wash to present events as if innocent Russian-minded population was massacred by evil Ukranians. It was a civil war. In fact there was a rebel government in place that declared independence already before Russia invaded Ukraine. Also you find that it was very difficult to get reliable information from that area from that time as both parties weren't keen on letting journalists do independent work, so you must have very special sources to claim what you claim there with confidence. 

That you still refer to the referendum results under Russian military rule as if they were legitimate is ridiculous. Maybe for starters try to write Donbass correctly if you want some confidence for the "information" that you try to spread here...

Errr... there's some discussion of your "thought process" (or rather of what you wrote) in my posting. Let's see whether you'll write something about that other than whataboutism ("the Americans in some other countries..." ). Also I'm not an expert on English grammar but you made yourself sound like an expert on Donbass.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ If you have a bone to pick with Trump, why not create a thread about him instead of hijacking this one? And as speaking of traitors and corrupt politicians, do I have to mention Hunter‘s laptop?

If you want to report me, then do it.   Who the American president is, is relevant.  

But ... Hunter's laptop ?   Wow, now I see the problem.   Is that where Sweden is with current events, or is that just your own divorce from reality?   No one cares about Hunter's laptop because it is utterly irrelevant.   Let me say that again: No one cares , and they shouldn't.

What Trump and his sick followers care about is assaulting an eighty year-old man with a hammer.   What Trump and his sick followers care about is kidnapping & raping a governor.   What Trump and his sick followers believe in is destroying the United States.   But yeah... I'm so sorry I've hijacked your little discussion.

Who's been saying that there is no war?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Now who's the master baiter?

I pleasure myself frequently, but that's off point.   And naughty.

Yes you're right, I feel terrible.

Ouch.

I can see myself making a typo on Donbass (I don't think I have so far), given that the m key is right next to the n key on an English KB (which I use at work), but isn't on a French KB (at home). If I made the typo, would that make me a dumbass ???

OK, politically incorrect play on word, so I apologize.

Prog-jester wrote: oh wow didn't know you is ok with trusting Putin's talking points (and trusting Putin in general) and using those in arguments with sane ordinary people. I'm so sorry we Ukrainians still somehow exist, bro. At least I hope you're entertained by the genocide so don't worry, with friends like you we won't even need enemies like russia, we'll be gone soon

Please don't put me on Putin's side, because I'm not making any excuse for his general arseholery and ugly killing sprees around the old USSR sphere of interest. (as I denounced in Georgia, though much of that was mainly before him) .

Actually, I loathe the bàstàrd, to the point that his "in" name end sides him along with Lenin and Stalin in my book.

I'm just stating historical and geopolitical context of why Russia is feeling aggressed by the west's expansion. Something that our capitalist and expansionist western world is simply not wanting to understand.

The only thing I'm really saying is that NATO has become really toxic (for both Russia, Ukraine and also the West) and is as much to blame for this war, as Putin is or Ukraine's past two decades' aggressions against its own minority.

Something (national minorities being aggressed) that nobody in the UN, except for Russia, denounced, but it's clearly written in UN status rules that national minorities should be treated with respect >>> BTW, we've heard nothing of the important Ukrainian minority in the first 100km east, north & south of the Donbass, but if they were mistreated, I guess we'd all have heard about it.

Of course, now that NATO got what they wanted (Russian aggression), everybody is saying (me included) that we are glad they still exist. In other words, they just regained their raison d'être for decades to come. And the west is getting rid of its now-old arms & amunitions towards Ukraine, in order to buy new killing stuff - which is of course all beneficial to weapon manufacturers.

But NATO is sooooo toxic that pretty soon, they (Nato) will give lessons to the CIA about how to foment trouble across the planet, because the pupil has become better than the master.  If I were Brussels' emperor (my place of birth and my hometown for 30 years), the first thing I'd do to sanitize my region, I'd kick out Nato(s HQ as far as I could (well maybe not as far as ... Kiev).

.

Prog-jester wrote: you probably think every victim of r*pe is partially to blame - for dressing iNAppRoPriAteLy

Totally uncalled for

As I said earlier today, I've already spent too much time on this thread.

It's not that important really anyway; you guys love to use my Donbass remark as a distraction, don't you? In any case, "Dombass" occurred five times in the posting in question, so I can rather safely assume it wasn't a typo.

I only checked my own posts, and that (this post you quoted) was the first time in this thread I wrote its name (correctly too).

Pettyness rules and ganging up seems a rule (not to mention the Trumpists insults of the other two).

I accuse my own side (fortunately & unfortunately NATO is on my side) for its wrongdoing and yet I'm bedeviled Can't you all see that all NATO did was to transform a regional cross-border conflict into a near-WW3???

Over & out. I've got a pretty heavy professional week ahead of me.

There is plenty of propaganda on both sides. The main purpose is to keep the general population motivated to support the war, which in your case sadly means to volunteer to get torn to pieces by Russian artillery. Sure, you can keep blaming the Russians exclusively, but from an outside perspective it seems like your government, as well as many others, also deserve some of the blame for failing to negotiate a peace agreement or at least a cease-fire.

This is what Mearsheimer talks about. He's not a fan of Putin at all, but he tries to look at the situation realistically and concludes that both the West and Russia have put themselves in a position where it will be very difficult to come to an agreement.

Fascists on both sides, tribalism on both sides, propaganda on both sides, backing by nuclear weapons on both sides, corruption on both sides ... it's just a mess. The incredibly sad part is: There's good people on both sides as well! The general population wants the killing to stop, but unfortunately killing is good for business. And as long as governments are able to make their people think that they're fighting for a noble motive instead of making the ruling class richer or more powerful, the slaughter will continue.

I'm really sorry for your two friends. But unfortunately, what they think they were fighting for is one thing, and what your government and its allies are trying to achieve is another.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ... but remember that might makes right in geopolitical matters.

This is - indeed - the ideology of which Mearsheimer is a proponent of, and as such he becomes a mouthpiece for Putin. "We" label this kind of ideology as "realist", but in my eyes it is a despicable kind of ideology that puts power values over human(ist) and moral values. It means to accept to be subjected to the invading power because he is more powerful.

Those are not my kind of values and I will always go against those who adhere to this kind of, I repeat, despicable ideology.

You need to distinguish between what "is" (fact) and what "ought to be" (values). When I am saying that might makes right, that is just an observation - I do not like it at all, but it is how the world works.

You can be opposed to it, you can speak up against it, you can wish it was not true ... but that does not change the facts. 

Hi,

I won't argue with your thoughts ... I think they are more "right" than "wrong" ... however, I have one thought that is a problem.

Even one famous story was culled from a lot of things 300 some years after the fact, what is now considered horrible news reporting, and it is a well known fact that a lot of it was re-written from the original texts, most of which have remained hidden by some powers that be, so they can maintain their imagined world in one piece, and make their flock think they know "God" (or whoever!!!) and this is what the public needs to know!

As such, and this goes back to the days of what became "Christian thought" that invaded Greece and changed all the stories so all the women are vain, bad and silly and easy to take advantage of. 

The main issue I have is that the "powers that be" are not always the truth, and neither are they reliable and true. But we "accept" that as truth, that power is number one, and this is so prevalent in the top ten world of music, and so visible in this site and many others ... the top "numbers" rule, and we allow the falsity to continue working.

As a friendly reminder, you might want to check out Virgin Records start ... they "created" their own top ten, and next thing you know a lot of their stuff was selling. And color balls came next, of course, by ripping off many folks ... and Tangerine Dream, and Gong and many others will never see a single cent for it!

Please ... stop endearing the "powers" that be ... they need to be taken down!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Sure, Putin made the decision to invade Ukraine. The point is that if Russia sees a NATO-controlled Ukraine as an existential threat (and there is a lot of evidence that they do), they are not going to retreat. Russia is doing great economically, and even if they underestimated the resistance Ukraine would put up through the massive support by NATO, they (NATO and Ukraine) underestimated the ability of Russia to ramp up their efforts accordingly. Remember that Russia openly said in the years before the invasion that they would rather raze Ukraine to the ground than let NATO control it. We can complain about it all day long or point out that the Ukrainians want to be part of NATO, but remember that might makes right in geopolitical matters. Neither US/NATO nor Russia care about what the Ukrainians want, or about what their own constituents want for that matter. They care about what they can achieve militarily and economically, and at what cost, and about how all of that can be sold to the general public through the propaganda machine.

Oh, the sophistry, it makes one want to... well... throw up.

Are you a psychopath?

Ok, you literally have nothing to say. Why not just shut up?

If you think one of my arguments was false or made in an attempt to deceive people, then tell me. Give an example, explain why it is false.

And congratulations, you are the third person here to confuse "is" with "ought to be". 

If I remember correctly, Crimea declared independency about one month after a pro-western regime was installed in the Ukraine in February 2014. Why would you call it an invasion when the Russians were already there? 

When it comes to agreements, how about James Baker promising Gorbatchev in 1990 that NATO would not expand eastwards? https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early" rel="nofollow - https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early And in more recent times, how about the Minsk 2 accord, where Ukraine promised to lead the Donbass oblasts into independence? 

You're right. Baker promised Gobatchev that NATO would not expand an inch eastwards.  However, Baker told the truth.  NATO expanded a thousand miles eastwards.  That's not an inch.  Besides, Europe is on the metric system.  Inches don't count. 

Sure, Ukraine promised to lead the Donbass oblasts into independence.  However, it's OK when Ukraine breaks a treaty.  It's 4-D chess when America breaks a treaty. That's why the World trusts America!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: how about the Minsk 2 accord, where Ukraine promised to lead the Donbass oblasts into independence?

The Wikipedia page, which supposedly has the full text, mentions no such thing (only a "special status" with temporary local self-governance).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

Merkel admits Minsk Agreement was meant to buy time to build Ukraine's military.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/22/ffci-d22.pdf

Tempting, but I wouldn't know where to start.   The nuances of "EU Politics" aside, unless you are a professional Peace Negotiator with a staggeringly firm grasp of history, your position is increasingly untenable.   

You said "Violence is never the answer" ?   Tell that to a family protecting their home from criminals & terrorists and no help from police or soldiers.   And there you are, in your little home in Scandanavia talking about what others should do and how they should handle themselves.   It's a joke.

Yes, it's sad - there are other revealing statements in there as well:

"Now, Merkel confirms that NATO wanted war from the start but needed time to prepare militarily—an assessment WSWS has long held"

NATO had decided to wage this war long before Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022. It's obvious, it makes sense economically and strategically, when seen from the inhuman perspective of our leaders.

So what? Agreement or not, Ukraine had (and has) an aggressive neighbour to deal with, and was according to Merkel at the time not properly able to defend itself. There was nothing in the agreement that would stop Ukraine from doing this.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Merkel confirms that NATO wanted war from the start

 

Merkel has said no such thing; surely the cited interview passage didn't say this.

Ok, so unless I have some credentials as a professional peace negotiator, I'm not qualified to talk about politics? That's the "stay in your lane" argument, which is ridiculous. Think about where that would lead if people stopped thinking or speaking about matters they weren't trained in. "Leave it to the doctors", "leave it to the politicians", "leave it to the ..." ... this is how fascism takes hold and totalitarian regimes get established.

Atavachron wrote: You said "Violence is never the answer" ?   Tell that to a family protecting their home from criminals & terrorists and no help from police or soldiers.   And there you are, in your little home in Scandanavia talking about what other should do and how they should handle themselves.   It's a joke.

I was talking about Geopolitics, where history shows that violence usually makes matters worse (because it leads to more violence through retaliation). Sure, you can always construct situations where things have gone so wrong that only violence remains as an option (to escape death, or worse). In the example you gave, it is not obvious that violence would help. Say that this family gets an illegal gun to protect themselves - are they then safe? Or is the problem in that case that the country they live in is a failed state? There is no good solution in that scenario. BTW: I am not TELLING anyone what to do. Check my previous posts here and elsewhere and show me a single line where I judged any Ukrainian for using violence against the Russian invaders. You won't find any.

Yeah!  NATO/Merkel/USA tricked Russia again!  

Fool Russia once, shame on NATO.  Fool Russia twice...Shame on Russia.

 Minsk 1...Minsk 2

NATO tricked you twice, Russia!

Shame on you.

 

You're moving the goalpost. The Minsk 2 agreement was given as an example of the West trying to deceive Russia, showing that historically it is not correct to say that Russia has generally been untrustworthy while NATO/Ukraine always kept their promises. You can say "so what", that's your prerogative, but you should also acknowledge that it was an agreement entered in bad faith.

Sure, it's a biased comment from the "World Socialist Web Site" article ... not exactly a neutral source (I'm not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination, btw).

The article also contains the actual quote:

“The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time,” Merkel told the weekly Die Zeit. “It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.”

There are other pieces of information which, all taken together, suggest that the war was probably planned (or at least well anticipated) by NATO as well as Russia. Quite a bit of game theory in there as well probably ("they knew that the other side knew that they knew ..."). 

She said what she said, she didn't say what she didn't say. I don't deny she said this (and as explanation that in 2014/15 the Ukraine was so weak that Russia could easily have overrun her). I already explained why this made sense even without preparing a war.

I'm aware of the duplicity, I explicitly mentioned "game theory" in my previous post. It is bad faith to enter an agreement with the intention of doing the opposite. The fact that the other party may know that you entered it in bad faith (they know you're a liar and prepare accordingly) doesn't change the fact that you did.

Sure, in general politicians are professional liars. We are only talking about this now since a few posts earlier someone singled out Russia as the dishonest ones. I'm just saying that everybody lies, and some in more egregious ways than others.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: How was Ukraine not in violation of Minsk 2?

I'm making reference to Merkel's quote. What she said was not in violation of Minsk 2, and this was what we were talking about. Minsk 2 didn't work out from either side, but that's another story.

Yes, there are hypocrites on both sides.   Good faith...bad faith.  The Russian people  think NATO broke Minsk agreements.  The Russian people take it as bad faith.  

Russia won't make a similar deal again.  The Ukraine Summer Offensive is a massive failure.  America is thinking about pulling support to Ukraine.  Israel is more important to America.  

Bottom Line: 

-Russia doesn't want nukes a few hundred miles from Moscow.  Russia won't stop until they eliminate that threat.  Is it a threat?  Russia thinks so. 

-Russia will not allow Ukraine to join NATO.  It doesn't matter whether you or I like it.  Or if it's right or wrong.

-It doesn't matter whether you or I disagree with the Autumn 2022 vote referendums.   According to Russian law, Putin has no choice but to defend the four Oblasts to the end. 

- Every day brings America closer to ending support for Ukraine.  The Speaker of the House lost his job over Ukraine support.  American Neo-cons are rattling sabers over attacking Iran to protect Israel. 

- Sanctions against Russia backfired

1. BRICS added several Middle East members.  BRICS avoids trading in the Dollars.  Currently, the BRICS plus members trade with each other in their own currencies. 

2.  Since 2021, Russia's economy went from #11 worldwide to #6.

3. Since the attack on Nordstream, the German economy has gone under its worst decline in recent memory. No more cheap Russian energy for Germany. That's OK with America.  The US wants Germany dependent on America. 

4. NATO/US pushed Russia into China's waiting arms.  How is that good for NATO/US? 

5.  Ukraine has undergone at least ten mobilizations.  Ukraine is running out of men.  Russia mobilized once: 300,000 last fall.  By Russian law, those conscripts can only serve on Russian soil.  Since the beginning of 2023, Russia has had more than 300,000 military volunteers. By Russian law, volunteers can fight on Ukrainian soil.

Poland is pulling support 

Hungry is pulling support

Slovakia is pulling support...all three countries border Ukraine. 

When asked why the US is supplying Ukraine with illegal cluster bombs, President Biden said, "We ran out of ammunition."

Rumor has it that North Korea will supply Russia with ten million artillery shells. 

What am I saying?  It does not matter what we think.  Russia will not stop until they accomplish the goals they set out to accomplish. What were those goals?

1. Free the Donbass

2. Demillartarize Ukraine (Destroy Ukraine's military) 

3. Denatzify Ukraine

4. Stop Ukraine from ever joining NATO

Reality?  I estimate that there is a 90% chance that Russia will accomplish 3/4's of its goals.  I don't think Russia will be able to Denatzify Ukraine, since the Bandera nazis are in West Ukraine.  I don't think Russia wants to mess with taking West Ukraine.  I wouldn't be surprised if Poland and Hungry take sections of West Ukraine...parts that used to be Poland...parts that used to be Hungry.

I'm not claiming that Russia is right.  I'm not claiming that Ukraine is wrong.  Or, visa-versa. 

Canada Parliament gives a standing ovation to a Ukrainian Nazi who fought for Germany.