Poacher
Regular
Go on then, what is this big and special thing that Ukraine has prepared?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64774717
Go on then, what is this big and special thing that Ukraine has prepared?
Corbyn, obviously, is aligned with Trump on this one.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...jeremy-corbyn-over-sending-weapons-to-ukraine
So, neither very big nor very special then?
Righto.
Ssshhh we’ve got to keep the West supporting & glorify everything about Ukraine.
Funny thing about this war is that as yet, no Russian civilians have been hurt. No Russian children killed, or even so much as a scratch. No Russian towns have been levelled. But according to RecordAce this war was about Russian survival.
Imagine, @RecordAceFromNew, that the girl in the blanket being thrown into the pit was your daughter, wife, sister, mum.
Would you be so glib in your approbation of Putin launching an unprovoked attack on a neighbouring country?
Fundamentally, I disagree with your reading of history, plus disagree with your belief that Putin would be serious about peace negotiations. Russia broke their agreement made with Ukraine to enable their nuclear disarmament. The "little green men" invasion was Russian forces controlled by Putin which gave a wafer thin deniability that they had broken the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine was in a desperate state with expectations that Russia could overrun the entire country at the time of the Minsk negotiations. This is what was being talked about with Merkel - Ukraine needed to buy time to allow it to defend itself. The Russian / Russia aligned forces had no intention of ever having a ceasefire - at the time it wasn't in their interest as they were winning. The Maidan protests were supported by the West, but weren't instigated by them - it was a popular uprising when the Ukraine President reneged on election promises and turned back to Putin.
A week later, the author of that profile said
View: https://twitter.com/olya_rudenko/status/1497162295981584409?s=20
Re your "Funny thing" remark, that's the rule not the exception - how many American civilians were killed in the US by the numerous countries they invaded? And whom but morons believe they were invaded only for America's "survival"?
Sure, if that was my daughter, I might want to slaughter any Russian soldier I can find. However, that could also have been someone's daughter killed by the Ukrainian military in Donbas since 2014, or a photo from Iraq, or Libya, or Afghanistan, etc., proving how easy it is to manipulate popular opinion with selected narrative, and why the average Russian, whose country has been targetted by US sanctions and hostility, might welcome an open season for a hostile Ukraine siding with "the devil". But I suspect you are too blinkered to see that.
I have explained repeatedly to you, that moral judgements such as yours are not only biased, but even if unbiased they are never going to advance the examination and solution of great power conflicts, because great powers have no higher authority above them. I think I have wasted my time though, as you appear completely blind and deaf to such obvious facts and concepts.
While we agree Ukraine signed the Minsk agreements in bad faith (not that signing anything in good faith guarantees anything in geopolitics, as the Budapest Memo shows), it does indicate Putin was not hell bent on conquering Ukraine for empire, as SO many say, else why did he sign and not just pushed on like you say he could have? Since you also agree Russia is not strong economically and in conventional warfare, these are also good reasons for Russia to want to sue for peace for the foreseeable future, if the terms allow them to show Ukraine have learnt their lesson, and will no longer be a thorn on Russia's side.
He didn't "push on" because he would lose. His supply lines would be strung to thin and his troops slaughtered. He won't withdraw because he would lose. He is feeding disinformation to the Russian people. Rebuilding the USSR is his KGB wet dream.While we agree Ukraine signed the Minsk agreements in bad faith (not that signing anything in good faith guarantees anything in geopolitics, as the Budapest Memo shows), it does indicate Putin was not hell bent on conquering Ukraine for empire, as SO many say, else why did he sign and not just pushed on like you say he could have? Since you also agree Russia is not strong economically and in conventional warfare, these are also good reasons for Russia to want to sue for peace for the foreseeable future, if the terms allow them to show Ukraine have learnt their lesson, and will no longer be a thorn on Russia's side.
Think of this exchange as 3D chess, but you can't even see the chessboard.
Russia invaded a sovereign country. That really is the end of it. There is no reason why Ukraine should "compromise".
So after over a year on we’ve got some supporting the Western narrative. Some who think Russia are in the wrong but may have been provoked but most don’t have a *beep* clue what is really going on.
So after over a year on we’ve got some supporting the Western narrative. Some who think Russia are in the wrong but may have been provoked but most don’t have a *beep* clue what is really going on.
It's not a narrative. The study of events has been based on numerous different sources of information and news. In a closed country like Russia there is a narrative as truth is not allowed.So after over a year on we’ve got some supporting the Western narrative. Some who think Russia are in the wrong but may have been provoked but most don’t have a *beep* clue what is really going on.