War in Ukraine

[Stirlingsays]

I just don't understand some people especially the media. Whatever you think of Putin he has successfully seized land, albeit at a high cost to his troops. Winning countries tend not to give land back so unless the EU are going full on to back the Ukraine with troops etc. any deal is going to favour Russia.

The Ukraine are not going to get a good deal it might stink but it's the real world (might is right) not the happy clappy alphabet soup win the EU and Starmer think it should be.

It's all a bit pathetic.....E-Useless as I heard someone say.

They certainly have all the virtue signalling rhetoric but none of the ammunition to carry it out....literally.

Cap in hand to America begging Trump while their media have been tearing lumps out of him for years.

Biden couldn't even get a meeting with Putin....and despite the war being closer to an end now all these TDS obsessives are still falling over themselves to deny what's in their face.

 

[Foxy82]

Worth watching, it's well made

The Man in the High Castle (TV series) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This has made me think about watching it again

Well, I am quite partial to a bit of Dick.

Philip.K, of course

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

did you hear that on BBC question time ? To a thunderous applause from their paid-stooge audience ?

a) Putin & the Russian People

b) Macron, 2 Tier , Carney.....& the people of France, UK, Canada.


Only A or B is popular and still widely supported at home. Which one Wisbech ?

Don’t watch question time! Nothing to see or hear there other than political posturing.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Just more bad analysis from you.

You have been awful on this war since the start.

When peace was offered up in 2022 you backed Biden and Johnson in their successful bid to stop Zelensky from signing.

Now the deal will be far worse and you seem to think it could be better.

It's as dim as thinking that big sanctions onto India and China for taking shadow fleet oil are going to have good consequences for the world economy and for US influence in important spheres.....The thought that there are reasons why this isn't done...and hasn't been done....doesn't seem to occur to you.

By rights you should be paying about thirty percent of every right winger's energy bill.....because it's your ideas which are responsible for it.

As peace wasn’t offered in 2022 there was nothing to back. Putin doesn’t make peace. He is either restrained from further actions or he isn’t. You can argue that the USA has created this situation by encouraging Ukraine to look west and that a better way could have been found to allow Russian access to the Black Sea and give guarantees that no bases would be put in Ukraine, but that’s not what happened.

If you want someone to blame then look westwards at the neocons. Not at the liberals in Europe who had no option other than to go along.

Sanctions would work. They don’t need to be for ever and they need to be accompanied by real diplomacy in which everyone speaks honestly and with insight into what the issues really are, and listens to each other, in private. Not this narcissistic, attention seeking drivel to try to position Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize with the spearhead being carried by a golfing buddy whose only skill is in real estate. Just like his boss.

There won’t be a real deal that leads to a lasting peace until we see a real President back in the WH. There will be a stitch up that will last only as long as Putin decides not to break it.

Only when Putin calculates that he has more to gain by not taking further action will there be peace.

 

[Stirlingsays]

As peace wasn’t offered in 2022 there was nothing to back. Putin doesn’t make peace. He is either restrained from further actions or he isn’t. You can argue that the USA has created this situation by encouraging Ukraine to look west and that a better way could have been found to allow Russian access to the Black Sea and give guarantees that no bases would be put in Ukraine, but that’s not what happened.

If you want someone to blame then look westwards at the neocons. Not at the liberals in Europe who had no option other than to go along.

Sanctions would work. They don’t need to be for ever and they need to be accompanied by real diplomacy in which everyone speaks honestly and with insight into what the issues really are, and listens to each other, in private. Not this narcissistic, attention seeking drivel to try to position Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize with the spearhead being carried by a golfing buddy whose only skill is in real estate. Just like his boss.

There won’t be a real deal that leads to a lasting peace until we see a real President back in the WH. There will be a stitch up that will last only as long as Putin decides not to break it.

Only when Putin calculates that he has more to gain by not taking further action will there be peace.

Every sentence just utter failed horsesh1t.

So much money and lives wasted because of rubbish like this.

If words were manure you'd be the richest farmer out there.

 

[Spindle]

Just more bad analysis from you.

You have been awful on this war since the start.

When peace was offered up in 2022 you backed Biden and Johnson in their successful bid to stop Zelensky from signing.

Now the deal will be far worse and you seem to think it could be better.

It's as dim as thinking that big sanctions onto India and China for taking shadow fleet oil are going to have good consequences for the world economy and for US influence in important spheres.....The thought that there are reasons why this isn't done...and hasn't been done....doesn't seem to occur to you.

By rights you should be paying about thirty percent of every right winger's energy bill.....because it's your ideas which are responsible for it.

If you can name just ONE international deal that Putin has kept his word on I will be impressed.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Whatever you think of Putin he has successfully seized land, albeit at a high cost to his troops. Winning countries tend not to give land back so unless the EU are going full on to back the Ukraine with troops etc. any deal is going to favour Russia.

oh yes. That nasty invading imperialist Putin. Has just robbed.....eh.......some Russian speaking territory from NATO. oh right.
'Ukraine' isn't even a proper country. East and West are two different languages.....Ukranian and Russian. NATO and the West are the instigators of all the trouble here. For at least the last thirty years. Planting their flags closer and closer to Moscow.
In 1989 the Iron Curtain fell, and ever since The West has been taking territory from the East.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

If you can name just ONE international deal that Putin has kept his word on I will be impressed.

the Brits fecked over the Arab blokes who supported Lawrence of Arabia.

President Bush senior urged the Kurds to rise up. He would support them. And then they all got slaughtered by Saddam.

Hitler & Stalin with the von Ribbentrop plan.

All international deals are barely worth the paper they are written on. No honour among thieves. Its akin to a pact among drug dealers.....either little Croydon street-level or the big fish like Pablo Escobar.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Every sentence just utter failed horsesh1t.

So much money and lives wasted because of rubbish like this.

If words were manure you'd be the richest farmer out there.

If words were manure you would have been sprayed all over the fens, turned into carrots and sold in Aldi years ago.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

oh yes. That nasty invading imperialist Putin. Has just robbed.....eh.......some Russian speaking territory from NATO. oh right.
'Ukraine' isn't even a proper country. East and West are two different languages.....Ukranian and Russian. NATO and the West are the instigators of all the trouble here. For at least the last thirty years. Planting their flags closer and closer to Moscow.
In 1989 the Iron Curtain fell, and ever since The West has been taking territory from the East.

You could also argue that the eastern states, freed from the yoke of Russian control, have planted their flags ever further west in the hope of never again returning to such dominance.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between. It’s been a failure of American foreign policy and of diplomacy being replaced by imperialistic ambition. On both sides.

 

[Spindle]

oh yes. That nasty invading imperialist Putin. Has just robbed.....eh.......some Russian speaking territory from NATO. oh right.
'Ukraine' isn't even a proper country. East and West are two different languages.....Ukranian and Russian. NATO and the West are the instigators of all the trouble here. For at least the last thirty years. Planting their flags closer and closer to Moscow.
In 1989 the Iron Curtain fell, and ever since The West has been taking territory from the East.

Have you ever met any Ukrainians?

 

[Spindle]

the Brits fecked over the Arab blokes who supported Lawrence of Arabia.

President Bush senior urged the Kurds to rise up. He would support them. And then they all got slaughtered by Saddam.

Hitler & Stalin with the von Ribbentrop plan.

All international deals are barely worth the paper they are written on. No honour among thieves. Its akin to a pact among drug dealers.....either little Croydon street-level or the big fish like Pablo Escobar.

The first two weren't treaties and you're not even telling the truth. And next, citing Hitler and Stalin, two of the worst people in history, to support your suggestion that Putin is 'ok'. Jesus Christ.

You are completely wrong on treaties, and just so you know, since he's been President he's breach ALL of the treaties he's made with other countries, and there's been about 24.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Have you ever met any Ukrainians?

yes. Quite a few. Very nice people. I empathesise with their plight. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. And certainly the Eastern and Western Ukranians are more different than, say, English and Irish. And certainly the telly spouts a ton of fake news about Ukraine. And has been doing so for decades.

Have you met any Vietnamese ? cos, commenting on the world geo politics is the relevant part. Both Vietnam and Ukraine are the chosen theatre where the action happens this week. Before the whole circus moves off to a different field.

3 invasions.

Napoleon
Hitler
NATO

 

[PalazioVecchio]

The first two weren't treaties and you're not even telling the truth. And next, citing Hitler and Stalin, two of the worst people in history, to support your suggestion that Putin is 'ok'. Jesus Christ.

You are completely wrong on treaties, and just so you know, since he's been President he's breach ALL of the treaties he's made with other countries, and there's been about 24.

well then who were the fools dumb enough to sign the last few. I wouldnt buy a used car off of Del Boy and wouldnt sign a treaty with a liar.
You seem to believe in Goodies in World Politics. Biden , Clinton, Blair, Kier, Ursula von der Leyen.....Now who is being Naive ?

 

[Stirlingsays]

If you can name just ONE international deal that Putin has kept his word on I will be impressed.

Sure.

• Syria Chemical Weapons Agreement (2013)
• Ukraine Financial Aid Package (2013)
• Personal Agreements with Bill Clinton (1999–2001)
• Context: During Clinton’s presidency, Putin was Russia’s Prime Minister (1999–2000) and then President (2000–2001). Clinton described their relationship as “brutally blunt” and stated that Putin “never reneged on a personal agreement” with him, implying Putin honored bilateral understandings during this period.
• Possible Deals: Specific deals from this time are not detailed in the sources, but they likely involved U.S.-Russia cooperation on issues like arms control, counterterrorism, or economic agreements post-Soviet Union collapse. For example, the late 1990s saw U.S.-Russia collaboration on nuclear security (e.g., Cooperative Threat Reduction programs), where Russia adhered to commitments to secure nuclear materials.
• Evidence of Compliance: Clinton’s 2013 statements to CNN and at the Clinton Global Initiative emphasized that Putin “kept his word in all the deals we made” during their interactions, suggesting reliability in personal commitments.

Obviously you are writing one way propaganda about Putin and deals, however deals have been broken with Russia just as much.....'not one move to the east' was not a deal but it was stated in a meeting to encourage Russia to leave East Germany and so on......putting dual use missile launchers in Poland.

 

[Spindle]

Sure.

• Syria Chemical Weapons Agreement (2013)
• Ukraine Financial Aid Package (2013)
• Personal Agreements with Bill Clinton (1999–2001)
• Context: During Clinton’s presidency, Putin was Russia’s Prime Minister (1999–2000) and then President (2000–2001). Clinton described their relationship as “brutally blunt” and stated that Putin “never reneged on a personal agreement” with him, implying Putin honored bilateral understandings during this period.
• Possible Deals: Specific deals from this time are not detailed in the sources, but they likely involved U.S.-Russia cooperation on issues like arms control, counterterrorism, or economic agreements post-Soviet Union collapse. For example, the late 1990s saw U.S.-Russia collaboration on nuclear security (e.g., Cooperative Threat Reduction programs), where Russia adhered to commitments to secure nuclear materials.
• Evidence of Compliance: Clinton’s 2013 statements to CNN and at the Clinton Global Initiative emphasized that Putin “kept his word in all the deals we made” during their interactions, suggesting reliability in personal commitments.

Obviously you are writing one way propaganda about Putin and deals, however deals have been broken with Russia just as much.....'not one move to the east' was not a deal but it was stated in a meeting to encourage Russia to leave East Germany and so on......putting dual use missile launchers in Poland.

This is pathetic. These aren't the kinds of treaties we're talking about and even with AI you have "personal agreements with Clinton" and "Possible deals", and I love the "Don't use chemical weapons" one, laughable.

How about the opposite google search, aren't these a bit more like, you know, "Treaties"

• Budapest Memorandum (1994): This agreement involved Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the US, UK, and Russia, guaranteeing its sovereignty and borders. Russia violated this with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
• Minsk Agreements (2014 & 2015): These agreements were aimed at de-escalating the conflict in eastern Ukraine by establishing ceasefires, withdrawing heavy weapons, and granting limited autonomy to certain areas of Donbas within Ukraine. Russia consistently violated the ceasefire provisions and other aspects of the agreements, ultimately leading to their collapse and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
• Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE): This treaty aimed to limit the deployment of conventional military forces in Europe. Russia suspended its participation in the CFE Treaty in 2007, claiming it no longer served Russia's interests.
• Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF): This treaty banned land-based missiles with ranges between 500 km and 5,500 km. The US accused Russia of breaching the treaty in 2014 by developing and testing banned cruise missiles, leading to the US withdrawing from the treaty in 2019.
• Violation of Georgian sovereignty (2008 & Ongoing): Russia launched a military intervention in Georgia in 2008, occupying the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and recognizing their independence, despite international condemnation and a ceasefire agreement requiring Russian troops to withdraw from undisputed Georgian territory. Russia has continued to maintain military bases and troops in these breakaway regions.
• Ignoring Ceasefires in Syria: Russia supported the Assad regime in Syria and, despite a US and Turkish brokered ceasefire in 2016, continued bombing, according to some reports.

Sterling you really look a proper Russophile when you start actually backing Putin and blaming "the West" on everything instead of being honestly pragmatic. I've just been offered a job in defence and about to go through vetting (again) but if I were you I wouldn't apply for these sorts of roles, your sympathies seem misplaced 😉

 

[Stirlingsays]

This is pathetic. These aren't the kinds of treaties we're talking about and even with AI you have "personal agreements with Clinton" and "Possible deals", and I love the "Don't use chemical weapons" one, laughable.

But my dude! You said, 'If you can name just ONE international deal that Putin has kept his word on I will be impressed.'...You should be falling over yourself in lavishing praise on me!...It's not my fault that you spread your legs and asked to be kicked with that one.

How about the opposite google search, aren't these a bit more like, you know, "Treaties"

Google is a bit out of date Spindle, I use Grok.

• Budapest Memorandum (1994): This agreement involved Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the US, UK, and Russia, guaranteeing its sovereignty and borders. Russia violated this with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
• Minsk Agreements (2014 & 2015): These agreements were aimed at de-escalating the conflict in eastern Ukraine by establishing ceasefires, withdrawing heavy weapons, and granting limited autonomy to certain areas of Donbas within Ukraine. Russia consistently violated the ceasefire provisions and other aspects of the agreements, ultimately leading to their collapse and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
• Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE): This treaty aimed to limit the deployment of conventional military forces in Europe. Russia suspended its participation in the CFE Treaty in 2007, claiming it no longer served Russia's interests.
• Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF): This treaty banned land-based missiles with ranges between 500 km and 5,500 km. The US accused Russia of breaching the treaty in 2014 by developing and testing banned cruise missiles, leading to the US withdrawing from the treaty in 2019.
• Violation of Georgian sovereignty (2008 & Ongoing): Russia launched a military intervention in Georgia in 2008, occupying the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and recognizing their independence, despite international condemnation and a ceasefire agreement requiring Russian troops to withdraw from undisputed Georgian territory. Russia has continued to maintain military bases and troops in these breakaway regions.
• Ignoring Ceasefires in Syria: Russia supported the Assad regime in Syria and, despite a US and Turkish brokered ceasefire in 2016, continued bombing, according to some reports.

Now like you I don't actually know the balanced truth about most of these and maybe on the ones I'm not commenting on it's a fair reading of the situation or maybe not.

Budapest Memorandum
However, I do know that how the Budapest Memorandum is presented here that this is not a balanced reading of the situation, for example the nuclear missiles in question were never Ukraine's to begin with but belonged to the USSR and were created in Russia and located in Ukraine and could only be controlled by Moscow. Also it's wrong to say that a cast iron guarantee was made on security as none of that was passed in any government and thus was a diplomatic agreement only.

Minsk Agreements (2014 & 2015)
I also know that this is another very one eyed reading and that Russia had been claiming that Ukraine were breaking the terms of these agreements from the start.

Georgia is a border state to Russia that the US/Europe were interfering in with more funded 'colour' revolutions. So I regard this as another very one eyed reading. Again, if a foreign state were turning Wales against England and trying to overthrow the government then we would be highly interested and our involvement in Ireland is evidence of us protecting our close by interests.....Similarly America has the Monroe doctrine and has shown on multiple occasions....for example the Cuban missile crises that it won't abide foreign intervention close to its borders.

Sterling you really look a proper Russophile when you start actually backing Putin and blaming "the West" on everything instead of being honestly pragmatic. I've just been offered a job in defence and about to go through vetting (again) but if I were you I wouldn't apply for these sorts of roles, your sympathies seem misplaced 😉

Just like getting my name wrong the reality is different. It's not that I like Russia....Why would I give a feck about Russia? It's more that I'm interested in the balanced truth rather than biased narratives that refuse to acknowledge the grey-ness of reality.

You see Spindle, If I'm going to war....then I don't like to lose. And I've been pretty consistent once I looked into this years ago that this was a very bad idea.....Especially avoiding the deal back in 2022.

In fact at the start of the thread (On Hol's original site) I started out supporting Ukraine. It's only when I looked at the narratives of both sides and even more importantly the most likely outcome that I became more annoyed with everything about this war and the foolishness and avoidable destruction of it.

As for yourself Spindle you seem to have avoided any of the grey and gone straight for swallowing only one side of the analysis.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

But my dude! You said, 'If you can name just ONE international deal that Putin has kept his word on I will be impressed.'...You should be falling over yourself in lavishing praise on me!...It's not my fault that you spread your legs and asked to be kicked with that one.



Google is a bit out of date Spindle, I use Grok.



Now like you I don't actually know the balanced truth about most of these and maybe on the ones I'm not commenting on it's a fair reading of the situation or maybe not.

Budapest Memorandum
However, I do know that how the Budapest Memorandum is presented here that this is not a balanced reading of the situation, for example the nuclear missiles in question were never Ukraine's to begin with but belonged to the USSR and were created in Russia and located in Ukraine and could only be controlled by Moscow. Also it's wrong to say that a cast iron guarantee was made on security as none of that was passed in any government and thus was a diplomatic agreement only.

Minsk Agreements (2014 & 2015)
I also know that this is another very one eyed reading and that Russia had been claiming that Ukraine were breaking the terms of these agreements from the start.

Georgia is a border state to Russia that the US/Europe were interfering in with more funded 'colour' revolutions. So I regard this as another very one eyed reading. Again, if a foreign state were turning Wales against England and trying to overthrow the government then we would be highly interested and our involvement in Ireland is evidence of us protecting our close by interests.....Similarly America has the Monroe doctrine and has shown on multiple occasions....for example the Cuban missile crises that it won't abide foreign intervention close to its borders.



Just like getting my name wrong the reality is different. It's not that I like Russia....Why would I give a feck about Russia? It's more that I'm interested in the balanced truth rather than biased narratives that refuse to acknowledge the grey-ness of reality.

You see Spindle, If I'm going to war....then I don't like to lose. And I've been pretty consistent once I looked into this years ago that this was a very bad idea.....Especially avoiding the deal back in 2022.

In fact at the start of the thread (On Hol's original site) I started out supporting Ukraine. It's only when I looked at the narratives of both sides and even more importantly the most likely outcome that I became more annoyed with everything about this war and the foolishness and avoidable destruction of it.

As for yourself Spindle you seem to have avoided any of the grey and gone straight for swallowing only one side of the analysis.

same.