By this juncture in history there is little point trying to explain geopolitical history to clods whose 1950s version of the world is rusted on through mental inaction, frozen by social inertia, and welded on by the Zionist media. These decrepit folk reject such evil weapons as evidence, logic, surveys, books, and independent online media. In short, they are beyond the pail of shite reserved for humanies waste products. At a local level, they are the source of most unpleasantness and traditionally, they strip recalcitrant family members from their wills as a last lash out at normal humanity. Just ignore them.
Apparently the idea of Russians invading a country is ok with your view of the world. We had Prime Minister once who did the same with the Nazi’s. Look where that got us. Our American president will be renowned for giving the knee to the KGB.
That’s the propaganda version, there’s experts from across the globe who give a totally different view, the same view that’s been outlined here!
Once you read the full story with an open mind and the possibility that you have fallen victim to the heavy propaganda, the same level of propaganda that told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq etc, you may change your mind. Governments lie, the list of lies is too vast to go into. Russia made it clear, no NATO involvement with countries near Russian borders, they would take it as an act of war!
There’s footage of NATO leader in an interview saying they were working with Ukraine, training their troops and giving them weapons, this happened well before the war kicked off! Russia said “back off”, they chose not to knowing fine well where it would lead!
Imagine Chinese war ships off the coast of UK, or Chinese troops over the Mexican border!! The UK and US would move so fast your head would spin! It’s the very same scenario here!
The child’s pop up book version we’ve been sold doesn’t stack up one iota when you do a deep dive!
You assume that I have not ‘deep dived.’ Your evidence merely shows me a country that is preparing for the inevitable after Russia had already taken Crimea and was bringing its forces together close to the border. Putin had already made it clear that Ukraine belonged to Russia and that the partition should never have happened.
Ukraine turned to NATO when it became clear what Russia wanted. Ukraine is a free country and should be free to decide its own fate. It should be their choice whether they join NATO or not, and NATO to decide whether to accept. NATO said no and that should have been the end of the matter, but Russia Invaded, killing many and taking even more of Ukraine.
But Russia has been embarrassed. Confounded by a man who was a comedian on telly pretending to be a President and now found himself doing the job. Making the Russian Bear look like a Teddy Bear. The short ‘Special Military Operation’ has become a blundering 3 years attrition of Ukraine, losing 100,000s of Russian and Ukrainian lives. Not to mention untold numbers of North Koreans. He has had to use conscripts, prisoners and mercenaries to try to make headway. Even now, North Koreans who have no clue why they are there or what they are doing are dying in droves.
Putin is the man who kills people for their political beliefs in his own country and others. Many senior people in Russia have reportedly ‘fallen’ out of windows and balconies. His opponents were imprisoned and later died in custody.
Putin failed to take Ukraine in three weeks as planned and has managed to increase the membership of NATO. Not exactly a good result for the objectives of the Limited Military Operation.
You need to do a deep dive to find the truth, not share the propaganda from a country not known for its political freedoms or free press.
We won’t agree on this, that’s clear, I do however value your time and opinions and can agree to disagree before we go down a long road to nowhere different 😅🤝 I’ll give perspective on how I came to my opinion.
The analysis you deny and call “Russian propaganda”, has been WELL researched in great detail by historians and political scientists! I’ll leave some references below! This topic is as deep as it is complex and involves many bad actors!
An excerpt from a collation of hard research by the aforementioned and accumulated in its entirety in a recent publication (referenced fully, all governmental documents etc available, Western governments!):
Now, it is certain that the very worst things that Russia has done in this century has been their involvement in the wars in Ukraine and Syria. But it is important to note that first of all, in both cases the U.S. started it, not Russia. Again, in Ukraine, Putin sent deniable special operations types into the eastern Donbass region to help defend it. Like that or not, up until the end of February 2022, for eight years they did not invade the country with any conventional force or take any territory in the east. When the Donbass region held a referendum and voted to ask to join the Russian federation in February 2015, Putin refused. He would only help them to maintain their autonomy from the hostile regime in Kiev. More than fourteen thousand people were killed in the 2014-2015 war there and in the low-level fighting which continued between then and now. But the vast majority, approximately 80%, of these were Ukrainian civilians and militia fighters killed by the Kiev government, not pro-regime Ukrainians killed by separatists or Russian invaders. Nevermind the truth. The narrative is what counts on TV. Except in this case there’s hardly even a narrative at all. Just the endlessly repeated slogans “Russian aggression” and “Russian seizure of Crimea” without any explanation or context.
Well here is some context on the subject of Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014: Russia won the Crimean Peninsula away from the Turks back in 1783, the same year Benjamin Franklin and John Adams negotiated America’s peace with Great Britain after the Revolutionary War, four years before our Constitution had even been written. It is part of Russia like Virginia is part of the U.S.A.. Think about how important West Point is to New Yorkers or the Alamo is to Texans. The Russians lost more than two hundred-thousand soldiers fighting to keep Crimea out of the hands of the Germans and Romanians in World War II. Plus it’s their only year-round warm water port, and home of their Black Sea Fleet. You could see why they consider it important. Try to take San Diego from the U.S.A. and see what happens.
The only reason Crimea was under Ukrainian control at all was because Soviet First Secretary and Premier Nikita Khrushchev gave it to them by decree in 1954 in order to shore up Ukrainian support for his rise to power after the death of dictator Joseph Stalin. At that point it made no difference since they were all answerable to the Kremlin first anyway.
The population in Crimea is something like 60% Russian, 15% Turkic Tatars and 25% Ukrainian. In the generation between the fall of the Soviet Union and the events of the last decade, Crimea had maintained a great deal of autonomy from the central government in Kiev. But after the 2014 coup, three former Ukrainian presidents signed a letter demanding that Russia be expelled from the naval base at Sevastopol where they had maintained a naval presence on lease after the end of the Cold War. Instead Putin ordered his men to leave their bases and take control of the Peninsula. Reportedly, six people were killed in total. It is not clear how many, if any, were actually shot by Russian marines or sailors. A referendum was quickly held, and better than a super-majority of the people of Crimea voted to join the Russian federation. Later independent polling confirmed the results. That is too bad for the minority who didn’t want to change allegiance, but these are nation states, not libertarian theorists, and super-majority votes like that are as close as humanity can get to full consensus on such large questions involving sovereignty over so many people.
Thank you for your well thought through and detailed analysis. I agree we I’ll not agree on this. My response is simply this. Your whole argument is based on the premise that it is ok to attack a country when you think the majority population is under threat. Or, you believe the land is yours anyway. The former is one used disastrously by the Americans, the latter used by Hitler. It was not the Ukrainians but (according to your analysis) the Russians who transcribed the boundaries they now, late in the day, wish to redraw. I disagree that either excuse for crossing into another country with menace have any merit.
The nuclear weapons never belonged to Ukraine. They were under Soviet control, just sited in Ukraine and three other Soviet republics: Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. See below.
"The bombs were not in fact Ukrainian, any more than NATO nuclear weapons stored on West European soil or US bombs that used to be kept in South Korea belonged to the countries on whose territory they were located. They were always Russian bombs that happened to be based in Ukraine. Moscow retained complete command and control and Kiev never had access to the authorisation codes necessary to launch them."
The US and the UK Invaded Iraq. If Russia had decided that the idea of America invading a sovereign country was unacceptable, and flooded Iraq with weapons and mercenaries to kill American and British soldiers, apparently that would be ok with your view of the world. If you care so much about Ukraine, go and fight for it yourself. I hear they need the men (old or young, healthy or infirm). But you won't because you're a coward, a weak man who prefers that other men, and other men's children, die in the wars you cheer for.
Your assumption on my view of the world is nonsense. Your argument more so. When someone disagrees with your point of view, in your logic they are cowards. I don’t think the Ukrainians on the front line are cowards and they certainly disagree with you.
The bombs were not in fact Ukrainian, any more than NATO nuclear weapons stored on West European soil or US bombs that used to be kept in South Korea belonged to the countries on whose territory they were located. They were always Russian bombs that happened to be based in Ukraine. Moscow retained complete command and control and Kiev never had access to the authorisation codes necessary to launch them.
(B) what should they do to achieve those objectives?
(C) how will doing B achieve A?
Because I have very little idea what you'd like to see happen and why. If you're not prepared to answer these questions., that just means you're not capable of having a rational discussion about these important issues.
By this juncture in history there is little point trying to explain geopolitical history to clods whose 1950s version of the world is rusted on through mental inaction, frozen by social inertia, and welded on by the Zionist media. These decrepit folk reject such evil weapons as evidence, logic, surveys, books, and independent online media. In short, they are beyond the pail of shite reserved for humanies waste products. At a local level, they are the source of most unpleasantness and traditionally, they strip recalcitrant family members from their wills as a last lash out at normal humanity. Just ignore them.
🤪
Apparently the idea of Russians invading a country is ok with your view of the world. We had Prime Minister once who did the same with the Nazi’s. Look where that got us. Our American president will be renowned for giving the knee to the KGB.
Try to educate yourself.
That’s the propaganda version, there’s experts from across the globe who give a totally different view, the same view that’s been outlined here!
Once you read the full story with an open mind and the possibility that you have fallen victim to the heavy propaganda, the same level of propaganda that told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq etc, you may change your mind. Governments lie, the list of lies is too vast to go into. Russia made it clear, no NATO involvement with countries near Russian borders, they would take it as an act of war!
There’s footage of NATO leader in an interview saying they were working with Ukraine, training their troops and giving them weapons, this happened well before the war kicked off! Russia said “back off”, they chose not to knowing fine well where it would lead!
Imagine Chinese war ships off the coast of UK, or Chinese troops over the Mexican border!! The UK and US would move so fast your head would spin! It’s the very same scenario here!
The child’s pop up book version we’ve been sold doesn’t stack up one iota when you do a deep dive!
You assume that I have not ‘deep dived.’ Your evidence merely shows me a country that is preparing for the inevitable after Russia had already taken Crimea and was bringing its forces together close to the border. Putin had already made it clear that Ukraine belonged to Russia and that the partition should never have happened.
Ukraine turned to NATO when it became clear what Russia wanted. Ukraine is a free country and should be free to decide its own fate. It should be their choice whether they join NATO or not, and NATO to decide whether to accept. NATO said no and that should have been the end of the matter, but Russia Invaded, killing many and taking even more of Ukraine.
But Russia has been embarrassed. Confounded by a man who was a comedian on telly pretending to be a President and now found himself doing the job. Making the Russian Bear look like a Teddy Bear. The short ‘Special Military Operation’ has become a blundering 3 years attrition of Ukraine, losing 100,000s of Russian and Ukrainian lives. Not to mention untold numbers of North Koreans. He has had to use conscripts, prisoners and mercenaries to try to make headway. Even now, North Koreans who have no clue why they are there or what they are doing are dying in droves.
Putin is the man who kills people for their political beliefs in his own country and others. Many senior people in Russia have reportedly ‘fallen’ out of windows and balconies. His opponents were imprisoned and later died in custody.
Putin failed to take Ukraine in three weeks as planned and has managed to increase the membership of NATO. Not exactly a good result for the objectives of the Limited Military Operation.
You need to do a deep dive to find the truth, not share the propaganda from a country not known for its political freedoms or free press.
We won’t agree on this, that’s clear, I do however value your time and opinions and can agree to disagree before we go down a long road to nowhere different 😅🤝 I’ll give perspective on how I came to my opinion.
The analysis you deny and call “Russian propaganda”, has been WELL researched in great detail by historians and political scientists! I’ll leave some references below! This topic is as deep as it is complex and involves many bad actors!
An excerpt from a collation of hard research by the aforementioned and accumulated in its entirety in a recent publication (referenced fully, all governmental documents etc available, Western governments!):
Now, it is certain that the very worst things that Russia has done in this century has been their involvement in the wars in Ukraine and Syria. But it is important to note that first of all, in both cases the U.S. started it, not Russia. Again, in Ukraine, Putin sent deniable special operations types into the eastern Donbass region to help defend it. Like that or not, up until the end of February 2022, for eight years they did not invade the country with any conventional force or take any territory in the east. When the Donbass region held a referendum and voted to ask to join the Russian federation in February 2015, Putin refused. He would only help them to maintain their autonomy from the hostile regime in Kiev. More than fourteen thousand people were killed in the 2014-2015 war there and in the low-level fighting which continued between then and now. But the vast majority, approximately 80%, of these were Ukrainian civilians and militia fighters killed by the Kiev government, not pro-regime Ukrainians killed by separatists or Russian invaders. Nevermind the truth. The narrative is what counts on TV. Except in this case there’s hardly even a narrative at all. Just the endlessly repeated slogans “Russian aggression” and “Russian seizure of Crimea” without any explanation or context.
Well here is some context on the subject of Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014: Russia won the Crimean Peninsula away from the Turks back in 1783, the same year Benjamin Franklin and John Adams negotiated America’s peace with Great Britain after the Revolutionary War, four years before our Constitution had even been written. It is part of Russia like Virginia is part of the U.S.A.. Think about how important West Point is to New Yorkers or the Alamo is to Texans. The Russians lost more than two hundred-thousand soldiers fighting to keep Crimea out of the hands of the Germans and Romanians in World War II. Plus it’s their only year-round warm water port, and home of their Black Sea Fleet. You could see why they consider it important. Try to take San Diego from the U.S.A. and see what happens.
The only reason Crimea was under Ukrainian control at all was because Soviet First Secretary and Premier Nikita Khrushchev gave it to them by decree in 1954 in order to shore up Ukrainian support for his rise to power after the death of dictator Joseph Stalin. At that point it made no difference since they were all answerable to the Kremlin first anyway.
The population in Crimea is something like 60% Russian, 15% Turkic Tatars and 25% Ukrainian. In the generation between the fall of the Soviet Union and the events of the last decade, Crimea had maintained a great deal of autonomy from the central government in Kiev. But after the 2014 coup, three former Ukrainian presidents signed a letter demanding that Russia be expelled from the naval base at Sevastopol where they had maintained a naval presence on lease after the end of the Cold War. Instead Putin ordered his men to leave their bases and take control of the Peninsula. Reportedly, six people were killed in total. It is not clear how many, if any, were actually shot by Russian marines or sailors. A referendum was quickly held, and better than a super-majority of the people of Crimea voted to join the Russian federation. Later independent polling confirmed the results. That is too bad for the minority who didn’t want to change allegiance, but these are nation states, not libertarian theorists, and super-majority votes like that are as close as humanity can get to full consensus on such large questions involving sovereignty over so many people.
Full article:
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-history-behind-the-russia-ukraine-war/
References:
https://scotthorton.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/24_11_26_footnotes.pdf
Thank you for your well thought through and detailed analysis. I agree we I’ll not agree on this. My response is simply this. Your whole argument is based on the premise that it is ok to attack a country when you think the majority population is under threat. Or, you believe the land is yours anyway. The former is one used disastrously by the Americans, the latter used by Hitler. It was not the Ukrainians but (according to your analysis) the Russians who transcribed the boundaries they now, late in the day, wish to redraw. I disagree that either excuse for crossing into another country with menace have any merit.
Er.. Ukraine is entitled to its nukes back then.
The nuclear weapons never belonged to Ukraine. They were under Soviet control, just sited in Ukraine and three other Soviet republics: Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. See below.
https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/ukraine-and-nukes/
"The bombs were not in fact Ukrainian, any more than NATO nuclear weapons stored on West European soil or US bombs that used to be kept in South Korea belonged to the countries on whose territory they were located. They were always Russian bombs that happened to be based in Ukraine. Moscow retained complete command and control and Kiev never had access to the authorisation codes necessary to launch them."
The US and the UK Invaded Iraq. If Russia had decided that the idea of America invading a sovereign country was unacceptable, and flooded Iraq with weapons and mercenaries to kill American and British soldiers, apparently that would be ok with your view of the world. If you care so much about Ukraine, go and fight for it yourself. I hear they need the men (old or young, healthy or infirm). But you won't because you're a coward, a weak man who prefers that other men, and other men's children, die in the wars you cheer for.
Your assumption on my view of the world is nonsense. Your argument more so. When someone disagrees with your point of view, in your logic they are cowards. I don’t think the Ukrainians on the front line are cowards and they certainly disagree with you.
Go forth, Richard Tod — Ukraine needs your life more than it needs your comments on Substack (courageous though they may be): https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-signs-law-allowing-foreigners-to-serve-as-officers-in-international-legion/
Oh my. Your intellectual input changing my mind. Thank you
Give Ukraine it’s nukes back.
Obviously Iraq should have had some then.
See above, Peter or go here: https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/ukraine-and-nukes/
The bombs were not in fact Ukrainian, any more than NATO nuclear weapons stored on West European soil or US bombs that used to be kept in South Korea belonged to the countries on whose territory they were located. They were always Russian bombs that happened to be based in Ukraine. Moscow retained complete command and control and Kiev never had access to the authorisation codes necessary to launch them.
Peter Jones replying to substack posts from the trenches in Kherson lol. Ukraine thanks you for your bravery
So what do you think:
(A) the UK government's objectives should be?
(B) what should they do to achieve those objectives?
(C) how will doing B achieve A?
Because I have very little idea what you'd like to see happen and why. If you're not prepared to answer these questions., that just means you're not capable of having a rational discussion about these important issues.
I love seeing all these cowardly men champion wars they're not fighting in themselves.
non sequitur
ignave
Putin understands you.
I understand him.
Hey Peter why are you championing war from your laptop instead of in Ukraine fighting the Russians? Is it because you're a coward?