Scott75

Oh no! That comment made me smile :-p. User, your heart isn't in this debate anymore. Why not just go find some greener pastures? You were the one saying the debate could not go on... If you refuse to even read, let alone respond to the material I have for my argument, yes, I don't think the debate can move forward. Do you think a debate can continue if one of the debaters refuses to engage with the other debater's arguments?

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "them"? And what minors are you referring to? No. My point was made. Your point seems to be assuming that Mr. Ritter wanted to engage in sex acts with minors. If this is the case, do you have any evidence for this assertion?

Yeah, you have already tried this lame argument, I have already refuted it. At no time did he ever confirm or enter into any agreement that this was roleplay. Mr. Ritter was in an adult chat room, chatting with another adult who had said they were 24 in their online profile. Mr. Ritter testified that he never believed "Emily" was a minor and he was right. As I've pointed out in the past, there was a similar case wherein another undercover officer lied about their age to a man and then charged the man. Like Mr. Ritter, he also testified that he never believed the undercover officer was a minor. Unlike Mr. Ritter, he was found not guilty. I've gone over all of this with you before, but you keep on snipping it out. I suspect the main reason is that it doesn't fit with your narrative that Mr. Ritter's was actually a fair one.

It is your argument this was not fair. You prove it. In U.S. courts, one is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not asking you to prove Mr. Ritter's innocence. I -am- asking you if you have any solid evidence that his trial wasn't a miscarriage of justice.

Yes, and so were a lot of other people who experienced travesties of justice. Fortunately, unfair trials tend to get a spotlight on the injustices involved. An article on that: https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/-/unfair-trial-leads-to-fairer-criminal-procedures That was not this trial. Not interested in your irrelevant spam. Only it's not "irrelevant spam", it's an article detailing the fact that there are many cases of unfair trials. We are not talking about many cases of unfair trials. As you know, the focus of this thread is on Scott Ritter. As you pointed out, Mr. Ritter was found guilty of various charges in a trial that concluded back in 2011. I simply pointed out that -many- people have had unfair trials wherein the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

Again, irrelevant. As I told you in post #89: ** No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy ** Do you remember your response? Just in case you've forgotten, it was this: ** If you wish to make an argument as to how it is relevant, do so. Just posting a link doesn't do that. ** I do as you ask, quoting extensively from the linked article in post #93 to make my argument that Mr. Ritter's trial was a travesty of justice. Quoting: ** I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again: ** Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before. “She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.” A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial. ** Source: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it: https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm ** You never responded to that post. Why was that? I am still waiting for your argument. Stop spamming. I don't know what "argument" you're waiting for, but I'll do a play by play for you and the audience to see how we got to this point where I write article size posts and you respond with 1 liners. Way back in post #83, I stated the following: ** I -am- pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever had a sexual interaction with a minor as an adult. If you have found evidence of this nature, by all means, present it. ** Your response in post #84 was that this was irrelevant. From there, we can proceed to the very post you're responding to, post #110. Quoting: ** As I told you in post #89: ** No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy ** Do you remember your response? Just in case you've forgotten, it was this: ** If you wish to make an argument as to how it is relevant, do so. Just posting a link doesn't do that. ** I do as you ask, quoting extensively from the linked article in post #93 to make my argument that Mr. Ritter's trial was a travesty of justice. Quoting: ** I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again: ** Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before. “She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.” A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial. ** Source: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it: https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm ** You never responded to that post. Why was that? ** The only thing you quoted in that entire article of a post was the last 2 sentences above, which I've bolded. Your only response was some cryptic 1 liner about waiting for my "argument" and to "Stop spamming." I'd argue that what you're calling spam is in fact all the information that bolsters the arguments I've been making.

Hmm... I thought it was common knowledge. Putin was poor when he was young and just a common KGB officer. The Putin Kleptocracy November 30, 2023 The world is in turmoil, and two vicious wars rage, because Vladimir Putin and his accomplices stole, then harnessed, the wealth of Russia which encompasses 11.5 per cent of the global landmass with enormous natural resources. He has created the world’s largest, militarized kleptocracy and aims to dominate the world. Putin controls minerals, metals, and oil resources worth $75 trillion, more than the US and Saudi Arabia combined. He is also the world’s only trillionaire (equivalent to 1,000 billionaires) — but his name does not appear on the Forbes’ billionaire list nor does it show up on any bank accounts, share certificates, or property deeds. The 105 Russian billionaires listed by Forbes in 2023 are Putin’s proxies and partners, and most of their assets or companies are controlled and owned by Putin. As former Russian chess champion and exiled politician Garry Kasparov said: “[Putin] controls more money, directly or indirectly, than any other individual in the history of the human race". And money determines who rules the world. I like Garry Kasparov, so if he says that Putin "controls more money, directly or indirectly, than any other individual in the history of the human race", I'm willing to believe he may just be right. But I've never seen any evidence for this notion that Putin "aims to dominate the world". Not wanting to live next to a neighbour that had been killing Russian speakers and ethnic Russians for the past 8 years, had been planning on retaking the Donbass Republics and Crimea, and which had nuclear weapon ambitions, on the other hand, I can fully understand. His reaction to all of this was akin to JFK's reaction to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In -that- crisis, Russia had the good sense to negotiate a deal with the U.S. early on, thus preventing a war between the U.S. and Cuba. The United States, on the other hand, had grown far too arrogant: It started moving to break its 1990 promise to not expand NATO "one inch eastward" of Germany soon after making it back in 1991, with the breakup of the Soviet Union and admitted 3 countries east of Germany in 1999. In 2008, it also supported Ukraine's bid to join. Intelligent people such as American Professor John Mearsheimer predicted where this would go. I got into this with DUI Offender back in post #102. Quoting: ** It is not as if no one knew about the dangers. From Henry Kissinger to Zbigniew Brzezinski to George Kennan, experienced American statesmen have warned that even talking about Westernizing Ukraine through NATO might be fatal to peace. As John Mearsheimer cautioned us in September 2015, “the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.” Mearsheimer’s prescient speech has received 21 million views on YouTube, almost half in the last few weeks, with Washington insiders and media poohbahs excoriating him as a Putin apologist, even as a petition campaign was launched to get Mearsheimer fired from the University of Chicago. We would have better off heeding his warning. Compounding the damage, Washington’s loud championing of the Ukrainian cause has recently been accompanied by contrary signs of weakness and appeasement, from the humiliating botch of the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer to President Biden’s hint that a “minor incursion” into Ukraine might not occasion a decisive response. Like Chamberlain veering between irrational extremes in 1938-1939, the West’s Ukraine policy has blatantly provoked Russian anxieties and offered Ukrainians the false promise of an American security umbrella, while doing nowhere near enough to actually deter Russia. Ukraine may not suffer as badly as Poland did from 1939 to 1945, but much of the country has already gotten wrecked. ** Source: https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-primrose-path-to-catastrophe/

Again, irrelevant. As I told you in post #89: ** No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy ** Do you remember your response? Just in case you've forgotten, it was this: ** If you wish to make an argument as to how it is relevant, do so. Just posting a link doesn't do that. ** I do as you ask, quoting extensively from the linked article in post #93 to make my argument that Mr. Ritter's trial was a travesty of justice. Quoting: ** I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again: ** Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before. “She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.” A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial. ** Source: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it: https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm ** You never responded to that post. Why was that?

Yes, and so were a lot of other people who experienced travesties of justice. Fortunately, unfair trials tend to get a spotlight on the injustices involved. That was not this trial. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion? For the audience, I also presented User with evidence bolstering my case that there are indeed a fair amount of unfair trials, which I get to in the next bit of our conversation... Not interested in your irrelevant spam. Only it's not "irrelevant spam", it's an article detailing the fact that there are many cases of unfair trials.

Good people do not go to chat rooms wanting to engage in sex acts with them and then completely disregard their being minors when they do. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "them"? And what minors are you referring to? That's just patently false. 100% accurate. No one made Ritter disregard someone telling him they were a minor and then engage in sex acts with them. A lot of people engage in roleplay. As I've told you before, "Emily", who was not a woman, but rather an adult undercover male officer, said they were 24 in their online profile. This is a point that Mr. Ritter's lawyer actually stated in court. As I've mentioned to you before, in a more recent case similar to Mr. Ritter's, the defendant was found not guilty, in large part because he said that while the undercover officer had told him that she was a minor, there was evidence that pointed to the contrary and like Mr. Ritter, he testified that he never believed the undercover officer was actually a minor.

Again... this is completely irrelevant point. No, it's not. Yes, it is. Nothing you posted or said was an actual argument for how it is relevant. Congratulations on at least quoting a full sentence again. At 3 words long, I guess it's not that hard. I await your response to what I said -after- those 3 words. You know, this part: Yet again, not interested in your spam from Wikipedia. It's not "spam from Wikipedia", it's the truth you don't want to look at. For anyone who'd like to see this truth, it's all there in post #101. Oh no! That comment made me smile :-p. User, your heart isn't in this debate anymore. Why not just go find some greener pastures?

Godd luck with that. You should go stand on a street corner and yell this to the world. Why on earth would I do that? The only reason I even made this thread is because people like you continue to malign Mr. Ritter's good name. If people would simply recognize the travesty of justice that happened in his case, there'd have been no need to bring up this chapter of his life at all. Yes, exactly. Why on Earth are you on this forum so focused on arguing that Ritter is innocent? LOL I definitely have a thing for defending the reputations of good people who have been unfairly maligned, especially when those good people are writing good articles on subjects that I like to talk about. That's just patently false. Yes, and so were a lot of other people who experienced travesties of justice. Fortunately, unfair trials tend to get a spotlight on the injustices involved. An article on that: https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/-/unfair-trial-leads-to-fairer-criminal-procedures As I've told you numerous times in the past, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever engaged with a minor in a chat room, full stop, let alone that he acted inappropriately with one. If you have any evidence that suggests that he did either of these things, by all means, present it.

Nope. Well that says it all. For the audience, here's the massive block of text that User never responded to, with the lone exception of a little snipe about not liking Wikipedia: ** According to Wikipedia, Mr. Ritter was charged with the following counts: ** Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".[51] ** Again, according to Wikipedia, "Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in county court in Rochester, New York on April 14, 2011.[4][52]" Now, since I've never seen any evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor, how is it that he was convicted of all of these crimes -anyway-? This is why I believe that what happened to Mr. Ritter was a travesty of justice. This is why I pointed out a more recent case wherein another, less famous individual, was charged with more or less the same thing but was ultimately found to be not guilty. I see that you never responded to the quote from the case I'm referring to. I wonder why that is? In any case, here it is again: ** I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again: ** Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before. “She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.” A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial. ** Source: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it: https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm ** ** Clearly, if User refuses to even read, let alone respond to the material I have for my arguments, this debate can't go on.

Again... this is completely irrelevant point. No, it's not. Yes, it is. Nothing you posted or said was an actual argument for how it is relevant. Congratulations on at least quoting a full sentence again. At 3 words long, I guess it's not that hard. I await your response to what I said -after- those 3 words. You know, this part: ** According to Wikipedia, Mr. Ritter was charged with the following counts: ** Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".[51] ** Again, according to Wikipedia, "Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in county court in Rochester, New York on April 14, 2011.[4][52]" Now, since I've never seen any evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor, how is it that he was convicted of all of these crimes -anyway-? This is why I believe that what happened to Mr. Ritter was a travesty of justice. This is why I pointed out a more recent case wherein another, less famous individual, was charged with more or less the same thing but was ultimately found to be not guilty. I see that you never responded to the quote from the case I'm referring to. I wonder why that is? In any case, here it is again: I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again: ** Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before. “She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.” A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial. ** Source: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it: https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm ** Whenever you're ready.

What you call "bad arguments", I call solid evidence that strongly suggests that Mr. Ritter was wrongfully convicted. Godd luck with that. You should go stand on a street corner and yell this to the world. Why on earth would I do that? The only reason I even made this thread is because people like you continue to malign Mr. Ritter's good name. If people would simply recognize the travesty of justice that happened in his case, there'd have been no need to bring up this chapter of his life at all.

I am not trying to hide not responding Well, that's a relief. Oh wait, there's more. Alright, let's see the -whole- sentence, something I think you yourself should engage in more often. What you call "bad arguments", I call solid evidence that strongly suggests that Mr. Ritter was wrongfully convicted. You keep claiming this... Indeed. Thanks for quoting my -entire- sentence this time. Now to see if you can respond to the block of text -after- that first sentence. Here it is once more: Since you never responded to that post, I suspect you didn't even read it. Just in case that's what happened, I've decided to quote the relevant portion of that post below: ** Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that: ** verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions. ** Again... this is completely irrelevant point. No, it's not. According to Wikipedia, Mr. Ritter was charged with the following counts: ** Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".[51] ** Again, according to Wikipedia, "Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in county court in Rochester, New York on April 14, 2011.[4][52]" Now, since I've never seen any evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor, how is it that he was convicted of all of these crimes -anyway-? This is why I believe that what happened to Mr. Ritter was a travesty of justice. This is why I pointed out a more recent case wherein another, less famous individual, was charged with more or less the same thing but was ultimately found to be not guilty. I see that you never responded to the quote from the case I'm referring to. I wonder why that is? In any case, here it is again: Let me know if you atleast read the quoted material this time around?

I'd say it's more that every part of the Soviet Union wanted the entity dissolved, -including- Russia. From what I've read, it seems the part of the Soviet Union that -least- wanted to have the entity dissolved was Crimea. I believe only 54% of Crimeans voted to leave the Soviet Union, and only after being assured that they would be able to be fairly independent. They certainly wanted to keep close ties to Russia, and this was made clear with moves that were made soon after Ukraine left the Soviet Union: ** With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukrainian independence the majority ethnic Russian Crimean peninsula was reorganized as the Republic of Crimea,[56][57] after a 1991 referendum with the Crimean authorities pushing for more independence from Ukraine and closer links with Russia. In 1992 the Supreme Council of Crimea affirmed the peninsula's "sovereignty" as a part of Ukraine.[58][59][57] The Crimean parliament proclaimed self-government on 5 May 1992[60][61] and passed the first Crimean constitution together with a declaration of conditional independence[62] on the same day.[63] There was stiff resistance from Ukraine and a day later, on 6 May, the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.[63] A referendum to confirm the decision was not held until 1994 due to the opposition from the Kyiv government. The Crimean parliament voted to bring in a President in 1993, which the Kyiv government denounced as unconstitutional.[64]: 198  In 1994 Crimea elected the pro-Russian and anti-establishment Yuriy Meshkov. The pro-Russian parties also won the parliamentary election that year.[65] However the president quickly alienated the parliament by asserting strong presidential powers.[66] In 1995 the Ukrainian Parliament intervened in the political crisis in Crimea, scrapping the Crimean Constitution, removing the president and scrapping the office of President.[67] Almost 4,000 Ukrainian soldiers and police officers were sent to Crimea.[68] Meshkov was removed from power[69] after Ukrainian special forces had entered his residence, disarmed his bodyguards and put him on a plane to Moscow.[70] Meshkov was replaced by Kyiv-appointed Anatoliy Franchuk, with the intent to rein in Crimean aspirations of autonomy.[57][64] The Verkhovna Rada, the parliament of Crimea, voted to grant Crimea "extensive home rule" during the dispute.[71][62][70] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea#cite_note-66 According to who? Can you give examples where you believe this happened? I certainly have a good example where a -western- power was integral in both removing a government they didn't like and installing a new one they did. More on that here: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

I think the question you ask makes the assumption that someone forced Putin and Russia to act the way they did. I think that's like assuming that someone forced the U.S. to react so strongly against Cuba having Russian nukes. I think a much better question would be something like: What got Putin to decide to start his military operation in Ukraine? From what I've seen, there were 2 major reasons: 1- Ukraine's wish to join NATO and the United States' wish to make it so. For over a decade, Russia has made it adamantly clear that this was a red line for them. The United States' in its arrogance didn't care. Professor John Mearsheimer said around a decade ago that this dismissal of Russia's concern here would get Ukraine wrecked and his prediction has clearly come to pass. 2- The Ukrainian civil war between western Ukraine and eastern Ukraine's Donbass region, specifically the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which had declared themselves to be republics prior to Russia's military operation in Ukraine. The situation there was already pretty bad, but what most don't know is that around a week before Russia's military operation in Ukraine, western Ukraine had once again attacked these regions/republics (depending on what side you're on). It seems pretty clear to me that it was this attack that prompted Putin to act when he did. I'll let former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud elaborate on those final days before Russia's military operation began: ** On February 17 [2022], President Joe Biden announces that Russia will attack Ukraine in the coming days. How does he know? Mystery… But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the populations of Donbass has increased dramatically, as shown by the daily reports of OSCE observers. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacts and intervenes. We will say later that this is Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries purposely glossed over the massacre of the people of Donbass, knowing that it would provoke Russian intervention. [snip] In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over. If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21. That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them. The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance. In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

This is because the usa got what it wanted. Assad out of power. Ukraine is too far away from Israel for the usa to care about for its own sake. The U.S. elites want a lot of things- getting Assad out of power is just one of them. That being said, it is my hope that they realize that it's highly unlikely that Ukraine will win in its war with Russia and that the higher the U.S. escalates things, the more likely it is that they'll have much bigger concerns then who wins in the Ukraine war.

Sorry, but the world's richest KLEPTOCRAT (thief) has NO CREDIBILITY with me. And he is the m0r0n who waged war on Ukraine to "prevent NATO on his doorstep" and that ONLY increased the number of NATO members on his doorstep. I'm curious as to why you think Putin is the richest Kleptocrat. Do you have a list of the top 10 or something? I fully admit I've only seen one documentary that painted Putin in a bad light and I can't remember the name of it anymore. It certainly suggested that he was involved in beating up one of his political opponents to the point that he apparently became crippled. That being said, suggesting that something is likely is not the same thing as hard evidence. More importantly to this thread is what Putin's motivations were in starting his military operation in Ukraine. For that, I think that former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud has a good article on the subject that concords well with what Putin himself said on the day he started his military operation: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/ As to there now being more NATO countries at or near Russia's border now then before Russia's military operation in Ukraine, this is true, but you must admit that Ukraine isn't one of them. Had Russia sat quietly while Ukraine killed ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine, NATO might have thought that Russia would tolerate inviting Ukraine into NATO. I think Russia has made it eminently clear at this point that it won't tolerate this.

Clearly. Unlike Ukraine, which has pined for nuclear weapons since before Russia's military operation even began, Russia has enough to destroy most of the world. Even from a conventional perspective, though, I remember a mainstream media outlet admitting that Putin was pulling his punches. He wasn't even initially hitting dual use infrastructure, such as the Ukrainian power grid. That changed after Ukraine bombed the Crimean bridge. And things intensified again when Ukraine started attacking what I like to call "Old Russia" itself. As I've said in the past, Russia has the capability and the motive to escalate this conflict all the way to armageddon levels. I suspect western elites know this and I -hope- that they won't escalate things to that point. At the same time, they don't want to admit that there's no way that western Ukraine can win. So the war grinds on even though I suspect most people in the intelligence community know how it must inevitably end.

Wha?????? Sorry, got that mixed up. It now reads "Economically, BRICS has around half as much clout as NATO at this point, but over 3 times its population." No, not really. The point is that when it comes to nukes, Russia and its allies are definitely not "so far behind", as you put it. The term for the state of affairs here during the cold war was Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD for short. Wikipedia has an article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction The idea being that neither the U.S. or Russia would be so foolish as to initiate initiate a hot conflict with the other, knowing that when if push ever came to shove, everyone would die. The Biden Administration was really testing the limits of just how far it could escalate things before such a result, though. Scott Ritter wrote a very good article about how the Biden Administration tested that limit back in September 2024. It can be seen here: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/19/scott-ritter-72-hours/ That certainly wasn't the only time they tested Russia's resolve, but it may have been the most dangerous period. I wonder if that's actually not true though, due to the fact that further down the line, the United States approved helping Ukraine bomb Russia. Even Trump, who I hardly think of as a genius, had the good sense to denounce the idiocy if this move: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-denounces-biden-decision-let-202630128.html The nukes is more than sufficient.

It's cute that you believe Putin is concerned about Donbas "Russians" when he's really after the huge gas reserves off the Southern coast of Ukraine to cement his monopoly over European gas supplies. Afterall, he is the world's richest kleptocrat. I've seen no reason to disbelieve Putin's professed concern for the people of Donbass. That being said, I will grant you that had the plight of the Donbass people been his only concern, he may have refrained from starting his military operation in Ukraine. However, he made it clear that this wasn't the case. In the very first sentence of the speech he gave on the day he launched his military operation in Ukraine, he mentioned another reason as well, the security of Russia. Quoting: ** I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia. ** He elaborates on this point in the following paragraphs: ** I will begin with what I said in my address on February 21, 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border. It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border. Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands? The answer is simple. Everything is clear and obvious. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That experience should serve as a good lesson for us, because it has shown us that the paralysis of power and will is the first step towards complete degradation and oblivion. We lost confidence for only one moment, but it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the world. As a result, the old treaties and agreements are no longer effective. Entreaties and requests do not help. Anything that does not suit the dominant state, the powers that be, is denounced as archaic, obsolete and useless. At the same time, everything it regards as useful is presented as the ultimate truth and forced on others regardless of the cost, abusively and by any means available. Those who refuse to comply are subjected to strong-arm tactics. What I am saying now does not concern only Russia, and Russia is not the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a redivision of the world, and the norms of international law that developed by that time – and the most important of them, the fundamental norms that were adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome – came in the way of those who declared themselves the winners of the Cold War. Of course, practice, international relations and the rules regulating them had to take into account the changes that took place in the world and in the balance of forces. However, this should have been done professionally, smoothly, patiently, and with due regard and respect for the interests of all states and one’s own responsibility. Instead, we saw a state of euphoria created by the feeling of absolute superiority, a kind of modern absolutism, coupled with the low cultural standards and arrogance of those who formulated and pushed through decisions that suited only themselves. The situation took a different turn. ** He then goes on to list several wars that the U.S. and its NATO allies have been involved in recently, starting with NATO's war against Serbia and continuing with the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria, making a persuasive case that Russia and others have gotten tired of the West's notion that it can do as it pleases wherever it pleases. Putin made it clear in his speech that when it came to Ukraine, western elites had gone too far: ** Even now, with NATO’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year. Moreover, these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. In other words, they have been toughening their position. We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible thing to do for us. Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us. Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy. The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape. Fully controlled from the outside, it is doing everything to attract NATO armed forces and obtain cutting-edge weapons. For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it. **

Ukraine would have drove out the Russians in 2023, had they been given the permission to use long range weapons to strike into Russian territory. I sincerely doubt it. Ukraine has long range weapons now and all it's done is increase the likelihood that this war will spiral out of control. As with the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I can't see Russia retreating from its main objectives in Ukraine. I -can- see western elites retreating from -its- main objectives in Ukraine, the primary one being to weaken Russia. I certainly hope they do, as I'd like to avoid nuclear armageddon. Yep. It gets so tiring, especially considering the fact that the writing has been on the wall for about a decade that Ukraine would get wrecked if western elites continued with their policies of trying to weaken Russia.