Scott75

Well it's all academic now. Looks like Donny-Boy has an agreement with Vlad and now they're gonna impose it on Comic-Boy. Not yet, but I'm hopeful. So are the Russians apparently. Below are 2 articles that RT published today that get into the current situation between the U.S. and Russia. I think the first one certainly sounds hopeful: Lavrov traveling to Saudi Arabia to prepare Trump-Putin meeting – Kremlin | RT I think the second one does as well, though the title might suggest otherwise: ‘It is impossible to bring us to our knees’: Russia reacts to Putin-Trump phone call | RT Quoting from the second article: ** Third President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev: The presidents of Russia and the US have talked at last. This is very important in and of itself. The previous US administration cut off all high-level contacts in an attempt to punish and humiliate Russia. As a result, the world was balancing on the brink of the Apocalypse. How did we get there? It just so happened at some point that the US appointed itself the country-in-chief on our planet with the exclusive right to wage a hybrid war against our people, to mete out justice and grant pardons. It was a grave mistake, which nearly wiped humanity off the face of the earth. Nobody attempted something like that before senile Biden’s team. It’s true that we would hold shouting matches with America and sometimes practiced brinkmanship, but nobody slapped personal sanctions on Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis or on Brezhnev during the conflict in Afghanistan or severed contacts between the heads of state. On the contrary, the leaders kept lines of communication open, which helped resolve crises. **

What was the date and time of this shelling occurring they are claiming was happening before Russia got involved? What do you claim is the date and time Russia got involved? What is the shelling that occurred you are talking about? What are the attacks against the local government you are referring to that happened before Russia got involved? From former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud's article on the subject: ** 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. ** Source: Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative | Scheerpost

I don't think Russia's population decline will not have much of an effect on the war in Ukraine, which I suspect may be over this year. Russia's population decline is something that's more of a long term issue. From Wikipedia: ** The UN is projecting that the decline that started in 2021 will continue, and if current demographic conditions persist, Russia's population will be 120 million in 50 years, a decline of about 17%.[33][32] In January 2024, the Russian statistics agency Rosstat predicted that Russia's population could drop to 130 million by 2046.[34] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

“I listened to the screams,” recalls Revazishvili. “There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart.” Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment and have decided to tell the truth about those who “used and abandoned” them. The full documentary with English subtitles is available below (in two parts): ** Unfortunately, the documentary is no longer available on youtube, but I saw parts of it when it was still up. I also found a non youtube version on the wayback archived version of the original article. This wayback version can be seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230130070306/https://orientalreview.org/2017/11/23/cheap-dignity-of-the-ukrainian-revolution/ I can recall a few events that happened in my lifetime where crowds got spooked, and people were trampled while they were fleeing. For sure, but in this case, I think it's pretty clear that most of the killing was done by these mercenary snipers and to this day, few realize that it wasn't Yanukovych's government that was behind it.

Indeed. Ukraine had made plans to attack the Donbass republics since 2021, according to Jacques Baud and the attacks actually began in earnest on February 16, 2022. Had Ukraine not done this or had they at least stopped after Russia recognized the Donbass Republics on February 21, 2022, I think it's quite possible that Russia may never have launched its military operation on February 24, 2022. Unfortunately, Ukraine was filled with delusions of grandeur on how they didn't could take on Russia even -after- Russia started its military operation and so, we have the tragic results of today.

I have to chuckle at this- the west has been pushing this narrative that sanctions have brought Russia "to the brink" for 11 years now :-p. Yeah, that's definitely obscured. I think the Russian word for Google is internyet. Yeah, it's pretty sad how effective mainstream search engines and news sites have hidden this truth :-/.

For anyone reading this, this vox article is saying that Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in August, 2014. I note that they don't offer a shred of evidence for their assertion. As mentioned previously, former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud shot down assertions of this nature in the article he wrote shortly after Russia -actually- started its military operation in Ukraine in February 2022: ** In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials Russian military. The rebels are armed thanks to the defections of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units which cross over to the rebel side. As the Ukrainian failures progressed, the entire tank, artillery or anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what drives the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Accords. ** For the record, August 2014 is when Ukraine signed the first Minsk accords with Russia. Continuing from his article: ** But, just after signing the Minsk 1 Accords, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a vast anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against Donbass. Bis repetita placent : poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat at Debaltsevo which forced them to commit to the Minsk 2 Agreements… It is essential to recall here that the Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements provided for neither the separation nor the independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Accords (they are very, very, very few) will find that it is written in full that the status of the republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the republics, for an internal solution in Ukraine . This is why since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded their application while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter for Ukraine. On the other side, the Westerners – led by France – systematically tried to replace the Minsk Accords with the “Normandy format”, which brought Russians and Ukrainians face to face. However, let us remember, there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before February 23-24, 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. Thus, the US intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in Donbass. **

From what I've seen, the evidence is very strong that Malaysian Airlines 17 was actually shot down by the Ukrainian government. A good article on that: Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile | Global Research

I think it's pretty accurate to say that things began to really heat up in November 2013, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, there were good reasons for Yanukovych to reject the European Union deal. To understand that, I think we need to go back a bit earlier, to September 2013. From an article by Kit Knightly published in Off Guardian: ** SEPTEMBER The Ukrainian cabinet unanimously approves the draft of the long-awaited Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. Yanokuych is expected to officially sign the agreement at the EU’s “Eastern Partnership Summit” in Vilnius on November 28th and 29th. Russia – Ukraine’s major creditor and biggest trade partner – warns that this treaty would “cause chaos”, break the terms of an existing treaty between Ukraine and Russia, and lead to Ukraine’s economy collapsing. As a counteroffer, they suggest Ukraine sign a new deal with the Eurasian Economic Union. ** It's in -that- context that Yanukovych decides to suspend preparations for signing the EU deal in November: ** NOVEMBER The Ukrainian government issues a decree suspending preparations for the association agreement (AA). Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boyko warns the current terms of the agreement would “seriously damage the economy”. “Pro European” demonstrations begin in Maidan square within days of the decree being issued. A poll run by the Kyiv Post finds an even split on joining the EU vs the Eurasian customs union: 39% for, 37% against. Yanukovych attends the Eastern Partnership Summit on the 28th, but does not sign the Association Agreement, instead suggesting a new tri-lateral agreement between Ukraine, Russia and the EU. Russia is open to negotiating such a deal, but EU rejects this offer completely. Despite not signing the AA, Yanukovych tells the press that Ukraine still intends to work for closer ties with the EU: “an alternative for reforms in Ukraine and an alternative for European integration do not exist…We are walking along this path and are not changing direction”. Prime Minister Mykola Azarov echoed this: “I affirm with full authority that the negotiating process over the Association Agreement is continuing, and the work on moving our country closer to European standards is not stopping for a single day”. Nevertheless, this is ubiquitously covered in the Western media as Yanukovych “refusing to sign the association agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia”. ** As to the notion that Yanukovych attempted to put down the protests violently, the heart of that is the allegation that his people were responsible for the deaths on February 20, 2014. I think it's important to point out that the day before this massacre, Yanukovych had actually made a deal with opposition forces, strongly suggesting that the -last- thing he wanted to do was antagonize them at this point. Again from Knightly's article: ** 19/2/2014 – President Yanukovych declares a “truce” in a joint statement signed by the three main opposition leaders. The statement committed to negotiation for a lasting peace. 20/2/2014 – Snipers open fire on the crowd in Maidan Square, resulting in at least sixty deaths. Both protesters and police officers are killed in the gunfire. EuroNews reports that the “truce is shattered” mere hours after it was signed. ** As I've explained elsewhere, there's plenty of evidence that it was actually a certain group within the protest movement itself that was responsible, as well as evidence that an American military operative played a crucial role as well, as detailed in the following article: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684 Even after this massacre, Yanukoych tried his best to calm things down, but to no avail. Again from Kit Knightly's article: ** 21/2/2014 – Despite the bloodshed, negotiations continue, resulting in the “Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine”, signed by all parties plus the foreign minsiters of Germany and Poland. The agreement required the creation of a temporary “National Unity Government”, to be replaced following new Presidential Elections by the end of 2014. It also called for a full investigation into the shootings on the Maidan the previous day. Yanukovych pledged that the government would not declare a state of emergency or call in the military, and would pull all police back from the site of the protests, in return for protesters surrendering all public buildings and illegal weapons. Leaders of the militant protesters – including Dmitryo Yarosh of the neo-Nazi Right Sector – rejected the agreement, and threatened to storm the Parliament and Presidental Residence if Yanukoyvch did not resign immediately. 22/2/2014 – Rather than abiding by the terms of the agreement, once the police pulled back the protesters stormed government buildings and seized control of Kiev. Yanukovych flees to the city of Kharkiv in eastern Ukraine. ** As to Russia, I think that one of the main reason for agreeing to allow Crimeans to rejoin Russia and risk international condemnation had to do with the fact that it definitely didn't want to lose its access to the Black Sea. But I also suspect it didn't want any massacres to happen in Kyiv as well.

The annexation of Crimea is always listed as the first major event after Yanukovich was ousted. I actually think that's accurate, but let's not forgot that the Euromaidan massacre came before Yanukovych's ouster. I also think that very few people understand that for most Crimeans, their return to being part of Russia was a joyous ocasion. I know of only a single western journalist who interviewed Crimeans after the annexation and wrote an article about it, Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett. Her article in full is here: Return to Russia: Crimeans tell the real story of the 2014 referendum and their lives since | Mint Press News Here's the introduction to her article: ** SIMFEROPOL, CRIMEA — In early August I traveled to Russia for the first time, partly out of interest in seeing some of the vast country with a tourist’s eyes, partly to do some journalism in the region. It also transpired that while in Moscow I was able to interview Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman of the Foreign Ministry. High on my travel list, however, was to visit Crimea and Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) — the former a part of Russia, the latter an autonomous republic in the east of Ukraine, neither accurately depicted in Western reporting. Or at least that was my sense looking at independent journalists’ reports and those in Russian media. Both regions are native Russian-speaking areas; both opted out of Ukraine in 2014. In the case of Crimea, joining Russia (or actually rejoining, as most I spoke to in Crimea phrased it) was something people overwhelmingly supported. In the case of the Donbass region, the turmoil of Ukraine’s Maidan coup in 2014 set things in motion for the people in the region to declare independence and form the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. ** Now, I'd like to say that as Mr. Jacques Baud pointed out in his article, that the Donbass' region's -initial- reaction wasn't to 'opt out' of Ukraine, but rather to become more autonomous within it, as they didn't like the direction the new Ukrainian government was taking, in particular to its stance on the Russian language. This changed following the fierce repression from said new government. Anyway, continuing... ** In March 2014, Crimeans held a referendum during which 96 percent of voters chose to join Russia. This has been heavily disputed in Western media, with claims that Crimeans were forced to hold the referendum and claims of Russian troops on the streets “occupying” the peninsula. Because Western media insisted the referendum was a sham held under duress, and because they bandy about the term “pro-Russian separatists” for the people of the DPR, I decided to go and speak to people in these areas to hear what they actually want and feel. ** Taking what I think was the best snippet from the main body of her article: ** Since there was so much hype in Western media about a Russian takeover of the peninsula, I ask the burning questions: Were Crimeans forced to take part in the referendum? What was the mood like around that time? Tata replied: "I never saw so many people in my life go out to vote, of their own free will. There was a period before the referendum, maybe about two months, during which there were two holidays: International Women’s Day, March 8, and Defender of the Fatherland Day, February 23. Normally, people would go away on vacation during these holidays. But that year, Crimeans didn’t go anywhere; they wanted to be sure they were here during the referendum. We felt the sense of a miracle about to happen. People were anxiously awaiting the referendum. There were military tents in the city, but they were not erected by the military, but by local men. They would stand there every day, and people could come and sign a document calling for a referendum. I went one day and asked if I could add my name but I couldn’t, because I have a Russian passport. Only Crimean citizens could sign it. This was the fair way to do it. At that time, my husband was in America. One day, he was watching CNN and got scared and called me because he saw reports of soldiers in the streets, an ‘invasion’ by Russia. The local navy came from Sevastopol to Yalta and anchored their ships off the coast, made a blockade to ensure no larger Ukrainian or other ships could come and attack. But I never saw tanks, I never saw Russian soldiers. I never saw any of that in the city.” ** Now skipping to her conclusion: ** Having spent over a week traveling by car and local transport in this utterly beautiful setting, I know I will be returning to Crimea when the opportunity affords itself. As for the claims that Russia invaded Crimea and of Russian forces intimidating voters, I believe the many people I met who denounced those claims and articulated very clearly why they wanted to join Russia, or as they say, “return to Russia.” **

I've been reading everything (not enough time to reply to everything I want to reply to yet unfortunately) and reporting when something looks pretty egregious, so I suspect I know why you said that, but perhaps he hasn't yet seen the message I suspect you're thinking about yet.

I just read the article linked below published on February 13, thought it was quite interesting Ukraine - The Beginning Of The End (Which Is Yet Far Away) | Moon of Alabama Quoting the conclusion: ** Unless a structure of indivisible security in Europe is found and agreed upon Russia will have to use military means to guarantee security for itself and its allies. Its Special Military Operation is likely to continue until that objective has been achieved. There is no sign that Trump has recognized the larger issue at hand and is willing to talk about it. When he finds out that there is no short term solution - a ceasefire - to have, he might want to dump the whole issue and ignore the outcome: "Let Europe take care ..." When the Biden administration provoked and executed the proxy war against Russia, major European countries ignored their own interest and behaved like U.S. vassals. They now make noise about being left out of the peace process. Well, if you behave like vassals and ignore your own interest why are you astonished when you are treated like vassals and have your own interests ignored? Grow some balls and fight for your interests. Then maybe, just maybe, other will also start to keep your interests in mind. **

I can't find any sources that say that Ukraine was shelling civilians in February with a Google search. Amazing what the mass media hides, isn't it? I think Mr. Jacques Baud provides all the evidence that this in fact occurred, but so few people have seen his article. I'll quote more of the relevant passages, excluding the ones you've already seen, complete with links to his sources: ** In violation of the Minsk Accords, Ukraine is conducting aerial operations in Donbass using drones, including at least one strike against a fuel depot in Donetsk in October 2021 . The American press points this out, but not the Europeans and no one condemns these violations. In February 2022, events rush. On February 7, during his visit to Moscow, Emmanuel Macron reaffirms to Vladimir Putin his attachment to the Minsk Accords , a commitment he will repeat after his interview with Volodymyr Zelensky the next day. But on February 11, in Berlin, after 9 hours of work, the meeting of the political advisers of the leaders of the ” Normandy format “ ends, without concrete result: the Ukrainians still and always refuse to apply the Accordsof Minsk, apparently under pressure from the United States. Vladimir Putin then notes that Macron has made empty promises to him and that the West is not ready to enforce the Accords, as they have been doing for eight years. Ukrainian preparations in the contact zone continue. The Russian Parliament is alarmed and on February 15 asks Vladimir Putin to recognize the independence of the Republics, which he refuses. On February 17, 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. ** Mr. Baud then points out something that happened in January 2022- I think he should have mentioned it earlier in the article, but still a relevant point: ** ...there are reports of acts of sabotage in the Donbass. On January 18, Donbass fighters intercept saboteurs equipped with Western equipment and speaking Polish seeking to create chemical incidents in Gorlivka . They could be CIA mercenaries , led or “advised” by Americans and made up of Ukrainian or European fighters, to carry out sabotage actions in the Donbass Republics. ** Mr. Baud then includes some graphs taken from OSCE data: ** ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

Was that war in Donbas not started by pro-Russian forces? I'd say that it all started with the Euromaidan coup. While Jacques Baud doesn't really get into the Euromaidan coup itself, he -does- get into its aftermath. Quoting from his article that I've quoted from previously: ** Let’s try to examine the roots of the conflict. It starts with those who for the past eight years have been talking to us about “separatists” or “independence” from the Donbass. It’s wrong. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in May 2014 were not ” independence ” (независимость) referendums , as some unscrupulous journalists claimed , but ” self-determination ” or ” autonomy (самостоятельность). The term “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin. In fact, these republics did not seek to separate from Ukraine, but to have a statute of autonomy guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. Because the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 which made Russian an official language. A bit as if putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland. This decision causes a storm in the Russian-speaking population. This resulted in fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which began in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and a few massacres (in Odessa and Mariupol, for the most important). At the end of summer 2014, only the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk remained. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/ Now, I should say one thing, Jacques Baud is mistaken that the initiative by the new government was initially successful. It was actually vetoed by one of the last remaining holdouts from Yanukovych's government, whose name currently escapes me. They did eventually get the job done though, and I suspect those in Odessa and elsewhere saw the writing on the wall and thus their protests at the new government's direction, which, as Mr. Baud mentioned, resulted in fierce oppression. Perhaps the most tragic of these was the massacre at Odessa. Russian historian Evgeny Norin wrote an article on the event that I found very moving, but I know that some people refuse to read anything that's published in a Russian news outlet that's not been banned in Russia, so I'll just quote 2 paragraphs of his article, ending in a punchline: ** Ukrainian society reacted to the events in Odessa in a very peculiar way. Naturally, the majority of the population sympathized with the victims. Flowers would be brought to the Trade Unions building every year on May 2. The public realm and the media, however, were dominated by nationalists. For a few months after the events, social media platforms were overflowing with ‘jokes’ about the ‘Odessa barbecue’, the ‘burning of vatniks’ (a typical Soviet-era wool-padded jacket that became used to refer to Ukrainians espousing pro-Russian views and to Russians themselves), as well as slogans eerily reminiscent of those employed by Nazis about the Jews that they murdered in World War Two. The Ukrainian internet was flooded with pictures of burnt corpses accompanied by derisive comments. Many of the people who took part in the Odessa event soon thereafter ended up in the Donbass, fighting in the volunteer battalions of the Ukrainian army. “All it takes is to kill fifty ‘vatniks’ in every city, and then we shall have peace, then the war will end,” remarked Maksim Mazur, a member of the Aidar Battalion – a statement that was eagerly endorsed by many of those who had attacked people in Odessa. In fact, Ukrainian social media did exactly what is commonly attributed to Russian propaganda. The piles of burnt corpses evoked feelings of horror, but also of rage. May 2014 was a breaking point: volunteers from Russia started to arrive in the breakaway republics en masse and even some men from Western Europe came to fight on their side. Slogans about autonomous status and the need to engage in talks with Kiev gave way to an unwavering resolve and determination to stand and fight to the bitter end. Just a few days after May 2, a Donbass rebel wrote on a destroyed and burned-out Ukrainian infantry fighting vehicle: “This is for Odessa, you bastards.” ** Full article: https://www.rt.com/russia/554860-burned-alive-2014-odessa/

You asked the same question back in post #279. I answered it in post #294. I don't think it makes any sense to repeat the same answer, so why don't you review post #294. So, why do you keep saying it to me You first asked your 'how was he assured' question in post #279, so I gave you my answer in post #294. Apparently, you forgot my answer, or perhaps never even read it, so you asked the question yet again in post #323. I didn't see the point in repeating my answer yet again, so I just redirected you back to where I'd already answered your question- that is, in post #294. I suspect you never clicked on the link. As I suspect I've told you before, there's a good saying that really applies here: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Let me know if you ever get back to post #294 to see the answer to your question.

So, like I said: "No, you responded to what I said, sure, but the crux of your argument was to just ignore what Gorbchev said and dismiss it because you think he was old." Once again, I find your quote snipping to be quite interesting. For the audience, I didn't start my response to User with the quote he made above. It was actually part of a larger paragraph. Here is the part he snipped out: ** Once again, if I had wanted to ignore what Gorbachev said, I certainly wouldn't have gone back to your post to quote him and respond to what he had to say. ** It serves as a good introductory response to what he's saying now. Did he read the first part, snip it out of my quote and then forget I ever said it? Who knows, but I for one am impressed at how he can apparently forget things I said only moments before his response. Anyway, aside from this falsehood that I ignored what Gorbachev said, he focuses on the fact that I mentioned Gorbachev was old. Yes, I said that, but the more important point is that there are archived records making it abundantly clear that Gorbachev was in fact promised that NATO wouldn't expand east of Germany. I quoted said archives and it's these quotes that User keeps on snipping out. And, again: "No, you responded to what I said, sure, but the crux of your argument was to just ignore what Gorbchev said and dismiss it because you think he was old." That's the third time you've said that line. The first time was in post #297, the second time was in post #323 and now this third time in post #327. Meanwhile, I already responded to that line back in post #322 and reiterated the same response to the exact same line in post #325, which is the post you just responded to. Go read those posts once more if you'd like to refresh your memory as to what I said and see if you can come up with a different response this time around.

Yes, you keep repeating yourself. Any idea why? You asked the same question back in post #279. I answered it in post #294. I don't think it makes any sense to repeat the same answer, so why don't you review post #294.

So, like I said: "No, you responded to what I said, sure, but the crux of your argument was to just ignore what Gorbchev said and dismiss it because you think he was old." Once again, I find your quote snipping to be quite interesting. For the audience, I didn't start my response to User with the quote he made above. It was actually part of a larger paragraph. Here is the part he snipped out: ** Once again, if I had wanted to ignore what Gorbachev said, I certainly wouldn't have gone back to your post to quote him and respond to what he had to say. ** It serves as a good introductory response to what he's saying now. Did he read the first part, snip it out of my quote and then forget I ever said it? Who knows, but I for one am impressed at how he can apparently forget things I said only moments before his response. Anyway, aside from this falsehood that I ignored what Gorbachev said, he focuses on the fact that I mentioned Gorbachev was old. Yes, I said that, but the more important point is that there are archived records making it abundantly clear that Gorbachev was in fact promised that NATO wouldn't expand east of Germany. I quoted said archives and it's these quotes that User keeps on snipping out.

Here is an idea, quote the relevent sentence or paragraph and make your argument. I quote what I think is relevant. That frequently includes more than a single sentence or paragraph. If that's too much for you, I suspect this debate just isn't for you. Some things just can't be summed up so quickly. I noticed that, once again, you snipped off everything I quoted. Why? If there was something relevant I missed, feel free to share. Oh, I do, over and over again. You just keep on snipping it out all that relevant info. There's an old saying that I think applies here: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

No, you responded to what I said, sure, but the crux of your argument was to just ignore what Gorbchev said and dismiss it because you think he was old. Once again, if I had wanted to ignore what Gorbachev said, I certainly wouldn't have gone back to your post to quote him and respond to what he had to say. However, the evidence that Gorbachev was mistaken and James Baker promised him that NATO wouldn't expand past Germany is on the record. I understand that people like you have a hard time with this and so would like to trust the words of an old man who quite possibly regrets not having gotten a written agreement instead of the word of various people in high office, but I've seen no one of any stature dispute the fact that Gorbachev was in fact assured that NATO wouldn't expand east of Germany. It's all there in posts you've responded to, while assiduously clipping off the relevant quotes. Post #274 is a good example. Here's what you quoted in your response: ** I can see how those supporting the western mainstream narrative would be quite pleased with that quote from Gorbachev, but it doesn't change the fact that Gorbachev -was- assured that NATO wouldn't expand "one inch eastward" of Germany. By the time of Gorbachev's interview, he was quite old. Surely you've considered the fact that he simply forgot? I've pointed to my post #237 multiple times, but I suspect that you'll never click on the link, so here is what I quoted back then once more: ** Just start reading right after that point and you may learn some interesting things.

How was he assured? You notice how you frequently snip everything I quote? A lot of the time, the material I quote backs up what I say. This time is no exception. The very title of the article you snipped out makes this rather clear. Perhaps you can actually read what I quoted this time around. Once more, from the top: Here is an idea, quote the relevent sentence or paragraph and make your argument. I quote what I think is relevant. That frequently includes more than a single sentence or paragraph. If that's too much for you, I suspect this debate just isn't for you. Some things just can't be summed up so quickly. I noticed that, once again, you snipped off everything I quoted. Why?

For any audience members that may not be sure as to what robosmith is referring to, I imagine it's a word in the title of an article from the mainstream media publication The Daily Mail that I quoted. The full title is "Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked phone call discussing how Kiev snipers who shot protesters were possibly hired by Ukraine's new leaders". My response is that that title is just the tip of the iceberg. Even the Daily Mail article itself suggests that far from just a possibility, it is in fact probably the truth. Once again quoting from said article: ** Leaked phone call suggests anti-government protesters hired the snipers We could all manufacture a 'leaked' phone call where two people say something which they both know is untrue, but it's also highly unlikely that snipers were used for 'crowd control" lol. Agreed. Who gave you the idea that these snipers were being employed for crowd control? As to why they were hired by anti-government protesters, that's something that the article from which that quote comes from doesn't even speculate on. That being said, another article I've brought up in the past reports on an Italian documentary wherein some men claim to have been some of the snipers themselves. These men explain the reasoning for their being hired. Quoting from that article: ** The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media. That is hardly surprising taking into account the bombshell evidence against the real perpetrators and organizers of the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, generally known as the “revolution of dignity“. The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers who were recruited to carry out a “special mission” in Kiev by Mamuka Mamulashvili, a close aid of Mikhail Saakashvili’s former defense minister Bacho Akhalaia. They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents and were transferred to Maidan. Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the “job is done”, they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. The facts they exposed afterwards, were shocking. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger (his Facebook page is here). The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 [the author must have meant 2014] with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car and later headed the first post-Maidan interim president administration of Ukraine. The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. “There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges.” – witnesses Nergadze. The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos. “When Mamulashvili arrived, I also asked him. Things are getting complicated, we have to start shooting – he replied that we cannot go to presidential elections. “But who to shoot?“ I asked. He replied that who and where it did not matter, you had to shoot somewhere so much to sow chaos.” “I listened to the screams,” recalls Revazishvili. “There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart.” Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment and have decided to tell the truth about those who “used and abandoned” them. The full documentary with English subtitles is available below (in two parts): ** Unfortunately, the documentary is no longer available on youtube, but I saw parts of it when it was still up. I also found a non youtube version on the wayback archived version of the original article. This wayback version can be seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230130070306/https://orientalreview.org/2017/11/23/cheap-dignity-of-the-ukrainian-revolution/

Such a salient point. I think the question is fine. It's not the first time I've seen the issue of the Soviet Union no longer existing as a reason for reneging on any deals made when it was around. I just think that people who bring this up don't follow the logic of thinking that it's fine to break any deals with the Soviet Union because it doesn't exist anymore. I think that most would agree that Russia was always the main part of the Soviet Union and to simply renege on any deals because Russia is missing parts of the Soviet Union and was in a bit of a tailspin immediately after the breakup is a bit like punching a guy when he's down, maybe because he got divorced and is no longer the Soviet Couple. I mean sure, you can do it, but I think we can agree that the guy will remember what his new buddy did when he was down. It still comes from a position of "Our word means sh1t." The only way to truly judge a person or group is by what they do when they're in a position of power, and apparently we're assh0les. That only works for so long if you're intent on making the rest of the world mistrust/hate you. Eventually there's a change in the balance of power. I think a few issues are being brought up here and it would be good to separate them. First, I agree that the United States' word, even in agreement form, is not exactly stellar: https://qz.com/1273510/all-the-international-agreements-the-us-has-broken-before-the-iran-deal Second, I also agree that influencing countries by fear is the wrong way to go about things. However, the issue that led to this conversation is whether verbal agreements made to the Soviet Union should matter if the Soviet Union no longer exists. This is why I made the analogy of Russia basically being like a man who'd recently gotten divorced, with the idea being that any promises made to the Soviet couple would be moot because Russia's now on their own. An analogy I made elsewhere is that it'd be like any deals made to the U.S. would be moot if one or more U.S. states decided to become independent. It's just a bad idea, especially if the somewhat reduced superpower takes the breaking of the deal badly, which Russia definitely did. Perhaps the most important thing though, is that the U.S. could have promised to stop expanding NATO prior to Russia's war in Ukraine and that may well have gotten Russia to not start its war in Ukraine. The U.S. turned down what might have been its final chance at averting war that way in December 2021. Putin mentioned this in the speech he gave on the day he started his military operation in Ukraine, which he now calls a war. Quoting: ** As for our country, after the disintegration of the USSR, given the entire unprecedented openness of the new, modern Russia, its readiness to work honestly with the United States and other Western partners, and its practically unilateral disarmament, they immediately tried to put the final squeeze on us, finish us off, and utterly destroy us. This is how it was in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia. What victims, what losses we had to sustain and what trials we had to go through at that time before we broke the back of international terrorism in the Caucasus! We remember this and will never forget. Properly speaking, the attempts to use us in their own interests never ceased until quite recently: they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature. This is not going to happen. No one has ever succeeded in doing this, nor will they succeed now. Despite all that, in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. Our efforts were in vain. The United States has not changed its position. It does not believe it necessary to agree with Russia on a matter that is critical for us. The United States is pursuing its own objectives, while neglecting our interests. ** Putin then goes on to explain what would happen if Russia were to just sit idly by while western Ukraine killed ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine: ** Of course, this situation begs a question: what next, what are we to expect? If history is any guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941 the Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the potential aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late. As a result, the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by Nazi Germany, which attacked our Motherland on June 22, 1941, without declaring war. The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came at a tremendous cost. The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months after the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this mistake the second time. We have no right to do so. Those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy. They did so with impunity. Make no mistake, they had no reason to act this way. It is true that they have considerable financial, scientific, technological, and military capabilities. We are aware of this and have an objective view of the economic threats we have been hearing, just as our ability to counter this brash and never-ending blackmail. Let me reiterate that we have no illusions in this regard and are extremely realistic in our assessments. As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country. At the same time, technology, including in the defence sector, is changing rapidly. One day there is one leader, and tomorrow another, but a military presence in territories bordering on Russia, if we permit it to go ahead, will stay for decades to come or maybe forever, creating an ever mounting and totally unacceptable threat for Russia. 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. This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain. As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics. I would like to additionally emphasise the following. Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia. They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people just as members of the punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to several other Russian regions. If we look at the sequence of events and the incoming reports, the showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only a matter of time. They are getting ready and waiting for the right moment. Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not let this happen. I have already said that Russia accepted the new geopolitical reality after the dissolution of the USSR. We have been treating all new post-Soviet states with respect and will continue to act this way. We respect and will respect their sovereignty, as proven by the assistance we provided to Kazakhstan when it faced tragic events and a challenge in terms of its statehood and integrity. However, Russia cannot feel safe, develop, and exist while facing a permanent threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine. **

It was pretty basic imo. Force NATO into Russia's grille, go to war. The US poked, prodded, connived, manipulated, orchestrated, nudged, aided, abetted, enticed, lured, solicited, and even coerced Ukraine down the path to NATO membership. When you consider how tolerant the Monroe Doctrine is of European influence in the Americas, they sure expect Russia to put with a lot right on their 800km long border with Ukraine. I definitely agree that the West, led by the U.S., was really antagonizing Russia by insisting that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO. But there was no set date for that actually happening. Ukraine's renewed assault on the Donbass Republics/Donbass region of Ukraine, on the other hand, happened -immediately- prior to Russia's war in Ukraine. I brought this up with DUI in my post #72, but he simply dismissed the evidence, much of which was coming from a former Swiss Intelligence Officer named Jacques Baud. Mr. Baud is a man with a career path that brought him directly into the conflict in Ukraine before Russia's military operation began. I quoted from his Wikipedia page in post #106 and you made some sarcastic remarks in reference to DUI's dismissive tone of the man in post #120: However, I'm not sure if you ever read what Mr. Baud had to say on the Ukraine war which I mentioned in post #72, so thinking it may be good to quote a bit from what he's said again here: ** The last straw, ofcourse, was when Ukraine once again attacked the self proclaimed Donbass Republics in the Donbass region of Ukraine to kill yet more ethnic Russians and Russian speakers living there. I think Former Swiss Intelligence Officer captured Putin's predicament quite well in the days leading up to his decision to start a military operation in Ukraine: ** 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/

Such a salient point. I think the question is fine. It's not the first time I've seen the issue of the Soviet Union no longer existing as a reason for reneging on any deals made when it was around. I just think that people who bring this up don't follow the logic of thinking that it's fine to break any deals with the Soviet Union because it doesn't exist anymore. I think that most would agree that Russia was always the main part of the Soviet Union and to simply renege on any deals because Russia is missing parts of the Soviet Union and was in a bit of a tailspin immediately after the breakup is a bit like punching a guy when he's down, maybe because he got divorced and is no longer the Soviet Couple. I mean sure, you can do it, but I think we can agree that the guy will remember what his new buddy did when he was down.