It’s Official: US Abandoning Ukraine | Scheerpost

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, User said:

You are one of the most rude and insulting people on this forum... and a coward. Yes, you run and hide like the coward you are. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. 

Take what, User? Your BS?

All you are saying here is

1. "We just said stuff, we never signed anything", so Russia can't do anything about it, and
2. NATO is cute and cuddly, Russia has no legitimate reason to say that they fear us

Quote

Why would I? That was not the subject. I am not interested in your same old dumb dishonest claims we have already argued before when you are avoiding the one dumb and dishonest claim this discussion was currently about. 

Because they all paint a vivid picture of why this war started. Tens of thousands of people are dead, so the truth obviously matters.

Quote

Except, the "US" did not give their word at all. Nor did the others... and you are in fact arguing that "word" was some kind of binding formal agreement, when it was not. 

Words do matter, f-wit. 

1. James Baker should just stay at home if his words are meaningless
2. The US is bound by Baker's words because they sent him there as a representative of the US Gov't. If you go to a store and the mgr says "You can get that for 50% off because..." the owner can't meet you on your way out of the store and say "Go back to the till and pay the full amount: the mgr had no right to offer you that deal."

Quote

If only James Baker were the King of America for life and his word was somehow the word for all of America for all time... it is not, and hell, as I have already pointed out to your dumb dishonest lying a$$ before, even he said after he had no such authority to make any such binding offer. 

And the day you give a shit about integrity... man, I might fall over out of my chair. You have yet to demonstrate you care about that here yourself. 

All that you did there is prove how much of a weasel you are. 

FYI Canada can't send Freeland around to make deals and then we reneg on them just and say "She's not the PM, NYAH!". That's not how it works. If we send her to say words, then we have to honour those words. We should never send someone to negotiate if their words aren't binding in any way.

I mean, we could weasel out of it, like you would quite happily do, but that just puts us in the wrong... A feeling which you're quite clearly immune to. 

[Black Dog]

8 hours ago, Scott75 said:

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University

Can someone find the Soviet Union on a map today?

[WestCanMan]

15 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Can someone find the Soviet Union on a map today?

Such a salient point. That's why we value your opinion so much, Black Dummy.

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Such a salient point. That's why we value your opinion so much, Black Dummy.

See shit for brains this is why it's important to get this stuff in writing. Without official treaty obligations, you've got dick all.

 

Edited February 11 by Black Dog

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

See shit for brains this is why it's important to get this stuff in writing.

It's important to get things in writing when you're dealing with unscrupulous people, and we all agree that the US Gov't can't be trusted. 

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

It's important to get things in writing when you're dealing with unscrupulous people, and we all agree that the US Gov't can't be trusted. 

Damn then those dumb Russkies should have got that shit wrote down lol, oh well.

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Damn then those dumb Russkies should have got that shit wrote down lol, oh well.

For real. 100%. Then Yeltsin could have waved the papers in the air when he stepped off a train, along with the Budapest Memorandum, and things would have been so different 😉 

[User]

51 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Take what, User? Your BS?

All you are saying here is

1. "We just said stuff, we never signed anything", so Russia can't do anything about it, and
2. NATO is cute and cuddly, Russia has no legitimate reason to say that they fear us

It helps if you actually respond to what I say instead of your usual dishonest crap like this. 

YOU and a handful of others are the ones pushing this dishonest and absurd narrative, basically mindlessly parroting Putin's propaganda, that the US had reneged on an agreement with Russia on NATO expansion. 

My response is that you are full of shit. 

You have also made previous arguments about how bad NATO is as well, and I have extensively point out how, big surprise, you are once again full of shit. 

 

57 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Because they all paint a vivid picture of why this war started. Tens of thousands of people are dead, so the truth obviously matters.

At this moment, it was not a discussion on why the war started, it was quite focused on the lie you and others are pushing regarding NATO not moving East. Focus. 

58 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Words do matter, f-wit. 

1. James Baker should just stay at home if his words are meaningless
2. The US is bound by Baker's words because they sent him there as a representative of the US Gov't. If you go to a store and the mgr says "You can get that for 50% off because..." the owner can't meet you on your way out of the store and say "Go back to the till and pay the full amount: the mgr had no right to offer you that deal."

Yes, words do matter, so does a basic understanding of who is saying them and what power they have. Lets play. 

Me: I am the King of Canada! Now you must obey me!

OK, so... my words matter. Right? Are you going to start obeying me now?

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

All that you did there is prove how much of a weasel you are. 

Says the guy who has his head so far up Putins ass you can smell his breath. 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

We should never send someone to negotiate if their words aren't binding in any way.

What is the key word in that sentence? Can you figure it out? Are you honest enough to admit it?

 

[WestCanMan]

52 minutes ago, User said:

It helps if you actually respond to what I say instead of your usual dishonest crap like this. 

YOU and a handful of others are the ones pushing this dishonest and absurd narrative, basically mindlessly parroting Putin's propaganda, that the US had reneged on an agreement with Russia on NATO expansion. 

My response is that you are full of shit. 

You're only half right:

1. your response actually is "that I'm full of shit", but that's nothing more than your own weaselly opinion
2. when you weigh the actual merits of our arguments, your argument remains that "verbal agreements - which are 100% known to have been made - are not worth anything". That's your full and final answer.  

Now, seeing as it's 100% verified fact that we made verbal assurances, what I'm saying isn't "Putin propaganda", it's just the truth. Get your head out of your ass, man. You're calling known facts "Russian propaganda" you sick fack. 

Stop trying to deny that, at the end of the day, you just think that we can go back on our word and that qualifies as OK in your books. 

 

Do you understand all of that plain English? 

WE, NATO MEMBERS, SAID THINGS. WE, NATO MEMBERS, ARE NOT HONOURING THE THINGS THAT WE SAID. PERIOD. END OF STORY. THAT IS 100% TRUE. 

You think that's ok, I think it's not ok. 

DO you understand all of things that I have said, which have all been proven here, over and over again? 

Reply with either "Yes", or just admit that you're a f'ing weasel. It's one or the other. There is no 3rd option. 

Edited February 11 by WestCanMan

[User]

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're only half right:

Oh, you are only half full of shit?

I mean... um, OK. 

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

when you weigh the actual merits of our arguments, your argument remains that "verbal agreements - which are 100% known to have been made - are not worth anything". That's your full and final answer.  

There were no verbal agreements. There were no written agreements. The point I am making isn't that if only James Baker had written it down, then it would be official! No, it is that there was no agreement nor did he have any authority to authorize any such agreement. He even said as much immediately after. This is why Gorbachev said as much after. This is why NATO and the US never committed to this after. It was NEVER an agreement. 

If only you were honest enough to have answered my question, this would be obvious. 

This was a negotiation. Even the link your other clown show member provided clearly stipulated this. 

30 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

WE, NATO MEMBERS, SAID THINGS. WE, NATO MEMBERS, ARE NOT HONOURING THE THINGS THAT WE SAID. PERIOD. END OF STORY. THAT IS 100% TRUE. 

LOL, how are you this stupid?

NATO members didn't agree to that. 

 

[Scott75]

On 2/10/2025 at 2:05 PM, impartialobserver said:

I do feel bad for the average Ukrainian who is simply trying to live and get by. Nothing that they can do to stop this war. My guess is if they try to leave, they face serious challenges especially if they travel east or south. Second, war tends to deplete your resources so probably can't afford much and it takes money to travel. 

Agreed, definitely a very bad time for the average Ukrainian. 

[Scott75]

23 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

On 2/10/2025 at 9:18 AM, Scott75 said:

In an effort to revive said productive discussion, I definitely think that a lot of people do realize that the western mainstream media narrative on the Ukraine war is false.

Normally I'd call that fake news, but when it comes to war I expect them to lie. 

Not that lying is always the right thing to do, as we saw in the second Iraq war, but it's just normal. 

That being said, the propaganda should at least make sense, which it never did. At the beginning they were saying something like "15,000 dead Russian soldiers, less than 1,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers, less than 1,000 dead civilians... IT'S A GENOCIDE!" 

🤔

All the usual suspects repeated it, as if they were somehow making a really poignant statement of fact, but imo that's some kind of weird reverse-genocide if it was true.

For me, the most tragic thing is that this war between Russia and Ukraine could have been avoided. I imagine you remember my post #102, wherein I brought up the fact that many experienced American statesmen warned the West that continuing on the path of expanding NATO into Ukraine would lead to tragic results. I think the best line in that post was one from American Professor John Mearsheimer, way back in 2015:

**

“the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”

**

Source:

https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-primrose-path-to-catastrophe/

Now, if the only thing happening in Ukraine was its desire to join NATO, I don't think the war would have started. After all, Ukraine had been pining to join NATO since the Euromaidan coup in 2014. I think it's pretty clear that the final straw was western Ukraine's renewed attack on the Donbass Republics. I got into a lot of the details in post #72, which was a response to a post from DUI.

Edited February 11 by Scott75

[Scott75]

6 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Can someone find the Soviet Union on a map today?

As you know, the Soviet Union broke up, but I think it can be easily argued that the heart of the Soviet Union was Russia, both in terms of landmass and perhaps more importantly, in terms of the country that kept all the nukes. WIth another poster, I compared reneging on assurances made to the Soviet Union would be akin to reneging on a deal made with the U.S. because one or more of its states decided to become independent. I mean,  yes, you can do it, but I think it's akin to punching a guy when he's down. You can generally get away with it, but surely you can understand that the guy won't be nearly so trusting the next time around.

Edited February 11 by Scott75

[Scott75]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

6 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Can someone find the Soviet Union on a map today?

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.

Edited February 11 by Scott75

[WestCanMan]

21 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

For me, the most tragic thing is that this war between Russia and Ukraine could have been avoided. I imagine you remember my post #102, wherein I brought up the fact that many experienced American statesmen warned the West that continuing on the path of expanding NATO into Ukraine would lead to tragic results. I think the best line in that post was one from American Professor John Mearsheimer, way back in 2015:

**

“the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”

**

Source:

https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-primrose-path-to-catastrophe/

Now, if the only thing happening in Ukraine was its desire to join NATO, I don't think the war would have started. After all, Ukraine had been pining to join NATO since the Euromaidan coup in 2014. I think it's pretty clear that the final straw was western Ukraine's renewed attack on the Donbass Republics. I got into a lot of the details in post #72, which was a response to a post from DUI.

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. 

[WestCanMan]

18 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I think the question is fine. 

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. 

[Scott75]

9 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

10 hours ago, Scott75 said:

For me, the most tragic thing is that this war between Russia and Ukraine could have been avoided. I imagine you remember my post #102, wherein I brought up the fact that many experienced American statesmen warned the West that continuing on the path of expanding NATO into Ukraine would lead to tragic results. I think the best line in that post was one from American Professor John Mearsheimer, way back in 2015:

**

“the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”

**

Source:

https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-primrose-path-to-catastrophe/

Now, if the only thing happening in Ukraine was its desire to join NATO, I don't think the war would have started. After all, Ukraine had been pining to join NATO since the Euromaidan coup in 2014. I think it's pretty clear that the final straw was western Ukraine's renewed attack on the Donbass Republics. I got into a lot of the details in post #72, which was a response to a post from DUI.

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:

On 2/5/2025 at 9:25 AM, WestCanMan said:

It seems like he's just "some conspiracy nut, that nobody takes seriously" 🤣

I'm gonna go with the unsubstantiated opinion of the anonymous internet shit-poster over the head of blah blah blah and blah blah blah blah blah in all of those different countries and continents.

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/

Edited February 12 by Scott75

[Scott75]

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

10 hours ago, Scott75 said:

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

17 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Can someone find the Soviet Union on a map today?

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.

**

[Scott75]

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

On 2/11/2025 at 1:59 AM, Scott75 said:

On 2/10/2025 at 11:13 AM, robosmith said:

"Possibly" is the best you got.

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.”

 

“It did not matter if we fired at a tree, barricade, or those who tossed a Molotov, what counted was making panics.”

“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/

Edited February 12 by Scott75
Added information

[Scott75]

23 hours ago, User said:

On 2/11/2025 at 2:15 AM, Scott75 said:

On 2/10/2025 at 11:23 AM, User said:

On 2/10/2025 at 11:08 AM, Scott75 said:

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:

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?

[User]

1 minute ago, Scott75 said:

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. I notice you continue to avoid all the points I make. Why?

 

[Scott75]

On 2/11/2025 at 8:13 AM, User said:

On 2/11/2025 at 2:10 AM, Scott75 said:

If my argument was to ignore him, I would have done what you just did with the material I quoted, which is snip it right out. Instead, I actually went back to your article that interviewed Gorbachev as I felt it deserved a response.

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.

Edited February 12 by Scott75

[User]

6 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

However, the evidence that Gorbachev was mistaken and James Baker promised him that NATO wouldn't expand past Germany is on the record.

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."
 

6 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

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.

Yes, you keep repeating yourself. 

Again, how was he "assured" of this? He was not "assured" by anyone with any power in any formal agreement. It is not a matter of having written it down, although that is still important in a formal agreement (duh, I can't believe I have to explain this to you, that nation states do not make binding verbal backroom deals that no one wrote down or can point to....)

As I already pointed out before, from your own source, it was nothing more than a negotiation meeting... where they negotiated. No terms were formalized there. 

 

[Scott75]

28 minutes ago, User said:

30 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

On 2/11/2025 at 8:13 AM, User said:

On 2/11/2025 at 2:15 AM, Scott75 said:

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?

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.

Edited February 12 by Scott75

[Scott75]

8 minutes ago, User said:

18 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

However, the evidence that Gorbachev was mistaken and James Baker promised him that NATO wouldn't expand past Germany is on the record.

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.