The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Redshift]

^ All over the place is the very India, Turkey, etc. Europe is the EU, the UK, undoubtedly others (literally, Europe).

Pass on the second paragraph.

One example as fsr as India is concerned:

EU bankrolling Putin with growing Russian fuel buys from India, report warns

The EU is paying more for fuel imports made from Moscow’s crude, showcasing the growing failure of its signature price-cap sanction.

www.politico.eu

Well that's a great reference to support your own comments, Europe and the EU are most definitely not the same.

 

[Redshift]

What next invasion? Have you seen those contingency plans? Do you mean by Minsk Accords III? A bit too easy looking only at one side of the hill, isn't it?
I think that the question you should be asking is... Why is still going on? Why it didn't end in 2022, in Istambul, after Robotine? Why is Zelenski "in the fight"? He cannot win militarily, how does he think he's going to win?
While "in the fight", all those dead, all that destruction (Ukraine is at the receiving end) are in the best interests of the Ukrainians? Does he want to be the leader? Is Zelenski working for Boris? Is he afraid that is he starts serious peace negotiations he's going to get shot in back of the head?

Realpolitik.
Ukraine is not joining NATO. Russia considers it a threat so, it is a threat. We don't live in a B&W fantasy world, whatever theory or fairy tale you want to tell... It is not the real world.

You keep repeating "if Russia thinks it is a threat then it is a threat" and yet you don't accept this rationale applies to other states and organisations,
If "NATO thinks Belarus is a threat then it IS a threat" and therefore RUSSIA should accept the demilitarisation of BELARUS if NATO demands it (Kaliningrad doubly so), and if it doesn't NATO should invade and make aje these territories safe for NATO.

 

[rsemmes]

The Kursk invasion had valid military reasons and goals.

That invasion was a stupid idea, as proven by the results.
...
Yes, blame the victim (Yanukovich), western morale principles, I guess.
I heard (Constitution) the Kursk invasion was a great idea.
You are talking about (Strategic Credo) a plan or principles? About Kursk or about what you use when you are in the oposition?, when you can say whatever you want because you are not doing anything about it or when what you do is not what you say you were going to do; do you know how politics work? In the West?
As the reports say, Russia is selling a fantasy (a convenient propaganda tool) to Russians. Who are you trying to sell your fantasy to?

 

[Hoover]

What next invasion? Have you seen those contingency plans? Do you mean by Minsk Accords III? A bit too easy looking only at one side of the hill, isn't it?
I think that the question you should be asking is... Why is still going on? Why it didn't end in 2022, in Istambul, after Robotine? Why is Zelenski "in the fight"? He cannot win militarily, how does he think he's going to win?
While "in the fight", all those dead, all that destruction (Ukraine is at the receiving end) are in the best interests of the Ukrainians? Does he want to be the leader? Is Zelenski working for Boris? Is he afraid that is he starts serious peace negotiations he's going to get shot in back of the head?

Realpolitik.
Ukraine is not joining NATO. Russia considers it a threat so, it is a threat. We don't live in a B&W fantasy world, whatever theory or fairy tale you want to tell... It is not the real world.

Seriously????
Neither the Urkaine nor the NATO ever has been a threat to Russia. The pure feeling by the Russians is in no way any justification for the Russian aggression. Before 2014 and even bevore 2022 a Ukraine NATO membership was not on the desk. As the Russian invaders were in the Donbas and on the Crimean a membership was simply not possible.
The question os not "Ukraine can´t win!" but "How will a cease fire will be for the Urkaine?"
Of course the Ukraine won´t win the war on the military side. It is easy for any on the warm and safe table to ask why Zelenskij doesn´t simple surrender. Hey, would you happily surrender and hand over your country to a terror state without any rights?
A surrender on Russian terms will be the end of the ukraine as a souvereign and indepenend state. Great idea.
Putin knows, he only has to mention his nuclear weapons and the Ukraine supporters are afraid and let the terrorist state do whatever it wants.
And we are knowing the further Russian ideas of a post Ukraine war Europa.

At the end we (the "free world") will have only one chance: Support the Ukraine until a cease fire which saves the Ukraines independence (yes, with loss of territory) and stop the further Russian aggression. If Russia will gain a full victory the Ukraine will be gone, ca. 15m refugees will flee to the west to avoid living in a terror state, Moldavia and other countries will be in danger to be sacked by Russia, too, and the pressure on the Baltic states will increase. That is the game.
And in Feb 2022 the main problem was, that nobody was willing to give the Ukraine any guarantees in case of further Russian aggression. Russia broke every treaty since 1992 with the Ukraine. Every single treaty. So the BoJo´s talk to Zelenskij in Feb 2022 (If you will continue to fight, we will support you) is a nice story, but only half of the story.

 

[rsemmes]

You keep repeating "if Russia thinks it is a threat then it is a threat" and yet you don't accept this rationale applies to other states and organisations,
If "NATO thinks Belarus is a threat then it IS a threat" and therefore RUSSIA should accept the demilitarisation of BELARUS if NATO demands it (Kaliningrad doubly so), and if it doesn't NATO should invade and make aje these territories safe for NATO.

I disagree with the "should accept", something I never said.
Russia disagrees, as you can see; in the real world.

 

[rsemmes]

Seriously????
Neither the Urkaine nor the NATO ever has been a threat to Russia. The pure feeling by the Russians is in no way any justification for the Russian aggression. Before 2014 and even bevore 2022 a Ukraine NATO membership was not on the desk. As the Russian invaders were in the Donbas and on the Crimean a membership was simply not possible.
The question os not "Ukraine can´t win!" but "How will a cease fire will be for the Urkaine?"
Of course the Ukraine won´t win the war on the military side. It is easy for any on the warm and safe table to ask why Zelenskij doesn´t simple surrender. Hey, would you happily surrender and hand over your country to a terror state without any rights?
A surrender on Russian terms will be the end of the ukraine as a souvereign and indepenend state. Great idea.
Putin knows, he only has to mention his nuclear weapons and the Ukraine supporters are afraid and let the terrorist state do whatever it wants.
And we are knowing the further Russian ideas of a post Ukraine war Europa.
At the end we (the "free world") will have only one chance: Support the Ukraine until a cease fire which saves the Ukraines independence (yes, with loss of territory) and stop the further Russian aggression. If Russia will gain a full victory the Ukraine will be gone, ca. 15m refugees will flee to the west to avoid living in a terror state, Moldavia and other countries will be in danger to be sacked by Russia, too, and the pressure on the Baltic states will increase. That is the game.
And in Feb 2022 the main problem was, that nobody was willing to give the Ukraine any guarantees in case of further Russian aggression. Russia broke every treaty since 1992 with the Ukraine. Every single treaty. So the BoJo´s talk to Zelenskij in Feb 2022 (If you will continue to fight, we will support you) is a nice story, but only half of the story.

A lot of imagination there... Just one point, we, the free world, when we invade countries?

For some reason, every time I read the word "whataboutism" I think of doublethink, deliberate disregard of History... or blatant hypocrisy.