Russia invades Ukraine Feb 2022

[theskull1]

Neocon Queen Victoria Nuland ADMITS Not Wanting to End Ukraine War Diplomatically

[Simon OParlon]

I think you need to direct your accusations to the West MainSt. How many people have died since Boris torpedo'd the peace deal?

The US knew donkeys ago that "Nyet Means Nyet". They could not give one fcuk about Ukrainian lives

Why would he direct it to the West when it's Russia that invaded Ukraine?

Your post doesn't make sense.

Also the idea that there was a peace deal or that Boris Johnson had the power to torpedo a deal is laughable. Where did you get such a notion?

[theskull1]

Why would he direct it to the West when it's Russia that invaded Ukraine?

Your post doesn't make sense.

If you're not familiar with the 'NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES' memo from 2008, I suggest you do some research.

They knew right well that these chess moves would result in a new cold war and regional instability. This is all by design. Ukrainian conscripts are nothing but pawns for greedy western elites.

Also the idea that there was a peace deal or that Boris Johnson had the power to torpedo a deal is laughable. Where did you get such a notion?

Boris was the one who flew to Ukraine and lets say got the blame for scuppering the Istanbul peace talks, but of course he was merely a conduit .............did you watch that youtube video above discussing it?

[Simon OParlon]

Why would he direct it to the West when it's Russia that invaded Ukraine?

Your post doesn't make sense.

If you're not familiar with the 'NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES' memo from 2008, I suggest you do some research.

They knew right well that these chess moves would result in a new cold war and regional instability. This is all by design. Ukrainian conscripts are nothing but pawns for greedy western elites.

Also the idea that there was a peace deal or that Boris Johnson had the power to torpedo a deal is laughable. Where did you get such a notion?

Boris was the one who flew to Ukraine and lets say got the blame for scuppering the Istanbul peace talks, but of course he was merely a conduit .............did you watch that youtube video above discussing it?

NATO enlarged because countries that were formerly run by Russian puppet dictatorships during the cold war became democratic, elected representative governments and then applied to join a military alliance so that they could remain free from Russia. Have you an issue with sovereign governments making their own decisions or do they need to run it past the local imperial power?

I started watching your video and was dismayed to see the odious Glenn Greenwald. I'll get round to it all later but from the one minute introduction I see a few clangers. (And I think I'll watch the whole video rather than just Mr. Greenwald's clip to see if there is any missing context)

Errors in introduction:

1. Victoria Nuland 'ran' Ukraine. Eh no she didn't. They have a democratically elected president who runs the country.

2. There was a coup in Ukraine. Again no. There was a grassroots protest due to the president's broken promise and after he was impeached he decided to run to Moscow. He was still president when he ran. He probably didn't want to face jail for his many crimes.

3. Nuland was going to choose who to run Ukraine. I presume Greenwald is refereeing the leaked phone call. That's a call where she was talking about who she thought the Prime Minister should be as part of a deal brokered by Yanukovych himself and the opposition. Nuland is very arrogant but Greenwald is talking nonsense.

So. I'll watch the interview between Nuland and the Russian later but 0/10 for Greenwald so far.

How do you watch this nonsense?

Regards,

Si

[trueblue1234]

Why would he direct it to the West when it's Russia that invaded Ukraine?

Your post doesn't make sense.

If you're not familiar with the 'NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES' memo from 2008, I suggest you do some research.

They knew right well that these chess moves would result in a new cold war and regional instability. This is all by design. Ukrainian conscripts are nothing but pawns for greedy western elites.

Also the idea that there was a peace deal or that Boris Johnson had the power to torpedo a deal is laughable. Where did you get such a notion?

Boris was the one who flew to Ukraine and lets say got the blame for scuppering the Istanbul peace talks, but of course he was merely a conduit .............did you watch that youtube video above discussing it?

Complete Kremlin spoof. Russia's redlines are bollix. Every country has a right to choose its own security arrangements. Russia have no right to tell other countries what they can and can't do. Especially given their history. Why do you think Ukraine want NATO membership, with Russia on its doorstep.

[Simon OParlon]

[/quote]

Why would he direct it to the West when it's Russia that invaded Ukraine?

Your post doesn't make sense.

If you're not familiar with the 'NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES' memo from 2008, I suggest you do some research.

They knew right well that these chess moves would result in a new cold war and regional instability. This is all by design. Ukrainian conscripts are nothing but pawns for greedy western elites.

Also the idea that there was a peace deal or that Boris Johnson had the power to torpedo a deal is laughable. Where did you get such a notion?

Boris was the one who flew to Ukraine and lets say got the blame for scuppering the Istanbul peace talks, but of course he was merely a conduit .............did you watch that youtube video above discussing it?

Complete Kremlin spoof. Russia's redlines are bollix. Every country has a right to choose its own security arrangements. Russia have no right to tell other countries what they can and can't do. Especially given their history. Why do you think Ukraine want NATO membership, with Russia on its doorstep.

This pro-Russian stance is very odd coming from Irishmen given our own struggle with our near neighbour.

Ukraine's history chimes with Ireland's.

Should Ireland obey British red lines for ever more amen?

If not, why should Ukraine.

Regards,

Si

[Simon OParlon]

The full interview is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiS2dg_atfc

So straight away on the Nuland interview, when the interviewer moves onto the topic of the Istanbul negotiations he opens with:

Interviewer: '..speaking of another negotiation process...Istanbul 2022'

Nuland: 'This is another Russian myth..good grief..an urban legend, yeah' 

This has not been included in Greenwald's clip of Nuland's 'admission'.

Greenwald keeps pausing to give his narrative to everything in case the viewer's thought process strays. He says Ukrainians representatives said there was a 'tonne of progress'. No they didn't Greenwald.

He then lists a lot of concessions that Ukraine had apparently agreed to meet that would have appeased Russian 'concerns'. In fact nothing had been agreed on.

BTW. Nuland hasn't even said anything yet, it's all just Greenwald at this stage.

The clip is heavily edited.

The interwiewer mentions Bennet the Israeli and Arakhamia thens asks 'Where is the myth, where is the truth?'

Nuland starts her answer with 'Well look only the negotiators know for sure because they were in the room..'  and then speaks for about 1:20 mins giving some context.

Greenwald edits all this out.

She then explains that Ukraine asked for advice and the US pointed out to them that the agreement would hamstring Ukraine and leave them defenceless and open to Russian attack in the future.

Greenwald then pauses and gives his narrative to make sure the viewer is on board with his nonsense.

She goes on to explain that there were no similar constraints put on Russia and that the 'agreement' proposals were a trap.

Basically the whole Greenwald video is a nothing burger. Heavily edited. Interrupted every sentence so that Glenn can explain everything to you with more Russian myths and lies.

I knew that before I started but there you go. Another few hours wasted online.

Greenwald is a grifter and anyone who falls for his grift is extremely gullible and needs to learn some critical thinking skills.

Regards,

Si OParlon.

 

[theskull1]

So many people unable to get out of the 'one side good other side bad' mentality 

Pro understanding the geopolitical realities is not pro Russian.

I can understand why the US didn't like the USSR defending Cuba when they asked them for assistance. Likewise I can understand why Russia didn't like all the NATO activity in and around their bordering countries in recent years.

List of NATO exercises

I'm also in agreement in principal with true blue that every country should have the right to choose its own security arrangements. The problem is that many countries governments now serve global elites and not by the will of the people so it's never as clear cut as you would like. NATO wouldn't look like a peace keeping force to Russians when you look at their activity in the last 10 years would it?

And lets not get into how many regime changes have came about through Western involvements in those countries they decide they don't like (because they won't play ball)

[Simon OParlon]

So many people unable to get out of the 'one side good other side bad' mentality 

Pro understanding the geopolitical realities is not pro Russian.

I can understand why the US didn't like the USSR defending Cuba when they asked them for assistance. Likewise I can understand why Russia didn't like all the NATO activity in and around their bordering countries in recent years.

List of NATO exercises

I'm also in agreement in principal with true blue that every country should have the right to choose its own security arrangements. The problem is that many countries governments now serve global elites and not by the will of the people so it's never as clear cut as you would like. NATO wouldn't look like a peace keeping force to Russians when you look at their activity in the last 10 years would it?

And lets not get into how many regime changes have came about through Western involvements in those countries they decide they don't like (because they won't play ball)

You can't get out of the way of the 'it's always the fault of the west and USA' mentality instilled in you by reading too much Chomsky and listening to the likes of Greenwald.

You're mistaking believing Russian propaganda for 'nuance'.

NATO can't invade and could never invade Russia because they have nuclear weapons. They can't and they won't. It's that simple.

Russia can't touch NATO members. (At least I used to think so but with the cowardice shown by the US and Germany I'm not so sure anymore. Poland and the Baltics definitely have doubts too).

NATO membership limits Russian imperialism. (Putin will probably test this theory at some point)

Everything else from you is just hot air.

Regards,

Si OParlon.

[Simon OParlon]

Can you point to me how that short interview with Nuland is 'proof' that Boris Johnson torpedoed a peace deal?

It's not even a leap in logic, it's complete fantasy.

Regards,

Si.

[theskull1]

Can you point to me how that short interview with Nuland is 'proof' that Boris Johnson torpedoed a peace deal?

You mean like the Weapons of Mass Destruction proof or the Widgery Tribunal proof? I'm sorry I can't .... you win

[johnnycool]

Viktor Yanukovych was a great fella, democratically elected until he started progressing trade deals with Russia

[Simon OParlon]

Can you point to me how that short interview with Nuland is 'proof' that Boris Johnson torpedoed a peace deal?

You mean like the Weapons of Mass Destruction proof or the Widgery Tribunal proof? I'm sorry I can't .... you win

You've got nothing.

I will win every time because there is nothing.

You repeat claims coming from the Kremlin, disseminated by the usual sources.

When challenged you can't substantiate or back up a single claim.

Then wait a week or two, and hey presto, off you go again, like a little wind up toy, triggered by the same old repackaged nonsense.

You've got nothing but hot air.

Regards,

Simon OP.

[Simon OParlon]

Viktor Yanukovych was a great fella, democratically elected until he started progressing trade deals with Russia

Yeah some Ukrainians definitely thought he was a great fella, falling for his promise of closer ties with the EU. And as it happens his vote in 2010 was strongest in the east of Ukraine and in Crimea.

So here we have a man, running for election on a ticket promising closer ties with the EU, a man who negotiated the Ukraine EU Association agreement, presented it before the Ukrainian parliament who ratified it, went to Vilnius to sign it, then promptly declared he won't sign it and will instead open dialogue and talks with Moscow about closer economic ties. A betrayal of ALL those who voted for him, and yes that means the Ukrainian people of Donbas and Crimea.

That's not even mentioning the billions he embezzled from the country's coffers.

Your hatred of the west and the US skews your thinking, making you think Ukrainians should just lap that shit up.

They didn't and once Yanukovych set the Berkut and Titushky on the protestors his days were numbered.

People hopes and dreams of a better future for themselves and their country, stolen. But for you, just a glib observation on something you have no knowledge about but which chimes with your already determined world view.

Stay in your lane.

Regards,

Si.

[theskull1]

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori