Jesus Christ.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
If that's the best you can do then please stay out of this thread.
That makes more sense. I can imagine the Moldovans don't want to take a chance on the fighting spreading into actual Moldovan territory beyond Transnistria.
I will.
Ukraine has enough on its hand containing Russia in the east, and you want them to spend valuable resources on a different front?
Yeah, it makes no sense to send troops in there.
A few sabotage operations should be more than enough to knock the pro-Russian faction's capabilities out without a fuss. It's not like Russia can move an entire army division in there without drawing attention; Transnistria is isolated by land anyway.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That and no western country will be ok with supplying arms to Ukraine to lead a war outside their boundaries. All countries are supplying arms as defensive mechanism. We already saw far right parties everywhere wanting to drop support. Marching into Moldova or Transnistria will not paint a good outlook.
Germany charges military officer with spying for Russia
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-charges-military-officer-with-spying-russia-2024-03-19/
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
An interesting article about Russia since the start of the war. It's long, but I am brining some parts of it in the original language (French) and in English. It's based on an interview wth Denis Volkov, who " heads the only major reliable polling institute in Russia" according the magazine L'Express.fr .
Not only is the economy stable, but the government has increased redistribution measures for those on the lowest incomes - increases in pensions, civil servants' salaries, expansion of social assistance programs for people with dependent children, or to facilitate purchase of an apartment.
Another key element is that soldiers engaged in the "special military operation" in Ukraine, most of whom come from small towns, have seen their pay increase significantly - they can earn five or six times more than before . Added to this is the fact that when a soldier is killed, the family receives around 5 million rubles, or around 50,000 euros. For residents of a small Russian town, this is a huge amount.
According to some estimates, people's incomes have never been higher in decades. The majority is therefore very positive about the economic situation, which helps maintain optimism and confidence in the government.
The share of the middle class has increased by around 5 percentage points in two years, after previously stagnating. These people, whose purchasing power is increasing, are generally linked to the state apparatus and therefore loyal to it."
"But, apart from the flag effect, the determining element is the economic situation, which is very stable. At the start of the conflict, when Western sanctions were introduced, people first rushed to banks to withdraw their money. But the government managed to calm the panic and the population backed down.
Not only is the economy stable, but the government has increased redistribution measures for those on the lowest incomes - increases in pensions, civil servants' salaries, expansion of social assistance programs for people with dependent children, or to facilitate purchase of an apartment.
Another key element is that soldiers engaged in the "special military operation" in Ukraine, most of whom come from small towns, have seen their pay increase significantly - they can earn five or six times more than before . Added to this is the fact that when a soldier is killed, the family receives around 5 million rubles, or around 50,000 euros. For residents of a small Russian town, this is a huge amount.
According to some estimates, people's incomes have never been higher in decades. The majority is therefore very positive about the economic situation, which helps maintain optimism and confidence in the government.
The share of the middle class has increased by around 5 percentage points in two years, after previously stagnating. These people, whose purchasing power is increasing, are generally linked to the state apparatus and therefore loyal to it."
" "Would you like Putin to be re-elected in the next election?"... in 2021, around 45% of those surveyed answered yes, with half wanting to see a new face appear. After the start of the war, this score gradually rose to 80%. Previously, in chat groups, people could express doubts about Putin, today they say that he is holding the country and preventing it from being defeated by the West."
Yes.
Only one aggressor here, and it's not Ukraine or "the west".
While having stabilized the domestic situation by essentially bribbing people to keep them from, which was the first and a clever thing to do from his point of view, it can't and won't last. He tapped in Russia's financial reserves and there will be a boomerang effect in the coming years.
Predictable.
Plenty of evidence - now a mountains worth - that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal at the start of the war to end it in exchange for Ukraine's neutrality (not entering NATO), but Biden and Boris Johnson blocked it, insisting Zelensky go to war and win.
He went for it and got mauled.
It's slightly more nuanced, but I wouldn't expect such subtleties to interrupt the flight path of concepts soaring high above your comprehension.
Talk about paranoia - to think that every dissenting view is merely a shadow puppet show, orchestrated by a single individual with a dual digital identity.
It's always amusing how insane you go, anytime you start talking about specifics.
The old "look at what you made me do" domestic abuser justification. Poor putin really had no choice than to invade and kill thousands...
You're leaving out the fact that Putin doesn't get to call the shots on who Ukraine, a sovereign nation, elect to align themselves with. Therefore what you're describing is based on a bad presumption.
Here's another luminary from grungy Quebec
And yet...you haven't provided this evidence.
Nothing in these tweets proves what you previously suggested. The West never called the shots in Ukraine, as its a democratically elected government who call their own shots.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/05/is-the-u-s-actually-trying-to-help-ukraine
Here's former PM of Israel Naftali Bennet, saying that Western leaders blocked Ukraine / Russia peace deal which he negotiated on Zelensky's request in March '22 because they wanted to continue to strike Putin. He says that there was good chance of such deal.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Great source
At least you don't deny you're on the "let Russia win" camp. The mask is finally slipping off .
Again, what exactly is a nonsensical tweet about Naftali Bennett supposed to prove ?
It's been a while since "Maidan was a false-flag" guy was quoted here
Some tweets all from the same person...a mountain of conclusive proof right there. Weren't you the muppet banging on about Hunter Biden last year as well?
I'm really failing to understand your logic here to be honest. I have summarized in chronological steps to what you believe the timeline of events were. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but let's just assume you are correct.
1. Ukraine and Russia is at peace, sans Little Green men in Donetsk and Luhansk.
2. Russia Invades.
3. War kicks off properly and officially.
4. After X time Russia and Ukraine start negotiating peace deal.
5. Talks scuppered due to Western pressure on Ukrainian side.
6. Bloodbath for 2 years.
That's a reductive summary for what you believe happened right?
So, assuming this is what actually happened...Why do you blame the war on the west for 5) in the series of events, but somehow Russia is not at fault for 2) despite, you know, rolling Combat Battalion groups into Ukraine and launching a full scale invasion?
Let's ignore for a minute the questionable source, the fact that time is linear and that these supposed negotiations about peace deals took place in March while Russia's invasion of Ukraine began in February (for starters, the Bucha massacre was an ongoing event at the time). And also the fact that at the time everyone thought the UA wouldn't last a month against the RA and therefore strong, decisive actions to support Ukraine and/or punish Russia unfolded very slowly.
By the same source here provided, accepting said peace deals meant Zelensky:
A) Going against Ukraine's constitution (which means he would probably be deposed instantly)
B) Legally recognising Russia's sovereignity over Crimea.
C) Legally recognising the independence of two new republics in his own territory.
D) Trusting the word of a leader that had just recently invaded them, had broken tonnes of agreements before, and was at the moment perpetrating massacres on civilians like the previously mentioned in Bucha.
So... No, you're gonna need something stronger than that.
By the same source here provided, accepting said peace deals meant Zelensky:
A) Going against Ukraine's constitution (which means he would probably be deposed instantly)
B) Legally recognising Russia's sovereignity over Crimea.
C) Legally recognising the independence of two new republics in his own territory.
D) Trusting the word of a leader that had just recently invaded them, had broken tonnes of agreements before, and was at the moment perpetrating massacres on civilians like the previously mentioned in Bucha.
So... No, you're gonna need something stronger than that.
Where does it say that those countries control Ukraine though? Even if Ukraine did want to have a peace treaty (and if that was a realistic prospect) - what's the issue with the UK and US saying 'you're on your own if you do that' ? Are they not allowed to have an opinion and foresee consequences?
I mean, if Ukraine would have been about to sign that treaty and the UK and US would have instantly replaced their leadership with people who wouldn't sign, then sure, Ukraine clearly would have been a puppet state. But even if all you say is true, all that happened is that Ukraine was provided with a choice and choose to stay closely aligned with the UK and the US. Just as all of eastern Europe has had a choice in their geopolitical orientation since the fall of the USSR and have generally consistently chosen to be on the side of the EU and the US.
To me, all this says more about how unattractive the idea of alignment with Russia continues to be. But I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.
So dramatic - the mask is slipping off, feckinell. I'd say I'm a realist, and Russia has won on the ground. Unless Ukraine can reverse the course of the war, perhaps it should for peace?
Let's start at time 0: US conspires to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine through the Maidan coup, picks the successor gov't and sets it for collision with Russia, in order to fight a proxy war with a longstanding adversary.
Interesting. I was there in 2013 (note the protests did not kick off in 2014) in the first set of protests.
My partner's brother in law was one of the Майдан organizers, as he was working as a parliamentary assistant to Kyrylenko. I had dinner with many figures in the movement such as Igor Lutsenko, Irena Karper and Olek Sushko . Many of them I still remain in contact with through various forms of media despite not stepping foot in Ukraine since 2016. I've even had a conversation with Poroshenko. A lot of my time in Kyiv was spent discussing what was going on, the motivations, what the org groups wanted.
Are you saying that all my Ukrainian friends and family of my partner are all....American stooges?
Don't bother. This is straight out of the Russian playbook again: they also say and even teach it in their schools that the 1956 uprising in Hungary was also somehow a CIA operation.
That's just plain wrong. You are just repeating Putin's propaganda lies.
The wall street journal article a few weeks ago refuted this thesis.
Ukraine was ready to negotiate but Russia didn't. Instead they came up with a catalog, which was simply unacceptable.
Demilitarize the Ukraine and leaving the country helpless to answer a new Russian aggression in the future. Not allowed to join NATO. Crimea staying under Russian rule. No solution about the occupied parts in the east of Ukraine.
Selensky was ready to negotiate with Putin. However, Putin refused to sit down with Selensky. The Russian negotiators were low level bureaucrats who had no real power to take decisions. Lavrow was their for a couple of days but only stated he doesn't have the authority to take any decisions. It was a farce!
During the negotiations the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in Butcha happened. Mariupol was completely annihilated.
So please stop spouting this nonsense about Russia being serious about peace talks.