Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You lost me at "as well as guided by purely humane principles, the Russian Armed Forces ".
Do you even believe such statements? Take a look at any conflict Russia directly took part in over the last few decades, from Chechnya to Ukraine to Georgia to Syria, and the image you get is the direct opposite. Complete disregard for civilian lives on both sides, complete disregard for the lives of its own soldiers, complete disregard for any human decency. The Russian armed forces are about as far from humane as you can get when it comes to conventional armies in the 21st century. To quote demonstrators in occupied Ukraine: "Russian soldier = fascist occupant".

As if to illustrate this point, Putin has signed a declaration recognising the "heroism" of the perpetrators of the Bucha massacre. Shooting unarmed civilians is not heroism, and this shows blatant state support for massacres of civilians in the most brutal of ways.
No, there is nothing "humane" about the conduct of Putin's reich.

[Condottiere 40K]

1. So, it's the nineteenth of April.

2. The Battle of Donbas has officially begun.

3. Within the tenth to twentieth April window I had forecast.

4. I'm not saying it was the smartest move by the Russian army.

5. But I do say it was driven by political considerations.

6. Mayday.

7. Moskva might have been a big provocation.

8. And the threat of German Leopards.

9. While I think the general directive is to seize as much real estate as possible.

A. Circumstances, and the mud, is likely to bog down any major advances.

B. Having seen Bucha, and being deeply entrenched, the Ukrainian forces might decide not to do a flexible defence.

C. Mayday countdown twenty days.

D. The ground should dry out before then.

E. So it may come down as to how many armoured vehicles the Ukrainians can gather.

F. And reinforce the Donbass.

G. Looks like the Russians have captured two towns.

H. But Kreminna appears to remain in play.

I. Russian military practicing for Mayday parade.

J. Wouldn't be hilarious if a couple of Ukrainian missiles interrupted that?

K. Or maybe just a Bayraktar.

L. Japanese sending hazard suits, in case of bilogical, chemical or nuclear attacks.

M. It's begun.

N. Russia has asked India to urgently supply food and groceries.

O. Presumably, they've already asked the Chinese.

P. As they have the world's largest grain reserve.

Q. But the Chinese granaries mysteriously catch on fire.

R. As soon as an official inspection is announced.

T. Oops, that's two hundred thousand jobless in Moscow alone.

U. Though experience with Russian announced casualty figures tends to require an extra zero at the end of any number.

V. Apparently, not enough Syrians volunteered.

W. For some reason I'm thinking eight hundred out of forty thousand openings.

X. Carrot and stick is being applied.

Y. Sanctions can be ended.

Z. Russia can be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.

[Laser101]

The only possible response

Look it you're unsure as to what happened wiki is a great place to get the McHistory version, but you're rewriting history based on one question from one referendum? Please be serious.

Rest assured the Soviet Union was not knifed by a coupla guys in a back room. Over time several Ukrainian communities have attempted to work free of Russian control. Putin invading is not restoring the natural order. If Russia was strong enough to control Ukraine effectively it would already be doing so, not launching a wide front assault after failing to encircle Kyiv.

This is not a case of 'rewriting history', it's an issue of whether or not the dissolution of the Soviet Union was supported by the populace at large- which, unless there's something indicating otherwise that I am not aware of, does not seem to be the case from the information available.

I didn't assert that the Soviet Union was "knifed by a couple of guys in a back room". The claim I made was essentially that the cause of the Union's collapse was power struggles at the top (between the Union government and the SSR governments, especially RSFSR, as well as the August coup) rather than popular desires for independence in the republics (which as far as I can tell were generally weak, especially early on, aside from some clear exceptions).

The attitudes that existed 30 years ago have little bearing on the attitudes prevalent now. It is quite possible for Ukrainian independence to have far more support now than it did at the start of 1991 (and considering that Ukraine has been independent for 30 years, it would be bizarre if this were not the case).

[Roma_Victrix]

While it's true that there are some neo-Nazis in Ukraine and that this is a problem, the references to Azov look like an attempt to distract people from the facts that, in Ukraine 2019 presidential election, the candidate of Svoboda (an ultranationalist party, described as neo-Nazi) got 1.6% of the vote - and that Ukraine's President, the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, is not likely to be a neo-Nazi.

Does Russia consider it justified to invade any country which neo-Nazis get 1.6% of the vote to 'de-Nazify' it? Will Russia invade Britain (where ultranationalists got 1.9% of the vote in the 2010 election), France (where an ultranationalist got 7% of the vote in the 2022 presidential election) and Germany (where an ultranationalist got 10% of the vote in the 2022 presidential election)?

Not only does this comment deserve +1 rep, but if the site was able to handle such a thing, it should be a pinned comment at the beginning of each page in this thread, placed even above the OP. It's always good to put things into perspective, given the amount of dizzying spin the Kremlin produces. Methinks Putin doth protest too much when he speaks about fascists, considering what's going on in the police state of Russia at the moment and where the "Wagner Group" tasked with hiring Russia's mercenaries is filled with literal Neo-Nazis and far-right ultranationalists.

[Ludicus]

What is Boris doing to help Ukrainian refugees? almost nothing. Ukraine war: 'Shambolic' red tape preventing refugees from

The system is shambolic

But guess what, from now on, all men landing illegally on British shores will be shipped back to the far reaches of Africa, to Rwanda, 6500 kilometres away, treating them like a commodity subject to storage and dispatch. Don't worry, they don't ship back white people.

Of course, I criticize Putin for invading Ukraine. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has violated basic international norms. It must be said, for the sake of truth, the US/NATO did the same on other occasions. (1)

Many warned about the NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, constituted, from Russia perspective, a serious threat to vital Russian security interests. To some degree, this unnecessary war is a result of that. The US/West/NATO ignored that, its an inconvenient truth.

William Burns, the current director of the CIA, warned years ago about NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. Burns served as U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2005 to 2008.In 1995, Burns wrote a memo saying, “Hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.”

In another memo, Burns wrote, “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

In his memoir, The Back Channel, American Diplomacy in A Disordered World”, published in 2019, Burns wrote about NATO expansion in Eastern Europe,

“When it came to international security arrangements, we were less Churchillian in our magnanimity. Sitting at the embassy in Moscow in the mid-nineties, it seemed to me that NATO expansion was premature at best and needlessly provocative at worst.
I could plain see the case for anchoring them quickly in Western institutions…prior to any move to formal NATO membership, made sense. It was wishful thinking, however, to believe that we could open the door to NATO membership without incurring some last cost with a Russia coping with its own historical insecurities. Applied to this first wave of NATO expansion in Central Europe, Kennan’s comments struck me as a little hyperbolic. It damaged prospects for future relations with Russia, but not fatally. Were we made a serious strategic mistake- and where Kennan was prescient-was in later letting inertia drive us to push for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia".


Opinion – Strategic Perspectives on the Russia-Ukraine War
Lev Topor is an ISGAP visiting scholar at the Woolf Institute at the University of Cambridge and a senior research fellow at the Center for Cyber Law and Policy at the University of Haifa in Israel.

(…) Extending NATO to the East would provide a ground carpet on which military could move towards Russia as well as decrease Russia’s response time in case of a nuclear attack. (...)

(…) As a powerful hegemon in a bi or tri-polar global system, Russia should not be considered as the sole aggressor, even though its attempt to create a European dependence on energy is significant (i.e., Nord Stream). In the current Ukrainian matter, strategically speaking, Russia is not an agent but a reagent. One could also assume that if the West had not pushed over Ukraine, attempting to recruit it to NATO or to the European Union, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine in 2022 nor in 2014. Indeed, Liberalism and Democracy are important concepts and Ukrainians’ voices must be heard; and voices are many, of liberals, conservatives, and people in between. Yet, Liberalism and Democracy do not always align with strategic goals, especially not when one great power is struggling with the other. Moreover, while Russia attempts to preserve or boost its global influence, it is the United States that also attempts to preserve its global hegemony in light of the fact that this hegemony is also being questioned by China.
Russia must stop its intervention in Ukraine. Yet, in the current state of affairs, it is the United States and the West who must guarantee that Ukraine will be a neutral buffer zone just as it was the United States that demanded from the Soviet Union to withdraw its nuclear missiles from its backyard, Cuba, in October 1962 (...)
(…) considering the current fragile situation of the European Union, one must also wonder why Ukraine seeks to join an alliance no longer in its prime.

---
(1)
Hypocri-sea: The United States' Failure to Join the UN convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea -Harvard International Review
The United States’ failure to join UNCLOS is representative of the broader foreign policy trend to reject multilateral engagement for unilateral interests. Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist, Professor of International Studies. He writes, on the war in Ukraine, international laws, and the west’s hypocrisy in condemning war crimes,

The United States government has not signed the international laws of the seas, and yet it prosecutes so-called freedom of navigation missions against not only China in the South China Sea, using this U.N. Charter, which it’s not a signatory of, but it has been provoking clashes with Russia in the Black Sea, in the Baltic Sea and in the Arctic Sea, again, using these so-called freedom of navigation missions.

Let’s take the question of the International Criminal Court. When special prosecutor Fatou Bensouda opened a file to investigate war crimes in Afghanistan — and, by the way, she was clear: She said war crimes conducted by everybody — by the Taliban, by the Afghan National Army, by the United States, by other NATO countries, and so on. When she did that, the United States government threatened her, told her that neither she nor her family would ever get a visa to come to the United States, and so on.

The U.S. put enormous pressure on the International Criminal Court to shut down that investigation. That’s incredible. This is an investigation of war crimes which are detailed in the U.S. government’s own documents, which have been released by the WikiLeaks foundation, whose founder, Julian Assange, is sitting in Belmarsh prison, is being treated as a criminal, whereas the war criminals in Afghanistan are going free and threatening, with Mafia-like tactics, the special prosecutor at the ICC.

Meanwhile, again, in an afternoon — to quote the Indian high official, in an afternoon, the United States is able to get these bodies, established by international law, which the United States is not a signatory to — the U.S., in an afternoon, is able to get them to open a file and start talking about war crimes. Over a million people killed in Iraq, and no investigation of war crimes. None. Over a million people. Half a million children killed in Iraq during the 1990s sanctions regime, not even the word “genocide.”

The West is walking all over the word “genocide,” is reducing the power of an important category of an important convention, the 1951 Convention Against Genocide. This extraordinary, casual weaponization of human rights and the word “genocide” by the West is going to be something that we are going to face in the times ahead, when other countries are going to say, “Well, we can do anything if we are backed by Washington, D.C.” This is extraordinarily perilous.
And I hope people open their eyes to the very cynical way in which Washington, D.C., is approaching this terrible war taking place in Ukraine, a war that has to end with a ceasefire and negotiations. That is not going to help you bring people to the table, whether it’s in Belarus or it’s in Antalya, Turkey. It’s not going to bring Ukraine and Russia to the table

European Commission president says Russia's bankruptcy a matter of time.

What about Europe? following on from what I said before. Sit back and watch Europe commit suicide

If the US goal is to crush Russia's economy with sanctions and isolation, why is Europe in an economic free fall instead?
The stunning spectacle of the European Union (EU) committing slow motion hara-kiri is something for the ages. Like a cheap Kurosawa remake, the movie is actually about the US-detonated demolition of the EU, complete with the rerouting of some key Russian commodities exports to the US at the expense of Europeans.

Cue to the coming catastrophic economic consequences felt by Europeans in their daily life (but not by the wealthiest five percent): inflation devouring salaries and savings; next winter energy bills packing a mean punch; products disappearing from supermarkets; holiday bookings almost frozen. France’s Le Petit Roi Emmanuel Macron – perhaps facing a nasty electoral surprise – has even announced: “food stamps like in WWII are possible.” *

We have Germany facing the returning ghost of Weimar hyperinflation. BlackRock President Rob Kapito said, in Texas,“for the first time, this generation is going to go into a store and not be able to get what they want.”
African farmers are unable to afford fertilizer at all this year, reducing agricultural production by an amount capable of feeding 100 million people. Zoltan Poszar, former NY Fed and US Treasury guru, current Credit Suisse grand vizir, has been on a streak, stressing how commodity reserves – and, here, Russia is unrivaled – will be an essential feature of what he calls Bretton Woods III (although, what’s being designed by Russia, China, Iran and the Eurasia Economic Union is a post-Bretton Woods). oszar remarks that wars, historically, are won by those who have more food and energy supplies, in the past to power horses and soldiers; today to feed soldiers and fuel tanks and fighter jets. China, incidentally, has amassed large stocks of virtually everything.

Poszar notes how our current Bretton Woods II system has a deflationary impulse (globalization, open trade, just-in-time supply chains) while Bretton Woods 3 will provide an inflationary impulse (de-globalization, autarky, hoarding of raw materials) of supply chains and extra military spending to be able to protect what will remain of seaborne trade.
The implications are of course overwhelming. What’s implicit, ominously, is that this state of affairs may even lead to WWIII.

The Russian roundtable Valdai Club has conducted an essential expert discussion on what we at The Cradle have defined as Rublegas – the real geoeconomic game-changer at the heart of the post-petrodollar era. Alexander Losev, a member of the Russian Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, offered the contours of the Big Picture. But it was up to Alexey Gromov, Chief Energy Director of the Institute of Energy and Finance, to come up with crucial nitty-gritty.
Russia, so far, was selling 155 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe each year. The EU rhetorically promises to get rid of it by 2027, and reduce supply by the end of 2022 by 100 billion cubic meters. Gromov asked “how,” and remarked, “any expert has no answer. Most of Russia’s natural gas is shipped over pipelines. This cannot simply be replaced by Liquified Natural Gas (LNG).”
The risible European answer has been “start saving,” as in “prepare to be worse off” and “reduce the temperature in households.” Gromov noted how, in Russia, “22 to 25 degrees in winter is the norm. Europe is promoting 16 degrees as ‘healthy’, and wearing sweaters at night.”
The EU won’t be able to get the gas it needs from Norway or Algeria (which is privileging domestic consumption). Azerbaijan would be able to provide at best 10 billion cubic meters a year, but “that will take 2 or 3 years” to happen.
Gromov stressed how “there’s no surplus in the market today for US and Qatar LNG,” and how prices for Asian customers are always higher. The bottom line is that “by the end of 2022, Europe won’t be able to significantly reduce” what it buys from Russia: “they might cut by 50 billion cubic meters, maximum.” And prices in the spot market will be higher – at least $1,300 per cubic meter.
An important development is that “Russia changed the logistical supply chains to Asia already.” That applies for gas and oil as well: “You can impose sanctions if there’s a surplus in the market. Now there’s a shortage of at least 1.5 million barrels of oil a day. We’ll be sending our supplies to Asia – with a discount.” As it stands, Asia is already paying a premium, from 3 to 5 dollars more per barrel of oil.
On oil shipments, Gromov also commented on the key issue of insurance: “Insurance premiums are higher. Before Ukraine, it was all based on the Free on Board (FOB) system. Now buyers are saying ‘we don’t want to take the risk of taking your cargo to our ports.’ So they are applying the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) system, where the seller has to insure and transport the cargo. That of course impacts revenues.”
An absolutely key issue for Russia is how to make the transition to China as its key gas customer. It’s all about the Power of Siberia 2, a new 2600-km pipeline originating in the Russian Bovanenkovo and Kharasavey gas fields in Yamal, in northwest Siberia – which will reach full capacity only in 2024. And, first, the interconnector through Mongolia must be built – “we need 3 years to build this pipeline” – so everything will be in place only around 2025.
On the Yamal pipeline, “most of the gas goes to Asia. If the Europeans don’t buy anymore, we can redirect.” And then there’s the Arctic LNG 2 project – which is even larger than Yamal: “the first phase should be finished soon, it’s 80 percent ready.” An extra problem may be posed by the Russian “Unfriendlies” in Asia: Japan and South Korea. LNG infrastructure produced in Russia still depends on foreign technologies.

That’s what leads Gromov to note that, “the model of mobilization-based economy is not so good.” But that’s what Russia needs to deal with at least in the short to medium term.
The positives are that the new paradigm will allow “more cooperation within the BRICS (the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa that have been meeting annually since 2009);” the expansion of the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC); and more interaction and integration with “Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Iran.”
Only in terms of Iran and Russia, swaps in the Caspian Sea are already in the works, as Iran produces more than it needs, and is set to increase cooperation with Russia in the framework of their strengthened strategic partnership.
It was up to Chinese energy expert Fu Chengyu to offer a concise explanation of why the EU drive of replacing Russian gas with American LNG is, well, a pipe dream. Essentially the US offer is “too limited and too costly.”
Fu Chengyu showed how a lengthy, tricky process depends on four contracts: between the gas developer and the LNG company; between the LNG company and the buyer company; between the LNG buyer and the cargo company (which builds vessels); and between the buyer and the end user.
“Each contract,” he pointed out, “takes a long time to finish. Without all these signed contracts, no party will invest – be it investment on infrastructure or gas field development.” So actual delivery of American LNG to Europe assumes all these interconnected resources are available – and moving like clockwork.
Fu Chengyu’s verdict is stark: this EU obsession on ditching Russian gas will provoke “an impact on global economic growth, and recession. They are pushing their own people – and the world. In the energy sector, we will all be harmed.”
It was quite enlightening to juxtapose the coming geoeconomic turbulence – the EU obsession in bypassing Russian gas and the onset of Rublegas – with the real reasons behind Operation Z in Ukraine, completely obscured by western media and analysts.

A US Deep State old pro, now retired, and quite familiar with the inner workings of the old OSS, the CIA precursor, all the way to the neocon dementia of today, provided some sobering insights:
“The whole Ukraine issue is over hypersonic missiles that can reach Moscow in less than four minutes. This is an existential threat to Russia. So they had to go into the Ukraine to stop this. Next will be Poland and Romania where launchers have been built in Romania and are being built in Poland.”

* Macron proposes food vouchers for poor French families

…to help them cope with food inflation resulting from the Russia-Ukraine war.

[PointOfViewGun]

Many warned about the NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, constituted, from Russia perspective, a serious threat to vital Russian security interests. To some degree, this unnecessary war is a result of that. The US/West/NATO ignored that, its an inconvenient truth.

Here is the "she was raped because she was wearing a skirt" argument again.

[conon394]

Many warned about the NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, constituted, from Russia perspective, a serious threat to vital Russian security interests. To some degree, this unnecessary war is a result of that. The US/West/NATO ignored that, its an inconvenient truth.

What security interest? To Putin and his Russian cronies or Russia please elaborate.

n another memo, Burns wrote, “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Good thing Ukraine did not join NATO than huh. But let see Russia tampering with Georgia, Moldova, Estonia... that all good right?

As a powerful hegemon in a bi or tri-polar global system

Hah oh that is funny you mean if the west had not talked the Ukraine and Kazakhstan into giving Russia all the USSR's nukes and not say simply eliminating the permanent soviet seat on the SC the not powerful but corrupt state with an economy smaller than Brazil and not even close to he top 5 big boy league...

Russia coping with its own historical insecurities.

We should care. I thought Russia was great power and did not need to care about the Ukraine and any of it desires - make up mind or do just some great powers have to worry if Putin had to drive a taxi.

[z3n]

What security interest? To Putin and his Russian cronies or Russia please elaborate.



Good thing Ukraine did not join NATO than huh. But let see Russia tampering with Georgia, Moldova, Estonia... that all good right?





Hah oh that is funny you mean if the west had not talked the Ukraine and Kazakhstan into giving Russia all the USSR's nukes and not say simply eliminating the permanent soviet seat on the SC the not powerful but corrupt state with an economy smaller than Brazil and not even close to he top 5 big boy league...



[/I]We should care. I thought Russia was great power and did not need to care about the Ukraine and any of it desires - make up mind or do just some great powers have to worry if Putin had to drive a taxi.

Conon, it's extremely well known and understood that Ukraine in NATO is the brightest of red lines to politicians of every stripe in Russia.

In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

[PointOfViewGun]

Conon, it's extremely well known and understood that Ukraine in NATO is the brightest of red lines to politicians of every stripe in Russia.

Many women are also warned that wearing a skirt in public may lead to them being raped.

[z3n]

Many women are also warned that wearing a skirt in public may lead to them being raped.

So to use your rape analogy. Imagine someone staging a fake rape outside your house every few months, wouldn't you be concerned about an actual rape occurring?

[Alastor]

So to use your rape analogy. Imagine someone staging a fake rape outside your house every few months, wouldn't you be concerned about an actual rape occurring?

Please, no more rape analogies. They are unbelievably tiresome and devoid of any actual value as arguments.

[z3n]

Please, no more rape analogies. They are unbelievable tiresome and devoid of any actual worth as arguments.

I agree completely.

[PointOfViewGun]

So to use your rape analogy. Imagine someone staging a fake rape outside your house every few months, wouldn't you be concerned about an actual rape occurring?

I might, if that really happened of course, but it didn't. No one staged a fake rape.

[StarDreamer]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a right to choose their own path, no matter what Russian politicians say.

It is really getting tiresome with propagandists trying to shovel all the blame away from the only perpetrator: The Russian Federation, a fascist dictatorship.

[Condottiere 40K]

Would it kill you to be polite?



North Atlantean Team Overture

[Coughdrop addict]

Here is the "she was raped because she was wearing a skirt" argument again.

And don't forget the selective outrage from the apologists:

Russian storm troopers raping and killing civilians? Fake news and if it did happen it's no big deal.

A painting of Russian dancers renamed to Ukrainian dancers? OUTRAGE! War crime! How dare you pick on poor oppressed Russia!

[EmperorBatman999]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a right to choose their own path, no matter what Russian politicians say.

It is really getting tiresome with propagandists trying to shovel all the blame away from the only perpetrator: The Russian Federation, a fascist dictatorship.

This: Russia’s destiny is worth no more than Ukraine or Latvia or Malawi’s destiny.

Additionally, realistic Ukrainian NATO membership is a complete fantasy and a joke, and Russian security fears have no validity. Ukraine stood no chance of membership: first, it was too corrupt in both its civil politics and the army. Secondly, the 2014-2015 territorial seizures made it legally impossible for it to gain entry because of the clause on territorial disputes.

For NATO, Russia was merely yesterday’s enemy, of no consequence as the alliance pivoted towards countering terrorism and projecting power over the Pacific. US deployments had appeared to be on a permanent downward trajectory. Europe was, until now, the most peaceful corner of the planet, having put aside any interest in territorial expansionism. Incidentally, Russia was defensively safer with an indifferent EU and preoccupied NATO than at any other point in its history.

[Bande Nere]

@ Ludicus

As expected, you copy paste and run. I'm still waiting for you to read/answer this

One could also assume that if the West had not pushed over Ukraine, attempting to recruit it to NATO or to the European Union, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine in 2022 nor in 2014.

Ukraine was never going to become a member of NATO, Germany alone would have made sure of that(and Russia knew it). Yet you keep repeating this NATO obsession in every post. When Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 Ukrainians wanted to join the EU, not NATO. How is the EU a danger to Russia? Germany, Italy, Austria and Hungary were in pretty good relations with Russia and they are EU members.

Over a million people killed in Iraq,

This number is based on a poll of 2ooo Iraquis. Nothing else.

Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12–19, 2007, estimated 1,033,000 violent deaths due to the Iraq War. The range given was 946,000 to 1,120,000 deaths. A nationally representative sample of approximately 2,000 Iraqi adults answered whether any members of their household (living under their roof) were killed due to the Iraq War. 22% of the respondents had lost one or more household members. ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."

But I guess you won't answer this post either.

[Coughdrop addict]

Incidentally, Russia was defensively safer with an indifferent EU and preoccupied NATO than at any other point in its history.

And that was probably one of the main reasons for the invasion aside from Putin's lust for power. Tyrannies need an enemy, something they can point at and tell the oppressed masses "See? I'm protecting you from them!" and distract the people from their real problems. If no enemy is present, one must be invented or manufactured. Hence Neo-Nazi Ukraine about to destroy poor enteral victim Russia became the official truth.

[Condottiere 40K]

1. Jokes aside, if Russia was a better neighbour, no one would be rushing to join NATO the moment they have the opportunity.

2. The best examples are Finland and Sweden, who have for decades at least paid lip service to neutrality.

3. Modern technologies are minefields in their own right.

4. If you loot any electronic device, it could well have trackers.

5. Trackers that could sic a drone on you.

6. And on confirmation, guided artillery barrage on your position.

7. Working home security systems can identify intruders.

8. Troops break in, and while looting, the (absent) owner tells the army to bombard his home.

9. Lavrov assres that Russia will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

A. Russia also has no plans to invade Ukraine.

B. My first thought that when I heard that the Russian tank factories were laying off workers was, why don't they send their stored tanks to be refurbished there?

C. The workforce isn't doing anything, and splitting them up into teams and sending them directly to the storage depots would be inefficient.

D. Assuming they even thought of that.

E. Russia accuses America of doing everything to drag out the military engagement in Ukraine.

F. Then Putin should join with the Ukrainians, who are doing everything they can to bring it to an end, as soon as possible.

G. China warns that the European Union could break up over a prolonged Ukrainian war.

H. Compared to the North Atlanteans, who seem to be gaining in number.

I. Though I suspect that the German elites are going to be in hot water with their proletariat, with their deliberate delaying techniques.

J. The Czechs want to repair Ukrainian tanks in their country.

K. I was listening to a British Russian shill living in Leningrad, saying that Putin's actual secret weapon were Ukrainian refugees.

L. That implies that the Russians are deliberately creating conditions to push Ukrainians into neighbourng countries.

M. He states that their lack of hygiene and politeness, combined with their sense of entitlement, will turn off their hosts really fast.

N. That implies that Putin pushed Lukaschenko into pushing Syrian refugees into Poland last year.

O. Speaking of which, it appears Belarus is putting out peace feelers to Europe.

P. I wonder if the vote to get rid of the veto will really go through the United Nations.

Q. We know the Soviets used to bribe the Africans to gain their votes, and now the Chinese are doing the same.

R. Looks like the Ukrainians are filtering out Russian sleeper agents and cells, one reportedly in place for the last twenty years.

S. Russians dropped a bunker buster in Mariupol; reportedly buried three hundred civilians.

T. Not that I'm shocked, more surprised as to why they didn't do this weeks ago, when it still would make a difference.

U. Russians should stop smoking in their tanks, they keep blowing up.

V. Ukraine now has it's own Tank Girl.

W. Probably learned to drive it while using it as a tractor.

X. It's a little early, but it looks like the Ukrainians are standing their ground.

Y. Euphemistically, the Russians might have to be satisfied with limited gains.

Z. Less so, it looks like the Russians killed the caretakers of the Kharkov Zoo.