timps

If the protest didn’t start the coup or have anything to do with it then why did you bring them up in regards to my post then? As you said in an earlier post “if it's not relevant, don't quote it.” If not the McDonald’s and Netflix you posted then what were the reasons people fought for the coup then? Money might enable a coup but without a cause to rally behind the coup dies. No I hadn’t been in the pub or had a drink, maybe you’ll say I’m illiterate again, maybe you’ll tell me I have to block you again or this is some angry rant, who knows, but your personal jibes are not a good debating style and pretty poor although they make me laugh as it usually means I’ve struck a nerve and you have no response. I do find it odd that you continually quote my posts and pay no attention to the quoted post they are in response to and take them out of context. But I see you didn’t answer the question, so let’s try again, what does it matter if I agree and say ok I was wrong let’s say USA not NATO? Regarding the other stuff you were arguing it’s not worth it economically and the standard of living will tank, so my points were about whether the war is economically worth it, now you are back on number of dead. Yes I get you don’t think it’s worth it, but the people fighting think differently to you otherwise they wouldn’t fight and it is their choice. NATO can supply all the weapons they like but if there are no people wanting to fight then it would be pointless. Please don’t say they are all right wing Nazis brain washed by the USA.

I did and you said “The students that started Maidan, had never known anything different , they wanted McDonalds and Netflix …” So the people who started the coup wanted McDonald’s and Netflix, that may not be what you mean but it is certainly what you wrote. The thing is you always seem to quote my posts but completely ignore the posts I am replying therefore loosing context. So yes it is relevant, as I wouldn’t have written it in the first place, anyway just for you let’s change it to the west, USA or whatever, how does it further your point? It was in response to a poor answer from you, they obviously feel the price of what they are fighting is worth it, however, you don’t. The thing is plenty are happy it happened and are prepared to fight for it. This is something that you refuse to accept, you can’t accept people will fight for what they believe in and to them it is worth the price. If they wished it hadn’t happened then they could have welcomed the Russian’s with open arms, as that didn’t happen they feel it is worth it. The UK only finished paying for WWII in December 2006 so by your logic we should have followed appeasement just so we wouldn’t have had debt. My point is go and speak to those on the front line and ask them as you are not going to convince me they should give up as you don’t think it is worth it.

Yes you stated the coup only happened because they wanted McDonald’s and Netflix. They are fighting to keep the coup alive so it must be to keep the McDonald’s and Netflix unless that wasn’t the reason for the coup in the first place. I have no idea what you are on about here I was replying to stonepark so you need to discuss that with him Maybe you should go and tell them to give up fighting and just accept their fate under Putins thumb then

So everyone in Ukraine is fighting for money, McDonalds and Netflix? I was under the impression Russia and Ukraine had them all before the invasion my mistake. I was replying to stonepark who was intimating that NATO started this by engineering the coup. So I take it that you now think that NATO are the aggressors and Putin is not which seems at odds with your other post? I stand by my point the people of Ukraine wanted this freedom hence why they are prepared to fight for it.

And as I said there must have been people in Ukraine that wanted to happen and are prepared to fight the Russians now. You can’t buy a coup if no one is prepared to fight for it, just look at Afghanistan.

The flaw in your argument that it was western engineered coup is that when Russia entered Ukraine at the behest of this oppressed population of Ukraine then surely this illegal NATO coup would then be overthrown. All the inhabitants of Ukraine would be celebrating their freedom form the tyrannical USA and NATO coup and oppression and thank the liberating army of Russia and their Special Military Operation to save them. Well, that was the spiel Putin told his army, unfortunately it wasn’t true, how you can blame a population for rising up against an oppressor then subsequently the aggressor trying to reinstate him is amazing. A coup happened because the people of Ukraine willed it to happen, NATO could not engineer it without those people. Maybe West and East Germany should exist again in your book as I'm sure the west had a hand in that as well?

Of course, unless that caveat goes against whole ethos of the post. I read your post and mine and saw conflicting views which I felt that both couldn’t be true at the same time and you didn’t. Simple enough to explain but not simple to agree on the differences. I never fall out on the internet life’s too short. Although I might come across as sarcastic and flippant on the internet I’m like that in real life too so it’s tough.

That made me laugh out loud, so we didn’t disagree but we differed. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/differed maybe I should get a new dictionary or is that dictionary too mainstream or not Russian enough for you😄 Edit to add: if you agree with everything I said then there shouldn't be anything to point out. I did point it out in the other posts but you disagreed with my points therefore you disagree. As I said in a previous post if you quote me I will respond and you again did quote me with a rather lengthy post of errr differences, if you don't want me to reply to you, then as I said before don't quote me and disa...sorry I mean with differences.😁 If you don't want to read my posts then don't. I haven’t fallen out with anyone, least of all you, I might not agree with you but I could quite happily have a pint with you. To me you sound like this bloke https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ But I find it funny.

What the heck are you going on about? Really ? So you quoted them and wrote your own thoughts that were at odds with what was written but this is not disagreeing? How does that work? You have just quoted the one above and called it a straw man argument how can that be considered agreeing with it? Are you now disagreeing with it ? Very confusing style of posting, it is very difficult to understand you as you seem to disagree and agree with a post at the same time. But to answer your question I keep saying BOTH NATO and Russia NOT involved, it would only be a straw man argument if I say Russia alone. But since we completely agree on it why are we discussing it? Or don’t we agree now? Or do we put it in a box where it can be right and a straw man argument at the same time. And what word have I inserted? to be honest I’m not really bothered as it’s getting near no rules Friday pub time and this is only the internet.

Oh Dear taking my posts out of context again and not reading them I see. Yes, you agreed to that part of my post you quoted hence why I never replied to that part of your post as we both agree Ukraine would win. However, I said “ I simply stated that the civil war in Donbass would have either not started or be over by now” Which were the points you were specifically replying to in the original post listed below: - “Those that continue to blame NATO while excusing Russia forget that if neither side had got involved this conflict would have probably been over by now or never started in the first place.” And “Those in Ukraine wanting independence would never have got anywhere without Russian supplies and Russian troops masquerading as separatist Militia in the first place. Civil wars are never pretty or nice, however, full scale invasions of other countries tend to be even worse.” That’s what you quoted and disagreed with after agreeing with the first bit of my post, you can’t agree and disagree with the entirety of a whole post at the same time it’s not Schrodinger’s forum. From your posts you stated you agreed Ukraine would win (as you have posted and I haven't mentioned since) but disagreed the civil war in Donbass would be over by now and that Russia had not prolonged the Civil war. If you weren't disagreeing then why quote them?

@Rewulf You do go off at a tangent, I simply stated that the civil war in Donbass would have either not started or be over by now if BOTH Russia and NATO stayed out of it. You then tried to infer the civil war had gone on for 8 years so this would not be the case and Russia sat still for 8 years and tried to fix the problem so didn’t prolong it. My response to that was Russia did not sit still they were actively involved and without that involvement the civil war would have been over. To which I get your straw man argument of:- “How many 'active military personal' do you think the US has in foreign countries” “peaceful Americans would have done if the roles were reversed right” That is nothing to do with my point at all, this is about Russia’s involvement in Donbass, they have actively prolonged the civil war in the region with military support. Stating the USA is worse and would have done exactly the same does not alter that fact or excuse Russia’s involvement hence the straw man argument. My original point still stands the civil war would have been over by now without the involvement of NATO OR Russia. But some on here just think NATO should be blamed.

That was my ? at the end as I was asking a question they have not used it, the link is. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/02/17/origin-of-artillery-attacks/ no question mark but nice try. Would you rather it be a YouTube link funded by the Russians ? When you wrote “Russia sat still for 8 years and tried to fix the problem,” this was something you admit you knew was wrong when you posted it then or admit that it was wrong now? Or is Russian military personal on active duties in a foreign country not stirring the pot and just sitting still? Oh I have read the link it’s quoting Putin verbatim so obviously there is some bonkers content from him but it shows from his own words that he did not sit still in Donbass as you claim.

My point was, that without Russian involvement I don’t think it would have been 8 years. This I have to laugh at… Seriously, does sitting still fixing the problem include shelling Ukrainian positions from inside the Russian border in 2014. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/02/17/origin-of-artillery-attacks/ ? And even Russia themselves don't deny there where ‘military specialists’ in the Donbas region, hardly sitting still I would aver. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12054164/Vladimir-Putins-annual-press-conference-2015-live.html https://www.interpretermag.com/day-968/#15291 Would the above count as a proxy war in your definition or is it sitting still fixing the problem, my definition is direct involvement with troops and artillery and fixing the problem with military involvement.

A question to those that hold NATO in such distain, what will be the outcome if either of these scenarios were to ever happen? 1) Russia and NATO pull all support and allow it to become a civil war? 2) Russia removes troops on the ground and just offer equipment support? In both cases I see a Ukrainian victory, the only way Russia can control this is with troops on the ground, an army of liberation tends to be become an army of occupation in a very short period of time and countless conflicts throughout the age have proved this. Those that continue to blame NATO while excusing Russia forget that if neither side had got involved this conflict would have probably been over by now or never started in the first place. Those in Ukraine wanting independence would never have got anywhere without Russian supplies and Russian troops masquerading as separatist Militia in the first place. Civil wars are never pretty or nice, however, full scale invasions of other countries tend to be even worse.

The governments of the NATO members I have no idea, I just took your statement that US /NATO want it for economic gain and the US and NATO are controlled by these elites. Of course I don’t doubt it as wind can be proven to exist. Not at all but isn’t Lizard Lords a view/opinion ? But that is dismissed by you as certifiable, I agree that it is, however you wont accept that people can think the same of some of your views and opinions. Not at all I can prove Russia invaded Ukraine you can’t prove NATO controlled by some unelected elite’s controlling it on a worldwide scale made them do it. To be honest this as always becomes pointless so I'm off to the pub for a beer 👍

Not to me, they are the same type of argument, there have been some very outlandish wild and crazy claims made on this thread. One of them being NATO is controlled by a Western Elite cabal and Prime Ministers and Presidents etc. have absolutely no say in it, they have to follow this cabal or lose their seat. This war was started at the cabal behest solely to financially benefit the cabal’s members. None of these ousted prime ministers or presidents have ever alluded to this cabal’s existence but I’m told it exists without proof. That to me is bonkers, so surely, I can say its bonkers just like a Lizard Lord is? I don’t need to as neither do the countless YouTube videos posted on this thread prove the views posted on here, but the posters aver that it’s some form of proof. Are you now saying YouTube doesn’t offer proof? Then if so, we agree which was kind of my point. I’ve seen no evidence at all, only conjecture, there are countless motives from countless entities so that in itself is not proof. Are you saying NATO provoked Russia to invade so they could somehow get some economic gain from the ensuing conflict for their Western Elite (non-Lizard type accepted) overlords, if so that’s bonkers to me. I think Russia invaded for a land grab and NATO is helping Ukraine because of fear that failure to do so might cause issues to NATO members with borders close to the conflict at some future date.

I’m dismissive of both, you are dismissive of just one, why can’t I dismiss both with the same argument? Whatever answer you give then plays into the hands of Lizard Lords. Well not according to those that believe in Lizard Lords, they do offer YouTube proof which does seem to be the normal way of proving your view is correct for this thread. To some on here your clear evidence of possibility on NATO is also a non-starter and neither you or I can prove the Lizard Lords don’t exist. Just like I can’t prove the world elite aren’t in some form of cabal to control the world with COVID or giving Ukraine weapons support but I don't believe a world elite cabal exists. The serious point is, we are all dismissive in a derogatory sort of way for things we find hard to believe, you can’t criticize that stance from others when you also take that stance yourself.

I have no idea on your views of sky fairies etc. but I do know your views on those who believe in lizard lords, which according to your beliefs are 'certifiable' which means that you are calling them nutters. Therefore, if you are calling them 'certifiable' then you must find their views incredulous (unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true). Either way you have taken the same stance as Mungler just on a different subject, however you criticise Mungler for taking this stance on Russia. My point being, there are subjects that you dismiss as being 'certifiable' for believing so surely others can have that view on subjects that maybe you believe in ?

But to be fair to Mungler you have done the same in an earlier post to me “Its a red herring, no one believes the lizard thing (well unless youre certifiable)” However, plenty of people do believe it (Lizard Lords), some (if reports are correct) 12 million Americans do and that doesn’t take into account of other countries and there are countless YouTube channels ‘proving it’. But you are quite happy to pour scorn on it and call them certifiable, that is only the same as Mungler is doing here. You find it incredulous that people believe in Lizard Lords but cannot accept Mungler feels the same about some of your beliefs which was my whole original point you responded to.

But if that was the case then no matter who was in charge the policies would be the same, to me Trump and Biden did/do seem to have different policies . Billionaires definitely bankroll politicians to curry favour, but getting governments to blow up pipelines, start wars or carry out the exact same policy no matter who is in charge is something I struggle with. Yes that was my point, blaming the CIA would be more credible than the blaming the world elite. The White House uses the CIA to have plausible deniability, I don’t believe for one second this was a NATO sanctioned or USA official action but can’t deny the USA under the guise of the rouge CIA operation is more plausible even though I don’t think it was them and I still think it is Russia. It could be or it could be what I put. The thing about Lizard Lords is the people who believe in them use the same arguments as many have on here to defend their point of view. Using some of the defence points of views raised on here you would have to accept Lizard Lords exist. I’m fairly certain most of the Lizard Lords drink in the Sky Bar in Bury but that’s a whole other topic.

Of course, we are still playing, this is the fun of this game I can say what I want. So the “Western Elite” convinced all of NATO to blow up the pipeline for the “greater good” so they can have a bigger slice of it (I’m not too sure how that fiscal policy works) but the CIA doing something illegal that governments want to deny is farfetched? You are right I do watch too many movies, the last one I watched was the Iran Contra Affair staring Oliver North …. Oh my mistake that wasn’t directly the CIA but they were implicated in the cocaine trafficking funding part and it wasn’t a movie but a televised congressional hearing.😄 Joking aside this "western elite" have been quite busy, first they were trying to start a war with China by pining Covid on them, when that didn’t work, they have now turned the attention to Russia. Sounds like SPECTRE to me. Do I think the USA is capable and could have done done it? Yes, I do, but not as some bigger conspiracy involving NATO or secretive persons unknown of this ‘western elite’ and for what it is worth my money is on Russia but I cant prove that. You are right they needed nothing from Ukraine that’s why they invaded and subsequently annexed big parts of it including a major port and the bits they need to supply this major port by land. Nothing of value there at all.🙄

The same as every conspiracy theorist does when confronted with hard questions, either. a) Nothing b) it’s a false fag conspiracy by the Russians they are trying to blame the west. You’ve fallen for it. ok so two answers to this as well. a) what if they didn’t ? b) why would they do this ? Western elites blowing up a pipe line that supplies them by convincing NATO to agree and carry out this action, all joking aside you actually believe that ? You’d definitely have more credibility if you blamed the CIA. You are right it is all about money and power that’s exactly why Putin invaded Ukraine.

I think the irony of my last couple of posts is being lost, as stated I am now taking up the zero proof let’s just post conspiracy’s stance. It just seems I am only meant do this against the views of the MSM though. I don’t know who has blown up the pipeline but I can find plenty of unsubstantiated opinion pieces for a Russian motive all to do with destabilising the west’s resolve. Some quite plausible, some maybe not, but all I have to do with my new found no proof freedom is throw enough of them at this thread, I don’t actually have to believe any of them just a belief in it has to be Russia, it’s a conspiracy to say otherwise. However my first point was “sabre rattling to the EU if the rumoured further economic sanctions are applied they can hit other pipelines from other countries.” Welsh1 extrapolates that point more eloquently in the post above and it is certainly plausible. As to what the USA has to lose, we’ll if the alternative view posted on here that Russia would not attack a NATO member’s pipeline for fear of NATO retaliation, then surely it stands to reason a NATO member attacking a fellow NATO member’s pipeline would destabilise NATO to the same extent. It certainly would cause a diplomatic incident and sour relations.

By destabilising the west as outlined per my original conspiracy post, do keep up . 🙄😜 Unless the false flag accusations can only be attributed to the western and Ukrainian forces and not the Russians. And plenty believe what the Russians say on this thread.

Lets not forget, Nordstram is only 51 % owned by Russia, its a joint venture between the EU and them, a deal they were happy to enter into. Which kind of nullifies the whole act of war thing, unless it was another party completely unconnected with said deal? Maybe a party that never really liked those pipes? Ahhh but the joys of me now being a fully fledged conspiracy theorist is that I don’t have to prove I’m right you have to prove I’m wrong. They could argue that they only blew up their share of the pipeline. Ohh who stands to benefit / lose if caught Russia benefits and if caught lose nothing as we aren’t going to start WWIII over it… USA they benefit but heck they will lose a lot if they are found out …. Ukraine they benefit but they will certainly lose everything if caught …. So balance of probabilities it’s Russia ….I like this conspiracy no proof angle of debate it’s fun….😜