Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[Newbie to this]

6 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Lend lease, like the UK did during WW2. Paying is not always money or money up front. 

Is that what "Gift" means now, lend lease.

[ordnance]

2 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Is that what "Gift" means now, lend lease.

Some people expect a gift in return after giving one, nothing is for nothing. 

Quote

On May 9th, President Biden signed an Act bearing the lend-lease name ... the ever growing flow of US money and weapons supporting Ukraine.

 

[Newbie to this]

21 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Some people expect a gift in return after giving one, nothing is for nothing. 

 

So I keep hearing, but reality is no one knows.

23 minutes ago, ordnance said:

On May 9th, President Biden signed an Act bearing the lend-lease name ... the ever growing flow of US money and weapons supporting Ukraine.

USA are not the only one supplying them arms.

What the USA do is not my concern. What the UK government does, is my concern. 

[ordnance]

Quote

 

USA are not the only one supplying them arms.

What the USA do is not my concern. What the UK government does, is my concern. 

 

I know that's why i said ( some ) America was just a example of one. Its not all about money there are strategic interests also, not helping Ukraine now and standing up to Russia / Putin could cost a lot more in the future. If the west had stood up to Putin in the past and not had a policy of appeasement, Ukraine might not be in the position it is now. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by ordnance

[Minky]

History repeats itself.  Hitler annexing the Sudetenland.  He attacked under the pretext of protecting German speakers in the area.  ring any bells.?  Stalin attacking Finland in the winter war.  The Russians got a good beating but the west didn't support the Finns.  Hopefully the Russian economy Will collapse and all of the gangsters get hooked out.  Don't forget the nerve gas incident in Salisbury,  The SCRIPALS... and the woman who got poisoned /killed.  The sooner Putin and his mates are pushing up daisys the safer the world will be.

[Mungler]

8 hours ago, Rewulf said:

You seem totally unwilling or unable to absorb anything different to the media line of 'Putin is insane , wants to dominate the world SPECTRE style , whilst cradling a fluffy cat in his lap' ?
You dont like the idea of 'proxy war' in any form, as it deflects away from the complete and total blame you need to attribute to Russia.
Thats despite, the same media you watch labelling it as such, the US state department revealing it WANTS the war to continue, as it 'weakens' oil rival Russia ? Bizarre.

It also appears that anyone who disagrees with you is at the very least a putin sympathiser , a bot , or a paid Kremlin troll ?
Is this supposed to shut the debate down ? Because its really not working.

Again , no one is saying what is happening in Ukraine is not a human and economic tragedy, no one is saying putin is a nice guy, and no one is saying Russias invasion isnt wrong.
But there needs to be context, and above all a valid reason why all this is happening, and the 'putin is a nutter' reason just doesnt wash.
Furthermore , there is NO doubt that US assets helped foment the uprising in 2014 that enabled the coup , and subsequent civil war, they have done it multiple times since the end of WW2 , from central America, the middle east  to Africa and South east Asia, they wrote the book on it, its irrefutable.
They are now capitalising on the war in Ukraine, THIS is also irrefutable.

Lastly , you want to shut the debate down on any mention of the US/NATO doing these exact same type of regime change/invasions in the past, labelling them 'irrelevant'
Trumped up reasons for Vietnam , Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan, plus meddling in Libya and others , have cost the lives of millions of people, and bought NO peace until after they left, yet you want to ignore all that as 'whataboutery', because you really dont like Russia ?
You want to ignore all that hypocrisy, as it doesnt fit your world view?

Crack on.
 

 

 

You say all of that but yet again you entirely ignore and fail to address the fundamental point, and that is Putin rolling tanks over a border into a neighbouring country and in the absence of any direct military threat.

Tony Blair, allegations of Nazis in Ukraine, Yemen, NATO - they are all utterly irrelevant. They are and if you can’t see that then I can’t possibly begin to explain it to you.

So, without mentioning Tony Blair, Nazis, NATO etc, explain to me why the invasion of Ukraine (along with the rape, murder, kidnap and displacement of massive swathes of its population) is nothing more than a war crime worthy of unanimous condemnation by the free world coupled with the provision of support to Ukraine in seeking to displace the invader?

[Gordon R]

I will be interested if anyone can find fault with that, but I'm sure someone will give it a go.

[ordnance]

24 minutes ago, Mungler said:

You say all of that but yet again you entirely ignore and fail to address the fundamental point, and that is Putin rolling tanks over a border into a neighbouring country and in the absence of any direct military threat.

Tony Blair, allegations of Nazis in Ukraine, Yemen, NATO - they are all utterly irrelevant. They are and if you can’t see that then I can’t possibly begin to explain it to you.

So, without mentioning Tony Blair, Nazis, NATO etc, explain to me why the invasion of Ukraine (along with the rape, murder, kidnap and displacement of massive swathes of its population) is nothing more than a war crime worthy of unanimous condemnation by the free world coupled with the provision of support to Ukraine in seeking to displace the invader?

+ 1

[JohnfromUK]

31 minutes ago, Mungler said:

You say all of that but yet again you entirely ignore and fail to address the fundamental point, and that is Putin rolling tanks over a border into a neighbouring country and in the absence of any direct military threat.

Tony Blair, allegations of Nazis in Ukraine, Yemen, NATO - they are all utterly irrelevant. They are and if you can’t see that then I can’t possibly begin to explain it to you.

So, without mentioning Tony Blair, Nazis, NATO etc, explain to me why the invasion of Ukraine (along with the rape, murder, kidnap and displacement of massive swathes of its population) is nothing more than a war crime worthy of unanimous condemnation by the free world coupled with the provision of support to Ukraine in seeking to displace the invader?

+2

[Newbie to this]

8 hours ago, ordnance said:

I know that's why i said ( some ) America was just a example

I'd already posted an example above, one where the weapons are being gifted.

All I get told is gift doesn't mean free anymore.

[Mungler]

3 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

I'd already posted an example above, one where the weapons are being gifted.

All I get told is gift doesn't mean free anymore.

It’s not that difficult.

In terms of economics, nothing is free, everything has to be paid for by someone, something, somewhere. Even where there is a benevolent donor, there is still a cost, and that is the opportunity cost of what could have been done with the money / resources comprised of the gift.

Here, the UK has ‘gifted’ £100m (100,000,000) in arms, and we learn that £3.5b (3,500,000,000) has been ‘lent’ (and as with all loans, there will be terms attached and repayment). 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/03/23/british-budget-outlook-touts-weapon-deliveries-for-ukraines-defense/

Prior to Pearl Harbour, the US assistance provided to Britain in the early part of WW2 (whilst the US was fighting its ‘proxy war’ with the Nazis through Britain) and which made sure Britain didn’t starve, had fuel and was able to fight on the face of overwhelming force and superior numbers [any of this sound familiar?], well that all had to be repaid.

 

[ditchman]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

It’s not that difficult.

In terms of economics, nothing is free, everything has to be paid for by someone, something, somewhere. Even where there is a benevolent donor, there is still a cost, and that is the opportunity cost of what could have been done with the money / resources comprised of the gift.

Here, the UK has ‘gifted’ £100m (100,000,000) in arms, and we learn that £3.5b (3,500,000,000) has been ‘lent’ (and as with all loans, there will be terms attached and repayment). 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/03/23/british-budget-outlook-touts-weapon-deliveries-for-ukraines-defense/

Prior to Pearl Harbour, the US assistance provided to Britain in the early part of WW2 (whilst the US was fighting its ‘proxy war’ with the Nazis through Britain) and which made sure Britain didn’t starve, had fuel and was able to fight on the face of overwhelming force and superior numbers [any of this sound familiar?], well that all had to be repaid.

 

" i feel a Margret Thatcher ploy coming on ................"Arms for aid".........any one remember 

1. Pergower dam in Malaya...https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/dec/12/pergau-dam-affair-aid-arms-scandal
2. Songea Makabacko road in Tanzania https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1985-10-25/debates/249a45a0-8ea8-4b47-b3ef-f4b1538f3eb8/Songea-MakambakoRoadTanzania

wont mention it in the parlimentary notes.....when the machinary came in it was a column of 2 miles long....it was gauded by several new westland helicopter gunships...and an army kitted out with UK military hardware.........

arms for aid......

Ukraine here we come 

Edited June 9, 2022 by ditchman

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Prior to Pearl Harbour, the US assistance provided to Britain in the early part of WW2 (whilst the US was fighting its ‘proxy war’ with the Nazis through Britain) and which made sure Britain didn’t starve, had fuel and was able to fight on the face of overwhelming force and superior numbers [any of this sound familiar?], well that all had to be repaid.

Yes because the USA never 'gifted' us anything.

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

It’s not that difficult.

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

nothing is free, everything has to be paid for by someone

Yes the UK tax payer

[Mungler]

15 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Yes because the USA never 'gifted' us anything.

Yes the UK tax payer

 

You're missing the point. If Ukraine was gifted a mere £100,000,000 of military hardware (and again, query is that "retail" or "trade" price / cost) but then Ukraine is "lent" £3,500,000,000 with commercial terms / a rate of return attached then think of the £100,000,000 "gift" as an arrangement fee for the wider and greater value commercial lending.

There's also a future bet here - Boris is betting that in the future Putin can't hold all of Ukraine, and in the future when Ukraine is rebuilding or exporting again then British interests and opportunities may be nearer the top of the pile. It's like the foreign aid budget - a bung / a grease up for something else, something bigger and something longer term.

[Rewulf]

12 hours ago, Mungler said:

You say all of that but yet again you entirely ignore and fail to address the fundamental point, and that is Putin rolling tanks over a border into a neighbouring country and in the absence of any direct military threat.

Caution ! 'Whataboutery' ahead !

Im not failing to address it, its blatantly obvious what happened, and the absence of 'direct' military threat.
But you make out that, the irrefutable fact that the US/NATO have done just that very recently, is irrelevant ?

What really needs to be addressed , is the whys and wherefores , western media clutches at straws in explanation, because it cannot say out loud what any sensible analyst knows full well.
It instead relies upon the 'mad' theory, or the back to the USSR days, both of which make absolutely no sense, and a gullible population hasnt the backbone to question the official narrative, just feed them some stories of Russian atrocities and war crimes (while ignoring Ukrainian ones) and theyll eat whatever **** pie you feed them.

Get back to basics, WHY would the US pour billions of dollars into a country it has absolutely no affinity with ?
Long before 2014, in fact , as soon as it gained independence in 1991, the Americans started chucking money into Ukraine, WHY ?
Over the years they were a premier 'partner' for USAID, for some reason they were very interested in bringing American style democracy to Ukraine, they did a similar job on the Baltics, but their small size and populations didnt require the amount of investment.
They 'worked on these countries for 10 years, and then played their hand.
In November 2002, NATO invited seven countries to join it via the MAP: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. All seven invitees joined in March 2004

The only reason Ukraine and Belarus didnt go over then, is because they needed working on more.
So the US continued to pour billions more into creating the environment needed.
The Orange revolution of 2004/5 failed to take root, and the next time the opportunity arose was 10 years later.
The US Embassy in Kiev was without doubt , instrumental in providing financial and material support to the protesters.

Imagine if Russia spent billions on Latin American countries, meddled in their politics and then invited them to join a Warsaw pact style military alliance against NATO , do you think the US would just meekly accept it ?
The limited attempts Russia made in the 50s 60s and 70s, were crushed by McCarthyism, where American 'dissidents' were ostracised , sacked and sometimes jailed, any fledgling communist groups in the  Latin countries were destroyed, Cuba invaded (without that 'direct' military threat you deem essential).

All Im saying ,  there IS a reason why Russia has behaved the way it has , its not right , but their attempts at diplomacy were ignored, and are still being ignored.
Its because this PROXY WAR , has been very welcomed in the States, and they are quite happy for Ukraine to burn a bit longer.
Its bought 2 reluctant countries into NATO, created huge oil and arms revenue, and established NATO military power as supreme, which is a definitive warning shot across China bow.
hat you need to decide , is how much planning the US put into this , was it a gift horse they couldnt refuse, or a long game style CIA plan come to fruition ?

Either way, the US shares some responsibility for all those deaths, and if you think it doesnt share any at all, think on this.
You cant put a gun in someones hand , and tell them to kill someone, then say it was nothing to do with you when there is a murder.
Its as simple as that.


 

[Mungler]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Caution ! 'Whataboutery' ahead !

Im not failing to address it, its blatantly obvious what happened, and the absence of 'direct' military threat.
But you make out that, the irrefutable fact that the US/NATO have done just that very recently, is irrelevant ?

What really needs to be addressed , is the whys and wherefores , western media clutches at straws in explanation, because it cannot say out loud what any sensible analyst knows full well.
It instead relies upon the 'mad' theory, or the back to the USSR days, both of which make absolutely no sense, and a gullible population hasnt the backbone to question the official narrative, just feed them some stories of Russian atrocities and war crimes (while ignoring Ukrainian ones) and theyll eat whatever **** pie you feed them.

Get back to basics, WHY would the US pour billions of dollars into a country it has absolutely no affinity with ?
Long before 2014, in fact , as soon as it gained independence in 1991, the Americans started chucking money into Ukraine, WHY ?
Over the years they were a premier 'partner' for USAID, for some reason they were very interested in bringing American style democracy to Ukraine, they did a similar job on the Baltics, but their small size and populations didnt require the amount of investment.
They 'worked on these countries for 10 years, and then played their hand.
In November 2002, NATO invited seven countries to join it via the MAP: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. All seven invitees joined in March 2004

The only reason Ukraine and Belarus didnt go over then, is because they needed working on more.
So the US continued to pour billions more into creating the environment needed.
The Orange revolution of 2004/5 failed to take root, and the next time the opportunity arose was 10 years later.
The US Embassy in Kiev was without doubt , instrumental in providing financial and material support to the protesters.

Imagine if Russia spent billions on Latin American countries, meddled in their politics and then invited them to join a Warsaw pact style military alliance against NATO , do you think the US would just meekly accept it ?
The limited attempts Russia made in the 50s 60s and 70s, were crushed by McCarthyism, where American 'dissidents' were ostracised , sacked and sometimes jailed, any fledgling communist groups in the  Latin countries were destroyed, Cuba invaded (without that 'direct' military threat you deem essential).

All Im saying ,  there IS a reason why Russia has behaved the way it has , its not right , but their attempts at diplomacy were ignored, and are still being ignored.
Its because this PROXY WAR , has been very welcomed in the States, and they are quite happy for Ukraine to burn a bit longer.
Its bought 2 reluctant countries into NATO, created huge oil and arms revenue, and established NATO military power as supreme, which is a definitive warning shot across China bow.
hat you need to decide , is how much planning the US put into this , was it a gift horse they couldnt refuse, or a long game style CIA plan come to fruition ?

Either way, the US shares some responsibility for all those deaths, and if you think it doesnt share any at all, think on this.
You cant put a gun in someones hand , and tell them to kill someone, then say it was nothing to do with you when there is a murder.
Its as simple as that.


 

 

So, you can't explain to me why the invasion of Ukraine (along with the rape, murder, kidnap and displacement of massive swathes of its population) is nothing more than a war crime worthy of unanimous condemnation by the free world coupled with the provision of support to Ukraine in seeking to displace the invader without mentioning NATO, Blair, the US and now the suggestion that it was the West's failure to negotiate.

On the subject of NATO I am mindful that back in 2005 the German Newspaper "Handelsblatt" asked Russian foreign minister Lavrov what he thought about the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO and the reply was and I quote "It is their choice. We respect the right of every state - including our neighbors - to choose its own partners"

What has happened in the meantime is Russia has fallen deeper into being a gangster run state.

There is no plausible excuse or rationalization for the Russian invasion of Ukraine beyond "land grab". With that in mind and given the atrocities I know which side of the fence I fall if I have to choose a side.

 

 

[Rewulf]

26 minutes ago, Mungler said:

So, you can't explain to me why the invasion of Ukraine (along with the rape, murder, kidnap and displacement of massive swathes of its population) is nothing more than a war crime worthy of unanimous condemnation by the free world coupled with the provision of support to Ukraine in seeking to displace the invader without mentioning NATO, Blair, the US and now the suggestion that it was the West's failure to negotiate.

I think I covered that in the first line ? I never said it wasnt a war crime, and Im not trying to justify whats happened so far.
Also , Ive never mentioned Blair.

29 minutes ago, Mungler said:

On the subject of NATO I am mindful that back in 2005 the German Newspaper "Handelsblatt" asked Russian foreign minister Lavrov what he thought about the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO and the reply was and I quote "It is their choice. We respect the right of every state - including our neighbors - to choose its own partners"

What has happened in the meantime is Russia has fallen deeper into being a gangster run state.

Who knows, maybe he was speaking out of turn ?
Maybe that was the position then, it doesnt matter, in 2014 , their  position was clear , they werent happy about their man being kicked out, and the possibility of an unfriendly state on their border.

32 minutes ago, Mungler said:

There is no plausible excuse or rationalization for the Russian invasion of Ukraine beyond "land grab". With that in mind and given the atrocities I know which side of the fence I fall if I have to choose a side.

Weve examined this before, the 'land grab' of the Crimea was where it stopped in 2014, the Donbass separatist areas were never under Russian military control, but if Russia wanted to , they could easily have taken the whole of Ukraine then, BEFORE the west armed and trained the Ukrainian armed forces, I believe resistance then would have been minimal ?
Yet they didnt.

Interestingly ,Putin bought up joining NATO back at the beginning of the Millennium.

 

[oowee]

28 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

Weve examined this before, the 'land grab' of the Crimea was where it stopped in 2014, the Donbass separatist areas were never under Russian military control, but if Russia wanted to , they could easily have taken the whole of Ukraine then, BEFORE the west armed and trained the Ukrainian armed forces, I believe resistance then would have been minimal ?
Yet they didnt.

Interestingly ,Putin bought up joining NATO back at the beginning of the Millennium.

Interesting to look back at that now. Some of my friends are from Crimea and they were only too pleased to see the area acceed to Russia at the time, feeling that was were the country belonged. The father of one of my friends was a admiral of the fleet on a Russian Pension paid in Ukraine where he had been based. 

Russia chose not to take the rest of Ukraine and the West chose not too fully back the country. I think some of that was Russia waiting to see the response from the West and the West being uncertain as to who / what they might be backing if they went fully behind Ukraine. Interesting how it has all panned out. No doubt now full backing would have saved much of the damage and loss of life we are seeing now. 

Russia would have been a hard sell for NATO as the country is huge (balance of power) and also far too corrupt to be a trusted partner. The same could be said of Ukraine. 

[Rewulf]

29 minutes ago, oowee said:

Russia chose not to take the rest of Ukraine and the West chose not too fully back the country. I think some of that was Russia waiting to see the response from the West and the West being uncertain as to who / what they might be backing if they went fully behind Ukraine. Interesting how it has all panned out. No doubt now full backing would have saved much of the damage and loss of life we are seeing now. 

They did get full backing after 2014, they were conducting joint military drills within a couple of years with NATO.
The interesting aspect is if NATO DIDNT give full backing to Ukraine, would any of this have happened ?
But as Ive stated , and Ill stand by it, this whole  regime change thing is a thing the US (and Russia) have been doing since the end of WW2.
You just have to remember, they dont do it for the 'good' of the country involved, most of the time , they couldnt give 2 figs for the country or its people, they do it for their own economic or strategic aims.

29 minutes ago, oowee said:

Russia would have been a hard sell for NATO as the country is huge (balance of power) and also far too corrupt to be a trusted partner. The same could be said of Ukraine. 

The same could be said of the US ?

When you look at it cynically, whole portions of the US economy are based on 'defending' against a perceived enemy, the bigger the enemy, the bigger the budget, and if that enemy now wants to become a peaceful partner, there are huge financial interests who would rather that doesnt happen.

[oowee]

27 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

They did get full backing after 2014, they were conducting joint military drills within a couple of years with NATO.
The interesting aspect is if NATO DIDNT give full backing to Ukraine, would any of this have happened ?
But as Ive stated , and Ill stand by it, this whole  regime change thing is a thing the US (and Russia) have been doing since the end of WW2.
You just have to remember, they dont do it for the 'good' of the country involved, most of the time , they couldnt give 2 figs for the country or its people, they do it for their own economic or strategic aims.

The same could be said of the US ?

When you look at it cynically, whole portions of the US economy are based on 'defending' against a perceived enemy, the bigger the enemy, the bigger the budget, and if that enemy now wants to become a peaceful partner, there are huge financial interests who would rather that doesnt happen.

We certainly backed them with training and some equipment but it was a far cry from the full endorsement that they are getting now. 

Whilst the US certainly has a degree of corruption it's not a failed state being run as a criminal enterprise. The rule of law and a freedom of speech usually catches up with the crim's. There maybe some elements of state and private business that benefit from instability it's certainly not been policy in respect of Russia by the US.  ISS would be one example trading technology and science  for greater good. There were great strides made by nations across the West to encourage and cajole Russia along a more open path but these have been rejected in pursuit of extreme wealth and privilege. 

 

[Rewulf]

38 minutes ago, oowee said:

Whilst the US certainly has a degree of corruption it's not a failed state being run as a criminal enterprise. The rule of law and a freedom of speech usually catches up with the crim's.

Whilst i broadly agree with the sentiment, is Russia a failed state ?
The USSR certainly failed, but Russia, is a nuclear armed , hugely oil rich superpower, the only thing stopping it from truly rivalling the US , is the fact the west tries very hard to keep its oil rival cash poor, via sanctions and ostracisation.
Again, this is why the Ukraine war is a gift of untold value for the US.
Its also a bit rich to say its run as a criminal enterprise, as some US presidents are not exactly squeaky clean !
My belief is the way they are run, isnt hugely different, its just one of them is more open about the levels of corruption than the other.
Democracy in both, is illusory, as money buys representation, and representation earns money.

38 minutes ago, oowee said:

There were great strides made by nations across the West to encourage and cajole Russia along a more open path but these have been rejected in pursuit of extreme wealth and privilege. 

Im not sure about great strides, but some countries have tried to undo the damage the cold war wreaked upon Europe and Russia.
Russias 'crime' was rising up 100 years ago, killing its feudal leaders, and embracing communism.
The west , still ruled to this day by quasi feudal overlords, closed off its borders then , and has never really opened them yet , despite letting Russia win WW2 for them.
 

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Whilst i broadly agree with the sentiment, is Russia a failed state ?
The USSR certainly failed, but Russia, is a nuclear armed , hugely oil rich superpower, the only thing stopping it from truly rivalling the US , is the fact the west tries very hard to keep its oil rival cash poor, via sanctions and ostracisation.
Again, this is why the Ukraine war is a gift of untold value for the US.
Its also a bit rich to say its run as a criminal enterprise, as some US presidents are not exactly squeaky clean !
My belief is the way they are run, isnt hugely different, its just one of them is more open about the levels of corruption than the other.
Democracy in both, is illusory, as money buys representation, and representation earns money.

Im not sure about great strides, but some countries have tried to undo the damage the cold war wreaked upon Europe and Russia.
Russias 'crime' was rising up 100 years ago, killing its feudal leaders, and embracing communism.
The west , still ruled to this day by quasi feudal overlords, closed off its borders then , and has never really opened them yet , despite letting Russia win WW2 for them.
 

That is a lot of nonsense and more whataboutery.

Trying to suggest that the US is or operates in the same post code as the failed state that is Russia (and which is nothing more than a large petrol station asset stripped and run by a clique of embedded gangsters) is genuinely delusional. 

I get so so bored when a criticism is made of a Russia, a region that has no democracy, no justice system, no independent policing and no independent media, we are told that it’s just the same as in Britain or the US but maybe a tiny bit worse and that there’s no such thing as democracy anyway and RT news is no worse than the BBC. This is utter utter nonsense and is backed with no evidence, just internet rhetoric which if repeated enough times can be later quoted as factual. 

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, Mungler said:

That is a lot of nonsense and more whataboutery.

Kind of thought you would say that 😏

11 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Trying to suggest that the US is or operates in the same post code as the failed state that is Russia (and which is nothing more than a large petrol station asset stripped and run by a clique of embedded gangsters) is genuinely delusional. 

Err OK then, the US never does anything naughty, or meddles in other countries affairs (to their detriment) , but I suppose thats more whataboutery ?

11 minutes ago, Mungler said:

I get so so bored when a criticism is made of a Russia, a region that has no democracy, no justice system, no independent policing and no independent media, we are told that it’s just the same as in Britain or the US but maybe a tiny bit worse

Never said that.

12 minutes ago, Mungler said:

and RT news is no worse than the BBC. This is utter utter nonsense and is backed with no evidence, just internet rhetoric which if repeated enough times can be later quoted as factual. 

Or that.

12 minutes ago, Mungler said:

and that there’s no such thing as democracy anyway

Didnt say that either, democracy exists, but isnt really practiced properly in the western world, dont get me wrong , its better here than elsewhere , but its more illusory than most can appreciate.
Surely you get my drift on that one  ?

Lets not get all angsty again, Im not sat here with a picture of putin next to my keyboard , and waving a Russian flag.
Just trying top make sense of the situation, because I simply dont trust or believe the narrative we are being given.

Reading the news its like the Ukrainians are winning , have lost very few men or vehicles, and the Russians have only killed defenceless civilians, whilst losing half their entire army ?
Yet even the most cursory attempt to find real figures, indicates tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers killed or captured, many more wounded, the loss of their entire navy, and the only planes and helos they have left  are the ones they sent to other countries.
If they see fit to wage a propaganda war, and use western MSN to tell lies, what else are they lying about ?

Indeed , if Ukrainian soldiers are so good , and they are beating the Russkies as easily as they profess, then why is Zelensky constantly screaming for more weapons and ammunition ?
He'll be in line for a Nobel peace prize, and Time man of the year if he carries on 

[clangerman]

zelensky deserves an oscar for his portrayal of a victim! 

[Rewulf]

Just now, clangerman said:

zelensky deserves an oscar for his portrayal of a victim! 

It is his trade , but I particularly like the way theyve bulked his pint sized frame up with roids, deepened his voice, while dressing him up in camo, to project his new persona of Vlod the Russian terminator.
Im waiting for some CGI of him actually killing Russkies with a rusty bayonet next....
At least he could play himself in the film ?