Ukraine invasion

[Rufus_Leakey]

This is quite a fundamental piece of news imo and perhaps the most important.

Ukraine or more like the NATO finally abondons plans to expand its aggressive dogs of war machine into Ukraine.


This is probably the single most important piece of news and reason for the start of this war.

Aggressive so called defensive NATO alliance sees some sense. Finally!!!

Security guarantees depend on reliable guarantors.😉

 

[Atilla]

Security guarantees depend on reliable guarantors.😉
View attachment 345121

US and UK were accomplices in the Genocide of Palestinians by the Israelis.

US attacking Venezuellan boats without any evidence in international waters.

These violiations of international laws are just two recent major events.

Number of UN decisions that are simply ignored are vetoed by the US is countless. Guantanamo Bay really takes the biscuit where there are no rules for the cowboys to do what ever shit they have done and do there. You talk about violations? Really. I hope you are enjoying having a laugh???

Assurances given to Gorbachev against NATO expansion has also been a total violation of broken promises and aggrements.

This is the problem with these kinds of POV's coming from the West. It is soooo one sided totally ignored any other World Views. Hence, why we have wars.

What can't be agreed over the table is dealt with pouring blood in the battle field.

I guess the big question is why Ukraine has now decided to rule out joining NATO?

Why have Europe and the US accepted this point of fact?

What were they thinking when over a number of years Russian diplomacy told the West this was their red-line.

Crimea and Sivastapol has always been Russian and to think Russia will hand over it's main naval port to Ukraine and the West is unthinkable, unimaginable. Third World War III is more likely than Crimea being handed to Ukraine and the West. Most reasonable and informed bodies know this. Joe public and mindless sheep following BBC probably don't care, know or give two hoots other than listening to noise coming out of the TV.

Mark Rutte is an absolute nutter calling for NATO soldiers to be placed in Ukraine to die fightin Russia when there is no point in this war in the first place.

I would ask Mark Rutte to go to the front line and stand by his words. However, when his skin and blood is on the line I'm sure he'll turn tail coat. I've heard him on TV and wonder in amazement how a SHIT HEAD like that can hold such a position. I guess his status is less than a hooker paid to deliver words, where his ass is not on the line, requesting other people go to die for some stupid NATO expansion.

HOW can NATO be a defensive allience when it pre-empts, starts and causes the very wars it is supposed to defend agains. I appeal to good common deceny and sense of each person to think about this instead of being so eager to wage war for daft reasons.

Stupid war, stupid NATO expansion to defend us against Russia who has opened greatly and invested in Europe, providing us with Energy, billionaires and profitable trade.

US and UK have started and been involved in many more wars than Russia and braking international agreements and violations. Have some balance.

 

[Rufus_Leakey]

Assurances given to Gorbachev against NATO expansion has also been a total violation of broken promises and aggrements.

...

US and UK have started and been involved in many more wars than Russia and braking international agreements and violations. Have some balance.

Yes, there are other unreliable guarantors. I was just pointing out the one in that region that's constantly threatening its neighbors.

FYI, Gorbachev didn't approve of NATO expansion, but he changed his story when he was no longer a politician.

In 2014, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall by noting in an interview that that Nato’s enlargement “was not discussed at all” at the time:

Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.

 

[timsk]

This is quite a fundamental piece of news imo and perhaps the most important.

Ukraine or more like the NATO finally abondons plans to expand its aggressive dogs of war machine into Ukraine.


This is probably the single most important piece of news and reason for the start of this war.

Aggressive so called defensive NATO alliance sees some sense. Finally!!!

I'm sorry to say I don't share your optimism, At'. I hope I'm wrong but, to me, this sounds like NATO through the back door which, needless to say, Russia won't agree to. If there's a buffer zone dividing whatever remains of Ukraine to the West and Russian occupied territory to the east, the only peace keepers that Russia will permit to police it will be truly independent parties with little or no skin in the game: Switzerland and Hungary from Europe - but no NATO members - I would have thought.

IMO, all these talks are leading precisely nowhere because everyone knows the game is up: Russia has won hands down (note tense) and there's absolutely sweet FA anyone in the west can do about it. The game that's being played now is the blame game - or preparation for it at least. So, when our wonderful leaders can no longer hide the facts and everyone knows the true state of play, it's about who gets painted as the baddie that let everyone down because they didn't commit enough funds, or enough tanks, Hymars, F-16s (insert wonder weapon of your choice), or imposed enough sanctions - or simply did too little too late. You can hear the excuses now: 'If only. . . (Trump, Starmer, Macron or whoever) had done XYZ - then Ukraine would have won the war and Putin would be toast'. It's as inevitable as night follows day. Sadly.
Tim.

 

[timsk]

Security guarantees depend on reliable guarantors.😉
View attachment 345121

Hi R_L,
Not sure of your source, but it's misleading in part - certainly regarding the Minsk agreements. It's Europe that reneged on those and, amazingl;y, even bragged out it saying they were just a stalling tactic to allow Ukraine to re-arm. Not saying Russia's perfect and done everything by the book - I'm sure that haven't - but NATO and the west shoulder the burden of blame when it come to reneging on deals and needlessly - and repeatedly - poking the Russian bear with a big stick.
Tim.

 

[Rufus_Leakey]

Hi R_L,
Not sure of your source, but it's misleading in part - certainly regarding the Minsk agreements. It's Europe that reneged on those and, amazingl;y, even bragged out it saying they were just a stalling tactic to allow Ukraine to re-arm. Not saying Russia's perfect and done everything by the book - I'm sure that haven't - but NATO and the west shoulder the burden of blame when it come to reneging on deals and needlessly - and repeatedly - poking the Russian bear with a big stick.
Tim.

The source was google's AI Overview. Here is its answer to "Who reneged on the Minsk agreement ?"

Here is google's AI Mode answer to "How well is the Ukraine war going for Russia?" It's not quite the quick Russian victory most were expecting. I think Russia will eventually "win" but with a large cost.

How well is the Ukraine war going for Russia ?

As of December 2025,
Russia
is making slow, incremental territorial gains in
Ukraine
, but at a prohibitive cost in casualties and equipment. Russia believes it is winning a war of attrition and can outlast Ukraine, but independent military analysis indicates a Russian military victory is not inevitable.

Key Aspects of Russia's War Effort

• Slow Territorial Gains: Russia currently occupies about 19% of Ukrainian territory. The pace of advances has been slow; Russia has gained approximately 2% of Ukraine's territory since late 2023. While it has recently seized some settlements in the Donetsk and Zaporizhia regions and is close to taking the strategic town of Pokrovsk, these gains have come with heavy losses.
• Massive Casualties: Russia has suffered immense personnel losses, with total casualties (killed and wounded) since 2022 estimated to be above one million. Russian losses are estimated at over 25,000 per month, far exceeding the Soviet losses in the decade-long war in Afghanistan. The high casualty rate creates ongoing challenges for recruitment and morale, though the Kremlin has so far managed to generate additional manpower through financial incentives.
• Military-Industrial Capacity: Despite the loss of over 3,000 tanks and numerous other pieces of equipment since the start of the war, Russia has mobilized its economy to support its war effort. It is increasing domestic production of weapons like drones and missiles and acquiring support from countries like China, Iran, and North Korea to sustain operations in the foreseeable future.
• Economic Resilience: Western sanctions have strained the Russian economy, but Moscow has successfully leveraged high energy revenues and massive state spending on its military-industrial complex to largely offset the impact. The Kremlin can likely sustain the war for another two to three years under current conditions, though it faces rising inflation and a labor shortage.
• Unchanged Objectives: Russia's fundamental war aims have not changed, and it continues to pursue the subjugation of Ukraine and regime change in Kyiv. Russian officials have stated they will not compromise on the territories they have seized, including Crimea and the Donbas region.
• Peace Negotiations: While U.S. and Ukrainian officials are engaged in discussions regarding a potential peace deal, experts remain skeptical. Russia has rejected key points of proposed peace plans and is setting conditions to reject any agreement that does not concede its maximalist demands.

In essence, Russia has failed to achieve a quick, decisive victory and has borne staggering costs, but it has adapted its strategy and mobilized its resources to continue the war as a prolonged conflict of attrition, believing it can eventually outlast Ukraine's ability to fight.

 

[Atilla]

I'm sorry to say I don't share your optimism, At'. I hope I'm wrong but, to me, this sounds like NATO through the back door which, needless to say, Russia won't agree to. If there's a buffer zone dividing whatever remains of Ukraine to the West and Russian occupied territory to the east, the only peace keepers that Russia will permit to police it will be truly independent parties with little or no skin in the game: Switzerland and Hungary from Europe - but no NATO members - I would have thought.

IMO, all these talks are leading precisely nowhere because everyone knows the game is up: Russia has won hands down (note tense) and there's absolutely sweet FA anyone in the west can do about it. The game that's being played now is the blame game - or preparation for it at least. So, when our wonderful leaders can no longer hide the facts and everyone knows the true state of play, it's about who gets painted as the baddie that let everyone down because they didn't commit enough funds, or enough tanks, Hymars, F-16s (insert wonder weapon of your choice), or imposed enough sanctions - or simply did too little too late. You can hear the excuses now: 'If only. . . (Trump, Starmer, Macron or whoever) had done XYZ - then Ukraine would have won the war and Putin would be toast'. It's as inevitable as night follows day. Sadly.
Tim.

I see your point yes n agree hosting Nato countries soldiers is not an option.

Ukraine just being arse in face about guarantees.

Best option is friendly relations n trade w neighbours.

Hardly a difficult choice or a solution to implement.

Ukraine needs to get rid of Zelensky the little kunt n host elections giving the middle finger to her puppet masters.

I would then brake the deal with the US on rare minerals (why not join the party on violating International agreements) n then Carry On, w sorting them selves out n hopefully join EU.

Simple solution imo.

 

[timsk]

The source was google's AI Overview. Here is its answer to "Who reneged on the Minsk agreement ?"

Thanks R_L,
To my mind, this is just further evidence - for those that need it - of AIs built-in bias. I accept fully that if the exact same question was asked of Russian AI that it would be biased in favour of Russia. On balance though, Russian version of events is either closer to the truth than Ukraine's version of events or, put the other way around, less prone to gross misleading statements or outright lies, IMO. The proof is/will be in the pudding. When (not if) Ukraine's defenses crumble, Russia takes Odessa - which it almost certainly will - then the powers that be (politicians, MSM and the military industrial complex/NATO) will have a lot of explaining to do. At that point the blame game will be well underway.
Tim.