Ukraine invasion

[RolloTape2025]

There is much distortion of truth and writing of history from West perspective and viewpoint.

Western people are only just waking up to all the manipulation and propoganda which goes on.

Stuff that presents an alternative narrative view point is said to be propoganda and banned like RTNews and Al-Jazeera amongst others.

What with the Guantanomo bay and Gaza attrocities it is clear the so called Western countries are quite at liberty to tear up even their own rules and protections like the Geneva conventions and apply their own version of cruel and very barbarian conduct on the rest of humanity.

Western double standards and version of events is quite sickening. 🤢

I think you can often look at things from different angles, but common sense has to be there.

For example, there are posts above, stating that all the nuclear missiles belonged to Russia, because they previously belonged to the USSR. It doesn't matter about which side you are on, or what propaganda that exists, that just doesn't make sense. When the Soviet Union broke up, of course new states that are formed, will have claim on their territory, their people, the land, the buildings etc. Now USSR may also want to claim some of those things, but clearly Ukraine did think they had a valid claim. You can tell that, because
1) Negotiations on the return of the missiles had broken down between Russia and Ukraine
2) it took a tri-lateral agreement with the US included (linked in the thread)
3) it still took many years after this agreement for the nuclear missiles to be disarmed or materials returned
4) Ukraine were financially compensated for nuclear materials and received security assurances

Every one of the above 4 indications, tell you that Ukraine had at least some power/control/ownership/claim over the nuclear weapons.

So to say "Ukraine had no rights on them." doesn't make sense. If Russia had complete control over those military assets, then there isn't much of a need to even negotiate, compensate or give assurances.


If Scotland completely separated from the rest of the UK, there would be debates about who owns north sea oil, who owns certain fishing grounds, who owns military assets, would Scotland accept some part of the National Debt, would Scotland be allowed to use pound sterling and so on.

It only makes sense to say that the nuclear weapon ownership was in some sort of dispute with both Ukraine and Russia making claims on that ownership.

Ukraine later gave up their claim in return for various things, including security assurances, which of course weren't worth the paper they were written on as Russia continues its invasion.

 

[Phylo]

That's complete nonsense as they want to make people believe now.

The arms always belonged to Russia as Russia was the successor of the USSR. Russia paid the dept of the USSR as it was seen as the successor, Ukraine did not.
The owner of the weapons was always Russia, Ukraine had no rights on them.

That was a general problem of the resolution of the USSR that a lot of things were not cleared related to the ownership of a lot of stuff.

More details to the history is written here:

The Trilateral Process: The United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine...

www.brookings.edu

A non-partisan research post - London
----------------------------------------------------
Comment Phylo: That's complete nonsense as they want to make people believe now.

Which part of this is not understood

operational control remained exclusively with Moscow

There's no doubt who's nukes were on Ukraine territory. Wait, ...maybe they were UK nukes ? US Nukes ? No, no, definitely Russia's Nukes.

The owner of the weapons was always Russia,

This plain obvious fact is being use to obfuscate* the issue - a regular subterfuge** tactic of intelligence agencies and the Putin fan boy's club.
*make obscure, unclear, or unintelligible, confuse.
** deceit used in order to achieve one's goal.

When one country loses control of another, it looses control of its shite.

Comment Phylo: More details to the history is written here:

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

SO HAVING DEFINITELY ESTABLISHED WHO'S NUKES - ALL AGREED ?
THE HYPOCRISY: SO WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE, IS NOT GOOD FOR THE GANDER
Ukraine is a sovereign independent entity - no longer force wed to the bear.
The bear still wants to dictate who's bed the ex-forced wed bride shares.

 

[RolloTape2025]

When you have a Union of countries or states, which then break up and become independent, it is understood (I think), that each member of the union has contributed to the whole union in the past. So arguments such as "those always belonged to Russia only" aren't very convincing. They belonged to a union which no longer exists in the same way. Therefore, since the Union has split, so too we have to split various land and resources. Borders agreed upon, ideally in a diplomatic way.

When it is stated: "operational control remained exclusively with Moscow"
What exactly is meant? Are you saying that at the time of the soviet break-up, all military sites based in Ukraine were fully staffed by only Russian born and loyal soldiers, with not one Ukrainian at those facilities? Ukraine had absolutely zero influence or control of any of these weapons or the sites containing them?

And if that were the case, then there is simply no need to negotiate with Ukraine for the Budapest Memorandum. Russia could simply disarm all of the nuclear weapons itself, or perhaps even ship some of the materials back to Russia. But yet they had to negotiate a treaty with Ukraine for their disarmament. Why would Russia be so concerned about these missiles if they had complete control? You see it doesn't make any sense does it. Russia had concerns that Ukraine might be able to use these weapons or develop their own. United States also had some concerns and decided to broker a deal. So Russia trying to bully their way over Ukraine, the US trying to make deals with Ukraine that pacify Russia, but have U.S. self-interests in as well. That was over thirty years ago. Times haven't changed much.

Perhaps what is meant by operational control is things like nuclear launch codes. But yet Russia was still concerned.

 

[Phylo]

1919 Soviet invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Phylo]

When you have a Union of countries or states, which then break up and become independent, it is understood (I think), that each member of the union has contributed to the whole union in the past. So arguments such as "those always belonged to Russia only" aren't very convincing. They belonged to a union which no longer exists in the same way. Therefore, since the Union has split, so too we have to split various land and resources. Borders agreed upon, ideally in a diplomatic way.

When it is stated: "operational control remained exclusively with Moscow"
What exactly is meant? Are you saying that at the time of the soviet break-up, all military sites based in Ukraine were fully staffed by only Russian born and loyal soldiers, with not one Ukrainian at those facilities? Ukraine had absolutely zero influence or control of any of these weapons or the sites containing them?

And if that were the case, then there is simply no need to negotiate with Ukraine for the Budapest Memorandum. Russia could simply disarm all of the nuclear weapons itself, or perhaps even ship some of the materials back to Russia. But yet they had to negotiate a treaty with Ukraine for their disarmament. Why would Russia be so concerned about these missiles if they had complete control? You see it doesn't make any sense does it. Russia had concerns that Ukraine might be able to use these weapons or develop their own. United States also had some concerns and decided to broker a deal. So Russia trying to bully their way over Ukraine, the US trying to make deals with Ukraine that pacify Russia, but have U.S. self-interests in as well. That was over thirty years ago. Times haven't changed much.

Perhaps what is meant by operational control is things like nuclear launch codes. But yet Russia was still concerned.

Practical Realities of Nuclear Retention

Recently declassified documents and expert analysis indicate that, in the 1990s, Ukraine lacked the technical infrastructure, financial resources, and operational control to maintain or use the Soviet-era nuclear weapons on its territory35. Most of the command and control systems remained under Moscow’s authority, and Ukraine would have needed significant investment and time to develop an independent nuclear capability35. Thus, even without the Budapest Memorandum, it is unlikely Ukraine could have remained a credible nuclear power in the short or medium term35.

Irrespective of the above, the Budapest Memorandum happened.

 

[RolloTape2025]

Practical Realities of Nuclear Retention

Recently declassified documents and expert analysis indicate that, in the 1990s, Ukraine lacked the technical infrastructure, financial resources, and operational control to maintain or use the Soviet-era nuclear weapons on its territory35. Most of the command and control systems remained under Moscow’s authority, and Ukraine would have needed significant investment and time to develop an independent nuclear capability35. Thus, even without the Budapest Memorandum, it is unlikely Ukraine could have remained a credible nuclear power in the short or medium term35.

Irrespective of the above, the Budapest Memorandum happened.

View attachment 341935​

Yes I have read that too. At the time, under a lot of political pressure from Russia and the US, as well as financial pressure, it may have seemed the right decision to give up the nukes. Especially if you were going to receive lots of money and hoped the security guarantees would hold.

I think it is clear that if the two super-powers of that time were worried about those nuclear weapons and wanted disarmament fairly soon after Ukraine's independence, then they had good reasons for concern. It seems likely that either Ukraine would at some point be able to overcome those control systems, or that Ukraine with many educated scientists, would be able to build their own weapons.

The Manhattan project took several years of top scientists working on it, testing and development. But they had to invent from scratch, they didn't have lots of working nukes to reverse engineer. As you mentioned, Ukraine had 1900 warheads in their possession, 176 ICBMs as well as 44 bombers and would have people with knowledge about these. Plus all the nuclear materials they need to make their own.

In any case, Ukraine decided to yield the nukes and try to agree peace with diplomacy. Russia got the disarmament they wanted, but then decided not to stick to their end of the agreement, in 2014 in Crimea, and again in 2022.

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

EU Redirects Billions of Euros in COVID Funds for Defense Spending

Member states of the European Union have received permission from the European Commission to redirect 335 billion euros from the Resilience and Recovery Facility (RRF), established for recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic, to defense projects, Politico reported.

sputnikglobe.com

S&P Global Declares Ukraine Defaulted on Its GDP-Linked Securities

Ukraine has defaulted on its GDP-linked securities after failing to make the latest payment on its government debt, according to a statement by the international ratings agency Standard and Poor's (S&P).

sputnikglobe.com

Five Explosive Devices Were Used in Terrorist Attack on Bridge in Kursk Region

Five homemade explosive devices were used to blow up a bridge on June 1 near the town of Zheleznogorsk in Russia's Kursk Region, where a freight train derailed, acting regional governor Alexander Khinshtein said.

sputnikglobe.com

Zelensky takes apparent dig at Trump for calling Putin​

Railway Track In Russia’s Voronezh Region Damaged As A Result Of An Explosion

A railway track in the Voronezh Region of Russia was damaged as a result of the detonation of an explosive device immediately before the train passed, Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) said on Thursday.

sputnikglobe.com

British Council Exposed: Soft Power and Spying Tool Disguised as Cultural Outreach

The FSB has urged Russia's foreign partners to investigate the subversive activities of the British Council in their countries. This is why.

sputnikglobe.com

Russian Foreign Intel Service Vet Blows the Lid Off Britain's Secret Soft Power Recruitment Strategy

Britain is a master in the use of public and non-profit organizations for intelligence, deploying them “for centuries,” and Russia a top target, SVR Lt. Gen. (ret.) Leonid Reshetnikov told Sputnik, commenting on the FSB’s warning to Russia’s foreign partners Thursday about the British Council’s...

sputnikglobe.com

US Pivot to Middle East Leaves Ukraine Up a Creek Without a Paddle on Drone Defense

A WSJ report says Washington is rerouting much-needed anti-drone rocket fuses earmarked for Kiev to another theater. This could have a dramatic impact on the course of hostilities, a pair of top Russian military analysts told Sputnik.

sputnikglobe.com

Military Situation In Ukraine On June 5, 2025 (Map Update)

Russian strikes destroyed targets in the Sumy region; Russian strikes destroyed targets in the Kharkiv region; Russian strikes destroyed targets...

southfront.press

 

[RolloTape2025]

While talking about operational control of the nukes, I again mention this story:

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (Russian: Станисла́в Евгра́фович Петро́в; 7 September 1939 – 19 May 2017) was a lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces who played a key role in the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident. On 26 September 1983, three weeks after the Soviet military had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to four more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm.

His subsequent decision to disobey orders, against Soviet military protocol, is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that would have likely resulted in a large-scale nuclear war. An investigation later confirmed that the Soviet satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned. Because of his decision not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike amid this incident, Petrov is often credited as having "saved the world".

I don't believe control of these missiles is always as strong as people think.

 

[Phylo]

A non-partisan research post - London
----------------------------------------------------
From one administration to the other, the comedy of errors continues - or is this a Julius Caesar tragedy ?
Why bother with theatre? Just watch the White House, which some may consider Ukraine's once and former ally.
"Fair is foul, and foul is fair, Hover through the fog and filthy air."
(Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 1)
----------------------------------------------------

The Guardian

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

Trump ‘very disappointed’ with Musk​

Ukraine failed to destroy Russian planes in drone raid – Moscow​

Musk makes Epstein files claim about Trump​

Large-Scale Missile And Drone Attack Leaves Ukraine With Heavy Losses (Videos)

Multiple waves of missiles and drone strikes targeted Kiev and other parts of Ukraine over the night of June 5...

southfront.press

 

[Phylo]

A non-partisan research post - London
----------------------------------------------------
From one administration to the other, the comedy of errors continues - or is this a Julius Caesar tragedy ?
Why bother with theatre? Just watch the White House, which some may consider Ukraine's once and former ally.
"Fair is foul, and foul is fair, Hover through the fog and filthy air."
(Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 1)
----------------------------------------------------
View attachment 341959
The Guardian

A non-partisan research post - London
----------------------------------------------------
A far cry from sleepy Joe - you couldn't make ship up ! 🤣🤣 Uncle Putin must be rolling on the floor - I'll join him 🤣🤣 We can toast to, MRGA - Make Russia Great Again
---------------------------------------------------

The Daily Mail

 

[timsk]

In the unlikely event that any subscribers to this thread are not well aware of the insight, understanding, intelligence, humanity and wisdom of Prof. Jeffrey Sachs - this is as good a place as any to familiarise yourselves with him. Enjoy . . .

 

[Atilla]

In the unlikely event that any subscribers to this thread are not well aware of the insight, understanding, intelligence, humanity and wisdom of Prof. Jeffrey Sachs - this is as good a place as any to familiarise yourselves with him. Enjoy . . .

Exactly spot on and hard to dispute. The West talks nicely nicely but faced with the same threats they don't like they simply do what ever they like.

Funny how the US started Iran's nuclear program under the Shah and now wants a sovereign state to shut it. It's crazy. Blatant two faced policy and conduct by the US and the so called civilised West. 🤢

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

EU financing ‘extremism’ – applicant state​

In Response to Kiev's Terrorist Attacks Russia Strikes Ukraine's Military Facilities

In response to terrorist attacks carried out by Ukrainian forces, Russian army launched a massive overnight strike targeting Ukrainian military design bureaus, as well as facilities involved in the production and repair of weapons and military equipment, Russia's Defense Ministry said.

sputnikglobe.com

Russian military retaliated to Kiev’s ‘terrorist acts’ – MOD​

Russia Hits Seven Ukrainian Military-Industrial Sites in Retaliation for Terror Attacks

The Russian military inflicted a mass strike on the military targets connected to the Ukrainian armed forces in response to Kiev's terrorist attacks, the Russian Defense MInistry said on Friday.

sputnikglobe.com

Mirage of Support: NATO's Wi-Fi Integration Turns Ukraine Into Proxy Lab

While Russian missile strikes continue to systematically dismantle Ukraine’s military infrastructure, Kyiv is increasingly relying on media spectacles and symbolic...

southfront.press

Lindsey Graham and Other US Congressmen Purportedly Used Ukraine as Personal Cash Cow

A group of US lawmakers has been using Ukraine to enrich themselves, retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official Larry Johnson tells Sputnik, citing whistleblowers.

sputnikglobe.com

Ukraine Announces Hunt For "Restricted Fit" For Military Service Ukrainians

Ukraine has started the mobilization of “restricted fit” citizens for military service due to an acute shortage of troops. Thus, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) previously announced that more than 1.5 million military conscripts, who had the status of “restricted fit”, had...

southfront.press

Summary of Russian Combat Footage From June 6, 2025

On June 6, several videos showing recent combat operations by the Russian military in the special military operation zone were...

southfront.press

 

[Phylo]

In the unlikely event that any subscribers to this thread are not well aware of the insight, understanding, intelligence, humanity and wisdom of Prof. Jeffrey Sachs - this is as good a place as any to familiarise yourselves with him. Enjoy . . .

A non-partisan research post - London
----------------------------------------------------

Its always a pleasure to be educated by the DIYer & Mosaicist. Let us pause the moment to reflect and ponder the wise and profound, and thank the illustrious for their messianic mission.
Take thee hence, and ponder well: the wise man knows he knows not all, while the learned fool may drown in his own certainty.

 

[Phylo]

https://sputnikglobe.com/20250606/i...ines-military-facilities-1122200220.html[/URL

A non-partisan research post - London
----------------------------------------------------

Summary of Russian Attacks on Ukrainian Civilian Infrastructure​

Russian forces have conducted large-scale and repeated attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure throughout the ongoing conflict. Recent assessments indicate that, in early June 2025, Russian strikes targeted at least 19 locations, including high-rise buildings, energy infrastructure, residential areas, educational institutions, and government structures in cities such as Kyiv, Lviv, Ternopil, Chernihiv, and Kremenchuk, as well as several other regions12. These attacks have resulted in significant civilian casualties—at least three killed and 49 injured in a single series of strikes, with the death toll likely higher as reports continue to emerge2.

The scale and intensity of these attacks have increased, with Russia launching its largest series of strikes in the war to date, involving nearly 480 drones and missiles in a single night at the end of May 202512. Analysis from conflict monitors shows a pattern of indiscriminate strikes on residential houses, medical facilities, educational buildings, and the energy sector across Ukraine, causing severe hardships for civilians and increasing Ukraine's dependency on external support3. In 2024 alone, over 1,600 civilians were reported killed by such attacks, with an over 30% increase in remote attacks (air and drone strikes, shelling) compared to the previous year3.

Classification as War Crimes​

International humanitarian law (IHL) requires parties to armed conflict to distinguish at all times between civilian populations and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. Direct attacks on civilians or civilian objects, as well as indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, are strictly prohibited and are considered war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court if committed intentionally4.

Patterns of repeated and widespread attacks on civilian infrastructure, especially when they are indiscriminate or disproportionate, may constitute war crimes. Jurisprudence from international courts clarifies that even if individual attacks might fall into a legal grey area, the cumulative effect of repeated attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure can clearly violate international law and amount to war crimes4. The documented Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure—characterized by their scale, frequency, and apparent lack of distinction—fit this pattern and are widely regarded by legal experts and international organizations as potential war crimes6.

Classification as Terrorism​

While IHL does not provide a strict definition of "terrorism," it prohibits acts of violence whose primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population. Deliberate or indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, or acts aimed at intimidating or terrorizing civilians, are forbidden under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols5. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 51 of Additional Protocol I specifically outlaw "acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population"5.

Therefore, if Russian attacks are intended to terrorize the Ukrainian populace, they could also be classified as acts of terrorism under international humanitarian law, in addition to being war crimes56. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and other international bodies have repeatedly condemned these actions as both war crimes and acts of terror against civilians6.

Conclusion​

Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure have been widespread, severe, and indiscriminate, resulting in significant civilian casualties and hardship. Such actions meet the criteria for war crimes under international humanitarian law and, depending on intent, may also be classified as acts of terrorism aimed at spreading fear among the civilian population456.

 

[Phylo]

A non-partisan research post - London
----------------------------------------------------

Why Putin Is Classified as a War Criminal and Wanted by the International Criminal Court​

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, is classified as a war criminal and is subject to an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) due to his alleged responsibility for war crimes committed during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Specific Charges Against Putin​

• Unlawful Deportation and Transfer of Children:
  On March 17, 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova (Russia’s Commissioner for Children’s Rights), accusing them of the war crimes of unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. These acts are prohibited under Articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute, which governs the ICC1456.
• Individual Criminal Responsibility:
  The ICC found reasonable grounds to believe that Putin bears individual criminal responsibility for these acts, both for directly committing them and for failing to exercise proper control over civilian and military subordinates who carried out or enabled these crimes, as required by his position of authority15.
• Scale of the Crime:
  International investigations have documented that at least hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Ukrainian children were forcibly taken from orphanages and care homes, with the intention of permanently removing them from Ukraine—a violation of the Geneva Conventions and a recognized war crime467.

Legal and Symbolic Consequences​

• International Legal Status:
  The ICC arrest warrant makes Putin a fugitive from international justice. All 125 member states of the ICC are obligated to arrest and transfer him to The Hague if he enters their territory48. This has led to Putin avoiding travel to countries where he could be detained68.
• Diplomatic and Political Impact:
  The warrant has isolated Putin diplomatically, restricting his international movements and signaling that even heads of state can be held accountable for grave violations of international law58.

Broader Context​

• Other Alleged Crimes:
  In addition to the deportation of children, Russian forces under Putin’s command have been accused by the UN and international organizations of a wide range of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including attacks on civilian infrastructure, torture, rape, and killings27.
• Further ICC Actions:
  The ICC has since issued additional arrest warrants for other senior Russian officials for directing attacks on civilian targets and committing inhumane acts during the war34.

Why Not the International Court of Justice (ICJ)?​

• Jurisdictional Note:
  The arrest warrant for Putin was issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), not the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICC prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, while the ICJ settles disputes between states.

---

In summary:
Putin is classified as a war criminal and wanted by the ICC because there are reasonable grounds to believe he is personally responsible for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children—a war crime under international law—during Russia’s occupation of parts of Ukraine. This action, alongside a broader pattern of alleged war crimes, has led to his international isolation and fugitive status in ICC member states14568.

 

[RolloTape2025]

In the unlikely event that any subscribers to this thread are not well aware of the insight, understanding, intelligence, humanity and wisdom of Prof. Jeffrey Sachs - this is as good a place as any to familiarise yourselves with him. Enjoy . . .

Yes well aware of him.

However, whether you believe in the evil machinations of the US or not, it does not change one bit that Russia has invaded another country and is killing their people right now. That includes civilians, children, civilian structures.

So I don't mind you wanting to criticise the West and condemn them, but condemn Russia too. Otherwise you have a two wrongs make a right type attitude.

There is no excuse good enough for what Russia is doing right now. The same applies to Israel-Palestine. Reactions that are disproportionate. You can condemn what Hamas did to provoke the Israel war, but you can no longer justify the reaction and it is clear who is now significantly more in the wrong, just as it is clear that Russia is.

 

[timsk]

Hi RT,

However, whether you believe in the evil machinations of the US or not, it does not change one bit that Russia has invaded another country and is killing their people right now. That includes civilians, children, civilian structures.

Collateral damage is the tragic consequence of any war, with the notable exception of Israel / Gaza where it's clearly not collateral damage at all. It's deliberate genocide. IMO, which I accept you don't share, NATO and the west are more to blame for this than Putin and Russia, because the former actively wanted and provoked this conflict (which they started in 2014), while the latter clearly didn't.

So I don't mind you wanting to criticise the West and condemn them, but condemn Russia too. Otherwise you have a two wrongs make a right type attitude.

If you'd care to look back over my posts throughout this thread, you'll see that I've repeated time and time again that I do not like, support or approve of Putin's/Russia's actions. I'll say it again now: I do not like, support or approve of Putin's/Russia's actions. However, I do understand them. Moreover, any Western leader faced with the same existential threat would have taken far more severe actions than Putin has taken which would have resulted in far more civilian deaths. To give just one example, as Prof. Sachs points out in his interview, can you imagine how the U.S. would respond if Russia or China attacked its strategic nuclear air fleet deep inside the U.S.? It doesn't bare thinking about!

There is no excuse good enough for what Russia is doing right now. The same applies to Israel-Palestine. Reactions that are disproportionate.

When you've been banging your head against a brick wall since at least 2008 when NATO gave the green light to Ukraine's membership and repeated ad nauseam that NATO expansion to Russia's borders is unacceptable, then what - exactly - is Putin/Russia supposed to do? To repeat, I do not condone Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but no one (be it on this thread or anywhere else) has outlined an alternative avenue that Putin has not already explored to prevent nukes being placed on Russia's border.
Tim.

 

[RolloTape2025]

Hi RT,

Collateral damage is the tragic consequence of any war, with the notable exception of Israel / Gaza where it's clearly not collateral damage at all. It's deliberate genocide. IMO, which I accept you don't share, NATO and the west are more to blame for this than Putin and Russia, because the former actively wanted and provoked this conflict (which they started in 2014), while the latter clearly didn't.

If you'd care to look back over my posts throughout this thread, you'll see that I've repeated time and time again that I do not like, support or approve of Putin's/Russia's actions. However, I do understand them. Moreover, any Western leader faced with the same existential threat would have taken far more severe actions than Putin has taken which would have resulted in far more civilian deaths. To give just one example, as Prof. Sachs points out in his interview, can you imagine how the U.S. would respond if Russia or China attacked its strategic nuclear air fleet deep inside the U.S.? It doesn't bare thinking about!

When you've been banging your head against a brick wall since at least 2008 when NATO gave the green light to Ukraine's membership and repeated ad nauseam that NATO expansion to Russia's borders is unacceptable, then what - exactly - is Putin/Russia supposed to do? To repeat, I do not condone Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but no one (be it on this thread or anywhere else) has outlined an alternative avenue that Putin has not already explored to prevent nukes being placed on Russia's border.
Tim.

But it is the same argument that Israel would make. They would say Hamas provoked it by killing 1200 people on October 7th. Yet that was one day, and 1200 people. That is a horrific day. But now over a year of attacks and bombs and probably around 10-20,000 deaths of children. That's only the children number. Israel has committed what I said was a horrific day, repeatedly for many days over the past year against children. The provocation argument doesn't hold up.

There is an almighty difference between what one side might see as provocation, and invading and destroying another country.

As for Ukraine's provocation, they didn't have nuclear missiles, they had previously given up the ones they had. They had said they are a non-nuclear state. They were not in NATO (yet) anyway. They didn't attack Russia to provoke this war. Not much provocation at all in fact when looked at.


As for existential threat... that seems silly. There are several NATO countries that currently border Russia and have done for many years. Do you think it is ok now - or in previous years - for Russia to also invade Finland? Then Estonia. Then Latvia. Norway maybe has a tiny border with Russia, them too? Turkey and Poland are pretty close as well, so you will 'understand' them all to be invaded because of a non-violent 'provocation' from NATO and an existential threat, that doesn't really exist.

On the last point, Russia has great military strength and strong allies, and not much existential threat from any country right now. In fact invading Ukraine would probably promote more countries like Finland to want to join NATO. The only existential threat is to Ukraine, and all of us if a nuclear war broke out. And both of these are increased by Russian invasion.