• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Putin & Russia

johnola said:
BBC update said Zelensky has proposed ceasefire talks.

So yeah let’s hope that Putin can come down from his murderous high and recognise he now has to deal with a nation of tinkled off Ukrainians and work out something that works for them.

Hopefully, this is an end to the bloodshed, chaos and destruction.

Ukraine will also note, they have been badly let down this side of the line.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this from this morning and Putin said he’d only talk if Ukraine laid down their arms, to which the response was F off. Or is this a new development?

Edit: just seeing its a new development
 
johnola said:
BBC update said Zelensky has proposed ceasefire talks.

So yeah let’s hope that Putin can come down from his murderous high and recognise he now has to deal with a nation of tinkled off Ukrainians and work out something that works for them.

Hopefully, this is an end to the bloodshed, chaos and destruction.

Ukraine will also note, they have been badly let down this side of the line.
Click to expand...
Putin said he'd only talk to the military. I wonder if he'll see talks now as backing down.
 
johnola said:
I don’t know. Was breaking news on website at 21:33.
Click to expand...
That's what Putin said yesterday, completely contradicting his military commander (lavrov?) and saying the terms for talks would be impossible for Ukraine to accept anyway.
I think it was an attempt at testing the waters, see if he could instigate a coup and force Ukraine to show their hand re: what they will accept.

From the 21.33 announcement, it is just Ukraine saying they are open to talking. But Putin has supposedly said that a condition of talks is the Ukraine army surrendering first.

He is just playing a game. It's Ukraine to surrender and commit to being a neutral state first, after which he can withdraw, taking the eyes of the world off him and follow up with lots of little campaigns over time to make Ukraine a puppet state and the West/NATO will do nothing because would have already turned their back on NATO.

He's creating the justification for war unless they surrender to him. And if the latter happens he'll have proven force = whatever he wants.
And we know what he wants next.
 
scaramanga said:
So "Perceived as a threat" but not actually doing anything whatsoever to even inconvenience Russia, let alone harm it.
Click to expand...

We can all play word games, and I think you're just trolling now.
(Seeing as if you perceive something means you notice something when it is not obvious)
Hard to imagine you are devoid of the capacity to understand just why Russia sees the alliance as a threat and would not want US military bases and hardware on the entirety of its Western borders.

You, and others, believe that an invasion of Russia by NATO is inconceivable. However, you are not Russian, and Russians can very much conceive it from their history. Factor in their viewpoint that NATO lied to them about the expansions and voila, instability, suspicions and lack of trust.

Funnily enough, understanding of these concerns might have meant we didn't end up in this tragic situation. But NATO, the US etc. etc. never gave these fears any credence and thought it was a stupid narrative - now look where we're at.
 
Trixster said:
We can all play word games, and I think you're just trolling now.
(Seeing as if you perceive something means you notice something when it is not obvious)
Hard to imagine you are devoid of the capacity to understand just why Russia sees the alliance as a threat and would not want US military bases and hardware on the entirety of its Western borders.

You, and others, believe that an invasion of Russia by NATO is inconceivable. However, you are not Russian, and Russians can very much conceive it from their history. Factor in their viewpoint that NATO lied to them about the expansions and voila, instability, suspicions and lack of trust.

Funnily enough, understanding of these concerns might have meant we didn't end up in this tragic situation. But NATO, the US etc. etc. never gave these fears any credence and thought it was a stupid narrative - now look where we're at.
Click to expand...

Well now the lines are very clear to all. Russia are a pariah and Europe will not be dealing with them for decades.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Ben Wallace announced it this afternoon anyway - we are deploying troops to the Baltic to shore up those NATO allies
Click to expand...

Seems odd, not exactly close and if they concentrating on Ukraine what have the baltics got to do with it?
Why not poland or Hungary, they share a border with Ukraine.
But then its ben wallace.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Can they?.... The evidence of the past few weeks shows the absolute opposite to be true.
Click to expand...
well you need to go back decades.
The people of both sides don't want to fight.
The Ukraine government was asking for too much too soon.... They goaded Russia into invading them too.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
 
Last edited:
Trixster said:
You, and others, believe that an invasion of Russia by NATO is inconceivable. However, you are not Russian, and Russians can very much conceive it from their history. Factor in their viewpoint that NATO lied to them about the expansions and voila, instability, suspicions and lack of trust.

Funnily enough, understanding of these concerns might have meant we didn't end up in this tragic situation. But NATO, the US etc. etc. never gave these fears any credence and thought it was a stupid narrative - now look where we're at.
Click to expand...
You are right that Russians do not understand that NATO is not an invading force, but rather an agreement to defend members, and that should be seen as a failure. But you would have to admit the constant stream of anti-NATO sentiment may have some part to play in this misunderstanding.

And ironically after years of Putin's attempts to weaken the western alliances, the EU and NATO, he has with this one action rewound all those gains. NATO's very raison d'être was being questioned and now he has made it more unified and arguable stronger than it ever was. Putin's lifelong attempts to sow division in Europe are now undone. He's just infused all he hates with new life.

This is the beginning of the end of Putin one way or another IMO. Either he takes us all with him or the (figurative ) fallout (I hope) from this invasion will isolate Russia and it will bleed out to irrelevance over years. Its position in world affairs is forever changed now, and for what really? One man's ego as far as I can see.

I would add that the fact that NATO agreed to not admit east European countries is a hotly contested point, by Gorbachev no less (who you think would know).
 
Last edited:
Rorschach said:
You are right that Russians not understanding that NATO is not an invading force, but rather an agreement to defend members, should be seen as a failure. But you would have to admit the constant stream of anti-NATO sentiment may have some part to play in this understanding.

And ironically after years of Putin's attempts to weaken the western alliances, the EU and NATO, he has with this one action rewound all those gains. NATO's very raison d'être was being questioned and now he has made it more unified and arguable stronger than it ever was. Putin's lifelong attempts to sow division in Europe are now undone. He's just infused all he hates with new life.

This is the beginning of the end of Putin one way or another IMO. Either he takes us all with him or the (figurative ) fallout (I hope) from this invasion will isolate Russia and it will bleed out to irrelevance over years. Its position in world affairs is forever changed now and for what really? One man's ego as far as I can see.

I would add that the fact that NATO agreed to not admit east European countries is a hotly contested point, by Gorbachev no less (who you think would know).
Click to expand...

What is nato though and why was it set up? To combat the ussr and now russia. Every new member is basically an invading force (in the eyes of russians). Taking over new territory. Encroaching on their borders.

Now i'm not saying that perspective is right or excuses anything. I'm just saying that is their perspective. Which you can't ignore.
 
Trixster said:
We can all play word games, and I think you're just trolling now.
(Seeing as if you perceive something means you notice something when it is not obvious)
Hard to imagine you are devoid of the capacity to understand just why Russia sees the alliance as a threat and would not want US military bases and hardware on the entirety of its Western borders.

You, and others, believe that an invasion of Russia by NATO is inconceivable. However, you are not Russian, and Russians can very much conceive it from their history. Factor in their viewpoint that NATO lied to them about the expansions and voila, instability, suspicions and lack of trust.

Funnily enough, understanding of these concerns might have meant we didn't end up in this tragic situation. But NATO, the US etc. etc. never gave these fears any credence and thought it was a stupid narrative - now look where we're at.
Click to expand...
The recent Russian actions have merely proven exactly why countries want, and indeed need, to join NATO.
 
Lilbaz said:
What is nato though and why was it set up? To combat the ussr and now russia. Every new member is basically an invading force (in the eyes of russians). Taking over new territory. Encroaching on their borders.

Now i'm not saying that perspective is right or excuses anything. I'm just saying that is their perspective. Which you can't ignore.
Click to expand...

Taking over?
Encroaching?
 
Lilbaz said:
What is nato though and why was it set up? To combat the ussr and now russia. Every new member is basically an invading force (in the eyes of russians). Taking over new territory. Encroaching on their borders.

Now i'm not saying that perspective is right or excuses anything. I'm just saying that is their perspective. Which you can't ignore.
Click to expand...
It was set up so that members don’t have to go through what Ukraine is going through at the moment. Democracies combining to enable them to defend themselves against aggressors.

All Russia’s recent actions have done is proven that Ukraine should’ve joined NATO much faster, as I expect other non member countries will now quickly try to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back