WATCH: Trump argues with Zelenskyy in Oval Office

[PurpleTree]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I just think that could be quite worse. If you understand this conflict you will know that it was very difficult to avoid for several reasons, and an important one is the strong Ukrainian nationalism, and this nationalism is not "bad", it's just nationalism. In Ukraine there has been great resentment towards Russia for centuries, and there have been many affronts. The famous Holodomor, in which Stalin supposedly caused a famine to kill millions of Ukrainians and repopulate with Russians, makes Ukrainians not like Russia, but the reality is that the Russians have been there for almost a century and there are lot of them, what is the solution? For the Ukrainians they are enemies, but the Russians cannot tolerate being harassed by Ukrainian nationalists. who is right? It depends on who you are, it's like the thing between the Palestinians and the Israelis, it's impossible to reach an agreement, that's why there was the war.

The problem for me is the US's determination to pour gasoline on the fire so that it burns as long as possible, the result being inevitable.

Who is right? Imo the ones who want more freedom and democracy.

Also the ones who were invaded.

Also the ones who don’t have the same "president” for over 20 years.

The ones who gave up nukes for security assurances.

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by PurpleTree

[Nemra]

@Breakingthewall, and after all, what you said about the history, Putin lovingly attacked Ukraine with being connected to it.

In Russia there are many different ethnicities. Why should they even be under Russian control?

If you want Russia to take those lands because of Russians living there, then I want other ethnicities in Russia to separate themselves from Russia and create their own countries.

What do you say about that?

Edited 20 hours ago by Nemra

[PurpleTree]

Interview with the guy who asked Zelensky “why don’t you wear a suit?”

 

 

 

How is this guy a reporter? What an embarrassment this guy. Probably tweaking on fruit loops.

[Basman]

20 hours ago, Lyubov said:

The result of this? We don't know because we don't have a crystal ball, the fine balance of everything is being shaken up. There will probably be more conflict but also some problems might be resolved from it. We will have to see. I think USA will become weaker overall and there will be zones of influence instead of the globe working towards rules based order. We already have different internet from China, we will see the China sphere expand when they move into Taiwan, USA will throw fits with it's democratic partner states like Canada and Mexico who it no wants more control over, and Russia will regain some territory from the Soviet times and have more say over Europe, which will develop it's own army and potentially meet Russia in war in the baltics or Ukraine for a second time, I don't see this peace deal lasting if there is one. 

Surely, the end result is America isolating itself and relinquishing its influence as a result. A lot of states will exert their own influence either as a matter of basic security or opportunity, leading to a more multipolar world.

[Yimpa]

On 3/1/2025 at 2:07 PM, ArcticGong said:

Love to all leaders that wear their traditional attire like the gulf nation, India and other. 

 

[Jodistrict]

5 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I'm surprised Leo would back someone from academia like that.  Most of them are still stuck in rationalism.  

Mearsheimer has been one of the most important contrarians to what up to now has been the mainstream foreign policy establishment.   He is a minority outsider because of his point of view, not because of his competence.  Keep in mind that it was the consensus foreign policy establishment that got America into Vietnam.  That’s why we need dissenting voices to keep things real.

NATO is an obsolete organization.  It’s original mission was to provide protection to Western Europe from the Soviet Union.  But the Soviet Union collapsed and it and the Communist ideology that sustained it doesn’t exist anymore.   For the United States it has become a dangerous trip wire, given European history and their love for wars.   When Ukraine shot a missle into Poland and they initially thought it was Russian, that could have triggered Article 5 of NATO. 

[Joshe]

didn't realize this was from 6 years ago. lol. A lot more evidence has come to light. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Joshe

[Lyubov]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Putin wants Crimea and Dombass, and Ukraine out of NATO. Not Putin, Russia wants that and there is not choice. 

Putin wants to bring the borders back of the Soviet Union and he will use violence against small NATO countries if he thinks there won’t be consequences.

[zazen]

2 hours ago, Lyubov said:

Putin wants to bring the borders back of the Soviet Union and he will use violence against small NATO countries if he thinks there won’t be consequences.

If Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union, why hasn’t he invaded weaker, non-NATO former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan, Armenia, or Azerbaijan?

If Putins goal has always been restoring the USSR, why would he bother trying to negotiate a security deal first?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2021_Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO
 

He offered a proposal to NATO in December 2021, which the core demands of were rejected in January 2022, which then precipitated the invasion in February 2022.

Edited 11 hours ago by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, Nemra said:

@Breakingthewall, and after all, what you said about the history, Putin lovingly attacked Ukraine with being connected to it.

In Russia there are many different ethnicities. Why should they even be under Russian control?

If you want Russia to take those lands because of Russians living there, then I want other ethnicities in Russia to separate themselves from Russia and create their own countries.

What do you say about that?

Russia is a nuclear power that dominated much of the world for many years. This may seem bad to us but it is a fact. It is a very complex and quite poor country, with harsh living conditions. If Russia dismembers, it will most likely be chaos, the rule of mafias and warlords with atomic weapons at their disposal. A solid Russia is better for everyone.

By the way, before the invasion of Ukraine there was an 8-year civil war in which the Ukrainian Azov battalion attacked the Dombass separatists. The commander of the Azov battalion was the former leader of the Kiev Dynamo fans, you can see photos of them anywhere, look at these. As you see, things are not always so black and white.

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Who is right? Imo the ones who want more freedom and democracy.

Also the ones who were invaded.

Also the ones who don’t have the same "president” for over 20 years.

The ones who gave up nukes for security assurances.

 

 

Things are not that simple. Those who want democracy are one of the most corrupt countries in the world, at the level of Africa, with an exclusive nationalism towards a minority that is from the ethnic group of the neighboring country, much more powerful. so everything is problems.

In addition to having come to power with a coup d'état and spending 8 years bombing pro-Russian areas, and receiving weapons from EEUU, 5 American laboratories for virus studies were built there. You can check this, Victoria Nuland said: Don't Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves from epidemics like COVID? But those laboratories were next to the military bases and we already know what type of research is done in them, and why there are none on American soil.

When the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine was going to be a certainty due to Russia's entry into NATO, Russia invaded. The Biden administration knew this was going to happen, and so did the Ukrainian government. The problem is that they miscalculated the resilience of the Russian economy, they thought it was going to collapse and that Putin would fall. 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Nemra]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

By the way, before the invasion of Ukraine there was an 8-year civil war in which the Ukrainian Azov battalion attacked the Dombass separatists. The commander of the Azov battalion was the former leader of the Kiev Dynamo fans, you can see photos of them anywhere, look at these. As you see, things are not always so black and white.

Right-wingers also exist in Russia.

Also, Russia isn't fighting against some fascists in Ukraine. The fact is Russia invaded Ukraine. That's it.

Ukrainians fighting each other is another thing.

[Breakingthewall]

16 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Right-wingers also exist in Russia.

Also, Russia isn't fighting against some fascists in Ukraine. The fact is Russia invaded Ukraine. That's it.

Ukrainians fighting each other is another thing.

Well, yes, but everyone knew that it would happen in the case of joining NATO. 

Bombing the Russian population in Ukraine and joining NATO is saying: Russia, you are nothing, I piss in your face. Then Russia is officially weak and powerless, and Crimea would be the next step. Those who organized this event know this absolutely without a doubt. And they also know that people are going to think: Putin is a evil dictator who invades, Ukraine is a good democrat with heroic Zelensky. It's very simple. It is a maneuver to weaken Russia and, if possible, balkanize it and plunder its resources, and weaken Germany along the way.

Edited 10 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Nemra]

17 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Well, yes, but everyone knew that it would happen in the case of joining NATO. 

Ukraine joining NATO was the justification that Putin may or may not have known he would have found useful in the future.

The thing is, Ukraine wasn't a puppet to the US.

Be careful of being infected by Russian psyops.

Edited 10 hours ago by Nemra

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Ukraine joining NATO was the justification that Putin may or may not have known he would have found useful in the future

 

Everyone knew it, and Biden administration of course knew it. They also knew it and are informed people:

Kissinger already warned in 2014 that "for Russia, Ukraine can never simply be a foreign country" and that, therefore, it needs a policy aimed at "reconciliation." He was also firm in his stance that "Ukraine should not join NATO."

- John Mearsheimer - probably the leading expert on US geopolitics today - in 2015: "The West is taking Ukraine down a bed of roses and the end result is that Ukraine is going to be destroyed [...] What we are doing is, in fact, encouraging that outcome."

- Jack F. Matlock Jr., US ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic mistake, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious threat to security [...] since the collapse of the Soviet Union."

-Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Perry, explains in his memoirs that for him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the breakdown of relations with Russia" and that in 1996 he was so opposed to it that "out of the force of my conviction, I considered resigning."

-Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine could join a Western military alliance would be absolutely unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with a major war."

CIA Director Bill Burns in 2008: "Ukraine's entry into NATO is the clearest red line for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything more than a direct challenge to Russian interests."

-Pat Buchanan, special assistant and consultant to US Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, wrote in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire: "By moving NATO onto Russia's porch, we have scheduled a 21st-century confrontation."

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall People will conflate and inflate things without nuance. 

As a example - if Russians in Kazakhstan were being violently attacked or systematically discriminated against in a way that threatened their security, of course Russia would intervene, not because it wants to build the USSR, but because no nation willingly allows its people to be persecuted without taking action. Thats basic state responsibility.

But the real irony is how the West justifies its own interventions. The US and NATO launch wars, sanctions, and regime change operations in countries halfway across the world in countries that have no historical, ethnic, or strategic connection to them - on the flimsiest moral pretexts. They claim they must protect democracy and defend human rights in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan.

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, zazen said:

@Breakingthewall People will conflate and inflate things without nuance. 

As a example - if Russians in Kazakhstan were being violently attacked or systematically discriminated against in a way that threatened their security, of course Russia would intervene, not because it wants to build the USSR, but because no nation willingly allows its people to be persecuted without taking action. Thats basic state responsibility.

But the real irony is how the West justifies its own interventions. The US and NATO launch wars, sanctions, and regime change operations in countries halfway across the world in countries that have no historical, ethnic, or strategic connection to them - on the flimsiest moral pretexts. They claim they must protect democracy and defend human rights in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan.

You could see here that showing the most obvious facts, people who's supposedly open minded and interested in understanding are going to say that you are evil demon supporting the dictators against the goodness and the freedom. It's shocking . 

Obama destroyed lybia, which was the country with the highest welfare index in the Middle East and lowered it to the category of a miserable country ruled by warlords with slave markets, and everyone thinks that Obama was some kind of saint. If you tell them about Libya, they will say that Gaddafi was a dictator and deserved it. and the population?

Cities were bombed in Iraq, much worse than in Gaza, but since Saddam was "bad", it is allowed. They are bombed for their own good. It's amazing that people believe these narratives. It's all for business, for the oil. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Nemra]

@Breakingthewall, citing those people doesn't mean anything. You are still underestimating Putin.

[Breakingthewall]

15 minutes ago, zazen said:

if Russians in Kazakhstan were being violently attacked or systematically discriminated against in a way that threatened their security, of course Russia would intervene,

And nobody would care, nobody would sent tons of weapons to Kazakhstan, and create a war that kills hundred thousands . It would appear marginally in the news once a week 

[Nemra]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

And nobody would care, nobody would sent tons of weapons to Kazakhstan, and create a war that kills hundred thousands . It would appear marginally in the news once a week 

You are saying that while thinking that Trump is going to resolve problems, ignoring who he is and what he has done.

¯⁠\⁠_⁠ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Edited 10 hours ago by Nemra