Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 310. (Read 73908 times)

Please no more whataboutism because this war wasn't caused by NATO and US, Russia did. In perfect scenario Russia will have to pay reparations to Ukraine after war to rebuild country. But more likely that locked Russian reserve assets will be used for it.

So what? You really comapre world 100 years ago and current things? Just because something happened between these countries 100 or 200 years ago it doesn't shows that Poland have intentions to invade  Western part of Ukraine. It doesn't even make sense when Poland is giving to Ukraine billions worth hmanitarian and military aid. Maybe relationships between these countries wasn't easy historically, but they have one common enemy.

Meanwhile in the real world the non-existent Bayraktars continue to cause trouble. Two Russian boats have been sent where Russian boats tend to go:

It was flawed from start, because few countries have veto power, and those are biggest troublemakers at same time

Has the united nations intervened yet ? Is this not the reason they built this up ?
They have Russian bodies amongst them, it's okay to stop the war now a lot have happened and died.
War is evil!
If this is not done by the united nations will they see the body scrapped off because they have failed to come as mediator between this countries.

The so-called invasion was simply an appropriate response to the threat of the US bringing the Ukraine into NATO, and all kinds of corruption into the Ukraine. Probably Hunter Biden is the real cause because of his investments in the Ukraine.

Think about this. What would the US do if Russia made Mexico its ally, and started improving the Mexican government and military and financial position in the world? Same thing with the Ukraine... the enemy walking right up to the door.

Do what? You're just posting random shit that has nothing to do with Russia's invasion into Ukraine.

You forgot to add that in 1013 Poland attacked Kievan Rus.

In your previous post you wrote about a conflict in the 20th century and and I've explained the root of it. That war doesn't in any way explain Russian propaganda that tries to make it look like Poland is helping Ukraine just to invade it and take back a part of it that it used to own in the 19th century.

Post WW2 countries are completely different from what they used to be before the war. Is going back to the middle ages the latest trick of Russian propagandists, because no other ways of justifying their actions have worked?

Conveniently forgetting to mention that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth occupation of Moscow took place between 1610 and 1612 during the Polish–Muscovite War, when the Kremlin was occupied by a Polish-Lithuanian garrison under the command of Stanisław Żółkiewski.

See? I can do it too

Conveniently forgetting to mention the fact that there was no Poland and no Ukraine a few years back. In 1798 Poland was invaded by Russia, Germany (Prussia) and Austria and wiped from the maps. This wasn't accepted by all countries. For instance, the Ottoman Empire continued to recognize Poland as a country. During that period, all occupants conscripted Polish people into their armies, changed names of towns and streets and forbid the use of polish language in schools. When Poland got back its independence in 1918 and expected the return of its former territories, but Ukraine put a claim to Lviv, which used to be a Polish city with a lot of Poles living there. In 1772 Lviv was taken over by Austria and became the capital of the Habsburg Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, so it was natural for Poland to put a claim to it once the occupying forces left.

Once you know a little bit about history of these lands you start to understand why there was a conflict between Ukraine, that formed a sovereign republic in the same year (1918) and Poland, that saw another country forming in its old borders, pretty much in the same way that Donbas is trying to become a republic within the old borders of Ukraine.

However Russians will try to make it look, they were always an instigator of the conflicts in Europe and have always worked against a number of countries, like Poland and Lithuania. There was no Ukraine at the time, but now that it exists it's also an enemy of Russia and it will remain this way, because Russia can't exist without plotting against its neighbors.
Read about Treaty of the Three Black Eagles and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact among many other similar "agreements" set in motion by Russians.

Yes, for the price. Weapons are also not "aid", they are paid, too

Interesting map

Maybe President Zelensky doesn't understand that NATO and America, are only good at causing or aiding war, they hardly aid rehabilitation and reconstruction, after the war.

Pledging Armour tanks, Assault helicopters, and Armor tank destroyers is not what matters most, but would they also donate, and bring back the lost infrastructures and economy?

Before you can talk about a "peacekeeping force" you must have peace otherwise you talk about war mongering.

Exposing the TRUTH in Ukraine
https://youtu.be/OzMLPSXb7RU

Last time it did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Ukrainian_War

This is Russian way of creating tensions. They don't like it that Ukrainians are fleeing West instead of North, or East. There are stories circulating in the web about Ukrainians who were taken to Russia against their will and returned to Ukraine to either stay near the Western border or migrate to the EU, mainly Poland. I remember that the first response of Russia was a propaganda attack on Polish media aimed at spreading fear and hate towards migrants with statements like "they will take your jobs, they will take your husbands, you will have Ukrainian prostitutes on the streets". The news outlets blocked their comments sections and that attempt by Russia seems to have failed (no protests against migrants) so the next move was to try to scare Ukrainians with a possible Polish invasion.

I've read about Polish proposal to NATO to form a peacekeeping force that would ensure safety of evacuation corridors and protect supply runs, but they clearly stated that they wouldn't do it on their own and without approval from other countries of the pact. There was no such approval yet.

I don't recall RT, Putin, etc having much to do with my initial assessment that a lot of Western press and social media psy-ops were fake.  The fakes stand by themselves are have stood the test of time.  If you have material of Putin saying clearly that there were not Russian boots/tracks on the ground at a time when their were, I missed it.  They may have passed off some of the initial actions as part of the civil war with DPR doing the shooting, but I don't remember it specifically one way or another.  It's certainly not the case that I watch Kremlin propaganda like a hawk and as a sole source of truth.

Early on it kind of looked like the whole thing could have been a Western fake war.  After a while it became clear that yes, there was some real shooting going on, but it bore little resemblance to the garbage that the Western corp/gov media was supplying.

To the degree that Russia 'faked me out', it was by trying to take an especially light touch on civilians, infrastructure, etc.  Seems that that was an experiment which produced mixed results and ultimately they switched to a more standard mode of achieving their objectives using typical military force.  Through it all, what (relatively little) Russia said through their official channels and more closely controlled media outlets (e.g., RT) tended to be terse and factual.  Other entities said all kinds of wild things either under sanction of the state or not.  That is to be expected.

As usual for me over the last decade or so, the highest grade of info in my own ranking is spontaneous, accidental, or dedicated citizen 'man-on-the-street' type reporting.  It remains the case that it's fairly easy to tell a local civilian who just stumbled out of being held captive as a human shield for Azov vs. some USAID employee who was holed up in a 'theater' with a bunch of others citizens but stepped out for a minute just before 'the Russians' bombed it.

You went over there and took a look?     

So in the beginning of the war, when Putin was saying there was no war, and you were repeating it, how did you go about validating that?  Putin said so, and you found a video online of someone else saying it?  Is that it?

Again, I simply require somewhat less validation of a lot of the info put out by RT or Putin, Lavrov, etc.  But I don't think that you really understand the concept of validation.

What I see in NY Times and pretty much all of the corp/gov mainstream media of the West are distinct expressions of Kabbalah.  One of these is that the Elohim 'creates worlds' by speaking in Hebrew (which I wouldn't doubt is the lingua franca in the corporate editorial offices and various offices of the U.S. State Dept.)  'Truth' is defined by what promotes a particular 'narrative' which, when believed by the goyim, furthers progress toward a particular chosen goal.

I personally was indoctrinated into post-enlightenment philosophy where 'truth' is an objective thing.  The CNN pedo-nest can sometimes get the weather right, and are a good source of info on what their programmed normie minions are thinking, but as far as actual direct information on important matters they tend to be especially useless.

Because not everyone lives in some cherry-picked image of the past like the deluded clown in charge of Russia right now.

Zero percent chance. Again, there are a million reasons why that would not happen. Definitely things that do not change "in a blink".