i did not listen to the speach, is there a link to it anywhere ?
also your arguement is somewhat erroneous, Russia did not set out to destroy Ukraine, by all accounts the kid gloves were on at the start. Russia set out to resolve its security concerns. it did this for years and was ignored, because it was perceived as weak and now its like a rat in a corner fighting tooth and nail. ultimately it perceives a change in the status quo as a direct threat. the west has not backed down but rather doubled down and thus we are where we are (russia systematically destroying ukraine).

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 9 2023 03:22am

You can find it easily. Alas Ukraine is destroyed whether Russia set out to do so or not.
Saying the "kid gloves were on" would most likely be an unacceptable version to the thousands of dead Ukrainians.

Downplaying what Russia have done is duplicitous in my opinion.

I would add that in trying to "resolve its security concerns" Russia has made itself and others less secure. So I would ask was that the genuine motive all along? Or have they failed miserably?

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 9 2023 03:28am

whether unacceptable or not I stand by the position that Russia went in serious, but did not specifically target civilians / civilian infrastructure at the outset. That position changed. You either accept this narrative or not. do you accept it ?
there are a variety of motives being bandied about as to why russia invaded, i personally still put it all under russia security concerns. if someone else wants to spin a narrative of imperialism well have at it, but evidence to support narrative is much weaker then the evidence to support my view. in the round i would say that russia's goals are achievable and ukraine's are not achieveable. therefore i dont see how russia has "failed miserably". i am sorry if this appears that i am pro-russian, i am not, i am merely responding to your questions. if you have more questions feel free to ask, im not shy on giving my views.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 9 2023 03:42am

you know you drank the kool-aid when you reframe a country repeatedly invading its neighbours with the intention to annex parts of its territory as "resolving one's security concerns", lol. what a kremlin bot.

starting a war, killing innocent people in order to redraw international borders by force, uniting the whole civilised world against you, proving to all your neighbours what a threat you are to their territorial integrity, is the exact opposite of "solving security concerns".

ukraine had legitimate security concerns. they were ACTUALLY threatened. not a single country threatened to invade russia though - nothing to gain, everything to lose. pootin knows that. every halfway intelligent person knows that. even now, after all they did, no one has the intention to attack them and annex parts of their country. it's a completely made up "concern". only kremlin bots actually believe that.

with compliments to dizzy:

"On February 16, 2022, a full week before Putin sent combat troops into Ukraine, the Ukrainian Army began the heavy bombardment of the area (in east Ukraine) occupied by mainly ethnic Russians. Officials from the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were located in the vicinity at the time and kept a record of the shelling as it took place. What the OSCE discovered was that the bombardment dramatically intensified as the week went on until it reached a peak on February 19, when a total of 2,026 artillery strikes were recorded. Keep in mind, the Ukrainian Army was, in fact, shelling civilian areas along the Line of Contact that were occupied by other Ukrainians.

We want to emphasize that the officials from the OSCE were operating in their professional capacity gathering first-hand evidence of shelling in the area. What their data shows is that Ukrainian Forces were bombing and killing their own people. This has all been documented and has not been challenged.

So, the question we must all ask ourselves is this: Is the bombardment and slaughter of one’s own people an ‘act of war’?

We think it is. And if we are right, then we must logically assume that the war began before the Russian invasion (which was launched a full week later) We must also assume that Russia’s alleged “unprovoked aggression” was not unprovoked at all but was the appropriate humanitarian response to the deliberate killing of civilians. In order to argue that the Russian invasion was ‘not provoked’, we would have to say that firing over 4,000 artillery shells into towns and neighborhoods where women and children live, is not a provocation? Who will defend that point of view?

No one, because it’s absurd. The killing of civilians in the Donbas was a clear provocation, a provocation that was aimed at goading Russia into a war. And –as we said earlier– the OSCE had monitors on the ground who provided full documentation of the shelling as it took place, which is as close to ironclad, eyewitness testimony as you’re going to get.

This, of course, is a major break with the “official narrative” which identifies Russia as the perpetrator of hostilities. But, as we’ve shown, that simply isn’t the case. The official narrative is wrong. Even so, it might not surprise you to know that most of the mainstream media completely omitted any coverage of the OSCE’s fact-finding activities in east Ukraine. The one exception to was Reuters that published a deliberately opaque account published on February 18 titled “Russia voices alarm over sharp increase of Donbass shelling”.

it goes on for pages, well worth the read.

from the Ron Paul Institude ( I accept he can be out there on some topic's but this information is not hard to retrieve from elsewhere).

(as always i no longer directly respond to fender, noting he does not act in good faith, but this can be considered a response to Prox1m1ty)

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 9 2023 04:34am

You don't believe Putin has any motives other than what you are calling "security concerns"? This is important. You really don't believe that?

Your own stated goal for Russia was for Russia to "resolve its security concerns". Do you think Russia has/will accomplish that with this invasion? Do you think Russia will be "more secure" if and when this conflict ends?
There could obviously be many aspects that broadly define what "security" is; I'd say there is evidence that Russia will be less "secure" because of this.
Some examples:
increased NATO membership in Scandanavia, increased western defence spending, isolation of Russia's economy, restrictions of Russian citizens for travel, increased potential for insurgency in response to the invasion.

If I can be balanced and think what Russia could benefit in terms of security:
Russia could seize the eastern part of Ukraine and therefore prevent that region becoming part of NATO along with what remains of Ukraine.
It retains control of its naval base at Sevastopol; A land bridge to Crimea through what is eastern Ukraine.


If we took what was one of Putin's stated objectives - To "De-militarize Ukraine". Then by his own definition Putin has completely failed at that so far; Military equipment and better trained Ukrainian soldiers has and are pouring into Ukraine.
Overall I'd say it is a stretch to expect that Russia will be "more secure" in the wake of this war. Obviously that is up for debate.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 9 2023 04:35am

i think i answered everything. there is alot in that post Prox1m1ty

do you want to talk about russian security, what ukraine may look like in 12 months, or any of those sub topic's ? i am happy to converse in good faith.

one of the causes of WW2 was the blame placed on a certain country (hey im trying to avoid godwins law ok) at the end of WW1. in this Russia ~ Ukraine conflict there is going to be bad blood (read; HATE) and distrust between Russia and the West (see how I word it from the Russia viewpoint) for DECADES, and yes for sure there is going to be uprisings etc in Ukraine.

When putin is gone (only a matter of time) the most likely replacement is going to view the west even more negatively. this is a consequence of what has happened, and is bad for global security. while you can say its bad for russia the simple fact is the countries around russia are smaller. so its worse for them.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 9 2023 04:56am

russia sending its little green men into a foreign country to start an armed conflict, and then using that conflict as an excuse to invade the country... imagine getting actually bamboozeled by that, even though they have done the same thing again and again. just how much of a kremlin bot do you have to be to just uncritically accept that narrative as a legitimate reason to invade a country with the goal of annexing it? holy shit...

yeah right, let's just ignore the months of troop build up all around ukraine (i guess they simply anticipated the shelling of "ethnic russians" (ukrainian citizens that were always free to leave the country if they so chose btw), let's ignore the invasion of crimea... this whole spin is so dumb and dishonest, imagine pretending to be an informed and unbiased person, yet constantly regurgitating outright kremlin propaganda.

- they would never attack, it's just CIA propaganda, reee
- they're just trying to de-nazify ukraine, reeee
- they're just trying to save "ethnic russians", reee
- they're just concerned about their security, reeee

friggin NPCs...





could have de-nazified ukraine by returning to russia in a bag...

I respect your opinion and I won't say that I think you are wrong, because who am I to decide; I will say however that we are poles apart on how we view many aspects of this situation.



Guy was skipping legs day on that weight cut for sure.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 9 2023 05:10am

Yes, time we censor Reuters! Just another Arm of the Russians. And don't forget Glen, gotta find that traitor too

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Feb 9 2023 07:16am