Rdodge30
Well-known member
- Dec 30, 2022
- 1,117
It is all readily accessible information that is available and has been for a long time.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)
- Thread starter vegster
- Start date
It is all readily accessible information that is available and has been for a long time.
- Jan 25, 2025
- 887
If it’s so readily accessible, I presume you can easily save us all some time and provide a few links to the reliable sources you’ve used?
Last edited:
Shropshire Seagull
Well-known member
Let's just focus for starters on your first 2 paragraphs. Specifically, your quote about ending the war with Russia when he ran for president.
Russia invaded in Feb 2022 and that's when this war stated. Are you suggesting Zelensky was not the president of Ukraine at this point?
He campaigned to bring peace ....
My understanding is war broke out during his presidency? Someone more knowledgeable on here will tell us the date Zelenskyy became president.
I'll be shocked if this truly is AFTER the Feb 2022 invasion as you state.
Enough of your garbage, please close the door on your way out ....
Last edited:
Shropshire S. - ignore them mate and they'll soon f**k off.
Nobby
Well-known member
- Sep 29, 2007
- 3,012
Fair enough.
No personal attack.
But actually typing the words
Putin and Trump are “in the wrong”
Dear oh dear
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Zelenskyy was elected in 2019, Russia’s invasion for this war was 2022. Minsk II was signed in 2015 - Zelenskyy continued a policy of his predecessor Poroshenko of not fully adhering to the agreement, a line both administrations took.
Your claim that ‘all this information is out there’ but not offering any links tells its own story. Yes it’s out there on well known conspiracy websites, YouTube blogs and general tools of the Russian propaganda machine.
Buying into this stuff then calling everyone else ‘groupthink’ is how conspiracists grow conspiracies.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
Point me to where and to whom published it.
Conspiracy websites Russian backed media outlets don’t count.
- Jan 25, 2025
- 887
Let’s pull at just one of the threads in @Rdodge30’s post, in order to highlight that he is parroting Putin’s talking points.
For anyone interested, there’s a good summary of the Minsk agreements, their background, their flaws and, why Ukraine did not implement them, from Chatham House (definitely not a conspiracy site!).
I’ve linked the Minsk 2 page below, which is one page of a bigger report on Ukraine.
What it shows is that Minsk 2 was indeed a “terrible deal”. Here’s the key line on that:
If it’s possible for Ukraine and Russia to reach different interpretations of the same agreement, it is by definition not an agreement at all. In fact, the text contains no mention of Russia and therefore represents a badly drafted fudge.
@Rdodge30 references Zelenskyy’s 2023 interview with Der Spiegel (link below, I used Chrome to translate). Key quote on Minsk:
This hardly reflects the notion that he never intended to solve the issue.
The idea that Zelenskyy is the one seeking war, or refusing to seek peace, is a Russian viewpoint.
@Rdodge30 - the bottom line is this: Russia invaded Ukraine. Anything else you wish to post that paints Zelenskyy in a bad light is irrelevant to this fundamental point. He did not start the war, he cannot end it without Putin also wanting to.
For anyone interested, there’s a good summary of the Minsk agreements, their background, their flaws and, why Ukraine did not implement them, from Chatham House (definitely not a conspiracy site!).
I’ve linked the Minsk 2 page below, which is one page of a bigger report on Ukraine.
What it shows is that Minsk 2 was indeed a “terrible deal”. Here’s the key line on that:
If it’s possible for Ukraine and Russia to reach different interpretations of the same agreement, it is by definition not an agreement at all. In fact, the text contains no mention of Russia and therefore represents a badly drafted fudge.
Loading…
www.chathamhouse.org
@Rdodge30 references Zelenskyy’s 2023 interview with Der Spiegel (link below, I used Chrome to translate). Key quote on Minsk:
Loading…
archive.is
This hardly reflects the notion that he never intended to solve the issue.
The idea that Zelenskyy is the one seeking war, or refusing to seek peace, is a Russian viewpoint.
@Rdodge30 - the bottom line is this: Russia invaded Ukraine. Anything else you wish to post that paints Zelenskyy in a bad light is irrelevant to this fundamental point. He did not start the war, he cannot end it without Putin also wanting to.
Nobby
Well-known member
- Sep 29, 2007
- 3,012
Just posted this on the Trump thread.
An interesting comment from the wonderful JD Vance. Talking about bombing the Houthis he said
I just hate bailing Europe out again.
I wonder what has happened in his past that makes him hate Europe so much.
Ditched by a French girlfriend?
Maybe a German tourist called him a chipmunk cheeked prat?
Something has happened in his past. No doubt about it.
An interesting comment from the wonderful JD Vance. Talking about bombing the Houthis he said
I just hate bailing Europe out again.
I wonder what has happened in his past that makes him hate Europe so much.
Ditched by a French girlfriend?
Maybe a German tourist called him a chipmunk cheeked prat?
Something has happened in his past. No doubt about it.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 8,576
Scappa
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2017
- 1,843
Rejected by a chaise longue
There's so much c**p on this thread. Let's simplify matters. A bunch of psychotic, genocidal Nazis are trying to obliterate their neighbours from the face of the earth. I'm struggling to understand how anyone could criticise Zelensky. His is the most difficult job on the planet, trying to prevent the subjugation of the peaceful nation that he represents. He's criticised for not holding elections ! Would you go out to vote, if there were Russian bombs detonating around you ? He's being accused of not always wearing the correct attire ! I don't recollect Churchill's choice of clothing hindering efforts to prevent a nazi invasion.
Peace talks?!! I've never heard anything so preposterous ! Seriously. Does Mr Genocide have any interest in peace? This must not be confused with delaying tactics favoured by a nazi regime that wants to regroup and rearm in preparation for their next incursion. The Russian psyche is the main obsticle to peace. All of the time that prevails, there will be no peace. They have to be defeated economically and militarily. They have to be left in a position where they are unable to rise from the ashes. Only then can peace be achieved.
Peace talks?!! I've never heard anything so preposterous ! Seriously. Does Mr Genocide have any interest in peace? This must not be confused with delaying tactics favoured by a nazi regime that wants to regroup and rearm in preparation for their next incursion. The Russian psyche is the main obsticle to peace. All of the time that prevails, there will be no peace. They have to be defeated economically and militarily. They have to be left in a position where they are unable to rise from the ashes. Only then can peace be achieved.
Thank you for taking the time to post that, and especially the excellent article from Chatham House
(which I hadn't read in full before).That was broadly my recollection of that time, very fraught.
Minsk 2 was corrosive and unworkable for Ukraine, and to a degree they were strong armed into it by the German and French leaders of the time.
This quote from the article spells it out for me:
"The German and French leaders seem to have been so keen for a ceasefire that they assented to political provisions at odds with Ukraine’s existence as a sovereign entity and, probably, its EU integration. This explains why the Kremlin used military power so demonstrably as talks were in session: to intimidate Western interlocutors who, it judged, lacked the stomach for confrontation – and who might be induced to get Ukraine to fold.58"
He definitely has some anger Issues about Europe
.I don't know what he means by 'bailing out Europe ' in this context? Is most of the maritime traffic in this zone headed for Europe maybe.
It's funny really...it was the US that heavily promoted globalisation of trade (to their great benefit) and basically patrolled the routes to enable it...now they seem easily upset.
OK, here's a stat that probably explains Vance's comment.
Edit update:
"Vance wrote: “Three per cent of US trade runs through the Suez. Forty per cent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
Last edited:
- Jan 25, 2025
- 887
Is there any evidence that Europe was asking the US to do this? I know there was chatter about UK refuelling planes supporting the mission but that could’ve happened either way. I’d assumed the links to Gaza were as much of a factor.He definitely has some anger Issues about Europe
I don't know what he means by 'bailing out Europe ' in this context? Is most of the maritime traffic in this zone headed for Europe maybe.
It's funny really...it was the US that heavily promoted globalisation of trade (to their great benefit) and basically patrolled the routes to enable it...now they seem easily upset.
OK, here's a stat that probably explains Vance's comment.
Edit update:
"Vance wrote: “Three per cent of US trade runs through the Suez. Forty per cent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
The Minsk II agreement wasn't going to do any good, so Zelenskyy used it as a delaying tactic, because his country had been attacked, which seems pretty sensible. It didn't get him the presidency. The Budapest Memorandum was already an agreement in place to protect Ukraine. Given that Russia were completely ignoring that, it's naive to think any other agreement would help Ukraine.
It would be good for world peace if Ukraine had joined NATO, so it makes sense for Ukraine to ask to join. I don't understand how you're trying to paint that as a bad thing?
And what's the problem with that? Zelenskyy wasn't in control of if/when Putin would invade, so it made sense to try and join NATO in time to stop it, and talk of an imminent invasion wouldn't help that. Putin was also stating that Russia wouldn't invade and if Zelenskyy had stated the opposite, you'd be on here saying Zelenskyy goaded and dared Putin.
According to Forbes, Zelenskyy is worth $20m at most. Meanwhile Putin, on a salary of $140k, is worth about $200b. That's 10,000 times as much, so I'm not sure what your point is.
We know that it was Zelenskyy who suggested a deal, where the US would get fair recompense for military aid given. Where has someone here shouted 'Not true'? And yes, he went there to sign such a deal. But Trump figured that Ukraine are desperate, so he thought he could get a better deal than 'fair recompense', and wanted double his money plus no security guarantees etc. As part of the negotiation, Trump and Vance attacked Zelenskyy to make him more desperate. Trump admitted this afterwards (so go figure that).
You're being deliberately obtuse here. Ukraine are in a full scale war, and in no position to hold elections. Millions of their people have been displaced and bombs land on citizens across the country every day. There are also enemy soldiers in control of 20% of the country, so of course they can't hold fair and democratic elections. Just as the UK didn't have elections during WW2 (even though we hadn't been invaded). Are you seriously trying to claim otherwise? There were elections in 2019 when there wasn't a full scale war, and people were still in their homes. Zelenskyy didn't call that election, so I'm not sure why you'd want to blame him for that.
Your tip of the iceberg amounts to nothing. Of course Zelenskyy wants peace, he didn't want Russia to invade his country. You have no evidence at all that he doesn't want peace (other than him not surrendering the whole country to Putin, which is not what the people of Ukraine want).
Russia have invaded Ukraine, tortured, raped and executed their citizens on Putin's orders, and intend to take over the whole of Ukraine so that Putin can rebuild a Russian empire, and you're response is 'Well I don't think Zelenskyy is very nice anyway'. People are genuinely shocked at your response and the fact you stick to ridiculous notions when they're proved to be false.
He definitely has some anger Issues about Europe
I don't know what he means by 'bailing out Europe ' in this context? Is most of the maritime traffic in this zone headed for Europe maybe.
It's funny really...it was the US that heavily promoted globalisation of trade (to their great benefit) and basically patrolled the routes to enable it...now they seem easily upset.
OK, here's a stat that probably explains Vance's comment.
Edit update:
"Vance wrote: “Three per cent of US trade runs through the Suez. Forty per cent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
Precisely. If their stance now is not to get involved in others' disputes and not to be the 'World's Policeman' anymore - why did they do anything at all? If Europe had wanted to take some action - we have plenty of missiles between us to have done so.
I thought similarly to you.
Also, IIRC, the UK's RAF jets were fairly recently involved (at the US's request I believe) in shooting down Iranian missiles/drones heading for Israel.
I'm not sure if we would have invoiced the US for our fuel, missiles, and wages ...but probably Vance will be doing that to the EU/us.