Terribly sorry for using rational thought processes to reply to you , I should have realized
Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
-
- Member
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
-
- Member
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
Then why do you hysterically keep mentioning it?
VERIFIABLE source to Zelensky selling weapons to Myanmar while president and fighting the russian pigs
Not your hysteria, and I'm sure no one wants your savings
Verifiable proof he is responsible for the arms sales since the war in Ukraine began
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
-
- Member
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
Guatemala actually , Retalhuleu province to be pedantic
Strike three on basic facts for you
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
-
- Member
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
VERIFIABLE proof not hysteria
sounds like how russians whine about the CIA behind every tree
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
And who was the commander of Roman ? The person who paid Roman and his men = the CIA .LineDoggie wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 00:43their commander was José Alfredo Pérez San Román not an American
Again an opinion, their were plans but they were not needed like the invasion of Japan was not needed.
so you are admitting the Polite soldiers and separatists are russians?
a contingency plan like invading Canada aka War plan Crimson does not make it an actual operational mission.
<sigh> STILL Not a US invasion by US forces but you cant seem to comprehend such a simple thing.
Wave and rave all you want, you were wrong
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
''Washington helped trigger the Ukrainian War ''LineDoggie wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 01:09VERIFIABLE proof not hysteria
sounds like how russians whine about the CIA behind every tree
Source : The establishment CATO Institute March 25 2022
The CIA is behind millions of trees in Italy, Congo, Chili,Central America,Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Iraq,etc,etc ...
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
Rational thought from the man who is talking about russian pigs .LineDoggie wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 00:45Terribly sorry for using rational thought processes to reply to you , I should have realized
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
The Cato Institute would disagree with you .Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022, 17:37Hi Guys,
Most analysis lacks historical depth. Moscow has been trying to extinguish any distinct Ukrainian identity for hundreds of years.
Putin is simply returning to Moscow's traditional campaign of political, cultural and linguistic "genocide" of centuries past which was designed to assimilate Russia's immediate Slavic neighbours, and some others, into Russia itself.
Putin complains about the USSR's recognition of Ukraine as a distinct entity from Russia. However, what actually happened between 1919 and 1991?
I recommend taking a look at the 1926 Soviet Census and compare it with the situation of 1991. It will show just how far Russianization advanced during this period. For example, largely through implantation rather than natural growth, the number of Russian-speakers in Ukraine was quadrupled (2.6 million to over 11 milion). Most are the result of immigration in my lifetime! At the same time, in several majority Ukrainian-speaking areas inside southern Russia in 1926, Ukrainian language and identity was almost completely extinguished in those 65 years.
For Putin, the NATO threat is not that it will attack Russia or has any designs on its territory, but that inside NATO Ukraine would be free to consolidate its state in exactly the same way as Russia itself did in the past.
This would put Ukraine as far beyond assimilation by Moscow as are Poland, Slovakia or Bulgaria already. Russia's version of its "manifest destiny", a Moscow-ruled Pan-Slavism, would then be definitively ended and Russia pinned within its existing borders. That, I would suggest, is what this is all about.
The British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese are reconciled to the end of empire and colonialism. Russia is not.
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
Such historical analysis could be said about practically any European country, a number of which now condemns Russia. The difference is the attitude: in Western and Northern Europe, questions of language and national identity are addressed in a peaceful manner, and it's relevance is much more limited because of the tens of millions of extra-European immigrants, who differ much more in both language, culture, religion, etc. In CEE Europe national oppression and deprivation of ethnic rights are commonplace, and some countries like Czechia still cling to discriminative constitutional structures. In Eastern Europe and Russia, the problem was of course that nobody really had an idea what's going to happen with Russia, how its future will unfold and what influence can it exercise on the three fragmentation zones (Central Asia, Caucasus, Eastern Europe). After installing outright puppets in Byelorussia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, for some reason I can not explain, Russia felt that military power was needed to attack Ukraine. Which is a complete mistake from my point of view, because whatever remains of Ukraine, will be out of Russia's influence practically forever, while average Ukrainians didn't care too much about Russia's influence over the country's top politicians for decades.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022, 17:37Hi Guys,
Most analysis lacks historical depth. Moscow has been trying to extinguish any distinct Ukrainian identity for hundreds of years.
Putin is simply returning to Moscow's traditional campaign of political, cultural and linguistic "genocide" of centuries past which was designed to assimilate Russia's immediate Slavic neighbours, and some others, into Russia itself.
Putin complains about the USSR's recognition of Ukraine as a distinct entity from Russia. However, what actually happened between 1919 and 1991?
I recommend taking a look at the 1926 Soviet Census and compare it with the situation of 1991. It will show just how far Russianization advanced during this period. For example, largely through implantation rather than natural growth, the number of Russian-speakers in Ukraine was quadrupled (2.6 million to over 11 milion). Most are the result of immigration in my lifetime! At the same time, in several majority Ukrainian-speaking areas inside southern Russia in 1926, Ukrainian language and identity was almost completely extinguished in those 65 years.
Ukraine was and is nowhere near on the verge of joining the NATO and less so the EU.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022, 17:37For Putin, the NATO threat is not that it will attack Russia or has any designs on its territory, but that inside NATO Ukraine would be free to consolidate its state in exactly the same way as Russia itself did in the past.
This would put Ukraine as far beyond assimilation by Moscow as are Poland, Slovakia or Bulgaria already. Russia's version of its "manifest destiny", a Moscow-ruled Pan-Slavism, would then be definitively ended and Russia pinned within its existing borders. That, I would suggest, is what this is all about.
Ukraine could not join the NATO because: 1. it would be a clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum, 2. the NATO would gain nothing from it. Ukrainian contribution to the UN approved international missions is lackluster, its armed forces had a terrible reputation of Subsaharan Africa-like corruption, instant desertion, etc. up until this war. If a country wants to join the EU, it has to undergo a series of negotiations which could practically last forever, and Ukraine is clearly non-eligible for admission on many aspects. Plus the EU has problems with its Eastern and Southern countries already, so why would the centrum powers want 40 million impoverished people living in a corrupt state join the Council with veto powers? It would be suicidal as a much smaller, much wealthier and much more integrated Hungary can not be regulated constitutionally and a much smaller and much less powerful Greece can not be regulated in matters of corruption? Not to mention the UK, which might fall apart in the near future and Northern Ireland (either joined with Ireland or on its own) or Scotland might apply for EU membership, presenting serious issues. Currently the EU's enlargement policy is aimed at the West Balkans.
Well, then these countries could return from their overseas territories and declare that they are not going to do any military actions in the third world unless it's UN authorized.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022, 17:37The British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese are reconciled to the end of empire and colonialism. Russia is not.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
-
- Member
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
The same memorandum that russia guaranteed Ukrainian Sovereignty if Ukraine gave its nukes up?Peter89 wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 08:34
Ukraine could not join the NATO because: 1. it would be a clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum, 2. the NATO would gain nothing from it. Ukrainian contribution to the UN approved international missions is lackluster, its armed forces had a terrible reputation of Subsaharan Africa-like corruption, instant desertion, etc. up until this war.
The NATO allows turkey a considerable bigger drag on NATO as Turkey considers its biggest enemy fellow NATO member Greece.
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
Yes, the same memorandum in which the US and the UK reaffirmed their commitment to refrain from using economic coercion designed to subordinate Ukraine to their own interests or securing advantages of any kind.LineDoggie wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 11:18The same memorandum that russia guaranteed Ukrainian Sovereignty if Ukraine gave its nukes up?Peter89 wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 08:34
Ukraine could not join the NATO because: 1. it would be a clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum, 2. the NATO would gain nothing from it. Ukrainian contribution to the UN approved international missions is lackluster, its armed forces had a terrible reputation of Subsaharan Africa-like corruption, instant desertion, etc. up until this war.
The NATO allows turkey a considerable bigger drag on NATO as Turkey considers its biggest enemy fellow NATO member Greece.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
Obvious nonsense. Ukraine would never be coerced to anything by the US and UK. It was only ever threatened by Russia. It wants to join NATO and EU and should be accepted. The Ukraine is not a vassal state of Russia.Peter89 wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 12:15Yes, the same memorandum in which the US and the UK reaffirmed their commitment to refrain from using economic coercion designed to subordinate Ukraine to their own interests or securing advantages of any kind.LineDoggie wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 11:18The same memorandum that russia guaranteed Ukrainian Sovereignty if Ukraine gave its nukes up?Peter89 wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 08:34
Ukraine could not join the NATO because: 1. it would be a clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum, 2. the NATO would gain nothing from it. Ukrainian contribution to the UN approved international missions is lackluster, its armed forces had a terrible reputation of Subsaharan Africa-like corruption, instant desertion, etc. up until this war.
The NATO allows turkey a considerable bigger drag on NATO as Turkey considers its biggest enemy fellow NATO member Greece.
Last edited by Aida1 on 04 Aug 2022, 21:03, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
This is the usual pro Russian tunnel view on the world.Peter89 wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 08:34Such historical analysis could be said about practically any European country, a number of which now condemns Russia. The difference is the attitude: in Western and Northern Europe, questions of language and national identity are addressed in a peaceful manner, and it's relevance is much more limited because of the tens of millions of extra-European immigrants, who differ much more in both language, culture, religion, etc. In CEE Europe national oppression and deprivation of ethnic rights are commonplace, and some countries like Czechia still cling to discriminative constitutional structures. In Eastern Europe and Russia, the problem was of course that nobody really had an idea what's going to happen with Russia, how its future will unfold and what influence can it exercise on the three fragmentation zones (Central Asia, Caucasus, Eastern Europe). After installing outright puppets in Byelorussia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, for some reason I can not explain, Russia felt that military power was needed to attack Ukraine. Which is a complete mistake from my point of view, because whatever remains of Ukraine, will be out of Russia's influence practically forever, while average Ukrainians didn't care too much about Russia's influence over the country's top politicians for decades.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022, 17:37Hi Guys,
Most analysis lacks historical depth. Moscow has been trying to extinguish any distinct Ukrainian identity for hundreds of years.
Putin is simply returning to Moscow's traditional campaign of political, cultural and linguistic "genocide" of centuries past which was designed to assimilate Russia's immediate Slavic neighbours, and some others, into Russia itself.
Putin complains about the USSR's recognition of Ukraine as a distinct entity from Russia. However, what actually happened between 1919 and 1991?
I recommend taking a look at the 1926 Soviet Census and compare it with the situation of 1991. It will show just how far Russianization advanced during this period. For example, largely through implantation rather than natural growth, the number of Russian-speakers in Ukraine was quadrupled (2.6 million to over 11 milion). Most are the result of immigration in my lifetime! At the same time, in several majority Ukrainian-speaking areas inside southern Russia in 1926, Ukrainian language and identity was almost completely extinguished in those 65 years.
Ukraine was and is nowhere near on the verge of joining the NATO and less so the EU.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022, 17:37For Putin, the NATO threat is not that it will attack Russia or has any designs on its territory, but that inside NATO Ukraine would be free to consolidate its state in exactly the same way as Russia itself did in the past.
This would put Ukraine as far beyond assimilation by Moscow as are Poland, Slovakia or Bulgaria already. Russia's version of its "manifest destiny", a Moscow-ruled Pan-Slavism, would then be definitively ended and Russia pinned within its existing borders. That, I would suggest, is what this is all about.
Ukraine could not join the NATO because: 1. it would be a clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum, 2. the NATO would gain nothing from it. Ukrainian contribution to the UN approved international missions is lackluster, its armed forces had a terrible reputation of Subsaharan Africa-like corruption, instant desertion, etc. up until this war. If a country wants to join the EU, it has to undergo a series of negotiations which could practically last forever, and Ukraine is clearly non-eligible for admission on many aspects. Plus the EU has problems with its Eastern and Southern countries already, so why would the centrum powers want 40 million impoverished people living in a corrupt state join the Council with veto powers? It would be suicidal as a much smaller, much wealthier and much more integrated Hungary can not be regulated constitutionally and a much smaller and much less powerful Greece can not be regulated in matters of corruption? Not to mention the UK, which might fall apart in the near future and Northern Ireland (either joined with Ireland or on its own) or Scotland might apply for EU membership, presenting serious issues. Currently the EU's enlargement policy is aimed at the West Balkans.
Well, then these countries could return from their overseas territories and declare that they are not going to do any military actions in the third world unless it's UN authorized.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022, 17:37The British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese are reconciled to the end of empire and colonialism. Russia is not.
There is no prohibition on Ukraine joining NATO. It is only the weakness of European appeasers of Putin that has kept Ukraine out of NATO.
The Ukraine would be a very good NATO member. Very motivated.
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
You are on of these strange individuals who sees the CIA everywhere.ljadw wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 06:34''Washington helped trigger the Ukrainian War ''LineDoggie wrote: ↑04 Aug 2022, 01:09VERIFIABLE proof not hysteria
sounds like how russians whine about the CIA behind every tree
Source : The establishment CATO Institute March 25 2022
The CIA is behind millions of trees in Italy, Congo, Chili,Central America,Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Iraq,etc,etc ...
Re: Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine
This is very true.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022, 17:37Hi Guys,
Most analysis lacks historical depth. Moscow has been trying to extinguish any distinct Ukrainian identity for hundreds of years.
Putin is simply returning to Moscow's traditional campaign of political, cultural and linguistic "genocide" of centuries past which was designed to assimilate Russia's immediate Slavic neighbours, and some others, into Russia itself.
Putin complains about the USSR's recognition of Ukraine as a distinct entity from Russia. However, what actually happened between 1919 and 1991?
I recommend taking a look at the 1926 Soviet Census and compare it with the situation of 1991. It will show just how far Russianization advanced during this period. For example, largely through implantation rather than natural growth, the number of Russian-speakers in Ukraine was quadrupled (2.6 million to over 11 milion). Most are the result of immigration in my lifetime! At the same time, in several majority Ukrainian-speaking areas inside southern Russia in 1926, Ukrainian language and identity was almost completely extinguished in those 65 years.
For Putin, the NATO threat is not that it will attack Russia or has any designs on its territory, but that inside NATO Ukraine would be free to consolidate its state in exactly the same way as Russia itself did in the past.
This would put Ukraine as far beyond assimilation by Moscow as are Poland, Slovakia or Bulgaria already. Russia's version of its "manifest destiny", a Moscow-ruled Pan-Slavism, would then be definitively ended and Russia pinned within its existing borders. That, I would suggest, is what this is all about.
The British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese are reconciled to the end of empire and colonialism. Russia is not.
Cheers,
Sid.