Mom of US veteran killed in Ukraine: ‘Can’t appease Putin’

The mother of an American killed in Ukraine fighting for the AFU says not to ‘appease Putin’, and not to ‘cede’ territory to Russia, which will ’embolden further aggression.’

So even after the loss of her son in what most sane people would see as a pointless waste of his life in a war that was none of his business, this woman cannot let go of the talking points fed to her by the media, including the idiotic rehash of the ‘domino theory’ — she likely knows next to nothing about the origins and nature of the conflict, but she believes in the sanctity of borders.

So as I said: to argue for an end to the war in Ukraine, you must be prepared to address the issue (‘principle’) of changing borders via armed force.

Overshnik strikes again.

https://www.rt.com/russia/630749-ukraine-hit-with-oreshnik-in/

Russophobia – an accurate term. Regardless of the history, the fear at this time is irrational. Russia is in no condition to threaten Europe. In fact, the two are compatible both economically and culturally.

Apparently, Europe’s Russophobia is backfiring of them. By allowing themselves to be severed from Rusia, they have become dependent on America which is now preying on them. Let’s see what happens with Greenland. The Ukrainian war may as much as anything be viewed as another American war on hapless Europe.

“You have not yet conclusively demonstrated to me that the USSR’s acquisition of northern East Prussia was illegitimate…”

The initial military acquisition is not the issue. The USSR overstepped its provisional administrative mandate bestowed upon it by the Potsdam Conference. Notwithstanding Article 107 of the UN charter, which the UN itself views as obsolete, it violated the key aspect of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN Charter pertaining to annexations of territory acquired through war as null and void. Also, the expulsion process continued for five years until 1950, which contradicted the spirit and norms of international law at that time and today.

The temporary administrative status of the region ended on December 31, 1991, after which jurisdiction should have been transferred to the United Nations. This is the crux of the ongoing illegitimate occupation. Instead, Russia abused the international sympathy and optimism toward a shared beneficial future and militarized the territory as a basis for threatening its neighbors. This insincerity provoked the common desire among people in eastern European countries to join NATO for their security against aggressive Russian ambitions in the future.

Once again you have evaded the heart of the issue I presented, namely the illegitimacy of Russia’s ongoing occupation of the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region.

It’s not an evasion. You have not yet conclusively demonstrated to me that the USSR’s acquisition of northern East Prussia was illegitimate; so far, to me, it remains an unproven assertion.

Article 79 has convoluted language that refers to a peace regulation twice (“Friedensregelung“).

Thank you for identifying the article; I didn’t think of looking at that “Amendment of the Basic Law” article for a reference to a peace treaty.

I’m currently looking at the English translation of Article 79 on the German Federal Office of Justice site here.

In paragraph (1), the long second sentence contains that reference. That reference to “an international treaty regarding a peace settlement” is nothing more than one of the four listed situations (“the phasing out of an occupation regime” is another of the four) under which clarifying language can be added to the Basic Law that might otherwise technically be construed as being contrary to the Basic Law.

You quoted the term “an essential element of the peaceful order in Europe” but should realize that the word “an” is used instead of “the“, which makes a difference.

I do realize that an “an” was used there. All that that “an” indicates is that there were at least two essential elements of that peaceful order; it indicated nothing about what the other essential elements were.

even your selective interpretation of the 1990 treaty does not confer a right for Russia to occupy the region because this would preclude the possibility of Poland and Lithuania deciding to administer or annex parts of the territory without any German objections, if that might be the case.

Even if Poland and/or Lithuania would like to administer or annex parts of the territory, united Germany has had no say in the matter as the owner of the territory since 15th March 1991. If it were desired, Poland and/or Lithuania could readily discuss the topic with Russia.

You appear to pretend that the principles of the UN Charter somehow should not apply to this occupied region because the Charter was ratified after the territory was initially occupied, but you are thereby just trying to be “cute”. Such an attitude is truly overly simplistic because you are thereby ignoring at least four main points: [four main points]

“Cuteness” has nothing to do with it; the UN had no legal existence until the UN charter went into force. The principles of the UN charter, however noble they are, had no legal effect through the UN before 24th October 1945.

Regarding the first three of your four points, please review Article 107 of the UN charter.

Regarding the fourth point, the Kellogg–Briand Pact predated the UN charter, and is still part of international law. Remember that it was Germany that declared war on the USSR; since Germany was a signatory of the Pact, it was Germany that was using war “as an instrument of national policy” against the USSR. However, the USSR in its turn declared war on Japan after Germany’s defeat, per the agreement with the UK and the US at the Tehran Conference.

Once again you have evaded the heart of the issue I presented, namely the illegitimacy of Russia’s ongoing occupation of the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region. Pertaining to Germany you asked:

“Which article in the German Basic Law references a peace treaty?”

Article 79 has convoluted language that refers to a peace regulation twice (“Friedensregelung“). You quoted the term “an essential element of the peaceful order in Europe” but should realize that the word “an” is used instead of “the“, which makes a difference. The peaceful order in Europe was disrupted by the breakup of the USSR in conjunction with its illegal annexation and continued occupation of the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region under the false guise of it suddenly having become part of Russia, per dictum. Also note that there is a reference in Article 79 to the dismantling of an occupation order (“Abbau einer besatzungsrechtlichen Ordnung“). The presumptive premise is that there cannot yet be a valid or enduring peace treaty or settlement unless and until the ongoing military occupation of Germany has concluded, which then allows an interpretation that the treaty from 1990, which you described as a peace treaty, is technically provisional, or only “definitive” until modified or supplemented. Here is a link to the original text:

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_79.html

Google Translation:

(1) The Basic Law may only be amended by a law that expressly amends or supplements the text of the Basic Law. In the case of international treaties that have as their subject matter a peace settlement, the preparation of a peace settlement, or the dismantling of an occupation order, or that are intended to serve the defense of the Federal Republic, it suffices to clarify that the provisions of the Basic Law do not preclude the conclusion and entry into force of the treaties by supplementing the text of the Basic Law to the extent that this clarification is limited to the purpose of ensuring that the provisions of the Basic Law do not preclude the conclusion and entry into force of the treaties.

However, as I pointed out, even your selective interpretation of the 1990 treaty does not confer a right for Russia to occupy the region because this would preclude the possibility of Poland and Lithuania deciding to administer or annex parts of the territory without any German objections, if that might be the case. You appear to pretend that the principles of the UN Charter somehow should not apply to this occupied region because the Charter was ratified after the territory was initially occupied, but you are thereby just trying to be “cute”. Such an attitude is truly overly simplistic because you are thereby ignoring at least four main points:

• The UN Charter refers not just to the acquisition of territory but the use of force in general, which occurred after the ratification, at which the ethnic cleansing process had not been completed and was conducted through the use of force.

• Though the UN Charter does permit a temporary occupation for administrative purposes, as was granted by the Potsdam Conference, it does not allow a transfer of the civilian population, which is exactly what the USSR did after the Charter was ratified.

• The UN Charter does nor allow annexation, which is null and void because sovereignty and legal title to the land is not granted by the act of occupation, which is to be provisional.

• The UN Charter codified essential aspects embodied in the spirit of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which the USSR was the first country to ratify upon invitation in 1929, after having been ratified by other countries in 1928.

Here is an excerpt from Google AI on this issue, as it pertains to Kellogg-Briand Pact:

Legal Invalidation of Annexation: Before the pact, “right of conquest” was a recognized way to gain legal title to territory. After the pact, international law evolved toward the principle ex injuria jus non oritur (legal rights cannot arise from an illegal act), meaning that since the war itself was illegal, any resulting annexation was also legally void.

Basis for Modern Law: This principle became a cornerstone of modern international law and was later codified in the United Nations Charter, which explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the “territorial integrity” of any state.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact

In summary, there is no rational justification for Russia’s occupation of the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region. As I stated, argumentative attempts to support this on a diplomatic or legal level are inherently flimsy. Russia has been highlighting the fact that it is an aggressive and malicious power with a backward mentality that goes back in time beyond a century. Its ongoing hostility toward European neighbors prompted a desire for the people and leaders of eastern countries to join NATO as a defensive measure that had been acknowledged by Russia, which is reviving draconian Stalinist tendencies.

You have continued to focus on whether Germany should take over the occupied territory although the actual issue, as I previously pointed out, is that Russia is definitely not entitled to it, and the pretexts commonly cited to justify the occupation are flimsy.

On the contrary, I have not focused on whether Germany should take over Kaliningrad oblast. My focus has been on the external borders of united Germany, per Article 1, paragraph (1) of the Two Plus Four treaty:

ARTICLE 1

(1) The united Germany shall comprise the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic and the whole of Berlin. Its external borders shall be the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and shall be definitive from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force. The confirmation of the definitive nature of the borders of the united Germany is an essential element of the peaceful order in Europe.

That treaty came into force on 15th March 1991; from that date, united Germany’s eastern border has been the Oder–Neiße line.

The German Basic Law, sometimes referred to as the Constitution, references a peace treaty, which is not the same as the two agreements concluded in 1990 (Unification Treaty – Einigungsvertrag – signed between two German countries on August 31, 1990, and Two Plus Four Treaty signed on September 12, 1990), nor are they substitutes for a formal peace treaty.

I agree that the German Basic Law is neither the Unification Treaty nor the Two Plus Four treaty. Which article in the German Basic Law references a peace treaty?

The Two Plus Four treaty is the formal peace treaty between united Gemany, France, the USSR, the UK, and the US; hence the treaty’s actual name, Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.

The key provisions of the UN Charter had already been agreed to at the United Nations conference in San Francisco in April 1945, at which time the war had not yet ended and the USSR had not consolidated its occupation of the territory, from which ethnic cleansing ensued afterwards. Things like that do not happen from one day to the next.

The UN charter was signed on 26th June 1945, but did not come into force until 24th October 1945, which is the date on which the five permanent Security Council members and a majority of the other signatories had ratified the charter. Before 24th October 1945, no signatory was bound to the terms of the charter.

You have continued to focus on whether Germany should take over the occupied territory although the actual issue, as I previously pointed out, is that Russia is definitely not entitled to it, and the pretexts commonly cited to justify the occupation are flimsy. For instance, referring to the Potsdam conference you wrote:

….the USSR’s administration would hold “pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement”…

The German Basic Law, sometimes referred to as the Constitution, references a peace treaty, which is not the same as the two agreements concluded in 1990 (Unification Treaty – Einigungsvertrag – signed between two German countries on August 31, 1990, and Two Plus Four Treaty signed on September 12, 1990), nor are they substitutes for a formal peace treaty. Therefore the provisional administration that had been granted to the USSR ceased at the end of 1991 with the dissolution of that country. Note that the territory in question is located far away from Russia, so the notion that Russia would not relinquish it also does not make geographical or historical sense. The purpose is simply to maintain a hostile stance toward the neighboring countries, out of spite. This ought to be contextually obvious to anyone who has objectively regarded the situation.

The key provisions of the UN Charta had already been agreed to at the United Nations conference in San Francisco in April 1945, at which time the war had not yet ended and the USSR had not consolidated its occupation of the territory, from which ethnic cleansing ensued afterwards. Things like that do not happen from one day to the next. The fact is that Russia’s continued occupation violates the UN Charter, as is the case with Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem, West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza. The so-called “NATO expansion” was clearly provoked by Russian arrogance and bad behavior. This is the root cause of the ongoing conflict. Therefore all the phony wailing about imaginary security threats to Russia are intended to obfuscate the fact that Russia must bear responsibility for the situation it created.

Putin could have easily said, if he had actually thought it was the case, that Russia’s claim is not in dispute, but since he could not cite a legal basis he digressed, talked instead about a “Pandora’s Box” and brought up territorial disputes relating to other countries.

I agree that he could have said that it wasn’t in dispute, but his actual reply is not evidence that it was in dispute.

You fail to differentiate between Germany not making claims, yet also not having formally transferred sovereignty either, so the situation is in a gray area.

I disagree; Article 1, paragraph (1) of the 1990 treaty formally transferred the sovereignty of united Germany over all territory east of the Oder–Neiße line, once that treaty went into effect in March 1991.

The issue is not whether Germany is entitled to reclaim the territory or not but the fact that at the Potsdam conference the USSR was only allowed to administer it temporarily.

Section V. of the proceedings of the Potsdam conference stated that the USSR’s administration would hold “pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement”; for Kaliningrad oblast, the 1990 treaty was that peace settlement with the final determination of territorial questions.

The agreement on German unification in 1990 failed to address this issue explicitly because the eventual breakup of the USSR had not been envisioned at that time.

On the contrary, Article 1, paragraph (1) of the 1990 treaty explicitly addressed the issue by clearly describing the extent of united Germany.

Since that region had never been a part of Russia and was acquired in contravention of the UN charter, it should have been relinquished to the United Nations after the Soviet Union broke up, so the territory would have had a similar status that Trieste had under UN administration between 1947 and 1954.

How was its acquisition in contravention of the UN charter? The USSR’s temporary administration was established before the UN charter itself entered into force, and the 1990 treaty was ratified by united Germany (as well as by France, the USSR, the UK, and the US).

Note that the UN charter’s chapter on the international trusteeship system requires such trust territories to be placed under its administration and supervision by “subsequent individual agreements”; there was, and is, no requirement for any territory to become a UN trust territory.

“How is this a hint that he was aware that Russia was not entitled to claim this territory in perpetuity?”

The discussion in the interview was in the context of Russia having made an agreement to give back disputed territory to China. Putin could have easily said, if he had actually thought it was the case, that Russia’s claim is not in dispute, but since he could not cite a legal basis he digressed, talked instead about a “Pandora’s Box” and brought up territorial disputes relating to other countries.

You fail to differentiate between Germany not making claims, yet also not having formally transferred sovereignty either, so the situation is in a gray area. The issue is not whether Germany is entitled to reclaim the territory or not but the fact that at the Potsdam conference the USSR was only allowed to administer it temporarily. The agreement on German unification in 1990 failed to address this issue explicitly because the eventual breakup of the USSR had not been envisioned at that time. Since that region had never been a part of Russia and was acquired in contravention of the UN charter, it should have been relinquished to the United Nations after the Soviet Union broke up, so the territory would have had a similar status that Trieste had under UN administration between 1947 and 1954.

Russia should have vacated its troops from there by 1994 when it left that part of the Baltic region, and the United Nations would have maintained oversight, pending negotiations and an agreement about its future. Unlike a part of the northern part of the island of Cyprus, it would surely not have remained a no-man’s land. One possibility would have been for this territory to have formed its own sovereign entity of East Prussia, with a joint bi-lingual administration of German and Lithuanian speakers, predominating in the urban and rural regions, respectively. The main issue is that Russia is not entitled to be there and continues to pose a threat to the people in the region.

“thus proving once again that he is a professional liar,”

Oh, no, it is not lozh, it is vranoy. He is vrun, definitely not a liar.

About selling the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region: […] Putin had hinted in an interview with Bloomberg (which I have previously linked to) that he was aware Russia is not entitled to claim this territory in perpetuity.

Is this comment of yours from 2018 the one which you’re referring to? If so, then its stalkerzone․org source link is no longer active, but a copy of it still exists at archive․org:

[…] And about Kaliningrad, Putin outlined to the representative of the “Bilderberg club” the following perspective: if someone starts to revise the results of World War II, the question of the Eastern territories of Germany, the affiliation of Lvov, and the borders of Romania and Hungary will immediately be raised. So if someone wants to open this “Pandora’s Box”, or as Putin expressed it, “take the flag in your hands and go forward.” […]

How is this a hint that he was aware that Russia was not entitled to claim this territory in perpetuity? His comment was purely conditional—simply an “if … then …” statement.

For Kaliningrad oblast, the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany holds “the results of World War II”. In Article 1 of that treaty, paragraph (1) clearly describes the extent of united Germany, which excludes all territory east of the Oder–Neiße line; and paragraph (3) plainly states that united Germany has no territorial claims against other states, and shall not assert any in the future.

About selling the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region:

“But Russia has oil and will not run so badly out of money as when Communism collapsed, and probably there would not be buyers. ”

Purportedly Yeltsin had proposed selling the territory to Germany but apparently wanted more than Germany was willing or able to pay, given that transforming eastern Germany was costing so much. Putin had hinted in an interview with Bloomberg (which I have previously linked to) that he was aware Russia is not entitled to claim this territory in perpetuity. The fact is that the entire area, especially in the city and port, would have to be decontaminated from all the accumulated toxic waste, over many decades, in order for it to even be livable according to European standards, which would entail an expensive process. If it were to be sold, it would basically have to be for a symbolic single ruble. From any rational perspective it would not be worth fighting a major war over, but at least people will know that so long as Russia occupies this space, it will remain a regional menace , so NATO will have a purpose in defending the Baltic countries from potential military aggression. One can therefore conclude that, contrary to his claim, Lavrov is not really interested in addressing the “root cause” of Russia’s conflict with “the collective West“, thus proving once again that he is a professional liar, though European politicians are too meek to call his bluff.

If Russia seriously runs out of money, they might want to sell the area, they tried to sell Carelia to Finland once, but with the Russians living there, so nobody wanted to buy.
But Russia has oil and will not run so badly out of money as when Communism collapsed, and probably there would not be buyers. But Russia will not leave any area just like that, either war or buy.

“People in countries that are far from Russia cannot form an opinion on Russian threat. ”

Nuclear weapons makes them (as well as any other country with nukes and long range ballistic missiles) a threat to everyone on earth, and it is certainly logical to evaluate the threat.

“…some Kaliningrad people wanted the area to separate from Russia?”

That movement was suppressed by Moscow, as has been the case for any separatist movement that emerged within Russia to advocate such sentiments.

Correction, was to write Ko/”nigsberg. Happens.

“how this territory should be economically revived”

It was the amber coast and the city where Euler solved the famous
Ko/”ningstadt bridge problem. It has those spits and lagoons. It could be
a tourist place. Was in not that some Kaliningrad people wanted the
area to separate from Russia?

Referring to the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region still being occupied by Russia:

“It is not possible for Russia to defend it and it is not possible for NATO to leave it there because of the nukes there.”

Since Russia has known that its presence in this region is illegitimate and tenuous, the city has been consciously kept in a dilapidated state. It does not attract many tourists. There was not even a sewage treatment plant there until just a few years ago; it is basically just a run-down military base that is nonetheless draining a lot of money, with no real benefit to the country’s economy.

Essentially, the entire purpose of Russia’s continuing presence there is to antagonize and threaten the European population in the Baltic region, yet this persisting situation is rarely highlighted publicly, while propagandists and their useful puppets wail endlessly about the imaginary European threat to Russian security needs, as has been evident in the essay by Sachs, above.

Western leaders ought to call out more vocally for this lingering problem to be settled in a comprehensive agreement, which entails Germany, Poland, and Lithuania developing and agreeing to a workable proposal for how this territory should be economically revived and administered in the future, once Russia will have left, which may not have been possible while the nihilistic Green party functionaries were in power in the German federal government until roughly a year ago, but it ought to finally be on the agenda.

“Let’s say this is so, then Helsinki, Berlin, or any other city could be destroyed in immediate retaliation by Russia, as could be any or all those Baltic states.”

I do not know how NATO would take out Kaliningrad. Finland was not in NATO when I was in the military, and I would not know anyway, and if I knew, I would not tell anyway.
But let us assume it is not by nuking Kaliningrad. But they have to take it out if there is a war. Putin should at least take the missiles away from there, that could be the best solution. There should never be a war between NATO and Russia. It would not end well to either side. If there will be a war, it most probably becomes nuclear in some stage. This is why, no bringing a war to Europe, fight in some other continent if you necessarily have to fight. And nobody is trying to destroy Russia, that is BS.

It would be destroyed before it can fire missiles, and he added that Russia should give back this area.

Let’s say this is so, then Helsinki, Berlin, or any other city could be destroyed in immediate retaliation by Russia, as could be any or all those Baltic states. So you would occupy Kaliningrad while having many more European cities and areas destroyed? And who should Kaliningrad be given to? Why not take Transnistria? That would be even easier.

“Is this issue not being seriously discussed in Finland? Even though neither Finland nor Sweden have any claims on that territory, there would surely be much desire among the population for Russia to no longer be present there because the existing Russian naval base provides a convenient pretext for provocative behavior in the air and at sea.”

Finland and Estonia can close the Bay of Finland with mines very fast, as was done in the WWII. Russian navy and merchant marine in the Eastern Baltic area would be trapped there. Then Kaliningrad has no sea connection to Russia. That is all Finland had to say about it, but the situation may have changed as defense of the Baltic countries has changed from taking those countries back with a second attack to stopping the first Russian invasion to occupy them.

But Kaliningrad is much discussed in NATO and Poland as it is the other end of the Suwalki corridor, which is a main (or the main) NATO threat scenario in this direction. A Polish general (now dead) said some years ago in TV that Kalingrad is easily taken/destroyed if there is a war and that it does not have military significance, meaning that Russia cannot save it. It would be destroyed before it can fire missiles, and he added that Russia should give back this area. Kaliningrad would be occupied/destroyed in the very first stages of the war because of the nuclear threat it poses. It is not possible for Russia to defend it and it is not possible for NATO to leave it there because of the nukes there. So, it is a doomed place in a war, it should be given to Europe to save the people there from a sure destruction.

“…a bad peace deal will not last and the situation will get worse, so much worse that they will have to go to a war. ”

Russia’s foreign minister Lavrov has repeatedly claimed that the “root cause” of the conflict between “the West” and Russia needs to be addressed in a deal. Yet a key source of the ongoing conflict happens to be the justified distrust toward Russia by its neighboring countries in the region, especially the Baltic Sea. I have repeatedly written that Russia’s future intention became evident when in 1994 its troops failed to vacate the Königsberg / Kaliningrad region, which was not a historical part of Russia prior to its initial occupation by the USSR in 1945. Instead, shortly after Putin announced in that city, in March 2018, his desire to undo the breakup of the USSR if he had a chance, he began to station nuclear-capable Iskander missiles, with a range of 500 km, to threaten security of the people in the Baltic countries, within that targeting circumference. (Neither President Trump nor German defense minister von der Leyen objected to that aggressive posture back then.)

Is this issue not being seriously discussed in Finland? Even though neither Finland nor Sweden have any claims on that territory, there would surely be much desire among the population for Russia to no longer be present there because the existing Russian naval base provides a convenient pretext for provocative behavior in the air and at sea. For instance, acts of sabotage against Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Sweden have been occurring in the past few months, involving loitering ships dragging their anchor along the ground for kilometers to destroy and disrupt underwater data cables running between these countries. There have also been regular incursions of air space. As long as Russia continues to occupy that region, to preserve the option of a quick military land move, to connect with Belarus and cut off the three eastern countries Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, from the rest of the EU, the public will know its leaders are not interested in maintaining good relations.

Russia is de-Nazifying South America at Kupyansk. Even a silly misguided Icelander got involved and killed.

https://southfront.press/see-kupiansk-and-die-foreign-mercenaries-as-expendable-assets-in-the-battle-for-the-city/

The West courted the Ukraine and other East European countries while rejecting Russia when it had made similar overtures to the West. I was hoping there would have been one White block of mostly European culture from Vladivostok to Lisbon with strict border controls and no more influx of outsiders. However the globohomo West had other plans and now Russia has to look to partner up with PR China, North Korea and other countries outside my envisaged block.

Anyway, the way Europe is now, why bother looking towards it? Why aren’t you fighting the influx of Muslims, Africans and others into the EU instead of putting all this effort to protect it from Russia? Those Muslims and Africans will bring down the EU far more than any Russian occupation would. As I said, Russian rule may be harsh and undesirable but far better than what’s coming to Europe. Unfortunately, Russia has no designs on Europe nor wants to solve its problems. At the most it would take out any threats, like it did at the time of Napoleon, and leave Europe to its own devices.

“I generally prefer Ukrainians to Russians, but since they have sided with the Western globalists and serve them, then I don’t care much if they get a good beating by the Russians.”

No country in the West much cared when Russia took Crimea. No country in the West would have been opposed if Ukrainians had wanted to stay in the Russian sphere. No country much wanted Ukraine to the EU (in fact, agricultural EU countries fear it). Ukraine was not needed to NATO, though the door was open as a gesture of good will. There was no effort to encircle Russia after Communism fell. The majority of Ukrainians wanted to integrate to the West, for economic and security reasons, very understandable to all other countries in the region, considering how successful many of those countries (like Poland and Estonia) have been.

The West helping Ukraine was not because of Ukraine, it was of avoiding a major war in Europe and of avoiding a dictatorship on the type of fascism or communism that there is too much experience of. Not a moral issue, not power politics from the side of the globalist woke West. This is why the European countries do not let Ukraine fall, and it will not fall. They cannot agree with a bad peace deal in Ukraine, not because of warmongering, but because a bad peace deal will not last and the situation will get worse, so much worse that they will have to go to a war. Only an idiot, like maybe the author of the article, does not understand it. But I guess that he does understand and is one of them. The USA may plot something bad, but that is not Europe.

“I support Russia and China in their conflict with the globalist woke West. You may say that they are also globalists, but the Western globalists are the ones encircling them, threatening them and wanting to go to war with them to destroy them, so they have no choice but to fight these Western globalists and that’s fine by me.”

Most Europeans have a rather mixed opinion of the USA and are opposed to what you call Western globalists. In the rest of the world the USA is even more disliked. And you see that the kidnapping of Maduro was not approved, though most agreed that it was good to get Maduro out. But Europeans are not threatening or encircling Russia or China. There was an effort to encircle Communistic Soviet Union and China, which was a better alternative than to let them capture more countries (where the people soon found that they are in a dictatorship that they do not want) or to have a war with them.
But China was taken into global economy and has developed fast. I have twice been in China, in 2000 before the growth and in 2019. The country changed very much and in 2019 Chinese admired everything Western and wanted the same. I cannot confirm any effort by West to destroy China, apart from Trump in his both terms. But China has harmed Western economies by attracting Western industry there, that is not good in the long run. Also, China has not participated into sanctions against Russia which would have very soon stopped the war in Ukraine. Instead China has allowed Putin to continue the war and the result of it is that Putin will destroy Russia. Probably that is what China wants and that is what the result of this war will be. Ukraine takes a beating, but Putin effectively destroys Russian future. I cannot also confirm that the West would have tried to destroy Russia after the fall of Communism up to 2022, just the opposite (if we forget Jeffrey Sachs who raped Russia with his very poorly planned reform). After 2022 clearly the West has tried to stop Putin. I do not see it as trying to encircle Russia or trying to destroy Russia, more like trying to stop Putin from destroying Russia and the world.

You mention the globalist woke West. We know who are behind the globalist woke West and Europe is more free of them than the USA. But as I see the other side is not a true opposition, it is fake opposition and created by the same forces. Just like in the WWII time. The whole purpose of the two world wars was ti achieve the results that were achieved: 1) destruction of European powers, 2) creation of Israel, 3) raising the Masonic country USA to be the leading country in the “West”, 4) creating Communism lead by them. So, Nazis were fake opposition, if you carefully look at what Hitler made, this is very clear. So, why the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement? Poland had the largest Jewish population, the seed of Israel. And why after Charles XII of Sweden and Napoleon had both frozen their troops in the march to Moscow, Hitler sent German soldiers against Russia with only summer gear. Makes no sense if the goal was to win, makes a lot of sense if the goal was to lose, as the persecutor must lose at the end before the return to the homeland.

So, it is like this. It is not globalist woke West, it is: both sides are played by them.

I don’t really care much for any government or politician, nor do I particularly like Russians and the Chinese, but I support Russia and China in their conflict with the globalist woke West. You may say that they are also globalists, but the Western globalists are the ones encircling them, threatening them and wanting to go to war with them to destroy them, so they have no choice but to fight these Western globalists and that’s fine by me. I definitely like Polish people and I generally prefer Ukrainians to Russians, but since they have sided with the Western globalists and serve them, then I don’t care much if they get a good beating by the Russians. I know you see it differently and that’s your choice.

“They don’t just tie them but strip them and beat them. ”

But Putin says that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people, so Russians would do the same, no?

Anyway, the main issue with the Ukraine war is not the moral aspect. The issue is that when the WWII started, there was a time to say no to Hitler. But Western countries did not say no strongly enough, they believed that Hitler will stop if he gets what he asked for. But he did not stop and there was the major war. This is why the non-warmongerers of today must say no to Putin.

I do not know why you are on pro-Putin side, unless you are Russian, but to be on Putin side even as a Russian means being brainwashed. Some right-wingers here mention Woke and anti-Woke, but this is fake. You see that some people are pushing Woke. You also see that some people are pushing anti-Woke. They are the same people, swinging the Foucault pendulum, dialectics. Then you push the pendulum to the side and it ends up where you want, but it is again the same people pushing it. It is a takeover method, an old one. If nobody is pushing, inertial stops the oscillations. The issue is not to swing.

They don’t just tie them but strip them and beat them.

“I am of Armenian ancestry”

You say Armenian ancestry, not Armenian. Are you maybe American?
And if so, then you were not in the Soviet Union or in the Eastern Block countries before Communism collapsed and you do not understand why people who were so much dislike someone like Putin wanting to recreate the Soviet Union, albeit with an oligarch gangster economy instead of Communistic economy.

“I am sympathetic to Russia and Russian people for a variety of reasons. ”

Relations with Armenian and Russia are good, but you do not necessarily understand European experiences of Russia.

I personally do not find Slavs, like Poles, as Untermenchen at all,

Of course you do.
The anti-Russian irrational hate in your posts is the “tell”.
Your hatred is spilling, overflowing from your delusional posts.

even married one and learned their language.

I am sure your did.
American Southern racists freely had sex with their slave women, whom they clearly regarded as less than human.

But Russians do have an attitude problem towards other peoples.

Projection.
Try again.

However, certain commenters here on TUR seem to be quite childish.

Projection.
Again.
One can be quite childish and a senior citizen.
Like you.

Probably very young and not Slavic at all.

If you are referring to me, then clearly you are off your rocker:

• As I have posted several times @Unz.com:

– I am of Armenian ancestry: not Slav, not Russian.
– Orthodox Christian, but Armenian Apostolic Church Christian

• I am sympathetic to Russia and Russian people for a variety of reasons.
• And no, I am not young.

In the link that you gave there is:

“Tetiana Pechonchyk, head of the Ukrainian human rights NGO ZMINA, told the FRANCE 24 Observers team: “It is legal for citizens to detain and immobilise potential looters before the police arrive. But ill-treatment and torture are illegal, even under martial law.” ZMINA and other NGOs said in a joint statement: “Attempts by local communities to stop criminals on their own are an understandable and justified decision, but the perpetrators must be immediately handed over to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.”

Tying a person to a pole as punishment is not new in Ukraine in times of crisis. Since at least 2014, photos and videos showing similar acts have been shared online. For example, this customs officer was bound to a pole after being accused of corruption in February 2014 in Zakarpattia oblast. A woman named Iryna Dovhan was similarly punished by pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk in August 2014 for supporting the Ukrainian army.”

So apparently Ukrainians on both government and separatist sides do this and it is considered legal. Well, it is not torture, rape, killing. It is a kind of humiliation punishment. Maybe Middle Ages style. But I do not consider it nearly as bad as those intercepts of Russian soldier deeds were.

Poles used to consider Ukrainians as wild people. They called Ukraine (the part that was in Poland at times) with the name Dziki Pole, wild fields. Many Ukrainians were originally Cossacks, run-away land slaves.

The origin of all Slavs is Poland-Belarus-Ukraine. Slavic languages appeared in the Migration period 500-800 CE and the population derived from the local neolithic population of this area. The homeland is disputed, but it may be Polesian wetlands close to Minsk. In Russia the first Slavic settlements were on the shores of Ilmen lake and date to 800-900 CE. At that time still the whole of Russia was populated by non-Slavic people who spoke non-Slavic languages. Slavs spread in Early Middle Ages. So, they are
not an ancient people in the area, but what genetically is Slavic people are people in
the areas Poland, Ukraine and Belarus. Russians especially are a mixed population.
Northern Russians have a strong Fenno-Ugric admixture and there are other admixtures
in different parts of Russia. This is natural because Russia grew by conquest and conquered peoples often had to make a language shift. So, Russians are not actually genetically Slavs and they are not one people. They only were forced to speak Russian at some time in the history.

The ones that most dislike Russians are the two largest real Slavic peoples: Ukrainians and Poles. It is not because Russians would be Untermenchen or Poles and Ukrainians hate Slavs. It is because Russians invade other countries and try to control them.

I personally do not find Slavs, like Poles, as Untermenchen at all, even married one and learned their language. But Russians do have an attitude problem towards other peoples.
However, certain commenters here on TUR seem to be quite childish. Probably very young and not Slavic at all.

New Years’ Greeting from President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
Happy New Year to all you Anti-Christian, Russophobe, anti-Putin, anti-American ZioNazi shills and trolls.

God bless Orthodox Christianity.
God bless President Putin.
God bless America.
God bless American people.
God bless Russian people – friends of American people since the Revolution.
God bless these (formerly) United States as envisioned by our wise Founding Fathers*.

May she fully recover and leave the ICU.
Infected — possibly fatally — by the foreign European Zionist Straussian Sorovirus .
May she – God willing — excise the SorosaVirus and thrive once again.
Happy 250th America.

[Rasputin Putin]

Video Link

F_____ Around Mother Russia and Find Out

________________________________
*
[“Honest commerce and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none (Zionist/Lukidnik anti-Christian Israel)” is a famous phrase from George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796), advocating for neutral, fair trade and avoiding permanent foreign political ties to protect U.S. independence, a policy later echoed by Thomas Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address, forming the bedrock of early American foreign policy. ]
[ “America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”] Quincy John Adams.
Respect and deep bow to Native Americans.

Those intercepts are disgusting but there are always some psychopaths in war and people seeking revenge driven by hate.

Look at how Ukrainians treat their own people:

https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220404-ukraine-poles-public-humiliation-punishment-looting

So those people are looters and probably deserve to be shot during wartime but this shows Ukrainians are very primitive acting as if it is the Middle Ages.

Putin is telling his troops that Ukrainians are a brotherly people and should be treated as such, but obviously some think that this is not the case and act accordingly. Perhaps it is time for Russians to retaliate more strongly for Ukrainian war crimes against Russian citizens.

You obviously enjoy deceiving other people, as a psychopath with narcissistic disorder would

My take is this:

Agree about the ‘psychopath with narcissistic disorder’ part.
But I think he is deceiving himself.
Only himself.

He is an outlandish example, but these panzers can’t help themselves with the rampant Russophobia and deep hatred of the Untermenschen Slavic peoples they all possess — to a greater or lesser degree.

This particular individual cannot accept that Slavic peoples, Russians in particular, are in many ways more accomplished, smarter, have created better civilizations — than themselves, i.e. the Western Europeans, including the Nordics.

So, to compensate for the Cognitive Dissonance, they resort to gaslighting themselves, and manufacturing a make-believe world.
An obvious inversion of reality.

One would feel some compassion for their condition — if it weren’t the malevolent nature of it, and their promotion of violence, death, and destruction against Slavic peoples — Russians in particular.

“It is the West that is whipping up the pro-war anti-Russian hysteria, and this may work in their own populations, but I think most people in Easter Europe do not buy it. ”

I have not seen any pro-war anti-Russian hysteria in any European countries, including Poland and Finland. Have you by the way watched Intercepted (in Ukrainian Peaceful people) by Oksana Karpovych 2024, below is some information about it
https://www.sestry.eu/en/statti/i-like-killing-people-how-conversations-that-no-one-was-supposed-to-hear-became-dialogues-everyone-must-listen-to

I have not seen the film, but I remember very well those intercepted telephone calls from Russian soldiers to their home folks in the beginning of the war when Russian communications was not encrypted. They were later given as evidence to the International Criminal Court, checked for authenticity and found authentic, so they are not any propaganda. Maybe, if you read the article above or watch the film, you admit that there can be some justification to negative attitudes towards Russians from the Ukrainian side. At least a tiny bit.

But as I said, there is no Russophobia. Phobia is fear. Putin would like Europeans to fear Russia (he uses the word “respect” but it means the same thing), but Europeans do not fear Russia. Ukrainians do not fear Russia, Finns do not fear Russia, Poles do not fear Russia. Russians can be stopped. But it does not mean that they do not know that what the Interception film tells of Russian soldier and home-folk attitudes to even their brother nation, not to say of other nations, is true. You see, that’s how they are. Their particular beauty.

So, Charles XII was marching towards Moscow. He got to Grodno, Belarus, did not meet Peter the Great’s army there so he turned South to face Peter’s army in Poltava, Ukraine. He did not invade Moscow. He was not even close. Certainly the Battle of Poltava was the biggest defeat of the Swedish army. But Sweden did not invade Russia as the start of the war against poor Russia. It was that Russia, Denmark and Poland attacked Sweden.

OK, John Johnson, you are a liar, misrepresenting Reality, gaslighter, and serial fabricator of nonsense and non-existent Reality. You obviously enjoy deceiving other people, as a psychopath with narcissistic disorder would. It is also probable that there is a reward for lying, paid by Zion who is always lyin’.

Is that clear enough for you? Jew or Shabbos Goy Boy.

“Swedish King invading Moscow: he got F___ed.”

Incorrect.

You or youse Finns must have a different definition of F___ed from us here in the US.

Battle of Poltava

The Battle of Poltava[j] took place 8 July 1709,[k] was the decisive and largest battle of the Great Northern War. The Russian army under the command of Tsar Peter I defeated the Swedish army commanded by Carl Gustaf Rehnskiöld. The battle would lead to the Swedish Empire losing its status as a European great power and also marked the beginning of Russian supremacy in eastern Europe.[20]

During the course of six years in the initial stages of the war, King Charles XII and the Swedish Empire had defeated almost all participants in the anti-Swedish coalition, which initially consisted of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Denmark-Norway and the Tsardom of Russia. The latter, under Tsar Peter I, was the only one still fighting. Charles therefore chose to invade Russia in the autumn of 1707 and march towards Moscow with a large Swedish army. However, the campaign was complicated by harsh weather conditions and by Russian scorched earth tactics[21]: 704  and surprise attacks, which forced Charles to interrupt his march on Moscow and instead march south to establish winter quarters with the help of Ivan Mazepa, hetman of the Cossack Hetmanate Zaporizhian Host.

The Battle of Poltava, as well as the subsequent capitulation, ended in a decisive victory for Peter I and became the greatest military catastrophe in Swedish history.[23][24][25] It marked a turning point in the continuation of the war in favour of the anti-Swedish coalition, which as a result of the battle was revived and with renewed vigor attacked the weakened Swedish Empire on several fronts. Poltava thus marked the end of Sweden’s time as the dominant power in the Baltic region, a position which after the war was taken over by the Russian Empire. The battle is therefore of crucial importance in the history of Sweden as well as Russia and Ukraine.

The Battle of Poltava, as well as the subsequent capitulation, ended in a decisive victory for Peter I and became the greatest military catastrophe in Swedish history.

Repeat after me:

the greatest military catastrophe in Swedish history
the greatest military catastrophe in Swedish history
he greatest military catastrophe in Swedish history
………………..

We here in the US call that getting F___ed, and F____ed GOOD.

Have a nice delusional day.

“Only those European countries that actually have been a part of Russia can correctly evaluate whether Russia is a threat or not. ”

This would explain why so many pro-Russian shills commenting at this web site write so much nonsense. Aside from the Chabad types living in Israel, New York, Los Angeles, or Miami, who pretend to hate Jews and worship Putin, I suspect that many of the others have simply become addicted to contemporary RT programming over the years and have thus internalized the false framework that this network has presented.

Since both Germany and Austria were partially occupied by Soviet (primarily Russian) military forces after 1945, those populations also share a collective memory and can assess what the consequences of reduced economic freedom and other Russian attitudes tend to be. My point in comment #28 above was that these differences can be quantified even many decades later for younger people, who did not share that experience, to take note of.

For instance, when looking at the second map I presented above, showing the differences in purchasing power for different German regions (deep purple being highest and straw yellow lowest), a juxtaposition with the map below, with the four post-war occupation zones, highlights a strong correlation – even 35 years later – between the regions under American occupation and those in the Soviet zone, the results of which clearly refute the comments Sachs made about post-war Germany.

That rate of word generation is most likely generated by multiple individuals, very likely a paid group contracted by an interested party

Now that j2 has retired from teaching maths, maybe his Finnish and NATO military buddies have put him to work in their propaganda department. Of course he would deny this as it could be a condition of employment to deny it. Mind you, he was always verbose and generated many comments when he got involved in commenting. Then, he also took long breaks from TUR.

I’m not saying that Russia may not be a harsh ruler, but after the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, those East European countries could have moved in a different, independent, direction, creating alliances between each other, instead of joining NATO (and the EU). We’ll see how this works out for them, and for Sweden and Finland. In the end, going to war against Russia, may produce a worse condition in these countries than being ruled by Russia.

I don’t think you can generalise about the East European countries. Although the governments are mostly pro-Western, large segments of the population are actually pro-Russian in countries like Romania, Moldavia and Bulgaria. Others may not like Russia but also dislike the West, and many people would prefer a neutral position, like the Czechs, Slovakians and Hungarians. I know governments don’t ask the people, and the West fixes elections, as in Romania and Moldavia, but if war were to break out, I wouldn’t discount popular uprisings against any pro-war governments in Romania and Bulgaria. It is the West that is whipping up the pro-war anti-Russian hysteria, and this may work in their own populations, but I think most people in Easter Europe do not buy it. OK, maybe the Poles buy it because they hate Russians, but they hate Germans just as much. Other East Europeans also hate Germans as much, if not more, than they hate Russians. Germanophobia also exists in Eastern Europe, although Germans are tolerated, rather than liked. Any alliance with Germany in a war situation may not be as so solid.

If you’ve gamed all this in various scenarios and still come out confident, well …

Mike, you asked if the protesters in Maidan were killed by snipers of by police. I checked the first victim, Serhiy Nigoyan. The first victim is decisive as that started it.

Thus, an autopsy was made and Nigoyan was shot with lead pellets from a shotgun of the type used by law enforcement, especially Berkut special forces.

Could it be a sniper? No. A sniper would not use a shotgun as a shotgun is deadly from a too short range and a sniper needs to escape and uses a longer range and more accurate weapon, a sniper rifle.

But Euromaidan itself has little importance in this war. It is not much of an issue how this conflict started. What matters is that even though before Maidan and even before 2022 a sizable part of Ukraine population especially in the East and South were pro-Russia, they are not so any more. The reason is simple: Russians came, bombed their houses and killed their relatives and friends. That is not the best way to make friends.
See this article from a Russian outlet (opposition, but still perfectly Russian)
https://theins.ru/en/society/283514

It is this The Insider:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insider_(website)

“Voluminous drivel. It is obvious that your breezy assertions, never backed up, without references, but stand alone assertions with a large quantify of words that defer the wasted time and effort of honest people who have integrity and fealty to the truth. ”

Your tendency to use words whose meaning you do not understand points only to one ethnicity, the one that claims to have high “verbal intelligence”. All you write is nonsense and you express it in a way that for you seems educated, but actually only makes the nonsense of your text more obvious. You are a Jewish troll, that is clear.

“Swedish King invading Moscow: he got F___ed.”

Incorrect. You mean the Swedish king Charles XII in the Great Northern War. He did not invade Moscow, nor did he aim to. He faced Peter the Great in the Battle of Poltava in Ukraine and lost. He lost because he had lost far too many men to disease, cold, hunger and Ukrainian partisans in Ukraine before the battle. But the one who started the was was Peter the Great. Sweden did not invade Russia, Russian led coalition attacked Sweden. While the Swedish army was in Ukraine, Peter the Great invaded Finland in what is called the Great Hatred, Cossacks raped and killed a large number of civilians and burned all they could.

There was a Swedish Field Marshal who did go and stay in Moscow with his army, Jacob de la Gardie. But he was called there by Russians in order to protect Russia as Russians themselves could not protect their country against Poles. Many times foreigners have had to come to help Russians, like the USA helped them in the WWII, Napoleon helped Russia to get Finland in 1809, and Hitler supported Russia in the Winter War. And without Ukrainians Russians would have lost to Napoleon and Hitler.

Two problems with this book:
1. Switzerland does not have a border with Russia and Swiss people do not know much of the history of conflicts with Russia.

2. Mettan is not characterized as a completely non-biased politician/journalist: This is what Wiki says of him:
“Mettan’s journalistic credibility has been questioned on several occasions. In 2017, Reporters Without Borders criticised Mettan for his pro-Russian militancy and for serving as a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda.[6] Florian Irminger, Secretary General of the Swiss Green Party, also called Mettan an apologist for Putin’s government.[6] Following Mettan’s support for the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory in a Die Weltwoche essay in 2022, Swiss magazine Republik referred to the article as a “breathtaking compendium” of Russian propaganda.”

Only those European countries that actually have been a part of Russia can correctly evaluate whether Russia is a threat or not. They do not have Russophobia, they know that Russia is a threat. People in countries that are far from Russia cannot form an opinion on Russian threat. Their opinions are either based on reading classics of Russian literature or on propaganda of either side. So, somebody like Mettan, who as a Swiss does not have the historical insight, may well be Russophobic or Russophilic just because of emotions. But this is not so with people in Baltic countries, Poland, Finland.

So, you go on reading propaganda books, but people from countries close to Russia know the history.

Serial nonsense. Voluminous drivel. It is obvious that your breezy assertions, never backed up, without references, but stand alone assertions with a large quantify of words that defer the wasted time and effort of honest people who have integrity and fealty to the truth.

That rate of word generation is most likely generated by multiple individuals, very likely a paid group contracted by an interested party that just so happens to align with ZIO Corp International, Inc, aka ZIDSO.

I looked at Victoria Nuland case which argued that Nuland’s messages concerning who should or should not be in the new government would be evidence of a coup. I checked and there was no coup in Maidan. The events appear to be that the opposition demonstrated against the president. The president ordered shooting at demonstrators and some demonstrators died. The parliament dismissed the president. The president escaped. Is here something illegal? No.

There is not reason for me or anybody else who care for truth and honesty to reply to
gaslighting. You and Trump are working for the same Luciferian Oligarchies, it seems, or you receive a narcissistic pleasure on gaslighting, as a fraudster, and enjoying the suckering of the gullible and unknowledgeable. That’s what psychopathology is, lying and cheating, enjoying the thrill of deception and the con.

It’s John Johnson, again. The Hasbara Ukrainian air head. Testing to see if stupidity and fantasy will sell here on Unz.

I pointed that (about Zelensky, Johnson, Merkel and Holland) out to j2, but as you see he is denying it and has a different interpretation of the events. I suppose he reflects the views (or is it propaganda?) of the Finnish military, politicians and society in general.

There is no Russophobia.

Since you deny Russophobia, maybe you should read this book.

Addendum:

These same Eurotrash instigated the current war in Ukraine.
Zelenstein — voted on a platform of Peace — was ready to sign a peace treaty.
Until The City of London Bankster Eurotrash PM Boris Johnson flew in and kicked off another round of Eurotrash Slav killings.

France’s Holland and Germany’s Merkel openly boasted that they used the Minsk agreements to re-arm UkroNazis — to continue murdering ethic Russians.

The Eurotrash ghouls have succeeded in causing the death of another 1,000,000+ Orthodox Christian Slavic peoples.

Russia has an arsenal about 10,000 nuclear warheads.
It’s time she used them on Eurotrash.

“the breakup of Yugoslavia.”

Yes, NATO bombings of Yugoslavia were not done under UN mandate. But as I wrote before, if some other country is not any better, then it still does not make bad good. Much of what the USA does is not accepted by most Europeans, yet it still does not mean that those actions justify any other actions. Bombing Yugoslavia did not cause a threat to Europe, invasion of Ukraine does mean a threat to Europe. It is not so much a moral stand than self-preservation. Europeans do not want Putin to make a second mistake and invade e.g. the Baltic countries as it will lead to a nuclear war. See, it is nuclear war avoidance. Putin makes mistakes, he believed that the Ukraine war would be a mere special military operation, it become a real war. A leader of a big nation must not make such mistakes (and that Trump makes similar or worse mistakes does not justify Putin’s mistakes). Allowing wars in Europe will finally lead to a nuclear war. If there was one case, like Yugoslavia, that did not lead to a nuclear war, it does not justify any future wars, especially not such where there are two nuclear powers on different sides.

That has already been done in allowing/encouraging, even planning, the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Well said Mike.

European neo-Nazi warmongers — led by Germany (!) — illegally attacked Yugoslavia and murdered 1,000s of Serb civilians on bogus charges of Genocide allegedly perpetrated by Serbs. The charges were later proven to be completely manufactured. But the Euro neo-Nazi filth achieved their goal of taking historic Orthodox Christian Serb homeland Kosovo from the Serbs and giving it to Muslim invaders.

They illegally adducted Milosevich and murdered him in prison.
F_____ the Eurotrash.

They have always viewed Slavic peoples as less than human.
Swedish King invading Moscow: he got F___ed.
Napoleon invading Russia: he got F___ed..
Hitler invading Soviet Union: causing the untimely deaths of 25-30 million Soviet/Slavic peoples. He too got F___ed.
And good.

These F____ing European trash lecturing Putin and Russians.
Go F_____ yourselves filthy scum.

Try it again filthy Eurotrash.

The president ordered shooting at demonstrators and some demonstrators died.

Many would dispute that. Where is the evidence that the president ordered those snipers?

we cannot allow that in Europe disputes with countries are solved by military intervention of the type we see in the Ukraine invasion by Russia.

That has already been done in allowing/encouraging, even planning, the breakup of Yugoslavia.

“For example: how would Russian air defense and forces be wiped out by Europe and the United States? With what systems? Show some evidence, empirical observations, data, and incontrovertible facts.”

As NATO has not been shooting Russian air defense and you want empirical results, we can use Ukraine examples. Ukraine has destroyed components (radars, launchers) of S-400 in several ways: ATACMS missile, Neptune missile and drones in a special operations action (S-400 does not track small targets well enough as it is meant for ballistic missiles, it is vulnerable to drones). Additionally, radar of S-400 can be destroyed by many other missiles, including those carried by F-35. S-300 and other older Russian air defense systems are easier to destroy, e.g. destroy the radar by a HARM-missile fired by a plane.

What tactics and technology would be used by NATO is not essential in evaluating their capability. It is enough to say that a NATO attack idea is built on the air force: destroy enemy air defense and air forces. As this is the operational idea, NATO is able to do it. Russia is the original enemy power against which NATO plans operations. That is enough to say that it works with Russian systems.

NATO does not use donkeys or horses like Russia does.

“We breathlessly await you detailed and enumerated analysis of relative systems, their strengths and weaknesses. Show everyone you are more than a wimpy bar slobbering stutterer. ”

This is again childish, grow up still a bit more. Go find from the web some detailed analysis, there are many. It is not my job to teach you, I am retired.

“Remember Victoria Nuland, John Mc Cain, Boris Johnson, and what the former German and French leaders had to say about the Minsk agreements, and a lot more.”

I looked at Victoria Nuland case which argued that Nuland’s messages concerning who should or should not be in the new government would be evidence of a coup. I checked and there was no coup in Maidan. The events appear to be that the opposition demonstrated against the president. The president ordered shooting at demonstrators and some demonstrators died. The parliament dismissed the president. The president escaped. Is here something illegal? No. Consider a simplified case: a person comes to the president complaining of something, the president shoots him dead, the parliament impeaches him, the senate convicts him, but he manages to escape. Here very clearly the president broke the law and escaped from the law, making him a criminal. Ordering shooting of demonstrators may or may not be a crime, usually it is, but it is up to the parliament and court of law to decide. The parliament can dismiss a president. So, no coup.

Then you mention the Minsk agreement and that Ukraine did not fulfill the agreement and did it on purpose. Very many agreements are broken in politics. Russia broke the Budapest memorandum where Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s areal integrity. Russia has many times invaded a country and each time violated some agreement. Breaking agreements is nothing special in international relations.

“So many authors and commenters here on TUR have been through this so many times about how this all started and why. ”

Yes, and most of them have their own agenda if they are here on TUR. But as we are here on TUR, we must each form our own opinion. I checked, did not find a coup in Maidan and did not find anything special in Ukraine not following the Minsk agreements, which were agreements that were forced on Ukraine. Indeed, there is a moral right to set right any unjust agreement. It is often legally illegal to do so, but sometimes morally right overrules what is legally right, like in a rebel against a tyrant, which also political philosophers admit.

“Yes, Russia did send troops into a sovereign country, not to “invade” but to protect and support one side involved in a civil war. ”

Western politicians are not so concerned of ethics and moral. The reason why European countries oppose Russian invasion to Ukraine is not because of the principle that one cannot invade a sovereign country (thought there is such a principle). Sometimes one does do so because it is necessary e.g. to protect some party that is being too badly treated. It is possible that some Russian speakers in Ukraine felt threatened or even were harmed/killed. But the reason why Europeans oppose the invasion is not based on this logic. It is based on the following different argument: we cannot allow that in Europe disputes with countries are solved by military intervention of the type we see in the Ukraine invasion by Russia. This is because if we allow it, it opens up the possibility of using similar methods in the future and that takes Europe back to the bloody past that we all hope to have left behind. There are many disputes in Europe. They should not be solved by military means.

“You could say the West was just doing the same but it was the West that initiated this civil war through all it had done at the Maidan, following the Maidan, and before the Maidan. ”

No, I do not agree. The West did not make Maidan to happen. The president of Ukraine made it to happen with his poor decisions. But let us take a recent case: Trump kidnaps Maduro and his wife. Maduro had stolen the elections, was very unpopular and maybe he did sell drugs. Was this justified? No. This was illegal. But capturing Maduro is probably good? Probably yes. So, what should be the verdict? Simple: Convict Maduro for what he has done and convict Trump for kidnapping. Then the law has been followed and the outcome is good. Because you can do good and just things that are illegal, there are such situations. But then you must take the responsibility and punishment of your illegal deed.

Thus, if Putin invaded Ukraine in order to help Russian speaking Ukrainians who were in danger (let us assume this was the case), then the deed was good but illegal. Therefore congratulate Putin for his moral deed and lock him up in jail for breaking the law.

This is how highly moral murderers of a tyrant think. They kill the tyrant because it is good, but as it is also illegal, they kill themselves after the deed, and become (dead) heroes. That is justice.

That has to be the most imbecilic statement made here in a month of Sundays

👍

You are either stupid, very ignorant, very immature, very low in IQ, OR a very stupid……

Why not ALL of the above?

You extreme simpleton. Show some evidence, empirical observations, data, and incontrovertible facts. For example: how would Russian air defense and forces be wiped out by Europe and the United States? With what systems? There capability matched with those of Russia [and China, were widespread war to be broken out]

We breathlessly await you detailed and enumerated analysis of relative systems, their strengths and weaknesses. Show everyone you are more than a wimpy bar slobbering stutterer.

“Russia IS fighting a conventional war RIGHT NOW with NATO.”

No, it is not. If it were, Russian air defense and air forces would have been wiped out.

“You are either stupid, very ignorant, very immature, very low in IQ, OR a very stupid for such fantasies that even Daffy Duck and Pluto would laugh at, but which you state here, in the belief that the Unz Commentariat would take you seriously for a millisecond.”

Dear Infant Marxist, I fully understand why you are so called. Write again when you have grown up.

Russia would lose a conventional war, whether US is with Europe or not.

That has to be the most imbecilic statement made here in a month of Sundays. Russia IS fighting a conventional war RIGHT NOW with NATO. NATO is depleted of materiel and war machines. Their entire capacity of manufacturing does not equal even closely to that of the Russian war economy and manufacturing based. The Russian economy is on a path of growth that is several years long. Europe is de-inductrialized, in recession /depression and has no natural resources. Its heavy industry has moved out to China and the U.S. Russian has over 30,000 thousand sanctions – the most in human history – and yet the economy is robust. Putin enjoys over 75% approval rating from the Russian polity.

You are either stupid, very ignorant, very immature, very low in IQ, OR a very stupid for such fantasies that even Daffy Duck and Pluto would laugh at, but which you state here, in the belief that the Unz Commentariat would take you seriously for a millisecond.

You are not even a bird brain, not smart enough to be a dung beetle, but a single cell intestinal colon bacterium.

Yes, Western businesses wanted to continue doing business with Russia but not the politicians. Remember Victoria Nuland, John Mc Cain, Boris Johnson, and what the former German and French leaders had to say about the Minsk agreements, and a lot more. So many authors and commenters here on TUR have been through this so many times about how this all started and why. Yes, Russia did send troops into a sovereign country, not to “invade” but to protect and support one side involved in a civil war. You could say the West was just doing the same but it was the West that initiated this civil war through all it had done at the Maidan, following the Maidan, and before the Maidan.

“Your comparison between NATO and Russian conventional military strength may not reflect what would actually happen in such a war.”

In making the comparison, I have taken your concerns into account. Russia would lose a conventional war, whether US is with Europe or not. And I do not count Hungary, Slovakia etc. to be in the European side, only those who would be, they are enough. But why do you want a war? Europe does not want a war.

“Those East European countries are now puppets of the West and the EU/NATO do exactly this to them. East Europeans should have built their own international organisation independent from both the East and the West instead of joining EU and NATO.”

If they want, they can leave. Both EU and NATO allow it. They can also join any independent block or a Russian led block, if they want. But when Ukraine wanted to join NATO, Russia did not allow. That is the difference between freedom and being a puppet.
EU or NATO will not send any tanks to Hungary even if they oppose what other countries want.

“Russian threats of dropping nukes on the West are in response to all those attacks they have made on Russia while hiding behind the Ukrainians. They are conducting a war against Russia already, and have been doing so for some time, while pretending that they are not, and that they will go to war sometime in the future. ”

What attacks on Russia? Western European countries were doing business with Russia, investing in Russia (though it was soon found that the country is corrupted and the business climate is difficult). Apart of Finland defeating Russia in ice hockey just before the 2022 invasion to Ukraine, I do not see any attacks on Russians (Finnish ice hockeyists did make several successful attacks on Russians in the Olympics 2022, that I admit, but it was not any reason to invade Ukraine or nuke Helsinki).

No, there was no Western effort to destroy Russia before Putin started his military operations. And still today, all Western countries do is put sanctions on Russia to stop the war and help Ukraine in the war. Russians must have serious paranoia. But today Russia is faring a hybrid war against the West and repeating nuclear threats. That is not good.

Russia is constantly trying to influence foreign and internal politics of such a country and always presents a real threat of invasion (because it has done so).

Those East European countries are now puppets of the West and the EU/NATO do exactly this to them. East Europeans should have built their own international organisation independent from both the East and the West instead of joining EU and NATO.

Russia has too many nukes.

Much is made of this having too many nukes like US and Russia have. France’s 250 nukes are sufficient to obliterate Russia or any other country. Only some small towns and villages would be left after such an attack. Of course, having too many nukes is desirable if one thinks that many of these nukes would be intercepted high up in the atmosphere. I don’t know how feasible that would be. Even the UK’s nukes would be enough but I don’t know if they can be fired without US’s approval/codes.

I suppose one doesn’t need Poseidon to start tidal waves. Exploding a ballistically falling nuke underwater close to the coast could start such a wave. I think France tried that on a smaller scale at some atoll in the Pacific before stopping nuclear tests?

Yes, nuclear exchanges would be insane.

Russian threats of dropping nukes on the West are in response to all those attacks they have made on Russia while hiding behind the Ukrainians. They are conducting a war against Russia already, and have been doing so for some time, while pretending that they are not, and that they will go to war sometime in the future. Since Russia responding to their attacks by conventional means, like levelling NATO HQ, MI6 HQ, etc. with conventional weapons would activate Article 5, some think they may as well launch a nuclear attack. The West has even been attacking Russia linked tankers far from the Ukraine so Russia would be completely justified in attacking military assets of these Western countries already. It is the West that is playing a very dangerous game with its constant provocations.

Anyway, even if there is a conventional war between the West and Russia, it is unlikely that all NATO countries would participate, just as it is possible that Russia may get military aid from some Asian countries. During WWII, Germany’s ally Bulgaria did not send troops to fight Russia, while non Axis country Spain did. Also, countries may change sides, like Italy did during WWII. Your comparison between NATO and Russian conventional military strength may not reflect what would actually happen in such a war. It is already obvious that Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia would not participate, and perhaps not even Greece and Turkey as they’d rather keep their eyes on each other and not deploy most of their forces in some other direction. Some other NATO members may only send token forces as they need to keep the bulk of their forces at home in case of some external threats from another direction. I can’t see Spain or Portugal committing much to such a war against Russia, not Bulgaria.

Oh, and Russia could destroy the dikes off Holland with conventional weapons to flood most of the Benelux and parts of the industrialised regions of West Germany. With just a few conventional bombs or torpedoes a great effect could be achieved.

“Russia will leave them alone as long as they are not hostile to Russia and don’t present a threat. ”

This is what all countries neighboring to Russia want from Russia. Nothing else. Trade relations would be good, but because Russia may use them as leverage, they are risky.

But there is no Russophobia, like there is no antisemitism. There are lessons of history, in both cases. Moscow Russia is 550 years old, started from a small part around Moscow. Grew fast by conquest. Is the last colonial country in the world. First it conquered Novgorod, then Siberia, then Central Asia, Ukraine, Crimean khanate, Baltic eastern coast, part of Poland, Baltic countries, Finland, then the initiator of Communistic revolutions, and recently Chechenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine. In all cases what followed (often after 70-100 years from the conquest) was Russification (or an effort to Russification as it some times failed). Most of this was not because of legitimate security interests of Russia, it was good old-fashioned imperialism.

History does not show peaceful intentions. Maybe some other country is not any better, but if something is not better, it does not make bad good.

“If you think Russia is a threat to Europe then explain why. What is there in Europe that Russia wants or needs, and would be willing to go to war to get?”

Firstly, just look at the military forces in almost all Western European countries. Basically only Finland and Greece (neither exactly in the West) are prepared for a war, Greece because of the old conflict with Turkey, and Finland because of Soviet Union/Russia. After the Cold War ended, Western European countries believed that there will not be any wars in Europe and military is only for special military operations with the USA, usually under the UN mandate. This means: these countries certainly were not preparing any military actions against Russia.

Then the enlargement of NATO. It was not initiated by NATO. It was former Eastern Block countries who immediately wanted to join NATO because they believed (and most of them believe still) that when Russia has regained its military strength, which it lost when Communism collapsed (this is true, Russia military could not fight any wars 1991-1999, remember Russia lost the First Chechen war 1994), then Russia will try to re-establish its control over the former Eastern Block countries. That is what Russia is believed to need and want in Europe: puppets in Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic countries, Moldova, Poland, maybe more. But as some of these are NATO countries, this means a NATO-Russia war.

Before 2022 I thought that this fear is not realistic. Today I think the fear is very realistic. Estonians were saying so all the time, Finns believed that Russia will be a peaceful neighbor. We were wrong, they were right. Why Russia would like to establish such a sphere of influence? Well, they do want it. This is exactly why they oppose NATO extending to these countries. Why else would they oppose these countries joining NATO. NATO will not attack Russia. Russia has too many nukes. It is not possible. Russia even has hypersonic nuclear capable missiles which make certain that the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) doctrine still holds. It is not possible to invade Russia without starting a major nuclear war and the West (nor Russia) cannot survive such a war in any decent shape. Then why Russia does not allow NATO to be in these countries, as they only want to be sure that Russia does not invade them? Because Russia wants a sphere of influence, but all countries that have been in Russian sphere of influence know that it is a difficult situation: Russia is constantly trying to influence foreign and internal politics of such a country and always presents a real threat of invasion (because it has done so).

Hope this explains.

I have a different view of this. Please, read the books by Anatolyi Golitsyn from 1980ies. He claims that there was a KGB plan…

Try reading Alexander Zinoviev who is featured in this website:

ALEXANDER ZINOVIEV Biography https://zinoviev.net/Bio.html

As a former anti-Soviet dissident who fled to the West, Zinoviev became disillusioned with the illusory promises of Western Liberalism in the form of “human rights”, “freedom”, and “democracy”. After moving back to Russia, Zinoviev later recanted his views on Soviet Communism and in particular on Stalin whom he praised as the greatest patriot and leader of Russia. He lbecame critical of the “Westernization” of post-Soviet Russia which he described as a kind of “colonial democracy”. From being anti-Soviet to becoming anti-Western, Zinoviev sought to warn Russians that the post-Cold War West has turned into another Totalitarian System which poses an existential threat to Russia because it is more powerful and a lot richer than the Soviet Union due to its Capitalist Economy.

If some kind of territorial Soviet Union was re-established, it would not be the same SU of the past. It would be based on capitalism and democracy, and would function as a confederation or federation. Even if some KGB officers had such a plan, it does not mean it could be achieved. The countries in Central Asia and the Caucuses that broke off from the SU have their own independent elites that would not want to come under the control of Moscow, and Russia will leave them alone as long as they are not hostile to Russia and don’t present a threat.

I didn’t follow that election, but I think Zelensky was considered a peace candidate, based on his campaign.

It seems that it is Western Russophobia that is pushing Russia towards China. Putin did want to integrate Russia into the West but was rejected. It seems to me that the West has been hostile to Russia so Russia had to become hostile to the West. Of course Russophobia in itself isn’t sufficient for starting wars and it is a cover for a lot more: revisionist revanchism, envy, and of course, most importantly, a desire for Russia’s resources, but not under normal business transactions.

If you think Russia is a threat to Europe then explain why. What is there in Europe that Russia wants or needs, and would be willing to go to war to get?

“Russian Slavs like Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin are the ones who are most responsible for turning Russia into a vassal state of the West.”

I have a different view of this. Please, read the books by Anatolyi Golitsyn from 1980ies. He claims that there was a KGB plan which was basically as follows:

The starting point was the Soviet economy was doing too badly, so that had to be reformed. This is why the economic system had to be changed. But Golitsyn claimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was fake and made by the KGB. The KGB would remain in power and restore Soviet power after Russian economy is fixed.

But, the long time plan was:
1. Destroy the economy of European countries (which China effectively did by pulling Western industry there)
2. Separate the USA from Europe (which is what Trump has effectively done).
3. KGB only changes the name, but it stays (which fits to Putin being ex-KGB).
4. Restore the areas (like the Ukraine war).

I think Golitsyn was a real defector from KGB and that he was mainly correct, though he did not personally hear any plans in 1960ies or something as he claims. He was a spy and therefore a professional liar, but correct in the main points.

“Perfect racist hasbara pilpul SHITE. Imagine the gall of a Jew accusing others of narcissistic supremacism-true chutzpah.”

That’s a lot of Jewish talk. So, you are an Israel troll. Verified by your use of words. Bye.

“Russia had made no aggressive moves toward Finland since WW2”

Actually they did. Ignoring the efforts of Communists in 1944-1948 to make a coup, where there is no clear evidence that the Soviet Union was behind it, there were two incidences: night frost crisis 1958 and note crisis 1961. The latter had a Soviet proposal of activating the military article of the friendship and cooperation agreement, which in practice would have meant Soviet occupation.

“No, the treaty was not terminated in 1992. Russia continued to abide by all Soviet-era treaties, including this one.”

The treaty was terminated in 1992, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948
The important article was the military article: Russia could not legally refer to that article after 1992 (as it did in 1961).

“Nor for Finland’s economy, which crashed when trade with Russia ended and the border closed.”

Finland’s export trade with Russia before the war was about 5% of total export trade. It dropped to almost zero, in 2024 it was only 0.4%. But this did not cause a crash in Finland’s economy, indeed Finland’s export trade grew in value by 16.2% in 2022 when export trade to Russia practically stopped. As for import from Russia, as it was mainly oil (gas usage in Finland had decreased before to a low level, the change was only to buy the oil from other countries. Russian export prices were world market prices, so this did not change anything for Finland. In some districts close to the Eastern border the disappearance of Russian tourists caused local economic decline. But the effects have been rather small. The major shift with trade with Russia happened long before this war, it was when Finland joined EU.

“So proving Jeffrey Sachs’ point about Russophobia leading to war when peace was on the table,”

Jeffrey Sachs makes many statements on topics that he does not understand, including that he made a very ignorant video about Finland to the youtube.

“So after breaking through the Mannerheim Line at great cost, with 1M soldiers and massive amounts of artillery, Stalin just said “Imma pull back to Leningrad and come back next year and start all over again!” So said the Nazis, when they managed to pull Finland into their war on Russia.”

Russians were stopped in both the Winter War and in the Continuation War. There are many different opinions among historians why Stalin did not conquer the whole of Finland. The British say it was because Stalin was afraid that the UK and France were going to interfere (but we know for sure that they would have only occupied Swedish iron mining area to prevent Germany for getting the ore.) Probably the real reason is that Stalin got impatient with his generals as the war had gone badly all the time. When Finns stopped the breakthrough, Stalin was fed up and stopped. So, exactly as you above write, that is what Stalin made, and it was because he did not trust that Russian generals can finish the job and there was a bigger war coming very soon with Germany.

“So you are either retarded, or you are engaged in the propaganda campaign NATO used to convince a bare majority of Finns in 2023 that they needed to join NATO, without explaining to them that Finland’s economy would be destroyed and that joining NATO put a giant bullseye on Finland, guaranteeing the country will be nuked if the current NATO-Russia war heats up to direct confrontation.”

It was not a bare majority. It was a very large majority. It did not destroy Finland’s economy and national security is above economy. Concerning nuking Finland, if there will be a nuclear war, Finland cannot stay away from it no matter what Finns do. Stopping Putin is the only way to prevent the war as Putin is the only one threatening with the war and nukes.

“And by joining NATO, did Finland unilaterally end a 75-year peace with Russia, which only wanted neutral borders and trade?”

During the whole time of the Soviet Union, the Soviets tried to influence Finland, it was called Finlandization.

“Fucking retards. You are led by the same class of quislings as the rest of Europe. NATO military spending comes with a 30% grift budget baked in; those hundreds of billions spent in Ukraine made available $100B to spread around in bribes and kick-backs, and you and your leaders got your share. So you sold your country out for 30 pieces of silver. Or should I say (((silver))). We know who is pulling the strings. Rhymes with ‘Gothschild’ (and friends). ”

You are a useful idiot. The group of friends is Trump. Putin, Orban and Netanyahu, so place your parenthesis around Putin.

There was no NATO/USA plot against Russia. Unfortunately Putin is anti-Peter the Great, Peter wanted to integrate Russia to Europe, away from the East, even moved the capital, while Putin makes Russia a vassal state of China, it will not be good for Russia, Chinese think of their own country as the center of the world. Back to the Golden Orde, not to the Soviet Union. But maybe Russians will finally oppose, though I doubt it.

Of course there was and still is a NATO/USA plot against Russia.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the USA expanded NATO to Central and Eastern Europe, all the way to the borders of Russia. In the 2008 Bucharest Summit, the USA tried but failed to get Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO as expressed by then US President George Bush Jr.

Putin is from St. Petersburg, the most Europeanized city in all of Russia where pro-Western Slavs predominate. That explains why Putin did everything he could to appease the EU by offering Russian energy (oil/gas) at low prices and partnering with Western companies to build the Nordstream pipelines and invest in the Russian economy.

Putin didn’t do anything for China until the Ukraine Crisis broke out in 2014 to negotiate the Power of Siberia pipeline which launched in 2019. Before then, Putin was too enamored of Russia becoming part of the so-called “Collective West”, even suggesting to Clinton that Russia join NATO. Russian Slavs like Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin are the ones who are most responsible for turning Russia into a vassal state of the West.

As for the Golden Horde (not Orde), China has no interest whatsoever in the geopolitics of Europe which was ruled by the Mongol Empire whose successor state was the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, not China.

Putin is anti-Ivan the Great. He is undoing what Ivan did: get Russia out of Mongol rule. Putin is cutting Russia ties to the West and Russia will be a weak vassal state of China.

Putin did everything to appease the West which cut ties to Russia, not the other way around, you fucking moron. China has no interest whatsoever in the geopolitics of Europe whereas the USA and its vassal states in NATO want to turn Russia into vassal state of the West, just like in the good ‘ole days of Yeltsin.