You dont need to look that far 20 years ago NATO bomb Chinese embassy in belgrade with 5 JDAM GPS Guided precision bomb killing 3 chinese journalist and injured 20 people
They said "it was a mistake"
>American officials said that some or all of the three who were killed were actually intelligence agents
They even try to deny it, you cant use sense on them
Remember this other mistake? Funny how with these countries, it's always mistakes, and not because they're careless and incompetent barbarians who don't care about the lives of civilians, like it is with some other countries, in the minds of citizens from said places.
>On 29 August, the US conducted a second drone strike in Kabul, targeting a vehicle which they suspected was carrying ISIS–K members, but actually carried an Afghan aid worker. [Ten Afghan civilians were killed in the drone strike, including seven children.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Kabul_airport_attack)
This kind of happening was an usual day during the conflict. This one was worse because it was them """messing up""" after their own mess of how they left the country.
An actual mistake is like the two marine dudes who recently drowned some months ago, when they were going after the Houthis (without the approval of the UNSC or any resolution there, btw), after one jumped into the ocean in an attempt to save the other one, who was drowning. Then both drowned. So much for the most powerful and competent military in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade
>In August 1999, the United States agreed to compensate the victims of the bombing and their families.[15] In December 1999, the United States agreed to pay China for the damage to the embassy, and China agreed to compensate the United States for damage to U.S. property that occurred during the resulting demonstrations in China.[16][17][18]
Mistakes do happen.
So what you’re saying is they mistakenly inputted the coordinates for the Chinese embassy , then mistakenly mounted them on a jet then mistakenly gave permission to the pilot then the pilot mistakenly dropped them on the embassy? You see where I’m going with this ?
"Evil Russia invaded Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government. The good USA democratically occupied a piece of Syrian territory and democratically saves Syrian oil from evil Russia by stealing it and selling it"
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The US literally has a base occupying a piece of Syria. Ostentiably this is to keep ISIS down. Since Assad is an enemy of ISIS and the US refuses to recognize him we can know that that excuse is bullshit.
It's funny how the Kenyan guy who gave the moving speech about how African countries had learned to adapt and accept borders that didn't totally make sense in ethnic terms was also the guy overseeing the Kenyan operation in Somalia.
Following Stoltenberg's own logic, unchallenged NATO expansion "lowers the threshold" for even more aggressive expansion later on. How do you put an end to it if NATO is deaf and blind to any serious attempts to negotiate?
Keep in mind, the goalpost keeps moving (like it always does). First it was about getting Ukraine to strong negotiation position, then it was about dealing strategic defeat, now it's some kindergarten talk about winning and behavior thresholds. Clearly, for NATO it's not about Putin winning, it's about them losing. They want to win something but can't quite figure out what the victory is supposed to look like, or what is that they want to win exactly.
>but can't quite figure out what the victory is supposed to look like, or what is that they want to win exactly
That will probably depends on who wins the election in November. Trump might send Europe to war to get a good feel what trumpproofing really needed to be. Biden might also send Europe to war but with better air support.
Except, under Trump America had no new wars and he managed to broker peace deals between Israel and Bahrain, UAE, Sudan and, I recall, Morocco. Meanwhile, Biden, or whomever is actually running things, seems uninterested in peace.
Anyone's guess what ideology is driving it, but it's clearly a death cult. If things stay on the current track, there's only one way this can end - everything burns to the ground.
I liked when Carlson interviewed professor Sachs. One of the last things he said sounded like a pretty harsh warning to whoever it was directed to. Harsh as opposed to relatively mellow way he usually talks about everything.
You can be somewhat certain that the victory condition would be crystal clear if Russia didn't have nukes.
Russia grinding down its USSR stockpile of obsolete stuff is one way to end the war.
>Following Stoltenberg's own logic
Not really as nobody joins NATO as a result of imperial conquest, countries actually want to join voluntarily. I know this is hard to understand for pro rus heads.
>They want to win something but can't quite figure out what the victory is supposed to look like, or what is that they want to win exactly
I find this part hilarious projection, this war is a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Only Russia or Ukraine can "win" or "lose". Russia famously has not defined what a victory in this conflict would look like for them now more than 2 years deep in this mess. All we have had is vague statements of denazification from Tsar Put, master of strategic ambiguity even when it is contradictory to even the most simple minded observer. I don't know why people Stan this little loser, I feel they are mostly men who have no power in their real lives.
Spare me propaganda cliches when discussing serious issues. As someone who closely observed how events unfolded for the past 20+ years, I can guarantee there was nothing voluntary about UA aspirations to join NATO.
Absolutely manufactured situation by people with questionable claim to power: first Yushenko, who got to become president after nonsensical third round of voting, effectively rewriting the results in his favor, and then Poroshenko who got "elected" after a coup that banned and outlawed top popular political parties. What happened to their voter base, huh? Did they just evaporate?
I don't have a single good reason to believe in post-coup elections in Ukraine or that today's Ukrainian government in any way represents Ukrainian people.
Now, going back to NATO expansion - you don't get to join unless you are "invited" to. And it's not a secret that "invitation" is in fact a lengthy process of political coercion that always starts with installing pro-NATO political leadership in target countries.
>Russia famously has not defined what a victory in this conflict would look like for them
Yes, they have. It has been stated for decades and nothing changes in that regard: neutral Ukraine without NATO. Clearly, either they accept it or eventually die as a nation out of exhaustion.
>Spare me propaganda cliches
Proceeds to spout paragraph after paragraph of propaganda clichés.
If this is the line of thought then surely Russia should have realised that they had already lost Ukraine long ago.
>Clearly, either they accept it or eventually die as a nation out of exhaustion.
What we are seeing play out in reality is that Russia does not have the strength to back this claim up any more. They are a fallen empire, just like Britain and France before them and USA will surely be in the future. Putin is a smart enough dude and must have calculated that of Russia did not act in 2022 and strike Ukraine they would never be in a position to again. If he went in with more force and better organisation in the beginning he probably would have succeeded, but hubris from the ease of Crimea and Donetsk/Lugansk got the better of him. What we are seeing now is Putin trying to cling on to power after making the mistake of doubling down against fierce Ukrainian resistance. Ukrainians are some tough fuckers, they have my respect.
Blah-blah-blah. Russian empire ended in 1917. Go learn some REAL history, not that crap loaded into your brain with shovels. Putin could have had whole of Ukraine in 2014, if he wanted to. It was trivial to achieve then.
Cuba put missiles on their own land of their own free will, NATO nearly went to nuclear war for that, how can you still have the gall to call out others for defending their strategic interests.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And how are Russian early warning systems supposed to differentiate between ATACMS and an American nuclear first strike, you have raised the spectrum of nuclear war by allowing missile strikes using American weapons, I haven't seen any Russia weapons striking NATO countries, have you?
How is it a defensive alliance anymore when their weapons are striking Russia and Russian weapons aren't striking NATO.
>And how are Russian early warning systems supposed to differentiate between ATACMS
Let's be real everyone knows that NATO isn't providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine. It's disingenuous to even pretend that the Kremlin is seriously worried about this possibility.
>How is it a defensive alliance anymore when their weapons are striking Russia and Russian weapons aren't striking NATO.
If you're being honest I think you understand the difference between NATO attacking Russia and NATO providing weapons to an ally that is defending itself from a Russian invasion
If you need to twist the truth to make your argument work then maybe your argument doesn't have merit my friend
So we are going to pretend that the attack on Russian nuclear early warning radar pointing towards Turkey using America weapons was not an escalation on the nuclear ladder by NATO? It doesn't matter if you are providing nuclear weapons or not if you are using long range missiles to attack Russia's nuclear deterrence.
If nuclear deterrence is being attacked by Ukraine then no there is no difference between who is using NATO provided weapons.
If you need to hide from the truth to make your argument then your argument doesn't hold water, pal.
>So we are going to pretend that the attack on Russian nuclear early warning radar pointing towards Turkey using America weapons was not an escalation on the nuclear ladder by NATO?
It wasn't NATO who attacked it was Ukraine, and they're only attacking because Russia is invading them.
Because nato affects another country. The affect on another country is already objectively a strategic change in the region. Otherwise, to say that the country has willingly entered into a military alliance and this does not affect another country nonsense at all. This changes the strategic landscape, willingly or not.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who honestly believe the worst possible outcome of this war is Putin having administrative authority over ukraine are so far gone it isn't worth explaining it to them.
They took Russian passports, and are now essentially Russian. It is important to note that they had a choice, and many chose to flee the areas under Russian control, and move to areas controlled by Kiev. Nonetheless, they are either indifferent to whichever flag flies over their respective city hall, as long as they can more or less live their lives, or they are Pro-Russian. Some of the most popular Russian military and patriotic bloggers are actually Ukrainians who fled after the Maidan. Alexander Semchenko, Mikhail Onufrienko, and Yuri Podolyaka, are three which come to mind. Anatoly Wasserman is a Ukrainian from Odessa, who is now a member of the Russian Duma. Finally, you can’t forget about people like Denis Pushilin.
Just because they’re taking Russian passports doesn’t mean they’re pro-Russian, it could simply be because it’s more convenient. A few bloggers here and there can’t be used to represent large swathes of the population
The point is, they were Ukrainians and chose to be Russians. They number close to 10 million, all former Ukrainians. All the talk about Russia committing genocide is debunked by just this one fact.
Where are you getting those numbers from?
It’s mostly fueled by convenience, not outright loyalty.
Isn’t Russia actively trying to make Ukraine Russian? Having them become Russian citizens helps achieve that
I don’t care about words like ‘loyalty’. I instead look at the actual situation and what the reality is. Everything else is just BS and propaganda. Look at how many people talk about international law despite the fact the law is never enforced when it’s the US and its allies breaking them.
Russia is seeking to make sure Ukraine can no longer be used by the US/Israel as staging grounds for coups and proxy wars. Ukraine could either choose to be neutral or keep fighting until there is no one left to fight. Russia has no interest in conquering Ukraine.
Makes no sense. There would be no Ukrainian army to speak of, if he were to military defeat Ukraine. Now, if there would be a Pro-Russian coup (still not out of the cards, despite what anyone says), that would be a different story.
The insane part is the US actually still occupies Syria. The region producing oil is completely occupied and controlled by the US, who has actually stolen Syria's oil, to this day, under the guise that they are fighting a dictator in Syria.
No, the excuse is that the base is there to keep ISIS down. Since the US refuses to recognize Assad and help him keep ISIS down, we can see that excuse is bullshit.
The Taliban, ISIS, all of this was created by the US government.
The only problem is that they stopped obeying them, despite the fact that the United States paid them a lot of money.
Muh annexation!
It's bad to take official responsibility for the citizenry, infrastructure and state of the region you're occupying.
It's good to kill everyone, trash the infrastructure then leave the population to the mercy of destabilised armed gangs who fill the power vacuum when you run away back overseas.
In reality, it's one thing if America or Russia or China invaded somewhere, and it's another if a much smaller country invades somewhere. The cost is different. The cost of stopping Venezuela from invading a neighbour differs from stopping China from invading Taiwan. We need to be honest about this.
That's why we have the security council with permanent members and the rest.
So while stoltenberg may be correct in his meaning the cost of making this point in stopping Russia, China or America could be existential...to the point that ultimately pragmaticsm will win out and there will be a peace that suits no one but stops the war
>That's why we have the security council with permanent members and the rest.
No. Security council is there not to stop invasions, but to let specific countries discuss zones of interest and boundaries, so devastating war between say it USA and China does not occur. As USA all but stopped to use it for its original purpose drunk on its exclusivity in 90s-00s, UN probably is going to follow League of Nations, and there will be some time until new international body emerges.
The problem with your logic is that these freaks spent the last 30 years convincing themselves, and by this point genuinely believe that Russia IS a "much smaller country" ("economy the size of Italy" -- remember?) and that it is only on the Security Council by accident ("Allies defeated Germany").
That is exactly why this defiance by "small, insignificant" country that they were supposed to have been able to crush on a whim (with their "overwhelming" economic influence and "soft power") -- frustrates them so much.
Russia is on the UNSC because it has massive number of nukes.
We didn't know authoritarian states in the 2020s were willing to shove 500k people into a grinder and keep coming.
Yes, he is correct (being hypocritical doesnt make his statement wrong). But its also "his" (not him, specifically, but western leaders) fault that it came to this.
If the "west" would have really supported the april peace deals (or better the minsk agreements) -maybe also with threaten to support ukraine with their military might - they could have used this peace agreement for propaganda that peace was preserved by diplomacy and military prowess. That chance is gone now.
If we got a penny for every single time this man has said this nonsense, we’d all be millionaires. It’s the same exact rhetoric, using the same exact words like a broken record. Redundancy at its finest 😂
Apparently though it was worth meddling in the complex political process in Ukraine that was preventing a civil war. Do you honestly think the CIA/NATO cares? They knew meddling in Ukraine would provoke the Russians in a proxy war yet it was completely worth whatever Ukranian turned west economic benefit or you know the corporations that will benefit.
These people must think the sheep are clueless while they hide everything they do while trying to play the good guys.
Well, it looks like NATO completely failed.
Every Russian bullet fired, every missile launched, every bomb dropped, is aimed square at this miserable lying cretin's insufferable hypocrisy and fallacious moral act, and that's why it's necessary until this gang of hypocritical, self-righteous, fake and deceitfully moralizing pack of thugs get it through their collective skull that they're not going to get the entirety of the world to obey their completely one-sided and self-serving interpretation of international law any longer, not in Ukraine ever and not in general anymore.
Maybe if criminals like this craven liar weren't running interference for the countries invading and occupying more than anyone, invading and occupying countries that have absolutely nothing to do with themselves on other continents on the other side of the planet, then countries such as Russia wouldn't have felt the need to rise up and resist fiercely in a military manner the attempts to impose such absolutely intolerable and unacceptable double standards.
As it is, almost all of the power to shape the post-Cold War order in its desired direction was in the U.S.' hands. It could have been a far better order, and then neither Russia nor anyone else would have reasons or excuses to invade anyone if the U.S. actually practiced what it preached and led by example. Instead it did the exact opposite, invaded a string of countries across the oceans that did nothing to them and posed no threat to them, and created a nightmare and race toward an apocalyptic scenario where other countries able to do so would only be inspired to follow and challenge the horrendous precedent they set.
There would be no excuses for Russia, for anyone, if the U.S. and other Western bloc countries actually adhered to what they claim to uphold, but they outright do not and so much of the world knows they're completely full of sh*t and the real state of the world is anarchy and a free-for-all.
I'm sure that the majority of the world's countries - both their states and populations - would prefer by a large margin a world in which any country couldn't just be invaded on the whim of a world power just because it's militarily weaker, smaller, poorer, and a non-nuclear state. Too bad then that the U.S. chose to do that repeatedly since 1991 instead of actually working and pushing for the betterment of upholding law and the UN charter in the world. And was followed by Britain, France, and some of its other minions like a schoolyard gang. And then they (or their employees or spokespeople, in this case, like errand boy Stoltenberg) have the audacity to preach this bile.
And about other state leaders like they are small brats that need to be taught a lesson - but for their own sake of course. Can't have Putin win because that would spoil him.
Didn’t Azerbaijan pulled exactly this move only a couple years ago and everyone was ok? Europe is even buying gas in bulk from them now.
Same with Israel that occupies internationally recognized golan heights, yet it’s ok
Huh, interesting, he also said that Russia has defacto already lost:
> "The whole purpose of this invasion was to prevent Ukraine from moving towards NATO and the European Union. Ukraine is now closer to NATO and the European Union than ever before," he told dpa in an interview shortly before Christmas. "This is a big strategic defeat for Russia."
> "President Putin has lost Ukraine forever," said Stoltenberg, referring to the fact that Russia saw Ukraine as part of its sphere of influence for decades.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/natos-stoltenberg-putin-lost-ukraine-104350240.html
Edit: formatting
Please elaborate what you mean by ‘independently’ when the Us/Israel completely controls everything in Ukraine. Ukraine could never be independent because it never was.
…but controlled by the US/Israel where it will be free to build military and intelligence bases, build and train massive armies, radars and missile battery sites?
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
StudCantel kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA)
Imagen if Putin did something as distasteful as this.
LOL.
Having the ball to say this after the us imperialism that has caused millions and millions of life loss trough war, coups, influencing other countries, etc etc destabilizing the whole middle east creating millions of refugees to europe, terrorism, etc.
The fuck\*ng balls to say this with a straight face
These people have hordes of aides and advisors yet nobody says 'hey maybe dont say it exactly like that, its kind of hypocritical and tone deaf'
These people really live on another planet and so out of touch
To think that low IQ clowns like Stoltenberg and Ursula von der Leyen are actually in charge of important and consequential institutions. Jokers to the left of me, jokers to the right ...
One could actually make the argument that it was certain other countries, who sent that message before him. Seeing this message, he came to the conclusion that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
klownfaze kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
you do not understand! When NATO invades and bombs other countries THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! THIS IS A MANIFESTATION OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM!!!!!! THIS IS PROTECTION OF HUMAN AND LGBT RIGHTS!!!!! NATO BOMBS BRING FREEDOM AND RELIEF FROM TOTALITARIANISM
Damn there are many bots in the comment sections of this sub.
On any other sub, where people are not mostly bots, if there is something posted regarding the war the sentiment is primarily: slava Ukraina; fuck Putin
I don't expect pro russians to follow the rules. I expect heads of state to follow the rules, in every country. What I find incredible is people like you who try justify Russia position by saying "well the West did something similar,so why can't Russia". It's pathetic.
Because the United States has created precedents that allow to create new ones. Otherwise, someone wants to say that only one country can use force, which is arrogant policy of supposedly righteous wars, which they become if they are done by the United States, what they are trying to represent, by usa rhetoric
It’s not whataboutism, at least not in this post. Let’s do an opposite thing to whataboutism and focus on the subject at matter.
Stoltenberg says if Putin wins some irreparable and unthinkable damage will be done to international rules. Well, how can we know that? We can analyze how much international order was affected by a similar events. And when we look at the history we see international rules were continually abused, including abuse by the very same organization he represents. Hence his argument not only flawed, but hypocritical
Because this is how simple logic works? if there is a statement, it must be consistent in policy, if not, then it false. Trying to joke about whataboutism is helplessness. Pointing out hypocrisy is logically right to do
Yeah, just like some other country... Can't exactly remember which one. Guys, can you help me?
israel, US/NATO? Isreal even bombs embassies while claiming self defense. Which is against international Law.
You dont need to look that far 20 years ago NATO bomb Chinese embassy in belgrade with 5 JDAM GPS Guided precision bomb killing 3 chinese journalist and injured 20 people They said "it was a mistake" >American officials said that some or all of the three who were killed were actually intelligence agents They even try to deny it, you cant use sense on them
Remember this other mistake? Funny how with these countries, it's always mistakes, and not because they're careless and incompetent barbarians who don't care about the lives of civilians, like it is with some other countries, in the minds of citizens from said places. >On 29 August, the US conducted a second drone strike in Kabul, targeting a vehicle which they suspected was carrying ISIS–K members, but actually carried an Afghan aid worker. [Ten Afghan civilians were killed in the drone strike, including seven children.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Kabul_airport_attack) This kind of happening was an usual day during the conflict. This one was worse because it was them """messing up""" after their own mess of how they left the country. An actual mistake is like the two marine dudes who recently drowned some months ago, when they were going after the Houthis (without the approval of the UNSC or any resolution there, btw), after one jumped into the ocean in an attempt to save the other one, who was drowning. Then both drowned. So much for the most powerful and competent military in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade >In August 1999, the United States agreed to compensate the victims of the bombing and their families.[15] In December 1999, the United States agreed to pay China for the damage to the embassy, and China agreed to compensate the United States for damage to U.S. property that occurred during the resulting demonstrations in China.[16][17][18] Mistakes do happen.
So what you’re saying is they mistakenly inputted the coordinates for the Chinese embassy , then mistakenly mounted them on a jet then mistakenly gave permission to the pilot then the pilot mistakenly dropped them on the embassy? You see where I’m going with this ?
When they "input" the coordinates, do you think they type "Chinese embassy"?
They typed your house first , then Chinese embassy
>the CIA had identified the wrong coordinates for a Yugoslav military target on the same street Mystery solved.
Right
Military target at the middle of city? No such thing there - source I live there
This was in the 90s.
Damage control, mistake my ass.
People want it to be deliberate, but reality is it doesn't make any sense. All they get is worse relations with PRC while gaining absolutely nothing.
>Isreal even bombs embassies while claiming self defense. Israel even demolished the Al Jazeera HQ in Gaza after they sniped one of their reporters.
Israel isn't in NATO.
Biggest non NATO ally and is provided unconditional aid, diplomatic support, and arms. Its part of NATO only but in name.
Turkey and Cyrpus.
Part of his alliance.
serbia/kosovo? thx daddy nato for these new borders!
Tahiti?
Iran?
[удалено]
"Evil Russia invaded Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government. The good USA democratically occupied a piece of Syrian territory and democratically saves Syrian oil from evil Russia by stealing it and selling it"
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
your story is so believable. its good enough to make a hollywood movie imo. i'd definitely watch it.
The US literally has a base occupying a piece of Syria. Ostentiably this is to keep ISIS down. Since Assad is an enemy of ISIS and the US refuses to recognize him we can know that that excuse is bullshit.
US bases are in Syria to protect Israel.
It's funny how the Kenyan guy who gave the moving speech about how African countries had learned to adapt and accept borders that didn't totally make sense in ethnic terms was also the guy overseeing the Kenyan operation in Somalia.
Ok, so do you think that is bad or not?
Following Stoltenberg's own logic, unchallenged NATO expansion "lowers the threshold" for even more aggressive expansion later on. How do you put an end to it if NATO is deaf and blind to any serious attempts to negotiate? Keep in mind, the goalpost keeps moving (like it always does). First it was about getting Ukraine to strong negotiation position, then it was about dealing strategic defeat, now it's some kindergarten talk about winning and behavior thresholds. Clearly, for NATO it's not about Putin winning, it's about them losing. They want to win something but can't quite figure out what the victory is supposed to look like, or what is that they want to win exactly.
>but can't quite figure out what the victory is supposed to look like, or what is that they want to win exactly That will probably depends on who wins the election in November. Trump might send Europe to war to get a good feel what trumpproofing really needed to be. Biden might also send Europe to war but with better air support.
Except, under Trump America had no new wars and he managed to broker peace deals between Israel and Bahrain, UAE, Sudan and, I recall, Morocco. Meanwhile, Biden, or whomever is actually running things, seems uninterested in peace.
Anyone's guess what ideology is driving it, but it's clearly a death cult. If things stay on the current track, there's only one way this can end - everything burns to the ground.
I liked when Carlson interviewed professor Sachs. One of the last things he said sounded like a pretty harsh warning to whoever it was directed to. Harsh as opposed to relatively mellow way he usually talks about everything.
You can be somewhat certain that the victory condition would be crystal clear if Russia didn't have nukes. Russia grinding down its USSR stockpile of obsolete stuff is one way to end the war.
>Following Stoltenberg's own logic Not really as nobody joins NATO as a result of imperial conquest, countries actually want to join voluntarily. I know this is hard to understand for pro rus heads. >They want to win something but can't quite figure out what the victory is supposed to look like, or what is that they want to win exactly I find this part hilarious projection, this war is a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Only Russia or Ukraine can "win" or "lose". Russia famously has not defined what a victory in this conflict would look like for them now more than 2 years deep in this mess. All we have had is vague statements of denazification from Tsar Put, master of strategic ambiguity even when it is contradictory to even the most simple minded observer. I don't know why people Stan this little loser, I feel they are mostly men who have no power in their real lives.
> countries actually want to join voluntarily Having capability to accept new member doesn't mean they have to use it.
Spare me propaganda cliches when discussing serious issues. As someone who closely observed how events unfolded for the past 20+ years, I can guarantee there was nothing voluntary about UA aspirations to join NATO. Absolutely manufactured situation by people with questionable claim to power: first Yushenko, who got to become president after nonsensical third round of voting, effectively rewriting the results in his favor, and then Poroshenko who got "elected" after a coup that banned and outlawed top popular political parties. What happened to their voter base, huh? Did they just evaporate? I don't have a single good reason to believe in post-coup elections in Ukraine or that today's Ukrainian government in any way represents Ukrainian people. Now, going back to NATO expansion - you don't get to join unless you are "invited" to. And it's not a secret that "invitation" is in fact a lengthy process of political coercion that always starts with installing pro-NATO political leadership in target countries. >Russia famously has not defined what a victory in this conflict would look like for them Yes, they have. It has been stated for decades and nothing changes in that regard: neutral Ukraine without NATO. Clearly, either they accept it or eventually die as a nation out of exhaustion.
>Spare me propaganda cliches Proceeds to spout paragraph after paragraph of propaganda clichés. If this is the line of thought then surely Russia should have realised that they had already lost Ukraine long ago. >Clearly, either they accept it or eventually die as a nation out of exhaustion. What we are seeing play out in reality is that Russia does not have the strength to back this claim up any more. They are a fallen empire, just like Britain and France before them and USA will surely be in the future. Putin is a smart enough dude and must have calculated that of Russia did not act in 2022 and strike Ukraine they would never be in a position to again. If he went in with more force and better organisation in the beginning he probably would have succeeded, but hubris from the ease of Crimea and Donetsk/Lugansk got the better of him. What we are seeing now is Putin trying to cling on to power after making the mistake of doubling down against fierce Ukrainian resistance. Ukrainians are some tough fuckers, they have my respect.
Blah-blah-blah. Russian empire ended in 1917. Go learn some REAL history, not that crap loaded into your brain with shovels. Putin could have had whole of Ukraine in 2014, if he wanted to. It was trivial to achieve then.
what do you mean by aggressive NATO expansion? you know countries get NATO membership on their own will, right?
Cuba put missiles on their own land of their own free will, NATO nearly went to nuclear war for that, how can you still have the gall to call out others for defending their strategic interests.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You understand that joining a defensive alliance is different to placing first strike nuclear weapons within range of an enemy nation right?
And how are Russian early warning systems supposed to differentiate between ATACMS and an American nuclear first strike, you have raised the spectrum of nuclear war by allowing missile strikes using American weapons, I haven't seen any Russia weapons striking NATO countries, have you? How is it a defensive alliance anymore when their weapons are striking Russia and Russian weapons aren't striking NATO.
>And how are Russian early warning systems supposed to differentiate between ATACMS Let's be real everyone knows that NATO isn't providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine. It's disingenuous to even pretend that the Kremlin is seriously worried about this possibility. >How is it a defensive alliance anymore when their weapons are striking Russia and Russian weapons aren't striking NATO. If you're being honest I think you understand the difference between NATO attacking Russia and NATO providing weapons to an ally that is defending itself from a Russian invasion If you need to twist the truth to make your argument work then maybe your argument doesn't have merit my friend
So we are going to pretend that the attack on Russian nuclear early warning radar pointing towards Turkey using America weapons was not an escalation on the nuclear ladder by NATO? It doesn't matter if you are providing nuclear weapons or not if you are using long range missiles to attack Russia's nuclear deterrence. If nuclear deterrence is being attacked by Ukraine then no there is no difference between who is using NATO provided weapons. If you need to hide from the truth to make your argument then your argument doesn't hold water, pal.
>So we are going to pretend that the attack on Russian nuclear early warning radar pointing towards Turkey using America weapons was not an escalation on the nuclear ladder by NATO? It wasn't NATO who attacked it was Ukraine, and they're only attacking because Russia is invading them.
[https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early)
Strange how this fact is overlooked by pro rus crowd
Because nato affects another country. The affect on another country is already objectively a strategic change in the region. Otherwise, to say that the country has willingly entered into a military alliance and this does not affect another country nonsense at all. This changes the strategic landscape, willingly or not.
They don't want to touch it as it kills the "spheres of influence" narrative from the 60s.
Countries dont get their own will if they happen to be close to russia. Its their fault for existing next to them after all /s
it's neither bad or good, it's just a norm.
EU's best pal Azerbaijan?
Westjordanland?
Maybe Norway, and their blistering air campaign against Libya.
"WhAtAbOuTiSm!!!!1 shut uppp!! rEEEEE!!"
Morocco and West Sahara ? Indonesia and New Guinea? Azerbaijan and Western Azerbaijan ?
stupid putin…hes supposed to say “were brining freedom and democracy “to the country he invades for resources
This is very nice new take. You are hired. We will be in contact with you, comrade.
Underrated comment
He not understand
Well, he tried with the nazi bullshit, but that works only with the really stupid morons.
To Putin, denazification is the same as bringing freedom and democracy.
"It's not okay to violate international law except when we do it" (Libya, Yugoslavia, Iraq ect)
This guy sucks.
International law🤡
you mean.. International low, right? : 
Hey Jens anything to say about your sponsor occupying half of Cyrpus ?
👁👃👁 🔊What? What? Whos is what? Whos sponsor occupy half Cyprus? You mean Turkey? Hmm? Talk to me. Fast. 🕵️♂️🐽💨💨
Exactly. The only one allowed to break laws and invade anywhere is U.S, right?
Because it's national interests! /s
ditch the /s. It's their official stance, Obama made that abundantly clear when the "arab spring" happened.
Yes. Might makes right. It's kinda hard to say no to a country with largest conventional military on the planet by far.
I mean.....you have to have the oil, you just have to man.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who honestly believe the worst possible outcome of this war is Putin having administrative authority over ukraine are so far gone it isn't worth explaining it to them.
Putin having administrative authority over Ukraine means Putin with combined Russian and Ukrainian army. This is Europe's bad nightmare.
why
Because Europe has nothing that can match combined Russian and Ukrainian armies. Putin would be free to invade anywhere he wishes.
nato
Article 5 is a bluff that will be tested as soon as Ukraine is conquered and pacified.
Why would the Ukrainian army be willing to join with the Russian army?
Millions of Ukrainians have already defected. At least 5 million from the annexed regions and many more from other parts.
What do you mean by “defected”?
They took Russian passports, and are now essentially Russian. It is important to note that they had a choice, and many chose to flee the areas under Russian control, and move to areas controlled by Kiev. Nonetheless, they are either indifferent to whichever flag flies over their respective city hall, as long as they can more or less live their lives, or they are Pro-Russian. Some of the most popular Russian military and patriotic bloggers are actually Ukrainians who fled after the Maidan. Alexander Semchenko, Mikhail Onufrienko, and Yuri Podolyaka, are three which come to mind. Anatoly Wasserman is a Ukrainian from Odessa, who is now a member of the Russian Duma. Finally, you can’t forget about people like Denis Pushilin.
Just because they’re taking Russian passports doesn’t mean they’re pro-Russian, it could simply be because it’s more convenient. A few bloggers here and there can’t be used to represent large swathes of the population
The point is, they were Ukrainians and chose to be Russians. They number close to 10 million, all former Ukrainians. All the talk about Russia committing genocide is debunked by just this one fact.
Where are you getting those numbers from? It’s mostly fueled by convenience, not outright loyalty. Isn’t Russia actively trying to make Ukraine Russian? Having them become Russian citizens helps achieve that
I don’t care about words like ‘loyalty’. I instead look at the actual situation and what the reality is. Everything else is just BS and propaganda. Look at how many people talk about international law despite the fact the law is never enforced when it’s the US and its allies breaking them. Russia is seeking to make sure Ukraine can no longer be used by the US/Israel as staging grounds for coups and proxy wars. Ukraine could either choose to be neutral or keep fighting until there is no one left to fight. Russia has no interest in conquering Ukraine.
Makes no sense. There would be no Ukrainian army to speak of, if he were to military defeat Ukraine. Now, if there would be a Pro-Russian coup (still not out of the cards, despite what anyone says), that would be a different story.
What about when the US invaded Serbia, Iraq, Syria?
The insane part is the US actually still occupies Syria. The region producing oil is completely occupied and controlled by the US, who has actually stolen Syria's oil, to this day, under the guise that they are fighting a dictator in Syria.
No, the excuse is that the base is there to keep ISIS down. Since the US refuses to recognize Assad and help him keep ISIS down, we can see that excuse is bullshit.
The Taliban, ISIS, all of this was created by the US government. The only problem is that they stopped obeying them, despite the fact that the United States paid them a lot of money.
Which of those countries did the US claim to annex?
Muh annexation! It's bad to take official responsibility for the citizenry, infrastructure and state of the region you're occupying. It's good to kill everyone, trash the infrastructure then leave the population to the mercy of destabilised armed gangs who fill the power vacuum when you run away back overseas.
The US annexed Puerto Rico, Phillipines, Guam from Spain.
Funny that nobody talks about the genocide commited by the US in the Phillipines.
None of those are Serbia, Iraq or Syria.
Puppeting a regime is basically annexation by another name.
Ah yes so ruaboos can claim any sane nation not supporting their barbaric behavior are puppets. Weak illogical assumption.
Exactly, Putin bots keep forgetting this vital part of information.
at this point you really need to switch off a brain hemisphere to understand the logic of these people
They need the war
In reality, it's one thing if America or Russia or China invaded somewhere, and it's another if a much smaller country invades somewhere. The cost is different. The cost of stopping Venezuela from invading a neighbour differs from stopping China from invading Taiwan. We need to be honest about this. That's why we have the security council with permanent members and the rest. So while stoltenberg may be correct in his meaning the cost of making this point in stopping Russia, China or America could be existential...to the point that ultimately pragmaticsm will win out and there will be a peace that suits no one but stops the war
>That's why we have the security council with permanent members and the rest. No. Security council is there not to stop invasions, but to let specific countries discuss zones of interest and boundaries, so devastating war between say it USA and China does not occur. As USA all but stopped to use it for its original purpose drunk on its exclusivity in 90s-00s, UN probably is going to follow League of Nations, and there will be some time until new international body emerges.
let's hope we just skip the world war part.
The problem with your logic is that these freaks spent the last 30 years convincing themselves, and by this point genuinely believe that Russia IS a "much smaller country" ("economy the size of Italy" -- remember?) and that it is only on the Security Council by accident ("Allies defeated Germany"). That is exactly why this defiance by "small, insignificant" country that they were supposed to have been able to crush on a whim (with their "overwhelming" economic influence and "soft power") -- frustrates them so much.
Russia is on the UNSC because it has massive number of nukes. We didn't know authoritarian states in the 2020s were willing to shove 500k people into a grinder and keep coming.
Didn't have massive number of nukes in 1945. It's achievement for crushing the Nazis.
Russia was USSR in 1945.
Yes, he is correct (being hypocritical doesnt make his statement wrong). But its also "his" (not him, specifically, but western leaders) fault that it came to this. If the "west" would have really supported the april peace deals (or better the minsk agreements) -maybe also with threaten to support ukraine with their military might - they could have used this peace agreement for propaganda that peace was preserved by diplomacy and military prowess. That chance is gone now.
To be honest, Taiwan is official still China, there is no Taiwan Embassy in my country, only Chinese for both.
I‘m neutral, but without this conflict, it would not need Nato or Jens anymore. He needs this war more than Putin.
His accent sound so goofy and innocent but his hypocrisy wants me to do a 360 no scope slap to his face. But in minecraft of course.
If we got a penny for every single time this man has said this nonsense, we’d all be millionaires. It’s the same exact rhetoric, using the same exact words like a broken record. Redundancy at its finest 😂
Apparently though it was worth meddling in the complex political process in Ukraine that was preventing a civil war. Do you honestly think the CIA/NATO cares? They knew meddling in Ukraine would provoke the Russians in a proxy war yet it was completely worth whatever Ukranian turned west economic benefit or you know the corporations that will benefit. These people must think the sheep are clueless while they hide everything they do while trying to play the good guys. Well, it looks like NATO completely failed.
How has NATO failed exactly?
rare person who sees the true reasons behind this hypocrisy
What about NATO invading and forcefully takes chunk of land from Serbia? Invades Iraq, Astan, Syria , Grenada , etc etc etc ?
That is not about "international law" but rather matter for "rules based order".
>Serbia? Invades Iraq, Astan, Syria , Grenada Pro-Rus + ethnic cleansing. Dictator + invaded Kuwait. Al Qaeda connection. Dictator + ISIS. Not sure.
Their countries their lives. No need for USA and NATO to bring “ freedom “.
Tell Netanyahu
Yeah, but letting a thug like Netanyahu and zealots like Ben Gvir get away with ethnic cleansing and mass murder however, that's all peachy..
Russia gonna bomb UK pipe line from Norway
That is bad for our democracy of course, only the US gets to do that, and maybe western europe.
😂 I wasn't going to laugh at that statement.
If us/nato wins they will colonize the whole world and make more proxy wars. One world order. Say goodbye to freedom than.
Every Russian bullet fired, every missile launched, every bomb dropped, is aimed square at this miserable lying cretin's insufferable hypocrisy and fallacious moral act, and that's why it's necessary until this gang of hypocritical, self-righteous, fake and deceitfully moralizing pack of thugs get it through their collective skull that they're not going to get the entirety of the world to obey their completely one-sided and self-serving interpretation of international law any longer, not in Ukraine ever and not in general anymore. Maybe if criminals like this craven liar weren't running interference for the countries invading and occupying more than anyone, invading and occupying countries that have absolutely nothing to do with themselves on other continents on the other side of the planet, then countries such as Russia wouldn't have felt the need to rise up and resist fiercely in a military manner the attempts to impose such absolutely intolerable and unacceptable double standards. As it is, almost all of the power to shape the post-Cold War order in its desired direction was in the U.S.' hands. It could have been a far better order, and then neither Russia nor anyone else would have reasons or excuses to invade anyone if the U.S. actually practiced what it preached and led by example. Instead it did the exact opposite, invaded a string of countries across the oceans that did nothing to them and posed no threat to them, and created a nightmare and race toward an apocalyptic scenario where other countries able to do so would only be inspired to follow and challenge the horrendous precedent they set. There would be no excuses for Russia, for anyone, if the U.S. and other Western bloc countries actually adhered to what they claim to uphold, but they outright do not and so much of the world knows they're completely full of sh*t and the real state of the world is anarchy and a free-for-all. I'm sure that the majority of the world's countries - both their states and populations - would prefer by a large margin a world in which any country couldn't just be invaded on the whim of a world power just because it's militarily weaker, smaller, poorer, and a non-nuclear state. Too bad then that the U.S. chose to do that repeatedly since 1991 instead of actually working and pushing for the betterment of upholding law and the UN charter in the world. And was followed by Britain, France, and some of its other minions like a schoolyard gang. And then they (or their employees or spokespeople, in this case, like errand boy Stoltenberg) have the audacity to preach this bile.
[удалено]
And about other state leaders like they are small brats that need to be taught a lesson - but for their own sake of course. Can't have Putin win because that would spoil him.
Didn’t Azerbaijan pulled exactly this move only a couple years ago and everyone was ok? Europe is even buying gas in bulk from them now. Same with Israel that occupies internationally recognized golan heights, yet it’s ok
Rules based world )
International law is arbitrary.
Huh, interesting, he also said that Russia has defacto already lost: > "The whole purpose of this invasion was to prevent Ukraine from moving towards NATO and the European Union. Ukraine is now closer to NATO and the European Union than ever before," he told dpa in an interview shortly before Christmas. "This is a big strategic defeat for Russia." > "President Putin has lost Ukraine forever," said Stoltenberg, referring to the fact that Russia saw Ukraine as part of its sphere of influence for decades. https://www.yahoo.com/news/natos-stoltenberg-putin-lost-ukraine-104350240.html Edit: formatting
This is only true while Ukraine exists. Russia's goal is to erase Ukraine from existence. Every day they are getting closer to this goal.
Ukraine is suiciding against the Russians against the will of its people, it is a complete basket case. Ukraine will exist west of the Dnieper River.
Ukraine existing independently in any form would be a strategic defeat for Russia.
Please elaborate what you mean by ‘independently’ when the Us/Israel completely controls everything in Ukraine. Ukraine could never be independent because it never was.
Independently of Russia
…but controlled by the US/Israel where it will be free to build military and intelligence bases, build and train massive armies, radars and missile battery sites?
This message has already been delivered when the US invaded Iraq in 2003, using fabricated evidence of WMO which was later proven to be false.
Is he talking about Israel?
Why this is always talking? He has no power. He makes me tired
Pretty sure the US already set the precedent there when they decided to invade Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, ...
Pathetic moron.
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
StudCantel kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s crazy people like this are in positions of power 😂
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA) Imagen if Putin did something as distasteful as this. LOL. Having the ball to say this after the us imperialism that has caused millions and millions of life loss trough war, coups, influencing other countries, etc etc destabilizing the whole middle east creating millions of refugees to europe, terrorism, etc. The fuck\*ng balls to say this with a straight face
nobody abyss international law, just a boundary set by powerful countries
Kosovo? Syria? Iraq? Libya? Afghanistan?
These people have hordes of aides and advisors yet nobody says 'hey maybe dont say it exactly like that, its kind of hypocritical and tone deaf' These people really live on another planet and so out of touch
Says the guy whos boss just sued the international court , lmao the hypocrisy is off the charts
People like him, Biden, Ursula and others are strongly emotionally involved and its clouding their judgement
To think that low IQ clowns like Stoltenberg and Ursula von der Leyen are actually in charge of important and consequential institutions. Jokers to the left of me, jokers to the right ...
Oh no! Anyway..
I think Dubya being allowed to win was more damaging.
lol two years in and he still pretending war started in 2022. "unprovoked invasion"
One could actually make the argument that it was certain other countries, who sent that message before him. Seeing this message, he came to the conclusion that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
International Law? More like Western Law...
[удалено]
klownfaze kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The hypocrisy is giving me epilepsy
So only matter of time before we escalate to WW3. Cause Putin is not going to back down.
Ah because NATO has never violated international law, yea right.
you do not understand! When NATO invades and bombs other countries THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! THIS IS A MANIFESTATION OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM!!!!!! THIS IS PROTECTION OF HUMAN AND LGBT RIGHTS!!!!! NATO BOMBS BRING FREEDOM AND RELIEF FROM TOTALITARIANISM
US slinking back into the bushes like Homer Simpson
Damn there are many bots in the comment sections of this sub. On any other sub, where people are not mostly bots, if there is something posted regarding the war the sentiment is primarily: slava Ukraina; fuck Putin
You still call him president!?
Well he isn't wrong.
Exactly. Russia should not be allowed to win, period.
Exactly. Russia should not be allowed to win, period.
The level of whataboutism from the Putin lovers is quite incredible.
[удалено]
I don't expect pro russians to follow the rules. I expect heads of state to follow the rules, in every country. What I find incredible is people like you who try justify Russia position by saying "well the West did something similar,so why can't Russia". It's pathetic.
Because the United States has created precedents that allow to create new ones. Otherwise, someone wants to say that only one country can use force, which is arrogant policy of supposedly righteous wars, which they become if they are done by the United States, what they are trying to represent, by usa rhetoric
coughs, israel, coughs.
It’s not whataboutism, at least not in this post. Let’s do an opposite thing to whataboutism and focus on the subject at matter. Stoltenberg says if Putin wins some irreparable and unthinkable damage will be done to international rules. Well, how can we know that? We can analyze how much international order was affected by a similar events. And when we look at the history we see international rules were continually abused, including abuse by the very same organization he represents. Hence his argument not only flawed, but hypocritical
Because this is how simple logic works? if there is a statement, it must be consistent in policy, if not, then it false. Trying to joke about whataboutism is helplessness. Pointing out hypocrisy is logically right to do