Is Russia just about to invade Ukraine?

[weeksy]

That's nice

Oh. Have you watched the interview then?

I thought you were in the camp "none of this affects me"...

No, i meant it's nice that you came to tell us how wonderful you are and how you're vindicated.... Not honestly sure why you came in just to do that in truth, seems a bit needy to me.

[Screwdriver]

No, i meant it's nice that you came to tell us how wonderful you are and how you're vindicated.... Not honestly sure why you came in just to do that in truth, seems a bit needy to me.

I know what you meant and as it happens you're not wrong. It is difficult for me because I endured that barrage of criticism during a period when I was under some considerable difficulty struggling with health issues. Turns out, they were relating to an inflammation in the brain for which I am undergoing some rather severe treatment(s).

So I look back on that period just to see if I was as crazy as EVERYBODY (with one or two exceptions) kept insisting.

Turns out the answer is no. In fact my observations regarding the Biden mafia, it's involvement in Ukraine, the very possibility of Putin invading Ukraine etc. were actually all spot on. I have been exonerated and while I appreciate I should stop going on about it, I allow myself the luxury every once in a while.

It will be equally interesting to see how the media react to this bombshell interview. I know how it goes because the same things happens to me. They will villify Tucker Carlson for allowing Putin the opportunity to promote "lies and propaganda" blah blah.

Note how they will attack the meta position, not the factual content of the discussion. "Tucker Carlson is a traitor", "Putin is a liar" etc without bothering to analyse the factual content of the interview. What "propaganda" is/was Putin spreading? That he loves mother Russia? That NATO and the Western alliances reneged on their promise not to spread to the Russian border??

No. They will go after Tucker, play the man, not the ball. Ignore the meat of the conversation and call it disinformation. No doubt there will be an orchestrated and concerted propaganda campaign being written right now for the legacy media to parrot back at you. It's hilariously easy to spot. They will ALL use the same words...

[Lutin]

That NATO and the Western alliances reneged on their promise not to spread to the Russian border??

Hang on a minute here. If Putin is successful in Ukraine won't this be Russia spreading to the NATO border?

[Hoonercat]

,
It wasn't 'informal', there were international representatives present to oversee and witness the negotiations. Why would NATO and Ukraine sign anything that would prevent Ukraine from ever joining without Russia's agreement to pull out of Ukraine in return? If, as you claim, the only reason for the invasion was the NATO issue, how can it be too little too late, he's getting exactly what he wanted? (or exactly what you think he wanted).

You said that Putin is carrying on with the invasion despite an offer of assurance that Ukraine will never join NATO. That is simply not true. There were discussions, negotiations etc. but no actual formal agreements. Without knowing the entire content of those negotiations we cannot know if any offer was sufficiently robust to satisfy Putin, ergo, we cannot say whether or not a veto of NATO membership was his prime objective.

I say it was. Other opinions are available.

I assume most of us will be watching/have watched the Tucker Carlson interview with Putin. Something that may cost him his livelihood if not his very life. I doubt if the CIA will be happy with such an intelligent well respected journalist running around trying to establish the truth. Our entire western "democracy" now appears to be more concerned with hiding it.

Anyhoo, just popped in to say "I told you so" and to have a flick back at some of the "lunatic" observations I had been making as DEADPOOL. Again, I am vindicated. I only picked the above argument since the broken promise regarding NATO is probably going to be the main talking point.

Not that I suggest Putin is entirely believable or even telling the truth but he's basically saying what I have been saying. From the horses mouth. NATO is the issue and there's no point talking to Biden because he is not making the decisions.

I'm a bit lost as to your point here. When Russia invaded, Putin said one of the reasons was NATO expansion. I've not denied that, I just don't think he's telling the truth. Nearly two years later he's saying the same, you don't know if he's telling the truth but somehow you feel vindicated?

Did Carlson mention Finland?

[Count Steer]

Did Carlson mention Finland?

Did Carlson actually mention anything? As far as I could see he just gave Trumpski's mate a free hit on everything. I don't think he should be bumped off for it, just laughed at long and loud if he claims it was any sort of valid journalism. By the same token as Vlad's (what felt like) 30 minute preamble on Russian history we should invade France because we used to run Calais.

[MingtheMerciless]

Maybe that nice Russell Brand should interview Putin..........

[Count Steer]

Maybe that nice Russell Brand should interview Putin..........

Or Chris Morris.

[Hoonercat]

Did Carlson mention Finland?

Did Carlson actually mention anything?

No idea because I won't watch it. I've watched Carlson stuff in the past where the Russian invasion is concerned and he did exactly the same, just sat there nodding without challenging things that were clearly absolute bollox. I also stumbled across his speech in Hungary to a very uninterested audience and couldn't help but wonder why an American 'journalist' was giving a pro-Putin, anti-US speech in a European country where loyalties are divided between the west and Russia.

[Screwdriver]

That NATO and the Western alliances reneged on their promise not to spread to the Russian border??

Hang on a minute here. If Putin is successful in Ukraine won't this be Russia spreading to the NATO border?

LOL, well it is more complex than it might appear except one of the things Putin is reminding everyone is that they have been there for 1000 years without invading anyone**

The main takeaway from me is the reminder that "we" promised not to expand the NATO border as part of the deal which allowed Ukraine to become a sovereign state. There were some shenanigans around the elections by which which the west installed a friendly government, broke the promise regarding NATO expansion by refusing to rule it out. Like I said earlier, we called Putins bluff and he wasn't bluffing...

Remembering this was after Putin had already decided to take back The Crimea (with no repercussions). It's not as if there was no warning. If I could see the obvious signs I would be (and often am) aghast that anyone else wouldn't.


**I don't know if that is factually correct but you know what I mean, basically no change compared to say the US/NATO installing military bases.

[Screwdriver]

I'm a bit lost as to your point here. When Russia invaded, Putin said one of the reasons was NATO expansion. I've not denied that, I just don't think he's telling the truth. Nearly two years later he's saying the same, you don't know if he's telling the truth but somehow you feel vindicated?

Did Carlson mention Finland?

Yeah I didn't want to pick apart your post in particular but it was merely an example of the sort of "you're talking rubbish you lunatic" that winds me up. Whether it is "true" that Putin invaded Ukraine to defend against NATO expansion or even denazification is moot. That is the reason he is offering and it coincides with my opinion.

The main thrust of my argument being that this whole shit show could and should have been avoided by political means. That is why we have politicians to do our bidding isn't it? I do not see how ANYONE benefits from engaging in hostilities against one of the worlds greatest superpowers.

Except of course weapons manufacturers. Not forgetting I am also of the opinion that the US is not being run by a government for the people, it has been usurped by big tech, big pharma and the military industrial complex. The deep state if you will. They have taken control from an obvious puppet and are busy robbing the taxpayers blind.

Like I say, other opinions are available and I appreciate not everyone agrees but to me it is obvious that bumbling idiot Biden is not in charge of anything. Kamal Harris is another great example of an idiot put in place as a sort of filler. They specifically don't want anyone with any brains getting in the way of this extraordinary heist.

For example, what do you suppose the vast machinery of war is doing when there isn't a decent war to be had? Are they happy to just sit around twiddling their thumbs? Does anyone really believe those BILLIONS of dollars "going to Ukraine" are actually going anywhere except into the pockets of the military industrial complex while greasing the palms of the many corrupt politicians? Why are the US so concerned with the most corrupt country in the world? Could it be that it is the very the very corruption which makes a proxy war so attractive?

Is it true for example that the former actor and comedian Zelensky is now a billionaire? How did that happen??

You don't need to cook the books when there is no book.

[Screwdriver]

Did Carlson mention Finland?

Did Carlson actually mention anything? As far as I could see he just gave Trumpski's mate a free hit on everything. I don't think he should be bumped off for it, just laughed at long and loud if he claims it was any sort of valid journalism. By the same token as Vlad's (what felt like) 30 minute preamble on Russian history we should invade France because we used to run Calais.

Well an American went into the lions den to interview the most dangerous man on the planet and an enemy of our own imperialist ambitions. We know Putin is an evil fucker, most of his political enemies die horribly and people who disagree with him have a strange habit of throwing themselves out of windows.

So when Tucker calmly says "Have you told Viktor Orbán that he can have a part of Ukraine?" I nearly fell off my chair. Balls of steel if you ask me.

A nice touch to ask about the American hostage. I wasn't sure what to expect from such a staged interview, No doubt Putin had their finest A.I and a dozen FSB personnel whispering in his ear; shades of "this wonderful town, Salisbury, which has a famous cathedral and 123m spire, and is famous for its clock"

I was disappointed with the content of course but then I wasn't really expecting much. The real story will be how the mainstream media here put a spin on it. But I applaud Tucker for being so brave, both with his livelihood and no doubt, risking his very life by daring to even speak to Putin. I sincerely hope there isn't some horrible "accident" waiting for him on his return.

This "war" is unwinnable. You can't beat Russia ffs. I was wrong when I assumed it would be over in days but I hadn't considered the idea that the US would engage in outright war and be "allowed" to fund it ad infinitum. It speaks volumes regarding the true motivation behind whoever is running the BIden administration.

[Hoonercat]

That NATO and the Western alliances reneged on their promise not to spread to the Russian border??

Hang on a minute here. If Putin is successful in Ukraine won't this be Russia spreading to the NATO border?

LOL, well it is more complex than it might appear except one of the things Putin is reminding everyone is that they have been there for 1000 years without invading anyone**

The main takeaway from me is the reminder that "we" promised not to expand the NATO border as part of the deal which allowed Ukraine to become a sovereign state. There were some shenanigans around the elections by which which the west installed a friendly government, broke the promise regarding NATO expansion by refusing to rule it out. Like I said earlier, we called Putins bluff and he wasn't bluffing...

Remembering this was after Putin had already decided to take back The Crimea (with no repercussions). It's not as if there was no warning. If I could see the obvious signs I would be (and often am) aghast that anyone else wouldn't.


**I don't know if that is factually correct but you know what I mean, basically no change compared to say the US/NATO installing military bases.

Gorbachev has been very clear on this, the 'promise' only related to the former East Germany following the fall of the Berlin wall.

Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years...The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.”

[Screwdriver]

Gorbachev has been very clear on this, the 'promise' only related to the former East Germany following the fall of the Berlin wall.

Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years...The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.”

Well:

"Did The West Promise Moscow That NATO Would Not Expand? Well, It's Complicated."

https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion- ... 63602.html

Whatever the truth of the matter may be (and I am none the wiser after a quick Google and reading the article I link to!) the fact is that Putin did warn the UN that he did not want Ukraine to join NATO.

It is interesting to discover that the story is more complicated than it appears and that there is no "smoking gun" so to speak for any ratified treaty. Nevertheless Putin warned that he would not be happy about Ukraine joining NATO and his warning was ignored. There was plenty of opportunity for a negotiated political settlement prior to the invasion. That is the main thrust of my argument.

Like I said, we called his bluff and he wasn't bluffing. Whether he's lying or not about his reasoning is moot.

[Count Steer]

Well an American went into the lions den to interview the most dangerous man on the planet and an enemy of our own imperialist ambitions. We know Putin is an evil fucker, most of his political enemies die horribly and people who disagree with him have a strange habit of throwing themselves out of windows.

So when Tucker calmly says "Have you told Viktor Orbán that he can have a part of Ukraine?" I nearly fell off my chair. Balls of steel if you ask me.

A nice touch to ask about the American hostage. I wasn't sure what to expect from such a staged interview, No doubt Putin had their finest A.I and a dozen FSB personnel whispering in his ear; shades of "this wonderful town, Salisbury, which has a famous cathedral and 123m spire, and is famous for its clock"

I was disappointed with the content of course but then I wasn't really expecting much.

I incline more towards this analysis.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentis ... pp_Other

[Screwdriver]

I incline more towards this analysis.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentis ... pp_Other

I can't think why? The article just moans about Tucker and make unsubstantiated allegations. There is no factual content other than to say what did NOT happen. Can you not see how easy that sort of vacuous criticism is?

Then I got to the bit about criticising Tucker because of "the lies" regarding the Dominion voting machines. Naturally they wouldn't expand on what they mean by those "lies" because what Tucker actually did was to reveal the truth.

That is why he got fired and that is why the legacy media are so terrified of independent, real journalists.

[irie]

I incline more towards this analysis.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentis ... pp_Other

I can't think why? The article just moans about Tucker and make unsubstantiated allegations. There is no factual content other than to say what did NOT happen. Can you not see how easy that sort of vacuous criticism is?

Then I got to the bit about criticising Tucker because of "the lies" regarding the Dominion voting machines. Naturally they wouldn't expand on what they mean by those "lies" because what Tucker actually did was to reveal the truth.

That is why he got fired and that is why the legacy media are so terrified of independent, real journalists.

And you know that the above is "the truth" because someone somewhere who you have chosen to believe has said that it is.

[mangocrazy]

Then I got to the bit about criticising Tucker because of "the lies" regarding the Dominion voting machines. Naturally they wouldn't expand on what they mean by those "lies" because what Tucker actually did was to reveal the truth.

That is why he got fired and that is why the legacy media are so terrified of independent, real journalists.

So Fox gave Dominion $787million just to sweeten the pain of Fox (Carlson) telling 'the truth' about Dominion's voting machines? The world is clearly run by philanthropists.

[Screwdriver]

I incline more towards this analysis.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentis ... pp_Other

I can't think why? The article just moans about Tucker and make unsubstantiated allegations. There is no factual content other than to say what did NOT happen. Can you not see how easy that sort of vacuous criticism is?

Then I got to the bit about criticising Tucker because of "the lies" regarding the Dominion voting machines. Naturally they wouldn't expand on what they mean by those "lies" because what Tucker actually did was to reveal the truth.

That is why he got fired and that is why the legacy media are so terrified of independent, real journalists.

And you know that the above is "the truth" because someone somewhere who you have chosen to believe has said that it is.

For a brief moment, I thought you might be asking a sensible question but <sigh> just another insult.

For what it's worth, the mere fact that you stick a LOL at me tells me you have no idea what that report actually revealed about those Dominion machines. They were for example subpoena'd to be examined by an independent authority and the company point blank refused. Lots and lots of stuff like that, with witness statements, data logs revealing those machines were in fact networked, manipulation of error data. Tons and tons of very curious and suspicious "stories", 'accounts", "lies" (if you insist) and yet not a single one of them has ever been meaningfully addressed.

Even if every single one of the vast number of anomalous behaviours indicating election interference was a complete fabrication, you would expect they would therefore be easily and comprehensively rebutted with simple and incontrovertible evidence to prove beyond any doubt those allegations were false.

But no. Every single one is dodged, denied, refused or thrown out of court on some technicality. That in and of itself is enough for me to remain highly skeptical and yet for those who choose to lean the other way, they see the exact same scenario as "fair enough".

Getting back on topic, it reminds me of the attitude towards a US journalist daring to actually talk to the enemy. Er, ok so what is the plan then? One assumes at some stage someone will have to talk to Putin to negotiate some sort of settlement. Or is the plan to just keep syphoning off BILLIONS of dollars out of the economy and giving it to your mates in the weapons manufacturing industry. Billion for you, couple of million for me....

Question the irregularities and obvious signs or interference with the election and you are branded a right wing terr'ist by the legacy media. Well why is the data so unusual with record numbers of voters for the most deeply unpopular president of all time? Could it have been a done deal long before the election even took place? With 60% of the postal votes being harvested three months prior to the election? Is that why all Biden had to do was hide in his cellar and suppress all of the stories about his corrupt activities (in Ukraine!), denounce the Hunter Biden laptop, pump out non stop lies about Russian interference sponsored by H. Clinton. The whole thing was a scam.

Question the merit of pumping billions and billions of dollars into an unwinnable war in the most corrupt corner of the former Soviet Union and again, the legacy media will spend more time going after the whistleblower, denouncing them as traitors than addressing the facts (or lies!) of answers to questions which they insist cannot be asked. What is the plan then? Just keep going? Are things getting better? Or worse? What's the worst that could happen?

A more pertinent question being, who benefits most from this shitshow? Are the people making those decisions benefitting financially from the current situation and if so, what is their motivation (if any) for finding a peaceful solution?

[irie]

@ScrewdriverOnline word count says over 500 words above trying to justify your confirmation bias.

Edit: online word count

[Horse]

“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
Plato

So what are you doing (and have done through the past two years), what do you suggest we do?