In this case one country, is being attacked while the rest of the world is at peace, relatively, and the United States has publicly stated it will not get into direct conflict with Russian forces. — FreeEmotion

I don't see how the world is "at peace" when there are wars of various degrees of intensity in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, etc. and when people are suppressed, persecuted, and killed in many countries around the world.

The US doesn't need to get into direct conflict with Russian forces when it's got European allies and puppets ....

What are the goals of the great nations of the world right now, isn't it more power and domination over the others, in some sort of an international squid game? — FreeEmotion

Of course it is. The only difference is that the West is run by lawyers, political scientists, and economists, who are better at using diplomatic language to conceal their true intentions than people like Putin or Xi.

In a call with Macron, Putin has said:

A settlement is possible if Russia's legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account, including the recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, the demilitarisation of the Ukrainian state and ensuring its neutral status

Putin tells Macron he will stop targeting civilians as Ukraine invasion continues – RFI

Russia doesn't really need Ukraine. But it does need Crimea for its security in the Black Sea. I think Putin is using Ukraine as a bargaining chip, not to keep it for good.

So, it looks like there is still a chance to come to some agreement and stop the unnecessary fighting before it’s too late. But if the EU and NATO insist on unlimited expansion, then there is no chance of reconciliation. Someone will be the winner and someone the loser. Either way, the main winner will be China as it will have one rival less in the race for global hegemony.

I think people underestimate the moral revulsion among friends and enemies alike if such a thing happens. — FreeEmotion

Well, America did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it did it no harm. So, judging from history, that shouldn't be a big deterrent.

The only lesson to draw from it is that in addition to your nuclear arsenal you also need international finance and the global media on your side.

I don't know about Russia, but China sure is watching and learning a few lessons to put into practice when the time is right ....

Our thread troll — ssu

Talking about yourself again ... :rofl:

The real problem is that Russia has always had this border issue: there aren't any obvious geographical borders, but flatland from Europe to Asia. And hence they've always been insisting on having more territory for defense — ssu

Yeah, right. England has very obvious geographical borders and still they've always been insisting on having more and more colonies: India, America, Australia, Africa, and still not enough... :lol:

It's now an issue of how quickly things play out. — Manuel

I think mass hysteria has become something of a growing trend since the pandemic. People should just relax and not make things worse than they already are.

But to see that international finance has more power than a country with a huge nuclear arsenal, does raise some interesting questions ... :smile:

Historical context can help people understand the why, but that in itself is not a justification. — Manuel

Sure. Justification is a separate issue. And as Iraq shows, the West is not immune to acting on dodgy "justifications". So, I think a measure of objectivity wouldn't be entirely bad.

There is no doubt that a state's actions can be deliberately blown out of proportion by its enemies. Are we seriously expected to believe that Russia is about to take over Europe and America just because it has annexed bits of Ukraine that used to be Russian anyway?

Yeah, we know that. But I think the question remains of where unlimited expansion logically leads to ....

I think an essential step toward a real and lasting solution would be to understand that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism.

Russia was fighting the Mongols (Tatars) and the Turks who had invaded the region from Central Asia (see Russo-Turkish a.k.a. Russo-Ottoman Wars 1568-1918).

Russia was winning and wanted to rebuild the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire centered on Constantinople to keep the Turks out of the region (see the Greek Plan).

Unfortunately, Britain and France wanted to contain Russia and they sided with the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire in the Crimean War (1853-1856).

Russia lost the war and Britain has aimed to contain Russia ever since.

It’s a well-known fact that Britain had a “balance-of-power” policy that aimed to prevent any rival power from dominating the European continent, as well as suppress all colonial rivals outside Europe.

This is why Britain sided with Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 and together with America it backed the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and February 1917.

In addition to Russia, Britain also aimed to contain Germany which it saw as a colonial rival in Africa and the Pacific.

In 1898 Britain entered into a naval arms race with Germany and started a propaganda campaign claiming that a German invasion of Britain was imminent.

Britain also formed an alliance with Japan (Anglo-Japanese Alliance 1902) that enabled it to move its fleet from the Pacific to European waters, and with France and Russia (Triple Entente 1905-1907).

Russia, which had Europe’s largest army, was expected to crush Germany from the east, with France attacking from the west, while Britain would go in with a small expeditionary force.

In 1914 after Russian-German hostilities had started, Britain declared war on Germany for allegedly “violating Belgian neutrality”, and America was persuaded to join Britain in 1917. In November 1917 Lenin and Trotsky staged their Bolshevik Revolution and later signed a peace treaty with Germany.

As explained already, Britain and America backed the earlier Russian Revolution of February 1917 that led to Ukraine declaring “independence” from Russia and is the root cause of the current Ukraine conflict.

It goes without saying that foreign powers were involved from the start. As Ukraine was under German occupation, Germany naturally backed Ukrainian independence from Russia. In fact, Russia was forced to cede Ukraine to Germany in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty (along with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) and the Ukrainian State of 1918 was a client state of the German Empire with a government installed by the German military authorities.

Once America had intervened and Germany had been defeated, Britain and France planned to establish protectorates in South Russia from Ukraine to the Caucasus. The Franco-British Agreement stated:

The zones of influence assigned to each government shall be as follows: The English zone: The Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan. The French zone: Bessarabia, the Ukraine, the Crimea … ‘

France briefly intervened in Ukraine in 1918-1919. However, as Churchill explains, though the French seized Kiev, the project was terminated when French troops mutinied and Russia took back control. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic became part of the USSR which it remained until 1991.

W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166

Moreover, the USSR was formally recognized by Britain, France, and America. Any Western interest in Ukraine had been purely part of the West’s wider agenda in Russia which revolved on control of natural resources like coal, iron, gold, petroleum, etc. And after more than a century of oblivion, they now suddenly remember Ukraine! :grin:

In any case, it is clear what the truth about “Ukrainian independence” is and whose interests it served, but some people just prefer pro-Western propaganda to facts ….

The way it looks to someone from the outside is, this one country is willing to bring the whole world down for some piece of land few people care about? And you just won't get enough people caring about the history, even if it helps elucidate why this is happening. — Manuel

Well, this really only shows that people aren't interested in the facts, not just in history. NATO control of the Black Sea, for example, would be an existing threat to Russian security, not some forgotten event in the past.

Moreover, we are being constantly reminded of history, with never-ending lectures on WW2, the Holocaust, Black History, slavery, etc., etc. The reality is that people are simply listening to what they're being told by the mass media and react exactly as they've been conditioned to do.

As for "one country being willing to bring the whole world down", I think the situation is being blown out of proportion by the West who has the better propaganda machine and the international financial institutions to pull the economic strings in any direction it pleases. In other words, money rules the world.

But I agree that this could have been avoided if NATO (and the EU) had not been constantly expanding. Unfortunately, they have to expand because world domination is their ultimate objective. So, IMO Latin Americans and Indians should care, after all ... :smile:

Putin may be a dictator by Western standards, but I think one important point to remember is that Russia has a different political system with a much stronger presidency and weaker parliament and prime minister than European countries. And Putin has enjoyed the backing of the majority of the Russian people – at least up to now.

Additionally, I think some here tend to display a curious ignorance (or amnesia) of historical facts.
From the 9th century, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine (which really means “borderland”) were one country which was known as “Rus-land” or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę), and which became the core of the Russian Empire.

The “Ukraine issue” only emerged with the collapse of the Russian Empire in the wake of the 1917 revolution, when there was a conflict between the western and eastern parts of Ukraine, with one part forming the breakaway Ukrainian People’s Republic in Kiev in the west, and the other forming the Moscow-controlled Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in Kharkiv in the east.

The watershed period in the development of modern Ukrainian national consciousness was the struggle for independence during the creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic from 1917 to 1921 - Wikipedia

However, Ukraine remained an inalienable part of the Russian State until 1991.

When Putin said "Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,” he was stating a fact.

Back in 1991, US ambassador to Moscow Robert Strauss admitted that Ukraine’s declaration of independence was a disaster for Russia. He said:

The most revolutionary event of 1991 for Russia may not be the collapse of Communism, but the loss of something Russians of all political stripes think of as part of their own body politic, and near to the heart at that: Ukraine.

Putin himself, when he gave his first-ever interview as deputy mayor of Saint Petersburg in 1992, stated that Ukraine was an artificial country created by the Bolsheviks.

If Putin has been saying the same thing for thirty years and his views were universally shared by other Russians from inception, the claim that Putin has suddenly gone “mad” can only be the product of Western propaganda and disinformation (or imagination). Whether right or wrong, his views regarding Ukraine only seem “mad” to those who are ignorant of Russian history.

As for Crimea, it had been colonized by the Greeks since antiquity and later it became part of the Roman and Byzantine empires. It was invaded and occupied by the Mongols (Tatars) in the 1400’s who converted it into a large slave market until its liberation by Russia. In recognition of its Greek heritage, its main port was given the Greek name of Sevastopol in 1783. (Crimean cities with Greek names also include Simferopol, Yalta (Yalita), Feodosia (Theodosia), Alupka (Alopex), Alushta (Alouston), etc.) Sevastopol itself has been a major base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet ever since.

In any case, I for one fail to see how pointing this (and other facts) out makes one a “Putin apologist” or “troll”.

In 1945 the Red Army was sitting on half of Europe and made it clear it wouldn't be leaving. That was the impetus for NATO. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Your statement was:

The US forces were there during the Cold War when the Warsaw Pact represented a much more substantial threat to Europe than Russia does today — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the US forces were there before the Cold War, there was no Warsaw Pact in 1945, and there was a US-European military alliance already during WW1.

Moreover, Anglo-American plans to contain Germany and Russia already existed in the early 1900's. NATO is just the latest manifestation of that.

More nations with nuclear weapons = more chances for misuse or theft. The US extends nuclear security as a means of reducing this risk. Notably, the Soviets acted similarly, not sharing nuclear technology widely. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In other words, (1) the US is acting like the Soviets, (2) the US decides which European states have nuclear weapons, and (3) most European countries have to depend on the US for protection!

But you told us that Europe does not need the US for its defense:

yes, it is fair to say NATO doesn't need the US to stop Russia.

And why can't Europe extend its own nuclear security to America?

So, you still haven't provided any credible reason as to why US forces are still in Europe (except to enforce America's own self-interests).

There is plenty of reasons the bases still exist … the US forces in Europe needed a staging area. US forces also acted as Peace Keepers in Somalia … Moving equipment from Germany to Saudi Arabia is a hell of a lot easier and faster than moving it from Chicago … — Count Timothy von Icarus

From your description, the reasons seem to be to defend America’s global interests, not to “defend” Germany or Europe.

The Warsaw Pact was founded in 1955. NATO was founded in 1949. So the Warsaw Pact couldn’t have been the reason for NATO.

Moreover, the formation of NATO was suggested by assistant state secretary Nelson Rockefeller back in 1945 and one of its stated objectives was “to keep the Germans down”.

In fact, NATO was based on the North Atlantic Treaty and the Atlantic Charter of 1941, and was a product of Anglo-American Atlanticism:

Atlanticism – Wikipedia

Supranational integration of the North Atlantic area had emerged as a focus of thinking among intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic already in the late 19th century … Following World War I, New York lawyer Paul D. Cravath was a noted leader in establishing Atlanticism in the United States. Cravath had become devoted to international affairs during the war, and was later a co-founder and director of the Council on Foreign Relations … Atlanticism manifested itself most strongly during the Second World War and in its aftermath, the Cold War, through the establishment of various Euro-Atlantic institutions, most importantly NATO and the Marshall Plan.

The US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which from 1939 became part of the US administration, was the sister organization of Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).

So, essentially, Atlanticism was an Anglo-American project directed against Germany and Russia from the start, one of its main objectives being to contain Germany and Russia.

As regards the spurious claim that US troops are “defending” Germany and Europe, Europe has a population of 450+ million and an active military personnel of 1+ million.

Russia has a population of only 145 million and an active military personnel of 800,000.

The idea that Europe needs 60,000 US troops to defend itself against Russia is obviously preposterous.

The truth of the matter is that Europe does NOT need America to defend itself against Russia (or anyone else). You have admitted this yourself:

yes, it is fair to say NATO doesn't need the US to stop Russia.

And there are many other questions that remain unanswered, e.g.:

Why doesn’t Germany have nuclear weapons?

Why doesn’t Poland have nuclear weapons?
Why doesn’t Italy have nuclear weapons?
Why doesn’t Spain have nuclear weapons?
Why doesn’t Greece have nuclear weapons?

Why are Britain and France the only European countries with nuclear weapons?

But others likely wouldn't have gone to do it with war and military force. That is the point here. — ssu

As expected, that completely fails to address my point.

1. If Crimea has never been Ukrainian, it is incorrect to say that it belongs to Ukraine.

2. If Crimea was a Russian concern before Putin, then it is incorrect to say that it is Putin's invention.

3. Russia's Black Sea Fleet has always been based in Crimea. If the Black Sea is turned into a NATO lake with NATO members Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and, potentially, Ukraine and Georgia, controlling the coastline all round, this would represent a threat not only to Russia's Navy, but to its access to the Mediterranean.

Basically, what you are saying is that Russia has no right to be in the Black Sea but NATO countries like Turkey and, through them, America, do! :grin:

Do people need me to tell them that war is bad? — jamalrob

Maybe some do. But, apparently, only if started by Russia.

The reality is that most wars have complex causes. If we decide in advance that the West can do no wrong and that Russia can never be right, then discussion - or dialogue - becomes impossible ....

This objective was clear even in the 1990's before the time of Putin. Russia has wanted to have Crimea — ssu

Well, well. Quelle surprise! So, you are finally admitting that annexing Crimea wasn't Putin's idea but had been a strategic objective of Russia before the time of Putin.

All you have to do now is ask yourself why. Could it be (a) because Crimea had been Russian for centuries and (b) because Crimea was where Russia's Black Sea Fleet was based?

If the Black Sea is turned into a NATO lake with NATO members Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and, potentially, Ukraine and Georgia, controlling the coastline all around, would this not represent a threat not only to Russia's Navy, but to its access to the Mediterranean?

What are you babbling about? They can defend themselves, — Christoffer

Obviously, they can't defend themselves if, as you claim, US troops are in Germany to defend the Germans and in Europe to defend the Europeans:

Troops in Germany are there for defense. — Christoffer

And you aren't answering my question: why does Germany not have nuclear weapons whereas Britain and France do? Are Germans second-class people? Or maybe second-race?

Moreover, why can't Europe defend itself against Russia? Europe has a population of about 450 million. Russia has a population of only 145 million. Why does Europe need America, which is 6000 kilometers away, to defend it against Russia??? Don't you find this strange???

because they're in NATO they are augmented in their defense. — Christoffer

Again, why does Europe need its defense to be augmented by America when Europe has a much larger population and economy than Russia?

Or "an open space for Putin apologists" like yourself. — Christoffer

So, it's OK for you to campaign for US imperialism, but not for others to disagree with you?

Besides, I wasn't talking about Putin at all. The issue is the relation (a) between Germany and the rest of Europe and (b) between Europe and America!

What's so difficult to understand?

It is a well-known fact that Anonymous sometimes operates in tandem with the US and UK governments, as in the Syrian civil war:

Anonymous Hackers Swat At Syrian Government Websites – Forbes

The loose hacker collective went on a spree of attacks against various Syrian government targets hosted outside of the disconnected country, including embassy websites in China, Australia, Saudi Arabia and other government sites including that of the Baath political party and the Syrian railway system. Most of those sites were flooded with junk traffic designed to take them offline, but some Anonymous factions hacked and defaced target sites, instead, including the Syrian embassy in Belgium and the Syrian Industrial Bank.

At the same time, the US government was training Syrian opposition groups with links to London:

CIA activities in Syria – Wikipedia

The US government had been covertly funding Syrian opposition groups since 2006, mainly the London-based Movement for Justice and Development in Syria and an associated satellite TV channel Barada TV. Special Activities Division teams were said to have been deployed to Syria during the uprising to ascertain rebel groups, leadership and potential supply routes.

IMO there is nothing surprising for this to happen in Russia as well. However, what makes things more interesting is that the Russian cyber group Conti has now announced that it will retaliate against anyone that wages cyberwarfare against Russia:

Russia-based ransomware group Conti issues warning to Kremlin foes – Reuters

If anybody will decide to organize a cyberattack or any war activities against Russia, we are going to use our all possible resources to strike back at the critical infrastructures of an enemy

If you both can't make your arguments without smearing your interlocutors then it only reflects badly on your arguments. — Isaac

There are some interesting tactics or "discussion techniques" being deployed here. Do you think the forum should be renamed “the Talk Shop for the Woke” or “the NATO PR Office”?

And trolls like @Apollodorus are insisting for Western Europe to "have peace" with Putin, when there isn't a war between the countries. — ssu

No one said there is "a war between the countries". What I'm saying, and I've said many times before, is that peace could be achieved if European countries came to an agreement to not incorporate Ukraine into the EU and NATO. Very simple.

[MOD EDITED]

Why don't you understand what a DEFENSIVE alliance means? Don't you understand how NATO works in this conflict and security situation of Europe? — Christoffer

Excuse me, min herre, but I fail to understand why your defensive alliance is headquartered in Germany and not in Poland?

Moreover, why is Germany incapable of defending itself? Why can't it have its own nuclear defense systems against those bad Russians, like Britain and France do? :grin:

The footage of downed Russian aircraft and multiple whole columns of Russian marked heavy equipment burning seem to suggest a very high toll in a short period. Unclear if Ukrainian claims of downing two Il-76, if confirmed, would mean heavy fatalities on the Russian side. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's exactly what US-UK want to see and why they've been arming and training the Ukrainians. So, logically, this will lead to (1) Russian withdrawal, (2) civil war, or (3) regional/world war.

What are you talking about? It's part of the NATO defense force. NATO defends its NATO member nations or they can be positioned on non-NATO member nations soil if that nation want them there, but the act of fighting against another nation is US choice. However, if a NATO member is attacked, the deal with the alliance is that all of NATO then helps that nation. — Christoffer

:rofl: So ... if you were NATO central command and wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, you would station the bulk of your forces in Germany???

Have you ever looked at a map of Europe at all???

Stationing US troops in West Germany might have made sense in the 40's and 50's when East Germany was under Russian occupation. But after EU and NATO expansion the whole eastern front has moved much further east and the country now closest to Russia's western flank is Poland - and the Baltic countries. So US troops should be in Poland or the Baltic, NOT Germany!

What Russia could do is take the territory east of the Dnieper River.

But Britain and America are arming Ukraine, so it isn't just Ukraine vs Russia any more:

Biden signs memo to give Ukraine £448m in immediate military assistance – PA

And the troops on their soil is because of NATO, it's to have security against Russia. — Christoffer

Sorry, but I think you don't know what you are talking about. If America wants "security against Russia", then let it station its forces in Poland. Or Sweden, if you want them. Wouldn't you just love to have 30,000 US troops in Stockholm to protect you from Russia?

Why Germany? Is America going to fight Russia in Ukraine on German soil???!!! :grin:

This kind of idea that Sweden is in any shape or form a "puppet" of the US is downright stupid. — Christoffer

I think you are getting carried away now. Are you Finnish by any chance? :wink:

I never said "Sweden is a puppet of the US", did I? I said "American domination". If you think Europe is not dominated by America, then do some research and see which banks dominate global investment in Europe, for example.

Europe's financial center is London, not Stockholm. And the largest investment banks in London are American: JPMorgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citi Group, etc.

And the domination isn't just financial. You must have noticed how the US has been putting pressure on Germany and other European countries to take measures against Russia like imposing sanctions, etc.

How is it in Germany's interests to cancel the German-Russian pipeline and buy oil and gas from America instead of Russia (at much higher prices), or to have 30,000 US troops on its soil???

Would you like 30,000 German troops camped outside Stockholm, with nuclear warheads and all, over which you have no control?

So what does this have to do with our critique of Putin and Russia today? — Christoffer

It was an example of actions by European countries that may be interpreted as "selling themselves" to the US, as referred to by @baker. Marshall Plan was a deal, a business transaction: you accept US financial, material, and technical assistance, and in return, you do as you are told by the US.

But we are not only in alignment with the US, but any other nation closer to our ideals. — Christoffer

Sure. However, (1) where did you get your "ideals" from? and (2) do your ideals entail submission to US domination?

In your opinion, what does "training" mean in practical terms? IMO, it means (1) training in the use of the weaponry supplied and (2) training in organizing resistance.

There is no shortage of Ukrainians living in the US or UK who can be recruited for the purpose, in addition to regular US and UK special-operations teams.

And of course there are US and UK intelligence operatives in Russia, as well as anti-government groups that can be supported with financial and technical assistance, etc.

Are all "Buddhists" this negative and defeatist?

Not all Europeans want to live under America's boot.

Where there is a will, there is a way. And where there is no will, it can be awakened.

So, it's a matter of educating, organizing, and mobilizing the public.

Obviously. if you think that reading Pali suttas is going to solve all the world's problems, then it's a different story .... :smile:

Most Europeans sold themselves to the US after WW2 when they accepted Marshall Plan aid in exchange for European unification and US domination.

Sweden was a signatory of the financial-aid-coordinating agency, the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (later renamed Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or OECD).

By signing up to the Marshall Plan, every signatory country, including Sweden, pledged itself to abide by the deal.

It's never too late. If Ukrainians can resist Russia in Ukraine, Europeans can resist America in Europe. It's just a matter of Europeans uniting against foreign powers.

I for one find it rather strange that the pro-NATO camp object to Russian domination of Ukraine but not to American domination of Europe ....

Flying over Slovenia? That's NATO troops and materiel being flown to Poland, Lithuania, and other places. From US bases in Italy ....

Yeah, because "France is doing this" that means Britain isn't doing it. Great logic there, congrats! :grin:

You can add this as well (among other things if you take a few minutes to do some research):

Hacktivists Plot Attacks on Russia With Ukraine Government's Urging - Bloomberg

Hackers are coming to Ukraine’s aid in an effort to target Russian government websites and officials with disruptive counterattacks, according to six people involved in the activity.

Hacker collective Anonymous declares 'cyber war' against Russia, disables state news website - ABC

Britain has already admitted arming Ukraine:

Boris Johnson news - live: Putin’s plans ‘go way beyond Ukraine’, minister warns as UK to boost arms supply – The Independent

Tory MP Tobias Ellwood, a former soldier, recalling serving in Bosnia, told ITV News: “Nato wasn’t part of Bosnia there, but there was a commitment to European security, and now we are playing catch-up.
He added: “Things won’t stop here. Let’s make this very, very clear. Putin’s ideological intention to expand his sphere of influence will go way beyond Ukraine.”
Meanwhile, the UK has pledged to continue to supply arms to Ukraine’s military.
“We know what the Ukrainians want. We are doing our best to get it to them,” UK armed forces minister James Heappey told Sky News.

1. Britain arming and training Ukraine is a FACT.

2. Logically, this can have only one aim, to force Russia to retreat or face civil war and, potentially, world war with US intervention.

See also:

Biden signs memo to give Ukraine £448m in immediate military assistance – PA

Of course, what else could it be? I think people can decide for themselves, though .... :smile:

The situation in the Balkan and Eastern European states is very complex further because of the long history of the various foreign rulers and empires of which these lands were part. Moreover, what is now one country or parts thereof, often used to be part of several other countries. — baker

There is no point reading Pali suttas if you can’t read the writing on the wall in the real world.

Biden is a senile old man on medication who wants to take revenge on Putin for allegedly helping Trump beat Hillary.

When Biden says he isn’t going to send troops into Ukraine what he really means is the following:

When Boris Johnson sent British troops to Ukraine in January to “train Ukrainians”, that was a cover for special operations. The troops were pulled out but left “specialists” behind. That's an established British procedure.

The Brits (and some Americans) are now inside Ukraine organizing resistance aiming for (a) Russian retreat, (b) civil war, or (c) world war.

They have also completely penetrated Russia where they are organizing “peace-demos”, cyber-attacks on government institutions (together with Anonymous), and planning a coup to topple Putin in collaboration with America and then grab Russia's resources.

It is absolutely clear that Biden and Johnson have come to an understanding to overthrow the Russian government. All the talk about “sanctions” is just a smokescreen.

So, if you really care about your people you must tell them that it is time for Germany, France, Italy, and other European countries to unite, make peace with Russia, and kick America out of Europe. It’s either that or slavery. If you care about the future, don't repeat the mistakes of the past. The people of Europe must stand up and fight for their rights. And they must do it NOW, before it's too late.

Sorry, Foolo, but I am not Euthyphro, and you are not Socrates, except perhaps in your dreams!
Regards to the northern cardinal and your fellow Christian .... :smile:

But if we look at the history of states worldwide, it's clear that the legitimacy of a state is a very complex phenomenon. Germany, for example, became a nation state only a 150 years ago, Italy 160 years ago. One would expect a legitimate nation state to have a history spanning back much longer than that. Other states came into existence and disappeared, changed their shape. So where exactly is the legitimacy of a nation state? Note how the UK isn't exactly a nation state, while the US requires an entirely different concept of "nation" to consider it a nation state. — baker

Well, if Italy is not a legitimate nation state after 160 years, then Ukraine is even less legitimate after only 30 years.

Incidentally, Germany may not have been "officially" one state before the unification of 1871, but they were very much one German nation with one ethnic (Germanic), cultural, and linguistic identity - much more so than France or Italy, for example.

Anyway, thanks for confirming that "Ukraine" means "land, province, region". This is consistent with the fact that Ukraine was part of the Kievan Rus a.k.a. “Rus-land” or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę).

You claim that what you quote are the facts — Fooloso4

The "facts" according to the text, Einstein! :lol:

Anyway, I think you’re exerting your brain cells rather too hard and, God forbid, at your age it might cause you to suffer a stroke or something. I notice with some concern that schopenhauer1 has turned the shade of a boiled shrimp already.

In addition, I’ve got other things to do. So, good-bye Mr Foolo ….