Revenge as a legitimate right of Russia

[Alik Bahshi]

Alik Bakhshi



Revenge as a legitimate right of Russia



As is known, Russia lost many territories as a result of the collapse of the USSR, which, according to Putin, is equivalent to the 'biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcpINU5zxFU). The Russian people, who for centuries created a state on their original territory and defended it from numerous enemies, found themselves morally disadvantaged. Putin's remark is absolutely correct that after this catastrophe, a large number of Russians now live abroad and, moreover, in artificially created states, are subjected to unheard-of discrimination, reaching the point that they are forced to learn the language of the so-called indigenous peoples, who came from nowhere.

Putin's legitimate desire to restore historical justice (1,2) has caused anger and indignation among the Western elite, who have long dreamed of seizing the wealth of the Russian people, and today, when thanks to Putin Russia has begun to rise from its knees, the enemies deliberately call it revanchism in order to provoke negative emotions among ordinary people. In their opinion, the 'revanchist' Putin is violating the established world order, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the artificially created disintegration of Russia is a violation of that very world order. They receive any legitimate right of Russia, such as returning lost territories or laying gas pipelines in international waters, with hostility, while they themselves are illegally trying to lay a trans-Caspian gas pipeline (3) along the bottom of the Caspian Sea, which has historically always been an internal sea of ​​Russia.

I think that Russia should immediately appeal to the International Court of Justice in the Hague in this regard in order to punish Ukraine for the illegal occupation of the original Russian land, namely Kievan Rus, from which the Russian state began, and also make claims against Iran, which should answer for the fact that the Scythians (an Iranian-speaking people) illegally lived for a long historical period on the territory that became Rus several centuries later. True, after the Tatars destroyed Kyiv, and Kievan Rus ceased to exist as a state, the Ruriks from the Scandinavian tribe of Rusa again founded their Russian state of Muscovy.

Thus, Kievan Rus and Muscovy are two completely different Russian states - Russian because they belonged to the Rurik Rus, but that is another story. By the way, the population of these countries historically had the status of kholops (slaves) of the Rurik Rus, since then in Russia the adjective 'Russian' has been preserved in the definition. Taking advantage of this circumstance, Putin quite rightly considers Ukrainians and Russians, as former serfs of the Ruriks, to be one people and gives him a legal justification for returning Ukrainians to Russia.



1. National interests of Russia. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/35700.html

2. Back to the empire, or restoration of historical justice according to Putin. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/22792.html

3. Trans-Caspian gas pipeline or the Third World War. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/18362.html



01.06.19

[BADecker]

You have asked the question, "Why." I don't know the answer. But there is an almost 2-hour video (that I have posted before) that might answer the question for you.

This video is loaded with a lot of things that don't focus on your "Why?" So, if you want to take the time to find out why, watch the full video. With your background, you might find the answers better than I have.

Personally, I'd download the video in the background while I was doing other things. Then I would watch it in some off-line video player at a time that I was freed up a bit. This way I could skip the parts that were not focusing on "Why?" But don't skip too much or go too fast, or you might miss something that is important.

How to Identify a Psychopath With Dr. Lee Merritt and Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/gbbQwkBfiN12

[Alik Bahshi]

You have asked the question, "Why." I don't know the answer. But there is an almost 2-hour video (that I have posted before) that might answer the question for you.

This video is loaded with a lot of things that don't focus on your "Why?" So, if you want to take the time to find out why, watch the full video. With your background, you might find the answers better than I have.

Personally, I'd download the video in the background while I was doing other things. Then I would watch it in some off-line video player at a time that I was freed up a bit. This way I could skip the parts that were not focusing on "Why?" But don't skip too much or go too fast, or you might miss something that is important.

How to Identify a Psychopath With Dr. Lee Merritt and Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/gbbQwkBfiN12

  Excuse me, where did you find the question "why" in this topic? Calm down, read the topic carefully. By the way, I didn't ask any questions in it, especially to you personally.

[BADecker]

You have asked the question, "Why." I don't know the answer. But there is an almost 2-hour video (that I have posted before) that might answer the question for you.

This video is loaded with a lot of things that don't focus on your "Why?" So, if you want to take the time to find out why, watch the full video. With your background, you might find the answers better than I have.

Personally, I'd download the video in the background while I was doing other things. Then I would watch it in some off-line video player at a time that I was freed up a bit. This way I could skip the parts that were not focusing on "Why?" But don't skip too much or go too fast, or you might miss something that is important.

How to Identify a Psychopath With Dr. Lee Merritt and Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/gbbQwkBfiN12

  Excuse me, where did you find the question "why" in this topic? Calm down, read the topic carefully. By the way, I didn't ask any questions in it, especially to you personally.

It's in one of your links at the bottom of your article. You seem to use it as reference to uphold your authenticity of this article. Besides, you have asked it in one of your topics as the title of that topic.

Things of this complexity can't be answered in one post. Watch the video.

[Alik Bahshi]

You have asked the question, "Why." I don't know the answer. But there is an almost 2-hour video (that I have posted before) that might answer the question for you.

This video is loaded with a lot of things that don't focus on your "Why?" So, if you want to take the time to find out why, watch the full video. With your background, you might find the answers better than I have.

Personally, I'd download the video in the background while I was doing other things. Then I would watch it in some off-line video player at a time that I was freed up a bit. This way I could skip the parts that were not focusing on "Why?" But don't skip too much or go too fast, or you might miss something that is important.

How to Identify a Psychopath With Dr. Lee Merritt and Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/gbbQwkBfiN12

  Excuse me, where did you find the question "why" in this topic? Calm down, read the topic carefully. By the way, I didn't ask any questions in it, especially to you personally.

  Dear, I personally do not need to confirm the authenticity of this article. The links I refer to are provided so as not to go into details that I have previously considered. Further, if you yourself say that the question "Why" relates to another topic, then write your opinion there, otherwise it brings confusion.
It's in one of your links at the bottom of your article. You seem to use it as reference to uphold your authenticity of this article. Besides, you have asked it in one of your topics as the title of that topic.

Things of this complexity can't be answered in one post. Watch the video.

[BADecker]

You have asked the question, "Why." I don't know the answer. But there is an almost 2-hour video (that I have posted before) that might answer the question for you.

This video is loaded with a lot of things that don't focus on your "Why?" So, if you want to take the time to find out why, watch the full video. With your background, you might find the answers better than I have.

Personally, I'd download the video in the background while I was doing other things. Then I would watch it in some off-line video player at a time that I was freed up a bit. This way I could skip the parts that were not focusing on "Why?" But don't skip too much or go too fast, or you might miss something that is important.

How to Identify a Psychopath With Dr. Lee Merritt and Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/gbbQwkBfiN12

  Excuse me, where did you find the question "why" in this topic? Calm down, read the topic carefully. By the way, I didn't ask any questions in it, especially to you personally.

  Dear, I personally do not need to confirm the authenticity of this article. The links I refer to are provided so as not to go into details that I have previously considered. Further, if you yourself say that the question "Why" relates to another topic, then write your opinion there, otherwise it brings confusion.
It's in one of your links at the bottom of your article. You seem to use it as reference to uphold your authenticity of this article. Besides, you have asked it in one of your topics as the title of that topic.

Things of this complexity can't be answered in one post. Watch the video.

Except that you can't write your OP article truthfully unless you find out the 'why'. Watch the video, and do your research with the things of the video in mind. Maybe you know all that 'stuff' already. But if you do, why don't you convey a different picture in the OP than you do?

If I say that it's up to you, it's not like I am ordering you or giving you permission. But without a deeper understanding, all you are doing is spouting a bunch of nonsense. But that's what you are good at... propagandizing.

[caroasi]

"Compensation for victims leads to full justice, even without any revenge or vengeance. So, the focus of justice should be restitution of victims, followed secondly by prevention future victims. Justice is to enable discipline, not satisfy anger. So, vengeance or revenge are not virtues, so when the acts offer no satisfaction its because they accomplished nothing."

- Rainbow Rock (link in signature)

I don't think revenge is a justification for war or a personal fight, including the Russia-Ukraine war. However, I also doubt Russia has claimed that as their stated reason. Russia has stated the troop build-up along Russia's borders was the reason. Whether that is a good reason or not I have not put much thought into, but it certainly could be interpreted as aggression.

[paxmao]

I think that this article actually addresses the core issue of this war. There are two ways of thinking about life in that sense:

- Greek Logic
- Nietsche "uber man" (person?).

In the first one, the right comes from a logic argument and a political view of life. e.g. The people in Ukraine are the ones who should decide about their own future. There is no point of Ukraine being managed by Moscow and people in there who have other interest than the best for Ukranian future.

Another example, this is for BA = Texas should have the right to seced from the Union if a majority of people in Texas decides so. I am sure that since you do nor accept Ukraine deciding, you would never ever support Texas deciding

The second way, Nietschez's way is, in essence, "right assists the strong" - why? Well, because is strong and can do its bidding - kind of the wild natural order of life. For example, Texas would not be able to seced from the US, because the rest of the US is stronger and can do whatever the want with Texans.

This later is the argument that Ruzzia uses to assert that somehow they have the right to "revenge", "rule", "annex" or whatever you want to call over the people of Ukraine and the many other nationalities they claim superiority over.

When these two visions of the world collide, it all comes down pure brute force. There is no right for Ruzzia whatsoever other than what they can take by force.

BTW has anyone had a look at the older maps? I am just saying in case people think that the past justifies anything...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

Kievan Rus',[a] also known as Kyivan Rus',[6][7] was the first East Slavic state and later an amalgam of principalities[8] in Eastern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century.[9][10] Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse,[11][12] and Finnic, it was ruled by the Rurik dynasty, founded by the Varangian prince Rurik.[13] The name was coined by Russian historians in the 19th century to describe the period when Kiev was preeminent.

[BADecker]

I think that this article actually addresses the core issue of this war. There are two ways of thinking about life in that sense:

- Greek Logic
- Nietsche "uber man" (person?).

In the first one, the right comes from a logic argument and a political view of life. e.g. The people in Ukraine are the ones who should decide about their own future. There is no point of Ukraine being managed by Moscow and people in there who have other interest than the best for Ukranian future.

Another example, this is for BA = Texas should have the right to seced from the Union if a majority of people in Texas decides so. I am sure that since you do nor accept Ukraine deciding, you would never ever support Texas deciding

The second way, Nietschez's way is, in essence, "right assists the strong" - why? Well, because is strong and can do its bidding - kind of the wild natural order of life. For example, Texas would not be able to seced from the US, because the rest of the US is stronger and can do whatever the want with Texans.

This later is the argument that Ruzzia uses to assert that somehow they have the right to "revenge", "rule", "annex" or whatever you want to call over the people of Ukraine and the many other nationalities they claim superiority over.

When these two visions of the world collide, it all comes down pure brute force. There is no right for Ruzzia whatsoever other than what they can take by force.

BTW has anyone had a look at the older maps? I am just saying in case people think that the past justifies anything...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

Kievan Rus',[a] also known as Kyivan Rus',[6][7] was the first East Slavic state and later an amalgam of principalities[8] in Eastern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century.[9][10] Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse,[11][12] and Finnic, it was ruled by the Rurik dynasty, founded by the Varangian prince Rurik.[13] The name was coined by Russian historians in the 19th century to describe the period when Kiev was preeminent.

https://cdn.britannica.com/44/3844-050-6F9CDF65/Kievan-Rus.jpg?w=300

Exactly the point. The people should decide.

The people of the Black Sea Corridor decided to join Russia ages ago, but at least by 2014. The Ukraine government attacked them for deciding that way. The Russian 'invasion' was simply Putin protecting his own.

If Texas seceded, the other States wouldn't object, because many of the people of many of the States have the same feelings of secession as Texas does. The major reason why Texas doesn't secede is that the Biden Regime is gone and Trump is in. However, if Trump doesn't get some of the things done that the people want, secession may be back on the table.

Twisting the old maps of the whole Russia/Ukraine lands to mean that things should be that way today, is stupid. And using Wikipedia is worse, because that whole site twists things even farther. People of today haven't decided by the old maps or by the modern maps. Many of the maps are simply what the world leaders would like them to be.

All of it is being done to conquer Russia, and take her away from her people. Who is attempting to conquer Russia? Mostly people who own the Western banking systems. But Putin is resisting, and showing them that Russia will never let it happen.

[Alik Bahshi]

You have asked the question, "Why." I don't know the answer. But there is an almost 2-hour video (that I have posted before) that might answer the question for you.

This video is loaded with a lot of things that don't focus on your "Why?" So, if you want to take the time to find out why, watch the full video. With your background, you might find the answers better than I have.

Personally, I'd download the video in the background while I was doing other things. Then I would watch it in some off-line video player at a time that I was freed up a bit. This way I could skip the parts that were not focusing on "Why?" But don't skip too much or go too fast, or you might miss something that is important.

How to Identify a Psychopath With Dr. Lee Merritt and Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/gbbQwkBfiN12

  Excuse me, where did you find the question "why" in this topic? Calm down, read the topic carefully. By the way, I didn't ask any questions in it, especially to you personally.

  Dear, I personally do not need to confirm the authenticity of this article. The links I refer to are provided so as not to go into details that I have previously considered. Further, if you yourself say that the question "Why" relates to another topic, then write your opinion there, otherwise it brings confusion.
It's in one of your links at the bottom of your article. You seem to use it as reference to uphold your authenticity of this article. Besides, you have asked it in one of your topics as the title of that topic.

Things of this complexity can't be answered in one post. Watch the video.

Except that you can't write your OP article truthfully unless you find out the 'why'. Watch the video, and do your research with the things of the video in mind. Maybe you know all that 'stuff' already. But if you do, why don't you convey a different picture in the OP than you do?

If I say that it's up to you, it's not like I am ordering you or giving you permission. But without a deeper understanding, all you are doing is spouting a bunch of nonsense. But that's what you are good at... propagandizing.

As I understand it, you, not finding arguments on this topic, are trying to tell me how I should write something that interests you, and also so that I write a review of some video. Wouldn't it be better for you to fulfill your wish yourself. And I also welcome your forced activity as a troll of Putin in my topics, otherwise you will lose your job. Personally, I find it funny to argue with you, which allows topics to be on top.

[BADecker]

~

Except that you can't write your OP article truthfully unless you find out the 'why'. Watch the video, and do your research with the things of the video in mind. Maybe you know all that 'stuff' already. But if you do, why don't you convey a different picture in the OP than you do?

If I say that it's up to you, it's not like I am ordering you or giving you permission. But without a deeper understanding, all you are doing is spouting a bunch of nonsense. But that's what you are good at... propagandizing.

As I understand it, you, not finding arguments on this topic, are trying to tell me how I should write something that interests you, and also so that I write a review of some video. Wouldn't it be better for you to fulfill your wish yourself. And I also welcome your forced activity as a troll of Putin in my topics, otherwise you will lose your job. Personally, I find it funny to argue with you, which allows topics to be on top.

You seem to misunderstand. I think that you did a good job of writing in favor of Russia, sort of. But neither Russia nor Putin are taking revenge. They are simply, finally stepping up and protecting their people and their country. It might look like revenge, and some of the people of Russia might think that it is revenge, but it is simply self-protection.

The video that I presented was just to show how a small group of people have influence the world for thousands of years. And a lot of this influence has been in the area of Russia and Ukraine. I thought it might give you a better understanding of the fact that Russia is not the bad thing that you seem to say it is most of the time.

[Alik Bahshi]

~

Except that you can't write your OP article truthfully unless you find out the 'why'. Watch the video, and do your research with the things of the video in mind. Maybe you know all that 'stuff' already. But if you do, why don't you convey a different picture in the OP than you do?

If I say that it's up to you, it's not like I am ordering you or giving you permission. But without a deeper understanding, all you are doing is spouting a bunch of nonsense. But that's what you are good at... propagandizing.

As I understand it, you, not finding arguments on this topic, are trying to tell me how I should write something that interests you, and also so that I write a review of some video. Wouldn't it be better for you to fulfill your wish yourself. And I also welcome your forced activity as a troll of Putin in my topics, otherwise you will lose your job. Personally, I find it funny to argue with you, which allows topics to be on top.

You seem to misunderstand. I think that you did a good job of writing in favor of Russia, sort of. But neither Russia nor Putin are taking revenge. They are simply, finally stepping up and protecting their people and their country. It might look like revenge, and some of the people of Russia might think that it is revenge, but it is simply self-protection.

The video that I presented was just to show how a small group of people have influence the world for thousands of years. And a lot of this influence has been in the area of Russia and Ukraine. I thought it might give you a better understanding of the fact that Russia is not the bad thing that you seem to say it is most of the time.

 You are in vain trying to justify Russia's aggression with lies. The use of Goebbels' propaganda only confirms how mired in lies Russia is. By the way, stick to this topic, and I don't watch Russian videos, it was enough to see the video about a boy crucified by Ukrainians to understand how disgusting Russia's lies are. Maybe this is the video you advise me to watch? But I never open your lying links in the spirit of crucified boys.

[paxmao]

I think that this article actually addresses the core issue of this war. There are two ways of thinking about life in that sense:

- Greek Logic
- Nietsche "uber man" (person?).

In the first one, the right comes from a logic argument and a political view of life. e.g. The people in Ukraine are the ones who should decide about their own future. There is no point of Ukraine being managed by Moscow and people in there who have other interest than the best for Ukranian future.

Another example, this is for BA = Texas should have the right to seced from the Union if a majority of people in Texas decides so. I am sure that since you do nor accept Ukraine deciding, you would never ever support Texas deciding

The second way, Nietschez's way is, in essence, "right assists the strong" - why? Well, because is strong and can do its bidding - kind of the wild natural order of life. For example, Texas would not be able to seced from the US, because the rest of the US is stronger and can do whatever the want with Texans.

This later is the argument that Ruzzia uses to assert that somehow they have the right to "revenge", "rule", "annex" or whatever you want to call over the people of Ukraine and the many other nationalities they claim superiority over.

When these two visions of the world collide, it all comes down pure brute force. There is no right for Ruzzia whatsoever other than what they can take by force.

BTW has anyone had a look at the older maps? I am just saying in case people think that the past justifies anything...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

Kievan Rus',[a] also known as Kyivan Rus',[6][7] was the first East Slavic state and later an amalgam of principalities[8] in Eastern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century.[9][10] Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse,[11][12] and Finnic, it was ruled by the Rurik dynasty, founded by the Varangian prince Rurik.[13] The name was coined by Russian historians in the 19th century to describe the period when Kiev was preeminent.

https://cdn.britannica.com/44/3844-050-6F9CDF65/Kievan-Rus.jpg?w=300

Exactly the point. The people should decide.

The people of the Black Sea Corridor decided to join Russia ages ago, but at least by 2014. The Ukraine government attacked them for deciding that way. The Russian 'invasion' was simply Putin protecting his own.

If Texas seceded, the other States wouldn't object, because many of the people of many of the States have the same feelings of secession as Texas does. The major reason why Texas doesn't secede is that the Biden Regime is gone and Trump is in. However, if Trump doesn't get some of the things done that the people want, secession may be back on the table.

Twisting the old maps of the whole Russia/Ukraine lands to mean that things should be that way today, is stupid. And using Wikipedia is worse, because that whole site twists things even farther. People of today haven't decided by the old maps or by the modern maps. Many of the maps are simply what the world leaders would like them to be.

All of it is being done to conquer Russia, and take her away from her people. Who is attempting to conquer Russia? Mostly people who own the Western banking systems. But Putin is resisting, and showing them that Russia will never let it happen.

BA, this is false information. There is no "people in the BS corridor", the corridor is in the sea.

Ruzzia invaded Crimea in 2014 and did a fake-feredum, wihtou any guarantee of impartial observers and under military occupation. I am not sure we are talking about the same "People".... when you say people perhaps you mean the "people at the Kremlin"?

Putin is not resisting the "West Banking" - until sanctions started at least. He was effectively using it at top speed, else how do you justify the billions of Ruzzian assets currently frozen in Europe??

[BADecker]

I think that this article actually addresses the core issue of this war. There are two ways of thinking about life in that sense:

- Greek Logic
- Nietsche "uber man" (person?).

In the first one, the right comes from a logic argument and a political view of life. e.g. The people in Ukraine are the ones who should decide about their own future. There is no point of Ukraine being managed by Moscow and people in there who have other interest than the best for Ukranian future.

Another example, this is for BA = Texas should have the right to seced from the Union if a majority of people in Texas decides so. I am sure that since you do nor accept Ukraine deciding, you would never ever support Texas deciding

The second way, Nietschez's way is, in essence, "right assists the strong" - why? Well, because is strong and can do its bidding - kind of the wild natural order of life. For example, Texas would not be able to seced from the US, because the rest of the US is stronger and can do whatever the want with Texans.

This later is the argument that Ruzzia uses to assert that somehow they have the right to "revenge", "rule", "annex" or whatever you want to call over the people of Ukraine and the many other nationalities they claim superiority over.

When these two visions of the world collide, it all comes down pure brute force. There is no right for Ruzzia whatsoever other than what they can take by force.

BTW has anyone had a look at the older maps? I am just saying in case people think that the past justifies anything...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

Kievan Rus',[a] also known as Kyivan Rus',[6][7] was the first East Slavic state and later an amalgam of principalities[8] in Eastern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century.[9][10] Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse,[11][12] and Finnic, it was ruled by the Rurik dynasty, founded by the Varangian prince Rurik.[13] The name was coined by Russian historians in the 19th century to describe the period when Kiev was preeminent.

https://cdn.britannica.com/44/3844-050-6F9CDF65/Kievan-Rus.jpg?w=300

Exactly the point. The people should decide.

The people of the Black Sea Corridor decided to join Russia ages ago, but at least by 2014. The Ukraine government attacked them for deciding that way. The Russian 'invasion' was simply Putin protecting his own.

If Texas seceded, the other States wouldn't object, because many of the people of many of the States have the same feelings of secession as Texas does. The major reason why Texas doesn't secede is that the Biden Regime is gone and Trump is in. However, if Trump doesn't get some of the things done that the people want, secession may be back on the table.

Twisting the old maps of the whole Russia/Ukraine lands to mean that things should be that way today, is stupid. And using Wikipedia is worse, because that whole site twists things even farther. People of today haven't decided by the old maps or by the modern maps. Many of the maps are simply what the world leaders would like them to be.

All of it is being done to conquer Russia, and take her away from her people. Who is attempting to conquer Russia? Mostly people who own the Western banking systems. But Putin is resisting, and showing them that Russia will never let it happen.

BA, this is false information. There is no "people in the BS corridor", the corridor is in the sea.

Ruzzia invaded Crimea in 2014 and did a fake-feredum, wihtou any guarantee of impartial observers and under military occupation. I am not sure we are talking about the same "People".... when you say people perhaps you mean the "people at the Kremlin"?

Putin is not resisting the "West Banking" - until sanctions started at least. He was effectively using it at top speed, else how do you justify the billions of Ruzzian assets currently frozen in Europe??

"Black Sea Corridor" was my name for the land that Russia took over starting 2022. Maybe there are others who named it the same.

You can find many people who would disagree with both of us about the choice of the people in the BSC and Crimea... which government they wanted to be under. It would take a lot more ability than either of us have to find out the truth.

The West has always been against Russia. They knew that if Russian funds were in a Western bank, that the bank had it. Russia was simply trying to trust the West and do business.

In the past 50 years, both the US and Russia have been peace keepers around the world at different times. That's what the UN is there for... to direct which nation was to be the peace keeper this time.

When Putin filed Article 51 of the UN Charter against Ukraine, what was the response? What could the response possibly be except to conquer Russia, because it was the Western 'peace keepers' who were and are using Ukraine against Russia.

This is what is destroying the lives in the war. It's the West using and manipulating Ukraine through Zelensky and through Western election fraud that got Zelensky in there in the first place.. all of it to conquer Russia.

[jackpotmaster]

Another example, this is for BA = Texas should have the right to seced from the Union if a majority of people in Texas decides so. I am sure that since you do nor accept Ukraine deciding, you would never ever support Texas deciding

The majority of people are very biased and inconsistent on that point. Where they support a region to secede they will talk about how it is all legitimate and democratic. Where they don't, they will pull at all strings and make up lies about the referendums or votes that were held. You can't have it both ways, either we support regions to secede if they vote to do so everywhere or we don't.

BTW has anyone had a look at the older maps? I am just saying in case people think that the past justifies anything...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

Kievan Rus',[a] also known as Kyivan Rus',[6][7] was the first East Slavic state and later an amalgam of principalities[8] in Eastern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century.[9][10] Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse,[11][12] and Finnic, it was ruled by the Rurik dynasty, founded by the Varangian prince Rurik.[13] The name was coined by Russian historians in the 19th century to describe the period when Kiev was preeminent.

Yes, Ukraine and Russia have shared origins just that one is much older than the other.

Ruzzia invaded Crimea in 2014 and did a fake-feredum, wihtou any guarantee of impartial observers and under military occupation. I am not sure we are talking about the same "People".... when you say people perhaps you mean the "people at the Kremlin"?

There you go.   I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this referendum in particular, but consistency is needed. Should I draw up every session referendum that the EU supported and call it illegitimate to make a point? If it is in my interest, support it and call it democratic and legitimate. If it is not in my interest, say that it is fake and fraudulent.   It is a very basic strategy, and a lot of people are falling for it..

[Alik Bahshi]

I think that this article actually addresses the core issue of this war. There are two ways of thinking about life in that sense:

- Greek Logic
- Nietsche "uber man" (person?).

In the first one, the right comes from a logic argument and a political view of life. e.g. The people in Ukraine are the ones who should decide about their own future. There is no point of Ukraine being managed by Moscow and people in there who have other interest than the best for Ukranian future.

Another example, this is for BA = Texas should have the right to seced from the Union if a majority of people in Texas decides so. I am sure that since you do nor accept Ukraine deciding, you would never ever support Texas deciding

The second way, Nietschez's way is, in essence, "right assists the strong" - why? Well, because is strong and can do its bidding - kind of the wild natural order of life. For example, Texas would not be able to seced from the US, because the rest of the US is stronger and can do whatever the want with Texans.

This later is the argument that Ruzzia uses to assert that somehow they have the right to "revenge", "rule", "annex" or whatever you want to call over the people of Ukraine and the many other nationalities they claim superiority over.

When these two visions of the world collide, it all comes down pure brute force. There is no right for Ruzzia whatsoever other than what they can take by force.

BTW has anyone had a look at the older maps? I am just saying in case people think that the past justifies anything...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

Kievan Rus',[a] also known as Kyivan Rus',[6][7] was the first East Slavic state and later an amalgam of principalities[8] in Eastern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century.[9][10] Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse,[11][12] and Finnic, it was ruled by the Rurik dynasty, founded by the Varangian prince Rurik.[13] The name was coined by Russian historians in the 19th century to describe the period when Kiev was preeminent.

https://cdn.britannica.com/44/3844-050-6F9CDF65/Kievan-Rus.jpg?w=300

Exactly the point. The people should decide.

The people of the Black Sea Corridor decided to join Russia ages ago, but at least by 2014. The Ukraine government attacked them for deciding that way. The Russian 'invasion' was simply Putin protecting his own.

If Texas seceded, the other States wouldn't object, because many of the people of many of the States have the same feelings of secession as Texas does. The major reason why Texas doesn't secede is that the Biden Regime is gone and Trump is in. However, if Trump doesn't get some of the things done that the people want, secession may be back on the table.

Twisting the old maps of the whole Russia/Ukraine lands to mean that things should be that way today, is stupid. And using Wikipedia is worse, because that whole site twists things even farther. People of today haven't decided by the old maps or by the modern maps. Many of the maps are simply what the world leaders would like them to be.

All of it is being done to conquer Russia, and take her away from her people. Who is attempting to conquer Russia? Mostly people who own the Western banking systems. But Putin is resisting, and showing them that Russia will never let it happen.

BA, this is false information. There is no "people in the BS corridor", the corridor is in the sea.

Ruzzia invaded Crimea in 2014 and did a fake-feredum, wihtou any guarantee of impartial observers and under military occupation. I am not sure we are talking about the same "People".... when you say people perhaps you mean the "people at the Kremlin"?

Putin is not resisting the "West Banking" - until sanctions started at least. He was effectively using it at top speed, else how do you justify the billions of Ruzzian assets currently frozen in Europe??

"Black Sea Corridor" was my name for the land that Russia took over starting 2022. Maybe there are others who named it the same.

You can find many people who would disagree with both of us about the choice of the people in the BSC and Crimea... which government they wanted to be under. It would take a lot more ability than either of us have to find out the truth.

The West has always been against Russia. They knew that if Russian funds were in a Western bank, that the bank had it. Russia was simply trying to trust the West and do business.

In the past 50 years, both the US and Russia have been peace keepers around the world at different times. That's what the UN is there for... to direct which nation was to be the peace keeper this time.

When Putin filed Article 51 of the UN Charter against Ukraine, what was the response? What could the response possibly be except to conquer Russia, because it was the Western 'peace keepers' who were and are using Ukraine against Russia.

This is what is destroying the lives in the war. It's the West using and manipulating Ukraine through Zelensky and through Western election fraud that got Zelensky in there in the first place.. all of it to conquer Russia.

 If the West wanted to conquer Russia, it would have done so in 1990. The West, on the contrary, helped Russia and this was a big strategic mistake. Today, Ukraine is paying for this mistake. The West is obliged to correct this mistake.

[BADecker]

~

"Black Sea Corridor" was my name for the land that Russia took over starting 2022. Maybe there are others who named it the same.

You can find many people who would disagree with both of us about the choice of the people in the BSC and Crimea... which government they wanted to be under. It would take a lot more ability than either of us have to find out the truth.

The West has always been against Russia. They knew that if Russian funds were in a Western bank, that the bank had it. Russia was simply trying to trust the West and do business.

In the past 50 years, both the US and Russia have been peace keepers around the world at different times. That's what the UN is there for... to direct which nation was to be the peace keeper this time.

When Putin filed Article 51 of the UN Charter against Ukraine, what was the response? What could the response possibly be except to conquer Russia, because it was the Western 'peace keepers' who were and are using Ukraine against Russia.

This is what is destroying the lives in the war. It's the West using and manipulating Ukraine through Zelensky and through Western election fraud that got Zelensky in there in the first place.. all of it to conquer Russia.

 If the West wanted to conquer Russia, it would have done so in 1990. The West, on the contrary, helped Russia and this was a big strategic mistake. Today, Ukraine is paying for this mistake. The West is obliged to correct this mistake.

You intentionally forget that Russia never gave up its 6,000 or so nuclear ICBMs. A direct attack on Russia at that time would have meant WW3.

Russia gave up the USSR idea because it wasn't working. Russia realized that becoming a partner in free world trade was far better than trying to force nations to do their bidding. That's why they did what they did in 1991.

The agreement was based in the promise of the West to not advance NATO further East. The West didn't follow through with their part of the agreement. The Ukraine war is part of the West not following through with their agreement. The deaths and the loss of $billions is all part of the West not following through with their agreement. And they don't seem to care how many people die. All they are interested in is war... and especially war against Russia.

Consider the wide open spaces of Russian Siberia. Why isn't the West taking over those raw material rich open lands? Because of fear of Russia.

While Russia wasn't the perfect angel, they could have taken all of Western Europe out at any time with their ICBMs. Oreshnik is simply a further development of the ICBM that uses less fuel and does a better job of hitting its targets.

All your fictional writings simply show that you are a total propagandist. The world doesn't work like you seem to think it does. You have yourself so hypnotized by your own fake propaganda that you might not ever be able to be brought into reality. You really need to get into the Bible and learn about Jesus so you can be saved in the final Judgment.

[Alik Bahshi]

~

"Black Sea Corridor" was my name for the land that Russia took over starting 2022. Maybe there are others who named it the same.

You can find many people who would disagree with both of us about the choice of the people in the BSC and Crimea... which government they wanted to be under. It would take a lot more ability than either of us have to find out the truth.

The West has always been against Russia. They knew that if Russian funds were in a Western bank, that the bank had it. Russia was simply trying to trust the West and do business.

In the past 50 years, both the US and Russia have been peace keepers around the world at different times. That's what the UN is there for... to direct which nation was to be the peace keeper this time.

When Putin filed Article 51 of the UN Charter against Ukraine, what was the response? What could the response possibly be except to conquer Russia, because it was the Western 'peace keepers' who were and are using Ukraine against Russia.

This is what is destroying the lives in the war. It's the West using and manipulating Ukraine through Zelensky and through Western election fraud that got Zelensky in there in the first place.. all of it to conquer Russia.

 If the West wanted to conquer Russia, it would have done so in 1990. The West, on the contrary, helped Russia and this was a big strategic mistake. Today, Ukraine is paying for this mistake. The West is obliged to correct this mistake.

You intentionally forget that Russia never gave up its 6,000 or so nuclear ICBMs. A direct attack on Russia at that time would have meant WW3.

Russia gave up the USSR idea because it wasn't working. Russia realized that becoming a partner in free world trade was far better than trying to force nations to do their bidding. That's why they did what they did in 1991.

The agreement was based in the promise of the West to not advance NATO further East. The West didn't follow through with their part of the agreement. The Ukraine war is part of the West not following through with their agreement. The deaths and the loss of $billions is all part of the West not following through with their agreement. And they don't seem to care how many people die. All they are interested in is war... and especially war against Russia.

Consider the wide open spaces of Russian Siberia. Why isn't the West taking over those raw material rich open lands? Because of fear of Russia.

While Russia wasn't the perfect angel, they could have taken all of Western Europe out at any time with their ICBMs. Oreshnik is simply a further development of the ICBM that uses less fuel and does a better job of hitting its targets.

All your fictional writings simply show that you are a total propagandist. The world doesn't work like you seem to think it does. You have yourself so hypnotized by your own fake propaganda that you might not ever be able to be brought into reality. You really need to get into the Bible and learn about Jesus so you can be saved in the final Judgment.

 Ukraine was not a member of NATO, but you attacked it. So NATO is just a pretext. For example, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland joined NATO, but for some reason Russia did not attack them. Maybe you can tell us the reason for ignoring this circumstance? I repeat, if the West had a goal to attack Russia, it would have been done at the time of the collapse of the USSR. As for Siberia, it is not Russia, criminals were sent from Russia to Siberia. Russia is the territory up to Tatarstan.

[BADecker]

~

You intentionally forget that Russia never gave up its 6,000 or so nuclear ICBMs. A direct attack on Russia at that time would have meant WW3.

Russia gave up the USSR idea because it wasn't working. Russia realized that becoming a partner in free world trade was far better than trying to force nations to do their bidding. That's why they did what they did in 1991.

The agreement was based in the promise of the West to not advance NATO further East. The West didn't follow through with their part of the agreement. The Ukraine war is part of the West not following through with their agreement. The deaths and the loss of $billions is all part of the West not following through with their agreement. And they don't seem to care how many people die. All they are interested in is war... and especially war against Russia.

Consider the wide open spaces of Russian Siberia. Why isn't the West taking over those raw material rich open lands? Because of fear of Russia.

While Russia wasn't the perfect angel, they could have taken all of Western Europe out at any time with their ICBMs. Oreshnik is simply a further development of the ICBM that uses less fuel and does a better job of hitting its targets.

All your fictional writings simply show that you are a total propagandist. The world doesn't work like you seem to think it does. You have yourself so hypnotized by your own fake propaganda that you might not ever be able to be brought into reality. You really need to get into the Bible and learn about Jesus so you can be saved in the final Judgment.

 Ukraine was not a member of NATO, but you attacked it. So NATO is just a pretext. For example, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland joined NATO, but for some reason Russia did not attack them. Maybe you can tell us the reason for ignoring this circumstance? I repeat, if the West had a goal to attack Russia, it would have been done at the time of the collapse of the USSR. As for Siberia, it is not Russia, criminals were sent from Russia to Siberia. Russia is the territory up to Tatarstan.

You have seen the answers to your questions above and throughout this forum. You're just blabbing because somebody is finally breaking up your fantasies. How long will you be able to keep lying to yourself?

[Alik Bahshi]

~

You intentionally forget that Russia never gave up its 6,000 or so nuclear ICBMs. A direct attack on Russia at that time would have meant WW3.

Russia gave up the USSR idea because it wasn't working. Russia realized that becoming a partner in free world trade was far better than trying to force nations to do their bidding. That's why they did what they did in 1991.

The agreement was based in the promise of the West to not advance NATO further East. The West didn't follow through with their part of the agreement. The Ukraine war is part of the West not following through with their agreement. The deaths and the loss of $billions is all part of the West not following through with their agreement. And they don't seem to care how many people die. All they are interested in is war... and especially war against Russia.

Consider the wide open spaces of Russian Siberia. Why isn't the West taking over those raw material rich open lands? Because of fear of Russia.

While Russia wasn't the perfect angel, they could have taken all of Western Europe out at any time with their ICBMs. Oreshnik is simply a further development of the ICBM that uses less fuel and does a better job of hitting its targets.

All your fictional writings simply show that you are a total propagandist. The world doesn't work like you seem to think it does. You have yourself so hypnotized by your own fake propaganda that you might not ever be able to be brought into reality. You really need to get into the Bible and learn about Jesus so you can be saved in the final Judgment.

 Ukraine was not a member of NATO, but you attacked it. So NATO is just a pretext. For example, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland joined NATO, but for some reason Russia did not attack them. Maybe you can tell us the reason for ignoring this circumstance? I repeat, if the West had a goal to attack Russia, it would have been done at the time of the collapse of the USSR. As for Siberia, it is not Russia, criminals were sent from Russia to Siberia. Russia is the territory up to Tatarstan.

You have seen the answers to your questions above and throughout this forum. You're just blabbing because somebody is finally breaking up your fantasies. How long will you be able to keep lying to yourself?

And this is said by Putin's propagandist, of which there are many on the forums. There is no forum where a lying employee of Putin would not be present.