Putin's Appeasement

[Alik Bahshi]

Alik Bakhshi

Putin's Appeasement

Trump seems to have kept his promise to stop the war between the victim of aggression - Ukraine and the aggressor - Russia, which annexed part of Ukrainian territory. The main thing is not just to stop it, but to formalize its result with a peace treaty between the victim and the aggressor, a more accurate definition of which is appeasement. Something similar has already happened once, known as Chamberlain's appeasement, who gave away Czechoslovakia in the hope of preventing war. It's a pity that F. Roosevelt did not think to do the same in 1941-1942, in principle, he had a chance to negotiate peace with the fascist Hitler, giving away Europe, thereby saving millions of lives, not counting the Jews and Poles, getting ahead of Trump in peacekeeping, who is similarly ready to give away Ukraine for the sake of peace and the Nobel Prize, ignoring Putler's assertion about the non-existence of the Ukrainian people as such.

By the way, in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan also signed an agreement, not about peace, but about a ceasefire, which was temporary, that is, fundamentally different from the agreement proposed by Trump after his meeting with the fascist Putin in Alaska. (1,2)

1. Trump's deal with Conscience. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/138677.html
2. Hitler's ghost is haunting Europe. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html

08/19/2025

[Hispo]

I don't believe whatever deal Trump and and Putin manage to reach will be the end of Russian aggression against the people of Eastern Europe, though. Putin is thinking in the long term, he has been the ruler of Russia for a very long time, he knows that one day Trump will be gone and a democrat will occupy the oval office, rendering peace treaties weak and inconsistent with foreign policies of that period of time, so he will try to annex more territory to the Russian Federation in the future. Expansionists like him do not stop until they are removed from their position, and he is trying to get as much territory as possible in the same manner Ivan the Terrible did.

[caroasi]

Alik Bahshi

Putin's Appeasement

 

       Trump seems to have kept his promise to stop the war between the victim of aggression - Ukraine and the aggressor - Russia, which annexed part of Ukrainian territory. The main thing is not just to stop it, but to formalize its result with a peace treaty between the victim and the aggressor, a more accurate definition of which is appeasement. Something like this has already happened once, known as Chamberlain's appeasement. It's a pity that F. Roosevelt did not think to do the same in 1941-1942, in principle, he had a chance to negotiate with the fascist Hitler about peace and get ahead of Trump in peacekeeping, saving millions of lives, leaving behind the Holocaust, and in the case of Ukraine, Putin's assertion about the non-existence of the Ukrainian people as such.

    By the way, in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan also signed an agreement, not about peace, but about a ceasefire, which was temporary, that is, fundamentally different from the agreement proposed by Trump after his meeting with the fascist Putin in Alaska. (1,2)

1. Trump's deal with Conscience. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/138677.html
2. Hitler's ghost is haunting Europe. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html

08/19/2025

Explain how Russia was the aggressor including refutation of their counterarguments. The focus of contention is of course the claim by Russia that Ukraine was sending troops to their border area. Is a build-up of troops by one's border is generally considered by military strategists to be an action of aggression towards another country? How does that apply to this specific situation? I have yet to see a clear statement of facts that leads to a definite conclusion, but I'm confident you can offer the best available case.

[Alik Bahshi]

Alik Bahshi

Putin's Appeasement

 

       Trump seems to have kept his promise to stop the war between the victim of aggression - Ukraine and the aggressor - Russia, which annexed part of Ukrainian territory. The main thing is not just to stop it, but to formalize its result with a peace treaty between the victim and the aggressor, a more accurate definition of which is appeasement. Something like this has already happened once, known as Chamberlain's appeasement. It's a pity that F. Roosevelt did not think to do the same in 1941-1942, in principle, he had a chance to negotiate with the fascist Hitler about peace and get ahead of Trump in peacekeeping, saving millions of lives, leaving behind the Holocaust, and in the case of Ukraine, Putin's assertion about the non-existence of the Ukrainian people as such.

    By the way, in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan also signed an agreement, not about peace, but about a ceasefire, which was temporary, that is, fundamentally different from the agreement proposed by Trump after his meeting with the fascist Putin in Alaska. (1,2)

1. Trump's deal with Conscience. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/138677.html
2. Hitler's ghost is haunting Europe. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html

08/19/2025

Explain how Russia was the aggressor including refutation of their counterarguments. The focus of contention is of course the claim by Russia that Ukraine was sending troops to their border area. Is a build-up of troops by one's border is generally considered by military strategists to be an action of aggression towards another country? How does that apply to this specific situation? I have yet to see a clear statement of facts that leads to a definite conclusion, but I'm confident you can offer the best available case.

 I am not going to explain what is known to all, that Russia crossed the established borders of the independent state of Ukraine, while being the guarantor of their inviolability according to the Budapest Memorandum. And if you do not understand this, then you have a problem with logical thinking, and with this you need to see a doctor.

[caroasi]

Alik Bahshi

Putin's Appeasement

 

       Trump seems to have kept his promise to stop the war between the victim of aggression - Ukraine and the aggressor - Russia, which annexed part of Ukrainian territory. The main thing is not just to stop it, but to formalize its result with a peace treaty between the victim and the aggressor, a more accurate definition of which is appeasement. Something like this has already happened once, known as Chamberlain's appeasement. It's a pity that F. Roosevelt did not think to do the same in 1941-1942, in principle, he had a chance to negotiate with the fascist Hitler about peace and get ahead of Trump in peacekeeping, saving millions of lives, leaving behind the Holocaust, and in the case of Ukraine, Putin's assertion about the non-existence of the Ukrainian people as such.

    By the way, in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan also signed an agreement, not about peace, but about a ceasefire, which was temporary, that is, fundamentally different from the agreement proposed by Trump after his meeting with the fascist Putin in Alaska. (1,2)

1. Trump's deal with Conscience. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/138677.html
2. Hitler's ghost is haunting Europe. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html

08/19/2025

Explain how Russia was the aggressor including refutation of their counterarguments. The focus of contention is of course the claim by Russia that Ukraine was sending troops to their border area. Is a build-up of troops by one's border is generally considered by military strategists to be an action of aggression towards another country? How does that apply to this specific situation? I have yet to see a clear statement of facts that leads to a definite conclusion, but I'm confident you can offer the best available case.

 I am not going to explain what is known to all, that Russia crossed the established borders of the independent state of Ukraine, while being the guarantor of their inviolability according to the Budapest Memorandum. And if you do not understand this, then you have a problem with logical thinking, and with this you need to see a doctor.

You have chosen to avoid the question in regards to the troop build up against Russia from Ukraine's border rather than explaining what "everyone knows" which presumably somehow included me even though I'm the one who asked that question. If everyone knew that, then times when I asked would result in a direct answer, rather than a dodge. Everyone knows 1+1=2 but if I asked enough people rest assured there would be someone brave enough to just answer the question. It is an important issue that deserves to be addressed head on, not avoided.

What you seem to be missing is that since the troop build-up is a generally accepted fact, that actually that gives you a burden of proof to show that it was not a threat to Russia and they were wrong to consider it a threat.

If someone asked me about a topic I've done hundreds of hours of research on, I'd be very happy to share my knowledge and cite my sources. If instead I failed to do so and simply told them to either entirely accept my conclusion or they should visit a hospital, which is not a place for learning about wars at all, then that would be most likely because I was emotionally bound to my conclusion for reasons I couldn't explain or defend and just wanted them to go away, and just wanted people to respond if they agreed with me. One of the least likely reasons is that I had the answer at my fingertips and simply wanted to verbally bully others who are less knowledgeable although it is within the realm of possibility.

Another thing to consider is that people who respond to internet posts are vastly more likely to be someone will respond if they disagree. That is because not because people are constantly wrong, its because there is no content in just saying "I agree". When you respond with personal attacks even if indirect to other people who could be reading the thread, you are actually providing a reason for people to disagree and distance them selves from your position because of the ad hominem fallacy of name calling rather than supporting your position.

And when you put all of this together, you can guess that wherever I stood before on the issue, I have moved further away rather than towards your position, which is likely the opposite of your intention. So once again, there is a long chain of events leading to the war which included an apparently aggressive act against Russia by Ukraine. And, that needs to be explained by more than telepathy of "everyone" just knowing the answer. Other people may not feel a need to adopt your values as their values. What is important to you, the Ukraine war, doesn't need to be important to them. So I also disagree that anyone who isn't informed about any specific topic should visit a hospital. The reasoning you are using is a bit too self-centered regardless of how sound and "obvious" it is.

[BADecker]

Alik Bahshi

Putin's Appeasement

 

       Trump seems to have kept his promise to stop the war between the victim of aggression - Ukraine and the aggressor - Russia, which annexed part of Ukrainian territory. The main thing is not just to stop it, but to formalize its result with a peace treaty between the victim and the aggressor, a more accurate definition of which is appeasement. Something like this has already happened once, known as Chamberlain's appeasement. It's a pity that F. Roosevelt did not think to do the same in 1941-1942, in principle, he had a chance to negotiate with the fascist Hitler about peace and get ahead of Trump in peacekeeping, saving millions of lives, leaving behind the Holocaust, and in the case of Ukraine, Putin's assertion about the non-existence of the Ukrainian people as such.

    By the way, in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan also signed an agreement, not about peace, but about a ceasefire, which was temporary, that is, fundamentally different from the agreement proposed by Trump after his meeting with the fascist Putin in Alaska. (1,2)

1. Trump's deal with Conscience. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/138677.html
2. Hitler's ghost is haunting Europe. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html

08/19/2025

Explain how Russia was the aggressor including refutation of their counterarguments. The focus of contention is of course the claim by Russia that Ukraine was sending troops to their border area. Is a build-up of troops by one's border is generally considered by military strategists to be an action of aggression towards another country? How does that apply to this specific situation? I have yet to see a clear statement of facts that leads to a definite conclusion, but I'm confident you can offer the best available case.

 I am not going to explain what is known to all, that Russia crossed the established borders of the independent state of Ukraine, while being the guarantor of their inviolability according to the Budapest Memorandum. And if you do not understand this, then you have a problem with logical thinking, and with this you need to see a doctor.

As you well know, Russia crossed the borders to protect Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians who had been living there for years. And Russia did it at the request of the people living in those areas, which Ukraine had been attacking for no real reason. Those areas are now part of Russia, even if world cartographers aren't willing to admit it yet.

If Trump throws America back onto the side of Ukraine militarily, there might not be any other choice for Russia than to go nuclear. But China and North Korea will be on Russia's side, as will some of the nations of the Middle East.

Move to the mountains while you can.

[Hispo]

Alik Bahshi

Putin's Appeasement

 

       Trump seems to have kept his promise to stop the war between the victim of aggression - Ukraine and the aggressor - Russia, which annexed part of Ukrainian territory. The main thing is not just to stop it, but to formalize its result with a peace treaty between the victim and the aggressor, a more accurate definition of which is appeasement. Something like this has already happened once, known as Chamberlain's appeasement. It's a pity that F. Roosevelt did not think to do the same in 1941-1942, in principle, he had a chance to negotiate with the fascist Hitler about peace and get ahead of Trump in peacekeeping, saving millions of lives, leaving behind the Holocaust, and in the case of Ukraine, Putin's assertion about the non-existence of the Ukrainian people as such.

    By the way, in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan also signed an agreement, not about peace, but about a ceasefire, which was temporary, that is, fundamentally different from the agreement proposed by Trump after his meeting with the fascist Putin in Alaska. (1,2)

1. Trump's deal with Conscience. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/138677.html
2. Hitler's ghost is haunting Europe. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html

08/19/2025

Explain how Russia was the aggressor including refutation of their counterarguments. The focus of contention is of course the claim by Russia that Ukraine was sending troops to their border area. Is a build-up of troops by one's border is generally considered by military strategists to be an action of aggression towards another country? How does that apply to this specific situation? I have yet to see a clear statement of facts that leads to a definite conclusion, but I'm confident you can offer the best available case.

 I am not going to explain what is known to all, that Russia crossed the established borders of the independent state of Ukraine, while being the guarantor of their inviolability according to the Budapest Memorandum. And if you do not understand this, then you have a problem with logical thinking, and with this you need to see a doctor.

As you well know, Russia crossed the borders to protect Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians who had been living there for years. And Russia did it at the request of the people living in those areas, which Ukraine had been attacking for no real reason. Those areas are now part of Russia, even if world cartographers aren't willing to admit it yet.

...

So? Even if that is the case, it does not give the right to Russia to invade Ukraine, not matter the position of the local population, the federal/nation authorities and the whole people of Ukraine also have a say on the destiny of those territories. What if an important percentage of Mexican-Americans decided to call Mexico to invade and take over California and New Mexico? Would the United States stay still and do nothing ?
Obviously, we all know that is not how thing could ensue, and Mexico would not believe to be entitled to those territories, not matter what the people living in them believed.

[BADecker]

~

As you well know, Russia crossed the borders to protect Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians who had been living there for years. And Russia did it at the request of the people living in those areas, which Ukraine had been attacking for no real reason. Those areas are now part of Russia, even if world cartographers aren't willing to admit it yet.

...

So? Even if that is the case, it does not give the right to Russia to invade Ukraine, not matter the position of the local population, the federal/nation authorities and the whole people of Ukraine also have a say on the destiny of those territories. What if an important percentage of Mexican-Americans decided to call Mexico to invade and take over California and New Mexico? Would the United States stay still and do nothing ?
Obviously, we all know that is not how thing could ensue, and Mexico would not believe to be entitled to those territories, not matter what the people living in them believed.

Well, of course, there was more reason. How would Americans feel if Russia took over Canada and Mexico.

Western Europe and the US have been trying to steal Russia from the Russians since the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. This time they are using Ukraine to do it. The people of Ukraine want to stop the war. But the West and their puppet, Zelensky, won't let it stop.

Who Financed the Bolsheviks? - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+financed+the+bolsheviks%3F&ia=web

[Alik Bahshi]

~

As you well know, Russia crossed the borders to protect Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians who had been living there for years. And Russia did it at the request of the people living in those areas, which Ukraine had been attacking for no real reason. Those areas are now part of Russia, even if world cartographers aren't willing to admit it yet.

...

So? Even if that is the case, it does not give the right to Russia to invade Ukraine, not matter the position of the local population, the federal/nation authorities and the whole people of Ukraine also have a say on the destiny of those territories. What if an important percentage of Mexican-Americans decided to call Mexico to invade and take over California and New Mexico? Would the United States stay still and do nothing ?
Obviously, we all know that is not how thing could ensue, and Mexico would not believe to be entitled to those territories, not matter what the people living in them believed.

Well, of course, there was more reason. How would Americans feel if Russia took over Canada and Mexico.

Western Europe and the US have been trying to steal Russia from the Russians since the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. This time they are using Ukraine to do it. The people of Ukraine want to stop the war. But the West and their puppet, Zelensky, won't let it stop.

Who Financed the Bolsheviks? - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+financed+the+bolsheviks%3F&ia=web

 The facts say otherwise. Neither the US nor the EU sent troops into Ukraine, but Russia invaded Ukraine. And this is an irrefutable fact!

[BADecker]

~

Well, of course, there was more reason. How would Americans feel if Russia took over Canada and Mexico.

Western Europe and the US have been trying to steal Russia from the Russians since the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. This time they are using Ukraine to do it. The people of Ukraine want to stop the war. But the West and their puppet, Zelensky, won't let it stop.

Who Financed the Bolsheviks? - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+financed+the+bolsheviks%3F&ia=web

 The facts say otherwise. Neither the US nor the EU sent troops into Ukraine, but Russia invaded Ukraine. And this is an irrefutable fact!

The UN Charter allows people of an area to form their own nation. The people of the areas that Russia 'invaded' were simply trying to form their own nations like Crimea did. The Ukraine government attacked them militarily. When they asked Russia for help, Putin filed Article 51 of the UN Charter, and did a police action to help the Russians and Ukrainians in those areas.

The Ukraine invasion against its own people, and against the UN Charter came first. Russia was simply doing a police action according to the UN Charter, to help Russians and pro-Russia Ukrainians in the disputed areas.

You listen to to much Western media blabber without taking into account the area history starting even before 2014.

[Alik Bahshi]

~

Well, of course, there was more reason. How would Americans feel if Russia took over Canada and Mexico.

Western Europe and the US have been trying to steal Russia from the Russians since the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. This time they are using Ukraine to do it. The people of Ukraine want to stop the war. But the West and their puppet, Zelensky, won't let it stop.

Who Financed the Bolsheviks? - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+financed+the+bolsheviks%3F&ia=web

 The facts say otherwise. Neither the US nor the EU sent troops into Ukraine, but Russia invaded Ukraine. And this is an irrefutable fact!

The UN Charter allows people of an area to form their own nation. The people of the areas that Russia 'invaded' were simply trying to form their own nations like Crimea did. The Ukraine government attacked them militarily. When they asked Russia for help, Putin filed Article 51 of the UN Charter, and did a police action to help the Russians and Ukrainians in those areas.

The Ukraine invasion against its own people, and against the UN Charter came first. Russia was simply doing a police action according to the UN Charter, to help Russians and pro-Russia Ukrainians in the disputed areas.

You listen to to much Western media blabber without taking into account the area history starting even before 2014.

 There are no disputed territories in Ukraine! Russia itself signed for the independence of Ukraine within the established borders. This is an irrefutable fact! Hи Пyтин, ни Tpaмп нe имeю пpaвa измeнять гocyдapcтвeннyю гpaницy Укpaины.

[BADecker]

~

Well, of course, there was more reason. How would Americans feel if Russia took over Canada and Mexico.

Western Europe and the US have been trying to steal Russia from the Russians since the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. This time they are using Ukraine to do it. The people of Ukraine want to stop the war. But the West and their puppet, Zelensky, won't let it stop.

Who Financed the Bolsheviks? - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+financed+the+bolsheviks%3F&ia=web

 The facts say otherwise. Neither the US nor the EU sent troops into Ukraine, but Russia invaded Ukraine. And this is an irrefutable fact!

The UN Charter allows people of an area to form their own nation. The people of the areas that Russia 'invaded' were simply trying to form their own nations like Crimea did. The Ukraine government attacked them militarily. When they asked Russia for help, Putin filed Article 51 of the UN Charter, and did a police action to help the Russians and Ukrainians in those areas.

The Ukraine invasion against its own people, and against the UN Charter came first. Russia was simply doing a police action according to the UN Charter, to help Russians and pro-Russia Ukrainians in the disputed areas.

You listen to to much Western media blabber without taking into account the area history starting even before 2014.

 There are no disputed territories in Ukraine! Russia itself signed for the independence of Ukraine within the established borders. This is an irrefutable fact! Hи Пyтин, ни Tpaмп нe имeю пpaвa измeнять гocyдapcтвeннyю гpaницy Укpaины.

All you are saying is that Ukraine asked for freedom from Russia. And Russia gave it to them. Then when certain oblasts (provinces) in Ukraine asked for freedom from Ukraine, Ukraine wouldn't give it to them. Not fair, right?

So, these oblasts asked for help from Russia, and mostly when the Ukraine military started killing them and destroying their property. Russia obliged them, and for Russia's own reasons as well.

Ukraine lands can remain Ukraine lands. It's just that these oblasts are not Ukraine lands, just like Crimea that was once a Ukraine land, now is not.

With Zelensky continually plotting war, soon almost all of the oblasts will become non-Ukrainian, by designation of the people who live there. The people are rioting against Z already. If these people call to Russia for help, Russia will go even further than the chunk they wrested from Ukraine control already. Why? Because that is the way Russia is... freedom-minded for all people.

[Alik Bahshi]

~

Well, of course, there was more reason. How would Americans feel if Russia took over Canada and Mexico.

Western Europe and the US have been trying to steal Russia from the Russians since the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. This time they are using Ukraine to do it. The people of Ukraine want to stop the war. But the West and their puppet, Zelensky, won't let it stop.

Who Financed the Bolsheviks? - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+financed+the+bolsheviks%3F&ia=web

 The facts say otherwise. Neither the US nor the EU sent troops into Ukraine, but Russia invaded Ukraine. And this is an irrefutable fact!

The UN Charter allows people of an area to form their own nation. The people of the areas that Russia 'invaded' were simply trying to form their own nations like Crimea did. The Ukraine government attacked them militarily. When they asked Russia for help, Putin filed Article 51 of the UN Charter, and did a police action to help the Russians and Ukrainians in those areas.

The Ukraine invasion against its own people, and against the UN Charter came first. Russia was simply doing a police action according to the UN Charter, to help Russians and pro-Russia Ukrainians in the disputed areas.

You listen to to much Western media blabber without taking into account the area history starting even before 2014.

 There are no disputed territories in Ukraine! Russia itself signed for the independence of Ukraine within the established borders. This is an irrefutable fact! Hи Пyтин, ни Tpaмп нe имeю пpaвa измeнять гocyдapcтвeннyю гpaницy Укpaины.

All you are saying is that Ukraine asked for freedom from Russia. And Russia gave it to them. Then when certain oblasts (provinces) in Ukraine asked for freedom from Ukraine, Ukraine wouldn't give it to them. Not fair, right?

So, these oblasts asked for help from Russia, and mostly when the Ukraine military started killing them and destroying their property. Russia obliged them, and for Russia's own reasons as well.

Ukraine lands can remain Ukraine lands. It's just that these oblasts are not Ukraine lands, just like Crimea that was once a Ukraine land, now is not.

With Zelensky continually plotting war, soon almost all of the oblasts will become non-Ukrainian, by designation of the people who live there. The people are rioting against Z already. If these people call to Russia for help, Russia will go even further than the chunk they wrested from Ukraine control already. Why? Because that is the way Russia is... freedom-minded for all people.

You repeat the old myth of Moscow about the request of the peoples about freedom. So the Russians came with the war to the Caucasus to free the peoples of the Caucasus from freedom. For the same reason, the Russians invaded Central Asia, freeing the local peoples from life. Everywhere where the Russian soldier came his goal - to free the peoples. The Russians came to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and freed the peoples from their homeland by deporting to Siberia. For the same reason, the Russians came to Afghanistan and freed 1 million Afghans. The Russians captured Crimea and freed Crimea from its indigenous people of the Tatars, sending the people from their homeland, and Russians were settled on the liberated Crimean land. Today, Russians are free from the life of Ukrainians with the help of bombs and missiles to free the Ukrainian land from the Ukrainian people to capture it.

[BADecker]

~

All you are saying is that Ukraine asked for freedom from Russia. And Russia gave it to them. Then when certain oblasts (provinces) in Ukraine asked for freedom from Ukraine, Ukraine wouldn't give it to them. Not fair, right?

So, these oblasts asked for help from Russia, and mostly when the Ukraine military started killing them and destroying their property. Russia obliged them, and for Russia's own reasons as well.

Ukraine lands can remain Ukraine lands. It's just that these oblasts are not Ukraine lands, just like Crimea that was once a Ukraine land, now is not.

With Zelensky continually plotting war, soon almost all of the oblasts will become non-Ukrainian, by designation of the people who live there. The people are rioting against Z already. If these people call to Russia for help, Russia will go even further than the chunk they wrested from Ukraine control already. Why? Because that is the way Russia is... freedom-minded for all people.

You repeat the old myth of Moscow about the request of the peoples about freedom. So the Russians came with the war to the Caucasus to free the peoples of the Caucasus from freedom. For the same reason, the Russians invaded Central Asia, freeing the local peoples from life. Everywhere where the Russian soldier came his goal - to free the peoples. The Russians came to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and freed the peoples from their homeland by deporting to Siberia. For the same reason, the Russians came to Afghanistan and freed 1 million Afghans. The Russians captured Crimea and freed Crimea from its indigenous people of the Tatars, sending the people from their homeland, and Russians were settled on the liberated Crimean land. Today, Russians are free from the life of Ukrainians with the help of bombs and missiles to free the Ukrainian land from the Ukrainian people to capture it.

You have a bad habit of mixing the USSR with Russia of today. And, you play games with freedom ideas.

Do you remember back in 1991 when Russia shut down the USSR so they could give freedom to the peoples of both Eastern and Western Europe? The agreement back then was that the West would not push further East if Russia did that. But here you have the West arming Ukraine to push further East. The West broke their agreement.

----------

Back in WW2 and before, the Polish people were extremely intelligent. They had their lands and people extremely well organized, with records of who the smart ones were and who the dumb ones were.

When Hitler marched into Poland, it was easy for him to find the smart Poles and kill them off. All he had to do as check out the intelligently organized Polish records. After he executed all the smart ones, all that were left were the dumb ones. Hence the term 'dumb Pollock'.

Hitler's ideas of genetics were flawed. Some of the dumb Pollocks had children who were smart. But it took a while. So the term 'dumb Pollock' stuck, and people all over the West made Pollock jokes.

You must be from the older group, before the smart ones started to show up again. You seem to not be able to see your nose in front of your face. Russia shut down the USSR and gave freedom to many peoples of Europe in 1991.

[Alik Bahshi]

~

Well, of course, there was more reason. How would Americans feel if Russia took over Canada and Mexico.

Western Europe and the US have been trying to steal Russia from the Russians since the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. This time they are using Ukraine to do it. The people of Ukraine want to stop the war. But the West and their puppet, Zelensky, won't let it stop.

Who Financed the Bolsheviks? - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=who+financed+the+bolsheviks%3F&ia=web

 The facts say otherwise. Neither the US nor the EU sent troops into Ukraine, but Russia invaded Ukraine. And this is an irrefutable fact!

The UN Charter allows people of an area to form their own nation. The people of the areas that Russia 'invaded' were simply trying to form their own nations like Crimea did. The Ukraine government attacked them militarily. When they asked Russia for help, Putin filed Article 51 of the UN Charter, and did a police action to help the Russians and Ukrainians in those areas.

The Ukraine invasion against its own people, and against the UN Charter came first. Russia was simply doing a police action according to the UN Charter, to help Russians and pro-Russia Ukrainians in the disputed areas.

You listen to to much Western media blabber without taking into account the area history starting even before 2014.

 There are no disputed territories in Ukraine! Russia itself signed for the independence of Ukraine within the established borders. This is an irrefutable fact! Hи Пyтин, ни Tpaмп нe имeю пpaвa измeнять гocyдapcтвeннyю гpaницy Укpaины.

All you are saying is that Ukraine asked for freedom from Russia. And Russia gave it to them. Then when certain oblasts (provinces) in Ukraine asked for freedom from Ukraine, Ukraine wouldn't give it to them. Not fair, right?

So, these oblasts asked for help from Russia, and mostly when the Ukraine military started killing them and destroying their property. Russia obliged them, and for Russia's own reasons as well.

Ukraine lands can remain Ukraine lands. It's just that these oblasts are not Ukraine lands, just like Crimea that was once a Ukraine land, now is not.

With Zelensky continually plotting war, soon almost all of the oblasts will become non-Ukrainian, by designation of the people who live there. The people are rioting against Z already. If these people call to Russia for help, Russia will go even further than the chunk they wrested from Ukraine control already. Why? Because that is the way Russia is... freedom-minded for all people.

I remember that Ukraine ruined itself by handing over its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for its borders and security. It was not a smart move, because you can't trust the Russians with their imperial mentality. Now Ukraine has to arm itself to drive the Russian invaders off its land.

[BADecker]

~

All you are saying is that Ukraine asked for freedom from Russia. And Russia gave it to them. Then when certain oblasts (provinces) in Ukraine asked for freedom from Ukraine, Ukraine wouldn't give it to them. Not fair, right?

So, these oblasts asked for help from Russia, and mostly when the Ukraine military started killing them and destroying their property. Russia obliged them, and for Russia's own reasons as well.

Ukraine lands can remain Ukraine lands. It's just that these oblasts are not Ukraine lands, just like Crimea that was once a Ukraine land, now is not.

With Zelensky continually plotting war, soon almost all of the oblasts will become non-Ukrainian, by designation of the people who live there. The people are rioting against Z already. If these people call to Russia for help, Russia will go even further than the chunk they wrested from Ukraine control already. Why? Because that is the way Russia is... freedom-minded for all people.

I remember that Ukraine ruined itself by handing over its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for its borders and security. It was not a smart move, because you can't trust the Russians with their imperial mentality. Now Ukraine has to arm itself to drive the Russian invaders off its land.

Wrong. Such was the only smart move. It kept Russia from taking the Black Sea Corridor (BSC) back then. And it staved off the military damage that Ukraine wanted to do to the peoples of the BSC who wanted to form their own nations away from Ukraine as the UN allows.

The result is that the BSC has become Russian land. Whether or not the peoples of the BSC will form their own nations when Zelensky and his Western Europe puppet masters are finally put down, is still a question. They might simply decide to join Russia, formally.

The BSC is not Ukraine any longer. It is Russia, now. Z is simply trying to take Russian lands away from Russia. Soon cartographers of the world will wake up to this fact and start changing their maps.

[Alik Bahshi]

It seems that Trump has finally realized that Putin is leading him by the nose and is simply stalling for time, as he does with all interim US presidents, and this is his great advantage over them. Trump has not yet been able to do anything with Russia that he promised. He only repeats every time that if he were instead of Biden, there would be no war. Trump forgets that this is why he came to the White House, to fulfill America's duty according to the Budapest Memorandum, and not to engage in appeasement of the aggressor.

[BADecker]

It seems that Trump has finally realized that Putin is leading him by the nose and is simply stalling for time, as he does with all interim US presidents, and this is his great advantage over them. Trump has not yet been able to do anything with Russia that he promised. He only repeats every time that if he were instead of Biden, there would be no war. Trump forgets that this is why he came to the White House, to fulfill America's duty according to the Budapest Memorandum, and not to engage in appeasement of the aggressor.

It seems that Trump has realized that Zelensky and Western Europe have been leading him by the nose, stalling for time so that they can build up their armament more aggressively for continued attacks on peaceful Russia.

As long as Russia continues its fight with Ukraine and doesn't spread it further, Trump doesn't have anything that he can legitimately do about it.

Taking EVERYTHING into account, Trump should forget Europe and Ukraine, and take care of American problems at home - MAGA.

[Alik Bahshi]

It seems that Trump has finally realized that Putin is leading him by the nose and is simply stalling for time, as he does with all interim US presidents, and this is his great advantage over them. Trump has not yet been able to do anything with Russia that he promised. He only repeats every time that if he were instead of Biden, there would be no war. Trump forgets that this is why he came to the White House, to fulfill America's duty according to the Budapest Memorandum, and not to engage in appeasement of the aggressor.

It seems that Trump has realized that Zelensky and Western Europe have been leading him by the nose, stalling for time so that they can build up their armament more aggressively for continued attacks on peaceful Russia.

As long as Russia continues its fight with Ukraine and doesn't spread it further, Trump doesn't have anything that he can legitimately do about it.

Taking EVERYTHING into account, Trump should forget Europe and Ukraine, and take care of American problems at home - MAGA.

 It's a pity that Trump knows nothing about your advice. You write to him at the White House, it will be much more effective than telling me about it, especially since such nonsense will be just right for Trump. Good luck!

[BADecker]

It seems that Trump has finally realized that Putin is leading him by the nose and is simply stalling for time, as he does with all interim US presidents, and this is his great advantage over them. Trump has not yet been able to do anything with Russia that he promised. He only repeats every time that if he were instead of Biden, there would be no war. Trump forgets that this is why he came to the White House, to fulfill America's duty according to the Budapest Memorandum, and not to engage in appeasement of the aggressor.

It seems that Trump has realized that Zelensky and Western Europe have been leading him by the nose, stalling for time so that they can build up their armament more aggressively for continued attacks on peaceful Russia.

As long as Russia continues its fight with Ukraine and doesn't spread it further, Trump doesn't have anything that he can legitimately do about it.

Taking EVERYTHING into account, Trump should forget Europe and Ukraine, and take care of American problems at home - MAGA.

 It's a pity that Trump knows nothing about your advice. You write to him at the White House, it will be much more effective than telling me about it, especially since such nonsense will be just right for Trump. Good luck!

Right! No more funding or armament for anybody who is going to send it to Ukraine. And certainly not to Ukraine direct.

Also, cancellation of the of the US national debt. This will stop the Federal Reserve Bank from loaning any more money to the government. So, the US will have to start US Treasury Notes to pay anybody anything. The Fed will dry up, and the funds it sends to Ukraine will dry up along with it.

Russia will love it because Western Europe can't afford to fight Russia without the US. In fact, the citizenry of the UK are revolting against their government right now for endangering them all by testing the Bear.