Russia - worrying?

[David1819]

Russia a year ago: we’ll take Ukraine in 3 days

Russia today: better put a Pantsir S1 on a roof in case a drone flies 500km into Moscow

https://defence-blog.com/russian-air-defense-systems-spotted-on-top-of-moscows-buildings/

[gringo]

Russia a year ago: we’ll take Ukraine in 3 days

Russia today: better put a Pantsir S1 on a roof in case a drone flies 500km into Moscow

https://defence-blog.com/russian-air-defense-systems-spotted-on-top-of-moscows-buildings/

   Russia haven't said that they will take Ukraine in 3 days. Western media and government spokespeople have claimed that Putin "thought" this. They do this so that when it doesn't happen the stage is set for tales of Russian incompetence. You lack the ability to see through propaganda. Fact check yourself and find this claim made by an official Russian government source.

     With its missiles, the Pantsir-S1 can engage tactical aircraft at a maximum range of 20 km and altitude of 10 km, subsonic cruise missiles at a range of 12 km and altitude of 6 km, and high-speed air-to-ground missiles at a range of 7 km and altitude of 6 km.

    You are exceptionally gullible and lack any critical thinking skills whatsoever. The Pantsirs are for 5th columnist sabotage drone attacks not for drones launched 500km away. Anything launched 500km away would not enter Moscow airspace. How can a Pantsir with it's max 20 km range have anything to do with drones launched 500km away. Your ignorance shines through on every lie filled post you make.

[gringo]

Gringo wants to live the Russian dream. Work 50 hours a week in an asbestos mine, watch state propaganda on TV all night. His conscripted grandchildren upgrading the towns only working toilet with one they stole from Ukraine is a family honour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcNS4B58HsM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwSNPTe2o1c

   Have you got anything constructive to say? Are you this stupid in real life?

[gringo]

Ah yes. So strong militarily it cannot successfully occupy a weaker country on its door step. So rich and important economically that 35 million of its population have no access to a flushing toilet or basic indoor plumbing.- David, inevitably.
   He basically repeats the same bullshit over and over but worded slightly differently. Whatever is being debated David's reply will contain one or more of-lack of flushing toilets- too weak to occupy Ukraine- running out of missiles- economy smaller than Italy blah blah... No matter the point being discussed this will be David's witless response.

    For the truth on the supposed lack of access to flushing toilets;

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-Russians-live-without-indoor-plumbing

    Turns out that it isn't true, obviously, or even close to the truth, again obviously. Something that sounds so absurd should lead to the reader checking this "fact". To simply repeat the claim, as David does, shows the readers limited critical thinking abilities (non existent in David's case).
     That he believes it has any relevance(even if were true) to the subject being discussed shows just how far out of his depth that he is.
      You may ask why David doesn't compare, say, home ownership rates, homeless rates or other measures if he imagines lies about flushing toilets is relevant.
      Home ownership rates in Russia- over 90%. Nowhere near in UK/US/EU.
      You are also many times more likely to be homeless in UK/US/EU.
      Despite David's repeated, but non fact checked, lies-the homes have flushing toilets.
      Does this make Russia more likely/less likely to achieve their objectives? Not the projected objectives of lying western governments and media.
     David fails to understand Russia's objectives which are clearly laid out. Not the fake objectives projected in the west in order to be able to pronounce Russian failure.
   

[gringo]

https://youtu.be/1OcsBeYw9M4

nato admits it

   Watched the Jimmy Dore link, Nugs.
     To be honest anyone who still believes the official bullshit about "unprovoked aggression" by Russia is wilfully blind and/or stupid.
     In the last few weeks we have had admissions by both Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande that there was never any intention to fulfil the 2015 Minsk 2 agreements and that it was to "buy time" to arm and attack the separatist oblasts and Crimea. An agreement that was then voted unanimously as a UN Security Council resolution. They had no intention of ever fulfilling their commitments and instead used the time to arm and attack Russia. The build up of troops and increased shelling of civilians in Donbass, all recorded by the OSCE, in the weeks prior to 24/02/22 being the precursor to a full on assault.
     Just before the planned assault Russia launched their "unprovoked invasion".
     NATO have been provoking and preparing for decades. Russia beat them to the punch and NATO haven't recovered since.

[gringo]

Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3, 000 miles away
3, 000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range

    Time moves on but the song remains the same.
    The incomparable Roger Waters with his re-working of, "The bravery of being out of range". From his 1992 album, "Amused to Death" but performed during lockdown. Just beautiful

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JamLmpVOgE0&ab_channel=RogerWaters
   

[gringo]

    To continue the brief musical interlude, not really so far off topic given the prophecy of armageddon contained within. How come singing about impending nuclear armageddon can be so soothingly emotive.
   Two Suns in the Sunset
The wire that holds the cork
That keeps the anger in
Gives way
And suddenly it's day again.
The sun is in the east
Even though the day is done.
Two suns in the sunset
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Could be the human race is run.

         And as the windshield melts
My tears evaporate
Leaving only charcoal to defend.
Finally I understand the feelings of the few.
Ashes and diamonds
Foe and friend
We were all equal in the end.


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_m2CZU9vdk&ab_channel=RogerWaters

[Steve_uk]

    From the same article linked in previous post; 
 
  Off the record, New York banking sources admit the US dollar would be “wiped out, since it is a valueless fiat currency, should Sergey Glazyev link the new currency to gold. The reason is that the Bretton Woods system no longer has a gold base and has no intrinsic value, like the FTX crypto currency. Sergey’s plan also linking the currency to oil and natural gas seems to be a winner.”

Do you mean akin to Chancellor of the Exchequer Winson Churchill's abortive gold standard of February 1925..

[Steve_uk]

   Watched the Jimmy Dore link, Nugs.
     To be honest anyone who still believes the official bullshit about "unprovoked aggression" by Russia is wilfully blind and/or stupid.
     In the last few weeks we have had admissions by both Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande that there was never any intention to fulfil the 2015 Minsk 2 agreements and that it was to "buy time" to arm and attack the separatist oblasts and Crimea. An agreement that was then voted unanimously as a UN Security Council resolution. They had no intention of ever fulfilling their commitments and instead used the time to arm and attack Russia. The build up of troops and increased shelling of civilians in Donbass, all recorded by the OSCE, in the weeks prior to 24/02/22 being the precursor to a full on assault.
     Just before the planned assault Russia launched their "unprovoked invasion".
     NATO have been provoking and preparing for decades. Russia beat them to the punch and NATO haven't recovered since.

But they weren't signatories to the agreement, which was ambiguous in character anyhow.

[gringo]

But they weren't signatories to the agreement, which was ambiguous in character anyhow.

    They were the guarantors of an agreement which they later voted to make a UNSC resolution. Merkel and Hollande have revealed that they never had any intention of fulfilling their obligations and their intention was always to buy time to attack the would be breakaway republics.

Speaking in her interview for “Die Zeit”, published on December 7, German ex-Chancellor Merkel said the following: “The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to buy time for Ukraine. Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine in 2014-2015 and Ukraine today are not the same.” According to the ex-Chancellor, “it was clear for everyone” that the conflict was suspended and the problem was not resolved, “but it was exactly what gave Ukraine the priceless time.”

    Full link below but there are plenty more;

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/12/13/merkels-confession-could-be-a-pretext-for-an-international-tribunal/

    If the agreement was so "ambiguous" then how come it became a Security Council Resolution? Makes no sense that it wouldn't be drafted satisfactorily before becoming a UNSC resolution. Much diplomatic haggling over drafting of resolutions takes place before being agreed by UNSC. Veto power of permanent 5 ensures this. There was nothing ambiguous at all.
    NATO and their pet proxy have been provoking and lying for years. Even with unambiguous evidence to show this, people want to remain in denial.
    Doesn't change your calculus on the alleged "Unprovoked Russian aggression" lie? They have admitted publicly that they used the agreements to buy time in order to arm and militarily conquer the territory that they had just agreed to negotiate autonomy with. A sure fire and deliberate provocation of Russia.

    Hollande confirmed this when asked if he agreed with Angela Merkel's revelation. It blows a hole in the entire western narrative.
    How do you fail to see this? Wilful blindness?

[gringo]

Do you mean akin to Chancellor of the Exchequer Winson Churchill's abortive gold standard of February 1925..

   It isn't what I mean. It is what is being carried out by resource rich trading nations now. Saudi Arabia, the ultimate underpinning of the petrodollar, have announced that they are open to trade in currencies other than the dollar. A huge announcement but not reported much, if at all, in western media. Doesn't suit their sanctions are working-Russia is isolated bullshit. Trust in the dollar and western finance/banking has been irreparably damaged. I have linked to articles that directly quote the finance ministers and central bankers of countries in the expanding BRICS+. It isn't just some theory that I have made up. It is being discussed and implemented now.
   

[Steve_uk]

    They were the guarantors of an agreement which they later voted to make a UNSC resolution. Merkel and Hollande have revealed that they never had any intention of fulfilling their obligations and their intention was always to buy time to attack the would be breakaway republics.

Speaking in her interview for “Die Zeit”, published on December 7, German ex-Chancellor Merkel said the following: “The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to buy time for Ukraine. Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine in 2014-2015 and Ukraine today are not the same.” According to the ex-Chancellor, “it was clear for everyone” that the conflict was suspended and the problem was not resolved, “but it was exactly what gave Ukraine the priceless time.”

    Full link below but there are plenty more;

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/12/13/merkels-confession-could-be-a-pretext-for-an-international-tribunal/

    If the agreement was so "ambiguous" then how come it became a Security Council Resolution? Makes no sense that it wouldn't be drafted satisfactorily before becoming a UNSC resolution. Much diplomatic haggling over drafting of resolutions takes place before being agreed by UNSC. Veto power of permanent 5 ensures this. There was nothing ambiguous at all.
    NATO and their pet proxy have been provoking and lying for years. Even with unambiguous evidence to show this, people want to remain in denial.
    Doesn't change your calculus on the alleged "Unprovoked Russian aggression" lie? They have admitted publicly that they used the agreements to buy time in order to arm and militarily conquer the territory that they had just agreed to negotiate autonomy with. A sure fire and deliberate provocation of Russia.

    Hollande confirmed this when asked if he agreed with Angela Merkel's revelation. It blows a hole in the entire western narrative.
    How do you fail to see this? Wilful blindness?

I see Russia calling a meeting to adopt a resolution on a conflict it had fuelled. Why did the rebels claim the resolution did not apply to Debaltseve? Why had Russia in Minsk II continued to arm the rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk, when this was a precondition before holding elections in Donbas? Why was the OSCE/ODIHR not respected by Russia? Why did Russia make further demands in May 2015?

[gringo]

I see Russia calling a meeting to adopt a resolution on a conflict it had fuelled. Why did the rebels claim the resolution did not apply to Debaltseve? Why had Russia in Minsk II continued to arm the rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk, when this was a precondition before holding elections in Donbas? Why was the OSCE/ODIHR not respected by Russia? Why did Russia make further demands in May 2015?

   As you seem to miss the importance and relevance of the Minsk 2 accords being adopted as a Security Council resolution, I will spell it out for you.
   "The UNSC is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions on member states"
   Look it up yourself if you don't understand. It isn't the General Assembly, UNESCO, UNICEF- it has real legal authority. This is why it is the only UN body that doesn't use simple majority voting but allows a veto for the "Permanent 5". US/UK/France/Russia/China. Why would UK/US/FR not veto a resolution that you dismiss as "meeting called by Russia". Tell me that you know nothing about the working of the UN Security Council without telling me that you know nothing of the mechanisms of the UNSC.
   Your first point requires you to ignore that the Ukrainian armed forces attacked the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. It also requires the ignoring of public confessions by Merkel and Hollande that they had no intention of abiding by the Security Council resolution. This happened and is all a matter of record. Pretending that NATO and Ukraine are "innocent by-standers" is absurd. The US, UK and France all had the opportunity to veto the whole resolution. The acquiescence of US, UK and France to bring the vote and unanimously agree, no vetoes, also informs the answer to your other questions.
     I have stated previously, some time ago, on this thread the reasons behind the acquiescence of US?UK/FR in the Security Council. Over a year ago now, from memory.
     Anyway, a huge number of Ukrainian Army, and many NATO operatives(tut tut!) were trapped by separatist forces in a cauldron at Debaltseve. There only options were to surrender and be captured or die. The Russians and separatists used this leverage against NATO members UK/US/FR hence their acquiescence to Minsk 2 becoming a Security Council resolution.
    The rebels felt deceived by having to release what were effectively captured soldiers knowing that they would return to fight again. Any Russian arming of rebels, especially given the admitted and documented use of Ukrainian military to quell their own citizens, would be legitimate self defence. Russia denied this however and no evidence has been shown to suggest any official arming of the rebels by Russia. Western arm sales and provision of them to various jihadi and rebel groups around the world(thousands of miles away) means that you don't get to feign offence anyway. We openly send billions of dollars of arms around the world to various groups attempting to overthrow sovereign governments.
    Why don't you look up the reasons for the OSCE falling out of favour. The Russians are open about the reasons. Too much to summarise briefly. Lavrov has spoken extensively about it.
    Russia didn't make extra demands in May 2015. Whatever this vague question refers to is with certainty some other lie that has been repeated often enough for you to believe without further question.

[gringo]

Do you mean akin to Chancellor of the Exchequer Winson Churchill's abortive gold standard of February 1925..

   “China, already the largest buyer of oil and gas from GCC countries, will buy even more in the future, and wants to pay for all of it in renminbi over the next three to five years.” Pozsar also noted that the Chinese leader communicated this “not during the first day of his visit – when he met only the Saudi leadership – but during the second day of his visit – when he met the leadership of all the GCC countries.”

“GCC oil flowing East + renminbi invoicing = the dawn of the petroyuan,”

 “Why do China’s gold purchases matter in the context of renminbi settlement? Because at the 2018 BRICS Summit, China launched a renminbi-denominated oil futures contract on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange, and since 2016 and 2017, the renminbi has been convertible to gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong Gold Exchanges, respectively,” Pozsar explained.
Money is as money does, and convertibility to gold beats convertibility to dollars.”

    Full link below;

 https://www.greekmediagroup.com.au/zoltan-pozsar-the-dusk-of-the-petrodollar-the-dawn-of-petroyuan/

[Steve_uk]

   As you seem to miss the importance and relevance of the Minsk 2 accords being adopted as a Security Council resolution, I will spell it out for you.
   "The UNSC is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions on member states"
   Look it up yourself if you don't understand. It isn't the General Assembly, UNESCO, UNICEF- it has real legal authority. This is why it is the only UN body that doesn't use simple majority voting but allows a veto for the "Permanent 5". US/UK/France/Russia/China. Why would UK/US/FR not veto a resolution that you dismiss as "meeting called by Russia". Tell me that you know nothing about the working of the UN Security Council without telling me that you know nothing of the mechanisms of the UNSC.
   Your first point requires you to ignore that the Ukrainian armed forces attacked the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. It also requires the ignoring of public confessions by Merkel and Hollande that they had no intention of abiding by the Security Council resolution. This happened and is all a matter of record. Pretending that NATO and Ukraine are "innocent by-standers" is absurd. The US, UK and France all had the opportunity to veto the whole resolution. The acquiescence of US, UK and France to bring the vote and unanimously agree, no vetoes, also informs the answer to your other questions.
     I have stated previously, some time ago, on this thread the reasons behind the acquiescence of US?UK/FR in the Security Council. Over a year ago now, from memory.
     Anyway, a huge number of Ukrainian Army, and many NATO operatives(tut tut!) were trapped by separatist forces in a cauldron at Debaltseve. There only options were to surrender and be captured or die. The Russians and separatists used this leverage against NATO members UK/US/FR hence their acquiescence to Minsk 2 becoming a Security Council resolution.
    The rebels felt deceived by having to release what were effectively captured soldiers knowing that they would return to fight again. Any Russian arming of rebels, especially given the admitted and documented use of Ukrainian military to quell their own citizens, would be legitimate self defence. Russia denied this however and no evidence has been shown to suggest any official arming of the rebels by Russia. Western arm sales and provision of them to various jihadi and rebel groups around the world(thousands of miles away) means that you don't get to feign offence anyway. We openly send billions of dollars of arms around the world to various groups attempting to overthrow sovereign governments.
    Why don't you look up the reasons for the OSCE falling out of favour. The Russians are open about the reasons. Too much to summarise briefly. Lavrov has spoken extensively about it.
    Russia didn't make extra demands in May 2015. Whatever this vague question refers to is with certainty some other lie that has been repeated often enough for you to believe without further question.

The Minsk agreements always were ambiguous in character. They offered Donetsk and Luhansk autonomy, but not independence from Kiev. This statement from the German ambassador three days before the invasion sums up my thoughts. https://new-york-un.diplo.de/un-en/news-corner/-/2512746