Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Sunday that Moscow was “not satisfied” with reported proposals being discussed by President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team to end the war in Ukraine.
Recent media reports have said Trump’s team proposed the idea of Ukraine pledging not to join NATO for at least 20 years as part of a potential peace deal. Another report said Trump wants European troops to deploy to Ukraine to monitor a future ceasefire.
“Judging by numerous leaks and Donald Trump’s own interview with Time magazine on December 12, he is talking about ‘freezing’ hostilities along the line of engagement and transferring further responsibility for confronting Russia to the Europeans,” Lavrov said, according to the Russian news agency TASS.
“We are certainly not satisfied with the proposals made by representatives of the president-elect’s team to postpone Ukraine’s membership in NATO for 20 years and to deploy a peacekeeping contingent of ‘UK and European forces’ in Ukraine,” Lavrov added.
Trump campaigned on ending the proxy war in Ukraine, but it’s still unclear how he intends to do that. The Financial Times recently reported that Trump assured NATO countries that US military aid would continue to flow to Ukraine after his inauguration.
Lavrov said that Russia has not received any official offers from the US and noted that official US policy is still being steered by the Biden administration. “Until January 20 — the date of inauguration — Donald Trump has the status of ‘president-elect,’ and all policy on all fronts is determined by the incumbent president and his administration,” he said.
There is a contract on papers, and there is a place to sign and date…! Hello…! Russia wants an agreement in writing…!
Not a chance…! How about peacekeeping personnel from south/Central America, Asia or Africa…?!
What Russia needs are guarantors of Ukrainian demilitarization and neutrality, guarantors that are not US vassals and that have sufficient power, for example China. Fat chance of accepting any European NATO state as guarantor, the USA itself (and not any lesser vassal) may be accepted but only along with other powers like China or India).
Need in one hand, shit in the other. Notice which hand gets full first.
Lol….!
"There is a contract on papers, and there is a place to sign and date…! Hello…! Russia wants an agreement in writing…!" That is called a treaty between two or more countries. Good luck with getting that approved by the US Senate.
Treaties are one form of inter-government contract. There are others, including executive memoranda.
In the end Russia will be the peacekeeper snd the guarantor of it’s own security.
Russia's war goals are very clearly three:
1. Strict guaranteed neutrality of Ukraine (NATO members can't guarantee anything, not after the Minsk Accords fiasco, China is probably thought as one guarantor, the other being the USA probably).
2. De-NATO-ization of the Ukrainian regime ("de-nazification"), i.e. regime change, deep state change.
3. Recognition of the de-facto annexation of five former Ukrainian regions: Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhie and Kherson. The last two could be negotiated, I guess, into having another referendum (as it can be argued that the one held only parts of the regions and under Russian occupation was not legitimate) but the former three are absolutely clear that they want to be part of Russia.
Add to them a 4th goal: end of Western sanctions, which should be negotiated if the USA is in any way part of the peace talks, whenever they happen.
The US speculative "offer" is very far from these goals, Russia has the upper hand and won't fall again for a Minsk-style trap. However it's very difficult to see how Moscow could force the US hand without conquering at least Kiev, maybe everything all the way to the Polish border even. Russia is clearly winning, it has caught a good rhythm of advance, but it is a trench war and it would take years for them to conquer all or nearly all Ukraine even in the best case. And Russia is not very good at putsching regime-change, something that would definitely speed up the end of the war.
The problem the Russians face is that the west (at least EU, or NATO minus the US) are unlikely to be willing to be part of any peace agreement as in they will not lift sanctions an again buy Russian gas and/or Oil products.
So whatever peace agreement the Trump administration or the Russians can force upon the Ukrainians, it is unlikely to mean a return to profitability for the Russians.
You might be right about the EU not being willing to lift sanctions on Russian energy. But if they don't, the German economy will collapse, and it's going to be a cold winter for several other countries.
Several points:
1) Gas prices are now, corrected for inflation, not higher than they were before 2021.
2) the German economy will fare poorly no matter their access to cheap Russian gas – they are running out of competent workers.
3) we did not freeze in 2022/23 or in 2023/24 so there is no reason to believe we will freeze in 2024/25, which looks to be an even warmer year than the others.
I'm happy that poland has surpassed the bumbling Germans
Hey, you guys in Denmark probably have too
The only think expected to collapse is the Russian economy as early indicators are showing. Inflation at records high, interest rate exponentially high, all state money going to support the Russian MIC which has created many jobs but the military weapons being manufactured have zero return on investment. So that's just money that should've been used for governance now tossed away to try to take Ukraine. The EU has already shifted to other energy sources away from Russia.
The EU was the largest Russian buyer of gas, that is down to nothing. Putin lost his number one market.
Goodbye, Russian economy.
Now go ahead and throw me one of your Kremlin delusional standard rebuttal lines.
Inflation at records high, interest rate exponentially high, all state money going to support the Russian MIC which has created many jobs but the military weapons being manufactured have zero return on investment. So that's just money that should've been used for governance now tossed away to try to take Ukraine.
Wow, Russia sounds just like the US.
Far from it. But you won't know that.
Refute what I said. You can't and you know it. The US is Russia on steroids.
The Russian economy grew by 4% this year. The US economy grew by 3.1%. The German Economy didn’t grow at all.
Russia's economy grew faster that our own (US) last year. Germany's economy is crashing.
Yes, I can only agree to that, although European states may be breaking apart from the NATO Russophobic directives at any moment, because objectively speaking most of Europe only gets problems from the Ukrainian war and the anti-Russian policies. In fact I’ve argued (since 2022) that the Ukraine war was stimulated, provoked, in order to loot Europe dry and to turn it into an archetypal colony of the USA, only allowed to buy what Uncle Sam allows, mostly US hyper-expensive junk produce like LNG but also military gear, food, fertilizers, etc. There’s also a “weaken Russia” side to it of course but the “loot Europe” part often goes under the radar because European politicians all signed happily to our doom, very especially in Germany, which has not even conducted a proper investigation on the terrorist attack against the North Stream gasoduct (which was done by the USA with Swedish and maybe British aid as far as I am concerned, the Norwegian and Ukrainian “leads” are distractions).
Trump can definitely force anything on Ukraine (state, not “Ukrainians”, the people, who have no agency right now other than to avoid conscription risking their lives). The USA engineered Maidan and can therefore engineer an “anti-Maidan” coup or “revolt” even more easily now that it controls the poor battered country. This may be beyond the smarts of Trump but it’s as easy as hiring some neocons like Nuland or Kerry, both of which were deeply involved in Maidan coup, Hunter Biden would do too… whatever he does he’s pardoned in advance.
The real question is not if Trump can impose anything on Kiev (he can) but if he will. He probably won’t: Ukraine is part of a broader “WW3 by proxy” waged in all Eurasia and much of Africa (Sahel, Congo, Sudan, Libya, etc.) against the amalgamation of Eurasian sovereign powers (China, Russia and Iran primarily) and there’s no obvious reason for the US Empire to surrender that front when there are still Ukrainians alive (“to the last Ukrainian”), while Russia has not yet conquered anything that can force such surrender (Kharkov, Odessa, Kiev and Lvov are the key pieces that must fall in order for Russia to impose their terms, something Moscow seems keen on not understanding… or not willing to face, much like they didn’t face the reality of Al Qaeda and the endless Zionist aggression in Syria and paid dearly for it).
Russia is winning the “SMO” much like Hannibal was winning the 2nd Punic War. Paraphrasing Maharbal: “Vladimir Vladimirovich, you know how to win battles but not how to win a war”. If anyone in the Beltway has any knowledge of Roman history (and they do, it’s a fanboy base, especially in the Pentagon), they know that much and are thus not willing to surrender Ukraine, maybe to freeze the war… but that Russia won’t accept.
Now, if there’d be a coup or revolution against the Maidan Regime, something that maybe Russia could be able to engineer (???), then they could reach a peace deal in Russian terms (more or less) quite easily (Ukrainians would be the ones to benefit the most from an end to the war after all). The issue of sanctions and overall NATO’s aggressive policy in the Russian “backyard” would remain an open issue however.
Several issues there…
1) Putin is fueling the fear of Russia – Sweden and Finland joining NATO is just one sign of this – so I do not see European stated breaking with NATO (the US perhaps but I doubt it)*
2) EU stood by Ireland to the extend that they declined a more profitable Brexit deal to show this. In much the same way EU will stand by the security concerns of it's smaller eastern members rather than violating their security concerns and make a deal with Russia.
3) The investigations were run by Sweden and Denmark (some assistance from Norway) it was their waters it happened in. It is unlikely that there will be proof one way or the other (if they had found Russian explosives I would still doubt that it was proof one way or the other).
If the US is so capable how come they could not do the same in Afghanistan and if it is that easy how come the Russians being much closer could not engineer an anti-Maidan?
If he does the US is very likely to lose many of its European weapons customers – having a supplier that is that unreliable is not good when it impacts your national security.
You may disagree, as to whether this is true, but the Swiss have already seen this come to pass – Europeans have already been disappointed several times with US refusal of usage of European weapons with US components.
Well more precisely while there are still Ukrainians willing to fight – remember that this was not the case for the much better supplied Afghans.
The Russians can probably force terms on the Ukrainians at some not too distant future if they can keep up the pressure – at some point the Ukrainians will be unwilling to sacrifice more lives I guess.
Paradoxically the harsher the terms for the remaining Ukrainians, the better – as they can then claim refugee status in EU.
The Russian problem is that Ukrainian surrender is not anything like enough. They need sanctions to end and trade and investments to resume – otherwise they are in significantly deeper trouble than the Germans.
I think this is not too far from the truth.
This too we agree on.
As pointed out above the Ukrainians of fighting age would very likely seek refugee status in EU should this happen – so yes they would stand to gain.
Yes Putin cannot bring this to a satisfactory end without peace with EU (more accurately the rest of Europe).
This he will not get with the current usage of scare politics.
Lots of cans of worms you're opening in a single comment. I'll try to reply to the most important points.
1. When I think of "Europe" I don't think much of the Baltic region but rather the big players, namely Germany, France, Italy and Britain (all them above 60 million people), and to lesser extent Spain and Poland (above 40 million). Even the Netherlands is small fish compared to these six, Sweden (10 million inhabitants) is not more important than Portugal, Belgium or Greece, Finland (5 million) is a footnote not more relevant than Slovakia, Croatia or Albania.
2. Sweden had been collaborating with NATO at least since the murder of Olof Palme. Its membership was just formalizing a fact. Finland was maybe once upon a time more truly neutral but it has derived into the same trail as its neighbors.
3. The best way IMO to understand what happened in the NS terrorist act, as well as in many others (9-11 for example), is to quickly review what facts are trascending in the immediate aftermath, before all the evidence is brushed under the rug and fake "evidence" is propagandized. In this case, my evidence is that two warships, one from the USA and the other from Sweden, went (with shut down transponders) along the pipeline route just two days before the explosions. All the rest is probably noise, although I remain confused about the British role, revealed by Truss' "it's done" text message to Blinken.
4. Re. Afghanistan (2020) I have three things clear: (1) the USA had reached some sort of major pact under Trump which Biden could not remove himself from, (2) the USA was so certain of the result of this secret deal that it abandoned their Afghan allies without even saying goodbye (they did that, overnight, not even a post notice), (3) the Afghan soldiers wanted to keep fighting but the commanders were massively bribed (something similar surely happened in Syria just weeks ago), this can be mostly attributed to Pakistan but unclear in the fine details.
5. The EU is (sadly, I'm a EU citizen myself) not sovereign, nor are its member states. Everything that matters now belongs to Wall Street (BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, etc.) and that shows up in terms of media discourse (total propaganda in most cases) and in terms of whom politicians must pay homage to (Uncle Sam). This existed earlier but it's been brought to extremes in the last decade or two. IMO Europe can only regain sovereignty via communist revolution or something very similar, because there can't be democracy (and thus sovereignty) under such extreme foreign monopolistic stranglehold.
That was what I was trying to point out with the Brexit deal – i.e. the small nations should not be ignored as the EU system depends on them.
There is a huge difference between collaborating with and being a member – Sweden dramatically increases NATO's capabilities and together with Finland makes the Baltics much easier to defend.
Do you have a source for that claim – just asking because I have a source for the Russian ship that was 'parked' close to the two sites of the explosions 4 days before the explosions with (with shut down transponders).
https://www.information.dk/indland/2023/04/forsvaret-bekraefter-rusland-specialfartoej-naer-nord-streams-spraengningspunkt#:~:text=Det%20russiske%20specialfart%C3%B8j%20SS%2D750%2C%20som%20blev%20observeret%20og%20fotograferet,billede%20fra%20det%20russiske%20forsvarsministerium.
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/moerklagt/militaer-radiokommunikation-afsloerer-russiske-flaadeskibe-var-paa
So corruption is your answer and that the US either did not know this or preferred to look incompetent as to prevent it.
Brexit just proved you wrong on this score – any country is free to exercise its sovereign right to leave and thus is sovereign.
No EU companies are not controlled from the US – not even close – that is why EU is in several trade conflicts with the US.
First point – no EU is not controlled by or from the US – that is why Elon Musk's travesty of a truck is not road legal in Europe.
That is why there are so many differences in the technical requirements for so many of our products that a free trade deal between EU and the US is nowhere near being possible.
Do you honestly think that the US companies would lobby consistently to prevent direct competition across the Atlantic if they as you implied controlled the industries of Europe?
There’s no need for a free trade “deal” with “technical requirements.” Just repeal all trade restrictions and voila, free trade.
That kind of deal is only available to EU members – so yes that is a deal and yes it was/is necessary.
I don’t have a source for the transponderless journey right now. I thought I had blogged about it but I didn’t apparently (probably did in Facebook but I deleted my account this year, censorship had become unbearable for us who dare to denounce the Gaza genocide). I just remember those facts being reported and then that Herzl or whatever his name is coming with the Norwegian theory that made no sense.
As for “who owns… ?” it is a search query that always produces results, results that show US hedge funds owning much of every single company in Europe. These are all US companies, mind you.
EU is of course controlled by the USA, their politicians align better with US “Democrats” and dislike Trump, who they feel is not sophisticated and anti-Russian enough to properly manage the Empire. However they are provincials and will do with whatever is given to them by their transatlantic masters, they have no choice unless they want to do dangerous, almost impossible, heoric feats like Robert Fico. Else how do you explain that Merkel begged Trump to continue the occupation of Germany or that Scholz is so totally failining to defend the interests of Germany?
Brexit does not dispute this in any way, after all it was surely approved if not promoted by the USA. The real why of Brexit is Corbynism anyhow: their timelines overlap too much to be a mere coincidence. It’s amazing to observe to what convoluted extemes can the oligarchs reach (Brexit, covid lockdowns, turning Al Qaeda into friend, foe and now friend again without blinking) when they feel like the proles could be actually getting organized and thus dangerous for their privileges. Anyway, since Brexit I don’t call the island “Britain” but “New Puerto Rico”: never a slave suicided so much for their master, even Germany is doing much better than the Brits.
The EU used to be independent in terms economic and that’s why there are so many reasonable laws that impede that we have to eat imported hormoned US meat that will destroy our health and make us fat and weak. Food sovereignty was a serious issue in the 1st Cold War (Japan also has its own legislation in those matters). That has changed: Trump goes around yelling everyone to buy more US produce (that’s what rising the military budget means) and our treacherous leaders comply smiling (instead of exiting NATO altogether and sending costly useless US military bases packing across the ocean), Blinken goes around saying that we have to buy more US LNG at many times the price offered in Russia and our treacherous leaders comply smiling. It’s so bad that Ursula von der Rotten got re-elected, go figure!
So no source – while I can with source provide evidence that the Russians had a ship equipped with submarine capacity in the area 4 days before the explosions.
And note I do not claim that it is proof that the Russians did it while you claim that your unsupported facts are strong evidence that the west did it!
Notice the difference in what we require of ourselves to claim that we have for the things we write!'
Do you have any evidence to support this rather absurd claim – absurd as evidenced by the very different standards applied in the two markets, which puts a very strong limit on trade.
The Brexit deal is proof that the EU prioritize the interests of smaller members over the profitability of a deal with a very significant ex member.
The notion that Brexit was approved from the US is a quite new and fact free assertion – do you have any evidence that this is actually the case???
Yes Brexit UK is doing very poorly – Brexit was and is a major economic own goal – but not a sacrifice for a master – there is much less value to rob/exploit.
Your economic theory is internally inconsistent – if the US controlled this and accepted Brexit then the US has governed a major puncture of value of US investments in UK.
EU remains free and in conflict with the US not only on food standards but also in many of the more important industries.
We have conflicts over airplane production with EU Airbus hurting Boing badly in that market.
EU laws differ from US ones also on cars – which is why US cars are so relative few in EU, Trump will not manage to change this.
Trump will manage to get EU to buy more US military equipment, but if Trump ends support for Ukraine and sticks with the Biden policy of forbidding usage of EU produced weapons (with US components) in Russia then EU (and UK) will increase their domestic investments to liberate themselves from a unreliable partner.
Which EU country do you live in? In Denmark, Sweden and Finland the left and far left parties had to end their opposition to NATO since 2022 – they had to do so as there was little and waning public support for that position.
We buy LNG from producers not aligned with Russia based on price and security of reliable supply – and the prices are market based so we'd have paid about the same to the Russians otherwise (prices are back in line with the pre SMO path).
I have memory: I recall what I read. What I don’t have is good formalized notes to track the source (I’m a human, not a lawyer) and can’t bother searching for the source. Do your own investigation. I remain 100% convinced that the USA did it. Poland, traditional enemy of NS link and in those days a very anti-Russian warmonger, even thanked the USA in a tweet. Happy generic holidays.
If you cannot backup your memory with any sources how are we to engage meaningfully?
I did my own research – what I found I linked – you remember wrong it was Russian ships that were there!
You are entitled to form your own opinion on as poorly supported basis as you like but if you claim that you base it on facts then you have to be able to support these facts with sources.
You don’t believe me, that’s part of engagement. I just can’t bother taking maybe hours of maybe fruitless research to satisfy your demand, especially when I get nothing from it. Hard work should be paid, not gratis.
Yes it could take you hours of fruitless time to dig up non-existing evidence – mostly it would be fruitless as it would likely not make you reevaluate your view on the 'facts' that you base your opinion on.
While I can re-find the evidence I have linked before in less than the time it takes me to type out the reply to you.
You might do well to speculate on why well documented evidence is so much easier to find.
You’re obviously not believing that I argue in good faith. This debate is thus pointless.
Well you refuse to actually back up what you claim is the available facts – asking me to do the research to prove you right – I'd say you have pretty much admitted to not debating in good faith – I may be unjust, if so by all means provide evidence for your assertions.
Man, I’m not willing to navigate the tampered search engines, which as of late tend to produce no relevant results, especially for searches like this one, which are intel primary targets. This info is too old (almost three years) to have survived in my computer’s browsing history (notably because my old computer had to be replaced last year), so nope: I can’t bother. Either take my word or not but don’t make outlandish demands.
It is hardly an outlandish demand to ask you to provide links to support what you claim as a fact.
As I do not expect you to take any assertions I make as facts I hope you will pardon that I do not extend that right to you or any other random provider of assertions on a debate forum.
You are very knowledgable.
TY. I just follow current affairs with great interest, emphasis on geopolitics and whatever hope for a better world that there may be (not many as of late), probably because I also have a passion for history and prehistory and this is history in the making.
The US and Europe have intervened in a civil war that grew from a US engineered coup in Ukraine and then provided military assistance to the coupsters who were losing to the people of Eastern Ukraine. Western barbarians were attacking civilians in the same sort of genocide they are supporting in Palestine.
Sadly, most US and European people also support the gruesome genocide Russia reluctantly fights militarily. Luckily for Russia, it wields the power of democracy unchained by rage against totalitarian US atrocities.
Kremlin trolls repeating Kremlin propaganda lines.
So patently absurd as to make me ignore him:
One side (The Russian!) with little change in top management for the last quarter century – the other with most countries with actual democratic elections having changes regularly.
Not to mention that the civil war in east Ukraine was started by the Russians and we have them admitting as much – whereas we have only weak circumstantial evidence that the US was at all involved in the Maidan.
Well said but the antiwar bloggers are well known for spewing this kind of Russian institutional fanaticism.
This war began in 1999 when Poland became a NATO member. Russian response: no NATO member east of Poland.
Seeing as there was zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO in 2020'ties – it would seem that you believe that the Russians were always a very real threat to any of their neighbors not already in NATO.
This as the mere threat that at some point in a very speculative future they could join NATO – you seem to justify a Russian invasion.
LOL
Where do yo people come up with this stuff?
is it like a factory, or is it all original?
There are seven countries East of Poland in NATO
Thanks for some reality.
Russia also shot down the Azerbaijani airline plane after using its propaganda machine to deny it. Too bad the plane crashed landed in Kazakhstan and the evidence couldn't be hidden.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/putin-apologises-aliyev-over-tragic-incident-with-azerbaijan-airlines-plane-2024-12-28/
And how exactly is that relevant to what Russia thinks about Trump's proposal to end the war? Or do you just like repeating that?
Shut up and get back in your Kremlin nursing home.
As usual, you have nothing but stupid accusations.
Speaking to yourself.
Go be a troll at RT news.
You ARE Don Julio!
You sure have a strong inclination to censorship. I guess that's not too suprising for someone supporting the dictator of a Nazi infested proxy for the duration of their usefulness to the empire. Oh wait, I'm sorry, forgot the switch of the decoder, of course meant to say self-determination of a sovereign democracy.
Simetimes I feel like what is called news is nothing more than a managed insane asylum.
Whatever happened to Azerbaijan plane one thing is sure — there is no reason for Russia to deliberately shoot a passanger plane with many of its own citizens aboard!
There could have been potentially many reasons for this plane to be hit in Russian airspace on approach to Grozny. And they are worth exploring. There was one very obvious, and that is Ukrainian drone attacks in the fflight path. Another may be Russian anti-drone air defence hitting the plane. Yet another reason may be Russian airspace conntrol culpability —the absence of warning to all incoming flights of the enemy activity in progress. The timing will surely be examined.
This primitive prattle surrounding this or any other accident/event involving Russia has become the hallmark of Western official stance.
But what is less clear is the motivation of Azeri president to engage in such a show — before it has been determined what actually happened. A lack of maturity — or an audition?
Irrespective, the cheerleading has started already.
well because you're so smart, surely you'd know they did
russia was probably happy to have a working air defense system
What are you talking about? Putin personally apologized for the accident.
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/putin-apologises-to-azerbaijani-president-after-russian-forces-accused-of-firing-on-crashed-civilian-plane/a92098275.html
That’s a partially paywalled link — here’s an archived version of the whole story.
https://archive.is/zjfLt
This is a logical explanation. There may be another related circumstance. All airtraffic controls should have alerted all planes to stay out of the afected airspace.
Ukraine can chalk it of as a victory. Russian airspace just became too dangerour to civilian aircraft.
Cope
You obviously didn't read the link I posted, did you, bot?
Blah blah blah that is irrelevant. Russia apologized.
I read this report here and could't find the source beyond the "one US official told…"
This report is not consistent with what I am following on reliable and independent news networks.
But this is just one article out of many many more I have seen here so no surprise.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/white-house-tells-ukraine-to-pull-its-demoralized-forces-from-russia/
It's real, reported on Tass news agency from Russia
Your objection isn't clear to me. Russia has been saying since 2021 that it will never allow NATO inside Ukraine. That position is not going to change, and I've heard that from both Lavrov and Putin in recent days.
and your comment has nothing to do with my post.
Please name your reliable and independent news networks?
I don't accept reading assignments.
Europe defend against europe without 'HELP'?
I thought Trump said during his campaigns before the election that he would stop the war in the Ukraine the minute he would be elected, before he would even be sworn in. What happened?
I see a lot of Russia hating comments here. Western propaganda is working.
Actually, he said he’d stop the war “within 24 hours” of being inaugurated. I guess he might have said the other thing, too — it’s not unusual for him to do a 180 in the space of five minutes, and he’s had months to talk about it — but if so I didn’t notice it.
It is my opinion/prediction that while the war won’t end on Putin’s preferred terms (he won’t be keeping Kherson and Zaporzhzhia), it will end at his decision, and he won’t want that decision to be seen as depending on what any US president has to say. Domestically in Russia, he’s probably better seen as “standing up to” than “working with” the US.
Trump will make an offer, and Putin will turn it down.
Then Trump will escalate aid to Ukraine.
And borrow money to do it.
What's Trump going to escalate with? Nothing that will make any difference. If Trump was smart he would just bug out and blame it all on Biden. Wouldn't that be nice.
i wonder why Poles would hate Russia
1. The abandonment during the warsaw uprising
2. Being a slave to the USSR for some 50 years
3. Being a slave to the Russian Empire for some… 123 years
4. Keeping us dirt poor for 200 years
5. Disassembling poland-lithuania
6. A constant propoganda bullshit stream against us
7. Claiming Poland doesn't exist or should join Russia
You forgot the 1939 attack by USSR on Poland.
Out of all the things to slip my mind….
Those 10 troops expected people to remember them for the ages
You forgot the attack of Poland on Lithuania.
Propagandists like you try to distract with other
issues. No sale.
I recall Poland took half of Lithuania before WW2, and wanted other lands.
Ok, whats your point? How does the neo-fascist 2nd Polish Republic and their revanchism affect me?
My god you are dumb.
My comment was built around a response to this statement:
"I see a lot of Russia hating comments here. Western propaganda is working."
I was giving examples of why us Poles would hate Russia
That must be a first time since 99.9% of comments here are anti Ukraine, West, and US but in favor of the Russian dictator and his allies.
Hey propagandist, how is your hero dictator Zelensky doing? You know who he is, the one that dropped elections, shut down opposition media, arrested opposition, closed churches, and so on?
Hey propagandist, how is our hero dictator Putin doing?
Not well, I know. Winning a war in 3 days took a little delay, didn't it?
Zelensky shutting down opposition? Did you mean Putin?
Was Trump sworn in yet?
So, would the 20 year promise of no NATO in Ukraine be honored like the promise of not one inch eastward?
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me…!
what "not one inch eastwards"
I've posted the link many times, even to you back when you were Christian Villa. I'm not going to post it again.
I was never him
He upholds West to verbal conversations but won't uphold Russia to agreements they signed on (i.e. Budapest Memorandum).
That is propaganda, The main violation of all agreements was by Ukraine and the USA, who violated neutrality. Violation of neutrality nullifies anything else.
Ukraine ended its neutrality status only in December 2014 so many months after the Russians (in February) had taken over Crimea and several months after Russia had fermented insurrection in the Donbas.
Ukraine ended it’s sovereignty in February of ‘14.
A failed state and up for grabs. Crimea always had strings attached. Before the putsch the Russians were paying rent on the territory and sharing the port facilities with Ukraine’s navy.
WTG neocons!
Sorry that is only according to Putin’s new world order – according to international law (current) that is not how things work.
Even if we accept your and Putin’s logic then it being up for grabs means that we have every bit as much right to intervene as anyone else – see how much your Russian friends like them apples.
We are intervening and it’s not going well for NATO.
Them apples taste like victory.
This article mentioned Trump's proposal of Ukraine not joining NATO for 20 years. I commented on that.
Was that promise on paper?
No, so shut the fuck up.
It doesn't matter whether the West promises things in writing or in word or what the legal status of it is whatever they sign, it is absolutely worthless. They have made a point of proving to the world, leaving not the slightest room for interpretation otherwise, that any treaty or understanding to be had with them is not worth the paper it is written on, or the time spent negotiating over. It seems most of the world has finally, none too early, come to the inevitable conclusion and realization that malice, perfidy and treacherousness is their nature. Europe, or rather their antidemocratically self-appointed EU representation offered their addition to the points already taken that you can't even trust them to not go against their own vital interests. Can't trust them to be rational.
Paper is what matters to you? We doubt that, if it did, you have read and understood the agreements.
The promise of no NATO in Ukraine is part of both major agreements, but you missed it.
You are childish. No sale.
What agreements?
"Muh one inch eastwards!!""
Did I say it was? And what's the difference? Are you saying our spoken word isn't worth a shit as your argument? You're like the female Don Julio.
I can tell my girlfriend i'll be home by 11:00
Does that mean I should honor it, or should I stay out with my friends?
Oh wait, that's the one promise I should porbably keep
Depends on if you have classes the next day, Christian.
what do you want, kid??
That is exactly what I said.
And you should know very well that International agreements are on ink. Not verbal and no handshakes.
Don't get your last point but I guess you are another far right macho.
And the only way to ignore this verbal agreement that ended the cold war is to admit that you too have no integrity. Good one.
My last point was you're just like Don Julio. Don't know why you wouldn't "get" that. And I don't know how that makes me another "far right macho", but you couldn't me more wrong. I'm left of left. At least for what passes for the left in this country.
Uncalled for.
Why go that far back? The west dishonored the Minsk agreement.
There were four signatories to the Minsk agreement: The Russian regime, the LPR and DPR regimes, and the Ukrainian regime. All four of them dishonored the agreement and none of them are “the west.”
Only one out of three signed it in bad faith from the get go.
I’ve seen no evidence that any of them signed it for any reason other than to buy time before the next round.
I saw eight years of Russian patience and Kiev’s procrastination.
Evidence of Ukraine’s duplicity are the damning admissions of the NATO leaders. What’s the evidence that Russia lied? What motive would they even have?
One of the conditions of Minsk was local elections in Donetsk and Luhansk. The Russian regime, through its secessionist proxies, made damn sure that even if the Ukrainian regime tried to move on that, it would be impossible due to the Russian proxies’ refusal to provide safety/security guarantees to the required international monitors in secessionist-held areas.
I get it. You really, really, really, really, REALLY want to believe that the Russian regime is more honest than its opponent regimes. But evidence for that belief is scant, verging on non-existent.
Why would the Donbas Republics facilitate NATOs proxy from moving on their hard won territorial gains? And given the obvious lopsided defeat of kiev’s candidates, if any, would they cooperate in any case?
The people of the Donbas needed elections and they had them. They didn’t need to placate the implacable “international community” that they’ve been excluded from.
It’s called democracy, like it or lump it!
The Donbas secession regimes, just like the Ukrainian and Russian regimes, actively worked to prevent, at any cost, the local elections required by Minsk.
All four parties to Minsk intended, and used, the agreement as a chance to continue arming up and securing territory.
Eventually the Ukrainian regime had all but won the war and civilian fatalities were down to low double digits per year. So Putin went from proxy war / frozen conflict to open invasion lest peace break out entirely.
But the Republics did have elections that predictably didn’t go NATOs way. And predictably the West condemned them like they always do, as they are doing now in Georgia.
The Kiev proxies didn’t agree to Minsk because they were winning but because they on the verge of annihilation, as they are now.
The republics had “elections” once the Russian forces invaded them and Putin could conduct “elections” they way he wanted those “elections” conducted.
Prior to the actual invasion, all of the involved in regimes busted their asses to make sure that open/free/fair/observed elections didn’t happen, because none of those parties intended to resolve matters via real elections. The purpose of Minsk from all sides was to buy time.
The republics had elections in ‘14 and ‘18. Direct Russian intervention didn’t occur until Feb. of ‘22 after Kiev had substantially rearmed and renewed it’s aggression. That was it’s motivation in feigning diplomacy and agreeing to Minsk and buying time for itself. There was no advantage in Russia forestalling it’s special military operation.
Yes, and I’m sure U.S. UK, had absolutely nothing to do with that Ukrainian signature.
Hardly you can find any agreement between The West and Russia which wasn't dishonored by The West.
By the way, Minsk Agreement was supported by UNSC resolution and had a status of international law.
Yes, like the Budapest Memo. West totally dishonored that one. haha.
It doesn't matter would it be honored or not. Putin said already that it is a non-starter.
This is going nowhere fast.
If Lavrov is unhappy, he needs to pick up the phone and work out a deal with Elon Musk.
lol
unbefuckinglievable, isn't it?
this is what happens when you trust an obese cheese puff and a russian president to negotiate
nobody ends up happy
You lack basic analytical ability and maturity.
Right to the ad hominem
There's only one proposal they want; Russia takes all of Ukraine unconditionally.
Yup, and some people are too blind to realise it, thinking Russia is doing this in good faith
Someone that writes like an illiterate child claims others are blind.
Heyyy, it has something in common with you!
Propagandist, the Russian plan is clear, it is in writing, but you failed to read or understand it.
Russia took all it wanted, until the USA began dumping billions more.
The Russia conditions are clear.
The conditions of your hero neocon US leaders is gibberish, that Putin must be removed, Russia must be broken up and neutralized. It's all junk rhetoric.
You took my word, propangandist.
What's the matter, no more eggs for breakfast?
Ruble, inflation, and interest rates are killing you.
Just take some contract money and go die for Putin. He may send your family a toilet and washer machine or at least a basket with fresh fruits.
You propagandist. lol
Having Ukraine join NATO is of no benefit to Americans or Europeans, so why is this even an issue? Some claim this war is not about NATO expansion, but say we can't end it until Russia argees that Ukraine can join NATO? WTF!
so… lets put on our thinking caps for a moment, if present
why might the Ukies want to join nato?
some overarching goal of being an american puppet to leech off of the insidious blackrock/any other scapegoat you can come up with?
or to prevent the hostile takeover of said country by an invading force
I hope our thinking caps are strong enough to allow you to see the correct answer
Wow, you respond instantly, as though its your job to monitor this site and support NATO expansion. Are you part of the huge Ukraine PR Army?
no, i just happened to be on the site when you posted, a rather large thought to process for a Putin puffer like yourself
Everyone should support countries right to make sovereign decisions regarding their own defense alliances.
Or is it your opinion that we should just accept Trump's desire to acquire Canada, the Panama canal and Greenland?
Ukraine hasn't been sovereign since the Maidan nazi coup. It's just a puppet of the USA now.
When Ukraine was sovereign under the last legitimate President Viktor Yanukovich, it sought neutrality, peace and the better deal possible, something the EU didn't offer (it was a hostile takeover proposal which Yanukovich and his Party of Regions rejected upfront).
That is not how sovereignty works – if it was then Russia is not a sovereign state and never got to be that after the 1991 coup.
That’s exactly how it works ultimately, at least in terms capitalist: you either have a “national bourgeoisie” or a “comprador bourgeoisie”… or no bourgeoisie whatsoever and you exist in the Middle Ages by some sort of magic bubble, but that’s extremely unstable and does not happen anymore except arguably in Bhutan and Swaziland. “National bourgeoisie” means that your country is mostly owned by its own elites and these are autonomous from other countries’ and thus have the “national interest” (their own as national class) at heart. “Comprador bourgeoisie” means that your elites are totally dependent on oreign agency, even if they also get (somewhat) rich as result, and thus have not the national but foreign interest at heart: they don’t care about developing or improving or even keeping alive the nation but only about business as local subservient agents. “Banana republic” suggests the same.
Because of the socialist revolutions in both Russia and China, their bourgeoisie when they returned to capitalism was “national” (foreigners were not originally allowed to buy privatized national assets). What Putin did was only to put order in that somewhat chaotic and definitely inexperienced new Russian bourgeoisie and end the tendencies to serve foreign powers and possibly loot and damage Russia as result. Russia in the 90s had the capacity to be sovereign but had a problem of disorder, France today can’t be sovereign at all, because its media and other key assets are owned by foreigners. And that’s something that fake “alternatives” like Le Pen will never acknowledge.
Putin has appointed leaders of industry and these loot the Russian industries for their own profit.
That is why Russia is so backwards and why you have so fairly many Russian super yachts.
The idea that Russian industries are somehow run better for their national interests is economic illiteracy.
Propagandists like you try to distract when effectively challenged.
Our USA staged an illegal coup in Ukraine in 2014, period,
So challenge me, provide the proof not just allegations. US coups and there have been several seldom if ever acknowledge their legitimacy issues even more seldom do they hold elections to get legitimacy and when they do they have even more seldomly lost those elections.
Ukraine held elections in 2014 after the Maidan – and again in 2019 – in 2019 the sitting administration lost and the 'far right' lost their last MP.
Now provide us with more than a US diplomat expressing what the US would prefer to see in a new Ukrainian administration!
Lots of proof of the 2014 CIA coup in these two short videos:
Lots of proof? Lol
What to you was proof of anything – all I see and hear is allegations without proof.
You know what proof is and how it looks, if you do not I have here an example of proof, that the Russians were the ones that inflated protests in the Donbas to create a civil war.
Proof as in the Russian in charge of the operation admitting his role.
I admire you for having the patience to deal with these keyboard warriors.
Well I did end up blocking him – as stated he was/is just a waste of space – if all they do is to mouth off insults and or unsupported allegations/accusations then there is no debate to be had.
Wow your propaganda and contrivances embarrass you.
A coup isi irrelevant to sovereignty?
You embarrass your self by sprouting a lot of hostile comments without any backing or sources.
Perhaps do better – give it up – accusing others of being propagandists without evidence is a very weak stance.
“Ukraine hasn’t been sovereign since the Maidan nazi coup.”
Try 1240 AD.
That is a very good post.
Thad't be kinda cool i had thought
I digress
I'm afraid that we in Trump may have a leader not much different from Putin when it comes to the respect for the world order we have mostly enjoyed for the last 50 years.
Sadly
Supporting and facilitating genocide, targeted mass murder of children and upholding a system of Apartheid, land theft and supporting terrorist regimes are surely evidences of respect for the world order. These are at least Biden's main achievements. Not to say I expect much better from Trump, but to be worse than the current Zombie reeking of putrefaction right through the screen, would require some real novel innovation on the release of infernal horror on the world's most defenceless peoples. Of course Trump could bore them to death, while already dying of hunger, disease, cold, deprived of any life sustenance and bombarded with US delivered bombs, grenades, driven over by tanks, hunted by drones and sniped by childmurdering cowards, between the ruins of their former homes, with his threats unleashing the powers of Hell upon them that are somehow worse than has already been visited upon them with the indispensible US assistence, but otherwise this is precisely that respected world order that you talk about and no human on earth should be able to respect without losing the right to be called human in the first place and be spit in the face with deserved contempt.
None of these items are covered by the current world order – we could not agree on even that low a bar after WWII – so most of the large powers have been engaging in this kind of behavior.
E.g. Russia is currently engaged in that kind of behavior in Ukraine.
If you have been paying attention Trump appears to desire to acquire Canada, Greenland and the Panama Chanel.
If he carries any of that out then he will be expanding the set of nations that can expect the joy of direct US intervention beyond the scope of most previous administrations.
I kind of doubt he will, but I think he like Bush before him, may decide to launch a 'Gulf war II' type ill conceived operation on Iran.
You seem to believe that the US has invaded all countries it had issues with – that is not the case! It has up until now stuck pretty close to respecting other democratic states – now that no longer seems to be even remotely a limit.
It would be nice if there was a set of rules that we could agree upon and that we would mostly uphold even the stronger ones of us.
That is/was the rules based world order i.e. we would not accept aggressive wars of territorial conquest.
That was the rule Putin (and you?) want to end!?
If so it would seem that Trump is getting ready to exploit that new world order.
Why am I against that – essentially because it'll lead to far more military expenditure, far more wars and much lower prosperity.
It is already on path to achieve this even as we speak.
This is the rules based world order in action. This is something entirely different and opposite to the UN law based world order. The US spends a lot of their energy and time subverting and corrupting it in favor of their preferred rules based world order, simply because it is their arbitrary rules and it are international laws.
There is nothing against invading sovereign countries, lie to start wars, or landgrabbing or genocide, theft, extortion, assassinations, overthrowing governments and so on according to this rules based world order. The criterium in this rules based world order is not whether it is against internati0nal law or against core principles that underlie these laws, the sole criterium is whether or not the West, the US, Europe, Israel, Australia and to a limited extent Japan, do it and are perceived by them to serve their interests. The first and only rule is if the West does it, it makes it OK. The core principle is impunity for the West.
It doesn't register as wrong, because in the West we have internalized completely that what we do is right, because we are right. This is just the natural order of things. How the world is meant to be. This political indoctrination is ubiquitous and unrelenting, it is much like a central religious dogma in medieval times. Doubt is blasphemous and places you immediately outside civil conversation. The most sensible explanation for such abhorrent behaviour is one must be possessed of the devil.
And so genocide doesn't register as wrong. Land grab doesn't register as wrong. That is just how it is supposed to be. This is what Jesus would do.
Don't recall for example any referendum being held under Palestinians whether they'd like to voluntarily give up their ancestral lands and lives to a bunch of our settler lunatic religious fascists.
You appear to be ignorant as to the nature of the rules based world order – so perhaps I should explain them to you!?
The the rules are not arbitrary but the very limited set of rules that the winning nations of WWII could agree upon after that war.
They only restrict the most egregious of actions that one nation can expose an other nation to.
So basically we could only agree that aggressive wars of territorial conquest were illegal.
So not arbitrary but what we could agree upon immediately post WWII.
Well land grabbing is specifically not OK. We can easily agree that the rules are far from comprehensive enough.
But is it really the case that you think we should even allow aggressive wars of territorial conquest?
No they are based on what we could agree upon right after WWII.
Neither France nor UK were actually OK with extending the rules to cover their former colonies and it was only after 1970 that the rules were 'extended' to cover everyone (and even then as can be seen with the occasional exception).
That it has taken so long time and is imperfectly implemented does not in any way mean that I would like to allow Trump a free hand to invade Panama, Greenland and/or Canada.
That appears to be what you would like to see – is that really the case?
Which is why 'the west' has repeatedly voted against the US support for Israel and that the US has repeatedly had to use its VETO rights to avoid UN sanctions on Israel!?
As proven by UN votes you are just wrong – there is no 'the west' all backing what 'the west' wants to do.
Try looking into how 'the west' actually votes in the UN – unless you use 'the west' as a synonym for the US you are just plainly speaking wrong.
And I do not recall a single time there was a unified support from the west for these actions of Israel – can you site the time the west gave their green light for this in the UN?
Of course you as a propagandist supporting the corrupt NWO oppose Trump.
You are a coup fan, you like bio-labs and canceled elections.
Hail to your precious NWO!
The US staged a coup in Ukraine in 2014. You lose again.
No proof that they did – and that also ignores that they held democratic elections twice since then to get a legitimate government – exactly because they acknowledged that they could not claim to be a legitimate administration.
Yes, the propagandist distracts, never admits we violated the neutrality agreements many times.
The Ukies wanted to join NATO before the invasion. NATO said no. The Ukies wanted to join NATO after the invasion. NATO said no. And yet here we are with Russia squatting on approximately 20% of the Ukies land and the answer is still no. Maybe the Ukies should put their thinking caps on and realize they have been, and continue to be, used as fodder for the West to weaken Russia.
Your the type of person to get sad when a partner in an abusive relationship wants a restraining order from the abuser
So, that's why NATO said no? And keeps saying no? Try again.
You are a well known propagandist from other sites.
Is “propogandist” your new buzzword?
Yknow how rightists have red-baiting and leftists have reductio ad hitlerum?
Do you have Reductio ad Propogandum?
We need to "stick" it to the Russians!!
Why?
Because they are Russians!
Will it benefit the common man?
No–It will actually cause inflation.
Then why do it?
Because they are Russians!
And so continues the zero sum "Great Game"
No we need to 'prevent Putin from ending the rules based world order'
No because not doing so will dramatically increase military expenditures.
It will cause inflation (war does), but only until we have gotten Putin to back down while permanently increasing defense expenditures will cause lower growth thus be much more detrimental to the common man.
Not resisting Putin is potentially a negative sum game – resisting Putin is a temporary zero sum game, more likely a temporary lower sum game.
So, send the mighty Danish army to Ukraine then. Go yourself. Send your kids. Raise your country's "defense" spending to 10%.
The USA should chuck the EU parasites and get out of NATO. Immediately.
The usual idiocy from the usual idiot.
Denmark has already send most of its artillery to Ukraine and will send its soldiers when/if that is required.
Denmark has already increased military spending, and the notion that EU is spending less than the US is false. Denmark tops that statistic – the US is on place 17!
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
RINO neocons like you are certainly not America First.
Oh wow, Denmark sent all 20 pieces to Ukraine, how gallant of them.
What nonsense you write, the USA has given several times more than all other nations combined.
That is a first – never been called a RINO before – but to be sure I'm not an America first – as I'm a Dane you may understand why.
Well seeing as it was what we had that is pretty damned good.
Read the link and the comment before making ill informed responses!
What matters here is not how much in total but how much compared to what we can afford – we have given more as a share of GDP that the US – much more!
Wrong, the US has provided the most military aid to Ukraine but the EU has provide the most aid total (military, financial, humanitarian).
OK. So show Denmarks defense spending as a percentage of it GDP accumulated since 1991. Then compare that with the USA over the same period.
As far as artillery? Denmark had very little to start with and the EU can’t make much. Same goes for other military equipment.
Europe should defend itself if it is worried about Russia. The USA should leave NATO. Now. We don’t need it.
It is very true that Denmark (especially) and many other European nations were free riding on US defense expenditures all the way up until Trump's first term.
But they were not parasites – as in the US could not enjoy a much more profitable time by just leaving NATO.
Again very true – actually true for even the US too. But we are (slowly) scaling up production.
The sad issue with this is that it is a very bad way to spend money – as it enriches very few people and makes for very little societal advancement.
Only if the US wants to lose the huge advantage in scale that the US has in weapons production.
The US will save far less money than you think and will face a much less prosperous economic future.
But I think you may come to see this pass, the US simply has less interest in world trade in a future with aging populations in the developed world and even in much of the less developed world (like e.g. China).
The USA economy doesn’t benefit from wasting resources on absurd militarism. As far as trade goes? Trumps economic policies are idiotic.
Interesting take on economics – I would have to disagree the US has benefitted very much from having trading partners in Europe.
You seem to believe that this is not the case!?
What part of my comments did you mentally warp to come up with the idea I am against trading with the EU or any other country? That’s your position. NOT mine.
The notion that the US needed not defend its trading partners from being dominated by their arch rival Russia.
Without the US in NATO Europe would never have developed into as profitable a trading partner to the world or the US.
So, the EU with 4X the economy of Russia and 3X the population of Russia couldn’t defend itself? Why?
And “arch rival”? Nope. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been the USA and NATO that created the bellicose environment. The EU in particular got butt hurt when Russia threw off exploitation of the people in the RF.
The resurgence of the Russian economy wasn’t a threat to the people of the EU. It was an ADVANTAGE. It WAS a threat to the oligarchs of the EU, the deep state globalist agenda however. That’s why those interests have manipulated the Western countries to threaten the RF.
For heavens sake, it’s cheap Russian energy and other resources that kept the EU competitive. That’s ended. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.
Heck, Russian gas heated your homes and kept the lights on cheaply. Russian grain fed your meat supply. Russian fertilizer grew your crops. And your political class sanctioned THAT?????????????? Just…. plain….STUPID!
Of course your political class and oligarchs aren’t going to pay the price. Or, perhaps they might. But not at the hands of Russia.
Essentially because EU did not exist at the time and even now does not act as one entity – so can be defeated in detail.
Moreover EU never invested as much in the military (what it did invest was in small portions and dispersed making it inefficient).
No an arch rival on the sales of weapons vying for the hearts and minds of people in the third world – or are you claiming that the US and Russia did not continue to compete in these areas?
When did that happen? Near as I can figure it has still to happen.
Yes on this we agree – at least it was not seen as such until after 2014 at least.
By getting Putin to interfere in Georgia take over Crimea and invade Ukraine – I have to say they are some sly operators!
Gas prices are back in line with developments from before 2022 – so on this you are just wrong.
Yes that is why we now go hungry sitting in the cold dark – oh wait a while we don't – the Russians have more problems than we do in those areas.
We did apply sanctions – and as stated gas prices are back in line with price trends from before – we still have too much to eat and produce more food than we can consume.
Our sanctions are breaking the Russian economy and will thus prevent us from having to fight the Russians arms in hand.
The Russians like the Soviets before them are facing economic ruin.
While sanctions are not for free the cost of strangling the Russian economy is a very cheap price to pay compared to the economic cost of allowing Putin to roll back the rules based world order.
Wow. It seems you have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker.
Just for laughs:
The Russian economy grew at 3.6% or more in 2024. the EU? Under 1%. Some “strangulation”. Self strangulation really.
The price of natural gas in the EU is about 50 Euros per mwhr. And rising. Prior to the 2014 coup in Ukraine that started this debacle, it was about 10 Euros.
Yes. The EU countries didn’t invest in military equipment production. Now they can’t unless the EU cuts domestic uses of their limited capacity. And THAT will accelerate growing internal dissent.
Apparently the “rules based order ” includes censorship: (ie. wrongspeak), propaganda (ie. to prevent wrongthink), cancellation of elections, banning opposition candidates and political party’s ( to prevent wrongvote).
Has it occurred to you that should the US pull the plug on the Ukraine project, Canada, Japan, Australia and a good chunk of the EU will pull their support also?
The only thing “support” for the Kiev regime is going to result in is more lives lost and a smaller, poorer, dependent rump state of Ukraine. A Ukraine with an unsustainable demographics to boot.
“help” for Ukraine is destroying that country.
Yes that is truly funny – the Russian economy is growing based on massive government spending – so massive that it has driven up inflation to the extend that the central bank has elevated the interest rate to 21% – and the ruble is tanking.
You should do stand up commody!
Prices now are in line with price path from before the SMO.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas
We have and we are increasing investments in military equipment and production capability – so far very little sign of internal dissent on that score.
The rules based order does very little to dictate how countries behave internally – it primarily forbids aggressive wars of territorial conquest.
It has been considered – it did not stand up to easy checks – when Republicans blocked additional support for Ukraine for 6+ months the other NATO members increased their support.
What is you argument that they would do anything different if Trump ends the US support?
That is your view not the view from most of Europe – without our support their resistance will crumble and EU will receive an influx of 10+ million refugees.
Again not the view from Europe.
Russian inflation is running at 7.5%. Similar to the inflation in Poland which has just below a 3% increase in GDP.
Your “massive” government spend by the Russian government is, by % of Russia’s GDP, under France, Germany and Great Britain….. and most of the other EU countries.
Russian government debt to GDP is 15%. Germany’s is 58%. France’s is 110%.
Russian deficit spending 2024 = 1.1%
German deficit spending 2024= 2.2%
France deficit spending 2024= 6.1%
Yeah. “Rules based order”. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Serbia etc, etc, etc. And, of course the economic sanctions, support of dictators with ” foreign aid”, color revolutions. Follow orders or be overthrown….. or destroyed.
As far as not in the view of European countries? That seems to be changing. Despite control of the msm, censorship, cancellation of elections, banning opposition party’s, lawfare, threats etc, etc, etc.
So…. the Russian effort in Ukraine seems to be sustainable. The Western Ukraine project? Not so much.
No Russian inflation is at about 8.9% to 9.5% while the Polis one is at about 4.7% (among the highest in EU)
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/inflation-cpi
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russias-inflation-reaches-95-this-year-weekly-data-shows-2024-12-25/
https://stat.gov.pl/en/search/?query=tag:inflation
So not even close to the same – and Poland is not arriving at its inflation figure through massive domestic over spending.
No Russia is running a much larger budget deficit – covered by savings which is why they get the high inflation.
So the government debt is not connected to this at all – none of the EU countries have arrived at their debt to GDP ratios over less than a 3 year period.
Thus:
This is only relevant for the current inflation to the extend that it results form a budget deficit over the last 3 years – it does not!
When we made the very large deficits we did get high inflation – but that was in the Covid after match.
Hence the low Russian deficit pending
Reflects the consumption of the savings not a healthy economy which can easily borrow money, but an unhealthy one that have to dig deep into its savings.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/10/28/russia-economy-spending-sanctions-budget-war-ukraine/
I can see you have still not grasped the concept – you probably will not until you see what happens if Trump acts according to Putin's new world order and annexes the Panama Canal, or Greenland.
Not really seeing it – but I guess I could be wrong – it certainly is not the case in Scandinavia nor in the Baltics.
Where do we have an interest rate of over 20% in Europe? The Russian spending is clearly not sustainable!
As you have just pointed out they cannot even lend money to cover their budget deficit – but having to spend their savings to do it.
The Ruble is slowly collapsing (losing more than 10% just over the last month).
Good trick by Russia. The government is “massively overspending” while keeping their deficit spending at 1.1% of their GDP.
note: The figures you are using are weekly and monthly. I’m using yearly figures. Note also that your figures are from Western sources which have been wrong for several years. The same sources claimed the Russian economy would collapse in 2023.
The IMF projected the Polish economy growth at 2.6% as of Oct. 2024. Likely you are using monthly figures which are notorious for being wrong and subject to revisions. Note also that the Polish government deficit spent 4.6% to get that 2.6% growth. Not sustainable.
As far as the 20% borrowing figure goes? I’d rather owe less in an expanding economy at a high rate that can be paid down than 10X as much in a slow economy that can’t be paid down. But governments are different. They can get away with that ….. until they can’t.
Note also that the EU stole $250 billion from Russia. “Rules Based Order” includes theft. And yes, I do get your claims of what the LIO means. It’s completely bs. Not liberal at all, and it is a rationalization of continuation of neo-colonialism. Those “rules” are violated at whim and used to to rationalise powerful countries and globalist institutions control over others. In 1991 this created the uni polar world view that is now ending.
btw, notice that the EU government deficits are running at a multiple of their economies growth rate? As the saying goes; “when you find yourself deep in a hole, STOP DIGGING!”.
So no trick – just normal accounting: The figure you show does not reflect over spending only the part of the budget deficit that is covered by loans.
No the figure I quoted for Poland was the annual rate (4.7) the figure for Russia was the rate based on monthly data.
But the figure for Russia for the whole year is according to the Russian national bank going to be in the 8-8.5% range:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/economists-see-russian-inflation-exceeding-central-banks-2024-estimate-2024-11-21/
The Poles are spending so much to prepare for a potential war with Russia.
So not costs of supplying Ukraine but costs of beefing up their own military.
Thus you could claim that their spending is not sustainable only while the international markets are willing to lend Poland money it is sustainable.
First when we see interest rates going up significantly can you claim that it clearly is not sustainable.
That said Poland is not likely to persist on this overspending the EU limits budget deficit spending at a bit lower levels.
Three things:
1) the Russians cant afford the rates – that is why construction is collapsing in Russia
2) The Russian government is unable to borrow money on the international markets – and their 'partners' in BRICS are not willing to lend them funds either
3) Western governments can indeed go on borrowing money until they can't – the sign that we approach the 'can't' level is the interest rates we have to pay – there is no sign that we are approaching this.
No they did not steal the money they froze the funds down – the rules based order actually does not allow for confiscating such funds.
There is one very important rule the one against aggressive wars of territorial conquest – it has not been broken by the west.
You may indeed be right that this world order is approaching its end or already has ended – Trump certainly behaves as if it has.
If that is the case then we'll all be very significantly poorer as far more will be spend on unproductive arms production.
You seem to have problems with neoconservatism and liberalism too – but now seem to have issues with Keynesian theory too.
There is no problem in government over spending in periods where the economy needs the stimulus.
If the markets agreed with your (rather naïve) notion that this spending was risky or unhealthy the market rate would go up fairly fast.
It has not – as you pointed out governments are different – when they find themselves deep in a hole – austerity will very often only deepen the problem – spending money paradoxically will often solve them.
I have an advanced degree in economics. One of several degrees. Yes, I have a problem with Keynesian economic theory. Yes, I also have a problem with neoconservative ideology and with neoliberalism. All those ideologies are destructive to humanity. I also have a problem with Fascism. You seem to embrace all of those.
We’ll just have to see.
You certainly do not come across as a person with an understanding of economics – I do not FYI embrace any ideology – but I do know that governments often use deficit spending to stimulate their economies – you appeared ignorant of that fact.
Add to this that you failed to distinguish between decades of deficit spending leading to fairly substantial debt to GDP ratios in the west and covering a huge budget deficit from previously saved up funds and we get a picture of a person either economically illiterate or completely ignoring their economic knowledge to arrive at a desired result.
I could go on about your failure to understand market appreciation/evaluation of the soundness of lender countries economic situation and why Russia has to cover its deficits with rainy day funds, the failing Ruble the dramatic drop off in construction in Russia… the list goes on and on but you claim there are no problems when even Elvira Nabiullina admits that inflation is a significant problem.
But lets just end it here – because as you point out we will see – on that at least we can agree.
“completely ignoring their economic knowledge” ??? Simple. I just don’t believe what I was taught anymore. Why? It doesn’t work.
I do not accept the premises of Keynesian economic theory. I know that’s hard for you to grasp.
When it become obvious that Keynesian theory doesn’t work, there’s always a patch on the theory. Usually this is “proven” with back fitted data…. then the patched theory subsequently fails. The latest patch is MMT which is what you are using……. if you realize it.
Elvira Nabiullina is a Keynesian btw. Somewhat clueless Central Banker although their are worse examples. She says inflation target of 4% is likely. The US stopped it’s high inflation in the 1980’s by high interest rates (via Paul Volker) , but it was really ended also by increases in production (supply) to meet demand in key sectors. Russia is now at a similar point. The need is to adjust supply to meet market demand. Attempting to do this by central planning is likely to have sub optimal results. Some of Russian trade surpluses could be used to alleviate the problem by importing.
The rapid increase in pay for Russians has caused an imbalance in supply given increased demand due to the wage increases. Ie. the Russians spent their wage increases.. Attempts to control markets by special interests exacerbated the supply imbalance. Likewise the construction industry missed obvious signals in 2023 that the housing market was nearing saturation. This is mostly centralized planning failures and mal investments due to central banking including mis signalling if you understand the concept. The same thing happens throughout the worlds economies. The Russians would be well advised to liquidate the mal investments rather than attempt to extend and pretend.
But no, the Russian economy isn’t collapsing due to sanctions. It has problems. So do the EU economies.
The Ukrainians aren’t winning the war.
The EU nations are in decline. Likely irreversible unless there is a real change it their political economies. Unlikely but possible.
Opposition to the Ukraine project is growing in the EU.
No, Putin doesn’t want to conquer Europe.
Euro skeptic political party’s are gaining ground.
Russia will not accept Trumps peace plan.
The Ukraine war will continue into 2026.
We’ll see.
End….
US trade with Europe in 2023 — imports and exports — totaled nearly $1 trillion last year.
US producers sold $367.6 billion worth of stuff to European customers.
US customers purchased $576.3 trillion worth of stuff from European producers.
People don’t trade unless they perceive themselves as benefiting from doing so. $1 trillion strikes me as quite a bit of benefit.
That is kind of my point!
It seems to be the opposite of your point: "I would have to disagree the US has benefitted very much from having trading partners in Europe."
Well only if you read it out of context:
I was replying to:
In that context:
"I would have to disagree the US has benefitted very much from having trading partners in Europe."
What I'm disagreeing with is clearly:
And the argument for why I'm disagreeing is:
"the US has benefitted very much from having trading partners in Europe"
But I see that I would have been better advised to put what I disagreed with more clearly defined and the argument for why in a separate sentence.
OK, I mistook your meaning.
Then again, “absurd militarism” is not the same thing as “having trading partners in Europe.”
I do not know what he meant by absurd militarism, but had the US not backed Europe all through the cold war there is little doubt that the European economies would have been much smaller and less profitable trading partners even possible just Russian satraps.
I tend to go back a little further than that. If the US hadn’t backed Europe in World War 2, the Soviet Union would likely have exhausted itself defeating Hitler and not had the strength to dominate eastern Europe for nearly half a century. Whether that would have turned out better, and if so for whom, I don’t care to speculate much.
That is a distinct possibility.
That is pure propaganda.
But it is what I can back up with supporting evidence – can you do the same for your claim that this is not true?
Can you e.g. show how the SMO has led to lower military expenditures or how allowing resetting borders by force, would make the world a safer place?
From Dugin, aka Putin's Brain (He is one of the instigators of the SMO).
Russian ideologist Dugin during an interview:
"Without Ukraine, Russia cannot become once more the empire. With Ukraine inside of Russian zone of control it will become the empire once more. That is a kind of law, nothing personal. This war or special military operation in in Ukraine is about that. It is about geopolitics."
He is one of the instigators of the SMO.
https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1872682724177186986
Hey propagandist, what about the actual subject here? No comment?
Hey propangandist, Did you read it? Did you watch the video?
Ha ha. I guess the war isn't ending in 24 hours, as Mr. Trump boasted.
Does that mean we aren't getting cheap gas, cheap food, and a "Golden Age", starting Jan. 20? Could that be?
Hey give trump a chance. He has until Noon on January 21 to make good on his promise. LOL
When one mocks attempts at peace, one exposes themself.
There will be a cease fire. Trump is not in for 20 days, consult you calendar.
He said he would call Putin, have a ceasefire and end the war within 24 hours after being elected.
He said it, it's on YouTube.
Guys, guys, guys, we need to see the Azerbaijani plane crash from the Russian perspective
We can finally celebrate the fact that Russia has a working Air Defense System!!
Think Russian! 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
You should see the downing of an Iran Air Jet in the Persian Gulf when the Senior Bush was the VP and Reagan was the President. Bush said "I Don't Care What The Facts Are".
The Duopoly Parties and the Media talked about what a great man Bush was when he died 6 years ago. So many people say he was much better than the Junior Bush for not overthrowing Hussein. He bombed Iraq after the Gulf War ended, so did Clinton and the Junior Bush before officially declaring a second war against Iraq. The Senior Bush also bombed Panama to find Noriega. He was never prosecuted for war crimes and died with a guilty conscience.
Pretty flippant over a whole bunch of people dying.
Its ok, the 1st thing to happen after the crash was far right russia loving pundits to blame Ukraine for Russia downing a plane
🤡🤡🤡
And that means it's ok for you to be flippant over a bunch of people dying?
I'm not flippant, i'm sad
Your comment was flippant. And you made a similar one elsewhere. People died and you took the time to make fun of Russia's air defenses.
War Russia trying to pretend he has morals. Lol.
Like we haven't read your comments and those you give likes to.
I'm not the one cheerleading Ukraine on to destruction you simpleton bitch.
Lol, being called out hurts, I know.
By you? Hardly.
Lol.
They are definitely regretting not allowing the plane landing in Grozny. They could've hidden all the evidence like they normally do with their wrongdoings.
As the Cold War was dying out, the USA said it would not expand NATO one inch eastwards, it broke its promise and expanded NATO many miles eastwards. It should have done more than keep its promise it should have dissolved NATO.
NATO decided Russia would be its scapegoat so the USA would have a never ending empire and hegemony. The USA and Russia are two of the most powerful nations on Earth and they should have leaders working toward world peace.
never said that
What do you mean the USA "Never Said That"?
"one inch eastwards"
The USA said it would not expand NATO one inch eastwards and it broke its promise and expanded NATO many miles eastwards and should have dissolved it.
The US can leave NATO it cannot dissolve it. The threat of Russia did not disappear when the Soviet Union broke apart it merely receded for a short while.
The Russians immediately started strong arm policies towards its former 'partners' this is what led them to apply for NATO membership.
Clinton was trying to offer the Poles and several others alternatives to NATO membership and it was only when these states tried to make a deal with the Republicans that Clinton decided to stop ignoring their application.
Want to take you up on that. Lets see what happens when that takes place. They're doing a pretty great job so far of dissolving themselves into a puddle of irrelevancy, stirred, but not yet shaken by internal inconsistencies, but speeding up the process would sure be very welcome by all the peoples of the world interested in survival.
NATO is an alliance not an organization owned by the US, you can with justification claim that NATO would change so much as not to be NATO any longer if the US left, but the US cannot dissolve NATO as such.
Can you accept this formulation i.e. the US leaving NATO would essentially end NATO as we know it?
Lets see how the reality of that situation would go is what I am saying. If we could just try it and find out. I would be statisfied with the outcome even if I'd turned out to be wrong.
I kind of doubt that we'll get to see – Trump is not likely to leave NATO – doing so would (not right away though) lose the US much of sales of military equipment to Europe.
Losing advantages of scale in military production would be a major own goal.
Go form a NATO fan club.
No need there are plenty in Europe already – Putin has made it more popular than ever.
Wonder why you would even make such a childish comment!?
Because you schooled him.
Yes, an imaginary threat cannot disappear, since it never existed.
Fine with me, NATO can go it alone.
Not getting what your point – what never existed?
Who said that
You're right: the USA and allies promised that but it was never written on paper. Only journalism records remain. It was also a promise to Gorbachev and the USSR, which collapsed (against the will of most of its peoples, expressed in referendum) just a year later or so, and not directly to Russia, which was then not a sovereign state.
Whatever the details, it's clear that NATO's expansion eastwards is a threat to Russia, this is especially true of the Baltic region and Ukraine.
NATO should have been dissolved? Indeed but that's not how things actually work: in fact NATO was created several years before the Warsaw Pact and in a context in which the USSR was seeking peace and understanding but the Western Allies were not.
“the USA and allies promised that but it was never written on paper”
Incorrect.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16116-document-05-memorandum-conversation-between
Except in the west we maintain that this pertains to East Germany not countries east of Germany – as these were at the time still in the Warsaw pact.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/exposing-the-myth-of-western-betrayal-of-russia/
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/
Furthermore the Russians signed an agreement on the matter:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nato-75-russia-programs/2024-07-09/nato-russia-charter-1997-was-forced-step-said
When the wall fell, there was no east Germany anymore. And even after the wall fell, Germany still joined NATO. Face it, the west is and always will be a notorious backstabber.
Germany join NATO in 1955. That was before the wall was built.
Read his post again…slowly. I was replaying to his statement: “the west we maintain that this pertains to East Germany not countries east of Germany”
And I was fully aware west Germany was in NATO.
NATO did not move from Western Germany into Easter Germany – as promised. As Tim points out West Germany was already in NATO.
Sucks to live in the west, right?
Sucks to live in the most prosperous places on earth who can afford their citizens to have the best and healthiest lives ever, right?
That is not a treaty appoved by the US Senate. The next President is not required to honor anything written in that document.
Even if it WAS a treaty approved by the Senate, the next president wouldn’t have been required to honor it.
But even for a corporate entity like the state, there are often consequences for breaking promises.
On the other hand, “Ukraine in NATO” is and always has been a distraction and an excuse on both sides.
You care not about right versus wrong.
You're like that bitch that keeps writing the same stupid shit you keep repeating. I guess you're ok with our word meaning shit.
There he is, War Russia the antiwest blog police.
Support Ukraine and he'll pull you over.
Ha, you have issues. Hope 2025 treats you good.
Yes, I do have issues. With simpletons like yourself. Somehow. someway supporting Ukraine means allowing for their very destruction. And, somehow, someway, being against Ukraine's destruction makes me "anti-west". I mean, you can't make this shit up. You really are THAT stupid.
That means other nations don't have to honor treaties signed by previous leaders, they can revoke them.
Presumably each regime has its own rules for who can revoke a treaty and how.
Here’s a summary of the situation and argument in the US:
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/presidential-power-to-terminate-international-agreements
Where is Ukraine in the northern Atlantic?
The inner seas of the North Atlantic are also considered part of the North Atlantic, that includes the Mediterranean, the Baltic and the Black Sea. Anyhow the particulars of the NATO treaty apply AFAIK to all continental lands in Eurasia and North America, as well as to all islands north of the Tropic of Cancer. So for example NATO does not protect the Falklands or Ceuta but it protects Canary Islands and Crete.
This promised appeared in lots of official documents.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
That means that there is not just a media record but also a National Security Archive record (what makes sense). The assurances were still verbal and not formal (not written, not part of a formal treaty) and they were made to Gorbachov (USSR) and not to Russia (Yeltsin), which was not a sovereign state yet, even if treated as main successor of the USSR for UNSC and nuclear treaties’ purposes.
The USA never made a treaty with USSR or Russia about not expanding NATO. Any promise or commitment made by administration is subject to change by the next . Only treaties and laws can not be arbitrary changed by a new administration. That is way it works. For example, if Biden promises to keep supplying weapons to Ukraine, Trump does not have to live up to that promise.
What about the big picture? We aggressively moved into eastern Europe, encircling Russia, and this caused tension. Everything is OK with you as long as it is not written down?? Then what about the neutrality clauses in the 2 major agreements on Ukraine??
So which countries did 'we' aggressively force into NATO?
No… the countries WANTED to join nato to get protection from a revanchist Russia
You such a bad propagandist.
It wasn't only made by the US. And comparing something that was used to end the cold war isn't in the same ballpark as supplying weapons for one of our proxy wars.
The USA never made a treaty with USSR or Russia about not expanding NATO. Any promise or commitment made by administration is subject to change by the next . Only treaties and laws can not be arbitrary changed by a new administration. That is way it works. For example, if Biden promises to keep supplying weapons to Ukraine, Trump does not have to live up to that promise.
In Rosja, they consider losing 1.7k men per day winning, and gaining control over 18% of a country in 3 years as a victory
God forbid we see what Rosja losing is like
Oh wait, we already can, because they already are!
Think Russian! 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
You failed math, propagandist.
Ok
Maybe instead of constantly invading innocent countries, Russia should try to become a better actor on the world stage and genuinely try to work towards world peace and prosperity, and try and fight for a better future with the west
Too bad half of the words I said aren't in the Russian dictionary, and people like this exist:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5ce9bfaee16d8651e4f0be2da08dbd29a26e639844227b9ea76bbc6c6aacf8b.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/67671879b09e05b9d2b3d8bc01fe3cfc6d4db53b809c4f51e24a4e8b595fe498.png
(what the text says: "We are asking the allied units to provide us with one captured Ukrainian (preferably not a Slav, but a smoked, Crimean Tatar or something similar) for a ritual sacrifice to the Slavic Gods on the holiday of the autumnal equinox to encourage and strengthen the spirit of the new personnel of the unit.")
💀 💀 💀
Source: https://censor.net/en/n3505505
You describe democracy destroying America and then say it's Russia. Has the US ever not been invading another country in your life time? Tell me when. Start with the US attacks on completely innocent south east Asians. Remind me. Why were we attacking them? And why were we attacking Nicaragua or Iraq? Why did we attack Libya?
"Constantly invading innocent countries"?
And what constitutes "innocent"? And who decides what is "innocent"…… Why, the Western countries and those that control them.
But, but, but… Democracy, right? Pay no attention to the cancelled elections, outlawing opposition party's, banning opposition candidates media control, censorship paying for riots via NGO's and bribery.
Sooo…..the Russians are a bit paranoid. Wonder why that is? Could it be multiple invasions by Western countries of target nations? Or dozens of regime change efforts by Western countries? Or rhetoric US government officials and by Western media state mouthpieces calling for the overthrow of the Russian state and it's dismemberment?
the Russians do all the things you mentioned…
Russia invaded Ukraine. You can add in the Republic of Georgia. All on Russian borders. Nato nations invaded how many countries? And how many were on their borders?
NATO has invaded Kosovo and you Afghanistan that is as far as I know whole list – no NATO troops in e.g. Libya – though NATO did take over responsibility for parts of the air war there some weeks after UK France and the US had started it.
I said “NATO countries”, right? This is a disingenuous of you.
Sorry my bad… you did say NATO nations.
Trump and his fake peace deal by kicking the can down the road.
Any halt to the production of industrial military complex and the desires of the deep state will see Trump suffer a similar fate to JFK.
Trump would be feeling a little nervous knowing he has people who would do this in Washington DC
What peace deal?
Trump is the first in the West to attempt negotiations, and you mock him??? Negotiations always start with offers and rejections.
It must be a shock to see the “leader” of the free world finally having to negotiate with someone equally powerful. Trump must fold like a house of cards or be just another business as usual President.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/ukraine-to-starve-hungary-and-slovakia-of-russian-oil/
What could Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin agree on? The sun, moon, rain, snow, death, and taxes.
Kellogg and Trump will face a major international embarrassment soon after they leave Moscow. However, a meeting isn't a given.
Trump appears caught within the Zionist/Neocon cabal's grip.