NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 01 2022 23:44 Manit0u wrote: WOW, UK is going to give UA some warships. 2 trawlers for start (to clear potentional minefields) but there might be more coming. The ships they'll get at the start are HMS Blyth and HMS Ramsey.
I'm not sure about the extent of that, especially that UA doesn't really have much navy personnel and you need about 500 men to crew a cruiser and 300 to crew a destroyer. But, a few ships like that near Odessa would definitely give Russia a lot of headache as they could fire at ground targets and basically ravage Russian backline.
I don't understand how that is supposed to work. UA doesn't really have sailors or ports currently, and i doubt that any UA warships would be save in the black sea. Russia has proven large amounts of incompetence so far, but i still don't know if they are so incompetent to let a UA navy live.
Also, isn't a navy basically the last thing UA currently needs?
Apparently hundreds of Ukrainian sailors have been training on those ships for months now. Exact numbers unknown.
Personally I also find it a big mystery. Training basic sailors can be done in a few months but the hardest part would be the officer cadre and specialists. Mechanics, navigators and captains especially. I can see a world where they could potentially just use senior personnel from civilian ships with a few months training to get up to speed but not sure if that's what they'd do.
On July 31 2022 09:08 gobbledydook wrote: Every day the experts claim Russia is running out of steam. They've been running out of steam for half a year now. I wonder when they're actually going to run out of steam.
Did you miss that time they got pushed back from Kyiv, pushed back to the border near Kharkiv, pushed back to the outskirts of Kherson?
The war has not ended yet unfortunately, so there is still some steam left. I wonder what it will take for them to concede and pull out. Or will it devolve into a stalemate where neither side can progress?
The important thing is that UA can run out of steam too. They're the ones losing manpower and infrastructure, so they can choose to freeze the conflict to reduce losses. But, as they now have now finally established a manpower advantage for a few months, and HIMARS and western AA has mitigated most of RUs remaining equipment advantage, they'll likely try to recapture as much of what was lost in the south.
But RU can easily retreat from some of the captured areas, claim the special operation is over and nothing happens to the Putin regime. The propaganda wheels keep turning just like when they pulled back from Kyiv and Kharkiv. For UA it's an existential struggle. If they don't regain control of the southern ports, their export economy will remain crippled.
I think not even Putin can weather the storm that would follow. Ruining your country for absolutely nothing. And it wouldn't end with a retreat. Nobody in their right mind would make business with Russia for the next 5+ years, especially with this regime
I bought a chocolate bar made in Belgium on 21.06.2022 just yesterday. So even non-essential buisness is still on at the moment, it's just big brands don't want negative public attention, hence they pulled out or are pulling out. And still many of those were hoping to preserve their buisness in Russia to return later (talked with one lawyer from Moscow about it, though it was somewhere in May). There is also huge economic activity in Armenia and Kazakhstan, as these are the closest countries to Russia not under sanctiones, to enable trade and services through them. So, as one guy a centurey and a half ago said "There is no crime that capital won't commit for 300% revenue".
The point is that it has increased risk for companies that want to invest in Russia. Some companies also invest in Congo but that doesn't make it an attractive country to invest in. Companies have had to write off billions because Putin was stupid enough to start a war. For many companies the risk will be too large and any company that does want to invest in Russia will want to be compensated for the increased geopolitical risk. You're fooling yourself if you think the war won't have serious medium to long term economic effects.
Of course, but there is still difference between "higher risk investment" and "no investment at all". Plus I assumed that the definition "to make business" also includes buying and selling stuff. Though I agree that investment climate is much worse now, I was mainly arguing moral side of things, and gave an example of a still existing non-essential import into Russia from Europe. You can't simply write off market of 150 million people even with not that high GDP per capita.
But why are you evening bringing up food imports? They weren't sanctioned.
On July 31 2022 09:08 gobbledydook wrote: Every day the experts claim Russia is running out of steam. They've been running out of steam for half a year now. I wonder when they're actually going to run out of steam.
Did you miss that time they got pushed back from Kyiv, pushed back to the border near Kharkiv, pushed back to the outskirts of Kherson?
The war has not ended yet unfortunately, so there is still some steam left. I wonder what it will take for them to concede and pull out. Or will it devolve into a stalemate where neither side can progress?
The important thing is that UA can run out of steam too. They're the ones losing manpower and infrastructure, so they can choose to freeze the conflict to reduce losses. But, as they now have now finally established a manpower advantage for a few months, and HIMARS and western AA has mitigated most of RUs remaining equipment advantage, they'll likely try to recapture as much of what was lost in the south.
But RU can easily retreat from some of the captured areas, claim the special operation is over and nothing happens to the Putin regime. The propaganda wheels keep turning just like when they pulled back from Kyiv and Kharkiv. For UA it's an existential struggle. If they don't regain control of the southern ports, their export economy will remain crippled.
I think not even Putin can weather the storm that would follow. Ruining your country for absolutely nothing. And it wouldn't end with a retreat. Nobody in their right mind would make business with Russia for the next 5+ years, especially with this regime
I bought a chocolate bar made in Belgium on 21.06.2022 just yesterday. So even non-essential buisness is still on at the moment, it's just big brands don't want negative public attention, hence they pulled out or are pulling out. And still many of those were hoping to preserve their buisness in Russia to return later (talked with one lawyer from Moscow about it, though it was somewhere in May). There is also huge economic activity in Armenia and Kazakhstan, as these are the closest countries to Russia not under sanctiones, to enable trade and services through them. So, as one guy a centurey and a half ago said "There is no crime that capital won't commit for 300% revenue".
The point is that it has increased risk for companies that want to invest in Russia. Some companies also invest in Congo but that doesn't make it an attractive country to invest in. Companies have had to write off billions because Putin was stupid enough to start a war. For many companies the risk will be too large and any company that does want to invest in Russia will want to be compensated for the increased geopolitical risk. You're fooling yourself if you think the war won't have serious medium to long term economic effects.
Of course, but there is still difference between "higher risk investment" and "no investment at all". Plus I assumed that the definition "to make business" also includes buying and selling stuff. Though I agree that investment climate is much worse now, I was mainly arguing moral side of things, and gave an example of a still existing non-essential import into Russia from Europe. You can't simply write off market of 150 million people even with not that high GDP per capita.
But why are you evening bringing up food imports? They weren't sanctioned.
I've highlighted the point I was responding to in my first answer on the matter (in response to Harris1st).
On July 31 2022 09:08 gobbledydook wrote: Every day the experts claim Russia is running out of steam. They've been running out of steam for half a year now. I wonder when they're actually going to run out of steam.
Did you miss that time they got pushed back from Kyiv, pushed back to the border near Kharkiv, pushed back to the outskirts of Kherson?
The war has not ended yet unfortunately, so there is still some steam left. I wonder what it will take for them to concede and pull out. Or will it devolve into a stalemate where neither side can progress?
The important thing is that UA can run out of steam too. They're the ones losing manpower and infrastructure, so they can choose to freeze the conflict to reduce losses. But, as they now have now finally established a manpower advantage for a few months, and HIMARS and western AA has mitigated most of RUs remaining equipment advantage, they'll likely try to recapture as much of what was lost in the south.
But RU can easily retreat from some of the captured areas, claim the special operation is over and nothing happens to the Putin regime. The propaganda wheels keep turning just like when they pulled back from Kyiv and Kharkiv. For UA it's an existential struggle. If they don't regain control of the southern ports, their export economy will remain crippled.
I think not even Putin can weather the storm that would follow. Ruining your country for absolutely nothing. And it wouldn't end with a retreat. Nobody in their right mind would make business with Russia for the next 5+ years, especially with this regime
I bought a chocolate bar made in Belgium on 21.06.2022 just yesterday. So even non-essential buisness is still on at the moment, it's just big brands don't want negative public attention, hence they pulled out or are pulling out. And still many of those were hoping to preserve their buisness in Russia to return later (talked with one lawyer from Moscow about it, though it was somewhere in May). There is also huge economic activity in Armenia and Kazakhstan, as these are the closest countries to Russia not under sanctiones, to enable trade and services through them. So, as one guy a centurey and a half ago said "There is no crime that capital won't commit for 300% revenue".
The point is that it has increased risk for companies that want to invest in Russia. Some companies also invest in Congo but that doesn't make it an attractive country to invest in. Companies have had to write off billions because Putin was stupid enough to start a war. For many companies the risk will be too large and any company that does want to invest in Russia will want to be compensated for the increased geopolitical risk. You're fooling yourself if you think the war won't have serious medium to long term economic effects.
Of course, but there is still difference between "higher risk investment" and "no investment at all". Plus I assumed that the definition "to make business" also includes buying and selling stuff. Though I agree that investment climate is much worse now, I was mainly arguing moral side of things, and gave an example of a still existing non-essential import into Russia from Europe. You can't simply write off market of 150 million people even with not that high GDP per capita.
But why are you evening bringing up food imports? They weren't sanctioned.
I've highlighted the point I was responding to in my first answer on the matter (in response to Harris1st).
I'm pretty sure they were talking about making investments in Russia. Selling basic stuff like food products bears little risk. But companies in, say, the mechanical sector freezing operation in Russia and relocating elsewhere won't be easy to undo. Especially with Russia threatening to seize their assets.
Apples and oranges There is business and there is business. Obviously selling chocolate bars isn't the same as relocating your production facility to Russia because you want cheap energy for example (to name two extremes)
The ships thing. UA is not gonna go to naval warfare. That would be the single most stupid thing to do IMO. I think they just want to clear some mines so the grain ships aren't gonna blow up
On July 27 2022 07:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If it is destroyed then 15k Russian troops will be trapped with no supply route.
I hope the Ukrainians kill all of them. I've read what they've been up to in Kherson and it's shocking even for Russia...
Source? I haven't been following
Perhaps the recent Human Rights Watch report www.hrw.org detailing torture, unlawful detentions and more.
Wow the seriousness level of those war crimes is nodoubt only second to the United States ones.Terrific.
While it is true that the US has done and still does a lot of fucked up shit, it is important to remember that this excuses none of what is happening in ukraine. It may make statements from the US government silly, but in the end, most people care about ukraine getting support so they can survive this. 'But X also did this fucked up thing' is never a real argument, it can only serve as a reminder that there is more to do.
Though I can very much understand this reaction coming from someone from vietnam, as you have seen very little justice for what the US did down there.
In real war both sides try everything in their capability to win. There is no law, no limit. What justice are you taking about? We can't wait for it falling from the sky, we have to do it ourself. So justice is we managed to kill 50k US troops back. I wish more of course but it's still a fine number considering the fire power of both sides. Potential war crime needing investigation is a meaningless joke because real wars are already out of law context. War crime is just the tool used by winner side to treat the loser one.
War sucks, but please stay on topic.
Oh that's because another guy brought back the VN war ^^
That comment was not targeted at you, but at everyone.
On July 27 2022 07:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If it is destroyed then 15k Russian troops will be trapped with no supply route.
I hope the Ukrainians kill all of them. I've read what they've been up to in Kherson and it's shocking even for Russia...
Source? I haven't been following
Perhaps the recent Human Rights Watch report www.hrw.org detailing torture, unlawful detentions and more.
Wow the seriousness level of those war crimes is nodoubt only second to the United States ones.Terrific.
While it is true that the US has done and still does a lot of fucked up shit, it is important to remember that this excuses none of what is happening in ukraine. It may make statements from the US government silly, but in the end, most people care about ukraine getting support so they can survive this. 'But X also did this fucked up thing' is never a real argument, it can only serve as a reminder that there is more to do.
Though I can very much understand this reaction coming from someone from vietnam, as you have seen very little justice for what the US did down there.
And there is just nothing to do. As long as the US is still the no 1 super power they do what they want to do as they see it fits. Justice court, war crime really?
US courts have prosecuted a number of US war crimes.
Vietnam war: 95 army personell + 27 marine corps convicted.
This shows that already during the Vietnam war the courts were doing their job. Whether they did a perfect job is another question, but at least they did something.
Can we expect Russian courts to do the same with their own military? Crickets. Exactly one conviction over at least a few thousand investigations. And they always block international investigations.
This is the problem with whataboutism. It's not a good argument, and it must also hold up to scrunity. It's very clear that, on a scale of who's more evil, Russia takes a top spot, while the USA is at least making a reasonable effort not to be the bad guy all the time.
"However, the Federal government of the United States strongly opposes the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, arguing that the Court lacks checks and balances,[1] and thus does not accept ICC jurisdiction over its nationals.[2]" I completed stop reading after the sentence above. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#United_States "The Trump administration strained relations with the ICC, stating it would revoke visas for any ICC staff seeking to investigate Americans for war crimes. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that such revocations could be applied to any staff involved with investigating war crimes committed by Israel or other allied nations as well.[79]" Oh well and the joke continues https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/11/us/politics/us-russia-ukraine-war-crimes.html
And you know what? "whataboutism" is a very strong tool of any juridic system. They handle the current case based on existed examplar cases. It's the common sense.
And how is any of that relevant? It's a war between Russia and Ukraine.
On August 01 2022 00:52 KwarK wrote: @geod keep it on topic please
On August 01 2022 00:41 JimmiC wrote: Its not, but from the start of his posts here it has not been about being relevant it has been about being edgy.
@geod sorry to break it too you but none of what you arr writing is new or shocking, it is just in the wrong spot. Head to the USpol thread and we can talk about it for the 1000th time but in the appropriate spot.
How on earth my post isn't relevant to the topic? I just made an exclamation about a potential war crime in Ukraine, other guys argued with me so I had to clarify my point. I'm confident that my post is at least as relevant as someone said he would be willing to be frozen so that his government could keep up the sanction against Russia or many similar posts. So I would like to repeat my point that a potention ICC investigation of war crime in Ukraine is a pretty bad joke as this organization did nothing (and in fact couldn't do anything) against massive war crimes caused by US and allies in 21st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court You could say: don't use "whataboutrism", my reply is: don't use "double standard".
I sorely wish that both sides guilty of something came to their senses and could lay down arms without demands. At this point I'm not even reading the news on this any more.
On August 03 2022 00:52 Vivax wrote: I sorely wish that both sides guilty of something came to their senses and could lay down arms without demands. At this point I'm not even reading the news on this any more.
So what you want is for Russia to surrender the land they stole? Yay, we're in agreement!
On August 03 2022 00:52 Vivax wrote: I sorely wish that both sides guilty of something came to their senses and could lay down arms without demands. At this point I'm not even reading the news on this any more.
So what you want is for Russia to surrender the land they stole? Yay, we're in agreement!
A piece of land is a secondary issue compared to the overarching worldwide threat.
And those two sides are ? And the overarching worldwide threat is ? Making cryptic posts about the greater good and how land is a secondary issue reeks of "i just got my gas bill pls just surrender"
Yeah, sorry but lets not "both sides" this. Russia needs to fuck off out of Ukraine. Russia needs to stop threatening sovereign nations. Russia needs to stop committing war crimes, including the ultimate war crime of starting wars of aggression.
Ukraine does not have to "give in" to "find some common ground". Yeah, this situation sucks, but an example needs to be made out of it that this kind of naked aggression does not pay off in any way, or we will get ever increasing amounts of similarly pointless wars.
This war ends the second Russia decides it ends. They just need to leave Ukraine. They choose not to, after they chose to invade in the first place.
And the "overarching worldwide threat" is autocrats getting the idea that maybe invading neighbouring countries can pay off. This is a test balloon, and the reaction needs to not be to continue to attempt appease the autocrat by giving him parts of what he wants.
Assholes like Putin don't respect that. They don't think "Ok, so we found a compromise and i will be satisfied now". They think "Lol look at those idiots, they are too weak. They will cave in any time i act strong, lets keep on doing this"
On July 27 2022 07:59 maybenexttime wrote: [quote]
I hope the Ukrainians kill all of them. I've read what they've been up to in Kherson and it's shocking even for Russia...
Source? I haven't been following
Perhaps the recent Human Rights Watch report www.hrw.org detailing torture, unlawful detentions and more.
Wow the seriousness level of those war crimes is nodoubt only second to the United States ones.Terrific.
While it is true that the US has done and still does a lot of fucked up shit, it is important to remember that this excuses none of what is happening in ukraine. It may make statements from the US government silly, but in the end, most people care about ukraine getting support so they can survive this. 'But X also did this fucked up thing' is never a real argument, it can only serve as a reminder that there is more to do.
Though I can very much understand this reaction coming from someone from vietnam, as you have seen very little justice for what the US did down there.
And there is just nothing to do. As long as the US is still the no 1 super power they do what they want to do as they see it fits. Justice court, war crime really?
US courts have prosecuted a number of US war crimes.
Vietnam war: 95 army personell + 27 marine corps convicted.
This shows that already during the Vietnam war the courts were doing their job. Whether they did a perfect job is another question, but at least they did something.
Can we expect Russian courts to do the same with their own military? Crickets. Exactly one conviction over at least a few thousand investigations. And they always block international investigations.
This is the problem with whataboutism. It's not a good argument, and it must also hold up to scrunity. It's very clear that, on a scale of who's more evil, Russia takes a top spot, while the USA is at least making a reasonable effort not to be the bad guy all the time.
"However, the Federal government of the United States strongly opposes the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, arguing that the Court lacks checks and balances,[1] and thus does not accept ICC jurisdiction over its nationals.[2]" I completed stop reading after the sentence above. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#United_States "The Trump administration strained relations with the ICC, stating it would revoke visas for any ICC staff seeking to investigate Americans for war crimes. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that such revocations could be applied to any staff involved with investigating war crimes committed by Israel or other allied nations as well.[79]" Oh well and the joke continues https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/11/us/politics/us-russia-ukraine-war-crimes.html
And you know what? "whataboutism" is a very strong tool of any juridic system. They handle the current case based on existed examplar cases. It's the common sense.
And how is any of that relevant? It's a war between Russia and Ukraine.
On August 01 2022 00:41 JimmiC wrote: Its not, but from the start of his posts here it has not been about being relevant it has been about being edgy.
@geod sorry to break it too you but none of what you arr writing is new or shocking, it is just in the wrong spot. Head to the USpol thread and we can talk about it for the 1000th time but in the appropriate spot.
How on earth my post isn't relevant to the topic? I just made an exclamation about a potential war crime in Ukraine, other guys argued with me so I had to clarify my point. I'm confident that my post is at least as relevant as someone said he would be willing to be frozen so that his government could keep up the sanction against Russia or many similar posts.
So I would like to repeat my point that a potention ICC investigation of war crime in Ukraine is a pretty bad joke as this organization did nothing (and in fact couldn't do anything) against massive war crimes caused by US and allies in 21st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court You could say: don't use "whataboutrism", my reply is: don't use "double standard".
Ukraine trying to build a case through the ICC to charge companies like JPMorgan with war crimes for prolonging the war for profit is one of several bad punchlines to that bad joke.
On August 03 2022 01:19 Simberto wrote: Yeah, sorry but lets not "both sides" this. Russia needs to fuck off out of Ukraine. Russia needs to stop threatening sovereign nations. Russia needs to stop committing war crimes, including the ultimate war crime of starting wars of aggression.
Ukraine does not have to "give in" to "find some common ground". Yeah, this situation sucks, but an example needs to be made out of it that this kind of naked aggression does not pay off in any way, or we will get ever increasing amounts of similarly pointless wars.
This war ends the second Russia decides it ends. They just need to leave Ukraine. They choose not to, after they chose to invade in the first place.
And the "overarching worldwide threat" is autocrats getting the idea that maybe invading neighbouring countries can pay off. This is a test balloon, and the reaction needs to not be to continue to attempt appease the autocrat by giving him parts of what he wants.
Assholes like Putin don't respect that. They don't think "Ok, so we found a compromise and i will be satisfied now". They think "Lol look at those idiots, they are too weak. They will cave in any time i act strong, lets keep on doing this"
We already have Hitler and Chamberlain as an example, so yes. As long as the average person is willing to withstand sanctions for the greater good, i.e. telling people it's for their collective security of their children and grandchildren.
The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
At first you posted the video and the remark about chess broodwar or whatever. Then, since the video doesn't really support your ideas you kept adding propaganda text. Nice attempt. It didn't work. The video doesn't support even a single word of what you wrote. (Except, maybe Arestovych is a good chess or broodwar player, idk)
You can't 'both sides' this conflict no matter how much you try. It's quite black and white.
BTW, the FB page you posted the video from is quite interesting. If anyone had any doubts about you
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
At first you posted the video and the remark about chess broodwar or whatever. Then, since the video doesn't really support your ideas you kept adding propaganda text. Nice attempt. It didn't work. The video doesn't support even a single word of what you wrote. (Except, maybe Arestovych is a good chess or broodwar player, idk)
You can't 'both sides' this conflict no matter how much you try. It's quite black and white.
BTW, the FB page you posted the video from is quite interesting. If anyone had any doubts about you
The chess&broodwar stuff is just a side joke. And if you couldn't see the relevant from the video content and what i posts, it's up to you, sorry but I can't help. And from my point of view "black and white" cognition level complex events like wars is just for elementary school. There are always 50 shades of gray in real life.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
You're just repeating Kremlin propaganda. Yes, Ukraine expected Russia to invade at some point. No, that does not make Ukraine or NATO partially to blame.
EPT
