Ogee wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2025 8:07 pm UK prepares peacekeeping plan for Ukraine

lol peacekeeping "plan"....... fuck these guys man waste of time

boytoy wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2025 8:11 pm Looks like mumbo jumbo to me

Just regular paranoia.

Announcement!

Russians cannot access your building through the regular gas pipe, as it is too small.
Stop calling the maintenance service!

Worth noting that several of the Ukrainian brigades sent into Kursk were the hard core neo-Nazis (by their own admission) who have a record of killing civilians stretching right back to 2014.

Russia say they are continuing to collect evidence of war crimes (sources say there is plenty of it) and will present it to international courts when their investigations are complete, so not worth speculating on until then.

The European leaders (&UK) are at a complete loss at the moment.

They desperately want to play the tough guy against Putin but can only do so if the US is propping them up (like for the last 50 years).

But Trump's not playing ball and now all their empty threats are making them all look like idiots.

Meloni has realised this and has hastily exited the 'coalition of the retarded WILLING'.

boytoy wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2025 8:11 pm Looks like mumbo jumbo to me

Not this joke ofc (there is such a thing as a metaphor),
but the possibility of war in Europe...
Of course, official Kremlin propaganda considers this nonsense.
Until it happens.
There are many such warnings from Western European countries:

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia- ... dis-warns/

Ogee wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2025 8:07 pm WAR is PEACE: Sheer Brilliance from UK's greatest ever Prime Minster Keir Starmer.
If only Trump was half the man our Starmer is

Dmitry Medvedev (former president of Russia) responded in his sharp style
to the British ceasefire proposal:



Oh, but look at that tweet (the Victory Parade on June 24, 1945
is in the second part of the film):

wojtek wrote: Sun Mar 16, 2025 10:26 pm Not this joke ofc (there is such a thing as a metaphor),
but the possibility of war in Europe...
Of course, official Kremlin propaganda considers this nonsense.
Until it happens.


Dmitry Medvedev (former president of Russia) responded in his sharp style
to the British ceasefire proposal:



Oh, but that tweet (the Victory Parade on June 24, 1945
is in the second part of the film):

What do you expect after all the hate, sanctions, propaganda, resolutions, and mockery directed at Russia? The EU can’t even maintain consistency in its own policies toward Russia. At this point, there isn’t a single statesman in Europe who could be trusted by Russia. Let me reiterate—after the failures of Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, Russia has absolutely no reason to trust the EU.

"There are many such warnings from Western European countries:

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia- ... dis-warns/


Wojtek, let’s be realistic and set aside the irony for a moment—what exactly makes you believe that Russia wants to start a war against Europe? What specific declarations or actions from Russia have led you to this conclusion? I’m genuinely curious to hear your reasoning.

MACRON: UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA, WILL DECIDE ON NATO PEACEKEEPERS;




War is Peace is of course a line out of George Orwell's 1984 where we all seem to be living at the moment.

Starmer and Macron are without a doubt 2 of the stupidest leaders around. They both think they're playing chess with the great powers but are not even playing checkers.

They both know they can not take on Russia so they want to trick Trump into doing it.

Trump has seen though them and already said they could send troops into Ukraine if they want but the US will not come to save them if they are attacked (which they will be).

NATO's Article 5 that says an attack on one is an attack on all but is NOT obligatory for other counties to assist, it's voluntary.

But it's more likely it's Starmer and Maron who are bluffing, they won't really risk going into Ukraine without Trump's or Putin's blessing. Which would make everything they're saying now complete BS.

Ogee wrote: Mon Mar 17, 2025 12:45 am NATO's Article 5 that says an attack on one is an attack on all but is NOT obligatory for other counties to assist, it's voluntary.

That's true, hence the concerns of smaller NATO countries.
Besides, Art. 5 takes into account strictly defense, so it doesn't apply
to military missions that would be sent outside the area of ​​NATO countries.
So, NATO troops in Ukraine would not be subject to any protection.
At least for now, what the European powers are doing is more talk and little specifics.

doolfrews wrote: Mon Mar 17, 2025 12:01 am Wojtek, let’s be realistic and set aside the irony for a moment—what exactly makes you believe that Russia wants to start a war against Europe?

I think that a provocation is possible in order to test
the functioning of Art. 5 in practice. For example,
in the most sensitive place in Europe, i.e. in the Suwałki Gap
connecting the Kaliningrad exclave (belonging to Russia)
with Belarus / Russia. It would be on the Lithuanian side,
and would cut off the Baltic states from Europe on land.
In Europe, an attempt to annex (a part of?) Moldova is also possible.

wojtek wrote: Mon Mar 17, 2025 4:20 am That's true, hence the concerns of smaller NATO countries.
Besides, Art. 5 takes into account strictly defense, so it doesn't apply
to military missions that would be sent outside the area of ​​NATO countries.
So, NATO troops in Ukraine would not be subject to any protection.
At least for now, what the European powers are doing is more talk and little specifics.



I think that a provocation is possible in order to test
the functioning of Art. 5 in practice. For example,
in the most sensitive place in Europe, i.e. in the Suwałki Gap
connecting the Kaliningrad exclave (belonging to Russia)
with Belarus / Russia. It would be on the Lithuanian side,
and would cut off the Baltic states from Europe on land.
In Europe, an attempt to annex (a part of?) Moldova is also possible.

Alright, I’ll agree with you on that, Wojtek. But let’s be realistic—do you honestly believe those territories could be taken without the support of their own nationals? You know as well as I do that a significant portion of Moldova’s population identifies as Russian. Let’s circle back to military science for a moment—have you considered just how many soldiers it takes to defend even 10 meters of a frontline in a hostile environment? The numbers don’t lie

The Kremlin has good reason to believe that NATO Article 5
will not work. It is just a piece of paper that actually means nothing,
just as it happened in the case of the Budapest Memorandum.

By attacking Ukraine, Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum
signed in 1994, according to which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons
on its territory in exchange for guarantees of territorial inviolability
(the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders).

The Memorandum was signed by Ukraine, Russia, the United States,
the United Kingdom. France and China and turned out to mean nothing.
This is a great shame for its signatories. The agreement to the Memorandum
was one of the biggest mistakes in the history of Ukraine, which in exchange
for a meaningless piece of paper signed by frivolous Western politicians
(Bill Clinton, John Major) got rid of the real force of nuclear deterrence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

I am referring here rather to Western leaders (of NATO countries)
who haven't done enough to ensure that the Memorandum was not violated.
So can one trust them to uphold Art. 5?