Most liked posts in thread: World war 3....

Jesus fcuking Christ. There’s some crackpots who post on here.

 

Indeed.

What the former Estonian Defence Forces chief said (see my post #135 above), and what I said (post #234 above) are now proven to be true -- one can expect atrocities, especially against women and children, and the disappearances in one way or another, of more prominent civilians, for example government officials. No shortage of relevant articles and pictures, on especially the CNN and BBC sites, but enough elsewhere too.

This, again, is depressingly familiar: destroy what you cannot have. When the Soviets left Estonia and the Baltics back in 1941, in advance of the oncoming Germans, they behaved in the same manner. There were specific "destroyer" units who saw to implementing a scorched-earth (and murdered-civilian) policy. We now see the same from Irpin and Bucha and no doubt will see it from everywhere else that gets liberated.

These are unquestionably war crimes, and given the rather broad modern definition of genocide, fit that charge as well. The pity of it is that the creatures responsible will, if they stay within Russia's borders, most likely remain untouchable -- barring an opening-up of Russian society that currently seems highly unlikely.

RCB

 

Does anyone actually believe that the Ukrainians have any need to exaggerate or embellish any atrocities committed by the Russians...?

 

yes some do

 

That doesnt mean they won't.

 

Putin may have thought he was subjugating a satellite country, while in fact he is forging the birth of a nation with this war

 

That conniving Ukraine government must be a real piece of work with their falsified accounts of Russian war crimes. They've managed to con 93 countries into suspending Russia from the UN Human Rights Council. I reckon they've got Penn & Teller working for them.

 

Using your logic Only 24 countries voted against it, so 151 were not against it. A majority of 127 were not against it

 

Yes the old saying in politics of there are Lies. Dam Lies, and statistics is still relevant

 

Yep. Counting abstentions as votes against is a classic example of that.

 

Could Sweden and Finland be next on Russia hit list after they have expressed renewed interest in joining NATO against Russia wishes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61066503

 

I can understand to an extent, he's got pretty much total control of the media over there, and to a large degree he's still seen as the moderniser that built modern russia from the wreck of the USSR so they aren't inclined to question him too deeply. Also always worth noting that a lot of older folks in russia are actually quite nostalgic for the Soviet Union and don't all see it the way that we do over here.

 

Just to mention that while the world focuses on the war in the Ukraine there is a risk of war breaking out again in Bosnia

 

The sinking of that battle ship by a country who has no notable navy and where Russia have air dominance is one of the most embarrassing wartime failures I've ever come across. How the hell can that happen with modern equipment?

 

There's nothing reasonable about Putin's demands.

 

I would think America is the leading supplier of arms to the Ukraine, not sure we can just dismiss what we've seen going on these last 5 weeks or so, as I posted many weeks ago do the Russians intervene with regards two sovereign countries like Finland and Sweden quoting they want to join NATO, just who does Putin think he is Adolf Hitler ?.

 

Well it has cost us many £Billions of pounds in war equipment sent to Ukraine, Money we apparently did not have to fund the under pressure health service or our pensioners but now can afford for weapons, Russia if it chose could attack any UK military asset it chose with little chance of response from anyone on the basis that UK weapons have killed thousands of Russian troops

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2022/apr/17/soaring-food-prices-push-more-cargill-family-members-on-to-world-richest-500-list

So the rich get rich at a rate never seen before. For doing precisely nothing different to what they did before. Wars are great aren't they?

 

But the Budapest Memorandum was signed in 1994. So Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its encouragement of dissident separatists in Donbas had already blown a massive hole in the agreement. Having seen that Russia had already broken its side of the agreement, why should Ukraine have felt obliged to stick to its own previous promise of neutrality, when that had already failed to protect it from Putin's territorial ambitions? Who can blame Ukraine for seeking the protection of NATO when the supposed guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum had failed dismally to protect them?
Russia wanted to have its cake and eat it - to claim Ukraine was breaking it's neutrality promise whilst breaking it's own obligations to respect Ukrainian territorial integrity.

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-what-is-the-budapest-memorandum-and-why-has-russias-invasion-torn-it-up-178184