I can understand neutrality demands but what is this constant de-nazification non sense?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I can understand neutrality demands but what is this constant de-nazification non sense?
I just can't get this.
The innocent Ukrainians are dying because they are fighting someone who wants to steal their country and end their self determination. We are backing them because they want our help.
FFS.
Just means he isn't ready to take peace talks seriously yet.
I am sure that Putin had predicted this in his 3D chess, but it was a surprise for me! Swiss banks will follow the same EU rules for Russian money!... Hard to believe, but I hope it is true!
Switzerland will forego "Swiss neutrality" and adopt same sanctions as EU against Russia
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-28-22/h_f8b3aa0b0e6c885286e93f1e47494e55
Switzerland will forego "Swiss neutrality" and adopt same sanctions as EU against Russia
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-28-22/h_f8b3aa0b0e6c885286e93f1e47494e55
I think in part an attempt to rouse patriotism by comparing Ukraine to the Nazi invasion in 1941, and a clear move to delegitimate Ukraine's leadership, so that only a Russian puppet Government is seen as acceptable.
Someone's finally had a word with the Swiss. Money laundering in the name of Neutrality. Twats
It's bs. It's something that doesn't exist and Putin knows it, so it's a way to say negotiations didn't work because Ukraine didn't want to stop being Nazis. Even though Putin has groups of mercs that use Nazi signage heading to Ukraine to fight, and some of those proud boy idiots
Probably the US. They can toy with Switzerland as they like. The EU not so much.
Good read here, explain why Russia invade Ukraine, and helps understand the whole situation and motives behind the invasion.
Assuming it relates to the azov batallion
guys, do these peace talks mean anything? What's going on? Could this shit all be over soon? I doubt it, yet I have hope
It doesn't. It's a manufactured bit of propaganda that Putin is using to get Russians to support his illegitimate invasion. You seem to forget that the Nazis invaded Russia in 1941 and are hung up on a Tweet about pig fat on bullets meant to feck with Chechen warmongers who should have stayed home.
Again then. What claim did Kosovo had for independence? Or any state in history for independence? By your argument Latvia should have never left the German Empire.
If they were only attacking Mariupol he could argue that, his line is the entire country is run by Nazi’s (despite a Jewish leader!!)
Hopefully Russia would have learnt their lesson that they cannot attack a country that has the support of NATO (feel free to march eastward towards Arabia though). With that lesson we can allow them back into the world economy and not sever relations entirely
I live in ‘Arabia’, as do millions of other people. You may have your own feelings about leaders here, which I really don’t care about, but calling for Russia to attack other countries that you simply don’t like, given what we’ve seen over the past few days, and given what myself and my family have been through when Saddam invaded us, is frankly disgusting. Think before you post. This thread isn’t a free for all.
Please stop taking advantage of this awful situation to have a pop at Israel. We see you.
It's also very questionable geography. "march eastwards" - the Middle East is very much to the west of most of Russia and it's almost directly south of Moscow.
I remember that you have some ties to Ukraine but I wonder how close do you know Crimea & Crimeans? The referendum was obviously done by illegal means with Russian troops on the ground and henceforth isn’t legitimate, but whenever Crimeans wanted to join Russia is another point. And they certainly did, which is evident by many different social studies over the years (before and after annexation) and by the feeling on the ground (I remember having debates with many Crimeans on Putin in 2008-2012 as they saw him as a savior and the idea of joining Russia as a panacea for many economical & social issues that they’ve had at the time).
I don’t think that the idea of Donbass or Lugansk joining Russia was considered by many before 2014, for example. In Crimea, the thought was always there — and this is why Putin annexed it instead of doing his usual proxy-independent state thing a la DNR, LNR, South Ossetia & Abkhazia.
And to reiterate my point — the “referendum” was done with Russian military on the ground and it can’t be considered legitimate by any means. I guess we’ll never know how this referendum would’ve gone legitimately but it all indicate towards a landslide victory for the pro-Russian contingent. I think only Crimean tatars were against the idea out of the significant ethnic/cultural/social groups on the peninsula.
Hopefully Russia would have learnt their lesson that they cannot attack a country that has the support of NATO (feel free to march eastward towards Arabia though
What!? Unbelievable post, in so many ways.
Btw, what does the ‘88’ in your username refer to?
12000 Albanians killed and systemic opression. Also a grand-scale plan to displace them.
Wouldn't have even replied to him, mental post.
The word has long lost its original meaning thanks to Putin’s regime.
Yeah, more so, it’s more or less rehashing of multiple “historical articles” and speeches that Putin has published over the years.
Posts like these serve absolutely no purpose mate. Cop the feck on
I know. My point is just because an entity owns a land somewhere, should not mean that the people there can not fight for independence. For me, people in Kosovo had the right to independence, as people in Crimea.
I wonder if it's because a) Russia didn't have a lot of money with them, or b) The Swiss are very very good at hiding money
More Abramovich style PR for the scumbag bankers of Switzerland who need to polish their image after the recent Credit Suisse revelations which cast a massive shadow over that entire sector.
The situations are not comparable. The entire point of the Kosovo precedent is that Serbia have lost their right to Kosovo because of the attrocities committed.
Some are trying to paint it as "now you can have secessions at will" but it does not work like that.
Likely thinks the Middle East is east of everything because east is in the name. Let's be honest, based on the insanity of the post I'm impressed they know that East is a direction.
As above, it's partly Russia trying to drag this war back to the optics of 1945, but also referring to Ukrainians as Nazis is a casual anti-Ukrainian slur by Russia. The Ukrainian resistance fought alongside the Nazis against the Soviet Union during World War II, so that part of their history is complicated to put it lightly. What countries don't have a complicated relationship with parts of their history though? What countries don't have monuments to or symbols of things that many of us would rather were left in the past?
Obviously the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Jewish descendant of Holocaust survivors, is a Nazi and needs to be replaced with the only non-Nazi available which is a man called Pladimir Vutin who wears a fake moustache and has a face like a toddler who's drawn eyes on a potato too close together.
Would explain why they've scrambled their troops over the border.
Holy shit, you are Serbian and saying this. First one I heard who didn't say the usual 'Albanian terrorists, NATO/US bombed us cause they didn't like Serbia and wanted to make a base in Bondsteel'.
Looks like it's genuine. There have been a lot of similar articles touching the "Ukrainian question" since 2014.
So, should Indians kick out Americans because of the atrocities committed? Or rather the US should be British again, because the British were not committing atrocities, just imposing taxes. We cannot determine independent movements just by that.
That is surprising
I spent some time in Crimea a couple of years before the 2014 invasion and was struck by how Russian the culture and identity was there. Had there been a legit referendum, I think the Crimeans would've probably selected Russia (just not by the farcical numbers as in Putin's "referendum at gunpoint"). Even if Russia were to become a Democracy, I think there will still be considerable interest in retaining Crimea, which IIRC even Navalny is a proponent of.
Kyiv explosions happening now, showing on Sky News
My feeling is that if there is no systematic oppression, people of a country can decide to go independent only if the current country allows them. That's why despite I support Catalonia's independence, I think that Spain has the right to keep Catalonia for example. There is pretty much no oppression there.
I don't have a good understanding of Ukrainian politics to know if Crimea and Donbas region were discriminated. I don't think that just wanting to leave is a reason in itself, cause then it never stops and we go back to having 10000 tribes in Europe.
Saying that, I think at this stage it is irrelevant. Crimea is a part of Russia now, so I don't expect this to change even if Russia gets a pro-Western leader. I think it is more complicated for Donbas, but I do not think it can get back to becoming part of Ukraine. The important part IMO is for this to end as soon as possible. I guess best case scenario might be for Ukraine to be neutral military-wise in a new deal with Russia and US/EU/NATO, but join the EU. Russia then won't claim to be threatened and Ukraine will prosper economically.