Kremlin Urges Global Response Over Shelling of Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

It know you sure as hell aren't talking about invading other countries or we'd be talking about the US who's occupying a sovereign nation right now to "protect" their oil fields.

Did we invade to make that country the 51th state? BTW who are we occupying today? Which country did we add as a satellite nation to ours? As good as we fight, America is really crappy at any form of occupation.

The Kingdom of Hawaii would be the most obvious example (there are others). It was invaded militarily by the US over a century ago and has been under an illegal military occupation ever since (along with attempts to erase Polynesian culture). The US (incorrectly) claims it as the 50th state.

Though they generally use a variation of the old Roman model of vassal states. A cross between mafia style protection racketeering and friendly puppet regimes. Generally involves financing a coup or civil war, then support (with finance and weapons) the side that you want to install as a puppet govt. Then make them pay everything back, force austerity on the population, give loans to help US contractors rebuild the place that they can never repay (through puppet institutions such as the IMF, world bank), with certain provisions as to govt, letting US oligarchs/companies raid the place and so on. War is great for the stock market and especially weapons companies.

A simple google search will alert you to the "soft coups" the US has been involved in even with their first world "modern democracy" (lol as if) allies. If the algorithm hasn't got to them yet.

They do have over 800 bases in vassal states around the world but they rarely invade unless the country is extremely weak (Grenada?), because the US doesn't have a great win/loss record in wars. Certainly not on its own. Great "100 mile snipers" or at bombing places when there is no opposition, but it seems to go south even then when troops go in. Favourable geography has been very fortunate for the US in keeping out invaders.

As was hinted at, the US is occupying Syria at the moment for the oil, and to control its other natural resources. Trump actually answered this very honestly a long time ago. Though really it seems aimed just as much at immiserating the population in the hope they'll kick the govt out.

Strangely the recent illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan don't seem able to impinge the cognitive dissonance coping methods of many westerners. Nor the effects on entire populations of unilateral sanctions.

Chomsky is correct here. It's not lost even on some mainstream western human rights organisations.

Utah, Texas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and parts Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma were all gained via "false flag" and resulting military conquest from Mexico in the US's own version of "lebensraum", not to mention the displacement and genocide of the native peoples to begin with.

Then again, the US was born as a military conquest. When a group of the wealthy thought they could do much better without their overlords back in Britain and fomented a civil war...one that they fortunately (for them) managed to get the French interested in. Otherwise they would have been executed as the common traitors they obviously were. Not that opposing Empire is necessarily wrong (unless your idea is to build your own).

It seems the Nazis looked up to the Americans as their model. Displacement, genocide, expansion via conquest, eugenics, forced labour, massive propaganda machinery. Could apply equally to both. In fact the racist idea of "American exceptionalism" is the US equivalent of the "master race".

Russia bad though...for intervening in a civil war on it's own borders (fomented and funded by the US for many years, along with an earlier regime change), where ethnic Russians were being regularly bombed. Along with assurances to this puppet regime that they would be accepted into an alliance dedicated to Russia's destruction.

This war would never have started if the west hadn't wanted it to. There was already a peace agreement (that only one side adhered to). The strange part here is that the US seems obviously at war (unofficially) with parts of Europe also (certainly Germany) and are setting them back so far that the losses soon might be irrecoverable. A strange thing to watch leaders march their country and prosperity off a cliff to appease the US. Wonder how much longer it will go on?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: MykeNukem

It would fit with Russia's strategy of destroying infrastructure, wouldn't it?

Most is Russia's anyway .

Lol
Must be why Putin is ordering it all to be destroyed?
Make the supplanters feel at home?

Outhouses for everyone!

originally posted by: Quintilian

The Kingdom of Hawaii would be the most obvious example (there are others). It was invaded militarily by the US over a century ago and has been under an illegal military occupation ever since (along with attempts to erase Polynesian culture). The US (incorrectly) claims it as the 50th state.

Sure, it became a state in 1959, but the so called takeover was around 1840, so how far back do you want to go?

Though they generally use a variation of the old Roman model of vassal states. A cross between mafia style protection racketeering and friendly puppet regimes. Generally involves financing a coup or civil war, then support (with finance and weapons) the side that you want to install as a puppet govt. Then make them pay everything back, force austerity on the population, give loans to help US contractors rebuild the place that they can never repay (through puppet institutions such as the IMF, world bank), with certain provisions as to govt, letting US oligarchs/companies raid the place and so on. War is great for the stock market and especially weapons companies.

This has zero to do with taking a country and adding it to the motherland...

They do have over 800 bases in vassal states around the world but they rarely invade unless the country is extremely weak (Grenada?), because the US doesn't have a great win/loss record in wars. Certainly not on its own. Great "100 mile snipers" or at bombing places when there is no opposition, but it seems to go south even then when troops go in. Favourable geography has been very fortunate for the US in keeping out invaders.

We can win every war, but we are not occupiers, so yes we do not keep as Russia wants to do and has done.

As was hinted at, the US is occupying Syria at the moment for the oil, and to control its other natural resources. Trump actually answered this very honestly a long time ago. Though really it seems aimed just as much at immiserating the population in the hope they'll kick the govt out.

Is Syria now a Territory of the US? Who knew??? Russia's goal was to add Ukraine to Russia like Crimea and Georgia. Now that it wasn't an easy take they are willing to destroy it town by town, kill any number of people to take it 100% and move their border.

Strangely the recent illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan don't seem able to impinge the cognitive dissonance coping methods of many westerners. Nor the effects on entire populations of unilateral sanctions.

Once again not occupiers, so thank you for the great examples of that.

Utah, Texas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and parts Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma were all gained via "false flag" and resulting military conquest from Mexico in the US's own version of "lebensraum", not to mention the displacement and genocide of the native peoples to begin with.

We back to the 1800s again...lol OK. All I need to do is ask you where would we be today, the world today if Russia didn't cross into Ukraine? Its 2022, you can't justify any of it.

This is not about America or any other country to include USSR land grab of like 13 nations, or what China has done. Talking today what Russia tried to do was dead wrong even if you suggest 100 other dead wrongs in the past of the world. This is the here and now and to suggest Hawaii is a reason of why Russia 2022 has the right to take any country they feel like taking is about the most sorry excuse I have ever heard. Russia isn't trying to free Ukrainians from some oppressive rule, they want to take and own lock stock and barrel all of Ukraine and if 1/2 the population dies because of it then so be it.

The one good thing out of this is Russia has shown the world just how inept they really are. They can't even handle 2% of what the US has provided Ukraine, think about that for a minute. Think about the other 98% and NATO as icing on the cake... no one wants Russia. They could just have sold their energy to EU for the next 200 years with zero threat from anyone, but maybe China , you know that other countrey that doesn't have issues with taking and owning if they could.

When this is over, if it ever is, Russia's military and economy will be severely depleted - almost to non-functioning. They already have a growing problem with an aging and depleting demographic, which will worsen during this war. Senior personnel are raping the country of its wealth and resources for their own benefit - almost none of it is reinvested into Russia and so the wealth of population as a whole will inevitably decline rapidly.

How will this affect their negotiating position with international trade? Their main partner, presumably, will be China - another competing expansionist State. China's GDP is ten times that of Russia. Russia's general population is so poverty-stricken that it will offer no real market for Chinese goods, except at the very top end. Russia has energy which China needs, and those negotiations will be interesting to watch. I wonder who will come to Russia's aid if China decides to take it by force? This possibility has already been touted in China.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: MykeNukem

Everyone retreats, a buffer zone is created and the site handed to UN peacekeepers then the relevant international agencies shut the site down.

I can't possibly see what's wrong with my suggestion. That's sarcasm btw, I could write pages on why neither side would accept an idealistic compromise.

Yeah, like its somehow unreasonable to not want an invading force to occupy ones power infrastructure..Russia has a point, but they didn't go about it unilaterally and ask for help, so screw them. Ukraine had no due process globally..US even gave the terrorists their pre-due process in the media and in the UN..Any country will blow up its own stuff to keep it from being used by enemy…"To the keep! If they get past us,, You know what to do, don't let them take the children alive!"

Sarcastic response btw..God, war is dumb.

originally posted by: Xtrozero


Sure, it became a state in 1959, but the so called takeover was around 1840, so how far back do you want to go?

No, Hawaii was invaded in 1893. It never became a US state, because it was never legally annexed via a formal treaty to begin with. The US took a vote on whether they wanted it lol (in 1898), in clear violation of international law. Typical hubris.


The term for it is "belligerent occupation". When one country invades another sovereign country, deposes the govt. in an act of war and simply never leaves. There are indigenous independence movements seeking remedy and redress and the fact remains that Hawaii is still under an illegal US military occupation at this very moment.

This has zero to do with taking a country and adding it to the motherland...

The point is, the US owes it's very existence to taking land by force. Quite an irony there.

There's also the fact that the they (US) haven't had the opportunity to annex even the hapless little countries they are prone to invading, even if they wanted to. There's little point pretending to annex someone when you have just lost a war to them. For instance what would be the point of a referendum in Afghanistan when most of the country is under opposition control anyway, and most of the locals despise you (you know, when you lose after 20 yrs of war).

You seem to be inferring that war crimes and crimes against humanity (such as the sanctions implemented by Albright that resulted in in half a million Iraqi youngsters dying) or illegal invasions where millions more die or are displaced (such as "dubbya's" invasion) are fine as long as you don't try to annex?

We back to the 1800s again...lol OK. All I need to do is ask you where would we be today, the world today if Russia didn't cross into Ukraine? Its 2022, you can't justify any of it.

The one good thing out of this is Russia has shown the world just how inept they really are. They can't even handle 2% of what the US has provided Ukraine, think about that for a minute. Think about the other 98% and NATO as icing on the cake... no one wants Russia. They could just have sold their energy to EU for the next 200 years with zero threat from anyone, but maybe China , you know that other countrey that doesn't have issues with taking and owning if they could.

Russia is have no trouble selling its gas, so far they are far better off for the sanctions. You realise Wall St is still trading with Russian banks despite the sanctions, at the request of the US govt (according to Jamie Dimon)? They just tried to keep it quiet.

It seems you also have a rather optimistic view of US military capabilities (let alone the EU). This isn't one of those occasions where they can just fly in to some hapless little country unimpeded, bomb the crap out of everything live on CNN, and claim victory (then leave years later with tail between the legs). You do realise that this is the military that just lost a 20yr war to a group of peasants hiding in caves?

For a country that's having it's backside handed to it from the beginning...you gotta wonder why Russia still has a power grid, running water, plenty of fuel for transport and heating, an economy that isn't likely to collapse as soon as the US pulls out (certainly doing better than most of Europe at the moment), and a population that isn't flooding out in the millions as war refugees.....

You might not realise this but Russia has a constitution and rules. This limited the scope of the original military operation in the Ukraine both in its size and what it was allowed to do, though they still achieved their early objectives (not the ones the west assigns to them via propaganda). It might be difficult to understand for Americans, but tactics don't always have to amount to "lets bomb the it back to the stone age".

Now that the US/Brits have blown up Nordstream (surely an act of war against Germany?) and are pouring in money/weapons/troops from anywhere and everywhere...(although no one seems exactly sure where the weapons are going) and it's very obvious that the US has chosen to use the Ukraine as cannon fodder until the very end with no hope of peace talks, things have changed.

Annexation was both a strategic and practical move. Attacks on this region are attacks against Russia itself now, which opens up a whole lot of options for them (as the partial mobilisations indicates). It also allows them to protect the ethnic Russians in the region who were promised constitutional changes allowing them a degree of autonomy (which was then ignored) and an end to hostilities (also ignored).

Ukraine will eventually be demilitarised, it will have a new govt. that will give assurances of never joining NATO. By then it will probably be a landlocked country that will require good relations with Russia as a necessity (port access to begin with).

Apart from that, it's unlikely Russia wants to annex all of Ukraine. Why would they, where's the benefit?

We're watching the last gasps of a fading empire here, which is really happening apace now. Not just the US but the "west" in general. The US itself has become a laughing stock. New alliances and more practical trade currencies are not just in the planning, but implementation. The US can't overthrow enough govts to fix this, there are too many and some are powerful in their own right. This will be a tremendous shame for the American people, and people of their allies, but that's the direction its all heading.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Then make another thread and justify it?

Which post of mine are you replying to?

I was replying to you.

Thanks for all your thoughtful contributions to so many threads over the past three months.

It would be a shame if somebody shined a light on the bipartisan cohort of one-line wonders who've been crapping up this forum for the last six months.

Maybe the war on Ukraine sockpuppets will be wrapped up soon and the war on muppets can commence.

What is your problem with any of those quotes?

Thanks for your "thoughtful contribution".

a reply to: IAMTAT

Well, it certainly wasn't a "missile strike".

Fog of war before things became more clear?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: IAMTAT

Well, it certainly wasn't a "missile strike".

Fog of war before things became more clear?

No, blatant deception.

That's why he continued even after he knew it was Ukraine's missiles:

'NO DOUBT' Zelensky insists missile that hit Poland WAS Russian – despite NATO & US saying it was a Ukrainian air-defence misfire
TheSun

That's what you keep glossing over, but it's right there for all to see.

a reply to: MykeNukem

I have already said that Zelensky was wrong to claim this?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem

I have already said that Zelensky was wrong to claim this?

You just tried saying it was "fog of war". Lying to gain assistance fraudulently isn't "fog of war", let's get that straight. It was a failed attempt at propaganda and deception.

He wasn't just wrong, he was duplicitous, misleading, extremely irresponsible and deceitful.

Period.

a reply to: MykeNukem

Propaganda and deception in time of war?

How shocking.

Get over it.

Poland has.

originally posted by: Quintilian

No, Hawaii was invaded in 1893. It never became a US state, because it was never legally annexed via a formal treaty to begin with. The US took a vote on whether they wanted it lol (in 1898), in clear violation of international law. Typical hubris.

I said it started around 1840... But once again as I said this is no argument to defend what Russia is doing today. How many deaths justifies Russia's act? 200k, 2 million, 20 million?

The point is, the US owes it's very existence to taking land by force. Quite an irony there.

It is ironic only if you are looking for an excuse and you need to go back 150+ years to find it. Every country owes its existence to war at some point. So if you suggest Russia is in the right to do what they do today then you must also see Ukraine has the right to defend anyway they can. So be it, don't care, Russia will pay the price one way or another, so we will see where this ends up and it doesn't look good for mother Russia. I use to go to Russia in the 70s, was not a good place to live for 95% of the population while the other 5% lived like kings. Lets see how they like that once again, but I don't think the masses will be so easy this time as they become isolated with only a handful of countries to be connected to.

There's also the fact that the they (US) haven't had the opportunity to annex even the hapless little countries they are prone to invading, even if they wanted to. There's little point pretending to annex someone when you have just lost a war to them. For instance what would be the point of a referendum in Afghanistan when most of the country is under opposition control anyway, and most of the locals despise you (you know, when you lose after 20 yrs of war).

Full annex and change are two different things. As I said, America can win any war, but we suck as occupation. The reason we suck is because we are unwilling, unlike Russia, to do what would be needed to make that happen that would be a very barbaric event if annex was the end desire.

We're watching the last gasps of a fading empire here, which is really happening apace now. Not just the US but the "west" in general. The US itself has become a laughing stock. New alliances and more practical trade currencies are not just in the planning, but implementation. The US can't overthrow enough govts to fix this, there are too many and some are powerful in their own right. This will be a tremendous shame for the American people, and people of their allies, but that's the direction its all heading.

I really have little interest in long winded discussions with you, so enjoy your new life this invasion created, learn Mandarin you might need it . I would rather pick it up in a year from now, deal? Last gasps...lol From someone I do not think has ever come to America. If you looked at how I live you might say holy crap that is a good life.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem

Propaganda and deception in time of war?

How shocking.

Get over it.

Poland has.

WTF does that have to do with you being proven wrong again?

I think that's what you need to get over...

Zelensky iied, and you support that, of course, not surprising at all.

a reply to: MykeNukem

Internet warrior has to be right, all the time.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Give it a rest?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem

Internet warrior has to be right, all the time.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Give it a rest?

Anything else to add to your golden contributions?

I'll give it a rest as soon as you get a clue and start acting like a grown up.

Deal?

a reply to: MykeNukem

Yes. Poland got over it and they have more of a vested interest than you?

So, get over yourself.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem

Yes. Poland got over it and they have more of a vested interest than you?

So, get over yourself.

So what?

Why are you changing the subject from the lies you were telling for Zelensky about it being "fog of war"?

Have some integrity for a change.

Either contribute something actual to the thread or go somewhere else to do your stereotypical derail routine.

It's pathetic.

a reply to: MykeNukem

Here we go again.

Me? I'm watching the Canada game and am rooting for Canada hoping for another upset.

Do yourself a favour and take a break from your keyboard and do the same?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem

Here we go again.

Me? I'm watching the Canada game and am rooting for Canada hoping for another upset.

Do yourself a favour and take a break from your keyboard and do the same?

Something for you to stew over, while you watch:

Zelensky Accused of Trying to Start World War III Over Missile Strike
Newsweek