Trump v Ukraine - is Trump all wrong?

...Which is why they have thouroughly vacated their borders with NATO nations.

To scramble for men and material to advance their fascist conquest in Ukraine.

Russia does not view NATO as an existential threat. They know their nuclear arms are a very effective deterrent and that NATO is not a threat either way to invade.

The entire thing is a ruse for consumption by westerners who have a strong anti-USA or anti-US-led-world-order bias for one reason or another.

...and I am pretty sure you know that perfectly well.

No honestly. The cold war was always in the background through my formative years: - to put it another way, my perception is that NATO was created to counter the threat of Russia. And if that was my perception, I'm pretty sure that the perception of the average Russian is similar.

The entire thing is a ruse for consumption by westerners who have a strong anti-USA or anti-US-led-world-order bias for one reason or another.

Be it that they are commie tankies, far-right elements that wish for the demise of liberal democracy or anti-semites that think the USA are led by a nefarious crowd of jews working in the background to the detriment of everyone else.

Yawn

Whatcha yawning at, matey mate?

Your 12:16 post

Can someone kindly expand on NATO's plans to invade Russia. Google isn't helping me

What's there to yawn about with that post?

All those super freakish utterly crazy weirdos I mentioned definitely exist.

I know it is hard to fathom, but some people are just outright cuckoo enough to be one of those.

It's just labelling. Sympathy with the Russian perspective doesn't make one anti-American, to start with.

Or are you fated to be stuck forever in a cold war mentality, edy?

I'm not stuck in a cold war mentality. It is quite evidently the Russians that are stuck in it, given that they have not gotten over having had lost their cold war empire.

And so they even go to length to try and reconquer their former empire to get back to the glorious days of the cold war USSR.

....Though Putin and the Russian Industrial Military Complex having had identified war as a neat tool for domestic legitimisation as well as economic profit of course also plays a big role.

We on the other have welcomed our former enemies of the cold war warsaw bloc amongst our midst instead of being stuck in that old mentality.

Partly embraced them in the EU, partly embraced them as valuable trade partners until they tried to blackmail us with gas shortages.

valuable and respected trade partners

Fact of the matter is that Russia started the biggest and deadliest war on European soil since they back in the day co-started World War II in cooperation with Nazi Germany. And they did so under all sorts of pretenses and giving everyone a different reason depending on who was willing to listen and what they wanted to hear.

For the anti-USA westerners it was NATO.

For the hardcore bigoted muslims of Chechnya it was the western LGBTQI+ mafia having had infiltrated Kyiv and the slavs of Ukraine had to be protected from it (and Russians would be welcome with flowers for the liberation). For the WWII damaged it were Nazis running Ukraine.

For the inclined anti-semite it was the jew that worked towards the demise of Ukraine that made liberation necessary.

For the conspiracy theorists it were biolabs that were about to unleash pidgeons that were infected with viruses that specifically and only targeted ethnic Russians of Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Fact of the matter is also that Russia could have withdrawn its troops at any point and everyone would have lived happily ever after.

But for some reason our PEACE minded people on here never seem to recognise that part of the entire thing.

Quite a lot to unpack there, edy, but the overall message is clear: you are not a cold war warrior.

Thank you that you recognise that after your initial false accusation regarding me being stuck in a cold war mentality.

And I just wish to tell you I would absolutely love to go on and unpack things.

*love you to go and unpack things.

Mar 21, 2025 -- 1:51PM, edy wrote:

Fact of the matter is also that Russia could have withdrawn its troops at any point and everyone would have lived happily ever after.

Unlikely, isn't it? Because the population of Ukraine - indeed, Crimea itself - is a product of its long union with Russia and a good number prefer Putin to Zelensky. What number we don't know, since Ukraine cancelled elections.

In what way would Russia not have been able to live happily ever after?

Any thought on Putin demanding people take up Russian citizenship in the occupied regions btw.?

Mar 21, 2025 -- 3:34PM, edy wrote:

In what way would Russia not have been able to live happily ever after?

This is quite circular: Ukraine has as its leader (and no prospect of losing an election because there are no elections in Ukraine) someone who has set himself up, or been set up as the nemesis of Russia; therefore it would be delinquent for those responsible for the security of Russia to live "Happily ever after" with the proximity of such a threat. Zelensky is purposed to yoke Ukraine to an alliance CREATED in opposition to Russia.

My thoughts on people taking up Russian citizenship is that they should be free to do so, or not, in advance of any partition within Ukraine's current borders.
Like India/Pakistan: if they can't live together, let them live under the flag which which they align themselves. Everybody's happy.

What makes Zelenskyy the nemesis of Russia?

That he dared not immediately hand Ukraine over to the Russian colonists?

My thoughts on people taking up Russian citizenship is that they should be free to do so, or not, in advance of any partition within Ukraine's current borders.

So with Putin demanding it, you think Putin is a huge a-hole? Would you please state so specifically?

Zelensky vows to win that war - if war it should be called. He wants a multitude of weapons to carry that war into Russia.

I don't agree with you, edy, but you said that lands won by conquest belong to the conqueror.

Dude, I did not. There is your tremendous amount of bad faith and lying yet again.

And given that you have been corrected multiple times on it. Debunked multiple times on it the only conclusion is bad faith.

Especially as it goes along with other bad faith behaviour.

What part of this conversation do you wish to reverse ferret out of?

UB 11:14
Of course. I never thought Russia had the right to (how did you put it) Take lands from the aggressor if they win the war.

edy 11;16
Well, but they did take land. The GDR not being part of it though if you failed to pay attention in that history lesson.

UB 11:22
But if they had, as victors, do you not believe that Germans - as the defeated - have a superior historical claim to that land?

edy 11:46
No, Russia would then have gotten it as part of the peace treaty and it would be theirs and they'd have the most supreme right and claim to it as the entity who was given the land contractually by its former owner.

UB 11:55
Wow. With the corollary that ethnic cleansing of Germany by Russia would then be legitimate too.

edy 11:56
Well of course, as I already said regarding their ethnic cleansing of Königsberg. Same thing. Preferrably it would be displacement rather than killing though.

Well, for starters I'd like you to finally quote in full, but apart from that I do not wish to take anything back. It simply doesn't contain what you continue to lie about what it contains.

In your continued effort of pure bad faith.

Begin your showing of good faith by quoting in full. Do you have at leas that tiny amount of good faith in you?

Must be we have different interpretations of the word legitimate.

Waiting...

Waiting for what: you said it. It is legitimate for the winner to claim supreme right over the conquered land and legitimate to conduct ethnic cleansing. I'm just repeating what you said above.

Waiting for this

edy • March 21, 2025 3:49 PM GMT
Begin your showing of good faith by quoting in full. Do you have at leas that tiny amount of good faith in you?

Not selective quoting to coincidentally and in bad faith omit necessary context.

Even deleting parts from posts in addition to omitting posts from that same conversation.

So yeah...do you have that tiny amount of good faith in you to quote honestly or do you stick to your continued bad faith?

What part from the above has been deleted?

What did you really mean, if not what you have typed?

...Stick to the bad faith it is I guess.

What part from the above has been deleted?

As if you, as the person who deleted it in bad faith doesn't know.

No, you said it. Are you saying you meant something else?

We will talk about that the moment you finally showed beginning good faith by actually quoting me in an honest way.

So get on with it instead of squirming and dithering in your bad faith.

Best make a screenshot and upload it here.

Or two or three depending on how many you need.

With respect, I don't think the onus is on me to clarify your position.

You said it.

I was gobsmacked at the time that a German was prepared to argue away his homeland. And there is still the chance for you amend what you said at the time, unless you stand by it.

If someone deliberately omits content and context from quotes in bad faith, then the onus absolutely is on that person to start showing good faith instead.

As is the case when that bad faith person has repeatedly been corrected in their "honest understanding" () and then pretends that never happened, but he is ever so open and giving me the chance to set the record straight.

What content is omitted? Where is the correction? Have you been misquoted? Do you feel differently now? There is no shame in that..

Make screenshots of the conversation, upload then and then we can compare if you really did not omit anything..

Or simply copy and paste for starters....in full this time.

Or you can link to the thread and then people can compare....

With you also giving the date. Makes one wonder...why did you actually delete the date and only keep the time in your incomplete quotes? Why go to that additional work of actively deleting the date instead of simply keeping it?

For those interested in saving or sinking edy's reputation, the thread was "100000 dead Ruskies but they've claimed a wasteland called Bakkmut"


Quote you in full? You are the most incontinent poster on the betfair forum. We are a motley crew but I shouldn't wish the entirety of your posts on my worst enemy.


Edy, honestly mate, if you just say you were drunk the night you said you believed East Germany truly belonged to Russia, no-one will judge you. I would give you forum points.

Fine.

I will try to get some good faith out of you next time you lie on this against your own better knowledge.

One day I will succeed and if it is the last thing I ever do.

I have no "better knowledge" edy. We cannot reinterpret what you said, but you have the opportunity below to do so.

Why do you say I said I believed East Germany truly belonged to Russia when I never said so and even your (incomplete) quoting contains that part that I do not believe East Germany truly belonged to Russia.

....but you are acting in good faith and have no better knowledge. Right.

It is even pretty explicit in the incomplete quoting that you just out of bad faith make crap up like that I said I believed East Germany truly belonged to Russia. And you keep repeating that against your own better knowledge and against what you yourself present in your incomplete quoting.

Here we go again

UB 11:22
But if they (Russia) had, as victors, do you not believe that Germans - as the defeated - have a superior historical claim to that land?

edy 11:46
No, Russia would then have gotten it as part of the peace treaty and it would be theirs and they'd have the most supreme right and claim to it as the entity who was given the land contractually by its former owner.

UB 11:55
Wow. With the corollary that ethnic cleansing of Germany by Russia would then be legitimate too.

edy 11:56
Well of course, as I already said regarding their ethnic cleansing of Königsberg. Same thing. Preferrably it would be displacement rather than killing though.

Not revisited the thread, edy, but I think the conversation is verbatim.

Yet I am nothing if not generous:- if you wish to insert a few caveats into the dialogue now, I would not object.

The entire argument, and you of course know this fully well, is that an aggressor, in that case Nazi Germany, sets out to conquer another nation and the eventual settlement of the conflict, in the form of e.g. a peace treaty, sees a transfer of land, then there is no mythical historical claim to the land by the former owner.

In the conversation, if you had quoted it honestly...which you for some reason continue to refuse, it would have been very evident that I categorically did not say that East Germany truly belongs to Russia. And you know that. You absolutely 100% certainly do.

Ok, I did not think you could betray your country in your heart. How do you reconcile that with the argument you set forth above?

Not state or even remotely suggest that I believed East Germany truly belonged to Russia. What I said regarding East Germany, and again...you know this, is that there would not have been some mythical claim for the remaining part of Germany on those lands if, and only if, East Germany had been formally transferred through international agreements to be a part of Russia. Very evidently that was not the case and I never remotely argued that it should have been the case. Contrary to your continued lying on the topic against your own better knowledge in bad faith.

No, the more angrily you argue that you did not say what you said, the more you implicate yourself.

You said that if the peace treaty following WWII ceded East Germany to Russia: Russia would then have a superior claim to the lands of East Germany and would be justified in cleaning out Germans from that land. (please don't make me quote what you said again, see above)

Is that still your belief?

Yes, which is vastly different from what you claim when you say that I said I believed East Germany truly belonged to Russia.

"Yes". Right there.

But for the peace treaty, in which your people had no voice .. you believe East Germany where you were born would have belonged to Russia.

Oder?

Yes, because as I explained in the conversation, your entire thing about historical claims is a giant convoluted mess. Which is why you go with international law.

Yes.

Thank you.

Maybe we can work on it not being a convoluted mess. In one of the posts you quoted incompletely it also contained this

edy • October 13, 2023 11:46 AM BST
No, Russia would then have gotten it as part of the peace treaty and it would be theirs and they'd have the most supreme right and claim to it as the entity who was given the land contractually by its former owner.

I already told you repeatedly I'm not into that mythical and very wishwash historical claim thing and think it's a very silly thing. All sorts of entities, tribes and people ruled or inhabited all sorts of land at one time or another. From that long history of different rulers and inhabitants, how do you then determine who has the superior claim to it? Current demographic? Is a simply majority enough? Demographic a hundred years ago? The ones with the most consistent inhabitation? The first ones to really settle there knowingly? How small do we do also? Do Pommeranians get their own land? Do they share it with Sweden who once ruled parts of Pommerania?

Germany in itself is a construct of multiple much smaller entities just coming together to get more powerful. There isn't really this one German entity or tribe or culture.

Can you clarify and make it less of a convoluted mess on the bold part to convince me historical claims should reign supreme over international law? You blanked me on it at the time...and other times I tried to extract even any remote clarification.

And how do we PEACE minded neutral people settle the historical claims if maybe different parties both feel they have a historical claim, or at least pretend to believe that they have that historical claim in their quest for that land?

Mar 21, 2025 -- 5:59PM, edy wrote:

Maybe we can work on it not being a convoluted mess. In one of the posts you quoted incompletely it also contained thisedy • October 13, 2023 11:46 AM BSTNo, Russia would then have gotten it as part of the peace treaty and it would be theirs and they'd have the most supreme right and claim to it as the entity who was given the land contractually by its former owner.I already told you repeatedly I'm not into that mythical and very wishwash historical claim thing and think it's a very silly thing. All sorts of entities, tribes and people ruled or inhabited all sorts of land at one time or another. From that long history of different rulers and inhabitants, how do you then determine who has the superior claim to it? Current demographic? Is a simply majority enough? Demographic a hundred years ago? The ones with the most consistent inhabitation? The first ones to really settle there knowingly? How small do we do also? Do Pommeranians get their own land? Do they share it with Sweden who once ruled parts of Pommerania?Germany in itself is a construct of multiple much smaller entities just coming together to get more powerful. There isn't really this one German entity or tribe or culture.Can you clarify and make it less of a convoluted mess on the bold part to convince me historical claims should reign supreme over international law? You blanked me on it at the time...and other times I tried to extract even any remote clarification.

From that long history of different rulers and inhabitants, how do you then determine who has the superior claim to it?

1) Common language.

2) Religious belief.

3) Historical land title.


These factors are probably more delineated and apparent to us in the UK.

Nevertheless, you display a pretty weak notion of pride in being German if you would happily accept a peace-treaty that ceded the very ground you stand on to Russia. But that is a contradiction for you reconcile in your own time.

Ok.

Does Bavaria get what is now Austria or vice versa?

Common language
Common religious believe
Austria was part of the holy roman empire and Nazi Germany and such

....

Depends if Austria sets itself up/ was set up as the nemesis of Bavaria.

Well, they refuse to be in NATO, tried to elect total Nazis last time around and they beat us in soccer.

But ok....historical claims only become valid if one of the countries feels the others are meanies?

Otherwise the historical claim is null and void?

So we have established Austria are meanies in our minds. How do we peace minded neutral folk settle this historical claim now?

Edy - you don't understand the import of "meanies" in the English language.

The second thing a native English speaker registers is that the "meanie" is a bad guy.

But the first thing a native English speaker registers is that the person who wrote it speaking baby language.

It does not bother me if people reading it do not recognise that it is deliberately used that way to mock pretend sensitivities. But if you wish...

So we have decided in our very own personal worlds that Austria have set themselves out to be our nemesis. How do we peace minded neutral folk now advice the Germans to settle this hard to argue historical claim they most definitely have on Austrian territory?

Difficult to see a reward for following your rambling discourse, edy.

What part of my latest post do you have problems with precisely? I will be glad to rephrase that part.

You could alternatively also ask a large language model like ChatGPT if it could please help you understand.

Austria have set themselves out to be our nemesis.

Nobody said that. Nobody thought that. If there was a third reader, they left 15 minutes ago.

And now I'm going too.

Have a good week end, edy.

Ok, we will continue next time you show in this thread. Maybe you will be able to think of something in the meantime.

Leaving this here for next time already:

We can also do it purely hypothetical if you don't like my reasons on my Austria absolutely is set to become Germany's nemesis. It is a more general approach to understand the superiority of your historical claim approach over my international law approach after all.

So in a hypothetical future Austria sets out to be Germany's nemesis (or at least Germany and its sycophants pretend that is the case). How would we peace minded neutral people go about the historical claim? Are we in Germany's corner and do we peace minded folk constantly voice how much understanding we have for Germany's invasion due to the hard to argue historical claim?