Kremlin says Kyiv's backers will face consequences after Putin says he may arm West's enemies

Reuters ^ | 6/4/24 | Dymitry Antonov and Andrew Osborn

[hardspunned]

MOSCOW, June 6 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Thursday that Western nations which supply Ukraine with weapons to directly strike Russian territory will definitely face consequences after President Vladimir Putin said he was considering arming the West's enemies in retaliation. Speaking with senior editors of international news agencies in St Petersburg on Wednesday, the Russian leader said Moscow was thinking about supplying advanced long-range weapons - of a similar nature to those the West is giving Ukraine - to the West's adversaries around the world.

[Nifster]

Tell us again what a pease loving good Christian man Putin is

[Petrosius]

Russia has not been trying to conquer the world, reform the Soviet Union or any other ridiculous BS the neocons habitually accuse it of. It has intervened in Georgia and Ukraine when the governments of each were stomping on their Russian minorities.

I call this BS! Putin is trying to reestablish the old Russian Empire. He has repeatedly said that he does not view Ukraine as a real country, that it is properly a part of Russia. Nor did the present war in Ukraine start because of some mythic oppression of the Russian minority. Its roots are in Putin's attempt to block the EU/Ukraine economic agreement. Putin saw Ukraine acting as a sovereign nation and moving away from Russian domination. This he could not accept.

Russia said over and over again starting around 2005 or so that it could live with the two waves of NATO expansion but Ukraine was a red line. It would not tolerate NATO expansion into Ukraine. Did that stop the West from pushing to get Ukraine into NATO? Not one bit.

The West was not pushing Ukraine to enter NATO. If anything, they were temporizing and putting it off. It was Ukraine that was pushing for it.

Why is it SO important that Ukraine be in NATO?

Because Ukraine was seeking NATO protection from further Russian aggression. Russia had already seized three provinces and was a continual threat. Russia is no innocent victim here. If this is, as some falsely claim, all about NATO expansion, let Russia offer to withdrawal from Ukraine in return for Ukrainian neutrality. But we both know that will never happen.

[Nifster]

I’m sure you meant fault not falt

[hardspunned]

I see you’re familiar with the Russian laws passed under Putin that protect traditional Christian values. His actions have been the opposite of what your woke globohomo heroes are trying to do world wide. As a Christian, I take solace in knowing there is one country where you won’t be slandered or discriminated against because you are a traditional Christian.
Yes, Putin’s patience in dealing with the foaming at the mouth, mad dog, warmongering globohomos and their neocon stooges in DC has been a God send. A lesser, not committed to peace individual would have reacted more aggressively to the illegal, unprovoked proxy war started against Russia. The world is lucky it’s Putin dealing with the Western maniacs. Putin has evaded the West’s provocations to world war so far.

[FLT-bird]

I call this BS! Putin is trying to reestablish the old Russian Empire. He has repeatedly said that he does not view Ukraine as a real country, that it is properly a part of Russia. Nor did the present war in Ukraine start because of some mythic oppression of the Russian minority. Its roots are in Putin's attempt to block the EU/Ukraine economic agreement. Putin saw Ukraine acting as a sovereign nation and moving away from Russian domination. This he could not accept.

And I call that BS. Did Russia annex south Ossetia from Georgia? No. Putin talked about Crimea and the Donbas being historically part of Russia....and any examination of the history will reveal that they were. That's why they had Russian speaking ethnic Russians as the majority of the population there. I also call BS on the claim that the oppression of the Russian minority there is "mythic". No its not. They specifically declared Russian not to be one of the official languages, stopped issuing government documents in Russian, started making it difficult to broadcast in Russian, etc etc. It was the Deep State that saw Ukraine not making a deal with the EU but instead making an economic deal with Russia under Yanukovych that prompted Victoria Nuland and co to launch a color revolution to overthrow the democratically elected president of Ukraine in 2014. That which you just accused Russia of is actually what the Deep State is guilty of.

The West was not pushing Ukraine to enter NATO. If anything, they were temporizing and putting it off. It was Ukraine that was pushing for it.

Bush said Ukraine would be in NATO back in 07-08. Look at the date of this article. Its 2021. That's pre war and NATO is refusing to ensure Ukraine will not join NATO https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/10/nato-refuses-to-backtrack-on-ukraine-georgia-membership-promise

Because Ukraine was seeking NATO protection from further Russian aggression. Russia had already seized three provinces and was a continual threat.

This started before Russia had seized anything. Before the war, Russia had seized Crimea, not Donetsk or Lugansk. The latter were merely seeking autonomy not independence and not to join Russia. Autonomy for those two provinces is what Ukraine agreed to in the Minsk accords....then immediately started shelling them.

Russia is no innocent victim here. If this is, as some falsely claim, all about NATO expansion, let Russia offer to withdrawal from Ukraine in return for Ukrainian neutrality. But we both know that will never happen.

Russia has certainly shown itself willing to play hardball but it was the Deep State that started doing that first by expanding NATO hundreds of miles eastward after promising not to do so. There is simply no way Russia is going to withdraw from the Donbas at this point. Had the West indicated it was willing to accept Ukrainian neutrality before 2022, there would have been no war. That's all Russia was demanding.

[Nifster]

Now tell us about Cuba

[ansel12]

That was a good description and some good memory.

[Seruzawa]

The one thing ignored in all this is the one prize Russia will fight to the death for. Access to the Black Sea. Communist or not, Russia will not let this be threatened.

[hardspunned]

I could not agree more. After the real Russian offensive begins, don’t be surprised if it is for Odessa.

[Wuli]

“Russia has not been trying to conquer the world, reform the Soviet Union or any other ridiculous BS”

No, Putin just wanted and wants to resurect the former Russian empire, which he believes the Soviet Union comprised, took over and expanded, and that event, the end of the Soviet Union Putin has decried many times as a “tragedy” FOR RUSSIA (to hell with the states forcibly pulled into the imperial Russia or the Soviet Union or its forced web (Warsaw Pact) after WWII.

[Wuli]

“Russia was promised NATO would not expand eastward when they let the wall fall and allowed East Germany to reunite with West Germany. “

That is a false meme generated from Putin. Baker and Gorby were not discussing NATO in general for all the future. They were discussing NATO in West Germany not moving into East Germnay when Germany redunited. Doing so would have been NATO on the border of Poland wich was still nominally a Soviet bloc State. Gorby has personally admitted as much.

The discussion was never about what former Soviet states or former Warsaw Pact states could or could not do by their own choices down the road.

[Wuli]

“Russia said over and over again starting around 2005 or so that it could live with the two waves of NATO expansion but Ukraine was a red line. “

Putin was trying to claim Ukraine was not free, it MUST be a stooge of Putin. Nonsense. He had no authority over Ukraine.

Putin was the first to act B4 that when, in 2004, Yushchenko was poisoned in a failed Kremlin attempt at assassining Ukraine’s leader. That failed and so Putin issued his “red line” statement, because he failed at killing the leader of Ukraine in an attempt for his subversives in Ukraine to get a government that would let itself be Putin’s stooge. Posion and assassinaion tactics are what the “Christian” Putin has used repeatedly with his domestic political opponents.

[FLT-bird]

No, Putin just wanted and wants to resurect the former Russian empire, which he believes the Soviet Union comprised, took over and expanded, and that event, the end of the Soviet Union Putin has decried many times as a “tragedy” FOR RUSSIA (to hell with the states forcibly pulled into the imperial Russia or the Soviet Union or its forced web (Warsaw Pact) after WWII.

Putin believes the Soviets gave away a lot of historically Russian land. They did. That's indisputable. I'd guess any country that lost some of its land and people to neighboring countries would view that as a tragedy.

[Wuli]

“If you take a step back and look, you can see that it is not Russia that has been the aggressor over the last 30 years.”

You are “looking back” with only one half of the facts, ignoring many acts and actions of Putin, unprovoked, that contributed to more European countries seeking NATO membership.

[Wuli]

“Putin believes the Soviets gave away a lot of historically Russian land.”

With that kind of thinking allowed in this modern age, can Spain seek reoccupation of Mexico, or the Philippines, which for centuries were “historically Spanish lands”.

No. Putin is a revsionist. He wants to ignore modern history and ressurect the past. Ukraine had more of its history not under the control of Moscow that it had under the control of Moscow. Naturally Ukrainians deny Putin has “Russian rights” to Ukraine.

[FLT-bird]

That is a false meme generated from Putin. Baker and Gorby were not discussing NATO in general for all the future. They were discussing NATO in West Germany not moving into East Germnay when Germany redunited. Doing so would have been NATO on the border of Poland wich was still nominally a Soviet bloc State. Gorby has personally admitted as much.

No it is not. The denial of it is a lie. There was not a formal treaty in which NATO undertook not to expand, but Secretary of State James Baker did promise that to Gorbachov in 1989 when it was up to Gobarchov to decide whether to let the wall fall or not. Why would the Soviets/Russians ever have agreed to allow it had they known NATO would be talking about expanding into the Donbas a generation later?

[FLT-bird]

Putin was trying to claim Ukraine was not free, it MUST be a stooge of Putin. Nonsense. He had no authority over Ukraine.

No. He said Ukraine had to at least be neutral. The US had no authority over Cuba either. Yet the US would not allow Soviet missiles to come on. Major powers tend to get very touchy about rival powers encroaching into their back yard.

Putin was the first to act B4 that when, in 2004, Yushchenko was poisoned in a failed Kremlin attempt at assassining Ukraine’s leader.

That failed and so Putin issued his “red line” statement, because he failed at killing the leader of Ukraine in an attempt for his subversives in Ukraine to get a government that would let itself be Putin’s stooge. Posion and assassinaion tactics are what the “Christian” Putin has used repeatedly with his domestic political opponents.

Russians of all stripes have said over and over again that Ukraine was a red line. It is not just Putin. Read CIA Director Burns' letter about this from 2008.

[Petrosius]

Putin talked about Crimea and the Donbas being historically part of Russia....and any examination of the history will reveal that they were.

Not so. Historically Donbas fell under the Cossack Hetmanate which became a Russian feudal dependence in 1649 but was ruled by its own Hetman, not directly by Moscow. This lasted until Catherine the Great abolished it in 1764 and incorporated all of Ukraine directly into Russia.

1720 map of Ukraine

Crimea was only conquered by Russia in 1774 and annexed into Russia in 1783. Russians only became the majority when Stalin expelled the native Tartars and replaced them with ethnic Russians.

That's why they had Russian speaking ethnic Russians as the majority of the population there.

As I have repeatedly shown, only Crimea has an ethnic Russian majority and that for the reason I stated above. Donbas, despite Russian claims, has an ethnic Ukrainian majority (around 60%). The bulk of the Russian population only dates back to the late 19th century with the development of the coal industry and latter industrialization. So it is fallacy to claim that these territories were historically Russian. And what excuse do make for Russia's annexation of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which have overwhelmingly Ukrainian populations?

They specifically declared Russian not to be one of the official languages, stopped issuing government documents in Russian, started making it difficult to broadcast in Russian, etc etc.

And why should Ukrainian state institutions operate in Russian? As for broadcasts, all the law stated was that Ukrainian had to be used alongside Russia, i.e., they could not broadcast in Russian only.

It was the Deep State that saw Ukraine not making a deal with the EU but instead making an economic deal with Russia under Yanukovych that prompted Victoria Nuland and co to launch a color revolution to overthrow the democratically elected president of Ukraine in 2014.

You are starting the play one act too late. Yanukovych ran on support for the EU/Ukraine agreement which had been approved by the parliament and was supported by the vast majority of Ukrainians. He reversed himself and betrayed his electoral mandate only after major pressure from Putin. The protests were a natural response, not the result of CIA plotting.

This started before Russia had seized anything. Before the war, Russia had seized Crimea, not Donetsk or Lugansk. The latter were merely seeking autonomy not independence and not to join Russia. Autonomy for those two provinces is what Ukraine agreed to in the Minsk accords...then immediately started shelling them.

Let's not be naïve. Donetsk and Luhansk were seized by Russia through the use of local surrogate militias. As for autonomy, Ukraine passed a law twice, in compliance to the Minsk accords, granting autonomy. It is Russia who balked and violated the accords by not removing its forces and handing over the border to Ukraine. Nor, as has been claimed, did Ukraine just start deliberately shelling civilian populations. Rather, fighting broke out between forces on both sides when, in violation of the accords, Russia failed to withdraw in forces and hand over the border to Ukraine, and refused to allow Ukraine to conduct the agreed to referendum.

Had the West indicated it was willing to accept Ukrainian neutrality before 2022, there would have been no war. That's all Russia was demanding.

Then why did Putin reject the offer of no NATO that his envoy to Ukraine received from Zelensky prior to the invasion?

[FLT-bird]

Not so. Historically Donbas fell under the Cossack Hetmanate which became a Russian feudal dependence in 1649 but was ruled by its own Hetman, not directly by Moscow. This lasted until Catherine the Great abolished it in 1764 and incorporated all of Ukraine directly into Russia.

Oh. So its only been Russian since before there was a United States of America. That's all.

Crimea was only conquered by Russia in 1774 and annexed into Russia in 1783.

So its only been Russian since the year the United States were recognized as sovereign by Britain in the Treaty of Paris. That's all.

That's why they had Russian speaking ethnic Russians as the majority of the population there.

Yes I'm aware that Stalin moved people around in the 30s while butchering many millions. The fact remains Russians are the majority in Crimea and its been Russian as long as the US has existed as a sovereign independent country.

As I have repeatedly shown, only Crimea has an ethnic Russian majority and that for the reason I stated above. Donbas, despite Russian claims, has an ethnic Ukrainian majority (around 60%). The bulk of the Russian population only dates back to the late 19th century with the development of the coal industry and latter industrialization. So it is fallacy to claim that these territories were historically Russian. And what excuse do make for Russia's annexation of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which have overwhelmingly Ukrainian populations?

The ethnic surveys I've seen show the Donbas is majority ethnic Russian. Its been Russian since before there even was a USA. That's a long time by most people's reckoning. How long has Ukraine been an independent country at all? Oh.....1991.

And why should Ukrainian state institutions operate in Russian? As for broadcasts, all the law stated was that Ukrainian had to be used alongside Russia, i.e., they could not broadcast in Russian only.

for the same reason Belgium has Flemish and French. For the same reason Canada has English and French. For the same reason Switzerland has multiple languages. That reason is a significant chunk of their population speaks a native language other than Ukranian. Why should Ukraine rule over people who don't speak the language when Ukraine hasn't even been an independent country historically? The question can be turned around just as easily. Of course the Russian population was going to see that as discriminating against them. Guess what. It would be considered a human rights violation in any country in the EU.

You are starting the play one act too late. Yanukovych ran on support for the EU/Ukraine agreement which had been approved by the parliament and was supported by the vast majority of Ukrainians. He reversed himself and betrayed his electoral mandate only after major pressure from Putin. The protests were a natural response, not the result of CIA plotting.

Yanukovych was supported by the Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine overwhelmingly. He was opposed by Western Ukraine. He did not commit to making an economic deal with the EU or with Russia while campaigning. It turned out Russia offered the deal he thought better and in truth, there were always many economic ties since Ukraine was part of the Russian empire for centuries.

Let's not be naïve. Donetsk and Luhansk were seized by Russia through the use of local surrogate militias.

No they weren't. The locals controlled them. The Russians backed them sure, but it was the locals in control.

As for autonomy, Ukraine passed a law twice, in compliance to the Minsk accords, granting autonomy. It is Russia who balked and violated the accords by not removing its forces and handing over the border to Ukraine. Nor, as has been claimed, did Ukraine just start deliberately shelling civilian populations. Rather, fighting broke out between forces on both sides when, in violation of the accords, Russia failed to withdraw in forces and hand over the border to Ukraine, and refused to allow Ukraine to conduct the agreed to referendum.

That's funny. All the locals in Lugansk and Donetsk tell a very different story. Kiev broke the deal. It never had any intention of keeping it. France and Germany who were supposed to be the guarantors of the Minsk Agreement did nothing to restrain Kiev. Over 10,000 people were killed by Ukrainian shelling in the next 8 years. Had Russia been in charge there they could have ended that much sooner given how much larger they are than Ukraine and how much better armed they are.

Then why did Putin reject the offer of no NATO that his envoy to Ukraine received from Zelensky prior to the invasion?

That's not what Zelensky offered. Why did the West lean on Zelensky to not accept the peace deal that was almost done in Istanbul 2 years ago? A whole lot of people's lives could have been saved. Now they're dead and the Ukes are going to lose and get far far worse terms from Russia.

[bert]

Since you don’t know what a globalist is, why do you complain about it?