Trump Presidential Watch (2025-2028)

[coffee_rules]

14 hours ago, Mariyam said:

How does Zelensky want WW3?

 

His country was invaded.

 

Russia also invaded some part of Ukraine a decade ago when Zelensky was not even the leader.

 

US may have a point in not wanting to fund the war etc, but that doesn't change who is guilty of starting the war.

Were you born after 1990? Ukraine, Russia, Georgia were all one country -USSR before. There is no invasion, but sectarian conflict . EU wants control over natural resources in Ukraine and Russia with its ethnic interests in Ukraine wants control too. People here are bought into the western/NATO narrative too much. 

[Muloghonto]

15 hours ago, Mariyam said:

How does Zelensky want WW3?

 

His country was invaded.

 

Russia also invaded some part of Ukraine a decade ago when Zelensky was not even the leader.

 

US may have a point in not wanting to fund the war etc, but that doesn't change who is guilty of starting the war.

 

Because if you say 'support me and fight for me till i get rest of my land back from the world's biggest nuclear power, who's annexed those land formally AND control it', it means by default you want ww3. That is the only logical conclusion of Zelenski's stance.
 

Your country being invaded is irrelevant to what is the best course of option left for you AFTER the invasion. If you think that in every scenario its 'since my country was invaded, i shall fight till i get all of it back and you must also do the same by my side', is the legitimate best scenario left, that would be illogical.

 

As for guilt goes - there is no guilt. Russia is entitled to attack Ukraine and Lithuania today - given that BOTH these nations banned Russian language use and teaching it, despite having significant Russian minority, which is effectively, genocide. You do not have protections from being the one who didnt start a war, when you are on record for genociding and other country is intervening.

Its the same exact scenario where India was the aggressor AND the morally legitimate side in 1971 war, with one notable difference : Genocide of Bangladeshis wasnt just cultural, but physical. But too bad for us, UN definition does not recognize difference, so legally we are obligated to see Lithuania/Ukraine law = same as Pakistani action in BD in 69-71. Or at least, that is my dehati understanding of law in this matter.

 

[mishra]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Were you born after 1990? Ukraine, Russia, Georgia were all one country -USSR before. There is no invasion, but sectarian conflict . EU wants control over natural resources in Ukraine and Russia with its ethnic interests in Ukraine wants control too. People here are bought into the western/NATO narrative too much. 

You  She has post 2000 date of Birth

[mishra]

3 hours ago, MechEng said:

 

You don't argue. Sabka yahaan pe Rajnath Singh ke saath roj uthna baithna hota hain.

No people do effort to read and understand what is going on because they got enough free time

[mishra]

@Mariyam ji. Some very important points raised. This person is anti Trump. Just that he isn’t invested in anti Russia. Last 5 mins are for people like @Muloghonto

 

Edited March 4, 2025 by mishra

[Mariyam]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Because if you say 'support me and fight for me till i get rest of my land back from the world's biggest nuclear power, who's annexed those land formally AND control it', it means by default you want ww3. That is the only logical conclusion of Zelenski's stance.
 

Your country being invaded is irrelevant to what is the best course of option left for you AFTER the invasion. If you think that in every scenario its 'since my country was invaded, i shall fight till i get all of it back and you must also do the same by my side', is the legitimate best scenario left, that would be illogical.

 

As for guilt goes - there is no guilt. Russia is entitled to attack Ukraine and Lithuania today - given that BOTH these nations banned Russian language use and teaching it, despite having significant Russian minority, which is effectively, genocide. You do not have protections from being the one who didnt start a war, when you are on record for genociding and other country is intervening.

Its the same exact scenario where India was the aggressor AND the morally legitimate side in 1971 war, with one notable difference : Genocide of Bangladeshis wasnt just cultural, but physical. But too bad for us, UN definition does not recognize difference, so legally we are obligated to see Lithuania/Ukraine law = same as Pakistani action in BD in 69-71. Or at least, that is my dehati understanding of law in this matter.

 

What do you mean by "annexed the land formally" ? Russians are an occupying force there.

 

The Ukranians banning teaching a language of the Russian minority does not amount to a genocide. The Russians as an aggrieved party can approach the ICJ (which they have) for sanctions on the Ukranians or take the matter to the UN to press for a plebiscite. Banning some chapters from the school curriculum or putting up a few road blocks can't be valid reasons for the invasion of an entire nation. The Russians have targeted civilians areas hitting grain silos, residential blocks and shopping stores in Kiev. There is simply no justification for Russian aggression here. Moral or legal.

 

 

The comparison to India in 1971 is misplaced. There was a real genocide going on and the Pakistanis actually attacked Indian air fields pre-emptively starting the official war. There were millions of East Pakistanis who fled to India in 1970 and 1971. There has been no exodus from Ukraine. All the migrating out of Ukraine has started *after* the war started.

[Mariyam]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Were you born after 1990? Ukraine, Russia, Georgia were all one country -USSR before. There is no invasion, but sectarian conflict . EU wants control over natural resources in Ukraine and Russia with its ethnic interests in Ukraine wants control too. People here are bought into the western/NATO narrative too much. 

No. I wish.  

 

EU may want what it does but it hasn't invaded Ukraine. Russia has. There in lies the difference.

 

Doesn't matter if those countries were a part of the USSR before? The USSR existed only for 70 odd years. Ukraine / Georgia etc have existed historically for ever. And many a times were simply taken over by Russia?

 

India and Pakistan were one nation/people/ entity for millennia. Today if India were to attack and try and take over Karachi for 'ethnic' interests, India will be seen as the aggressor.

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

What do you mean by "annexed the land formally" ? Russians are an occupying force there.

 

The Ukranians banning teaching a language of the Russian minority does not amount to a genocide. The Russians as an aggrieved party can approach the ICJ (which they have) for sanctions on the Ukranians or take the matter to the UN to press for a plebiscite. Banning some chapters from the school curriculum or putting up a few road blocks can't be valid reasons for the invasion of an entire nation. The Russians have targeted civilians areas hitting grain silos, residential blocks and shopping stores in Kiev. There is simply no justification for Russian aggression here. Moral or legal.

 

 

The comparison to India in 1971 is misplaced. There was a real genocide going on and the Pakistanis actually attacked Indian air fields pre-emptively starting the official war. There were millions of East Pakistanis who fled to India in 1970 and 1971. There has been no exodus from Ukraine. All the migrating out of Ukraine has started *after* the war started.

 

I can occupy land X, get my parliament/govt mechanism to initiate the formal constitutional process to ANNEX land X i am occupying and make it formally part of my country.

Banning teaching language of ethnic minority of a land MOST CERTAINLY falls under genocide. This can be cited from UN statutes itself.

it isnt banning some chapters. Its banning LANGUAGE. If i ban marathi language today from being taught in school or in govt, that would constitute genocide on marathis.

 

real genocide vs cultural genocide is NOT differntiated in the UN statutes that ICJ and UN is beholden to.

 

[mishra]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

I can occupy land X, get my parliament/govt mechanism to initiate the formal constitutional process to ANNEX land X i am occupying and make it formally part of my country.

Banning teaching language of ethnic minority of a land MOST CERTAINLY falls under genocide. This can be cited from UN statutes itself.

it isnt banning some chapters. Its banning LANGUAGE. If i ban marathi language today from being taught in school or in govt, that would constitute genocide on marathis.

 

real genocide vs cultural genocide is NOT differntiated in the UN statutes that ICJ and UN is beholden to.

 

Actually, when Putin said Russia Ukraine is same issue as India Pakistan over Kashmir. Only Indians who can understand this eulogy, can understand what is going on.

[Mariyam]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

I can occupy land X, get my parliament/govt mechanism to initiate the formal constitutional process to ANNEX land X i am occupying and make it formally part of my country.

Banning teaching language of ethnic minority of a land MOST CERTAINLY falls under genocide. This can be cited from UN statutes itself.

it isnt banning some chapters. Its banning LANGUAGE. If i ban marathi language today from being taught in school or in govt, that would constitute genocide on marathis.

 

real genocide vs cultural genocide is NOT differntiated in the UN statutes that ICJ and UN is beholden to.

 

Do you have details of the language ban in Ukraine?

 

My understanding is that a government banning the teaching of a language in Govt run schools and offices is well within its rights.

 

It can also refuse to fund minority language institutions.

 

It cannot however ban private enterprise that wishes to propagate or teach the said language. Or religion. That is what the UN Charter on HR says.

 

And even if the Ukraine put an all round blanket ban on the language, it is the job of the ICJ to intervene. A full fledged invasion is not a solution.

 

What has been the result of this invasion? Many Russian speakers have died in the war. Many of the Russian speaking areas have been depopulated due to outward migration , people not wanting to be caught up in a war zone.  All in all, Russia hasn't been able to secure her objectives.

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Mariyam said:

Do you have details of the language ban in Ukraine?

 

My understanding is that a government banning the teaching of a language in Govt run schools and offices is well within its rights.

 

It can also refuse to fund minority language institutions.

 

It cannot however ban private enterprise that wishes to propagate or teach the said language. Or religion. That is what the UN Charter on HR says.

 

And even if the Ukraine put an all round blanket ban on the language, it is the job of the ICJ to intervene. A full fledged invasion is not a solution.

 

What has been the result of this invasion? Many Russian speakers have died in the war. Many of the Russian speaking areas have been depopulated due to outward migration , people not wanting to be caught up in a war zone.  All in all, Russia hasn't been able to secure her objectives.

 

if your bolded statement is true, then it IS literally 1971 scenario with India from legal premise - meets definition of genocide, ergo, aggressive intervention is morally justified. Ergo solution via international precedent of RoI itself.

No one has ever secured their objectives while the war they are fighting is in its active phase. Even when its Iraq vs USA.....

 

[ravishingravi]

3 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Do you have details of the language ban in Ukraine?

 

My understanding is that a government banning the teaching of a language in Govt run schools and offices is well within its rights.

 

It can also refuse to fund minority language institutions.

 

It cannot however ban private enterprise that wishes to propagate or teach the said language. Or religion. That is what the UN Charter on HR says.

 

And even if the Ukraine put an all round blanket ban on the language, it is the job of the ICJ to intervene. A full fledged invasion is not a solution.

 

What has been the result of this invasion? Many Russian speakers have died in the war. Many of the Russian speaking areas have been depopulated due to outward migration , people not wanting to be caught up in a war zone.  All in all, Russia hasn't been able to secure her objectives.

 

I think we are conflating one too many things in this discussion. As you would imagine, such issues are intermingled. The issue can be broken down in different part and then its your call which part you want to double click on. Depending on angle you choose, the bent will shift. 

 

Different angles on this  :- 

1) Historical ~  How was the country of Ukraine formed. What was the purpose of NATO ? Was expansion part of its charter ? 

2) Geo Strategic ~ Bhutan / Bangladesh and India. What is Geo strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia and West. 

3) Legal - Is invasion of another sovereign land legal ? No. But do we have a precedence where NATO did the same. Serbia and Kosovo. Not to mention multiple invasions by US. 

4) Economic - Key resources and minerals involved. And fertilizers and most fertile land in the world.

5) Cultural - This is Slavic battle and one needs to also understand the cultural underpinning. 20-25% of Ukraine is Russian speaking. Why was the color revolution triggered by West in 2012 and why was cultural transformation by banning of language brought about ? 

 

Now depending on the angle, we can understand the merits. 

 

I look at all of it and say yes I think India would and should do the same if it will put in the same situation as Russia. But Indians are not cut out for it.  

[mishra]

^ Key is Geo Strategic financial  ethnic. Russian saw a purge of Russian people , culture, language, influence and direct investments (crimea port deal and gas pipelines to Europe) and various other economic interests. So they justifiably reacted.

 

Tommorrow if Bangladesh does similar by sitting in lap of China, India has all rights to invade Bangladesh to protect its interests.

[ravishingravi]

 

[mishra]

4 minutes ago, ravishingravi said:

 

Just a example of one of causes, Second round of war started after Ukraine built dam to stop flow of fresh water to Crimea. While Ukrainian were building dam, Russian were building troops across the border and bridge to supply water to Crimea via water tankers. 
 

Both sides knew exactly what other side was doing. The day Ukrainian stopped water to Crimea, within a month Russian launched war. Now troops are on either side of river. Essentially Ukraine can not stop water supply. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

4 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

 

I think we are conflating one too many things in this discussion. As you would imagine, such issues are intermingled. The issue can be broken down in different part and then its your call which part you want to double click on. Depending on angle you choose, the bent will shift. 

 

Different angles on this  :- 

1) Historical ~  How was the country of Ukraine formed. What was the purpose of NATO ? Was expansion part of its charter ? 

2) Geo Strategic ~ Bhutan / Bangladesh and India. What is Geo strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia and West. 

3) Legal - Is invasion of another sovereign land legal ? No. But do we have a precedence where NATO did the same. Serbia and Kosovo. Not to mention multiple invasions by US. 

4) Economic - Key resources and minerals involved. And fertilizers and most fertile land in the world.

5) Cultural - This is Slavic battle and one needs to also understand the cultural underpinning. 20-25% of Ukraine is Russian speaking. Why was the color revolution triggered by West in 2012 and why was cultural transformation by banning of language brought about ? 

 

Now depending on the angle, we can understand the merits. 

 

I look at all of it and say yes I think India would and should do the same if it will put in the same situation as Russia. But Indians are not cut out for it.  

4 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

 

 

The worst conflation of all? Russia/Ukraine with India/Pak. Pakistan's history of inducing violence against India is most egregious by any measure. On the other side, Russia' history of aggression vs India's restraint precludes any comparison.

 

As for history, why don't we go back to how USSR was formed? With or against the will of the Ukrainian people? For all intents and purposes USSR = Russia. Perhaps it is right for Ukraine to have separated from the Russian behemoth. As with the Palestine discussion, everyone's history stops wherever it's convenient for them. 

Edited March 4, 2025 by BacktoCricaddict

[ravishingravi]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

The worst conflation of all? Russia/Ukraine with India/Pak. Pakistan's history of inducing violence against India is most egregious by any measure. On the other side, Russia' history of aggression vs India's restraint precludes any comparison.

 

As for history, why don't we go back to how USSR was formed? With or against the will of the Ukrainian people? For all intents and purposes USSR = Russia. Perhaps it is right for Ukraine to have separated from the Russian behemoth. As with the Palestine discussion, everyone's history stops wherever it's convenient for them. 

 

 Didn't mention Pakistan anywhere. Mentioned Nepal and Bangladesh which are strategically important for India. And that was not conflation. That was to establish parallel when it comes to countries with strategic importance

 

As for history, Indeed history is where you draw inference for present outcomes from. Russia cannot and will not allow Ukraine to be part of NATO. 

 

Neocons and old school liberals are struggling to come to terms with changing world order. Well it hasn't even started. Fun will begin when Trump plays Nixon card of 1978 and brings Russia to western fold to isolate China. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, ravishingravi said:

 

 Didn't mention Pakistan anywhere. Mentioned Nepal and Bangladesh which are strategically important for India. And that was not conflation. That was to establish parallel when it comes to countries with strategic importance

 

As for history, Indeed history is where you draw inference for present outcomes from. Russia cannot and will not allow Ukraine to be part of NATO. 

 

Neocons and old school liberals are struggling to come to terms with changing world order. Well it hasn't even started. Fun will begin when Trump plays Nixon card of 1978 and brings Russia to western fold to isolate China. 

 

True. You didn't mention Pakistan. I was projecting my conversations with other AmInd Trump supporters on to this thread.

 

That said, even with Nepal and B'desh, India has never been or shown any designs to be an aggressor. The same cannot be said of Russia over the centuries. There may be some strategic parallels, but the parallels end there.

[ravishingravi]

https://x.com/JamesMelville/status/1896948823542698159?t=9nhVsHTV9ec36qPh6uI81A&s=19

[kepler37b]

9 hours ago, mishra said:

Just a example of one of causes, Second round of war started after Ukraine built dam to stop flow of fresh water to Crimea. While Ukrainian were building dam, Russian were building troops across the border and bridge to supply water to Crimea via water tankers. 
 

Both sides knew exactly what other side was doing. The day Ukrainian stopped water to Crimea, within a month Russian launched war. Now troops are on either side of river. Essentially Ukraine can not stop water supply. 

Ukrainian leaders are retarded, impractical and do not know their aukaat.

 

How did they under estimate putin? Everyone knows he is a strong man with dreams of russian expansion. How the hell they expected western powers to fight trump? These guys have gone extremely soft after centuries of high civilization.