View Full Version : Stupid Shit in Kyiv
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
[
7]
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The true "land of smiles. " You all can have those starfish stick women in Asia. But in any case, some good thoughts from Jmsuttr. And some of us might recall Golfinblow who had Russia taking over Kyiv in one week. Rofl Ahhh the wishful thinking of traitors, whether from the USA or Europe, makes no difference. Wink.
In honor of Ukraine's Armed Forces Day:
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3628609-ten-breakthroughs-of-the-ukrainian-armed-forces-that-surprised-the-world.html
Elvis 2008
12-13-22, 19:13
It's remarkable how little the conversation in this subforum has evolved over the past months. People still talking about, or obsessing over, pre-Feb 24th Ukraine and Russia as if either existed anymore. They don't, and they're not coming back.
Nobody who matters cares about past Ukrainian corruption and failings. And nobody who matters cares about what Russia was before. All that matters is now, and Putin tipped the scales against himself when he invaded, for which he's reaping the consequences. As far as peace plans are concerned, Ukraine is calling the shots by virtue of their battlefield successes. If Russia was winning, things might be different, but that's not the case. If the West doesn't have the balls to stand up to Putin, that's not a problem because Ukraine will do it. All the West needs to do is provide support.My God, how many times are we going to go through this crap? Didn't we win in Iraq? Get Qaddafi killed in Libya? You will have to remind me if things got better in those countries because I do not see that they did. The mighty Soviet army was defeated in Afghanistan once before and that left us the Taliban and Al Queda. How much good did that war really do the USA in the long run?
If you are a Dem, you will no doubt condemn Fox News and Tucker Carlson for giving Glenn Greenwald a microphone but Greenwald is in his own words a liberal Democrat, and this is what he says about this war.
I think in general, Americans should be very skeptical when the government says 'We're going to fight wars on the other side of the world and spend tens of billions of dollars in military aid to spread democracy. ' The US government doesn't actually care about spreading democracy. Many of its closest allies in the world have always been some of the world's most despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All the US government cares about is whether these regimes serve US interests. . If you want to believe the fairy tale that the US government goes to war to spread democracy, then Ukraine is not the place for you. You mentioned the argument that 'Zelensky is in war, he has to curb liberty', but go back to 2021, a year before Russia invaded and you'll find articles where he shut down opposition television stations and shut down opposition political parties (which is) the hallmark of what every tyrant or despot does. And that was true even before Russia invaded.
If the US government was honest. They would get rid of this script that we have to go and defend democracy. That is a fairy tale that tries to get Americans to feel better about the fact that we are involved in many, many countries all over the world. That is not the real reason. The only reason to do it is for 'vital US interests'. The line in Washington for decades was the US has no vital interests in Ukraine. That was Obama's view, that was the bipartisan view. Why did that change? The only reason is because we saw an opportunity to trap Russia inside Ukraine all based on the view that Russia is our enemy (which is) something only Democrats should believe because they think Russia is to blame for the 2016 election and Hillary's defeat. But why would Republicans want confrontation with Russia? What American benefits from that except arms manufacturers?
If you think Russia is a grave enemy of the United States, then it makes sense to try to lure them into a war that they can't win, like we got lured into Afghanistan for 20 years or like we lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan back in the '70's because it does deplete your enemy. The question is: Why should Russia be seen as our enemy? Both Obama and Trump said there's no reason to see Russia that way. It has one-fifteenth the size of our military budget. It's not threatening American borders. Why are we so obsessed with spending tens of billions of dollars to weaken Russia which we could be using here at home to benefit the lives of American citizens when Russia is not doing anything to the United States unless you are a crazy 'resistance' person who believes they're the reason Donald Trump won. But if you don't believe that, what is the rational for this? There is none.
Yes, anyone who dares asks why we are spending money to buy arms for Ukraine versus caring for our own back home has to be a Putin puppet? The notion that this is a war to prevent democracy is a joke. It is dictator on dictator.
But perhaps the funniest thing I have read about the war was on this site, a bunch of Ukrainians hitting a FKK and spending money like drunken sailors. I guess anyone questioning Ukrainians doing that is a Putin puppet as well.
My God, how many times are we going to go through this crap?Sigh, how many indeed. I too would like to know the answer to this question.
Same old Elvis: all over the place, completely incapable of focusing on the message, every sentence starts a new topic only to never finish anything, long-winded, illogical, boring blah blah blah at its finest.
Tens of thousands of Ukrainians are already dead -- men, women and children -- because a mad tyrant decided to grow his empire by starting a full-scale war of choice in Europe. In 21st fucking century.
But no, for Elvis everything is realfuckingpolitik, and America is always a villain.
My God, how many times are we going to go through this crap? Didn't we win in Iraq? Get Qaddafi killed in Libya? You will have to remind me if things got better in those countries because I do not see that they did. The mighty Soviet army was defeated in Afghanistan once before and that left us the Taliban and Al Queda. How much good did that war really do the USA in the long run?
If you are a Dem, you will no doubt condemn Fox News and Tucker Carlson for giving Glenn Greenwald a microphone but Greenwald is in his own words a liberal Democrat, and this is what he says about this war.
I think in general, Americans should be very skeptical when the government says 'We're going to fight wars on the other side of the world and spend tens of billions of dollars in military aid to spread democracy. ' The US government doesn't actually care about spreading democracy. Many of its closest allies in the world have always been some of the world's most despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All the US government cares about is whether these regimes serve US interests. . If you want to believe the fairy tale that the US government goes to war to spread democracy, then Ukraine is not the place for you. You mentioned the argument that 'Zelensky is in war, he has to curb liberty', but go back to 2021, a year before Russia invaded and you'll find articles where he shut down opposition television stations and shut down opposition political parties (which is) the hallmark of what every tyrant or despot does. And that was true even before Russia invaded.
If the US government was honest. They would get rid of this script that we have to go and defend democracy. That is a fairy tale that tries to get Americans to feel better about the fact that we are involved in many, many countries all over the world. That is not the real reason. The only reason to do it is for 'vital US interests'. The line in Washington for decades was the US has no vital interests in Ukraine. That was Obama's view, that was the bipartisan view. Why did that change? The only reason is because we saw an opportunity to trap Russia inside Ukraine all based on the view that Russia is our enemy (which is) something only Democrats should believe because they think Russia is to blame for the 2016 election and Hillary's defeat. But why would Republicans want confrontation with Russia? What American benefits from that except arms manufacturers?
If you think Russia is a grave enemy of the United States, then it makes sense to try to lure them into a war that they can't win, like we got lured into Afghanistan for 20 years or like we lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan back in the '70's because it does deplete your enemy. The question is: Why should Russia be seen as our enemy? Both Obama and Trump said there's no reason to see Russia that way. It has one-fifteenth the size of our military budget. It's not threatening American borders. Why are we so obsessed with spending tens of billions of dollars to weaken Russia which we could be using here at home to benefit the lives of American citizens when Russia is not doing anything to the United States unless you are a crazy 'resistance' person who believes they're the reason Donald Trump won. But if you don't believe that, what is the rational for this? There is none.
Yes, anyone who dares asks why we are spending money to buy arms for Ukraine versus caring for our own back home has to be a Putin puppet? The notion that this is a war to prevent democracy is a joke. It is dictator on dictator.
But perhaps the funniest thing I have read about the war was on this site, a bunch of Ukrainians hitting a FKK and spending money like drunken sailors. I guess anyone questioning Ukrainians doing that is a Putin puppet as well.Elvis, your words might be more interesting than actually constructive. There is some truth here, but foreign affairs is rife with various narratives than often come apart with time. At first blush, your post seems to have a US-centric point of view ignoring everything and everyone else. I would agree USA Military intervention and meddling has only brought us heartache and depleted our treasury.
On the other hand, your post ignores the European point-of-view. I think it's fair to say the Europeans have more at stake then the USA Does. Of course, the Europeans are prone to look to the USA And say "You got this. " There have been exceptions and some European nations have done more than others.
As I said before, this is not just about the Ukraine. It is just as important that China sees the USA And the Europeans stepping up together.
DramaFree11
12-14-22, 18:14
Sigh, how many indeed. I too would like to know the answer to this question.
Same old Elvis: all over the place, completely incapable of focusing on the message, every sentence starts a new topic only to never finish anything, long-winded, illogical, boring blah blah blah at its finest.
Tens of thousands of Ukrainians are already dead -- men, women and children -- because a mad tyrant decided to grow his empire by starting a full-scale war of choice in Europe. In 21st fucking century.
But no, for Elvis everything is realfuckingpolitik, and America is always a villain.Xman this war should have never happened and there should have been a settlement months ago. Russia is no longer a threat,(judging from there military performance they may have never been a threat), to America or Europe there military is finished.
Yes, Pres. Z, Biden and Europe are all partially to blame for this.
Finally, Putin is the aggressor, but nobody is winning, just senseless killings. Ukraine is screwed either way, so they mights well finish off Russia military, hopefully they will not get nuked in the process. 2 corrupt countries, fighting over joining an even bigger corrupt organization, NATO.
When your country is destroyed, and a majority of the country is long gone, this is not a win!
My God, how many times are we going to go through this crap? Didn't we win in Iraq? Get Qaddafi killed in Libya? You will have to remind me if things got better in those countries because I do not see that they did. The mighty Soviet army was defeated in Afghanistan once before and that left us the Taliban and Al Queda. How much good did that war really do the USA in the long run?
If you are a Dem, you will no doubt condemn Fox News and Tucker Carlson for giving Glenn Greenwald a microphone but Greenwald is in his own words a liberal Democrat, and this is what he says about this war.
I think in general, Americans should be very skeptical when the government says 'We're going to fight wars on the other side of the world and spend tens of billions of dollars in military aid to spread democracy. ' The US government doesn't actually care about spreading democracy. Many of its closest allies in the world have always been some of the world's most despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All the US government cares about is whether these regimes serve US interests. . If you want to believe the fairy tale that the US government goes to war to spread democracy, then Ukraine is not the place for you. You mentioned the argument that 'Zelensky is in war, he has to curb liberty', but go back to 2021, a year before Russia invaded and you'll find articles where he shut down opposition television stations and shut down opposition political parties (which is) the hallmark of what every tyrant or despot does. And that was true even before Russia invaded.
If the US government was honest. They would get rid of this script that we have to go and defend democracy. That is a fairy tale that tries to get Americans to feel better about the fact that we are involved in many, many countries all over the world. That is not the real reason. The only reason to do it is for 'vital US interests'. The line in Washington for decades was the US has no vital interests in Ukraine. That was Obama's view, that was the bipartisan view. Why did that change? The only reason is because we saw an opportunity to trap Russia inside Ukraine all based on the view that Russia is our enemy (which is) something only Democrats should believe because they think Russia is to blame for the 2016 election and Hillary's defeat. But why would Republicans want confrontation with Russia? What American benefits from that except arms manufacturers?
If you think Russia is a grave enemy of the United States, then it makes sense to try to lure them into a war that they can't win, like we got lured into Afghanistan for 20 years or like we lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan back in the '70's because it does deplete your enemy. The question is: Why should Russia be seen as our enemy? Both Obama and Trump said there's no reason to see Russia that way. It has one-fifteenth the size of our military budget. It's not threatening American borders. Why are we so obsessed with spending tens of billions of dollars to weaken Russia which we could be using here at home to benefit the lives of American citizens when Russia is not doing anything to the United States unless you are a crazy 'resistance' person who believes they're the reason Donald Trump won. But if you don't believe that, what is the rational for this? There is none.
Yes, anyone who dares asks why we are spending money to buy arms for Ukraine versus caring for our own back home has to be a Putin puppet? The notion that this is a war to prevent democracy is a joke. It is dictator on dictator.
But perhaps the funniest thing I have read about the war was on this site, a bunch of Ukrainians hitting a FKK and spending money like drunken sailors. I guess anyone questioning Ukrainians doing that is a Putin puppet as well.Let's take the 2nd point first, since it's the easiest. With respect to the 'curb liberty' quote, I don't believe I've ever made that statement. So I'm guessing you're mistaking me for someone else, or are otherwise confused. If you have a link to the post you're referencing, please be good enough to share.
As to the other point, everything that might have been true about pre-Feb 24th Ukraine, pre-Feb 24th Russia, or the pre-Feb 24th world in general, has very little relevance as those prior realities and relationships have been overtaken by events.
Whatever Rube Goldberg machinations anyone tries to concoct, Putin invaded Ukraine (seizing territory and killing Ukrainian citizens), not the other way around. Russia, objectively speaking, was not under threat. Neither Ukraine, NATO, the US, or countries like Poland and the Baltics posed any kind of threat to even an inch of Russian territory. Nobody held a gun to Putin's head and it's ludicrous to believe he's so simple-minded as to be easily duped or lured. Putin's actions are his own responsibility, no one else's.
Therefore the simple fact, which no amount of obfuscation can alter, is that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is acting in self defense. And, even for those who don't feel Ukraine or Zelensky are the "good guys," the right of self defense is universal. Since Ukraine considers this a matter of survival, they'll continue fighting even without the support of the US and Europe. This isn't a war of choice for them.
The matter of US support, and that of other countries, is a separate thing. Every country gets to decide what they feel is in their own interests. Russia has it's supporters and so does Ukraine. If you don't agree that supporting Ukraine is in America's interests, that's perfectly fine. But thankfully (IMO) that point of view is not prevailing.
Supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, similarly to supporting Taiwan against China's aggressive stance, is more a matter of not wanting our geopolitical adversaries to increase their reach and power. And, while I don't see this as a Republican vs Democrat issue, what I'd say to Tucker and other conservatives is that they should remember the words of their icon, Ronald Reagan, who called the Soviet Union an evil empire. I would assert that today's Russia still has those imperialist urges, and Putin has personally said as much. Ukraine aside, Russia has shown a belligerence that threatens Europe. The fact that Finland and Sweden are turning away from years of neutrality speaks volumes.
Oh, and about the perennial argument that goes: Why are we spending money over there when there are so many needs here? That argument is as old as time and can be applied to anything that one disagrees with. For example, why does the US government give tax deductions to 'well off' individuals when so many children live in poverty and are hungry? That argument could then be used to jack your tax rates to incredibly confiscatory levels. There's no end to the number of variations one can make of that argument, but it's lazy logic.
The argument for or against something needs to be decided on the merits of the issue itself. Every country and individual has competing priorities to deal with. But the fact remains that Ukraine won't stop fighting, even if we pull our support, because that's not an option for them. Withholding support won't end anything, unless you consider a Russian victory and crushing of Ukraine as an acceptable end. If that happened, Eastern Europe would be left in a state of chaos. And, IMO, the likelihood of a full Russia-NATO conflict would exponentially increase. So, while opposing support doesn't necessarily make one a Putin puppet, endorsing support doesn't mean you have to be a Zelensky fan.
But, getting back to my point about the simplicity of the situation, Ukraine is acting in self defense against Russian aggression. All the theories about how we got here don't change the stark realities. Ukraine can't stop as they see this (rightly, IMO) as an existential battle. Countries can choose to support either side, in greater or lesser degree, but that doesn't change the heart of the matter, which centers on Ukraine, not anyone else.
Xman this war should have never happened and there should have been a settlement months ago. Russia is no longer a threat,(judging from there military performance they may have never been a threat), to America or Europe there military is finished.Do you think this was the Russian view a year ago? I think the Russian leaders had perceived themselves as a global threat to be reckoned with.
Perhaps the sharp reality of what their military prowess has become is a good thing for global stability.
Xman this war should have never happened and there should have been a settlement months ago. Russia is no longer a threat,(judging from there military performance they may have never been a threat), to America or Europe there military is finished.
Yes, Pres. Z, Biden and Europe are all partially to blame for this.
Finally, Putin is the aggressor, but nobody is winning, just senseless killings. Ukraine is screwed either way, so they mights well finish off Russia military, hopefully they will not get nuked in the process. 2 corrupt countries, fighting over joining an even bigger corrupt organization, NATO.
When your country is destroyed, and a majority of the country is long gone, this is not a win!So you again want that Ukraine should give up land?
Your wrong in most of the things you write about Ukraine, I wonder if you even ever been here?
Xman this war should have never happened and there should have been a settlement months ago.Fully agree, Russia should have settled with Ukraine. They should have removed all their soldiers and occupying forces, returned Crimea, returned the Ukrainian children they have kidnapped, sent the war criminals for trial.
Once Ukraine have crushed the Russian occupiers and war criminals, it will be a huge win for them, and the imperialists will need to think long and hard before they try to invade and kill on Ukraine's territory again.
Russia is no longer a threat,(judging from there military performance they may have never been a threat), to America or Europe there military is finished.As long as the imperialists are in charge Russia is a threat. When they stop lying to the UN, G20 etc. And begin telling the truth to their own people, there is a chance for reformation. Until then it is a huge threat to world stability and needs to be treated as such.
Xman this war should have never happened and there should have been a settlement months ago.You must come up with a new mantra, it's about time.
DramaFree11
12-16-22, 04:25
You must come up with a new mantra, it's about time.Better idea, let's find a solution and end this mess.
Better idea, let's find a solution and end this mess.The solution is already in progress.
Killing the Russians that are on the Ukrain land and then the rest can Run home.
If a bully came to my home, he would either be killed or captured, I would not suggest he just took little bit of my things and then went away.
The infra is in ruins because the dirty orcs are targeting it, in direct violation of the Geneva convention, since these are not military targets and affect civilians primarily.The energy infrastructure is a legitimate military target. Why do you think America bombed Serbia's and Iraq's energy infrastructure?
Russia WILL lose this war and the way it is going, it seems more and more likely that the actual Federation will break up. What an own goal that will be.Man I can't believe some people buy into this horseshit. Russia will win this war, write this down.
UA has been clear with their preconditions, RU should accept them, get the fuck out, and deal with the domestic mess they themselves created.You live in a fairytale world.
Fully agree, Russia should have settled with Ukraine. They should have removed all their soldiers and occupying forces, returned Crimea, returned the Ukrainian children they have kidnapped, sent the war criminals for trial.
.The ignorance here is staggering! This war did NOT start on Feb 24,2022. It started in 2014 when America helped stage the coup. Zelensky was ready to accept Russian sovereignty over Crimea, and part of the Donbas and neutrality back in March until the you. S and Britain told him not to because they wanted to make Russia bleed. Sure, Russia is bleeding but Ukraine will become a land locked country and a rump state the longer this goes on.
Supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, similarly to supporting Taiwan against China's aggressive stance, is more a matter of not wanting our geopolitical adversaries to increase their reach and power. And, while I don't see this as a Republican vs Democrat issue, what I'd say to Tucker and other conservatives is that they should remember the words of their icon, Ronald Reagan, who called the Soviet Union an evil empire. I would assert that today's Russia still has those imperialist urges, and Putin has personally said as much. Ukraine aside, Russia has shown a belligerence that threatens Europe. The fact that Finland and Sweden are turning away from years of neutrality speaks volumes.
.......................................
But, getting back to my point about the simplicity of the situation, Ukraine is acting in self defense against Russian aggression. All the theories about how we got here don't change the stark realities. Ukraine can't stop as they see this (rightly, IMO) as an existential battle. Countries can choose to support either side, in greater or lesser degree, but that doesn't change the heart of the matter, which centers on Ukraine, not anyone else.The first point is absolutely correct. This isn't just about Russia's military excursion in the Ukraine. If Russian aggression was rewarded, it would send a dangerous message to Putin and even Xi Jinping.
As far as the point that this is an existential battle for the Ukraine, I generally agree. However if the war grinds on through next year, the practical reality is that there might need to be a negotiated resolution which isn't exactly the settlement Ukrainians want. We will understand a lot if there is indeed another attempt at a winter offensive by the Russians. Even if we presume the Ukraine will push back another offensive, we're still left with a irrational Russia. The Ukraine is fighting a destructive war that relies too much on a much larger enemy capitulating and possibly deposing its leader. Perhaps the Russian army is truly running out of resources and support of the Russian people.
Would I like this to end like Czar Nicholas' reign after entering World War I? Hell yeah. Is it worth a long, grinding war? Not sure.
Elvis 2008
12-16-22, 21:50
Man I can't believe some people buy into this horseshit. Russia will win this war, write this down.
This war is a crime against humanity, and it is a failure of both sides and believe me, both Russia and Ukraine will be far worse after this war.
The ignorance here is staggering! This war did NOT start on Feb 24,2022. It started in 2014 when America helped stage the coup. Zelensky was ready to accept Russian sovereignty over Crimea, and part of the Donbas and neutrality back in March until the you. S and Britain told him not to because they wanted to make Russia bleed. Sure, Russia is bleeding but Ukraine will become a land locked country and a rump state the longer this goes on.You are 100% right, but when I listened to this video this morning, I was absolutely disgusted with the conduct of the Russians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_DyC0_K1xI.
So yeah, Putin has blood on his hands, and he and these Russian pricks are war criminals, but no one better dare tell me that the hands of Boris Johnson, Biden, and Obama are clean. It takes two to tango, and the West is not going to feed me this bullshit about how they were innocent in this war.
There have been no winners in this war. How in the world do you look at this war and say anyone is "winning"? Everyone is losing.
The solution is already in progress.
Killing the Russians that are on the Ukrain land and then the rest can Run home.
If a bully came to my home, he would either be killed or captured, I would not suggest he just took little bit of my things and then went away.Oh well, you're forgetting that Ukraine isn't Drama's home. Nothing is easier than giving away the lands that don't belong to you.
The ignorance here is staggering! This war did NOT start on Feb 24,2022. It started in 2014 when America helped stage the coup. Zelensky was ready to accept Russian sovereignty over Crimea, and part of the Donbas and neutrality back in March until the you. S and Britain told him not to because they wanted to make Russia bleed. Sure, Russia is bleeding but Ukraine will become a land locked country and a rump state the longer this goes on.At first, I was pretty sure we're dealing with yet another Kremlyn bot based on the same regurgitating fascist propaganda P'utin's puke we've become so familiar with in the recent months on this forum. But no, you seem to be a legit monger, which just confirms that there are no geographical constrains for "useful idiots. " This, by the way, is not an insult, but rather a technical KGB / FSB term that defines people like you. Quite a precise definition, I'd say.
There have been no winners in this war. How in the world do you look at this war and say anyone is "winning"? Everyone is losing.Ziolensky is closing down the Orthodox Church, actually saying it "has no place in the Ukrainian soul"!
So, No one's "winning"?
At Elvis 2008: I was under impression you were capable of exercising a better judgement and not listen to talking head idiots like zeihan.
DramaFree11
12-17-22, 04:17
This war is a crime against humanity, and it is a failure of both sides and believe me, both Russia and Ukraine will be far worse after this war.
You are 100% right, but when I listened to this video this morning, I was absolutely disgusted with the conduct of the Russians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_DyC0_K1xI.
So yeah, Putin has blood on his hands, and he and these Russian pricks are war criminals, but no one better dare tell me that the hands of Boris Johnson, Biden, and Obama are clean. It takes two to tango, and the West is not going to feed me this bullshit about how they were innocent in this war.
There have been no winners in this war. How in the world do you look at this war and say anyone is "winning"? Everyone is losing.Exactly, but guys like Pauline and XMan can not comprehend this. How exactly are we going to prosecute Putin, unless we are willing to invade Russia absolutely nothing will happen. Unless the people revolt against Putin and if that was going to happen, it would happened months ago. We are stuck with Putin, Pres. Z and Biden. Elvis is correct, there are many to blame for this war besides Putin. The funny thing is they almost nothing to end it, go figure, why win a war? Let it drag on forever.
Both Ukraine and Russia are screwed either way. As I have been saying Ukraine, lose either way, but that is what Ukraine does best beside corruption, they lose.
This war is a crime against humanity, and it is a failure of both sides and believe me, both Russia and Ukraine will be far worse after this war.
You are 100% right, but when I listened to this video this morning, I was absolutely disgusted with the conduct of the Russians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_DyC0_K1xI.
So yeah, Putin has blood on his hands, and he and these Russian pricks are war criminals, but no one better dare tell me that the hands of Boris Johnson, Biden, and Obama are clean. It takes two to tango, and the West is not going to feed me this bullshit about how they were innocent in this war.
There have been no winners in this war. How in the world do you look at this war and say anyone is "winning"? Everyone is losing.I am by no means condoning the conduct of the Russian military, it is brutal, but hey, war is hell. But the Ukrainians are the same if not worse. The western media doesn't talk about it. Yes, Putin has blood on his hands but I still think the West forced his hand to act. And Biden and Johnson have just as much blood on their hands. Lloyd Austin said months ago that the aim was to make sure Russia is not able to do what it do to Ukraine again. He didn't say anything about Ukraine winning. They want to make Russia bleed. The Ukrainian people are cannon fodder. This is an enormous tragedy for the Ukrainian people and could have easily been avoided.
Oh well, you're forgetting that Ukraine isn't Drama's home. Nothing is easier than giving away the lands that don't belong to you.
At first, I was pretty sure we're dealing with yet another Kremlyn bot based on the same regurgitating fascist propaganda P'utin's puke we've become so familiar with in the recent months on this forum. But no, you seem to be a legit monger, which just confirms that there are no geographical constrains for "useful idiots. " This, by the way, is not an insult, but rather a technical KGB / FSB term that defines people like you. Quite a precise definition, I'd say.Instead of trying to insult me and failing at it, try to debate me in a respectful manner.
Instead of trying to insult me and failing at it, try to debate me in a respectful manner.Debating a P'utin's disciple in a respectful manner would be a hell of a challenge I'm afraid. You're too extreme even for Elvis, and that's quite something, really.
I am by no means condoning the conduct of the Russian military, it is brutal, but hey, war is hell. But the Ukrainians are the same if not worse. The western media doesn't talk about it. Yes, Putin has blood on his hands but I still think the West forced his hand to act. And Biden and Johnson have just as much blood on their hands. Lloyd Austin said months ago that the aim was to make sure Russia is not able to do what it do to Ukraine again. He didn't say anything about Ukraine winning. They want to make Russia bleed. The Ukrainian people are cannon fodder. This is an enormous tragedy for the Ukrainian people and could have easily been avoided.The West did not force Putin to act. Putin saw an opportunity where he thought there was weakness. He is a criminal, stealing stuff is how criminals think. There was no Coup in Ukraine. Yanukovich broke his promises, there were protests, Yanukovich committed illegal acts on the advice of Putin. The military refused his illegal orders and he ran.
The West did not force Putin to act. Putin saw an opportunity where he thought there was weakness. He is a criminal, stealing stuff is how criminals think. There was no Coup in Ukraine. Yanukovich broke his promises, there were protests, Yanukovich committed illegal acts on the advice of Putin. The military refused his illegal orders and he ran.All Elensky had to do was to implement the Minsk accords which he didn't. Did you catch what Angela Merkel said the other day? There was never any seriousness to implement the Minsk accords, they just wanted to buy Ukraine time. What you're seeing now and in the near future will be the death of Ukraine as a state. I blame America and the West, and of course that corrupt puppet Elensky and the Bandera clan surrounding him.
Elvis 2008
12-17-22, 18:30
I am by no means condoning the conduct of the Russian military, it is brutal, but hey, war is hell. But the Ukrainians are the same if not worse. The western media doesn't talk about it. Yes, Putin has blood on his hands but I still think the West forced his hand to act. And Biden and Johnson have just as much blood on their hands. Lloyd Austin said months ago that the aim was to make sure Russia is not able to do what it do to Ukraine again. He didn't say anything about Ukraine winning. They want to make Russia bleed. The Ukrainian people are cannon fodder. This is an enormous tragedy for the Ukrainian people and could have easily been avoided.Totally agree with you Blood Red.
Elvis 2008
12-17-22, 18:32
At Elvis 2008: I was under impression you were capable of exercising a better judgement and not listen to talking head idiots like zeihan.That "idiot" actually predicted this war would happen.
Man I can't believe some people buy into this horseshit. Russia will win this war, write this down.
You live in a fairytale world.Do you have a copy of what Putin wrote down before Feb 24th? Do you have copies of all those who wrote down that Russia would win handily and quickly? It's ok if your copies are in Cyrillic or other non-English scripts, we can use Google Translate.
Just thought it would be a useful exercise to gather all the failed predictions in one spot.
The ignorance here is staggering! This war did NOT start on Feb 24,2022. It started in 2014 when America helped stage the coup. Zelensky was ready to accept Russian sovereignty over Crimea, and part of the Donbas and neutrality back in March until the you. S and Britain told him not to because they wanted to make Russia bleed. Sure, Russia is bleeding but Ukraine will become a land locked country and a rump state the longer this goes on.For the sake of argument, let's assume all your assertions are true. Whatever wrongs he felt needed to be corrected, Putin made the specific choice to use force. Once he did that, all other doors slammed shut. Any concessions Ukraine might have considered early in the war evaporated once it was clear the West would be supporting Ukraine and especially once Russia experienced setbacks like the retreat from near Kyiv. Nobody negotiates with an enemy who is failing on the battlefield. Putin's problem is that he miscalculated with respect to the resistance he would encounter from both Ukraine and beyond. He's now reaping the results of that miscalculation.
The first point is absolutely correct. This isn't just about Russia's military excursion in the Ukraine. If Russian aggression was rewarded, it would send a dangerous message to Putin and even Xi Jinping.
As far as the point that this is an existential battle for the Ukraine, I generally agree. However if the war grinds on through next year, the practical reality is that there might need to be a negotiated resolution which isn't exactly the settlement Ukrainians want. We will understand a lot if there is indeed another attempt at a winter offensive by the Russians. Even if we presume the Ukraine will push back another offensive, we're still left with a irrational Russia. The Ukraine is fighting a destructive war that relies too much on a much larger enemy capitulating and possibly deposing its leader. Perhaps the Russian army is truly running out of resources and support of the Russian people.
Would I like this to end like Czar Nicholas' reign after entering World War I? Hell yeah. Is it worth a long, grinding war? Not sure.As usual, I'm reluctant to play the prediction game. But, following along the "existential battle" theme, it's possible that the more grinding the war gets the more Ukrainians will be resolved to continue. It's paradoxical, I know, but think of it as kind of a Battle of Britain scenario. In other words, no matter how tough things get, they won't change their minds unless there's an acceptable alternative. And, post-2014 and Crimea, it's hard to imagine any territorial concession that won't be seen as merely an opportunity for Russia to re-arm and attack again in the future.
Again, too many variables in play to see very far ahead. Right now, as you correctly point out, the next phase of play is making it through the winter.
This war is a crime against humanity, and it is a failure of both sides and believe me, both Russia and Ukraine will be far worse after this war.
You are 100% right, but when I listened to this video this morning, I was absolutely disgusted with the conduct of the Russians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_DyC0_K1xI.
So yeah, Putin has blood on his hands, and he and these Russian pricks are war criminals, but no one better dare tell me that the hands of Boris Johnson, Biden, and Obama are clean. It takes two to tango, and the West is not going to feed me this bullshit about how they were innocent in this war.
There have been no winners in this war. How in the world do you look at this war and say anyone is "winning"? Everyone is losing.Ukraine can't withdraw since they're fighting on home soil. And, if they unilaterally stop fighting, most of the country will end up looking like Bakhmut or Mariupol.
But Russia can stop whenever it chooses to. And yes, it "Takes Two to Tango," but it only takes one to start a fight. One can decline an invitation to dance, but declining to defend yourself when attacked is an invitation to an early grave.
War is a crime against humanity: Check.
Bad guys (arguably) on both sides: Check.
No winners: Check.
Everyone is losing: Check.
Possible Solution 1: Russia willingly stops fighting.
Possible Solution 2: Russia unwillingly stops fighting.
Exactly, but guys like Pauline and XMan can not comprehend this. How exactly are we going to prosecute Putin, unless we are willing to invade Russia absolutely nothing will happen. Unless the people revolt against Putin and if that was going to happen, it would happened months ago. We are stuck with Putin, Pres. Z and Biden. Elvis is correct, there are many to blame for this war besides Putin. The funny thing is they almost nothing to end it, go figure, why win a war? Let it drag on forever.
Both Ukraine and Russia are screwed either way. As I have been saying Ukraine, lose either way, but that is what Ukraine does best beside corruption, they lose.All the pre-invasion geopolitical circumstances were in existence long before February 24th. None of then sprang up overnight. Putin, as the leader of a country boasting of (everyone thought) a powerful military and nuclear arsenal, had a wide variety of cards he could have played. And, diplomatically speaking, he had a number of key allies and supporting countries. Let's take one supposed provocation as an example, the possibility that Ukraine might join NATO. Pre-Feb 24th, there were plenty of NATO members who would have vetoed any such proposal, some because they didn't want to provoke Russia, others because they thought Ukraine was unsuitable, and others for different reasons. Now, however, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see Ukraine in NATO in the near-to-midterm future.
All the geopolitical influence and all the status Russia had prior to the invasion has now been flushed down the toilet. And, adding insult to injury, Russia's military has been exposed as a corrupt paper tiger.
Putin didn't invade because he was forced and it's hilarious to hear some people, those who say how strong and savvy he is, simultaneously try to say that he was duped or lured or forced. Anyone who says that is essentially denying Putin's personal agency and turning him into a puppet, with strings being pulled by others. What nonsense! He did it because he believed his own internal propaganda and thought it was an opportune time to get a quick and decisive victory. Unfortunately, all his FSB butt-boys were telling him that Ukraine was ripe for the picking, not because it was true, but because it was what the FSB chain of command wanted to pass up the line. Nobody in that system wants to be the bearer of bad (or realistic) news.
And, about ending the war, I repeat my earlier suggestions for a simple solution. 1. Russia willingly stops fighting. 2. Russia unwillingly stops fighting. The issue of prosecuting Putin is a post-war matter that will be dealt with, or not, when the time comes. Nobody is talking about invading Russia, so that's a red herring. The proposed solutions, either 1 or 2, can happen without invasion.
All Elensky had to do was to implement the Minsk accords which he didn't. Did you catch what Angela Merkel said the other day? There was never any seriousness to implement the Minsk accords, they just wanted to buy Ukraine time. What you're seeing now and in the near future will be the death of Ukraine as a state. I blame America and the West, and of course that corrupt puppet Elensky and the Bandera clan surrounding him.The idea that, after the passage of three years, some critical event happened that precipitated the Feb-24th invasion, giving Putin no choice, is ludicrous on its face. Countries have disputes all the time but they rarely choose war. As a major geopolitical player, he had many cards he could have played, but he explicitly chose military action.
Oh, and Angela Merkel has been rapidly losing face, from both sides of the issue. I don't see many quotes or references about her other than as an example of someone for whom the substance didn't match the image. And, whenever she's discussed, the reactions generally range from disappointment to anger.
Also, by any metric you use to judge Ukraine (fascism, Nazism, corruption, totalitarianism, etc.), Russia's scores will be off the charts. It's quite amusing to read people's criticism of Ukraine while they make moon-eyes at the Russian kleptocracy. But I guess any Russian citizen who doesn't like the system can just leave, right? Except, that if they're a prominent dissident, they'd be wise to avoid windows on high floors, and politely refuse any offer of polonium-laced tea.
All Elensky had to do was to implement the Minsk accords which he didn't. Did you catch what Angela Merkel said the other day? There was never any seriousness to implement the Minsk accords, they just wanted to buy Ukraine time. What you're seeing now and in the near future will be the death of Ukraine as a state. I blame America and the West, and of course that corrupt puppet Elensky and the Bandera clan surrounding him.All Putin had to do was not invade Ukraine in 2014. I blame Putin and his stooge Yanukovich and of course all the corrupt oligachs who support hime.
Do you have a copy of what Putin wrote down before Feb 24th? Do you have copies of all those who wrote down that Russia would win handily and quickly? It's ok if your copies are in Cyrillic or other non-English scripts, we can use Google Translate.
Just thought it would be a useful exercise to gather all the failed predictions in one spot.What you fail to understand is that Putin didn't declare a full war on Ukraine on Feb 24,2022. That is why it was called a Special Military Operation. It was a limited operation with set goals with limited manpower. Putin didn't set out to destroy Ukraine, because he knew these are fellow Orthodox Slavs. Why do you think he didn't touch the Ukrainian critical infrastructure until the terrorist attack on the Crimea bridge? All that changed when the West forced Elensky to not negotiate, like he was ready to do in March 2022. Read his interviews from back then, you will know that he was ready to discuss neutrality, Crimea under Russia and the borders for the Donbass. Then Boris Johnson went to Kiev and hijacked it, that's the real tragedy. Plus, Elensky is corrupt, he's getting richer everyday with billions. It's the ordinary Ukrainian people that are suffering.
Now the gloves are off, it's a full scale war. Read what Zaluzhny said in the interview to the economist the other day. He clearly sees the writing on the wall. Unless NATO intervenes militarily, which they won't because as I said, the aim is to make Russia bleed for as long as possible, not for Ukraine to win.
For the sake of argument, let's assume all your assertions are true. Whatever wrongs he felt needed to be corrected, Putin made the specific choice to use force. Once he did that, all other doors slammed shut. Any concessions Ukraine might have considered early in the war evaporated once it was clear the West would be supporting Ukraine and especially once Russia experienced setbacks like the retreat from near Kyiv. Nobody negotiates with an enemy who is failing on the battlefield. Putin's problem is that he miscalculated with respect to the resistance he would encounter from both Ukraine and beyond. He's now reaping the results of that miscalculation.Ukraine was preparing for war, read what Angela Merkel said the other day. They were never serious about implementing the Minsk accords. Ukraine would have acted militarily in my opinion, Putin said this himself, he just pre-empted it. And which of my assertions are incorrect? The conflict really started in 2014. Minsk was an attempt to find a solution, that didn't happen. NATO was arming Ukraine to the teeth since 2014. Also, every country has its red lines. Remember the Cubain missile crisis in 1962? That was an American red line. Ukraine joining NATO (something which the cunts in the West knew was not going to happen but they kept talking about it to antagonize Russia) is / was a Russian red line.
Yes, Putin did miscalculate, see my earlier post. He thought the special military operation would be enough to get Ukraine to negotiate. And Russia is failing on the battlefield? Keep believing that fiction the western media is propagating. Yes, Russia RETREATED TACTICALLY from Kherson and Kharkov, but their army is intact. The mobilization went well, read the interview in the Economist that Zaluzhny gave. They have over 200 K reserves ready and armed to join the fight. Let's see what happens in the next 2 to 3 months. I am not a war monger. This war is a terrible tragedy for the Ukrainian people and didn't need to happen. You can clearly see who is benefiting from the war. The American military complex, and the corrupt lot in Kiev that is bagging billions.
Ukraine can't withdraw since they're fighting on home soil. And, if they unilaterally stop fighting, most of the country will end up looking like Bakhmut or Mariupol.
But Russia can stop whenever it chooses to. And yes, it "Takes Two to Tango," but it only takes one to start a fight. One can decline an invitation to dance, but declining to defend yourself when attacked is an invitation to an early grave.
War is a crime against humanity: Check.
Bad guys (arguably) on both sides: Check.
No winners: Check.
Everyone is losing: Check.
Possible Solution 1: Russia willingly stops fighting.
Possible Solution 2: Russia unwillingly stops fighting.Your solution is unrealistic I'm afraid.
This will be resolved (temporarily of course and then turn into a frozen conflict of sorts) on the battlefield with the defeat of Ukraine. Write this down.
What you fail to understand is that Putin didn't declare a full war on Ukraine on Feb 24,2022. That is why it was called a Special Military Operation. It was a limited operation with set goals with limited manpower. Putin didn't set out to destroy Ukraine, because he knew these are fellow Orthodox Slavs. Why do you think he didn't touch the Ukrainian critical infrastructure until the terrorist attack on the Crimea bridge? All that changed when the West forced Elensky to not negotiate, like he was ready to do in March 2022. Read his interviews from back then, you will know that he was ready to discuss neutrality, Crimea under Russia and the borders for the Donbass. Then Boris Johnson went to Kiev and hijacked it, that's the real tragedy. Plus, Elensky is corrupt, he's getting richer everyday with billions. It's the ordinary Ukrainian people that are suffering.
Now the gloves are off, it's a full scale war. Read what Zaluzhny said in the interview to the economist the other day. He clearly sees the writing on the wall. Unless NATO intervenes militarily, which they won't because as I said, the aim is to make Russia bleed for as long as possible, not for Ukraine to win.If your neighbor, with whom you've had long-standing disputes, knocks down your fence, drives onto your lawn, and starts shooting your family members, do you really give a fuck what they call it? Whether Putin's SMO bullshit verbiage was meant for internal consumption, or to try to give it a false veneer of legitimacy, is completely irrelevant. An invasion by hostile foreign forces, crossing internationally recognized borders, is an act of war. You can probably count the people who try to deny that fact on the fingers of one hand. It's pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when you can't even bring yourself to admit the blindingly obvious.
And it's similarly obvious that the corruption allegation can point both ways. Putin's gargantuan personal palace on the Black Sea didn't get built on a civil servant's salary, did it? You may not have noticed, but I've never specifically defended Zelensky. Whether he's a bad guy or not isn't a justification for invasion. If it were, then there's an even stronger case for taking out Putin, who has elevated corruption and kleptocratic rule to stratospheric levels.
I would assert that it's been full scale war for Ukraine since Day One. They haven't been fooled by Putin's BS verbal judo. And I'm also not hung up on the niceties of what's a legitimate military target and what isn't. I'm not surprised Putin is bombing infrastructure, and nobody should have been surprised by the Kerch Bridge strike. That bridge, and more specifically the rail line across it, was the primary conduit of military equipment into Crimea and from there into Kherson. It was always a target, appropriately so. The only surprise was that Ukraine was able to be so effective in disabling it. Kudos to them as it was probably the precipitating factor in Russia's withdrawal from the west bank of the Dnipro.
But you persist in trying to complicate the simple. Russia invaded, full stop. You can't credibly claim that Putin is a strong and savvy leader if you simultaneously assert that he was duped, or lured, or otherwise forced. He has always done EXACTLY what he wanted, and he wanted to invade Ukraine.
Does it make a shred of difference that Putin is corrupt and a bad guy? Nope. Does it make a shred of difference if Zelensky (per your assertion) is corrupt and a bad guy? Nope. The war (that's W-A-R) continues. Also, if Zelensky dropped dead or was removed, Ukraine would continue to defend itself. If Putin dies or is replaced, it's unclear what his successor would do. I'm not making any prediction but rather an observation that people who believe they're fighting for their homes, and very lives, have a different motivation than those who are fighting on foreign soil (and have the option of going home).
You might be surprised to hear that I actually agree with you about the point of NATO and the West giving less than full support. Maybe it's to make Russia bleed as long as possible, or maybe it's to ensure that Ukraine doesn't win too quickly and comprehensively, or maybe there are other motivations. Ukraine would certainly like more weapons like ATACMS, F-16's, modern tanks, etc. But those haven't been forthcoming.
But the salient point is that every external source of influence and support can only affect things so much. For example, it seems that Xi Xingping has influenced Putin to tone down his nuclear rhetoric, but that's not an absolute guarantee because Putin is going to do whatever he decides is best. Similarly, any influence on Zelensky to either make concessions, or refrain from making them, will not prevent him from making his own decision. In fact, I would argue that Zelensky is more constrained by Ukrainian public opinion than anything else. If he was pushed to accept concessions, while most of his people were vehemently against it, I think he'd be promptly replaced.
So, no matter how loud the noise and BS gets, and no matter how hard people try to put the focus on tangential, rather than central issues, we're still left with a full scale war. I won't make any predictions, as there are too many known and unknown variables at play. You apparently lean toward the Russian position, while I come down squarely in favor of Ukraine. But who really cares since all that matters is what happens on the battlefield? To this point, Russia's performance has been woeful. Could that change? Possibly, although I wouldn't put long odds on that happening. The next few months will be an important phase of the war. And, of the two sides, it's been the Ukrainian armed forces who have, at least so far, made the bolder and more effective moves. Let's see who does the better job of dealing with General Winter.
Ukraine was preparing for war, read what Angela Merkel said the other day. They were never serious about implementing the Minsk accords. Ukraine would have acted militarily in my opinion, Putin said this himself, he just pre-empted it. And which of my assertions are incorrect? The conflict really started in 2014. Minsk was an attempt to find a solution, that didn't happen. NATO was arming Ukraine to the teeth since 2014. Also, every country has its red lines. Remember the Cubain missile crisis in 1962? That was an American red line. Ukraine joining NATO (something which the cunts in the West knew was not going to happen but they kept talking about it to antagonize Russia) is / was a Russian red line.
Yes, Putin did miscalculate, see my earlier post. He thought the special military operation would be enough to get Ukraine to negotiate. And Russia is failing on the battlefield? Keep believing that fiction the western media is propagating. Yes, Russia RETREATED TACTICALLY from Kherson and Kharkov, but their army is intact. The mobilization went well, read the interview in the Economist that Zaluzhny gave. They have over 200 K reserves ready and armed to join the fight. Let's see what happens in the next 2 to 3 months. I am not a war monger. This war is a terrible tragedy for the Ukrainian people and didn't need to happen. You can clearly see who is benefiting from the war. The American military complex, and the corrupt lot in Kiev that is bagging billions.Who gives a shit about what Merkel says? She's been thoroughly deflated and nobody is paying attention. She's yesterday's news, as are the Minsk Accords and the Budapest Memoranda, and trying to pretend otherwise is another exercise in obfuscation. Nobody is seriously looking at the past for answers to the current situation. To the extent the past is referenced, it's usually as a lame attempt to justify the position of one side or the other. This war is dependent on battlefield outcomes and those are yet to be fully seen.
Oh yes, the famous Russian tactical retreat, or is it a Goodwill gesture? I get them mixed up since Putin seems to use them interchangeably whenever his forces are getting fucked over. And, as far as I'm concerned, if Putin was truly so weak-minded as to be provoked into an unwise attack, that's just fine as it gives the West a chance to bleed him dry. A strong, smart, and savvy leader wouldn't have taken such obvious bait. So, whether he's smart or stupid, the practical results are the same. By any objective measure, militarily, diplomatically, geopolitically, or other, Russia is greatly diminished as compared to its pre-Feb 24th state. And, looking forward, it's hard to see how Russia emerges from this without long-lasting damage. Hell, just the millions who have left to avoid conscription constitute a brain-drain of monumental proportions. Hey North Korea, hold my vodka!
As far as info that comes out of interviews, it's ridiculous to offer any kind of analysis without taking the interviewees agenda into account. It's absolutely in Zaluzhny's interest to talk up the threat. Whether it's that Russia is mobilizing for another big offensive or that Belarus is getting ready to join the war, Ukraine benefits by amplifying those points. Not only does it help keep the attention level high but it's also useful in the ongoing efforts to get more weapons and financial support.
This war isn't going to be determined by what's on the pages of The Economist, or any other publication. In fact, since there are ongoing propaganda efforts from BOTH sides, I would argue such accounts should be either completely ignored, or viewed with extreme skepticism, unless and until they're confirmed by facts on the ground.
Also, since you're so fond of accusing Kyiv of corruption, what kind of a blatant hypocrite you must be to repeatedly refuse to acknowledge what is arguably the most corrupt group that has ever existed, namely Putin and his Kremlin cronies. Your finger-pointing is so obviously biased and contorted that you end up sticking it in your own eye. It's so transparent that it's actually pretty funny.
Your solution is unrealistic I'm afraid.
This will be resolved (temporarily of course and then turn into a frozen conflict of sorts) on the battlefield with the defeat of Ukraine. Write this down.As I've said before, I wish I had a dollar for every Ukraine-Russia prediction that's fallen flat on its face. Write this down.
That "idiot" actually predicted this war would happen.Given the lamentable situation at the US border and separation of the families, would you believe anyone who claims the border agents set up torture chambers to interrogate children? Of course, not. The sad reality is enough unfortunate children have become orphans and some both orphans and disabled and found foster families or been adopted during this conflict. We know of the majority of people on the payroll, their names, phone numbers, and addresses in Kiev who work daily in disinformation effort.
The war was predictable since about February 2008 and you can read it in a US embassy in Moscow cable communication. Myself I clearly knew it in 2015 that the red lines had been crossed. I'm a local and a veteran.
The other mistake is to think that there is some magic weapon or system that might turn the scales of the conflict. I won't go into details of the Patriot (angles, speeds, altitudes etc), but Ukrainians ask for 31 divisions. They just don't exist and won't help them, and not only because air defense is a system.
To this date hundreds of Americans already died there. I don't post pictures of bodies, coffins and remains out of respect. We don't fight the dead. But I can tell you that we are at the highest risk since June 1982 - March 1983 period.
We know of the majority of people on the payroll, their names, phone numbers, and addresses in Kiev who work daily in disinformation effort.Sounds like a threat. Quite dumbfounding to me given the forum where it's issued. Why tell us?
On the other hand, sounds like bullshit too, so whatever.
The war was predictable since about February 2008 and you can read it in a US embassy in Moscow cable communication. Myself I clearly knew it in 2015 that the red lines had been crossed. I'm a local and a veteran.1. Hindsight is a beautiful thing.
2. I presume an illegal annexation of Crimea was one of these lines.
The other mistake is to think that there is some magic weapon or system that might turn the scales of the conflict. I won't go into details of the Patriot (angles, speeds, altitudes etc), but Ukrainians ask for 31 divisions. They just don't exist and won't help them, and not only because air defense is a system.1. That's strange coming from a "local and a veteran. " You people seem to whine incessantly about HIMARS. To the point of claiming that you're fighting against the whole Nato and the "collective West. ".
2. Where does that ridiculous request for 31 "divisions" come from? A link would be nice.
3. That's some cryptic gibberish. Other air defense systems are helping them just fine, why not Patriot?
To this date hundreds of Americans already died there. I don't post pictures of bodies, coffins and remains out of respect. We don't fight the dead. But I can tell you that we are at the highest risk since June 1982 - March 1983 period.There are 6 Americans who are known to have died fighting for Ukraine, but nice try anyway.
What you fail to understand is that Putin didn't declare a full war on Ukraine on Feb 24,2022.P'utin's word play doesn't mean shit. Kyiv was supposed to be taken within 3 days, Ukraine in whole (Russian troops on the Polish border) by mid August. Before the invasion, Kadyrov had been tasked with assassination of Zelensky and his team.
If that's not a full-blown war, then you're a ballerina.
Ukraine was preparing for war, read what Angela Merkel said the other day.I did read that clumsy horseshit that Frau Merkel -- the main P'utin's enabler in the world -- said in a futile attempt to undo the damage to her legacy.
Ain't going to help her, the damage is done.
This war is a terrible tragedy for the Ukrainian people and didn't need to happen. You can clearly see who is benefiting from the war. The American military complex, and the corrupt lot in Kiev that is bagging billions.I agree. This is Julian Assange's most famous quote, and while he was talking about Afghanistan a decade ago, it still applies to Ukraine today.
"The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the US and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war".
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1427929346262642688?lang=en
The scam doesn't change since it works so well. Only the victims do. Why do you think they've been so aggressive pursuing him?
Ukraine can't withdraw since they're fighting on home soil. And, if they unilaterally stop fighting, most of the country will end up looking like Bakhmut or Mariupol.
.What the Ukrainians can 'withdraw' is their zionazi government. Now that ziolensky has revealed his true colors in attacking the Orthodox Church it's obvious to all.
.........And, post-2014 and Crimea, it's hard to imagine any territorial concession that won't be seen as merely an opportunity for Russia to re-arm and attack again in the future.
Again, too many variables in play to see very far ahead. Right now, as you correctly point out, the next phase of play is making it through the winter.A relatively peaceful period and then another Russian attack in the future is a concern in my mind.
Territorial concession or no territorial concession what kind of security assurances will the Ukraine have in a post-war environment. Would the West arm the Ukraine to the teeth so that it would be like poisonous prey to borrow a reference from nature? Or would NATO step up and place the Ukraine under the NATO security umbrella?
Obviously, time will work to the benefit of the Ukraine. Russian nationalists die off. Putin dies or is deposed. Russians lose interest in controlling the Ukraine. There just will be a very tense period in the immediate aftermath. It's hard to see otherwise.
Elvis 2008
12-19-22, 20:14
"The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the US and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war".
The scam doesn't change since it works so well. Only the victims do. Why do you think they've been so aggressive pursuing him?The Twitter files expose has been jaw dropping and shows our government engaged in horrific censorship. It also shows how Twitter tried to influence the USA into supporting Ukraine in this war. Look at this tweet: https://twitter.com/SamParkerSenate/status/1602034767578673152/photo/1.
Matt Taibbi first alerted me to this foreign aid scam a decade or so ago. You petition for foreign aid to a country, get it billions, and those who lobbied for it are given millions by the country which got the money. This is EXACTLY what the Bidens did in Ukraine, and to be fair, I am sure both parties have done this.
With Ukrainegate, I saw how much Democratic party NGOs were actually running Ukraine. You think those NGOs are hurting right now with all that cash flowing in?
Elvis 2008
12-19-22, 20:26
A relatively peaceful period and then another Russian attack in the future is a concern in my mind.
Territorial concession or no territorial concession what kind of security assurances will the Ukraine have in a post-war environment. Would the West arm the Ukraine to the teeth so that it would be like poisonous prey to borrow a reference from nature? Or would NATO step up and place the Ukraine under the NATO security umbrella?
Obviously, time will work to the benefit of the Ukraine. Russian nationalists die off. Russians lose interest in controlling the Ukraine. There just will be a very tense period in the immediate aftermath. It's hard to see otherwise.Wyatt, you raise a good point. What is the end game? All these dolts talking about winning cannot envision what that means. If Ukraine does take back Eastern Ukraine where so many Russians reside, do you think that those Russians will be on equal footing with the Ukrainian citizens? I don't. I think there will be treated like the Palestinians are. And the same goes for the Ukrainians there if Russia keeps that territory.
I have a feeling that wherever the lines are drawn there is also going to have to be some kind of DMZ zone.
Then there is the point about not trusting Putin. Well, we promised we would not expand NATO eastward after the USSR fell, and we went back on our word. And now Ukraine is going to be in NATO?
Matt Taibbi first alerted me to this foreign aid scam a decade or so ago. You petition for foreign aid to a country, get it billions, and those who lobbied for it are given millions by the country which got the money. This is EXACTLY what the Bidens did in Ukraine, and to be fair, I am sure both parties have done this.
With Ukrainegate, I saw how much Democratic party NGOs were actually running Ukraine. You think those NGOs are hurting right now with all that cash flowing in?This occurs all over the world with USA Foreign aid. Wherever you find USA Aid, you will find well-educated people in smart suits who don't have any discernible skill other than doling out the cash. I suppose their skill is networking and getting into these NGOs.
This is the problem with a massive Federal bureaucracy and seemingly endless amount of borrowing.
I don't know if it is a reason to not support the Ukraine though. Billions and billions have been flowing into Eastern Europe since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union.
Wyatt, you raise a good point. What is the end game? All these dolts talking about winning cannot envision what that means. If Ukraine does take back Eastern Ukraine where so many Russians reside, do you think that those Russians will be on equal footing with the Ukrainian citizens? I don't. I think there will be treated like the Palestinians are. And the same goes for the Ukrainians there if Russia keeps that territory.
I have a feeling that wherever the lines are drawn there is also going to have to be some kind of DMZ zone.
Then there is the point about not trusting Putin. Well, we promised we would not expand NATO eastward after the USSR fell, and we went back on our word. And now Ukraine is going to be in NATO?Certain things are inevitable in conflict and war. I would say the Russian-Ukrainian conflict was inevitable going back to Putin's installation in 1999.
I'm also not sure the promises to limit NATO expansion eastward were that explicit. In any event, the Ukraine is not in NATO. NATO as expected supported the Ukraine in a war with Russia. I think more than likely Putin thought Russia was in a good position militarily, politically and economically to attack the Ukraine. In other words, he overplayed his hand.
As far as the DMZ discussion, you could have a hard DMZ like Korea where neither party dares cross it or you can have a situation like Vietnam where there are insurgents active behind the border. Knowing Putin, one would think he would still try to foment unrest within the Ukraine long after a hot war is over.
This leads to an important point about the Korean Conflict and the Vietnam War. It's easy to look back and say the United States needlessly entered these conflicts. The results were also mixed. One however could argue the Pacific Rim is more secure because of allies such as South Korea and other nations that were once threatened by Communist-supported encroachment.
What the Ukrainians can 'withdraw' is their zionazi government. Now that ziolensky has revealed his true colors in attacking the Orthodox Church it's obvious to all.https://genevasolutions.news/ukraine-stories/kremlin-s-agents-in-robes-or-the-role-of-russian-church-in-the-ukraine-war
Oh yeah, funny how there's no outrage about it in Orthodox Ukraine. That's because Ukrainians want to rip every last vestige of corrupt Russia out of their country. And it didn't have to be that way, but Putin has single-handedly turned all of Ukraine against anything that even smells like Russia.
BTW, I hope they sell every "church" property where they found New Russia flags and give the proceeds to REAL charitable organizations.
Then there is the point about not trusting Putin. Well, we promised we would not expand NATO eastward after the USSR fell, and we went back on our word. And now Ukraine is going to be in NATO?"We" have never ever explicitly or otherwise "promised" anyone that we wouldn't expand Nato eastward.
There is no treaty or agreement promising anything to that tune. While the assurances to the USSR were discussed during the negotiations, there has never been an agreement of any kind.
Not even a "gentleman" understanding that this was to happen.
Every participant in the intense diplomatic negotiations of that time from Baker to Gorbachev to Shevarnadze has debunked that myth.
P'utin and his American allies like Candace Owen can keep lying till they're blue in the face.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220222223845/https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm#c203.
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/
DramaFree11
12-22-22, 03:58
https://genevasolutions.news/ukraine-stories/kremlin-s-agents-in-robes-or-the-role-of-russian-church-in-the-ukraine-war
Oh yeah, funny how there's no outrage about it in Orthodox Ukraine. That's because Ukrainians want to rip every last vestige of corrupt Russia out of their country. And it didn't have to be that way, but Putin has single-handedly turned all of Ukraine against anything that even smells like Russia.
BTW, I hope they sell every "church" property where they found New Russia flags and give the proceeds to REAL charitable organizations.Ukraine may want to look internally when it comes to corruption. Maybe they could start eliminating corruption in their own county, just a thought.
Pres. Z. could say that he will not tolerate that behavior, but why stop now.
Ukraine may want to look internally when it comes to corruption. Maybe they could start eliminating corruption in their own county, just a thought.
Pres. Z. could say that he will not tolerate that behavior, but why stop now.Fuck the so-called corruption issue. It's total BS because it fails to address (at least) three key issues:
1. Anyone who is attacked has the right to defend themselves, full stop. And that right has nothing to do with how good or bad that person is or how good or bad others think they are. That right is absolute and remains whether a person is a saint, a devil, or something in between. Even the worst convicted criminal, after having done his time and been released, has the right to defend himself if attacked. Hell, he retains that right even while in prison! So, whether Zelensky, or anyone else in Ukraine, is corrupt or not, they're not obliged to lay down and let a Russian tank run over them.
2. The so-called corruption argument nearly always ignores, or severely downplays, the EXTREME corruption perpetrated by Putin and his Kremlin cronies for DECADES. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there's corruption in both sides, any fair balance would tilt immeasurably against Russia. It's not even a serious debate because there's so much more money sloshing around Russia and they've been stealing it for so long.
3. In forward-looking terms, Ukraine has ambitions of joining both the EU and NATO. As they go through those membership processes they will be under all sorts of scrutiny and will be required to pass laws, change systems, and put in safequards. And what that means is that Ukraine is moving toward becoming a country that works to root out corruption, rather than tolerate it. Meanwhile Russia continues to be a kleptocratic sewer.
For all the above reasons, and I'm sure people will think of more, accusations of corruption are a total red herring. Here's a hypothetical for ya, if Zelensky was found guilty of corruption and removed from office, it wouldn't change Ukraine's absolute right to defend their country and their lives. Not one iota.
........In forward-looking terms, Ukraine has ambitions of joining both the EU and NATO. As they go through those membership processes they will be under all sorts of scrutiny and will be required to pass laws, change systems, and put in safequards. And what that means is that Ukraine is moving toward becoming a country that works to root out corruption, rather than tolerate it.I agree with you that the EU will work to bring Western values to the Ukraine. Of course, there is some level of graft in every country. It's inevitable.
All one has to do is look at Turkey. The EU has put Turkish membership on hold for a long time. Turkey's NATO membership is the result of geographic and strategic reasons.
1. The equipment situation: Ukraine will soon be getting IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles) from France, Germany, and the US. Because of their firepower, and other characteristics, the AMX-10 RC, Marder, and Bradley have been described by some as "light tanks," but they have wheels, not tracks. Despite not being a true tank, they will provide a significant upgrade for Ukraine's mobile infantry offensive capability. Will they be a HIMARS-style game changer? Only time will tell and, of course, much will depend on the numbers provided and how well Ukraine handles the new logistics demands.
Ukraine will also be receiving Patriot missile batteries from the US and Germany. One attribute that hasn't received much attention, from what I've seen, is the extremely powerful radar system that comes with that package. I read an analyst's comment that it has the capability of being leveraged to make Ukraine's other air defense assets more effective. If that turns out to be true, then future missile and drone strikes by Russia may be substantially de-fanged. Again, only time will tell.
On the Russian side, the main question is to what degree they'll be able to replace equipment they've already lost. It's hard to assess to what degree sanctions, and the workforce lost to mobilization, are having an effect. One recent report pointed out that a destroyed Russian T-90 tank was a model designed for export rather than the model reserved for Russia's own military. While it's anecdotal evidence, it does raise the question as to Russia's stockpiles (or replacement capability) for that particular piece of equipment.
2. The ammunition situation: Only Russia knows the full extent of their stockpiles. But the rate of artillery fire by Russian forces is drastically reduced (by about two-thirds) from what it was during the summer. There are also reports that Russia has depleted the stores of ammunition held by Belarus, and has also been looking to acquire ammunition from North Korea, which would indicate that they're actively looking both to conserve and to replenish from non-Russian sources. Similarly, heavier reliance on Iranian drones may indicate issues with Russia's supply of missiles.
For Ukraine, the challenge is to manage a dual-supply chain that includes ammo for their legacy systems as well as newly acquired NATO weapons. Ukraine was running low on legacy ammo but captured significant stockpiles during the Kharkhiv offensive. They've also reportedly reconstituted a portion of their domestic ammo production capability. Supplies of ammo for NATO systems will depend on Western deliveries. But, as important as quantity is, quality and accuracy (ex. HIMARS) are also relevant factors. With respect to the situation for both sides, it will be important to focus on what's happening on the battlefields, rather than anything that's being said.
3. The mobilization and training situation: Russia is reportedly planning another large mobilization effort. Whether it will be formally announced, or more low key, remains to be seen. The last mobilization round had quite a few problems and was widely criticized, even by Putin himself. Mobilization also tends to increase outbound migration, unless border restrictions are imposed, as well as drain resources from the civilian workforce. All those mobilized will require training if they're not merely to be thrown at the front line for "cannon fodder" purposes. In the earlier mobilization it appears some were held back for training while others were quickly sent to Ukraine to plug holes in defensive lines. That latter group has understandably suffered a high rate of casualties. Russia's capacity (or inability) to train and equip newly mobilized troops will be something to take note of. Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to benefit from training provided by various Western countries. But what's yet untested is whether Ukraine's forces have the capability to launch the kind of offensive campaign that will be needed to retake significant territory. The Kharkhiv scenario had a number of unique factors that are unlikely to be repeated. If Ukraine wants to move beyond the current battle of attrition, it'll need to raise things to a new level. That being said, Ukraine has been the better side when it comes to using surprising and unexpected tactics. So we'll just have to wait and see what cards are next to be played.
4. The infighting situation: Right now there's a major power struggle between Prighozin (allied with Kadyrov) and the MoD duo of Shoigu and Gerasimov. One way that's manifested is that Russia's regular forces aren't giving normal levels of support to Wagner PMC as they battle in the area of Bakhmut. Prighozin is trying to show that his private army is better and the regular army's leadership will be happy to see him fail. How this plays out and who (if anyone) prevails is anyone's guess. But it's worth watching as power struggles can have significant consequences, even if they're hard to predict. Will Kremlin elites start to take sides? Will Putin swing to one side or the other? Stay tuned!
On the Ukrainian side, the infighting takes the form of debate about supporting Ukraine and in what form and amounts that support should happen. So far those critical of support, like Hungary and Serbia, have been in the minority. But there are no guarantees and situations can always change. Ukraine has done a better job of managing the information war, so far, and it's helped that Russia continues to engage in behavior that sparks outrage in the West.
Non-factors (so far): The China-Russia relationship has essentially been a nothingburger. China is naturally cautious, their economic reliance on Western markets is substantial, and it doesn't help Russia that, to this point, their record on the battlefield is one of losses, rather than gains. Nobody wants to back a loser and China will not want to hitch their wagon to a lame horse. And those China factors don't begin to take into account the significant problems China's experiencing with COVID and economic issues. Comrade Xi is devoting his time, attention, and resources to steady his own ship. Also, the energy weaponization tactic has pretty much fizzled. That could be as a result of warmer than normal temperatures, or it might be the result of good adaptation by European economies. We're not through the winter yet but to this point it certainly hasn't paid the dividends expected by Russia.
The war's not over, the jury's still out, but just wanted to post about the developments I'll be looking out for.
But what's yet untested is whether Ukraine's forces have the capability to launch the kind of offensive campaign that will be needed to retake significant territory. The Kharkhiv scenario had a number of unique factors that are unlikely to be repeated.Pretty good write up, though you completely overlooked the fact that Ukraine reclaimed Kherson in the south after nine months of enemy occupation, a highly strategic and "significant" region where a pseudo referendum was held. In your attempt to sound fair and balanced you overlooked a very important detail. Wink.
Pretty good write up, though you completely overlooked the fact that Ukraine reclaimed Kherson in the south after nine months of enemy occupation, a highly strategic and "significant" region where a pseudo referendum was held. In your attempt to sound fair and balanced you overlooked a very important detail. Wink.First, my post was forward-looking and, as such, was not intended to examine the past in any great depth. Where I do mention past events, like the Kharkhiv campaign, it's primarily for the purpose of pointing out challenges and other factors that might be specifically relevant to the four upcoming developments I listed.
Second, Ukraine has reclaimed Kherson, the city, but nowhere near the entirety of Kherson Oblast. If you look at the map in the link below you'll see the blue (Ukraine reclaimed) area on the west bank of the Dnipro. The red area is still under Russian control and Kherson city is pretty much right on the dividing line. The way you worded your post makes it seem as if the battle for that area is over when, in fact, it's still very much contested.
https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-6-2023
BTW, the contrast between the Kherson and Kharkhiv campaigns serves to reinforce my point that the unique factors that allowed such a rapid victory in Kharkhiv are unlikely to be repeated.
Any questions (wink)?
First, my post was forward-looking and, as such, was not intended to examine the past in any great depth. Where I do mention past events, like the Kharkhiv campaign, it's primarily for the purpose of pointing out challenges and other factors that might be specifically relevant to the four upcoming developments I listed.
Second, Ukraine has reclaimed Kherson, the city, but nowhere near the entirety of Kherson Oblast. If you look at the map in the link below you'll see the blue (Ukraine reclaimed) area on the west bank of the Dnipro. The red area is still under Russian control and Kherson city is pretty much right on the dividing line. The way you worded your post makes it seem as if the battle for that area is over when, in fact, it's still very much contested.
https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-6-2023I couldn't help commenting on this one line that I read in the article you posted.
"While many voices in the Russian information space strongly criticized the ceasefire announcement, certain hardline elements seized on Putin's statement to continue to propagate the narrative that Putin is a protector of religious values and morals".
This bit of orthodox christian proselytizing that has emerged in Russian propaganda is amazing. It's a little bit like "have ideology, will travel". It's also a bit rich given Putin's KGB poster boy past. It appears the Russians who were so good at trying to isolate their people and feed them a steady diet of propaganda for most of the 20th century have developed a propensity to sling the bullshit.
How does that go over inside Russia? Can the Russians really shut down access to internet information? Do any of our resident Russophiles think Putin is some great spiritual and moral leader?
On the world stage, it certainly can be said that imperialistic tendencies generally need an ideology for justification and motivation. This one however can be categorized as theater of the absurd.
In the grander.
I couldn't help commenting on this one line that I read in the article you posted.
"While many voices in the Russian information space strongly criticized the ceasefire announcement, certain hardline elements seized on Putin's statement to continue to propagate the narrative that Putin is a protector of religious values and morals".
This bit of orthodox christian proselytizing that has emerged in Russian propaganda is amazing. It's a little bit like "have ideology, will travel". It's also a bit rich given Putin's KGB poster boy past. It appears the Russians who were so good at trying to isolate their people and feed them a steady diet of propaganda for most of the 20th century have developed a propensity to sling the bullshit.
How does that go over inside Russia? Can the Russians really shut down access to internet information? Do any of our resident Russophiles think Putin is some great spiritual and moral leader?
On the world stage, it certainly can be said that imperialistic tendencies generally need an ideology for justification and motivation. This one however can be categorized as theater of the absurd.
In the grander.Whether it's the pseudo-religious argument, or styling himself as the new Peter the Great (reclaiming historical Russian lands), or claiming to be a victim of NATO and the West, the goal is the same: to delegitimize and dehumanize Ukraine and thereby provide a justification for Russian aggression. It's really not important for anyone to believe any of it, it's only useful to have various excuses you can point to. In fact, having multiple excuses means Russia can conveniently shift gears whenever challenged.
That latter point is important because each of those bogus arguments melt away when subjected to close examination. When stripped down to its core, the Russian justification has always been, very simply, "because we can" (or at least because they thought they could). But the brutal honesty of that position isn't easy for every (internal and external) audience to swallow. So Russia has no problem telling people whatever it takes to "sell" their aggression as something more palatable.
Whether it's the pseudo-religious argument, or styling himself as the new Peter the Great (reclaiming historical Russian lands), or claiming to be a victim of NATO and the West, the goal is the same: to delegitimize and dehumanize Ukraine and thereby provide a justification for Russian aggression. It's really not important for anyone to believe any of it, it's only useful to have various excuses you can point to. In fact, having multiple excuses means Russia can conveniently shift gears whenever challenged.
That latter point is important because each of those bogus arguments melt away when subjected to close examination. When stripped down to its core, the Russian justification has always been, very simply, "because we can" (or at least because they thought they could). But the brutal honesty of that position isn't easy for every (internal and external) audience to swallow. So Russia has no problem telling people whatever it takes to "sell" their aggression as something more palatable.Yes, I agree. Doesn't have to make sense or completely be believed by the public.
As you note, Peter the Great is probably the connection the Russian hawks are trying to make with the country's imperialistic past. As head of both the church and country, Peter the Great harks back to the European history of Christianity and conquest. The Tsar was appointed by God no less.
Fuck the so-called corruption issue. It's total BS Oh yeah. Why is every Ukrainian I know irate with what's happening? The leadership is a cancer.
Beijing4987
01-25-23, 08:26
How does the gifting in Ukraine compare to the American War in indochina or the Double Bill American War in Iraq and Afghanistan? By the way, the corrupt leaders in Ukraine are doing a good job in organizing their populace to resist and "decorating" the countryside with the invaders. As at StarskyUa says "improved".
By the way, the corrupt leaders in Ukraine are doing a good job in organizing their populace to resist Sounds like you have also viewed the footage of older men rounded up at gun point and forced to fight.
Oh yeah. Why is every Ukrainian I know irate with what's happening? The leadership is a cancer.Nice attempt to misrepresent my meaning by quoting a small portion of my post while pointedly avoiding a mountain of context. Here's the whole thing:
Fuck the so-called corruption issue. It's total BS because it fails to address (at least) three key issues:
1. Anyone who is attacked has the right to defend themselves, full stop. And that right has nothing to do with how good or bad that person is or how good or bad others think they are. That right is absolute and remains whether a person is a saint, a devil, or something in between. Even the worst convicted criminal, after having done his time and been released, has the right to defend himself if attacked. Hell, he retains that right even while in prison! So, whether Zelensky, or anyone else in Ukraine, is corrupt or not, they're not obliged to lay down and let a Russian tank run over them.
2. The so-called corruption argument nearly always ignores, or severely downplays, the EXTREME corruption perpetrated by Putin and his Kremlin cronies for DECADES. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there's corruption in both sides, any fair balance would tilt immeasurably against Russia. It's not even a serious debate because there's so much more money sloshing around Russia and they've been stealing it for so long.
3. In forward-looking terms, Ukraine has ambitions of joining both the EU and NATO. As they go through those membership processes they will be under all sorts of scrutiny and will be required to pass laws, change systems, and put in safequards. And what that means is that Ukraine is moving toward becoming a country that works to root out corruption, rather than tolerate it. Meanwhile Russia continues to be a kleptocratic sewer.
For all the above reasons, and I'm sure people will think of more, accusations of corruption are a total red herring. Here's a hypothetical for ya, if Zelensky was found guilty of corruption and removed from office, it wouldn't change Ukraine's absolute right to defend their country and their lives. Not one iota.Got any response to the ENTIRE post? Since I clearly stated that the principle of self-defense trumps all else. And since I go out of my way to point out that, even if Zelensky is found guilty of corruption and removed, it wouldn't change the fundamental right of Ukrainians to defend their lives and their land.
Any questions?
P.S. And it remains the height of hypocrisy that all those who get their panties in a twist about corruption on the part of Ukraine, real or alleged, never utter a SINGLE word about the uber-corrupt kleptocracy that rules Russia.
P. P.S. I'm overjoyed at the fact that Ukrainians are outraged by reports of corruption. That means they're making progress toward full EU integration, while Russia marches steadily backward toward their third-world fate.
DramaFree11
01-30-23, 17:14
Nice attempt to misrepresent my meaning by quoting a small portion of my post while pointedly avoiding a mountain of context. Here's the whole thing:
Got any response to the ENTIRE post? Since I clearly stated that the principle of self-defense trumps all else. And since I go out of my way to point out that, even if Zelensky is found guilty of corruption and removed, it wouldn't change the fundamental right of Ukrainians to defend their lives and their land.
Any questions?
P.S. And it remains the height of hypocrisy that all those who get their panties in a twist about corruption on the part of Ukraine, real or alleged, never utter a SINGLE word about the uber-corrupt kleptocracy that rules Russia.
P. P.S. I'm overjoyed at the fact that Ukrainians are outraged by reports of corruption. That means they're making progress toward full EU integration, while Russia marches steadily backward toward their third-world fate.Both countries are as corrupt as Hell! I have my doubts about Ukraine and this is probably just for show, but we can hope that they are finally getting their act together.
Gentleman Travel
01-30-23, 23:27
Nice attempt to misrepresent my meaning by quoting a small portion of my post while pointedly avoiding a mountain of context. Here's the whole thing:
"...2. The so-called corruption argument nearly always ignores, or severely downplays, the EXTREME corruption perpetrated by Putin and his Kremlin cronies for DECADES. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there's corruption in both sides, any fair balance would tilt immeasurably against Russia. It's not even a serious debate because there's so much more money sloshing around Russia and they've been stealing it for so long...."
Got any response to the ENTIRE post? Since I clearly stated that the principle of self-defense trumps all else. And since I go out of my way to point out that, even if Zelensky is found guilty of corruption and removed, it wouldn't change the fundamental right of Ukrainians to defend their lives and their land.
Any questions?
P.S. And it remains the height of hypocrisy that all those who get their panties in a twist about corruption on the part of Ukraine, real or alleged, never utter a SINGLE word about the uber-corrupt kleptocracy that rules Russia.
P. P.S. I'm overjoyed at the fact that Ukrainians are outraged by reports of corruption. That means they're making progress toward full EU integration, while Russia marches steadily backward toward their third-world fate.In fact, Putin has been actively promoting corruption in Ukraine for decades. He tries to undermine any notion of a fair and democratic society at every point. It's not like both are tarred with the same brush. Putin / Russia is immersed in the mud and tries to drag Ukraine down with it. Sometimes he succeeds, sometimes the best Ukrainian leaders succeed (and sometimes they fail).
Sure, as our saying goes 'We don't take bribes, we give them'. Good read / listen from the US POV:
https://www.youtube.com/@douglasmacgregorcol5835/videos
And in Foreign Affairs section https://www.theamericanconservative.com/.
Sounds like you have also viewed the footage of older men rounded up at gun point and forced to fight.You've got it all wrong. Those were Russian 50+ something, not Ukrainians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QONzVd11Xw
Both countries are as corrupt as Hell! I have my doubts about Ukraine and this is probably just for show, but we can hope that they are finally getting their act together.Prior to last Feb 24th, Ukraine was managing its affairs under the status quo. Whatever corruption was going on was part of the fabric of that status quo.
Post-invasion, most Ukrainians (politicians + population, from every poll I've seen) have come to the conclusion that their future welfare and existence won't be secure without menbership in the EU, at a minimum, and hopefully also NATO. For either of those two things to happen, Ukraine will need to step up its anti-corruption game. Not for show, but for real.
Another reason is that a population in which so many have experienced the death of family, friends, and acquaintances, are likely to be much less tolerant of corruption during a time of war. Every act of corruption will be viewed, and rightly so, as a direct betrayal of the forces fighting to defend Ukraine and an even more heinous betrayal of those who have given their lives.
Sure, as our saying goes 'We don't take bribes, we give them'. Good read / listen from the US POV:
https://www.youtube.com/@douglasmacgregorcol5835/videos
And in Foreign Affairs section https://www.theamericanconservative.com/.Why not display some intestinal fortitude and articulate an argument rather than just drop links that aren't even to any specific videos or articles? Colonel McGregor is a Putin buttboy. There's a slew of US generals both on the right and left that staunchly disagree with him. The American Conservative is a far right, isolationist publication founded by the bigot and Nazi sympathizer Pat Buchanan.
The bottom line is that it's in both our national interest and that of our European allies that borders are not changed through aggression. We also can't afford to shrink at nuclear saber rattling given the precedent it would set. Putin needs to fail and he's going to. Russia since the fall of the USSR has been repeatedly invited to join the civilized world but has refused. They will remain our enemy until they change their minds. But I and others have covered this ad nauseam in the recent past, calling out the whataboutism and other deflections and faulty analysis from far right advocates like Kerzog, I believe was the name, and Drama Queen also. I'm not doing it all over again as the work was already completed, but I encourage anyone curious to look up my posts on this thread.
P.S. Thankfully this isolationist angle represents a minority view among Republicans and that's much more so the case among Democrats. Slava Ukraini.
Both countries are as corrupt as Hell! I have my doubts about Ukraine and this is probably just for show, but we can hope that they are finally getting their act together.Russia is far worse, and this is reflected in the differences in their freedom scores, Ukraine 59 out of 100, Russia 23. Many metrics are taken into account with these scores and corruption is a big focus. Ukraine has seen a lot of improvements since 2014.
https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-net/scores
And this link has been posted many times before, but you choose to come back here month after month and post this same simplistic and fallacious talking point over and over. Do some research, get a grip on some honesty, try to rise above the level of the spin Tucker Carlson frames for his high school education level audience, and maybe you can become a useful contributor. Stranger things have happened.
The global freedom scores are the more pertinent, and here Ukraine scores 61 in 100, Russia 19.
https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/31/ukraine-banned-landmines-harm-civilians
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/31/ukraine-banned-landmines-harm-civiliansWow the Raschists are using a butt-tonne of illegal landmines. That is disgusting and once UA takes back it's land will be a problem for a long time.
Slava Ukraini.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/31/ukraine-banned-landmines-harm-civiliansSo we get another link from a guy who still hasn't the balls to formulate an argument. Sadly that's mostly all we get from the far right crowd that swallows hood link and rinker the nonsense through their Facebook feeds, but lack any intellectual increduity to evalutate it. Whatever nonsense sounds good to them they parrot and pass along. Yawns.
Slava Ukraini.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIUoFuSuvTM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIUoFuSuvTMTen years ago it was "Ukraine for Ukrainians". Now it's "Stand with Ukraine". No thanks, I saw how you treated folks exactly in your situation.
Ten years ago it was "Ukraine for Ukrainians". Now it's "Stand with Ukraine". No thanks, I saw how you treated folks exactly in your situation.Ukraine for Ukrainians? LOL.
More bullshit please! Never let the truth get in the way of a good propaganda slogan, tovarisch.
Ursula in Kiev: the first case in history of medicine where a drug addict was attended by a gynecologist.
Ten years ago it was "Ukraine for Ukrainians". Now it's "Stand with Ukraine". No thanks, I saw how you treated folks exactly in your situation.Lets just grow a pair and admit it. Russia is changing borders with aggressions, murdering children and cilvilians. They tried to steal the entire country but failed because of Ukrainian strength and NATO. You come here, cowardly, in a hooker forum defending Russia. Ok, the Russian bodies will keep piling up, and it's because of the murderous actions you wish to defend. That's really all that needs to be said.
Last time I was in Kiev, I had a disturbing experience. Jumping around in a club with college cuties, I thought I was in paradise. The hotties looked so lovely and innocent. Then the tide went out and the ugly showed itself. A group of Indian girls walked into the club and every single Ukrainian girl in that place showed their complete disgust right in the face of these poor girls just looking to go out and have some fun. It's in the detail what a society is about. Ukraine has always been an illusion to silly foreigners.
Last time I was in Kiev, I had a disturbing experience. Jumping around in a club with college cuties, I thought I was in paradise. The hotties looked so lovely and innocent. Then the tide went out and the ugly showed itself. A group of Indian girls walked into the club and every single Ukrainian girl in that place showed their complete disgust right in the face of these poor girls just looking to go out and have some fun. It's in the detail what a society is about. Ukraine has always been an illusion to silly foreigners.If those Indian girls had had the good taste to get botox lip implants surely they'd have been welcomed into the EU wannabe sisterhood.
It's said that life in Ukraine under former President, a candy business magnate, was not sweet, and life under the present snorting clown is not funny.
You can take a quiz on how many articles of the recent Ukrainian Constitution are bluntly violated: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2019?lang=en.
Interesting history fact: an inauguration of Hetman of Ukrain Pavlo Skoropadskyi in 1918 was held in a circus Hippo Palace (the building has been since demolished). It's all started as a joke.
Last time I was in Kiev, I had a disturbing experience. Jumping around in a club with college cuties, I thought I was in paradise. The hotties looked so lovely and innocent. Then the tide went out and the ugly showed itself. A group of Indian girls walked into the club and every single Ukrainian girl in that place showed their complete disgust right in the face of these poor girls just looking to go out and have some fun. It's in the detail what a society is about. Ukraine has always been an illusion to silly foreigners.Pre-invasion Ukraine is a country that no longer exists. Pre-invasion attitudes will, for many (if not most) be completely transformed along the lines of "who helped us, who was against us, and who stood silent."
When the war is over, people from Poland, the Baltics, and Nordics will be treated like close family. They pitched in early and gave whole-heartedly. Next will come countries like the US and UK, who helped, but could have done more and done it sooner. Toward the lower end of acceptability will be those countries, like Germany, who helped grudgingly after much internal and external pressure.
Held at arms length (or worse) will be countries who stood silently on the sidelines, or leaned against Ukraine without crossing too many lines. These might include Hungary, Serbia, and Croatia.
Finally will be those countries that Ukrainians will view as co-belligerents and-or Russia enablers. China, India, and Iran will be on that list. Given what Ukrainians have experienced, it's hard to see how they will forget or forgive.
FWIW, any pre-invasion experiences in Ukraine should probably be flushed down the toilet. The world has forever changed.
It's said that life in Ukraine under former President, a candy business magnate, was not sweet, and life under the present snorting clown is not funny.
You can take a quiz on how many articles of the recent Ukrainian Constitution are bluntly violated: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2019?lang=en.
Interesting history fact: an inauguration of Hetman of Ukrain Pavlo Skoropadskyi in 1918 was held in a circus Hippo Palace (the building has been since demolished). It's all started as a joke.Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. FDR had internment camps. The real barometer will be what happens after the war is over. Zelensky won't be president forever and the fact that Ukraine sees its future within the EU means they'll need to keep moving forward toward European standards and norms.
Pre-invasion Ukraine is a country that no longer exists. Pre-invasion attitudes will, for many (if not most) be completely transformed along the lines of "who helped us, who was against us, and who stood silent."
When the war is over, people from Poland, the Baltics, and Nordics will be treated like close family. They pitched in early and gave whole-heartedly. Next will come countries like the US and UK, who helped, but could have done more and done it sooner. Toward the lower end of acceptability will be those countries, like Germany, who helped grudgingly after much internal and external pressure.
Held at arms length (or worse) will be countries who stood silently on the sidelines, or leaned against Ukraine without crossing too many lines. These might include Hungary, Serbia, and Croatia.
Finally will be those countries that Ukrainians will view as co-belligerents and-or Russia enablers. China, India, and Iran will be on that list. Given what Ukrainians have experienced, it's hard to see how they will forget or forgive.
FWIW, any pre-invasion experiences in Ukraine should probably be flushed down the toilet. The world has forever changed."Pre-invasion Ukraine is a country that no longer exists. " This is very true.
I have no problem with drawing up lists of the Ukraine's allies, enemies and the non-committal. I just don't think the Ukraine war will have far lasting repercussions with the Ukrainians' perception of other countries around the world.
Germany's prestige will take a temporary hit within the Ukraine. That won't last long because Germany's economic might will eventually pull in the Ukraine. I also suspect the Germans will play a big part in the post-war reconstruction. German business will not want to miss out.
China is big enough and powerful enough to make small inroads in the future Ukraine. The Chinese are always limited by cultural differences and suspicions around the world.
Poland and the Baltics will likely develop a closer kinship with the Ukraine, but again it will lack economic importance.
In peacetime, money speaks volumes.
Both countries are as corrupt as Hell!Russia is a mob country and Ukraine is the little crooked brother. Thing is when you have the same kind of crooks next to each other, the stronger always has to have influence over the weaker. Sadly, the Western gangsters have decided to meddle with this natural order. A recipe for disaster.
"Pre-invasion Ukraine is a country that no longer exists. " This is very true.
I have no problem with drawing up lists of the Ukraine's allies, enemies and the non-committal. I just don't think the Ukraine war will have far lasting repercussions with the Ukrainians' perception of other countries around the world.
Germany's prestige will take a temporary hit within the Ukraine. That won't last long because Germany's economic might will eventually pull in the Ukraine. I also suspect the Germans will play a big part in the post-war reconstruction. German business will not want to miss out.
China is big enough and powerful enough to make small inroads in the future Ukraine. The Chinese are always limited by cultural differences and suspicions around the world.
Poland and the Baltics will likely develop a closer kinship with the Ukraine, but again it will lack economic importance.
In peacetime, money speaks volumes.For anyone from that WW-II generation, especially those who actually fought in the war, or lost someone close to them, their feelings toward Germans and Japanese were vastly different than those of the generation that came after.
Think, for example, about people who directly experienced the horrors of war, like the Brits who endured bombings during the Battle of Britain. For those people, the war remains a raw wound for a long time, possibly their entire life. There's no easy way to forgive what you believe to be atrocities or to forget the loved ones who were killed by brutal aggression.
This isn't some abstract and remote war for most Ukrainians. War crimes have been committed against them. Children have been ripped from families and sent to Russia.
I simply don't agree that it'll pass as quickly as you think, or that money from those who are detested will be welcomed. Money is going to flow into Ukraine in large Marshall Plan amounts. They'll have no lack of choices among various countries and it's my guess the best contracts will go to those countries and companies who are viewed as family and friends. Germany will probably be somewhere in the middle. Ukrainians will accept German money but probably lay on a thick layer of guilt at the same time.
As with most things in the future, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Gentleman Travel
02-08-23, 21:36
Prior to last Feb 24th....
Another reason is that a population in which so many have experienced the death of family, friends, and acquaintances, are likely to be much less tolerant of corruption during a time of war. Every act of corruption will be viewed, and rightly so, as a direct betrayal of the forces fighting to defend Ukraine and an even more heinous betrayal of those who have given their lives.That's right on. At least I hope it is. Corruption is not just a blight where a few well-connected or brazen thieves benefit from ill-gotten gains to the general detriment of society overall, but now people must see it (corruption in the military, at least) as an existential threat. To Ukrainian society as a whole and perhaps to them or their loved ones personally?
Why do Russian conscripts have to buy their own clothing and gear? Because someone up the chain of command stole it and sold it elsewhere.
That has happened a in Ukraine in the past, and probably to a certain extent still, but now everybody realizes it is not harmless graft. People will suffer and die from it.
So hopefully, that will lead to a healthier attitude in society about the evil and harm of corruption and the importance of accountability. But we will see if it lasts.
For anyone from that WW-II generation, especially those who actually fought in the war, or lost someone close to them, their feelings toward Germans and Japanese were vastly different than those of the generation that came after.
Think, for example, about people who directly experienced the horrors of war, like the Brits who endured bombings during the Battle of Britain. For those people, the war remains a raw wound for a long time, possibly their entire life. There's no easy way to forgive what you believe to be atrocities or to forget the loved ones who were killed by brutal aggression.
This isn't some abstract and remote war for most Ukrainians. War crimes have been committed against them. Children have been ripped from families and sent to Russia.
I simply don't agree that it'll pass as quickly as you think, or that money from those who are detested will be welcomed. Money is going to flow into Ukraine in large Marshall Plan amounts. They'll have no lack of choices among various countries and it's my guess the best contracts will go to those countries and companies who are viewed as family and friends. Germany will probably be somewhere in the middle. Ukrainians will accept German money but probably lay on a thick layer of guilt at the same time.
As with most things in the future, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.History can only be instructive to a point. Things won't be back to normal between Ukrainians and Russians simply because unlike Germany, Russia will never be occupied.
American occupation was the best thing that's ever happened to Germany and Japan. Bar none.
But because Russia can't be occupied (for more reasons than one), it's future is bleaker than bleak.
This is what's going to happen to Russia: catastrophic defeat, bloody civil war and the final dissolution of their empire. The Russian Empire will be gone for good leading to the birth of several new countries -- all corrupt, authoritarian and as economically inept as today's Russia.
Russians will never repent or regret. Instead, they'll portray themselves as a victim who lost because the whole world "conspired" to destroy them. They've already started pushing that drivel on TV.
Ukrainians will not forget and forgive, at least as quickly as the world forgave Germany in the 20th century. It'll take a hundred years if not more.
Russia will fully become a China's client state. It will turn into a giant North Korea blackmailing the world with their stockpiles of WMD.
Good night!
History can only be instructive to a point. Things won't be back to normal between Ukrainians and Russians simply because unlike Germany, Russia will never be occupied.
American occupation was the best thing that's ever happened to Germany and Japan. Bar none.
But because Russia can't be occupied (for more reasons than one), it's future is bleaker than bleak.
This is what's going to happen to Russia: catastrophic defeat, bloody civil war and the final dissolution of their empire. The Russian Empire will be gone for good leading to the birth of several new countries -- all corrupt, authoritarian and as economically inept as today's Russia.
Russians will never repent or regret. Instead, they'll portray themselves as a victim who lost because the whole world "conspired" to destroy them. They've already started pushing that drivel on TV.
Ukrainians will not forget and forgive, at least as quickly as the world forgave Germany in the 20th century. It'll take a hundred years if not more.
Russia will fully become a China's client state. It will turn into a giant North Korea blackmailing the world with their stockpiles of WMD.
Good night!I wasn't trying to make wide-ranging historical comparisons, only the limited one of pointing out that the generation who fights the war has stronger emotions, and more raw wounds, than those who come after.
That being said, I don't disagree with the general gist of your post. Russia is facing a bleak future although there are a few different ways their path might go. One interesting variable will be how much longer Putin is around, and who takes over after he dies or is removed. That's something I think we'll see sooner rather than later.
The Americans did not bomb Nordstream 2, it was the Russians. Evidence will be found soon enough, I'm so confident I will happily place a wager on this, do you want to take me up on this? I will bet that it was not the Americans, will you take the bet?I'll take that bet.
I'll take that bet.Much more likely Germany did it. There are still many sympathisers of Russia there. While the pipelines existed there were always voices wanting to appease Russia to turn the gas back on. Fter the bombing that option disappeared as did the rationale for making deals with Russia.
The Americans did not bomb Nordstream 2, it was the Russians. Evidence will be found soon enough, I'm so confident I will happily place a wager on this, do you want to take me up on this? I will bet that it was not the Americans, will you take the bet?I think it was neither Americans nor Russians. Pols hate the Russians more than Ukrainians hate the Russians even after being bombed. Location location and location. Poland has more than enough knowhow to conduct such an operation, let alone knowledge of the sea floor right off their coast. The fact that the investigation didn't come up with anything solid points to a likely uncomfortable conclusion and in my mind it would mean Poland. The Ukrainians themselves could've done it. Soviet expertise could never be underestimated. Even a well organized private operation could've been conducted.
Both Russia and the US definitely a possibility. I can't see what Russia gains out of it. I can see however what the US gains out of it. Still if I had to put my money on something now. I'd put it on Poland.
I'll take that bet.https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
The President of RF could have just stopped the supply with a stroke of a pen as part of anti-sanctions mechanism and prevent Gazprom's exports.
I'll take that bet.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
The President of RF could have just stopped the supply with a stroke of a pen as part of anti-sanctions mechanism and prevent Gazprom's exports.Right. What do you think Russia is afraid of more sanctions or something? The US on the other hand have been trying to stop Russian gas and oil deliveries to Europe since way before Russo-Ukrainian war, in fact if I remember correctly even before 2014, like way before. Now with its chief competitor no more viable the US is beginning to transport its gas and oil to Europe. One up for the US!
"The President of RF could have just stopped the supply with a stroke of a pen".
Not if they wanted to avoid legal actions.
Not if they wanted to get an insurance payoff.
Not if they wanted to raise gas prices.
Not if they wanted to threaten the new Baltic pipeline and other infrastructure projects.
Not if they tried to sow as much chaos as possible, which is What. They. Always. Do.
These little blame games are such a good, clean fun for Russia's apologists -- I almost feel guilty debunking them.
So getting the heck out of Domodevodo (Dodge)! I'm surprised Putin didn't just slam the exits shut to prevent so many people from running away from crappy Russia and his war.
https://apple.news/AnAdpMhPKQA6jGqp3xcs1Jw
I can't see what Russia gains out of it.
The President of RF could have just stopped the supply with a stroke of a pen as part of anti-sanctions mechanism and prevent Gazprom's exports.Let me put it simply. There are long term supply contracts in place. If Russia simply stop delivering, they are in breach of contract, and every other country that has contracts with them will see that they are an unreliable partner who cannot be trusted to keep their word.
If suddenly the pipeline fails, then the result is same in that gas is not supplied, but RF is not in breach of contract.
This is why it is RF that did the bombing, so they could apply pressure on Europe without having to be in formal breach of contract.
As with most things, the simplest explanation is most often the truth.
Let me put it simply. There are long term supply contracts in place. If Russia simply stop delivering, they are in breach of contract, and every other country that has contracts with them will see that they are an unreliable partner who cannot be trusted to keep their word.
If suddenly the pipeline fails, then the result is same in that gas is not supplied, but RF is not in breach of contract.
This is why it is RF that did the bombing, so they could apply pressure on Europe without having to be in formal breach of contract.
As with most things, the simplest explanation is most often the truth.Just thinking to myself, this is why its crazy for Russia to playing the hand of an aggressor. Russia's economic welfare is intertwined with Western commerce. Is there much hope for the Russian economy while they continue to be the bully in the region? Do they really want to go back to being isolated from the world?
There's China, but China still needs Western markets for its goods.
Let me put it simply. There are long term supply contracts in place. If Russia simply stop delivering, they are in breach of contract, and every other country that has contracts with them will see that they are an unreliable partner who cannot be trusted to keep their word..That's right, just forget about the other side of the contract, the one where you know, the party that receives the Russian oil has to like pay for it.
Let me put it simply. There are long term supply contracts in place. If Russia simply stop delivering, they are in breach of contract, and every other country that has contracts with them will see that they are an unreliable partner who cannot be trusted to keep their word.
If suddenly the pipeline fails, then the result is same in that gas is not supplied, but RF is not in breach of contract.
This is why it is RF that did the bombing, so they could apply pressure on Europe without having to be in formal breach of contract.
As with most things, the simplest explanation is most often the truth.That's right, but a small correction. It's not about their "reliability". Russia stopped worrying about their reputation a long time ago.
One irony of the attack is that Russias Gazprom potentially stands to benefit: it will no longer need to invent excuses not to supply Europe via Nord Stream 1. Now it can claim a force majeure, which will dramatically reduce the risk of compensation claims for non-delivered volumes. This logic, however, does not explain the damage caused to Nord Stream 2. On the other hand, the Nord Stream consortium companies and eventually Gazprom might even hope to collect some insurance for the damaged pipelines. Given that they already looked set to become a stranded asset, that would be far from the worst outcome for the giant company.As for Nord Stream 2, it was useless anyway. It was never operational and probably never will be. There were no downsides for the Russians to blow it up.
https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88062
Right. What do you think Russia is afraid of more sanctions or something? The US on the other hand have been trying to stop Russian gas and oil deliveries to Europe since way before Russo-Ukrainian war, in fact if I remember correctly even before 2014, like way before. Now with its chief competitor no more viable the US is beginning to transport its gas and oil to Europe. One up for the US!We actually benefit tremendously from sanctions as it helps us to develop our own industries. True that Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts are both part of what has been called 'Gas Wars'. We have been supplying Europe reliably with commodities at the best possible prices for half of the century. Blowing up the pipelines is an act of war and is also against US European allies. This is a second instance since 1982 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss#Siberian_pipeline_sabotage)(you have also to read an account in Russian and explore further). Also, in these supply contracts sanctions are part of 'force majeure', meaning we can stop exports as part of a governmental decision (anti-sanctions mechanism)
Let me put it simply. There are long term supply contracts in place. If Russia simply stop delivering, they are in breach of contract, and every other country that has contracts with them will see that they are an unreliable partner who cannot be trusted to keep their word.
If suddenly the pipeline fails, then the result is same in that gas is not supplied, but RF is not in breach of contract.
This is why it is RF that did the bombing, so they could apply pressure on Europe without having to be in formal breach of contract.
As with most things, the simplest explanation is most often the truth.First, it's interesting that he published the story on his personal substack, not in any media outlet (pro-Russia, pro-Ukraine, or neutral). My thought is that he might have been asked to share details about his anonymous source. It certainly raises questions since he surely could have found a sympathetic website or publication. The obvious conclusion, at least to me, is that he wants to retain full control of things.
Second, critics are starting to pick apart the story and one I found worth reading mentions errors Hersh has made before, and also examines various details in the NordStream story. In fact, the critique makes the point that the amount of detail works against the credibility of the story, because they provide more fact-checking opportunities.
https://twitter.com/wesleysmorgan/status/1623428680054603776
P.S. There's one other reason I've read that supports the Russia bomb theory. It speculates that a working pipeline would have provided leverage, and a potential lifeline, for any successor to Putin. By removing it from the game, Putin eliminated that possibility. So any Russian elites who might have considered a coup are stuck with Putin, at least until conditions change.
Just thinking to myself, this is why its crazy for Russia to playing the hand of an aggressor. Russia's economic welfare is intertwined with Western commerce. Is there much hope for the Russian economy while they continue to be the bully in the region? Do they really want to go back to being isolated from the world?
There's China, but China still needs Western markets for its goods.You can't look for logic in the last tribe of empire-builders on Earth.
We actually benefit tremendously from sanctions as it helps us to develop our own industries.Oh yeah? What "your own" industries have you "developed" so far? Pine cones?
What's he thinking about here? Butt plugs?
.......As for Nord Stream 2, it was useless anyway. It was never operational and probably never will be. There were no downsides for the Russians to blow it up.
https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88062I thought this quote from the article was entertaining.
"There are aspects of this mystery that resemble an Agatha Christie novel, in which nearly everyone involved appears to have a motive or would benefit from the outcome."
It would seem the perfect act of international sabotage is one where several actors could have conducted the operation. It's a perfect Act 1 to a spy novel.
In Nov 2001 Hersh wrote an article in the New Yorker about a post-9/11 US raid in Afghanistan. In that article he quotes his source describing the raid planning process as a "goat fuck," which is a rather specific and colorful phrase.
Fast-forward over 20 years and, in his Nordstream story, lo and behold he quotes his current "source" using the exact same phrase to describe the pipeline attack planning process. Quite the coincidence, right?
https://twitter.com/wesleysmorgan/status/1626359040652484608
What are the odds of two different sources using the same phrase, in the same way, to describe two different (alleged) events? And, for any who think it might have been the same source, what are the odds that the source for the earlier story (who would have needed to be in the upper levels of govt in 2001) would have been in a similar position over 20 years later? Consider that someone at the level required for access to info for the 2001 story would likely have retired by now. Or, if they were at the highest levels of the bureaucracy, they would have been flushed out during the various changes in administrations. The peons in the bureaucracy usually remain, but each new administration usually brings in its own set of chiefs.
My reason for going into extra detail is simply to point out that the most likely explanation for the recurrence of the "goat fuck" phrase is that Hersh likes how it sounds and probably forgot that he'd used it before.
IMO, Hersh's ship of credibility is taking on water and sinking fast!
Remember all the donations and protests by Ukrainians in the states? Yeah, that's pretty much over. Whenever they plan to organize something, about a quarter of expected folks show up. The church's are avoiding the issue.
IMO, Ukraine's ship of credibility is taking on water and sinking fast.
Here's to hoping Kiev / Kyiv / whatever turns into a European Pattaya / AC. Both of those started as American "are & are" spots after all.
Remember all the donations and protests by Ukrainians in the states? Yeah, that's pretty much over. Whenever they plan to organize something, about a quarter of expected folks show up. The church's are avoiding the issue.
IMO, Ukraine's ship of credibility is taking on water and sinking fast.There has never been any interest in war in Ukraine. The comedian got over 3/4 of votes, even 1/2 in Western regions, with the only mandate. To reach peace agreement. Then UI he reversed course, and now banned 11 opposition parties in Rada, and even stripped a few of elected members of parliament of citizenship. His gang completely lost credibility and no longer speak for Ukraine.
There might be an alternate universe in a different dimension of space and time where Russians can still decide who does or doesn't speak for Ukraine (or other nations for that matter).
The problem is it ain't here. In this realm, their time is up.
Remember all the donations and protests by Ukrainians in the states? Yeah, that's pretty much over. Whenever they plan to organize something, about a quarter of expected folks show up. The church's are avoiding the issue.
IMO, Ukraine's ship of credibility is taking on water and sinking fast.Got any links to anything resembling factual info to back up your assertions? From what I've seen, Zelensky still has strong approval ratings within Ukraine. And, since they're the ones who are actually fighting, I would argue that's the most important metric. Next would be the attitudes of the leaders from supporting countries, like the US, France, Poland, Germany, etc. And I haven't seen any decline on that front, rather I've seen a consolidation of support.
Again, if you have any factual basis for your assertion that Ukraine is losing credibility or support, by all means please share with the forum.
There has never been any interest in war in Ukraine. The comedian got over 3/4 of votes, even 1/2 in Western regions, with the only mandate. To reach peace agreement. Then UI he reversed course, and now banned 11 opposition parties in Rada, and even stripped a few of elected members of parliament of citizenship. His gang completely lost credibility and no longer speak for Ukraine.Same response to you as to Riina. Namely, got any links to factual info backing up your assertions? If you claim Zelensky doesn't speak for Ukraine, then who does? And what evidence do you have that demonstrates any of this?
Here's to hoping Kiev / Kyiv / whatever turns into a European Pattaya / AC. Both of those started as American "are & are" spots after all.
Here's to hoping Kiev / Kyiv / whatever turns into a European Pattaya / AC. Both of those started as American "are & are" spots after all.I think there are cultural factors on why Pattaya and Angeles City are what they are. I don't think Kiev or anywhere in the Ukraine will be that wide-open mongering paradise.
Like many countries with either legal prostitution or little enforcement, it's kind of a game to keep it out of the spotlight and a manageable size. If venues are too brazen or don't pay off the right authorities, they get harassed or shutdown.
I can think of my beloved Rio de Janeiro. There was a part of Copacabana Beach that was basically Hooker Beach. That scene moved to a few cafes along the beach later in the day and then even later into a huge hooker disco. Brazilian tourists and their families stayed away from this area. The area became inhabited by primarily sex tourists.
A few years prior to the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics, Rio found away to pressure the disco to close and sell the site to the municipality. The Rio sex scene didn't disappear, but it shrank considerably and moved indoors into small venues.
I'm sure some members have heard of Dongquan. In the 2000's, Dongquan became China's Disneyland of Sex. It seems as Dongquan's reputation became internationally well-known, the Chinese government shutdown the sex scene by the mid-2000 teens.
Zelensky is a major reason Ukraine's not only still standing but winning.
If he did leave Kiev when offered a ride by the USA Diplomats, the scene would've been different. It wouldn't have quelled the resistance, but the aggressor might've taken the capital.
No kidding the putinists hate this comedian. He personifies all heir troubles.
The 44-year-old former comedian has surprised many by his transformation into a wartime leader.
In a survey conducted in December 2022, the Kyiv Institute of Sociology (KIIS) found that 84 per cent of Ukrainians trust Zelensky, a three-fold jump from the survey it fielded in December 2021. Only Ukraines armed forces have a larger support base, with 96 per cent of Ukrainians trusting them.
The war has entirely changed the attitude of Ukrainians towards Zelensky, KIIS director Volodymyr Paniotto told IWPR.
It was significant for Ukrainians that Zelensky behaved as a true leader at the decisive moment: he did not leave the country despite offers and performed his duties with dignity, Evgeniya Bliznyuk, founding CEO of the Kyiv-based Gradus Research, told IWPR. This became part of his image, ensuring popularity both abroad and inside the country.
If he did leave Kiev when offered a ride by the USA Diplomats, the scene would've been different. It wouldn't have quelled the resistance, but the aggressor might've taken the capital.
The day is coming for the gangster clown to flee. Do you think he has LV or Gucci luggage filled with cash, ready to go?
February 21,2023 at 4:00 am ET stay tuned.
Zelensky is a major reason Ukraine's not only still standing but winning.
If he did leave Kiev when offered a ride by the USA Diplomats, the scene would've been different. It wouldn't have quelled the resistance, but the aggressor might've taken the capital.
No kidding the putinists hate this comedian. He personifies all heir troubles.Ukraine would have the right to resist invasion no matter who was leading them. It makes the anti-Ukraine, pro-Russia crowd feel better if they can caricature and criticize. Those are the same kinds of people who were quick to point out flaws in Churchill, Gen. Grant, etc. However they try to rationalize things, they're attack dogs, pure and simple.
Proof was asked of Questner and of course none was given aside from propaganda via political cartoon. Ukraine like much of post Cold War Eastern Europe wants to be free, and proves it every day with their personal sacrifices and blood on the battlefield. As a result they like several other nations in the region have asked for integration and protection from the bear. Occam's razor, and it's far from rocket science. Russia's playing the victim while blaming the victim is smoke and mirrors.
And no one told thousands of people who took the Munich streets today that it's "pretty much over" and there is "no interest in war in Ukraine. " Why, oh why?
And no one told thousands of people who took the Munich streets today that it's "pretty much over" and there is "no interest in war in Ukraine. " Why, oh why?That's a photo of a small counter protest to the thousands of antiwar protesters in Munich. Liar.
Locamotive
02-19-23, 20:24
The day is coming for the gangster clown to flee. Do you think he has LV or Gucci luggage filled with cash, ready to go?You mean like the President of Afghanistan when he left and money was falling out of his helicopter. No. This will be much worse. Zelenskyy will need a fleet of cargo planes to haul off his cash. I'm sure his wife is picking out premier villas around the world.
That's a photo of a small counter protest to the thousands of antiwar protesters in Munich. Liar.You seem to be thoroughly confused. Allow me to help.
Antiwar protest IS an anti-Russia protest by definition. Russia started this war.
The protest in my photo WAS an antiwar protest.
When we will see the day when the jester replays May 10,1941 flight into Scotland? Meanwhile let's sing to the beloved tune: https://youtu.be/gPpOJvm6998.
You mean like the President of Afghanistan when he left and money was falling out of his helicopter. No. This will be much worse. Zelenskyy will need a fleet of cargo planes to haul off his cash. I'm sure his wife is picking out premier villas around the world.What that lame theory fails to explain is why he didn't leave immediately after the invasion. At that point Ukraine's supporters were few and far between, and mostly offered encouragement and prayers rather than weapons.
Among Putin's reported objectives were things like capturing or assassinating govt officials, with Zelensky obviously being the top prize. And yet, at that most opportune moment to flee, when no one would have faulted him, he chose to stay and said he needed ammunition, not a ride.
Had he fled, he could have set up a "government in exile" somewhere nice and safe, while raking in millions in donations. He didn't, and he hasn't, which is a giant poke in the eye to all those suffering from terminal Zelensky Derangement Syndrome.
Those who make the mistake of personalizing this conflict and making everything about Zelensky (or Putin) miss the obvious fact that if either of them dropped dead tomorrow, nothing would change. Any new leader of Ukraine would ABSOLUTELY need to continue defending that country. The Ukrainian people would demand it. And any new Soviet (oops, I mean Russian) leader would either continue fighting, from sheer inertia, or maybe start to roll things back.
The problem with that latter course is that for Russia to have spent so much in resources and lives, without any semblance of victory, would be hugely humiliating and destabilizing. What would become of Russia after that is anybody's guess. The new leader might try to blame everything on Putin, but that's such a radical change of direction that it could very well backfire and fracture or crash the system.
And, if Russia starts to destabilize, even around the edges, the vultures are already hovering and ready to carve off a piece for themselves. Keep an eye on Kadyrov and Lukashenko, for example. Both are survivors and will do whatever they can to avoid going down with the (Moskva) ship.
You mean like the President of Afghanistan when he left and money was falling out of his helicopter. No. This will be much worse. Zelenskyy will need a fleet of cargo planes to haul off his cash. I'm sure his wife is picking out premier villas around the world.Once thing is for sure, if representation in this forum is any indicator there's a high percentage of men who pay for sex who also have their heads up between Putin's butt cheeks. The same also are often angry at the USA, blaming the same for their life failings as they failed to grasp hold of the dream, and often find themselves expats in 3rd World shitholes.
Zelensky will be staying in Kyiv while Russia will continue to fail until an agreement is reached where the security of Ukraine is assured. And once again, Russia is far more corrupt than Ukraine based on credible measures, Ukraine 61 score out of 100, Russia 19. While Ukraine has made a lot of progress in that area in the last nine years.
https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores
Well, the USA Says it's not entirely accurate, LOL.
Biden Went to Kyiv Because There's No Going Back.
He's the American president. He made an unprecedented trip to a war zone, one where there are no U.S. troops to protect him. And, yes, hes old. But he went anyway.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/biden-trip-ukraine-kyiv/673134
Sorry comrades.
Scareface has got a competitor, now we know why Mexican border remains open.
Together, weve committed nearly 700 tanks and thousands of armored vehicles, 1,000 artillery systems, more than 2 million rounds of artillery ammunition, more than 50 advanced launch rocket systems, anti-ship and air defense systems, all defend U- to defend Ukraine. And that doesnt count the other half a billion dollars were going to be were announcing with you today and tomorrow thats going to be coming your way. And thats just the United States, in this piece.
And just today, that announcement includes artillery ammunition for HIMARS and howitzers, more Javelins, anti-armor systems, air surveillance radars thatll protect Ukrainian people from aerial bombardments.https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/20/remarks-by-president-biden-and-president-zelenskyy-of-ukraine-in-joint-statement/
Oh and you know the carnivals all over Europe feature one familiar image.
Why again has no one told those people that it's "pretty much over" and there is "no interest in war in Ukraine"?
Zelensky is a major reason Ukraine's not only still standing but winning.
.The gangster clown is a perfect tool of the en aye zeez. His calculation is that Ruski are unlikely to kill him as he's not a true strongman and only a coked up puppet with an all cash exit strategy.
The gangster clown is a perfect tool of the en aye zeez. His calculation is that Ruski are unlikely to kill him as he's not a true strongman and only a coked up puppet with an all cash exit strategy.If Zelensky dropped dead tomorrow, or was removed, Ukraine would fight on. If Putin dropped dead tomorrow, or was removed, there's no guarantee Russia would cease its aggression.
Russia's national psyche is such that they truly believe they're superior and entitled to dominate "lesser" countries and races. Putin is simply the current vessel for Russia's imperialist impulses. If it hadn't been him, it would have been somebody else.
The only way Russia will experience an attitude "adjustment" is if they are comprehensively defeated. If you don't give a bully a bloody nose, he'll just keep on coming.
P.S. Your "exit strategy" hypothesis has already been debunked. As I posted earlier, he had every opportunity to leave when the invasion first happened. He could have formed a "government in exile," played the victim card, and everyone would have lauded him and showered him with donations. The exit door was WIDE open and many were urging him to walk through it, and yet he didn't. So you might want to come with a new line of bullshit, since that one doesn't cut it for anyone outside the Putin butt-boy crowd.
DramaFree11
02-24-23, 03:34
The gangster clown is a perfect tool of the en aye zeez. His calculation is that Ruski are unlikely to kill him as he's not a true strongman and only a coked up puppet with an all cash exit strategy.Xman you have a strange definition of winning. Ukraine is being wiped out. You are losing a generation of men, maybe more. Those that are able to flee are leaving and will never return. At the end the world will turn on Pres. Z. he has. Ruined Ukraine, this is not a win.
The snorting Truffaldino has been promised his life will be spared for now, as he does everything so our land will be united again.
Biden hears from Zed when he learned from media he were in Kiev:
- As you have ordered, till the last Ukrainian!
- And how about you're still alive?
- What kind of Ukrainian am I?
Up until recently, shills working in Western markets have avoided dumb anti-Semitic jokes (and from Russia, no less). Well, not anymore. It's all hands on board now.
The snorting Truffaldino has been promised his life will be spared for now, as he does everything so our land will be united again.
Biden hears from Zed when he learned from media he were in Kiev:
- As you have ordered, till the last Ukrainian!
- And how about you're still alive?
- What kind of Ukrainian am I?I'm sure you thought your post was intelligible when you wrote it. Unfortunately, what actually came out of your keyboard was some rather incoherent gibberish.
And, to reiterate a point I've been consistently making, it's moronic for anyone to try to hyper-personalize this war. Those who can't muster anything better than lame insults aimed at Zelensky (or Putin) are simply demonstrating how empty their argumentation tank truly is.
Xman you have a strange definition of winning. Ukraine is being wiped out. You are losing a generation of men, maybe more. Those that are able to flee are leaving and will never return. At the end the world will turn on Pres. Z. he has. Ruined Ukraine, this is not a win.Ukraine is winning hard, the country that really has lost a generation of men is Russia. 150 000 - 200 000 dead in the war, double that have fled to countries that still accept Rachists, but I guess it will be fine since they have been stealing Ukrainian babies and children to make up for the shortfall. The world has turned on Russia and the Rashists. You're right it's not a win, it will be total victory and humiliation for the Rashists.
Up until recently
I'm sure you thought
Ukraine is winningLet me guess. You guys are not boomers or older gen X? Correct? I'm so sorry that you did not experience the last era of civilization and that your minds are all fucked.
Let me guess. You guys are not boomers or older gen X? Correct? I'm so sorry that you did not experience the last era of civilization and that your minds are all fucked.Our minds are just fine, your country is completely fucked though. Hope you started learning Chinese, you'll need it.
Xman you have a strange definition of winning. Ukraine is being wiped out. You are losing a generation of men, maybe more. Those that are able to flee are leaving and will never return. At the end the world will turn on Pres. Z. he has. Ruined Ukraine, this is not a win.Your continued sermons on the horrors of war are juvenile. Yes, we get it, war is hell. Is there anything else you can tell us, Major Obvious? Because Ukrainians turning on President Zelensky is not happening. Shame on you for using this pathetic cliché from a Russian propaganda manual.
Of course, aggressors are capable of inflicting horrific suffering on the nations they invade. What's your point?
It's a good thing you can't jump in a time machine and visit Great Britain in 1940 or the Soviet Union in 1941-1943. You would've see bombed out cities, millions of dead and crippled, destroyed livelihoods. And how did that war end, I wonder?
Ukrainians are fighting not because they want to, but because they have to.
Russians are fighting not because they have to, but because they want to.
One got to be really, really thick not to understand the difference?
From The National Bank: the recent emission of a so called '2-or 3 - or maximum 5 Hryvnia' banknote.
Xman you have a strange definition of winning. Ukraine is being wiped out. You are losing a generation of men, maybe more. Those that are able to flee are leaving and will never return. At the end the world will turn on Pres. Z. he has. Ruined Ukraine, this is not a win.The people who have fled Ukraine have done so primarily because it's a war zone. When the fighting is over, many will return. What percentage is anyone's guess but I doubt your crystal ball is better than anyone else's.
Another thing that's going to be flowing into post-war Ukraine is a shitload of Western money as a reconstruction effort takes place, in the same style as the Marshall Plan. With money sloshing around Ukraine, that's even more incentive for refugees to return. And Ukraine is firmly on the path to EU membership, and probably also NATO, which holds out the promise of economic growth.
It's those who left Russia who are less likely to return. Why? Because Russia isn't a war zone and those who left did so either because they don't support the war or because they didn't want to get drafted. Either one of those choices basically has the effect of burning the bridges that would make an easy return possible. The brain drain + the hundreds of thousands of killed and wounded will cause generational issues similar to post-WW2 Russia.
BTW, I doubt you can cite a single credible source that puts Ukrainian casualty losses even close to the level of Russian losses. One obvious reason why is because it's always been the case that it's harder to take territory than it is to defend. Take Bakhmut, for example, where Russia has thrown convicts and PMC Wagner forces for months, using "human wave" tactics, in their effort to seize that city. Their leader, Prighozin, even did a video with scores of his own dead soldiers stscked behind him, as he complained about not having enough ammunition.
One additional point is that you talk about Ukraine and Zelensky as though they have any other realistic choice. They don't because if they stop resisting Russian aggression then all of Ukraine will end up like Bucha and Irpin. They see this as a battle for existence and survival. Whether you agree or not is completely immaterial. That's how they see it and they're acting accordingly.
P.S. The world has categorically turned against Putin. The UN vote demanding Russia's withdrawal was 141 in favor of that demand, 7 against (IIRC), and 32 abstentions. Even so-called allies like China chose to abstain rather than support Putin. Therefore I would argue that it's Russia that's been ruined. Putin has turned it into a larger version of North Korea, a true pariah state.
me
so sorry that
I'm all fucked.You may have started a trend. After all, why bother with silly things like facts and logic when you can simply stoop to blatant misrepresentation? Isn't that special?
LuvMexicanas
02-25-23, 15:00
Your continued sermons on the horrors of war are juvenile. Yes, we get it, war is hell. Is there anything else you can tell us, Major Obvious? Because Ukrainians turning on President Zelensky is not happening. Shame on you for using this pathetic clich from a Russian propaganda manual.
Of course, aggressors are capable of inflicting horrific suffering on the nations they invade. What's your point?
It's a good thing you can't jump in a time machine and visit Great Britain in 1940 or the Soviet Union in 1941-1943. You would've see bombed out cities, millions of dead and crippled, destroyed livelihoods. And how did that war end, I wonder?
Ukrainians are fighting not because they want to, but because they have to.
Russians are fighting not because they have to, but because they want to.
One got to be really, really thick not to understand the difference?He's a compulsive liar. He posted he'd been to Tijuana 30 times during the first year of the pandemic even though his post history clearly debunks that. Also, he stated he lived in Ukraine twice in one post and then claimed he lived there three times in another post. Which is it and who the fuck mixes up how many times they lived somewhere? The answer is only someone who lies so much he can't keep all his lies straight.
From The National Bank: the recent emission of a so called '2-or 3 - or maximum 5 Hryvnia' banknote.These are the upcoming notes everyone will be using in Russia.
DramaFree11
02-25-23, 19:10
He's a compulsive liar. He posted he'd been to Tijuana 30 times during the first year of the pandemic even though his post history clearly debunks that. Also, he stated he lived in Ukraine twice in one post and then claimed he lived there three times in another post. Which is it and who the fuck mixes up how many times they lived somewhere? The answer is only someone who lies so much he can't keep all his lies straight.Dude you stalking me and others, in destination you have never been. Again, you have forgotten you have been invited to meet me several times, but you never bother to show up.
Kind of funny, I get sanctioned, for responding to lies, but nothing ever happens to you. Go figure!! My life is great, living the dream. I am in CDMX or MTY every 10 days, banging hot girls, while you complain.
Race to be the first Clown.
DramaFree11
02-25-23, 19:19
Your continued sermons on the horrors of war are juvenile. Yes, we get it, war is hell. Is there anything else you can tell us, Major Obvious? Because Ukrainians turning on President Zelensky is not happening. Shame on you for using this pathetic clich from a Russian propaganda manual.
Of course, aggressors are capable of inflicting horrific suffering on the nations they invade. What's your point?
It's a good thing you can't jump in a time machine and visit Great Britain in 1940 or the Soviet Union in 1941-1943. You would've see bombed out cities, millions of dead and crippled, destroyed livelihoods. And how did that war end, I wonder?
Ukrainians are fighting not because they want to, but because they have to.
Russians are fighting not because they have to, but because they want to.
One got to be really, really thick not to understand the difference?We will see, unfortunately you are wrong. This is a needless war. The west is using Pres. Z. , when they do not need him anymore or the war is not winnable, they will dump him.
Yes, Ukraine are fighting admirably, unfortunately the government is corrupt as hell, including your hero Pres. Z.
He's a compulsive liar. He posted he'd been to Tijuana 30 times during the first year of the pandemic even though his post history clearly debunks that. Also, he stated he lived in Ukraine twice in one post and then claimed he lived there three times in another post. Which is it and who the fuck mixes up how many times they lived somewhere? The answer is only someone who lies so much he can't keep all his lies straight.This issue was solved long ago. Drama Queen has never been to the Ukraine, much less lived there. He also said he went to Colombia and found it full of fat chicks though it's the land of fitness freaks and obsese women are few and far between. There's a TV in his momma's basement though where he's able to tune into Tucker Carlson.
The people who have fled Ukraine have done so primarily because it's a war zone. When the fighting is over, many will return. What percentage is anyone's guess but I doubt your crystal ball is better than anyone else's.
Another thing that's going to be flowing into post-war Ukraine is a shitload of Western money as a reconstruction effort takes place, in the same style as the Marshall Plan. With money sloshing around Ukraine, that's even more incentive for refugees to return. And Ukraine is firmly on the path to EU membership, and probably also NATO, which holds out the promise of economic growth.
It's those who left Russia who are less likely to return. Why? Because Russia isn't a war zone and those who left did so either because they don't support the war or because they didn't want to get drafted. Either one of those choices basically has the effect of burning the bridges that would make an easy return possible. The brain drain + the hundreds of thousands of killed and wounded will cause generational issues similar to post-WW2 Russia.
BTW, I doubt you can cite a single credible source that puts Ukrainian casualty losses even close to the level of Russian losses. One obvious reason why is because it's always been the case that it's harder to take territory than it is to defend. Take Bakhmut, for example, where Russia has thrown convicts and PMC Wagner forces for months, using "human wave" tactics, in their effort to seize that city. Their leader, Prighozin, even did a video with scores of his own dead soldiers stscked behind him, as he complained about not having enough ammunition.
One additional point is that you talk about Ukraine and Zelensky as though they have any other realistic choice. They don't because if they stop resisting Russian aggression then all of Ukraine will end up like Bucha and Irpin. They see this as a battle for existence and survival. Whether you agree or not is completely immaterial. That's how they see it and they're acting accordingly.
P.S. The world has categorically turned against Putin. The UN vote demanding Russia's withdrawal was 141 in favor of that demand, 7 against (IIRC), and 32 abstentions. Even so-called allies like China chose to abstain rather than support Putin. Therefore I would argue that it's Russia that's been ruined. Putin has turned it into a larger version of North Korea, a true pariah state.Accurate and a pleasure to read.
LuvMexicanas
02-26-23, 00:54
Dude you stalking me and others, in destination you have never been. Again, you have forgotten you have been invited to meet me several times, but you never bother to show up.
Kind of funny, I get sanctioned, for responding to lies, but nothing ever happens to you. Go figure!! My life is great, living the dream. I am in CDMX or MTY every 10 days, banging hot girls, while you complain.I don't think anyone wants to meet you. I certainly don't. You're like a woman who can never stay on point. Rather than admit your lies, you go off on a tangent about living the dream (I seriously doubt it), CDMX and Monterrey. What the fuck do those things have to do with you being a well known liar on the forum? Nothing.
LuvMexicanas
02-26-23, 00:58
This issue was solved long ago. Drama Queen has never been to the Ukraine, much less lived there. He also said he went to Colombia and found it full of fat chicks though it's the land of fitness freaks and obsese women are few and far between. There's a TV in his momma's basement though where he's able to tune into Tucker Carlson.Yet he continues to post lie after lie despite the fact that he lacks any credibility.
Interesting fact: the Christmas tree at the Maidan Square of the 2013-2014 winter season had a hanged man on one of the branches; the maddening crowd continued to dance around.
The plan the present Glans-Fuhrer has in his bunker is how to cut dope.
, your country is completely fucked though. Hope you started learning Chinese, you'll need it.Maybe so, but Ukraine will be its first tute.
Interesting fact: the Christmas tree at the Maidan Square of the 2013-2014 winter season had a hanged man on one of the branches; the maddening crowd continued to dance around.Propaganda works the best when there is some truth in it. Yes, there was a suicide by hanging on Maidan Square in January 2014. No, there weren't any "maddening dances" around the body. The body was discovered by the Maidan activists who informed the police about the incident. End of story.
Nice try, though, comrade.
DramaFree11
02-26-23, 04:09
This issue was solved long ago. Drama Queen has never been to the Ukraine, much less lived there. He also said he went to Colombia and found it full of fat chicks though it's the land of fitness freaks and obsese women are few and far between. There's a TV in his momma's basement though where he's able to tune into Tucker Carlson.Good to see you are smoking the same crap L. M. I also invited you to meet me in person, but of course you never took me up on the invitation. It is much easier to sit behind your computer, and make crap up.
Yes, I lived in Kiev, at that time it was great, then corruption took over. Also, many of my friends stopped traveling to Kiev and most of the girls we knew left Ukraine for better opportunities, but if you were an expert on Ukraine you would have a similar experience. Now L. M. , has never been to Ukraine, probably just like Colombia, but why would that stop him from spreading lies about myself and others.
Now MDE, sucks ass, I wish I would have never stepped foot in Colombia, I hated it, but I think you like it. This shows that I have some standards unlike you and your fellow MDE losers. L. M. Would fit in perfectly in MDE. He is cheap, bitter and jealous, just like the rest of you guys. I will be in MTY next weekend feel free to join me. That would be to easy.
I do feel sorry for the people of Kiev, I have no compassion for the government. If Pres. Z. , really cared he would be looking for a compromise to end this war, but instead he just keeps moving forward. His country is being destroyed and so many are being killed. If this is winning then, then Ukraine is definitely winning. Ukraine always loses, that is what they are good at, beside corruption, tine will tell.
Locamotive
02-26-23, 06:34
What that lame theory fails to explain is why he didn't leave immediately after the invasion. At that point Ukraine's supporters were few and far between, and mostly offered encouragement and prayers rather than weapons.
Among Putin's reported objectives were things like capturing or assassinating govt officials, with Zelensky obviously being the top prize. And yet, at that most opportune moment to flee, when no one would have faulted him, he chose to stay and said he needed ammunition, not a ride.
Had he fled, he could have set up a "government in exile" somewhere nice and safe, while raking in millions in donations. He didn't, and he hasn't, which is a giant poke in the eye to all those suffering from terminal Zelensky Derangement Syndrome.
Those who make the mistake of personalizing this conflict and making everything about Zelensky (or Putin) miss the obvious fact that if either of them dropped dead tomorrow, nothing would change. Any new leader of Ukraine would ABSOLUTELY need to continue defending that country. The Ukrainian people would demand it. And any new Soviet (oops, I mean Russian) leader would either continue fighting, from sheer inertia, or maybe start to roll things back.
The problem with that latter course is that for Russia to have spent so much in resources and lives, without any semblance of victory, would be hugely humiliating and destabilizing. What would become of Russia after that is anybody's guess. The new leader might try to blame everything on Putin, but that's such a radical change of direction that it could very well backfire and fracture or crash the system.
And, if Russia starts to destabilize, even around the edges, the vultures are already hovering and ready to carve off a piece for themselves. Keep an eye on Kadyrov and Lukashenko, for example. Both are survivors and will do whatever they can to avoid going down with the (Moskva) ship.Oh that's easy. Staying there he looks like some kind of martyr and he is really in no danger in Kiev. So far. Idiot Biden is not sending him millions but billion's which we have no accounting of. Oh he has a exit plan, just not yet until he can bleed them out of billions more. Without boots from the West all will be lost in a few months as they will run out of soldiers, he will bolt.
We will see, unfortunately you are wrong. This is a needless war. The west is using Pres. Z. , when they do not need him anymore or the war is not winnable, they will dump him.
Yes, Ukraine are fighting admirably, unfortunately the government is corrupt as hell, including your hero Pres. Z.Is that it either ignores or denies the agency of the player who personally gave the order to start the war, namely Putin. Unless the Western puppet masters are also pulling his strings, he is solely responsible for starting the chain of events that have brought us to the present state of affairs.
He had other geopolitical cards he could have played, since neither Ukraine nor NATO posed a credible (offensive) threat to Russia. He chose to invade in 2022 because he believed the false reports from his own FSB about pro-Russia sentiment in Ukraine, and because he thought the West would lack the resolve to stand against him. As the knight said to Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade, "he chose poorly".
Agree that this is a needless war. But Putin is solely responsible for starting it and he can stop it at anytime.
You and others talk about "the West" as though it was a single person with a single mind. In fact the Western alliance of countries that are supporting Ukraine range from very conservative, like Poland, to very liberal European countries. Each country has their own agenda and they don't always agree with each other. Some countries, like the Baltics and Nordics, are pushing for maximum firepower to be transferred ASAP so Ukraine can win quickly. Others, like Germany, are slow-walking aid because they fear escalation or perhaps because they want a post-war relationship with Russia. And I'm sure there are elements in some Western countries who are happy to see a drawn out conflict that will tend to drain and impoverish Russia. But the idea that the West is comprised of a monolithic and completely unified force is a myth.
The West is made up of individual countries and the leaders of those countries are constrained by the checks and balances of their own systems. Putin has no constraints as he's an absolute dictator. But even if Putin was killed or removed his successor would find it hard to change course because the Russian propaganda masters have convinced the population that this is some kind of holy and righteous cause. How can you say "my bad" and backtrack from that without tearing at the very fabric of Russian society?
P.S. It's hilarious to see posters talk about corruption in Ukraine while being absolutely silent about the uber-corrupt Kremlin kleptocracy. Like many post-Soviet countries, Ukraine needs to work at shedding the old ways and, as they move forward toward EU membership, they are more incentivized to do so than ever before.
Interesting fact: the Christmas tree at the Maidan Square of the 2013-2014 winter season had a hanged man on one of the branches; the maddening crowd continued to dance around.
The plan the present Glans-Fuhrer has in his bunker is how to cut dope.Yet all we get from you is your own dope-fueled imaginings.
Maybe so, but Ukraine will be its first tute.Too late. Russia is ALREADY China's first "tute". Present tense, LOL.
There was a song during Stalin times: Russians and Chinese are brothers forever, LOL.
A few years later China turned into a mortal enemy of the USSR.
Can anyone with half a brain not see where THIS is going?
Why Chinese farmers have crossed border into Russia's Far East
Based on data released by the state land register, BBC Russian calculated that Chinese citizens either owned or leased at least 350,000 hectares (3,500 sq km) of Far Eastern land in Russia. In 2018, around 2.2 million hectares of Russian land in the region was used for agricultural purposes.
The actual proportion could be higher, the BBC has learned. Chinese farmers are, according to BBC research, represented in 40% of the Far East...https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50185006
Why invade when you can buy? China already owns 80% of Russian region
Aleksandr Liventhal, the governor of Russia's Jewish Autonomous Oblast, says that according to the data he has, "80 percent of the land" in that region which borders China's Heilongjiang Province is now "controlled by the Chinese," a statement certain to spark new fears among Russians about China's intentions and Moscow's failure to counter them.
There are some Russian farmers there after all, ethnic Russians make up nearly 93 percent of the population of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (Jews number less than one percent of the total population of just over 176,000) but "by legal means or illegal means or various methods," the Chinese have taken control of the vast majority of it.
Worse, Liventhal says, the Chinese owners have sown 85 percent of the land they control with soy, a plant that "kills the land," thus further reducing the economic prospects of what is already a depressed area.
More light reading for Mother Russia fanboys:
The authorities of Russias Trans-Baikal Territory announced their decision on leasing out to China a total of 115,000 hectares of land for a term of 49 years
https://tass.com/russia/802162
https://www.ft.com/content/700a9450-1b26-11e5-8201-cbdb03d71480
Russia offers 2.5 million acres of land to Chinese farmers
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2159713/russia-offers-25-million-acres-land-chinese-farmers
Go Russia, LOL!
Yet all we get from you is your own dope-fueled imaginings.He's using all his brain power to learn Chinese, he's going to need it.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/13560
"China's Ministry of Natural Resources has just issued new regulations on map content, which require the addition of old Chinese names to the current Russian-pronounced geographical names of eight places along the Russian-Chinese border," Radio France International in Chinese reported on Feb. 23.
It elaborates that Under Beijing's new directive, Vladivostok once again is called Haishenwai (meaning Sea Cucumber Bay) while Sakhalin Island is called Kuyedao. The Stanovoy Range is back to being called the Outer Xing'an Range in Chinese. ".
Looks like the Sinofication of Russia has begun.
It elaborates that Under Beijing's new directive, Vladivostok once again is called Haishenwai (meaning Sea Cucumber Bay)"That's pretty slimy. .
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/13560
"China's Ministry of Natural Resources has just issued new regulations on map content, which require the addition of old Chinese names to the current Russian-pronounced geographical names of eight places along the Russian-Chinese border," Radio France International in Chinese reported on Feb. 23.
It elaborates that Under Beijing's new directive, Vladivostok once again is called Haishenwai (meaning Sea Cucumber Bay) while Sakhalin Island is called Kuyedao. The Stanovoy Range is back to being called the Outer Xing'an Range in Chinese. ".
Looks like the Sinofication of Russia has begun.Is simply this: Why now?
The centuries-old tensions between Russia and China are well known. And the current attitude of caution and guardedness between the two is no secret. And yet, in the midst of all the rhetoric about the existence of a close partnership, Comrade Xi sends this message to his "good friend" Putin.
It seems to me that several layers of potential meaning are implied, none of them likely to be seen as positive by Russia. And it's also noteworthy that something like this would not have happened without prior approval at the highest levels.
Which brings us right back to the big question: Why now?
Oh that's easy. Staying there he looks like some kind of martyr and he is really in no danger in Kiev. So far. Idiot Biden is not sending him millions but billion's which we have no accounting of. Oh he has a exit plan, just not yet until he can bleed them out of billions more. Without boots from the West all will be lost in a few months as they will run out of soldiers, he will bolt.What a fun game! Hey, wait, here's another:
Putin is going to keep sending his untrained and unarmed troops to be slaughtered and, just before he's about to be overthrown and killed by a group of Russian generals and elites, he's going to host an orgy at his palace and set off a tactical nuke while he has his dick in some young model's mouth. Male model or female, doesn't matter. All he cares about is the orgasmic explosion at the end.
Please notice carefully that this "plan" has exactly the same factual foundation as yours. Wasn't that fun?
Can anyone with half a brain not see where THIS is going?
Why Chinese farmers have crossed border into Russia's Far East..Well, I don't like you, but I agree. I was at a major medical institution the other day and can confirm we are fully infiltrated.
Good to see you are smoking the same crap L. M. I also invited you to meet me in person, but of course you never took me up on the invitation. It is much easier to sit behind your computer, and make crap up.
Yes, I lived in Kiev, at that time it was great, then corruption took over. Also, many of my friends stopped traveling to Kiev and most of the girls we knew left Ukraine for better opportunities, but if you were an expert on Ukraine you would have a similar experience. Now L. M. , has never been to Ukraine, probably just like Colombia, but why would that stop him from spreading lies about myself and others.
Now MDE, sucks ass, I wish I would have never stepped foot in Colombia, I hated it, but I think you like it. This shows that I have some standards unlike you and your fellow MDE losers. L. M. Would fit in perfectly in MDE. He is cheap, bitter and jealous, just like the rest of you guys. I will be in MTY next weekend feel free to join me. That would be to easy..Consider the possible outcomes:
1. Russia's ability to support the war effort, militarily or economically (or both), becomes so depleted that they're forced to withdraw from Ukraine. That would be the kind of loss that no amount of propaganda could whitewash and would likely result in severe negative shocks throughout Russian government and society. Externally there will be strong motivation to hold Russia accountable for their aggression. That would likely mean reparations, war crimes trials, continuation of some sanctions, etc.
2. The West falters in their support of Ukraine and Russia prevails. Assuming that means achieving effective control of all (or most) of Ukraine's territory, the long term challenge will be to hold it in the face of what will surely be a robust "underground" resistance movement. Sanctions will almost certainly continue, in fact it's likely they'll be increased. Poland, the Baltics, and the Nordics will move to prepare for the next phase of Russian expansionism, as will NATO. Moldova will urgently seek NATO membership, or some kind of security arrangement, because they'll see themselves as the next target. In short, ALL of Europe will be on a knife-edge. For all those who currently worry about a Russia-NATO war, with WW-III implications, you ain't seen nothing yet!
3. Something in between #1 and #2, like a partial withdrawal by Russia. But, whether they withdraw to pre-invasion borders or something else, this has no possibility of forming the foundation of any kind of lasting peace. Whether it's a hot war, cold war, ceasefire, or other arrangement, Ukraine will never concede an inch of their territory (as defined by the post-Soviet internationally recognized border) to Russia. Which means that any partial outcome is likely to be nothing more than a lull before the next storm. Just like Russia's invasion in 2014 was a precursor to this one, anything less than a comprehensive peace will contain the seeds of the next conflict. Oh, and all the above elements, like sanctions, war preparations, and so forth, will likely continue.
Pre-invasion Russia no longer exists, and it's not coming back. Putin flushed his geopolitical influence down the toilet. Europe has found new energy suppliers and Russia has been reduced to cannibalizing washing machines for parts. Any reliance on China is likely to carry a high cost.
Pre-invasion Ukraine is also a thing of the past. But they have a path forward as they want to be in the EU, and the EU wants them. For that to happen, they'll need to shed the Soviet legacy of corruption. How long that will take is hard to say. But all the evidence points to a high level of motivation for making any changes required. And the EU will be looking at Ukraine under a microscope, so any changes will need to be real and substantial. Ukraine as a member of the EU + possible NATO membership + Western money flooding in for reconstruction = many possible positive paths and outcomes.
In stark contrast, all the pathways and outcomes for Russia are bad. And I mean North Korea, pariah-state bad.
Maybe so, but Ukraine will be its first tute.War does interesting things. Not least of which is forging bonds that would never have formed otherwise. With respect to relationships between Ukraine and countries like Poland, the Baltics, the UK, and the Nordics, there's no comparison between pre-invasion times and now. And some of those relationships have moved beyond friendship into the realm of brotherhood.
Russia, in stark contrast, has squandered any goodwill they may have had. They're stuck in a small room with the likes of North Korea and Iran, and somebody just let out a fart!
From 0:32.
https://youtu.be/RYhL6p5EO1s
As we say 'The circus left but the clowns stayed'.
China Is Not Our Friend
Well, I don't like you, but I agree. I was at a major medical institution the other day and can confirm we are fully infiltrated.What? You don't like me? Gee, that hurts. . .
But you seem to misunderstand the current situation.
China is not supposed to be your friend.
China is the master, and Russia is a client state.
They say jump, you ask how high. That's how it works. Nothing personal, just business.
Consider the possible outcomes:
1. Russia's ability to support the war effort, militarily or economically (or both), becomes so depleted that they're forced to withdraw from Ukraine. That would be the kind of loss that no amount of propaganda could whitewash and would likely result in severe negative shocks throughout Russian government and society. Externally there will be strong motivation to hold Russia accountable for their aggression. That would likely mean reparations, war crimes trials, continuation of some sanctions, etc.
2. The West falters in their support of Ukraine and Russia prevails. Assuming that means achieving effective control of all (or most) of Ukraine's territory, the long term challenge will be to hold it in the face of what will surely be a robust "underground" resistance movement. Sanctions will almost certainly continue, in fact it's likely they'll be increased. Poland, the Baltics, and the Nordics will move to prepare for the next phase of Russian expansionism, as will NATO. Moldova will urgently seek NATO membership, or some kind of security arrangement, because they'll see themselves as the next target. In short, ALL of Europe will be on a knife-edge. For all those who currently worry about a Russia-NATO war, with WW-III implications, you ain't seen nothing yet!
3. Something in between #1 and #2, like a partial withdrawal by Russia. But, whether they withdraw to pre-invasion borders or something else, this has no possibility of forming the foundation of any kind of lasting peace. Whether it's a hot war, cold war, ceasefire, or other arrangement, Ukraine will never concede an inch of their territory (as defined by the post-Soviet internationally recognized border) to Russia. Which means that any partial outcome is likely to be nothing more than a lull before the next storm. Just like Russia's invasion in 2014 was a precursor to this one, anything less than a comprehensive peace will contain the seeds of the next conflict. Oh, and all the above elements, like sanctions, war preparations, and so forth, will likely continue.I'd venture with #4. Russia's not only forced to withdraw the troops from Ukraine (including Crimea of course) -- it's finally breaking up. The horrific civil war erupts, the likes of which has never been seen. Dozens of new warring states claim their own spot on the map, and some of them, most hostile to Moscow, are tacitly supported by Ukraine. All that becomes a nightmare to the West due to thousands of nuclear warheads that have fallen into the hands of local warlords who're willing to sell to a higher bidder.
As we say 'The circus left but the clowns stayed'.We as in "the clowns" ?
If Pres. Z. , really cared he would be looking for a compromise to end this war, but instead he just keeps moving forward. His country is being destroyed and so many are being killed. If this is winning then, then Ukraine is definitely winning. Ukraine always loses, that is what they are good at, beside corruption, tine will tell.Yeah, right now I'm not sure I see the grand compromise that brings an end to the hostilities long-term. By long-term, I mean a peace agreement is reached and Russia leaves the Ukraine alone without constant pressure indefinitely.
While I don't have the certain optimism of some other pro-Ukraine members here, I think you are painting an incomplete picture. The Ukraine has decided being a Russian satellite is not their future. Russia has forced this decision to be an existential choice for the Ukrainians.
I'd venture with #4. Russia's not only forced to withdraw the troops from Ukraine (including Crimea of course) -- it's finally breaking up. The horrific civil war erupts, the likes of which has never been seen. Dozens of new warring states claim their own spot on the map, and some of them, most hostile to Moscow, are tacitly supported by Ukraine. All that becomes a nightmare to the West due to thousands of nuclear warheads that have fallen into the hands of local warlords who're willing to sell to a higher bidder.That's certainly a possibility but, at this point, it's difficult to predict exactly how the fault lines might fracture. Whatever kind of civil war might break out would be limited by the fact that most of the available working weapons systems have been sent to the Ukraine front. That means any internal conflicts would primarily be of a small-arms nature.
With respect to nuclear weapons, it's my guess that the major nuclear powers, including China, are not going to sit on the sidelines and let those fall into just any hands, esp not those of terrorists or potential terrorists. They may play a direct part in securing the nukes or they may back those regional leaders or factions willing to guarantee the safety of nuclear assets.
In short, while the shit-show you describe could certainly happen, it's not inevitable. If the Kremlin-based govt weakens or falls then various regions might declare autonomy (1st step) and move later to independence (2nd step). Of course, some might jump straight to, step 2. Either way, they're likely to immediately form alliances to bolster their own security. Regions that are close to China or Turkey could reach out to their stronger neighbor for protection. Or regions in Russia's interior could band together. Again, it's hard to predict, but it doesn't necessarily need to devolve as drastically as you suggest.
That being said, this is the path that might have played out after the fall of the USSR. But the regions might not yet have been ripe for independence, and the central power structures were still strong. But I would still argue that this a long delayed final stage of the USSR's breakup. It's like a domino that's been teetering, refusing to fall, until now.
Yeah, right now I'm not sure I see the grand compromise that brings an end to the hostilities long-term. By long-term, I mean a peace agreement is reached and Russia leaves the Ukraine alone without constant pressure indefinitely.
While I don't have the certain optimism of some other pro-Ukraine members here, I think you are painting an incomplete picture. The Ukraine has decided being a Russian satellite is not their future. Russia has forced this decision to be an existential choice for the Ukrainians.My heart is certainly on the side of Ukraine, as I believe they have the moral high ground. No matter what criticisms, real or alleged, can be levied against pre-invasion Ukraine, there is no disputing the fact that Russia invaded (not the other way around) and Ukraine has every right to defend their lives and land.
Setting my feelings of support to one side, it's absolutely true that battlefield and geopolitical outcomes will be affected by a host of variables, some of which we don't even know. For example, both Russia and Ukraine understandably keep secret many crucial items of information about the state of their militaries and economies. And, with respect to information that does leak out, it's hard to know for sure if it's accurate, partially accurate, or outright disinformation. And then there are variables that lie in the future, such as how much Western support will continue to flow into Ukraine, for how long, and what will it consist of? Also, will Russia receive any meaningful outside assistance and will it be enough to mitigate battlefield losses?
But, despite the uncertainty, I would argue that it's still a useful exercise to look at the various possible outcomes and evaluate the relative probability of each. Here's one example:
Russia receives military and economic support from Iran, China, India, North Korea, and a few other countries. Of those, it's really only aid from China that has the potential to materially affect the balance on the battlefield. But China, no matter what rhetoric comes out of Moscow or Beijing, has to walk a tightrope as they don't want to become a target of Western sanctions. China's economy is highly dependent on European and US markets and they have plenty of economic issues on their plate without inviting more. That essentially means that outside support levels for Russia have limited upside.
Ukraine's outside support is more complicated as it spans the spectrum from quick and unqualified (Poland, Baltics, Nordics, etc.) to slow and grudging (Germany, France, etc.). But the main difference is that Western support doesn't have the same limitations. It's simply a question of willingness and determination to stay the course. So far, whenever the possibility of "support fatigue" has come up, there's been enough outcry to light a fire under reluctant leaders. Neither Germany or the US were going to provide advanced tanks until pressure from Poland and others was brought to bear. A similar debate is now happening with respect to aircraft and long-range missiles, and it won't surprise me if those weapons systems are provided before long. Compared with Russia's prospects for support, I would argue that Ukraine's has more upside potential.
So, to conjure up a mental picture, it's a bit like two sets of dominoes which, once the lead domino for each is tipped, will lead to cascades of dominoes rippling down different branched paths. While it's not possible to know in advance which branches will reach which endpoints, it is possible to make observations and judgments as to the percentage of positive vs negative endpoints that exist for each set. So that's the basis of my optimism for Ukraine. Not because I have any kind of crystal ball, but simply because I see more positive endpoint probabilities for them than I do for Russia.
The former Georgian President, a buffoon who chewed on his tie, is now a hospitalized mental case. As we say 'clowns never die they just change each other at the scene'. Clowns are like cockroaches, there is never only one.
The former Georgian President, a buffoon who chewed on his tie, is now a hospitalized mental case. As we say 'clowns never die they just change each other at the scene'. Clowns are like cockroaches, there is never only one.Which explains his problems. What's your excuse?
Clowns are like cockroaches, there is never only one.That's right, there's at least 3 of you here. Not sure how you escaped the circus, but here you are regular as clockwork.
That's certainly a possibility but, at this point, it's difficult to predict exactly how the fault lines might fracture. Whatever kind of civil war might break out would be limited by the fact that most of the available working weapons systems have been sent to the Ukraine front. That means any internal conflicts would primarily be of a small-arms nature.
With respect to nuclear weapons, it's my guess that the major nuclear powers, including China, are not going to sit on the sidelines and let those fall into just any hands, esp not those of terrorists or potential terrorists. They may play a direct part in securing the nukes or they may back those regional leaders or factions willing to guarantee the safety of nuclear assets.
In short, while the shit-show you describe could certainly happen, it's not inevitable. If the Kremlin-based govt weakens or falls then various regions might declare autonomy (1st step) and move later to independence (2nd step). Of course, some might jump straight to, step 2. Either way, they're likely to immediately form alliances to bolster their own security. Regions that are close to China or Turkey could reach out to their stronger neighbor for protection. Or regions in Russia's interior could band together. Again, it's hard to predict, but it doesn't necessarily need to devolve as drastically as you suggest..The US and NATO have contingency options for rapidly moving response forces to secure nuclear stockpiles in other countries in the event their governments topple. That's all I can say.
Consider the possible outcomes:
1. Russia's ability to support the war effort, militarily or economically (or both), becomes so depleted that they're forced to withdraw from Ukraine. That would be the kind of loss that no amount of propaganda could whitewash and would likely result in severe negative shocks throughout Russian government and society. Externally there will be strong motivation to hold Russia accountable for their aggression. That would likely mean reparations, war crimes trials, continuation of some sanctions, etc.
2. The West falters in their support of Ukraine and Russia prevails. Assuming that means achieving effective control of all (or most) of Ukraine's territory, the long term challenge will be to hold it in the face of what will surely be a robust "underground" resistance movement. Sanctions will almost certainly continue, in fact it's likely they'll be increased. Poland, the Baltics, and the Nordics will move to prepare for the next phase of Russian expansionism, as will NATO. Moldova will urgently seek NATO membership, or some kind of security arrangement, because they'll see themselves as the next target. In short, ALL of Europe will be on a knife-edge. For all those who currently worry about a Russia-NATO war, with WW-III implications, you ain't seen nothing yet!.I think for most likely outcome one should look at late history: Georgia, Chechnya, etc. Still going on. A little colder, a little hotter. The Russian troops are forever there to keep the fire smoldering. Still there in Abhazia, still there in Ossetia, still there in Transdnestria. That's the way Russia fights. It outlasts you. Napoleon, Hitler. All went through the same routine. Donbass was in military limbo for 7 years before Russia took the next step. The Blitzkrig against Ukraine didn't work so Russia is settling to what it's accustomed to. The idea is let's see what happens in a few years time.
China. The way it appears to me China is daring the US to impose sanctions on it. Not the Trump tariffs. Serious sanctions. Unlike Russia China has plenty of ways to fight back and that's why meeting between the US Secretary of State and the Chinese foreign minister never seem to go beyond shouting matches. 2006-2008 crisis: if it wouldn't be for China who knows what would've happened in the US. China knows that.
Covid: I believe that it was a reconnaissance by force. No proof, just a hunch. Maybe initially it wasn't meant to be that but wow talking about a present to the Chinese military planners. Covid was gold! China is used to pandemics, you know. SARS1, West Nile, Blue Nile, Green Nile, Bird, Swine, Cow, Sheep, Dog, Moon. They had them all. Compared to SARS1 Covid was not such a big deal. The difference is that SARS1 and Swine flu stayed in China only, while Covid took a spin around the world. Chinese saw how the world reacted. Chinese took notes. China also believes that in the real trade war the Chinese people would be able to handle hardships that such a war would inevitably bring on both sides much better than the Americans and the Europeans would. I know my Americans. I see the reaction to the darn balloon. I think the Chinese are right.
At this point I think the US is afraid of China more China is afraid of the US. Will Chinese supply Russia with ammunition? I'd say they will. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they are already doing that. I may be wrong but I have a feeling that I'm right.
It's not in the Chinese interests for the Ukraine to prevail IMHO. If Ukraine is seen as a victor it would farther boost West and would inevitably seed doubts in the Chinese ability to prevail against Taiwan (or anybody else for that matter) both domestically and abroad while providing an incredible motivational shot in the arm to Taiwan. We all know that the invader is always in disadvantage as is, no matter who the invader is and now if the potential invader is not as sure in its ability to prevail as it was before. Houston, we have a problem.
China needs Russia to prevail over Ukraine and I think it's ready to play a more active part in the conflict. Obviously not as overtly as NATO does but hey. It shares a long woody border with Russia. Who know what crosses it and when, where and how. Obviously it would be stupid for the Chinese to meet Zelensky over their 'peace proposal' and give Zelensky such a huge additional platform to showcase his professional skills. Xi wouldn't even agree to a phone call with Biden why would he want to speak to wonderful and funny Mr. Z.
BTW, very very very funny Mr. Z. I speak Russian and Portuguese fluently and this guy was a top dog. I think I saw most of his clips. Not as funny as Brazilian Porta dos Fundos mind you (few things are) but still very funny.
Clowns are like cockroaches, there is never only one.There's a whole crew of you here though some user names may be sock puppets.
My heart is certainly on the side of Ukraine, as I believe they have the moral high ground. No matter what criticisms, real or alleged, can be levied against pre-invasion Ukraine, there is no disputing the fact that Russia invaded (not the other way around) and Ukraine has every right to defend their lives and land.
Setting my feelings of support to one side, it's absolutely true that battlefield and geopolitical outcomes will be affected by a host of variables, some of which we don't even know. For example, both Russia and Ukraine understandably keep secret many crucial items of information about the state of their militaries and economies. And, with respect to information that does leak out, it's hard to know for sure if it's accurate, partially accurate, or outright disinformation. And then there are variables that lie in the future, such as how much Western support will continue to flow into Ukraine, for how long, and what will it consist of? Also, will Russia receive any meaningful outside assistance and will it be enough to mitigate battlefield losses?
But, despite the uncertainty, I would argue that it's still a useful exercise to look at the various possible outcomes and evaluate the relative probability of each. Here's one example:
Russia receives military and economic support from Iran, China, India, North Korea, and a few other countries. Of those, it's really only aid from China that has the potential to materially affect the balance on the battlefield. But China, no matter what rhetoric comes out of Moscow or Beijing, has to walk a tightrope as they don't want to become a target of Western sanctions. China's economy is highly dependent on European and US markets and they have plenty of economic issues on their plate without inviting more. That essentially means that outside support levels for Russia have limited upside.
Ukraine's outside support is more complicated as it spans the spectrum from quick and unqualified (Poland, Baltics, Nordics, etc.) to slow and grudging (Germany, France, etc.). But the main difference is that Western support doesn't have the same limitations. It's simply a question of willingness and determination to stay the course. So far, whenever the possibility of "support fatigue" has come up, there's been enough outcry to light a fire under reluctant leaders. Neither Germany or the US were going to provide advanced tanks until pressure from Poland and others was brought to bear. A similar debate is now happening with respect to aircraft and long-range missiles, and it won't surprise me if those weapons systems are provided before long. Compared with Russia's prospects for support, I would argue that Ukraine's has more upside potential.
So, to conjure up a mental picture, it's a bit like two sets of dominoes which, once the lead domino for each is tipped, will lead to cascades of dominoes rippling down different branched paths. While it's not possible to know in advance which branches will reach which endpoints, it is possible to make observations and judgments as to the percentage of positive vs negative endpoints that exist for each set. So that's the basis of my optimism for Ukraine. Not because I have any kind of crystal ball, but simply because I see more positive endpoint probabilities for them than I do for Russia.I've always been concerned the war becomes a long slog that the Russians just continue to fight when rational minds might say time to pack it up and go home. As many observers have noted, Russia historically fights a long game where it's size, manpower and willingness to bear ridiculous losses give them an advantage. Yes, Russia will be isolated and her economy will suffer. However, this was Russia throughout the twentieth century.
Now that doesn't translate into a Russian victory per se, but it doesn't give the Ukrainians a great outcome. A very satisfying victory might elude both sides.
China. The way it appears to me China is daring the US to impose sanctions on it. Not the Trump tariffs. Serious sanctions. Unlike Russia China has plenty of ways to fight back and that's why meeting between the US Secretary of State and the Chinese foreign minister never seem to go beyond shouting matches. 2006-2008 crisis: if it wouldn't be for China who knows what would've happened in the US. China knows that.
Covid: I believe that it was a reconnaissance by force. No proof, just a hunch. Maybe initially it wasn't meant to be that but wow talking about a present to the Chinese military planners. Covid was gold! China is used to pandemics, you know. SARS1, West Nile, Blue Nile, Green Nile, Bird, Swine, Cow, Sheep, Dog, Moon. They had them all. Compared to SARS1 Covid was not such a big deal. The difference is that SARS1 and Swine flu stayed in China only, while Covid took a spin around the world. Chinese saw how the world reacted. Chinese took notes. China also believes that in the real trade war the Chinese people would be able to handle hardships that such a war would inevitably bring on both sides much better than the Americans and the Europeans would. I know my Americans. I see the reaction to the darn balloon. I think the Chinese are right.
At this point I think the US is afraid of China more China is afraid of the US. Will Chinese supply Russia with ammunition? I'd say they will. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they are already doing that. I may be wrong but I have a feeling that I'm right.China's strength is overstated. If you are saying the Chinese helped the World get out of the 2008-2009 financial crisis, their over-investment with a lack of corresponding domestic consumption put pressure on the global economy and still does. Initially, they helped consume and stockpile some commodities, but they still needed a home for their manufactured goods. The commodity boom didn't last long and started to deflate in 2014.
It's easy to think of the country with huge trade surpluses in a position of strength. In reality, it's more of a dependency on the World economy and the USA In particular for end markets. The USA Is already diversifying its manufacturing base.
I don't think helping Russia substantially is currently in their best interests. Hedging their bets is in their best interest.
I think for most likely outcome one should look at late history: Georgia, Chechnya, etc. Still going on. A little colder, a little hotter. The Russian troops are forever there to keep the fire smoldering. Still there in Abhazia, still there in Ossetia, still there in Transdnestria. That's the way Russia fights. It outlasts you. Napoleon, Hitler. All went through the same routine. Donbass was in military limbo for 7 years before Russia took the next step. The Blitzkrig against Ukraine didn't work so Russia is settling to what it's accustomed to. The idea is let's see what happens in a few years time.
For two reasons:
1. In the post you replied to, I listed three possible outcomes. In your reply you quoted two of them and completely ignored the third. Which is puzzling, since it was exactly that scenario that's most relevant to what your reply discusses. Here's outcome #3, from my original post, that you left out:
"Something in between #1 and #2, like a partial withdrawal by Russia. But, whether they withdraw to pre-invasion borders or something else, this has no possibility of forming the foundation of any kind of lasting peace. Whether it's a hot war, cold war, ceasefire, or other arrangement, Ukraine will never concede an inch of their territory (as defined by the post-Soviet internationally recognized border) to Russia. Which means that any partial outcome is likely to be nothing more than a lull before the next storm. Just like Russia's invasion in 2014 was a precursor to this one, anything less than a comprehensive peace will contain the seeds of the next conflict. Oh, and all the above elements, like sanctions, war preparations, and so forth, will likely continue".
With respect to your response, one thing you don't address is the qualitative difference between the current situation and those from the past. It's specifically BECAUSE of Russia's past aggressions that the current anti-Russia alliance, including a mix of sanctions and support for Ukraine, exists. Countries that didn't involve themselves before are now fully engaged. Why else would Sweden and Finland change from decades of non-alignment to seeking NATO membership? Why else would Poland and the Baltics be boosting defense spending to previously unseen levels? The simple and obvious reason is that they look at all the examples of Russian aggression you just listed, and the light bulb has finally switched on. They realize that Russia will not stop of its own volition. And they realize that a frozen conflict is just hitting the pause button, and that they are likely next on Russia's shopping list. And most of the rest of Europe, even if they're not on Russia's borders, now understand that, unless they deal with Russia now, they're likely to have a less stable Europe that is constantly under threat.
BTW, your use of Hitler and Napoleon as historical examples is right in line with Russian "great power" propaganda. But it completely fails as an analogy because in both cases Russia was fighting a defensive war, on home soil, and the aggressors had to deal with the logistics required for an invasion. In today's situation, Russia is the aggressor, fighting on foreign soil, and they're struggling mightily with logistics. Maybe if Hitler or Napoleon had systems like HIMARS things might have been different. Oh, and if you think the USSR would have stopped Hitler without MASSIVE amounts of Western aid (look up lend-lease + Soviet Union), I have a bridge over the Kerch Strait that's for sale.
Again, I'm puzzled why you completely sidestepped the one scenario I outlined that was specifically on point.
2. You talk a lot about China (and COVID) yet I didn't mention it in any one of my three scenarios. In fact, my only mention was toward the very end where I pointed out that any help from China is likely to come at a very high cost for Russia. Other than that simple and relatively uncontroversial assertion, I have zero inclination to follow you down your China (and COVID) rabbit-hole.
That's certainly a possibility but, at this point, it's difficult to predict exactly how the fault lines might fracture. Whatever kind of civil war might break out would be limited by the fact that most of the available working weapons systems have been sent to the Ukraine front. That means any internal conflicts would primarily be of a small-arms nature.
With respect to nuclear weapons, it's my guess that the major nuclear powers, including China, are not going to sit on the sidelines and let those fall into just any hands, esp not those of terrorists or potential terrorists. They may play a direct part in securing the nukes or they may back those regional leaders or factions willing to guarantee the safety of nuclear assets.
In short, while the shit-show you describe could certainly happen, it's not inevitable. If the Kremlin-based govt weakens or falls then various regions might declare autonomy (1st step) and move later to independence (2nd step). Of course, some might jump straight to, step 2. Either way, they're likely to immediately form alliances to bolster their own security. Regions that are close to China or Turkey could reach out to their stronger neighbor for protection. Or regions in Russia's interior could band together. Again, it's hard to predict, but it doesn't necessarily need to devolve as drastically as you suggest.
That being said, this is the path that might have played out after the fall of the USSR. But the regions might not yet have been ripe for independence, and the central power structures were still strong. But I would still argue that this a long delayed final stage of the USSR's breakup. It's like a domino that's been teetering, refusing to fall, until now.Of course, nothing is predetermined. My "vision" is based on the inevitability of the final breakup of Russian empire and the mere fact that the Kremlin won't take it lying down. I'm afraid the civil war in Russia is inevitable -- as for severity of it, well, let's hope it won't involve the nukes.
As for China, again I agree that they crucially depend on the West, but so was Russia. Unfortunately, in a battle between logic and totalitarianism the logic always lose.
Seriously, just think how crazy it was for Saddam to go to war against America or for Putin to go to war against the world. And yet, here we are.
https://youtu.be/FAqyx5Kr_3c
One foot in the grave once, one foot in the grave twice.
https://youtu.be/FAqyx5Kr_3c
One foot in the grave once, one foot in the grave twice.But I guess it'll help you get over the terminal butthurt of having your Black Sea flagship unceremoniously 'promoted' to the rank of submarine. Who would have thought the prophetic words "Russian warship, go fuck yourself!" would have come to pass so soon?
One foot in the grave once, one foot in the grave twice.Both feet in your mouth all the time.
Z and his cronies need to be rounded up for this human tragedy.
https://youtu.be/nlDLGQadxLk
'I've been with you only for the sake of democracy'.
Of course, nothing is predetermined. My "vision" is based on the inevitability of the final breakup of Russian empire and the mere fact that the Kremlin won't take it lying down. I'm afraid the civil war in Russia is inevitable -- as for severity of it, well, let's hope it won't involve the nukes.
As for China, again I agree that they crucially depend on the West, but so was Russia. Unfortunately, in a battle between logic and totalitarianism the logic always lose.
Seriously, just think how crazy it was for Saddam to go to war against America or for Putin to go to war against the world. And yet, here we are.I wonder how well those of us in the West, analysts or laymen, truly understand China's logic? I mean, while I've seen adjectives like cautious and long-term used to describe the Chinese view of things, I suspect Westerners think long-term is somewhere around 5-7 years, 10 years max. And, with respect to their preference for a more cautious and measured approach, I wonder if that's because they're such a huge country, in terms of population, that Chinese leaders need to think like the captain of a mega-tanker that can't be turned on a dime? It's purely my own opinion, but it seems to me that the cautious + long-term (decades+) brand of totalitarianism is of a different sort from that which we saw with Saddam and are seeing with Putin.
Of course, that doesn't mean the CCP is any less evil and ruthless. It just means that they follow their own uniquely Chinese set of rules. And it also doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. One that come to mind is the Belt and Road Initiative, which has misfired and backfired in many instances. Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing a story for a long time that touted a BRI "success" story. Another HUGE mistake was the mishandling of the one child policy. For a recent discussion of the demographic disaster China is facing, see the recent Washington Post article by Nicholas Eberstadt. I'll put the link below, but it's behind a paywall. The gist of the article is that China's birthrates AND marriage rates have experienced an epic collapse.
Putting all this into a Russia-Ukraine perspective, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure anyone has fully figured out what China's long-game strategy is. My gut feeling is that they want both Russia and the West to be weakened and distracted. If that's the case, they may continue their tightrope-walking approach indefinitely. I doubt they want a failed state on their doorstep (too destabilizing), so they won't want Russia to collapse. On the flip-side, I don't think they want a stronger Russia, because it's in China's interests to keep Russia in a position of dependence.
For me, the most interesting stuff to watch are those moves China is making around the edges, moves that may not make the headlines. For example, China's been cozying up to Kazakhstan and one result is that Kazakhstan's president has been more critical of Putin and Russia than he might otherwise have been. So it'll be interesting to see if China cultivates similar relationships with other "Stan" countries. And if there are other under-the-radar moves by China, I'll be paying attention to those.
Link to the WaPo story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/28/behind-china-collapse-birth-marriage-rates/
Note: I've had mixed results viewing the article. Sometimes it loads fine and other times the paywall blocks it. One consistent way I found to view it is to use Brave browser with the Speedreader (simplified view) setting enabled.
https://youtu.be/nlDLGQadxLk
'I've been with you only for the sake of democracy'.There, fixed it for ya. You're welcome, no charge.
Z and his cronies need to be rounded up for this human tragedy.It's doubtful you can find a single military analyst who would view the taking of Bakhmut as a big deal. It's of political value to Russia because of the enormous pressure to show SOME positive result. And also because Putin has ordered his generals to retake territory to the Donetsk and Luhansk administrative borders. Even though taking Bakhmut won't accomplish that second goal, it's a step toward it.
But the bigger question is, assuming Bakhmut changes hands, at what cost was it achieved? It's a well-established military precept that it always requires more resources to attack than to defend. And, from all reports, Russia is short of armored vehicles and tanks, so they've resorted to throwing warm bodies at the defensive line and thousands of those are now lifeless and frozen.
If Ukraine decides to pull back, they'll do so to defensive positions they've already prepared, and Russia will have to try again, except with fewer resources. It's a classic attritional strategy often employed by a smaller country defending against a larger aggressor.
Remember how you and all the Putin Fan-Boyz were cheering about the missile strikes against Ukraine's electrical infrastructure? Well, Ukraine's grid is fully up and running, with no significant outages in quite a while. And those missile barrages have become more rare, if not stopped altogether. While it's not possible to know the exact reason (because Russia obviously isn't going to say) the most likely reason is that Russia expended limited missile resources for no net positive gain. Russia wrongly thought Ukrainians would cave to terroristic attacks. Those kinds of miscalculations, and repeating them over and over again, clearly demonstrate Russia's inherent weaknesses.
Ukraine is more unified against Russian aggression than ever before. And Ukraine's allies continue to contribute resources. Meanwhile, Russia has to cannibalize washing machines and such just to scavenge a few microchips. I wonder when they'll start emulating North Korea and be reduced to eating dog soup, with grass on the side?
BTW, no matter what anyone thinks of Zelensky, the plain fact of the matter is that he's visited the front lines on multiple occasions. That's something Putin, the coward who stays comfortably at home, has never done. Also, even though it's reported that Putin has a double he uses for public gatherings, he hasn't even sent his puppet to visit the front.
BTW, no matter what anyone thinks of Zelensky, the plain fact of the matter is that he's visited the front lines on multiple occasions. That's something Putin, the coward who stays comfortably at home, has never done. Also, even though it's reported that Putin has a double he uses for public gatherings, he hasn't even sent his puppet to visit the front.You know the reason he doesn't send his puppet to the front. The Russian troops will shoot his puppet. Puppets like that aren't cheap.
DramaFree11
03-03-23, 03:03
It's doubtful you can find a single military analyst who would view the taking of Bakhmut as a big deal. It's of political value to Russia because of the enormous pressure to show SOME positive result. And also because Putin has ordered his generals to retake territory to the Donetsk and Luhansk administrative borders. Even though taking Bakhmut won't accomplish that second goal, it's a step toward it.
But the bigger question is, assuming Bakhmut changes hands, at what cost was it achieved? It's a well-established military precept that it always requires more resources to attack than to defend. And, from all reports, Russia is short of armored vehicles and tanks, so they've resorted to throwing warm bodies at the defensive line and thousands of those are now lifeless and frozen.
If Ukraine decides to pull back, they'll do so to defensive positions they've already prepared, and Russia will have to try again, except with fewer resources. It's a classic attritional strategy often employed by a smaller country defending against a larger aggressor.
Remember how you and all the Putin Fan-Boyz were cheering about the missile strikes against Ukraine's electrical infrastructure? Well, Ukraine's grid is fully up and running, with no significant outages in quite a while. And those missile barrages have become more rare, if not stopped altogether. While it's not possible to know the exact reason (because Russia obviously isn't going to say) the most likely reason is that Russia expended limited missile resources for no net positive gain. Russia wrongly thought Ukrainians would cave to terroristic attacks. Those kinds of miscalculations, and repeating them over and over again, clearly demonstrate Russia's inherent weaknesses..You might be right, But sooner or later Ukraine will run out of men and resources, they can just not keep it up.
The next couple of months will determine who wins the war. Ukraine has done an amazing job, but I am afraid they are about done. I just want the war to end, I do not care who wins.
Henry Kissinger once said, "To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal".
Henry Kissinger once said, "To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal".I think someone also once said that to be a friend of Henry Kissinger is fatal.
Please tell us that he's a friend of yours.
Henry Kissinger once said, "To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal".To be a "Brother" to Russia is to have your children kidnapped and indoctrinated, your women raped, your civilian infrastructure bombed, your land taken by force, and your men forced to fight.
To be a "Brother" to Russia is to have your children kidnapped and indoctrinated, your women raped, your civilian infrastructure bombed, your land taken by force, and your men forced to fight.You only care about the pussy in Ukraine. No biggie for you if all the men die.
You only care about the pussy in Ukraine.Are you seriously going there on a mongering forum? How desperate.
Look who's getting more laughs than Zelensky at the height of his comedy career. It's the king of the Circus, Clown Chief in Waiting, Lavrov.
The whole of India is laughing at him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5VFSCEZDtQ&t=1712s
You might be right, But sooner or later Ukraine will run out of men and resources, they can just not keep it up.
The next couple of months will determine who wins the war. Ukraine has done an amazing job, but I am afraid they are about done. I just want the war to end, I do not care who wins.If I had a dollar for every prediction that Ukraine was "about done," I'd have a shitload of dollars. Even those who supposedly have good expertise and information sources have been wrong more often than right. And pretty much every pundit who underestimated Ukraine now has egg on their face.
As I've posted multiple times, rather than make predictions I prefer to observe the facts on the ground and then use those facts as a starting point for the various ways things could play out, and which paths might be more or less probable. Here's an observation I think is significant that I'm not seeing discussed anywhere:
We've just passed the 1 year anniversary of the war. One thing we know about Russia and Putin is that they hold anniversaries, and other special dates, in high regard. So, what I find HUGELY significant is that this notable anniversary passed without so much as a whimper from the Russian military. No giant barrage of missiles, no major offensive operation, nothing. It's hard for me to believe that, if Putin had the resources and ability, he wouldn't have ordered some large-scale show of force. The fact that he hasn't means (IMO) that he most likely couldn't. And this conclusion is supported by two other facts. First, missile barrages targeting infrastructure have largely stopped. There may be one or a few here and there, but nothing like before. Second, Russian forces have been trying to take Bakhmut for about 10 months. Nearly everywhere else they've been either on the defensive or not doing much offensively. Bakhmut is of little strategic value but politically important (to Russia) which explains why they keep trying. If Russia loses thousands of men to gain a few hundred meters, or even a kilometer, it still shows that they have offensive capability. And, if they can make some incremental gains, those can be trumpeted as "successful" and serve as a distraction from their lack of gains elsewhere.
All of the above would seem to indicate that it's Russia that's feeling the strain, more so than Ukraine. Meanwhile, Western support continues at a good pace, and tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are being trained in Western countries. I won't make a prediction here, but the probabilities are not trending favorably for Russia. And I would argue their performance (lack thereof, actually) and their current behavior are evidence that they're not doing well.
BTW, I also want the war to stop. But I care who wins because, if Ukraine wins, Russia will be deterred from future aggression. If Russia wins, not only will they become more aggressive but the clock will start ticking for the next conflict. The Baltics, Nordics, and Poland all know this, which is why they're 100% in support of Ukraine.
You only care about the pussy in Ukraine. No biggie for you if all the men die.He started the war and he can stop it any time he wants.
The Cook v. The Clown. Take a look at the clowns' volkssturm at the second part of the video: https://rutube.ru/video/1e7806c6ecf18091c12df8e3ef2a56ad/?r=wd.
(youtube is actively taking down this video).
- Was it you lover's husband back home unexpectedly?
- Much worse, it was a drafting officer!
The Cook v. The Clown. Take a look at the clowns' volkssturm at the second part of the video: https://rutube.ru/video/1e7806c6ecf18091c12df8e3ef2a56ad/?r=wd.
(youtube is actively taking down this video).
- Was it you lover's husband back home unexpectedly?
- Much worse, it was a drafting officer!What kind of moron thinks that this shit has any effect, or any relevance, to an actual war in which people are dying?
Do you masturbate when you watch these? Wouldn't PornHub be a more efficient option? At least that way you wouldn't be parading your cretinism for all the forum to see.
The Cook v. The Clown.The Clown is Lavrov, and he has the raucous laughs of the whole of India to prove it.
Beijing4987
03-04-23, 17:04
For anyone seriously interested in the issue with Russia, look up the history of its invasions of Finland and defeat of both Finland & Sweden in battle. It will not happen again, as Finland has universal military conscription, with 20% active or in reserves. The invasion of Ukraine convinced them that neutrality was no longer tenable. Finland's entrance to NATO is CHECKMATE for Russia. Checkmate for St Petersburg & Murmansk.
An escort gets a state medal https://www.instagram.com/maneken007/.
Her 2020 interview: https://youtu.be/uu9TbLLaydQ as an escort.
An escort gets a state medal https://www.instagram.com/maneken007/.
Her 2020 interview: https://youtu.be/uu9TbLLaydQ as an escort.You're obviously beating off to these vids, since no one is watching them other than you, and maybe a few others with a Putin fetish. So, since this is a monger forum, you might as well post a review. I'm sure your fellow RussoFanBoyz would enjoy hearing which parts get you really excited.
An escort gets a state medal...Yes, keep up the good work.
If you're a mercenary we are tracking you.
If you're a mercenary we are tracking you.Or like Palestinians recruited from refugee camps in Lebanon?
Or like Syrians who might sign up to fight for money to escape the shit-hole hellscape Putin has created in that country?
Those kinds of mercenaries?
If you're a mercenary we are tracking you.The Russkiy Mir, it is everyone else who is a threat, what a clown.
Interesting analysis of China's 'peace plan' that argues it's more of a window into China's concerns about Taiwan than it is about Ukraine or Russia.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/06/china-russia-war-taiwan-ukraine-peace-plan-xi-putin/
After reading the article, it's my sense China won't be able to deter or intimidate the West. Which means, if they decide to invade Taiwan, they'll need to take extraordinary steps to sanction-proof themselves. I don't know if they'll be able to pull it off, but I'll be watching closely to see what moves they make in that direction.
I've mentioned before that China tends to move cautiously, rather than impulsively. And I think Russia's debacle in Ukraine has made that even more true, as it's shown how many things can go wrong and how preconceived assumptions can be wildly off base.
P.S. Although the article doesn't make this specific assertion, it seems to me that the analysis + my point about China's cautious nature = very likely that China continues with its tightrope walk. To me that means, no matter what the rhetoric, they probably won't provide Russia with significant military aid.
News report today on a single older Ukrainian that got blasted in the field after saying slava ukraina. They didn't torture him.
Where was the media when a dozen young Russians got shot through legs? Efing brutal and no outrage.
Interesting analysis of China's 'peace plan' that argues it's more of a window into China's concerns about Taiwan than it is about Ukraine or Russia.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/06/china-russia-war-taiwan-ukraine-peace-plan-xi-putin/
After reading the article, it's my sense China won't be able to deter or intimidate the West. Which means, if they decide to invade Taiwan, they'll need to take extraordinary steps to sanction-proof themselves. I don't know if they'll be able to pull it off, but I'll be watching closely to see what moves they make in that direction.
I've mentioned before that China tends to move cautiously, rather than impulsively. And I think Russia's debacle in Ukraine has made that even more true, as it's shown how many things can go wrong and how preconceived assumptions can be wildly off base.
P.S. Although the article doesn't make this specific assertion, it seems to me that the analysis + my point about China's cautious nature = very likely that China continues with its tightrope walk. To me that means, no matter what the rhetoric, they probably won't provide Russia with significant military aid.Anyone with a sense for foreign policy and without Russian sympathies realizes the Ukraine takes on far more global importance. The West does not want Russian aggression to succeed for fear it would embolden China.
When China proposed their peace plan, I didn't exactly come to the conclusion as the author in the Foreign Policy article. It does make an important point. I simply thought the Chinese were tone deaf and thought they would run a peace plan up the pole that was favorable to Russia. It certainly didn't read like a peace plan from an honest broker. It would also seem China's global prestige suffered some.
When you see things like this Chinese peace plan, you wonder if Xi is out of touch and his advisors can't give him honest assessments. That seems scarier to me than the Chinese proposal in itself.
News report today on a single older Ukrainian that got blasted in the field after saying slava ukraina. They didn't torture him.
Where was the media when a dozen young Russians got shot through legs? Efing brutal and no outrage.In fact, they have so little concern about committing obvious war crimes that they broadcast them. The recent incident in which they killed an unarmed prisoner was broadcast via Russian channels. And it's irrelevant whether or not he was tortured, the killing of an unarmed POW is a war crime, in and of itself.
On the subject of torture, the recent discovery of multiple torture chambers set up by Orcs while they occupied Kherson is conclusive evidence of the systematic use of torture by Putin's goons. And there are many non-Ukrainian observers who are gathering evidence and documenting Russia's war crimes. They have a lot of work ahead of them, so we probably won't have a comprehensive picture for quite some time.
About the incident you cited, if there's adequate evidence, then those responsible should be held accountable. But, even if true and proven, that in NO way absolves the systematic criminal behavior that characterizes Russia's military. Their complete contempt for human life is evident, not only in the way they treat captives and civilians, but also in the way they treat their own troops. There is no equivalence here as all of Europe certainly understands, and most of the rest of the world as well.
One understandable effect is that it increases Ukraine's resolve to continue fighting. And it similarly increases the West's resolve to continue supporting Ukraine.
Locamotive
03-08-23, 01:25
If I had a dollar for every prediction that Ukraine was "about done," I'd have a shitload of dollars. Even those who supposedly have good expertise and information sources have been wrong more often than right. And pretty much every pundit who underestimated Ukraine now has egg on their face.
As I've posted multiple times, rather than make predictions I prefer to observe the facts on the ground and then use those facts as a starting point for the various ways things could play out, and which paths might be more or less probable. Here's an observation I think is significant that I'm not seeing discussed anywhere:
We've just passed the 1 year anniversary of the war. One thing we know about Russia and Putin is that they hold anniversaries, and other special dates, in high regard. So, what I find HUGELY significant is that this notable anniversary passed without so much as a whimper from the Russian military. No giant barrage of missiles, no major offensive operation, nothing. It's hard for me to believe that, if Putin had the resources and ability, he wouldn't have ordered some large-scale show of force. The fact that he hasn't means (IMO) that he most likely couldn't. And this conclusion is supported by two other facts. First, missile barrages targeting infrastructure have largely stopped. There may be one or a few here and there, but nothing like before. Second, Russian forces have been trying to take Bakhmut for about 10 months. Nearly everywhere else they've been either on the defensive or not doing much offensively. Bakhmut is of little strategic value but politically important (to Russia) which explains why they keep trying. If Russia loses thousands of men to gain a few hundred meters, or even a kilometer, it still shows that they have offensive capability. And, if they can make some incremental gains, those can be trumpeted as "successful" and serve as a distraction from their lack of gains elsewhere.
All of the above would seem to indicate that it's Russia that's feeling the strain, more so than Ukraine. Meanwhile, Western support continues at a good pace, and tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are being trained in Western countries. I won't make a prediction here, but the probabilities are not trending favorably for Russia. And I would argue their performance (lack thereof, actually) and their current behavior are evidence that they're not doing well.
BTW, I also want the war to stop. But I care who wins because, if Ukraine wins, Russia will be deterred from future aggression. If Russia wins, not only will they become more aggressive but the clock will start ticking for the next conflict. The Baltics, Nordics, and Poland all know this, which is why they're 100% in support of Ukraine.Some people are dreaming or wishful thinking. Eventually Ukraine will run out of soldiers and merc's. Its a numbers game and Russia has more numbers. Timeline is not the issue. Oh its been going on a year and Russia is in trouble, that gives Putin a good laugh I'm sure. Russia has heavy bombers, many many of them. If Putin had chosen the "shock and Awe" the US method of warfare this would have been over long ago and Kiev would look like Hamburg after WW11. That though would be stupid as it would cost billions to build it back. Eliminating the military is the goal not the destruction of Ukraine but this takes time, allot more time. Say what you will but this is over. ,maybe not this month or next but inevitably its over. Western Boots are their only salvation and I don't see that happening or its WW111 and we all lose.
Some people are dreaming or wishful thinking. Eventually Ukraine will run out of soldiers and merc's. Its a numbers game and Russia has more numbers. Timeline is not the issue. Oh its been going on a year and Russia is in trouble, that gives Putin a good laugh I'm sure. Russia has heavy bombers, many many of them. If Putin had chosen the "shock and Awe" the US method of warfare this would have been over long ago and Kiev would look like Hamburg after WW11. That though would be stupid as it would cost billions to build it back. Eliminating the military is the goal not the destruction of Ukraine but this takes time, allot more time. Say what you will but this is over. ,maybe not this month or next but inevitably its over. Western Boots are their only salvation and I don't see that happening or its WW111 and we all lose.Its amazing how many people talk about Russia's so-called 'strengths' and are essentially making the point that Putin is somehow holding back.
When it comes to air power, for example, the fact that Russia hasn't been able to establish air superiority is simply stunning. There are various theories about this, ranging from the "just you wait" proponents (like yourself) to those who fault Russian training methods and those who credit Ukraine's air defense strategies. Those two latter points are explored in more depth in this article:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/airpower-after-ukraine/air-denial-the-dangerous-illusion-of-decisive-air-superiority/
You talk about coulda, woulda, shoulda, and make predictions from there. I simply direct my attention to what's actually happening. As just one example, why would the (alleged) 2nd best military in the world need to rely so heavily on a private mercenary army like Wagner PMC? And why would Wagner PMC need to recruit convicts? Neither of those actual events square with the "strong Russia" hypothesis.
As to when it'll be over, you can make all the armchair predictions you want but battlefield realities will always have the final word. And, at this point in time, Russia controls much less territory than it did immediately after the invasion. And theyve showed limited and flawed ability to make battlefield gains. Meanwhile, Russia's own troops are going on social media to complain about lack of weapons and training. And one recent poat featured a commander explicitly refusing to send his unprepared men on a suicidal meat-grinder mission. Again, the predominant evidence coming from the front lines are that of a disjointed, dysfunctional, and weak military. That's not to say things can't change. But that's where the situation currently stands.
So, while you content yourself with all your theories as to why there's no chance Goliath would ever be defeated by David, I'm happy to sit back and watch actual events unfold. And, to this point, things ain't looking so great for Goliath.
If I had a dollar for every prediction that Ukraine was "about done," I'd have a shitload of dollars. Even those who supposedly have good expertise and information sources have been wrong more often than right. And pretty much every pundit who underestimated Ukraine now has egg on their face.
As I've posted multiple times, rather than make predictions I prefer to observe the facts on the ground and then use those facts as a starting point for the various ways things could play out, and which paths might be more or less probable. Here's an observation I think is significant that I'm not seeing discussed anywhere:
We've just passed the 1 year anniversary of the war. One thing we know about Russia and Putin is that they hold anniversaries, and other special dates, in high regard. So, what I find HUGELY significant is that this notable anniversary passed without so much as a whimper from the Russian military. No giant barrage of missiles, no major offensive operation, nothing. It's hard for me to believe that, if Putin had the resources and ability, he wouldn't have ordered some large-scale show of force. The fact that he hasn't means (IMO) that he most likely couldn't. And this conclusion is supported by two other facts. First, missile barrages targeting infrastructure have largely stopped. There may be one or a few here and there, but nothing like before. Second, Russian forces have been trying to take Bakhmut for about 10 months. Nearly everywhere else they've been either on the defensive or not doing much offensively. Bakhmut is of little strategic value but politically important (to Russia) which explains why they keep trying. If Russia loses thousands of men to gain a few hundred meters, or even a kilometer, it still shows that they have offensive capability. And, if they can make some incremental gains, those can be trumpeted as "successful" and serve as a distraction from their lack of gains elsewhere.
All of the above would seem to indicate that it's Russia that's feeling the strain, more so than Ukraine. Meanwhile, Western support continues at a good pace, and tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are being trained in Western countries. I won't make a prediction here, but the probabilities are not trending favorably for Russia. And I would argue their performance (lack thereof, actually) and their current behavior are evidence that they're not doing well.
BTW, I also want the war to stop. But I care who wins because, if Ukraine wins, Russia will be deterred from future aggression. If Russia wins, not only will they become more aggressive but the clock will start ticking for the next conflict. The Baltics, Nordics, and Poland all know this, which is why they're 100% in support of Ukraine.Several of the facts you mentioned are false. It's no wonder why you're confused when things are working out like you imagine.
News report today on a single older Ukrainian that got blasted in the field after saying slava ukraina. They didn't torture him.
Where was the media when a dozen young Russians got shot through legs? Efing brutal and no outrage.Cruel and psychotic behavior has become so normalized among RuZZians, that "we didn't torture this one" sounds like a real act of mercy and kindness in their eyes. You can't even understand why shooting him is wrong.
We have radically different values, and that is why the Georgians are rioting now, that is why Ukranians are fighting, why the Baltics and Poles are arming themselves to the teeth, they don't want to be like you, and they sure as hell don't want to be part of you.
Several of the facts you mentioned are false. It's no wonder why you're confused when things are working out like you imagine.Typical coward.
Point out which facts are wrong (Spoiler alert, there aren't any).
Make your own argument (Spoiler alert, you don't have the capacity).
Several of the facts you mentioned are false. It's no wonder why you're confused when things are working out like you imagine.Members of the jury, I present Exhibit One:
"It's no wonder why you're confused when things are working out like you imagine".
I rest my case. Any questions?
https://charter97.org/en/news/2023/3/6/538876/
"Kremlin companies have a new headache.
Having increased trade with India by hundreds of percent and abandoned the dollar at the request of the Kremlin, Russian companies are facing a problem: it turned out they have nowhere to put the rupees received for the sale of goods to Indian counterparties.
"Oil in exchange for "candy wrappers". Russian companies do not know what to do with the rupees received from India," notes the Russian economic publication Finanz.
Exporters have accumulated Indian currency, but the Indian regulator does not allow it to be traded on the Moscow Exchange and converted into rubles, Kirill Pestov, managing director for business development of the exchange, said in an interview with Reuters".
Those who believed this was the beginning of the end of dollar dominance might want to reconsider. But hey, India is certainly happy as they're definitely getting the better end of the deal. In fact, it's my guess they're laughing all the way to the gas pump!
https://charter97.org/en/news/2023/3/6/538876/
"Kremlin companies have a new headache.
Having increased trade with India by hundreds of percent and abandoned the dollar at the request of the Kremlin, Russian companies are facing a problem: it turned out they have nowhere to put the rupees received for the sale of goods to Indian counterparties.
"Oil in exchange for "candy wrappers". Russian companies do not know what to do with the rupees received from India," notes the Russian economic publication Finanz.
Exporters have accumulated Indian currency, but the Indian regulator does not allow it to be traded on the Moscow Exchange and converted into rubles, Kirill Pestov, managing director for business development of the exchange, said in an interview with Reuters".
Those who believed this was the beginning of the end of dollar dominance might want to reconsider. But hey, India is certainly happy as they're definitely getting the better end of the deal. In fact, it's my guess they're laughing all the way to the gas pump!We have seen the end of dollar dominance predicted for a few decades now. This refrain is now particularly popular with Sinophiles and Russophiles.
This is a perfect example of the currency dilemma. Russia now has Rupees. There are normally only two choices. Buy goods from India. India doesn't produce enough of what Russia wants or needs. The second one is convert it into a currency that is useful. A currency that is freely floated and widely-held. Bingo! Dollars! That ain't going to work for the Russians.
I highly doubt the Russians could easily dump the Rupees if the Indian currency regulators would allow it. Chinese Yuan doesn't work for the same reason. The Yuan has too many capital controls.
People will hurt their heads trying to come up with some scheme like currency for gold. The gold seller still has to hold that currency in a bank or treasury bond or find something to buy in that currency's home market.
We have seen the end of dollar dominance predicted for a few decades now. This refrain is now particularly popular with Sinophiles and Russophiles.
This is a perfect example of the currency dilemma. Russia now has Rupees. There are normally only two choices. Buy goods from India. India doesn't produce enough of what Russia wants or needs. The second one is convert it into a currency that is useful. A currency that is freely floated and widely-held. Bingo! Dollars! That ain't going to work for the Russians.
I highly doubt the Russians could easily dump the Rupees if the Indian currency regulators would allow it. Chinese Yuan doesn't work for the same reason. The Yuan has too many capital controls.
People will hurt their heads trying to come up with some scheme like currency for gold. The gold seller still has to hold that currency in a bank or treasury bond or find something to buy in that currency's home market.Yep, spot on! Also, with respect to China, I would offer a couple of additional observations.
First, capital controls wouldn't impact Russia as much if they simply used Yuan to purchase Chinese goods and services, and China has more to offer than India. So, at least at first glance, that would seem to offer a solution to Russia's problem. The main issue here is what goods and services would Chinese businesses be willing to sell, since they'd be concerned about the possibility of sanctions impacting their business with Europe and the West.
Second, transacting in Yuan could increase Russia's vulnerability as volume increases in a currency that's really only efficient for China-Russia trade. While China might be more lenient in allowing Russia to exchange Yuan for other currencies, there would be additional friction and costs as third-parties would probably be needed. Therefore, whatever Russia decided to do with excess Yuan, they'd still be the lesser partner since China retains control of rules governing that currency.
To make a long story short, more trade with China in Yuan = more dependency on China. Hard to see any good options for Russia, as all roads lead to either a dead end or a slippery slope.
People will hurt their heads trying to come up with some scheme like currency for gold.Doesn't India have a few rich bullion dealers? They'll figure it out.
Doesn't India have a few rich bullion dealers? They'll figure it out.India has nothing to figure out. They're quite happy paying in rupees. It's Russia that has a problem.
Oh, and if you think India will ever pay in gold, rather than rupees, I've got a slightly broken Kerch Strait bridge for sale.
Wyatt Earp's main point, as I understood it, is that there's a perfectly good mechanism for intl trade, namely the US dollar. And there have been a plethora of schemes to de-dollarize, using gold and other mechanisms, but all have fallen short.
Russia has plenty of clever financial types such as Elvira Nabiullina, yet they still find themselves receiving (essentially worthless) "candy wrappers" in exchange for valuable oil.
India has nothing to figure out. They're quite happy paying in rupees. It's Russia that has a problem.
Oh, and if you think India will ever pay in gold, rather than rupees, I've got a slightly broken Kerch Strait bridge for sale.
Wyatt Earp's main point, as I understood it, is that there's a perfectly good mechanism for intl trade, namely the US dollar. And there have been a plethora of schemes to de-dollarize, using gold and other mechanisms, but all have fallen short.
Russia has plenty of clever financial types such as Elvira Nabiullina, yet they still find themselves receiving (essentially worthless) "candy wrappers" in exchange for valuable oil.China is the ideal trading partner for Russia. China needs energy and other commodities. China relies on imported foodstuffs. Clearly, they also make a lot of things the world wants. It's just hard to say how much China is willing to sell to Russia.
India has nothing to figure out. They're quite happy paying in rupees. It's Russia that has a problem.
I guess Russians and Indians are too dumb to create a mutually beneficial exchange.
I guess Russians and Indians are too dumb to create a mutually beneficial exchange.The Indian buyers aren't dumb. They're fucking smart and they're getting exactly what they want, which is oil at bargain prices. They have zero incentive to change a thing.
And the Russian sellers aren't dumb. They're fucking desperate because their markets have dried up. Apart from India and China they don't have many options.
So, for India, zero issues and no reason to change. For Russia, LOTS of issues but no good ways to resolve them. Also, you seem to think this is something more than a business relationship. It's not. India wants oil at the lowest possible price and they don't give a shit if their rupees are a problem for Russia. Mutually beneficial doesn't enter into a transaction when one party knows they have the other (pun intended) over a barrel.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/death-of-a-myth/
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/death-of-a-myth/It's an opinion piece, so the author is entitled to his views. But writing to trash what he believes to be myths, while uncritically leaning on myths that support his narrative, is lame in the extreme. In fact, his preferred mythology is so easily debunked that it's evidence he doesn't really care about his reputation. Rather he's preaching to the choir of those who are riding in the same narrative-wagon with him.
Debunked Myth #1: That promises about NATO expansion were made to Russia.
First, and most obvious, Russia did not exist as a country at the time the myth-mongers allege the promises were made. The USSR, headed by Gorbachev, was the relevant entity and that's where the appropriate focus should be.
Second, no less of an authority than the leader of the USSR, Gorbachev himself, unequivocally stated that no such promises were made.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
The article cites an interview of Gorbachev in which he was asked this specific question:
"The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not "insist that the promises made to you (Gorbachev) particularly USA Secretary of State James Baker's promise that NATO would not expand into the Eastbe legally encoded?" Gorbachev replied: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. . Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO's military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker's statement was made in that context. Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled".
Debunked Myth #2: The notion that any country who sought NATO membership did so for reasons other than their own self-interest. And the flip-side of that coin, the notion that an existing member of NATO, each of which have a veto, would ever approve membership for a new candidate for reasons other than self-interest or for what they believe to be in the collective best interests of the group.
NATO is a free association of countries that is difficult to join and easy to leave. With Russia's history and aggressive tendencies, is it any surprise that Poland and the Baltics sought out NATO protection? And, in light of Russia's current aggression, is it any surprise that both Finland and Sweden have turned away from decades of non-aligned status to also seek NATO protection?
Of course, these are inconvenient facts for those who have drunk the pro-Russia Kool-Aid, which made me wonder about the author. Here's his info, taken from the article:
"George O'Neill, Jr. , is a member of the board of directors of the American Ideas Institute, which publishes The American Conservative, and an artist who lives in rural Florida".
Wow, an artist from rural Florida! Them's some impressive credentials, ain't they? I wonder if he wrote this obvious clickbait article because he needed a new set of paintbrushes?
China is the ideal trading partner for Russia. China needs energy and other commodities. China relies on imported foodstuffs. Clearly, they also make a lot of things the world wants. It's just hard to say how much China is willing to sell to Russia.While it's hard to know exactly what's in Comrade Xi's brain, it seems relatively uncontroversial to assert that they'd prefer a stable Russia, one that is neither too weak or too strong. A Goldilocks scenario might be one in which Russia is clearly the junior partner in bilateral relations, and dependent on China, while still strong enough to be a thorn in the side of NATO and the West.
And, while Russia is certainly commodity rich, they don't necessarily have the infrastructure in place to easily service China. Oil is an obvious exception, but eastward gas pipeline capacity is lacking and Russia doesn't currently have the ability to supply LNG in any significant quantity. That doesn't mean it can't be built for the future, but it would require significant Chinese investment and would take years before any benefits would be realized.
In the meantime, China is still much more reliant on the West than they are on Russia, which creates another tightrope that needs to be walked. I saw an article recently that mentioned new sanctions on Chinese companies for providing drone components to Iran, which were then used to construct weapons for Russia. When I read that report it struck me that this could be as much (or more) about sending a message to the CCP than it is about Iran or Russia. At a minimum, it establishes a precedent for sanctions that could easily be ramped up.
Over the next few months I'll be most interested to see what kinds of moves China makes with respect to Russia's neighbors, like Belarus, Kazakhstan, and other "stan" countries. Strengthening relations with those could be thought of as cheap insurance against the possibility of a destabilized Russia. It'll also be interesting to see if China starts to apply pressure on Russia to find a negotiated solution. It's pure speculation on my part, but it's my guess they (China) would be just fine with a stalemate or frozen conflict scenario.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/death-of-a-myth/The clown is back again, honk honk.
I guess Russians and Indians are too dumb to create a mutually beneficial exchange.If you have figured out a way for the Russians to use their rupees for Indian merchandise, I would tell them. Somehow you think Indian gold bullion sellers are interested in taking their rupees. Perhaps with another significant haircut, they would.
Haircut in the price of the oil then a haircut to dump the rupees. See how this gets self-defeating very quickly.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/death-of-a-myth/Thank you for exposing yet another Putin's mouthpiece. Good job!
The rumor is the hallucinating louse nit about to pen out 'My Struggle', his story of trying to rename Russia, oust orthodox monks from churches, and bomb the nation.
The rumor is the hallucinating louse nit about to pen out 'My Struggle', his story of trying to rename Russia, oust orthodox monks from churches, and bomb the nation.Such pure, certifiable idiocy isn't even worth a yawn. With FanBoyz like you, it's no wonder Putin is failing miserably.
The rumor is the hallucinating louse nit about to pen out 'My Struggle', his story of trying to rename Russia, oust orthodox monks from churches, and bomb the nation.This is actually hilarious, Moskovia is a better name for the Russian Federation, but I would prefer to rename it "Eastern Ukraine". The level of copium coming from Medvedev, made me laugh so hard, I spilled my cold squirrel broth, "Bandera Reich" was the best he could do. Ukraine comes up with name of historical relevance that's a huge troll. Russia's response, we will name them "stupid poopy butthole land". ROFL.
Such pure, certifiable idiocy isn't even worth a yawn. With FanBoyz like you, it's no wonder Putin is failing miserably.Note how there used to be time when those guys were trying to argue, present some versions of the current events, fantastical, as they were, but still. They would struggle so hard to explain why exactly the homicidal Putin's regime has the right to do what they do (one of the reasons, apparently, is that Ukrainian nationalists did naughty things 80 years ago). But they at least tried. Now they've degenerated into Kremlin-cooked GIFs and one-liners. No words left. Sad, but predictable.
Looks like Russia has a few overdue bills and Kazakhstan has decided to seize some of the assets of Roscosmos, the Russian space agency.
Saw two articles on this, 1st is freely available and 2nd is paywalled, but the first paragraph shows the same info.
https://czechia.postsen.com/world/amp/101000
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/kazakhstan-seizes-russian-assets-baikonur-spaceport
I would argue this is Kazakhstan's Tokayev "flipping the bird" at Putin and betting that he (Putin) is too weak and distracted to do anything about it. And it also seems to me that Kazakhstan is flexing their new China-enabled muscles. You know, the ones that have been enabled by Tokayev's increasingly close relationship with Xi. Putin is obviously losing influence in Central Asia and China is more than happy to fill that void.
I've been watching to see which countries, formerly dependent on Russia or firmly in that sphere of influence, start making moves to distance themselves. This latest news is consistent with what I believe will be a continuing trend.
https://ukraine-inc.info/
Bloody clown consumes more and more bodies. No March break.
https://ukraine-inc.info/
Bloody clown consumes more and more bodies. No March break.Not only is he grinding up the current generation of Orcs, he's also ensuring that millions of future Orc-lings will never be hatched.
Bad for Russia, but great for the rest of the world!
Note how there used to be time when those guys were trying to argue, present some versions of the current events, fantastical, as they were, but still. They would struggle so hard to explain why exactly the homicidal Putin's regime has the right to do what they do (one of the reasons, apparently, is that Ukrainian nationalists did naughty things 80 years ago). But they at least tried. Now they've degenerated into Kremlin-cooked GIFs and one-liners. No words left. Sad, but predictable.The Putin-losers who post in this forum are just a reflection of the utter despair that's broadcast on Russian state media every day. Here's one resource that does a good job of capturing and translating some of the most notable examples:
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews
Earlier in the war, they actually believed their own fantasy scenarios about victory. Now they don't even have that. It's been pushed out of their minds and replaced by persistent doom, gloom, and victimhood.
Bloody clown consumes more and more bodies.Just pull your bodies out and fuck off back to Muscovy then, problem solved.
Note how there used to be time when those guys were trying to argue...Thing is, they are losing really badly, research has recently been released showing that the Muscovy economic figures sent to the IMF and World Bank were complete fabrications, they've been stacking RMB and INR that they can't use anywhere, anyone with any sense has fled the country, and more than 1000 companies that accounted for more than 30% of the economy fucked off.
They are losing land in Ukraine, they are losing the support of their "Allies" like KZ, IN, CN etc, and their economy is a horror story.
They have no good arguments to make, ROFL.
So they post memes, and rage about the US, all the while they cheer whilst their countrymen are killed in the meatgrinder, they terrorize Ukrainian civilians since they cannot beat the military, rape Ukrainian women and kidnap their children.
I attached a picture of them, reading the news each day while their economy crumbles around them.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-gathering-storm/
Here is a solution to the conflict: "We should support regime change in the United States, that's far more important," Trump wrote. "The Biden administration are the ones who got us into this mess. ".
By the way, for anyone who thinks Ukrainians were involved in the pipeline explosion: not only it were technically improbable for them to succeed, but they would have better steal the pipes than just damage them.
By the way, for anyone who thinks Ukrainians were involved in the pipeline explosion: not only it were technically improbable for them to succeed, but they would have better steal the pipes than just damage them.The muscovites did it, and also raped the pipe while they were there, and kidnapped it's children.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.