Stupid Shit in Kyiv

Why does no one see it?

He's only interested in peace that would satisfy Putin.

Which is a CAPITULATION.

All his threats and saber rattling is a performance, nothing more.

Tariffs? Russia is an impoverished, third-world country that isn't selling anything to the US. Threatening Russia with tariffs is as sensible as threatening Gabon.

I wonder why no one, including most Ukrainians, can't see Trump for what he really is. Putin's puppet.

Putin's doing the only thing he knows how -- bluffing. His economy is circling the drain, no matter what propacondoms and useful idiots would have you believe. He know that no matter how obedient his people are, they will revolt when there's nothing to eat.

Some Putin's economic woes have nothing to do with the war. The agricultural crisis, considering that he's now stealing crops from several regions of Ukraine, is entirely on the idiotic policies of his cabinet. But for the most parts, Russia simply can't wage this war indefinitely, and he knows this. If there were a real president in the White House, a fair peace could be achieved.

Unfortunately, we don't have a real president, we have a bullshiter-in-chief.

Ukraine must be prepared to keep fighting. There are zero chances for a just peace with Trump in power.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2978855]This is interesting and I think there is common ground here that may be acceptable to Russia, although not completely.

Putin has already said that the basic requirement to end the war with Ukraine are:

1. Recognition that Crimea + the 4 new territories (entirely) are Russian.

2. Neutrality for Ukraine and never joining NATO.

If those 2 conditions are accepted, there can be a pathway to peace. Point 2 is addressed in what you posted, OK. But what about point 1 in full, that is not clear. Let's see. I think if what you posted is accurate, the Russians will look very closely at it. Overall, that plan looks a bit realistic at least.[/QUOTE]BR, you and Questner are voices of sanity. Tucker Carlson said yesterday that Secretary of State Blinken under Biden was trying to assassinate Putin. Now you may find that hard to believe or not, but Blinken is the asshole who rounded up the intelligence experts to lie and say Hunter Biden's laptop was classic Russian disinformation. And this asshole's planned lie was why Biden won in 2020. I do not know what the guy's beef was with Russia, but what we do know is whatever shit Hunter Biden was doing in Ukraine, he has been pardoned for. So the Democrats were doing some sleazy shit in Ukraine, and I hope it comes out.

What is so sad is that I think our "intelligence" agencies, which just lied their asses off, are a bigger threat to our democracy than Putin is. I would be shocked if Trump did not think that. Tucker Carlson had a reporter on looking into Trump's assassin. Keep in mind when the FBI went after the innocent Richard Jewel, they had him pictured like a freak within 48 hours. With this assassin, the FBI is not giving up anything, and it is really weird.

So I think given the common enemy, the Democrats and the "intelligence" agencies, that Trump and Putin will get this peace deal done and shove it in their face. I do not see anything Putin wants as unreasonable, but I do think Putin's concern is what to do if the lying Democratic douches return to power in 2028. To me, that is going to be the sticking point, and I am not sure Trump is going to be able to help that much with that issue.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2978855]This is interesting and I think there is common ground here that may be acceptable to Russia, although not completely.

Putin has already said that the basic requirement to end the war with Ukraine are:

1. Recognition that Crimea + the 4 new territories (entirely) are Russian.

2. Neutrality for Ukraine and never joining NATO.

If those 2 conditions are accepted, there can be a pathway to peace. Point 2 is addressed in what you posted, OK. But what about point 1 in full, that is not clear. Let's see. I think if what you posted is accurate, the Russians will look very closely at it. Overall, that plan looks a bit realistic at least.[/QUOTE]I love the country Russia, but Putin stole Crimea to Ukraine which is fully right to resist and decide what they want, not what crazy shameful Putin ask. World don t have to listen to dictator Putin, same like world don t have to accept what senile Trump want. Big support to Ukraine, Greenland / Denmark, Canada and Panama.

North Koreans who helped weak Russia are leaving first line after too many deaths, when so courageous Ukrainians are able to resist with their balls to big Russia which need North Korea help.

[QUOTE=FreshPrince841;2978872]I still think that Russia will want more than the four regions they declared, I think they will cross the Dniper river and continue invading kherson all the way to Odessa as Odessa is the crown jewel for them. I think they may have plans to divide Ukraine and plus they are also seizing more land in Kharkov which is not in the declared four regions and they are also close to Dnipropetrovsk. I lived in Odessa for some time and so sad to see this beautiful city and country be destroyed like this.[/QUOTE]So many things Russia wants. So many rivers to cross.

Forget the Dnieper. Russia also wants to cross the Elba, Seine and Potomac. Don't you know that Russia's borders don't end anywhere?

Their chances to cross the Dnieper and take Kharkov and Odessa are about the same, though, so save your crocodile tears.

You also wanted to take Kyiv in three days and the whole Ukraine in 72. It's been three years now since you wanted this.

Keep dreaming.

Today The President spoke about the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis in an interview with Pavel Zarubin:

An excerpt from Vladimir Putin's interview with VGTRK journalist Pavel Zarubin about the prospects for settling the Ukrainian crisis. Under what conditions are negotiations possible? Can the illegitimate Zelensky sign anything? And what result do they all ultimately want?

P. Zarubin: "A few days ago I managed to ask you a question about the prospects for a Ukrainian settlement. And you said something very important then, which had a big resonance, everyone is discussing it now, that since there is a decree by Zelensky banning negotiations with Russia, then if we imagine that such negotiations are underway, have begun, then they will be illegitimate, and their results can be called illegal at any moment. This caused a big resonance, the next day Zelensky was already making excuses, he said that he did not ban negotiations for everyone, he allegedly left this opportunity for himself, and he said that he adopted this decree in conditions when Russian troops were stationed near Kiev. He explained this by the fact that it was supposedly necessary to fight separatism, it was necessary to preventively fight possible shadow negotiations along various lines and channels with Russia. And so he ended his speech by saying that "I am the leader of the negotiations, and I have banned the rest of the negotiations. " How do you like this reaction?

V. Putin: "Our negotiations began immediately after the start of the NWO. Initially, we told the Ukrainian leadership at that time that the people in the LPR and DPR did not want to be part of Ukraine, get out of there and that's it, that's the end of it. There are no military actions, there is no war, we will not fight. That was back in late February 2022, then contact meetings began in Belarus, then we moved to Istanbul. What happened there? Somewhere around the end of March, we received a paper from Kyiv, by the way, with the signature of the head of the Ukrainian negotiating group, Mr. Arakhamia. And it was these Ukrainian proposals, I want to emphasize this, this is very important, that formed the basis of the draft peace treaty developed in Istanbul. And this took place on April 15. But before that, some European leaders told me on the phone that it was impossible for Ukraine to sign a peace treaty, as one of my colleagues put it. I already said it, I think I even called it with a gun to my temple. Yes, good. And what needs to be done? It is necessary to withdraw troops from Kyiv. It was clear to us in principle that deception was entirely possible. For decades, Russia was deceived, they said one thing and did something completely different. Nevertheless, based on considerations of preventing bloodshed, some serious war, we nevertheless agreed to this. And at the end of March, we began to withdraw troops from Kyiv in two directions, in two columns. On April 4, the withdrawal was completed. Some of the troops left through Belarus, and some directly to the territory of the Russian Federation. On April 4, the withdrawal was completed. And the paper that we agreed on in Istanbul was drawn up on April 15, when there were no longer any Russian troops near Kyiv. And practically on the same day, although there were things in it that were controversial, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs pointed this out, and a number of our other government agencies, nevertheless, I agreed that we were ready to implement this document. And right on the evening of the 15th or the 16th, we transmitted to Kyiv that we agreed to finalize this, well, to sign this document. There was practically nothing left to process, there was only one point that the Ukrainian side proposed to consider and put an end to at a personal meeting of the two presidents. I agreed with this, but suddenly information came from Kyiv that they needed to consult with their allies and they were taking a week's break. Well, they consulted, as is known, Mr. Johnson, then the Prime Minister of Great Britain, arrived, probably at the instigation of the former American administration headed by Mr. Biden, and persuaded the Ukrainians to continue the war. And, in fact, no one is hiding this, and the Ukrainian officials themselves, and quite high-ranking ones, later said this publicly. And the British leadership does not hide this, they also speak about it openly. They refused this agreement and decided to continue the war. But, frankly speaking, we immediately received a signal from Kyiv, as we were told then, now we will fight to the last Ukrainian. So for now, either we fight you, or you fight us, in general. They did not decide to sign the agreement. But, I repeat once again, on April 4, 2022, there were no longer Russian troops near Kiev, and the agreements were finally agreed upon on April 15, and the decree banning negotiations was signed at the end of September and entered into force on October 4, that is, six months after the draft peace agreement was agreed upon. Therefore, to say that the ban on negotiations was introduced when Russian troops left Kiev is, well, completely incorrect, and, as it were, on such serious issues as trying to mislead your society, the world community, well, at the very least, incorrect. But this simply once again emphasizes who we are dealing with. If Zelensky says that you can negotiate with him, well, makes it clear that you can negotiate with him, in your opinion? You can negotiate with anyone, but due to his illegitimacy, he does not have the right to sign anything. But if he wants to take part in the negotiations, I will appoint people who will conduct these negotiations, please. The question is about the final signing of the documents. This is a very serious issue that should guarantee the security of both Ukraine, by the way, and Russia for a serious, long-term historical perspective. And there can be no blunders, no rough edges, everything must be honed in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine in conditions, even in conditions of martial law, does not have the right to extend his powers. Only representative bodies of power, only the Rada, that is, the country's parliament, have the right to extend their powers. And the president has only a five-year term, that's all, nothing more. Then his powers are transferred to a representative of the Rada. But if there is a desire to negotiate and find compromise solutions, let anyone conduct these negotiations there, we will, naturally, achieve what suits us, what corresponds to our interests. But in the case of signing documents, here, of course, everything must be so that lawyers confirm to us the legitimacy of those people who will be authorized by the Ukrainian state to sign these agreements. "But if he wants to take part in the negotiations, I will appoint people who will conduct these negotiations, please. The issue is the final signing of the documents. This is a very serious issue that should guarantee the security of both Ukraine, by the way, and Russia for a serious, long-term historical perspective. And there cannot be a single mistake, not a single rough spot, everything must be honed in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine in conditions, even in conditions of martial law, does not have the right to extend his powers. Only representative bodies of power have the right to extend their powers, only the Rada, that is, the country's parliament. And the president has only a five-year term, that's all, nothing more. Then his powers are transferred to the representative of the Rada. But if there is a desire to conduct negotiations and find compromise solutions, let anyone conduct these negotiations there, we will, naturally, achieve what suits us, what corresponds to our interests. But in the case of signing documents, here, of course, everything must be such that lawyers confirm to us the legitimacy of those people who will be authorized by the Ukrainian state to sign these agreements. "But if he wants to take part in the negotiations, I will appoint people who will conduct these negotiations, please. The issue is the final signing of the documents. This is a very serious issue that should guarantee the security of both Ukraine, by the way, and Russia for a serious, long-term historical perspective. And there cannot be a single mistake, not a single rough spot, everything must be honed in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine in conditions, even in conditions of martial law, does not have the right to extend his powers. Only representative bodies of power have the right to extend their powers, only the Rada, that is, the country's parliament. And the president has only a five-year term, that's all, nothing more. Then his powers are transferred to the representative of the Rada. But if there is a desire to conduct negotiations and find compromise solutions, let anyone conduct these negotiations there, we will naturally achieve what suits us, what corresponds to our interests. But in the case of signing documents, here, of course, everything must be such that lawyers confirm to us the legitimacy of those people who will be authorized by the Ukrainian state to sign these agreements. ".

P. Zarubin: "And they should cancel the decree banning negotiations, right?

V. Putin: "Well, yes, if we start negotiations now, they will be illegitimate. There is, however, I haven't spoken about this, but I will say, there is, however, a problem. Why? Because when the current head of the regime, that's the only way to call him today, signed this decree, he was a relatively legitimate president, but now he can't cancel it because he is illegitimate. That's the trick, the catch, you see, the trap. But, in principle, by and large, if they want to do this, there is a legal way. Please, let the Rada representatives do this in accordance with the Constitution. If there is a desire, any legal issue can be closed. Well, so far we simply don't see such a desire. Well, I think that his Western sponsors cannot exist, they won't last a month if the money and, broadly speaking, the bullets stop. That's it, it will all be over in a month or a month and a half or two. In this sense, Ukraine's sovereignty is almost zero. If their Western sponsors want to achieve peace, well, the path is very simple. I once sent a corresponding signal about this. If there is a desire, that's it, please. And then they will quickly find all legal ways to close legal issues, including canceling this decree banning negotiations. ".

There's a whole lot more places to go, and deep into the realm of secondary sanctions against countries that aid Russia. The Kremlin faithful of ISG aren't moved though, in spite of Russia's now extremely high inflation and interests rates, all is still rosy. This while they hide their disappointment that Trump has yet to come to their rescue, and in fact thus far the opposite has occurred.

"China may have increased its trading ties with Russia since the start of the war in Ukraine, but sanctions have forced many Chinese financial institutions to scale back economic ties with Moscow for fear of secondary sanctions.

Russia is likely to continue trying to circumvent oil sanctions but how China responds to the threat of facing secondary sanctions could undermine this.

Meanwhile, following the latest sanctions, Chinese and Indian refiners are looking to other suppliers of crude away from Russia, according to Reuters on Monday, citing energy traders. ".

[URL]https://www.newsweek.com/russia-shadow-fleet-sanctions-china-coast-2013815[/URL]

"China and India have suspended March purchases of Russian oil as USA Sanctions drive up shipping costs, Reuters reported Tuesday, citing traders and shipping data. ".

[URL]https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/01/28/china-and-india-halt-russian-oil-purchases-for-march-reuters-a87774[/URL]

The US has PLENTY more in it's hip pocket, while there's plenty of leverage against China.

"A significant source of deterrence lies in America's recognition of just how much the Chinese economy relies on supplying USA Companies. China's confidence in using the economic coercion card far outstrips the nature of its true position, and two can play at that game. After all, China's single largest trading balance by far is with the United States, which nearly equals the entirety of the EU and ASEAN balances. China's suppliers receive roughly $3 from the USA For every $1 that its end markets spend on USA Products. ".

[URL]https://thehill.com/opinion/4940101-china-economic-coercion-power/[/URL]

And it's all plenty complicated. Anyone that claims it isn't is a clown that isn't worth your attention, no matter which side you fall on with these issues.

[QUOTE=Questner;2978969]Today The President spoke about the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis in an interview with Pavel Zarubin:

. ".[/QUOTE]Who is the "customer" here? Who asked for it? Who believes one thing that comes out of putin's constantly lying mouth?

I say we're way classier than this.

Seriously, a mongering forum has turned into a place where ISG member Questner consistently posts every piece of garbage coming from the leader of RFMS (Russian Failed Mafia State). Anyone remember Giuliani's press conference in front of Four Seasons Landscaping between a sex shop and a crematorium? Can it be that Questner is every bit as confused as Giuliani finding himself in front of that 5-star landscaping company?

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2978954]So many things Russia wants. So many rivers to cross.

Forget the Dnieper. Russia also wants to cross the Elba, Seine and Potomac. Don't you know that Russia's borders don't end anywhere?

Their chances to cross the Dnieper and take Kharkov and Odessa are about the same, though, so save your crocodile tears.

You also wanted to take Kyiv in three days and the whole Ukraine in 72. It's been three years now since you wanted this.

Keep dreaming.[/QUOTE]Greetings Xpartan,

Who is " you " that you are referring to in your comments?

I am not Russian, and I am against the war.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2978853]The world has seen the freedom and democracy promoted and implemented by NATO in:

Iraq.

Afghanistan.

Somalia.

Yemen.

Syria.

Serbia.

Libya.

Now we have Ukraine wrecked.

Thanks, but no thanks.[/QUOTE]Post 911 War on Terror activity is apples and oranges to the situations in Central and Eastern Europe, where you failed to name a single unhappy former USSR NATO member. This while while you were just expelled from Syria and your guy in Serbia just stepped down. And of course you started the war in Ukraine. Nice try Ivan.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2978861]LOL. You just presented a paper claiming double digit GDP contraction. I guess you do not know what that means.[/QUOTE]I scanned over the articles I posted recently, and the only one that uses the terminology in question said the exact opposite of what you claim. If I missed something, quote and link us to the content so I can disagree with it.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2978439]
"Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Russian economy has repeatedly defied expectations. Predictions of a double-digit contraction never materialized. On the contrary, GDP grew by 3. 6 percent in 2023 and an expected 4 percent in 2024: rates that both developed and developing nations might envy.” Alexandra Prokopenko [/QUOTE]One can familiarize themselves with the entire argument here, while you never rebutted any of it, other than to wrench a quote out of context and mention Russia's trade relations in Asia. The author had already acknowledged these as mitigating factors to sanctions.

[URL]https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/12/russia-economy-difficulties?lang=en[/URL]

Also while we are here, tell us why you believe the current near 10% inflation and 21% interest rates in Russia are no big deal. Tiny just gave us assurances that all would be well soon then went on a much deserved vacation. I'm sure the audience would be interested in some specifics.

Keep in mind the audience will notice if you ignore any of these challenges.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2978861]Blue or red in what election? Why not use counties or cities? How did you account for obesity, smoking, diabetes, age ETC? How did you account for interstate transfer of patients? Oh, you did not. You just made that up. [/QUOTE]Numerous variables were accounted for in the studies you were linked to, some were recent, some older. You obviously didn't bother reading them. Mitigation measures were demonstrated as effective. You also persistently ignore the fallout from the abundance of self-centered morons like you. That's why death rates were higher in red states.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2978861]Yeah, they were so effective that there were more cases in 2021 than 2020. [/QUOTE]You just made the case for mitigation measures, which were more prevalent in 2020, while the pandemic didn't get off the ground until April. You completely ignore that COVID hospitalizations were more prevalent among the unvaccinated. Vaccination is also associated with much improved outcomes in those hospitalized.

[URL]https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-024-09865-1[/URL]

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2978861]https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-censorship-an-interview-with-dr-jay-bhattacharya/[/QUOTE]Yawns. Parroting another Stanford hack I see, who complains that all his colleagues are making fun of him. I'm not surprised since he's drawing sweeping conclusions based on one US county. I'll look up the rebuttals online when I get home from vacation.

Covid wrecked a lot of death in 2020 & 21, many times more than the flu.

[URL]https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021[/URL]

P.S. "Virtue signaling?" If caring about the well being of other humans is virtue signaling then sign me up, while you are free to live out your karma.

Here's a few highlights. He sounds like the ideal sidekick for RFK, Jr. LOL.

"Bhattacharya, an economist with a medical degree who never completed a residency and does not practice medicine, is not slated to provide continuity at the NIH. On the contrary, he has called for 'an absolute revamping of the scientific community. '.

"Dismissing this reality is easy when you have never treated a COVID patient in your life and when you co-authored a deeply flawed study in April 2020 that made the virus appear less threatening than it was. Bhattacharya's team drew the blood of over 3,000 people living in Santa Clara County, California, to see how many had antibodies against the coronavirus. They concluded that the virus had infected many more people than suspected, which meant that its fatality rate was lower than expected. Problems, however, were later uncovered: many of the people who had donated blood had not been randomly selected but were residents of a wealthy section of Silicon Valley who had been invited to participate by Bhattacharya's wife; the invitation presented the testing as a way to find out if they could "return to work without fear," thus aiming for people who knew or suspected of having recently been infected; and the entire thing had been funded in part by the founder of JetBlue Airways who wanted to keep his planes in the air. I would argue here that science knelt in front of politics. ".

[URL]https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/bhattacharya-decide-fate-medical-research[/URL]