War in Ukraine

#81,951
#81,951
hog88 said:
😂 You are a joke
Click to expand...
oh-no.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan, Septic and MontyPython
#81,952
#81,952
Will this war end from a Russian internal economic collapse? Not there yet, but Elvira seems unable to quell inflation to date...

Russian central bank hikes benchmark rate to 21%, highest since 2003​

By Elena Fabrichnaya and Gleb Bryanski
October 25, 202410:36 AM EDTUpdated 20 hours ago

MOSCOW, Oct 25 (Reuters) - Russia's central bank hiked its key interest rate by 200 basis points on Friday to 21%, the highest level since the early years of President Vladimir Putin's rule, when Russia was recovering from the chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The move, driven by massive increases in state spending, especially on the military, also brings the rate above the level seen during the market panic at the start of what Russia calls its "special military operation" in Ukraine in February 2022.

The central bank said the hike was needed to fight inflation, currently at 8.4%, adding that inflationary expectations among the public have reached their highest level since the start of the year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#81,957
#81,957
utvolpj said:
shing nato even though we promised not to as we knew that was a red line? I must be mistaken and the us just noticed Ukraine a couple years ago
Click to expand...
Countries have to apply to NATO to get approved. NATO doesn't send out paperwork first fishing for new guys. The US nor NATO didn't cross the line, the line was moved by those under the line. oh yeah, and guess what, Ukraine was rejected from NATO. seems like we did our part.

Russia no longer being puppet master invalidates their concern. Just like we need to stay out of Cuba, Central America's, and most of South America's business even though we used to control them and we had our own Red Line called the Monroe Doctrine. Russia doesn't get to retroactively claim some type of special privilege.

the weapons bit is BS. Russia has reoccupied bases in Cuba, and Nicaragua or Honduras, can't remember which. they have also been providing weapons to the locals too. We haven't invaded any of them, nor even been slightly aggressive to them. As usual these reactions are completely mono-sided, and not actually based on some good faith argument about respecting boundaries.

that red line was pure hearsay, with a different world leader, of a different nation. Remember the USSR isn't Russia, or vice versa, whichever way you guys flip flop today.

also we all know the Redline is bs even with Putin. FINLAND. Putin is just digging up any historical claim he can to justify his aggression. just because he does so, doesn't make it right, or override Ukraine's, or anyone else's, foreign policy or independence.
 
#81,958
#81,958
utvolpj said:
Billions isn't significant? We've also been meddling with them for decades to get a friendly admin (which you'll deny). The simple fact is that we knew decades ago that this was a red line for Putin (current cia director said it back then) and stepped over it anyways. Now we're whining that he actually called us on it. Yes, the us sought this or at the very least they ignored every warning sign. Likely because Congress is in the pocket of the mic
Click to expand...
what was the redline? you and Putin are all over the place.

Is it Ukraine NATO membership?
Is it Ukraine getting NATO weapons?
Now you are down to the US getting a friendly admin in is the red line.

the red line was Ukraine having nukes. We have paperwork on that. the US, Ukraine, AND Russia. saying Ukraine's borders would be respected as long as they gave up their nukes, and the rest of the nations agreed to stay out of Ukraine unless they were attacked. Guess what? they were attacked, by Russia. If Russia didn't like the Budapest agreement invalidating some BS redline, they never should have signed it, nor attacked Ukraine.

everyone with two brain cells knows a newer written agreement with all three involved parties overrides any alleged older verbal agreements between two of the parties involving the third.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and InVOLuntary
#81,959
#81,959
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#81,962
#81,962
LouderVol said:
what was the redline? you and Putin are all over the place.

Is it Ukraine NATO membership?
Is it Ukraine getting NATO weapons?
Now you are down to the US getting a friendly admin in is the red line.

the red line was Ukraine having nukes. We have paperwork on that. the US, Ukraine, AND Russia. saying Ukraine's borders would be respected as long as they gave up their nukes, and the rest of the nations agreed to stay out of Ukraine unless they were attacked. Guess what? they were attacked, by Russia. If Russia didn't like the Budapest agreement invalidating some BS redline, they never should have signed it, nor attacked Ukraine.

everyone with two brain cells knows a newer written agreement with all three involved parties overrides any alleged older verbal agreements between two of the parties involving the third.
Click to expand...
No, the brightest of red lines was described by Burns and it was not about nukes. Promises made that go back farther than that were also confirmed. The us simply couldn't stay away and I believe got the fight they wanted
 
#81,963
#81,963
LouderVol said:
what do you think here needs chaperoning? They were right, your quote agrees with them.

you see it as right, they see it as wrong. but they weren't factually incorrect.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article?

It's not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians getting SS benefits.

The SS programs that qualifying refugees from Ukraine can utilize, are available any qualifying refugee from any country.

The tweet was a disingenuous attempt to to try to paint Ukrainian refugees as all getting SS benefits "because Biden", and @Orange_Vol1321 posted it here, because it tapped into his confirmation bias.
 
#81,964
#81,964
#81,966
#81,966
utvolpj said:
No, the brightest of red lines was described by Burns and it was not about nukes. Promises made that go back farther than that were also confirmed. The us simply couldn't stay away and I believe got the fight they wanted
Click to expand...
confirmed verbally doesn't equal confirmed in a signed treaty. promises aren't binding, never have been, never should be when they involved a third party who isn't part of the deal. there is a reason we shy away from arranged marriages now.

Russia broke a written treaty. no two ways about it. that is an actual line they actually crossed. there is no court in the world that would ever forgive breaking a written treaty while making a stink about a verbal promise.

if that brightest red line, which you still won't define, can't have been very important if it wasn't documented on paper and signed by the relevant parties.

the US was under no obligation to stay away. certainly not after Russia broke its end of the bargain. Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions, Russia is beginning to learn that they should have respected that.
 
#81,967
#81,967
BeardedVol said:
Did you read the article?

It's not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians getting SS benefits.

The SS programs that qualifying refugees from Ukraine can utilize, are available any qualifying refugee from any country.

The tweet was a disingenuous attempt to to try to paint Ukrainian refugees as all getting SS benefits "because Biden", and @Orange_Vol1321 posted it here, because it tapped into his confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
except your response does say there are a hundred thousand welcomed under the one program they went into specifics on and said could get benefits. that backs up the OP, and verified by your article.

there being others refuges that can benefit too, doesn't refute anything in that tweet. if anything it makes it worse.

there are apparently two other programs under which other Ukrainians could also get some benefits, but it doesn't go into those specifics. it also mentions additional existing programs.

no where in the original tweet do they say ALL ukrainians were getting SS. that was you reading into with your own confirmation bias.
 
#81,968
#81,968
LouderVol said:
confirmed verbally doesn't equal confirmed in a signed treaty. promises aren't binding, never have been, never should be when they involved a third party who isn't part of the deal. there is a reason we shy away from arranged marriages now.

Russia broke a written treaty. no two ways about it. that is an actual line they actually crossed. there is no court in the world that would ever forgive breaking a written treaty while making a stink about a verbal promise.

if that brightest red line, which you still won't define, can't have been very important if it wasn't documented on paper and signed by the relevant parties.

the US was under no obligation to stay away. certainly not after Russia broke its end of the bargain. Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions, Russia is beginning to learn that they should have respected that.
Click to expand...
I know if I say certain things it will piss off my wife. There's nothing written down but it's just understood from years of being together.

The US Ambassador now cia director did write it out for the admin to read. The "brightest of red lines" was a quote from that. Not everything needs to be written into a public treaty for it to be understood foreign policy
 
#81,970
#81,970
utvolpj said:
I know if I say certain things it will piss off my wife. There's nothing written down but it's just understood from years of being together.

The US Ambassador now cia director did write it out for the admin to read. The "brightest of red lines" was a quote from that. Not everything needs to be written into a public treaty for it to be understood foreign policy
Click to expand...
you and your wife are in an interpersonal committed relationship with each other. FP is much more complicated than that.

CIA has nothing to do with making FP. which is why it should have been written into a treaty. our government isn't the same two people, in the same relationship for just their lives. our government is CONSTANTLY changing people, responding to an ever changing world, ever changing internal politics and politicians, for more than two hundred years. Things have to be written down. there is no way for the next person to know if that verbal exchange was binding, final, if there were changes that were needed, approval from someone who can actually make those decisions, if additional conversations were held, if someone else came in and countermanded it, on either side.
 
#81,971
#81,971
utvolpj said:
I know if I say certain things it will piss off my wife. There's nothing written down but it's just understood from years of being together.

The US Ambassador now cia director did write it out for the admin to read. The "brightest of red lines" was a quote from that. Not everything needs to be written into a public treaty for it to be understood foreign policy
Click to expand...

Is her next husband bound by your verbal promises?
 
#81,974
#81,974
LouderVol said:
you and your wife are in an interpersonal committed relationship with each other. FP is much more complicated than that.

CIA has nothing to do with making FP. which is why it should have been written into a treaty. our government isn't the same two people, in the same relationship for just their lives. our government is CONSTANTLY changing people, responding to an ever changing world, ever changing internal politics and politicians, for more than two hundred years. Things have to be written down. there is no way for the next person to know if that verbal exchange was binding, final, if there were changes that were needed, approval from someone who can actually make those decisions, if additional conversations were held, if someone else came in and countermanded it, on either side.
Click to expand...
Burns was part of all admins involved besides Trump since the memo. He went from amb to Russia to deputy sec of state under Obama. It's hard for me to believe that the former amb to Russia and current high ranking official in the state dept wasn't consulted on Russian affairs. But anything is possible
 
#81,975
#81,975
utvolpj said:
Burns was part of all admins involved besides Trump since the memo. He went from amb to Russia to deputy sec of state under Obama. It's hard for me to believe that the former amb to Russia and current high ranking official in the state dept wasn't consulted on Russian affairs. But anything is possible
Click to expand...
Even, apparently, giving the government credit for being competent and doing their job.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top