War in Ukraine

#86,601
#86,601
BeardedVol said:
LOL do you need a transcript? It's even from a Russian State Media website so it will fit your source requirements.
View attachment 730419
Click to expand...
That says the same thing I said above in different words. This time he puts quotes around "NATO expansion," as if everything depends on the exact phrase. (It was not a current phrase at the time for obvious reasons. And he reveals his motivation for doing so in the last three sentences you quote.

What was at issue, as he notes, was not a particular phrase, but the idea of (as he says) of "making sure that NATO's military structures would not advance..." They have advanced now all the way to the Russian border (at more than one point) with US missiles being launched into Russian territory across the border.

What you are saying, basically, is that since the NATO military structure did not advance into the former DDR at that time, then it never advanced. But it has advanced.

You also omitted the following from later in the interview, where he does employ the phrase "NATO expansion" when a window that extends beyond the immediate events surrounding the fall of the Berlin Wall are considered.

Today [2014] we need to admit that there is a crisis in European (and global) politics. One of the reasons, albeit not the only reason, is a lack of desire on the part of our Western partners to take Russia’s point of view and legal interests in security into consideration. They paid lip service to applauding Russia, especially during the Yeltsin years, but in deeds they didn’t consider it. I am referring primarily to NATO expansion, missile defense plans, the West’s actions in regions of importance to Russia (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine). They literally said “This is none of your business.” As a result, an abscess formed and it burst.

I would advise Western leaders to thoroughly analyze all of this, instead of accusing Russia of everything. They should remember the Europe we managed to create at the beginning of the 1990s and what it has unfortunately turned into in recent years.
Click to expand...
 
#86,603
#86,603
BeardedVol said:
Lol, "contaminated court", is that what you tell yourself when you wave your confederate battle flag around your back yard?

Congress voted to approve the creation of West Virginia, again, as the power to approve border changes lies with the federal government.

www.archives.gov

West Virginia Statehood, June 20, 1863

Among the historical records of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are documents that illustrate the important role Congress plays in the creation of states. For West Virginia, the road to statehood was a unique one. Disputes over the borders of Virginia began in the early...
www.archives.gov www.archives.gov

By all means, join the Texas secessionist movement and try to get Texas v white overturned.
tnm.me

The TNM

Texas First. Texas Forever.
tnm.me tnm.me
Click to expand...

Yes and if you actually took time to read your own link you’ll find that they did that WITHOUT the consent of the Virginia legislature which is a requirement of that section of the constitution. Congress does not have the power to create a state from another state unilaterally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and InVOLuntary
#86,604
#86,604
That article I just linked is also interesting with respect to how non-profits and NGOs were used in "operations" against foreign populations. I think this was before the method was imported for use domestically.
 
Last edited:
#86,605
#86,605
whodeycin85 said:
If one country pulling out of an organization would cripple it, how strong is that organization??? Seems to me that if they are worried about the US pulling out they need to step up to be prepared in case that happens.
Click to expand...
Eisenhower had to explain to his security advisors during a gathering that NATO was not a European organization; it was a vehicle for American military and foreign policy. He also had to reprimand the CIA gang on a different occasion for heartlessly getting a bunch of Hungarians needlessly killed by inciting a coup there with their propaganda ops. Gen. Eisenhower explained to them that the primary US defense of Europe was based on nuclear weapons. Full stop. And that inserting US troops into Budapest surrounded by the Soviet army was a suicide mission and would be a national disgrace. It is not an incident to start a nuclear holocaust over, he explained. So knock this stuff off.
 
#86,606
#86,606
France is handing out Survival Guides and now this..looks likea familiar scheme,

www.yahoo.com

Despite her outrage, Le Pen risks a political ban that is increasingly common in France

PARIS (Reuters) -French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who in two weeks will learn her fate in an embezzlement trial, says prosecutors demanding she face an instant five-year public office ban have waged an unheard-of assault on her presidential hopes. The 56-year-old National Rally (RN)...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

The Euro elites can go eff themselves
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700 and InVOLuntary
#86,608
#86,608
Orange. said:
If they can keep it. We should endorse it.

I never thought it would come to this, but I think we have we to consider the possibility of the Brits trying to obtain a small base on that coast and deliberately provoking or false-flagging an incident to trigger and demand a full NATO engagement. We should not fall for it and should make that clear now. In fact, we should keep them the hell away from the area. Now if Russia invades England 😂 that's a different matter. But they know that is not going to happen. The hysteria they are putting on is all fakery and sham politics.
Click to expand...
You can look at it another way too; regardless of any influence, Russia would have taken it eventually anyways because they needed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange.
#86,610
#86,610
Orange. said:
If they can keep it. We should endorse it.

I never thought it would come to this, but I think we have we to consider the possibility of the Brits trying to obtain a small base on that coast and deliberately provoking or false-flagging an incident to trigger and demand a full NATO engagement. We should not fall for it and should make that clear now. In fact, we should keep them the hell away from the area. Now if Russia invades England 😂 that's a different matter. But they know that is not going to happen. The hysteria they are putting on is all fakery and sham politics.
Click to expand...
I thought it was Poland who was going to seize western Ukraine. Now its the Brits?

yall really will come up with any crazy possible future justification to excuse something Putin has already done.
 
#86,611
#86,611
Gm82fRWWEAAp30N
 
#86,612
#86,612
Orange. said:
You know we're talking about a securable position on the Sea of Azov and not a tiny dot. You're being being deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...
and you are deliberately buying the Russian BS without bothering to check any of the facts.

The Russians already had 2 of the 4 largest ports of the Sea of Azov before 2022, Kerch and Taganrog.

the largest on the Sea of Azov is Mauripol, which has 4.2km of berths, and a depth of 9.5 meters.

the "tiny dot" you dismiss has 8.3 km of berths, and 19m of depth.

I can't find the data on the 4th port, but if you combined the three largest ports on the Sea of Azov they would be smaller than the port of Novorossiysk.

and as you ignored none of the Sea of Azov ports are open in the winter, so regardless of their sizes taking those ports didn't gain Russia a warm water port.
 
#86,613
#86,613
LouderVol said:
Russia isn't able to devote every single soldier they have to fighting Ukraine. Ukraine on the other hand is able to devote every single soldier they have to fighting Russia.

the initial Russian invasion was only like 300k, they ramped up over time as the fight drug on and they had to shift from a quick knock out blow of Kiev to an occupation and WW1 style fight.

Russia CAN maintain longer than Ukraine. i have never argued otherwise. the issue is Ukraine is probably more willing to sustain those losses than Russia is. Ukraine loses, they don't exist anymore. Russia loses, and they go back to there 2013 borders. no real loss for Russia. Its going to be worth a higher percentage to ukraine to survive than it is for the russians to take.
Click to expand...

So what do we do?
 
#86,614
#86,614
dalton_vol said:
So what do we do?
Click to expand...
my suggestion has never changed. I was never opposed to selling Ukraine weapons, even if it came at a discount. or if Europe wanted to middle man it, to Europe. but no direct involvement.

We gave them the opportunity to fight back, which meets the spirit of what we signed imo. we didn't guarantee the outcome.

just because we/I don't "like" it, doesn't mean Ukraine losing wasn't on the table as a possible outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#86,615
#86,615
LouderVol said:
my suggestion has never changed. I was never opposed to selling Ukraine weapons, even if it came at a discount. or if Europe wanted to middle man it, to Europe. but no direct involvement.

We gave them the opportunity to fight back, which meets the spirit of what we signed imo. we didn't guarantee the outcome.

just because we/I don't "like" it, doesn't mean Ukraine losing wasn't on the table as a possible outcome.
Click to expand...
So we supply them weapons and give them money indefinitely?
 
#86,616
#86,616
dalton_vol said:
So we supply them weapons and give them money indefinitely?
Click to expand...
how did you get that from my post?

I said we gave them an opportunity, and have met (as in the past tense) the terms of our agreement (meaning we can stop whenever and no violate anything), and we aren't responsible for guaranteeing the outcome.

I literally closed with Ukraine losing is a possibility.

As long as they or someone can pay, I have no issue supplying/selling weapons indefinitely.
 
#86,617
#86,617
LouderVol said:
how did you get that from my post?

I said we gave them an opportunity, and have met (as in the past tense) the terms of our agreement (meaning we can stop whenever and no violate anything), and we aren't responsible for guaranteeing the outcome.

I literally closed with Ukraine losing is a possibility.

As long as they or someone can pay, I have no issue supplying/selling weapons indefinitely.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you believe that, I'm just asking a rhetorical question. This war has been going on for over 4 years now? I think. So do we just keep giving money? Or do we say enough is enough and try to prevent more Ukrainian and Russian soldiers from dying.
 
#86,618
#86,618
dalton_vol said:
I'm not saying you believe that, I'm just asking a rhetorical question. This war has been going on for over 4 years now? I think. So do we just keep giving money? Or do we say enough is enough and try to prevent more Ukrainian and Russian soldiers from dying.
Click to expand...
or we can say enough is enough and let Ukraine and Russia, or really anyone but us, figure it out. while we give nothing to anyone.

a bad peace treaty just creates the next war. we shouldn't put our name on it. even though Wilson was wrong to get us involved in WW1, he was right in keeping us out of the Treaty of Versailles.

all our involvement in the treaty will do is create another Budapest Memorandum situation where we are guaranteeing future money and weapons for peace now.
 
#86,619
#86,619
LouderVol said:
or we can say enough is enough and let Ukraine and Russia, or really anyone but us, figure it out. while we give nothing to anyone.

a bad peace treaty just creates the next war. we shouldn't put our name on it. even though Wilson was wrong to get us involved in WW1, he was right in keeping us out of the Treaty of Versailles.

all our involvement in the treaty will do is create another Budapest Memorandum situation where we are guaranteeing future money and weapons for peace now.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think we'll get a decent peace deal
 
#86,621
#86,621
BeardedVol said:
The only reason Putin is feigning interest in a "peace" deal, and Trump is (willfully) falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

www.express.co.uk

Russian economy meltdown as fuel prices 'skyrocketing' 14% and inflation soaring

Russia's economy is increasingly beleaguered, with the cost of ordinary goods soaring.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk
Click to expand...
the whole strategy from the west has been to put financial/economic pressure on Russia to get them to peace. but now that there are signs of financial trouble and Russia being willing to talk about peace its suddenly BS because Trump is involved?
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700, MemphisVol77, Orange. and 1 other person
#86,622
#86,622
LouderVol said:
the whole strategy from the west has been to put financial/economic pressure on Russia to get them to peace. but now that there are signs of financial trouble and Russia being willing to talk about peace its suddenly BS because Trump is involved?
Click to expand...

Of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange.
#86,623
#86,623
LouderVol said:
the whole strategy from the west has been to put financial/economic pressure on Russia to get them to peace. but now that there are signs of financial trouble and Russia being willing to talk about peace its suddenly BS because Trump is involved?
Click to expand...

It's BS because trump is offering a lifeline, while requiring Putin to do literally nothing in return.
news.sky.com

Crystal clear Trump wants to turn Putin from pariah to partner with lifting of some sanctions

The US is talking about easing a handful of restrictions so that Russia's agricultural and fertiliser exports can return to global markets.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
#86,624
#86,624
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top