FreestyleArt · 36-40, M
If I was Putin. I would get rid of Zelensky and their next puppets under the Globalist's Elites. And then destroy the U.S. and Nato's aid in Ukraine. And then destroy Zelensky's assets that will harm its own Citizens and then the conflict will be over and the Russian Troops goes back home. I don't know why it's taking Putin so long. He should be better than this waiting
View 1 more replies »
helenS · 36-40, F
Does one actually need to get the Russian Army reduced to almost nothing in the long run
Yes, because if Russia is not being stopped now, it will attack another country, and another, and another, and the bodies will pile up everywhere.It is most fortunate for the whole world that those brave Ukrainian men and women fight against the Russian tyranny. They deserve every support they need to win this horrible war.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Ferise1 You, and Putin, seem to be forgetting a three-way treaty known as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
Essentially, Ukraine agreed to give up all its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for safety from a U.S. or Russian invasion. Russia's invasion of Ukraine violates that treaty. And as a signatory to that 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the U.S. has a definite interest in righting Putin's current wrongs.
Sorry, dude, but Russia promised specifically NOT to invade Ukraine, and the U.S. promised specifically to ASSIST Ukraine if the treaty were ever violated. And that's what the U.S. is doing now.
Essentially, Ukraine agreed to give up all its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for safety from a U.S. or Russian invasion. Russia's invasion of Ukraine violates that treaty. And as a signatory to that 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the U.S. has a definite interest in righting Putin's current wrongs.
In the final version of the deal, Russia promised not to attack Ukraine. While the U.S. and the U.K. assured Ukraine they would aid if it was attacked by Russia, that promised aid did not guarantee military support like a NATO country would receive.
In 2009, Russia and the U.S. announced that the assurances in the Budapest Memorandum would continue to remain in effect in the future.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/global-conflicts/ukraine-agreed-to-give-up-nukes-in-exchange-for-safety-from-russia-invasion-attack-budapest-memorandum-treaty/536-8748a51f-10ee-47f0-be30-b4088750ee44In 2009, Russia and the U.S. announced that the assurances in the Budapest Memorandum would continue to remain in effect in the future.
Sorry, dude, but Russia promised specifically NOT to invade Ukraine, and the U.S. promised specifically to ASSIST Ukraine if the treaty were ever violated. And that's what the U.S. is doing now.
TheSirfurryanimalWales · 61-69, M
@Khenpal1 and wasn’t that the reason-false as it turned out-Blair and Bush started a war in the Gulf?
(Responding to missile system post).
Why is Russia different?
(Responding to missile system post).
Why is Russia different?
SomeMichGuy · M
Does one actually need to get the Russian Army reduced to almost nothing in the long run, but rather have the conflict settled with the less death possible and as soon as possible?
You are assuming that there are two possibilities
1) the Russian Army is essentially devastated into virtual non-existence, or
2) this war is settled with less death and ASAP
and, by implication, that option 1 is long & drawn-out.
First, I don't believe that this constitutes the Universe of possible alternatives, but
A) It has been noted that the performance of the Russian military has been MANY orders of magnitude worse than what Putin surely figured (except for its ability to bomb hospitals, apartments, etc.). So the Russian Army has already lost much of the reputation with which it was formerly credited (and Ukrainian citizens have surely shown THEIR mettle, and earned a HUGE amount of respect, a fine reputation, etc.). So perhaps the devastation of the Russian Army's reputation can accelerate the end of the conflict, and surely your point 1 seems far more achievable than anyone thought on Day 1 of this horrible new phase of the long Russian-Ukrainian War.
B) If you want a quick end (option 2), consider that the West and most of the rest of the world has essentially set before Russia the obvious choice of regime CHANGE (not shift to another oligarch, but change, à la Navalny). Do not think that the many sanctions against Russia have gone unnoticed by average Russians AND oligarchs. So go implore the Russian people to make the change you seek!
In the end, Russia has to be stopped, not because of the Russian Army, but because the current regime has emitted MANY statements over the past few years (in particular) which have transmitted to the world the intent to reclaim--or threaten to reclaim--the former Soviet "sphere of influence" via reclaiming the same territory, either directly or by fiat. It isn't the Russian Army, per se, which is the problem; it is having a regime which is willing to use the it and other Russian military units to continue this war of re-acquisition of territories lost when the Berlin Wall/Iron Curtain fell 33 years ago.
Putin ultimately must go, because it seems he will NEVER accept the notion that ANY other nation in the last incarnation of a Russian empire should be allowed independent sovereignty. The US, NATO, the EU, the UN cannot tolerate a rogue leader in the Kremlin any more than the rest of the world can tolerate a rogue leader in the White House.
SomeMichGuy · M
@val70 I looked at his appalling twisting of the Bible to support Putin, and I hope the Russian people are wise to his false teaching...so sad.
The Œcumenical Patriarch, at the time, should never have acknowledged the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church...so sad.
The Œcumenical Patriarch, at the time, should never have acknowledged the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church...so sad.
val70 · 51-55
@SomeMichGuy LOL... you sound like the Donald there.
BlueVeins · 22-25
That means that they're now not only going to fight a war that started way back in 2014 but also that they'll keep the West under a blanket of constant moral chantage. They are the democracy that needs to be saved, as the grand damsel in a fairytale.
Sure, if the Damsel in this movie is fighting off all the bandits singlehandedly & John Walker's role is to give her ammo.
Remember, the summer months of July and August will favour the Russian armoured columns the most, and furthermore, they consider the battlefield tactical nuclear strike as mere the another artillery option.
Don't worry. I'm sure if Putin wanted to commit suicide, one of his troops would lend him a pistol.
Obviously Ukraine won't defeat Russia on their own.
I can't imagine why you or anyone would say that after we just watched Afghanistan of all people crush the US in a war. The US is many, many times more powerful than Russia, and Ukraine is a lot more powerful than Afghanistan. Hell, the extent to which Russia has already scaled back its ambitions proves that this just isn't true.
val70 · 51-55
@newjaninev2 LOL... go on, really? You don't scare me at all. Behave yourself.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
val70 · 51-55
@newjaninev2 🤣
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@val70 Sure, let me try to state my position clearly:
1. The UN and the west have failed many countries such as Bosnia & Rwanda I certainly haven't said Ukraine is different to Bosnia & Rwanda. My position is that the UN and others failed both of these countries. Have you been to Bosnia? Rwanda? I have. I worked in both places after the conflicts - our organisation was there as part of rebuilding, peacebuilding efforts and later community development, which is more my role. I have colleagues in both countries and was on a call with one last night. And I've been to Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Angola, etc. You forget Chechnya, my colleague was there after the incredible destruction by Russia. But the west supported many corrupt regimes during the cold war, including brutal dictators like Pinochet - under the rationale of the domino theory. I was brought up to believe communism was bad, anything else was on our side. I later learnt it was far more nuanced than that.
2. Ukraine is absolutely right, Russia is absolutely wrong: That's my position. The most verifiable evidence I'm aware of supports this.
3. Nuclear threat is real Yes we should consider this and avoid nuclear war. US, Germany, UK, etc are considering this. But i don't believe that if a country like Russia threatens to use nuclear weapons we just let them invade a peaceful neighbour and rape and kill and destroy. I don't believe that Ukraine should surrender. No other army is helping Ukraine. As long as Russia has an army in their territory destroying, raping, looting, murdering civilians with hands tied behind their back - I support their right to continue to fight and recapture their territory. Absolutely. The onus is on Russia to withdraw, not for Ukraine to cave in.
4. I objected to the way you characterised Ukraine in your original post: I won't repeat it though, it's in my original response.
Hope that's clearer.
1. The UN and the west have failed many countries such as Bosnia & Rwanda I certainly haven't said Ukraine is different to Bosnia & Rwanda. My position is that the UN and others failed both of these countries. Have you been to Bosnia? Rwanda? I have. I worked in both places after the conflicts - our organisation was there as part of rebuilding, peacebuilding efforts and later community development, which is more my role. I have colleagues in both countries and was on a call with one last night. And I've been to Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Angola, etc. You forget Chechnya, my colleague was there after the incredible destruction by Russia. But the west supported many corrupt regimes during the cold war, including brutal dictators like Pinochet - under the rationale of the domino theory. I was brought up to believe communism was bad, anything else was on our side. I later learnt it was far more nuanced than that.
2. Ukraine is absolutely right, Russia is absolutely wrong: That's my position. The most verifiable evidence I'm aware of supports this.
3. Nuclear threat is real Yes we should consider this and avoid nuclear war. US, Germany, UK, etc are considering this. But i don't believe that if a country like Russia threatens to use nuclear weapons we just let them invade a peaceful neighbour and rape and kill and destroy. I don't believe that Ukraine should surrender. No other army is helping Ukraine. As long as Russia has an army in their territory destroying, raping, looting, murdering civilians with hands tied behind their back - I support their right to continue to fight and recapture their territory. Absolutely. The onus is on Russia to withdraw, not for Ukraine to cave in.
4. I objected to the way you characterised Ukraine in your original post: I won't repeat it though, it's in my original response.
Hope that's clearer.
val70 · 51-55
@Abstraction Try better. Do I actually want my country to get envolved in a war in Ukraine, no. And how dare you put your own moral hardship on me. I haven't done anything than post my own fears that it's all getting too much. I'm not backing down from that, no. I'm not even letting you get off the hook for not even trying to engage with my arguments in a normal set academic way. That Ukraine will trip itself up in over-ambition next is clear to see for anyone. Their US ambassor crowed that out already. No to my home near Brussels being put in the possibility of being nuked for something that already happened in Africa in spades and when there was indeed almost nothing done. What do you think the widows and children of the Belgian UN-soldiers hacked to death in Rwanda would say about that, you think? Do you want me to put them forward in order to win any argument then? I've never talked about wrong or right. Such talk only comes from a place of comfort and luxery. States can't be run like that. Never have and never will be. I believe in Real Politik. Hope that's clearer too.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@val70
You asked for my position, I laid it out, clearly. If you don't agree, point out any errors I made or simply indicate you have a different view. Dispassionately, academically.
In response to your question, I indicated from my experience that I am not removed from these topics but a person committed to the poor and vulnerable, including post-conflict situations in these two countries. You asked an ambiguous question about difference between Ukraine & Bosnia/Rwanda. You weren't clear which aspect of comparison you are making - and academic discussion requires clarity. I answered perfectly my interpretation of your unclear question. If you meant something different, please clarify.
I do appreciate your fear of nuclear conflict. We all share that. But realpolitik does not mean Russia can invade and destroy a country using the threat of nuclear weapons to do whatever they like and have people argue the country shouldn't defend itself. That's not realpolitik for me, that's like Neville Chamberlain claiming, 'Peace in our time' just before Hitler rolled into Poland. And then Denmark, Norway, Belgium and France. Ask yourself which countries are afraid of Russia right now if they succeed here?
Try better.
That's just rude. I'm not even letting you get off the hook for not even trying to engage with my arguments in a normal set academic way.
You have not been writing in an academic way, your writing is ambiguous, and you have not responded to a single point I've made. You revert to umbrage. Please tell me when you are ready to begin an academic discussion. You asked for my position, I laid it out, clearly. If you don't agree, point out any errors I made or simply indicate you have a different view. Dispassionately, academically.
And how dare you put your own moral hardship on me.
??? I don't have moral hardships and I didn't put anything "on you." In response to your question, I indicated from my experience that I am not removed from these topics but a person committed to the poor and vulnerable, including post-conflict situations in these two countries. You asked an ambiguous question about difference between Ukraine & Bosnia/Rwanda. You weren't clear which aspect of comparison you are making - and academic discussion requires clarity. I answered perfectly my interpretation of your unclear question. If you meant something different, please clarify.
"That Ukraine will trip itself up in over-ambition next is clear to see for anyone."
No. It's not. Almost every well-researched commentary I see does not agree with that statement. The Ukrainian troops have already reached the Russian border and stopped. They are not threatening to invade Russia. Seems like nonsense to me and out of keeping with everything said by the Ukrainian government. (Which statement by Markarova? Is it in context? Is it clear?) Until Russia removes its troops and stops the war, if Ukraine can fight them in Donbass and take back their own territory that's Russia's fault and problem. That's not overextending. It's the incompetent, corrupt and vicious regime of Putin being hoisted on his own petard.I do appreciate your fear of nuclear conflict. We all share that. But realpolitik does not mean Russia can invade and destroy a country using the threat of nuclear weapons to do whatever they like and have people argue the country shouldn't defend itself. That's not realpolitik for me, that's like Neville Chamberlain claiming, 'Peace in our time' just before Hitler rolled into Poland. And then Denmark, Norway, Belgium and France. Ask yourself which countries are afraid of Russia right now if they succeed here?
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
moral chantage
I count my vocabulary as pretty extensive but that's a new one. What is it? Or what is it a typo for?If Putin uses nuclear weapons then I thing it would be a signal that all the usual 'rules' of warfare have been abrogated. Then it would be reasonable for any other actor to act directly against Putin and his inner circle by whatever means are available including cruise missiles, drone strikes, infiltrating assassins, and even tactical nuclear weapons. Russia can win as many battles as it likes but that is not a war that Putin can win.
they consider the battlefield tactical nuclear strike as mere the another artillery option
That seems most unlikely to me. The few Russians that I have known have been sophisticated people, I have no reason to believe that the Russian military is less sophisticated than the general population; they must know that this would put them beyond the pale.As far as I can see, this whole mess is a miscalculation by Putin that was intended to bolster his position at home by making it seem that he was reclaiming some of the grandeur of the Russian past. Eventually it will become clear to everyone in Russia that Putin wanted the grandeur only for himself.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
val70 · 51-55
@ninalanyon You shall be deleted. I'm enjoying this one, laddie! 🤪
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@val70 Oh goody!
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
I'm replying with a bit of a history that I already had replied with.
Why? Because this war started centuries ago. 😔
Also posted a song associated with this darn war, yet I'll skip it.
.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Russo-Turkish-wars
https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1856
Treaty of Paris, (1856), treaty signed on March 30, 1856, in Paris that ended the Crimean War. The treaty was signed between Russia on one side and France, Great Britain, Sardinia-Piedmont, and Turkey on the other. Because the western European powers had fought the war to protect Ottoman Turkey from Russia, the treaty gave special attention to this problem. The signatories guaranteed the independence and territorial integrity of Turkey. Russia was obliged to surrender Bessarabia (situated at the mouth of the Danube River) to Moldavia, which along with Walachia were reorganized as autonomous states under Ottoman suzerainty. (These two principalities later joined to form Romania.) The Black Sea was neutralized (i.e., its waters were closed to all warships), and the Danube was opened to the shipping of all nations. In 1870 Russia repudiated the demilitarization of the Black Sea and began to rebuild its naval fleet there.
The last Russo-Turkish War (1877–78) was also the most important one. In 1877 Russia and its ally Serbia came to the aid of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bulgaria in their rebellions against Turkish rule. The Russians attacked through Bulgaria, and after successfully concluding the Siege of Pleven they advanced into Thrace, taking Adrianople (now Edirne, Tur.) in January 1878. In March of that year Russia concluded the Treaty of San Stefano with Turkey. This treaty freed Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro from Turkish rule, gave autonomy to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and created a huge autonomous Bulgaria under Russian protection. Britain and Austria-Hungary, alarmed by the Russian gains contained in the treaty, compelled Russia to accept the Treaty of Berlin (July 1878), whereby Russia’s military-political gains from the war were severely restricted.
Why? Because this war started centuries ago. 😔
Also posted a song associated with this darn war, yet I'll skip it.
.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Russo-Turkish-wars
...When Turkey deposed the Russophile governors of Moldavia and Walachia in 1806, war broke out again, though in a desultory fashion, since Russia was reluctant to concentrate large forces against Turkey while its relations with Napoleonic France were so uncertain. But in 1811, with the prospect of a Franco-Russian war in sight, Russia sought a quick decision on its southern frontier. The Russian field marshal M.I. Kutuzov’s victorious campaign of 1811–12 forced the Turks to cede Bessarabia to Russia by the Treaty of Bucharest (May 28, 1812).
Russia had by now secured the entire northern coast of the Black Sea. Its subsequent wars with Turkey were fought to gain influence in the Ottoman Balkans, win control of the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits, and expand into the Caucasus. The Greeks’ struggle for independence sparked the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–29, in which Russian forces advanced into Bulgaria, the Caucasus, and northeastern Anatolia itself before the Turks sued for peace. The resulting Treaty of Edirne (September 14, 1829) gave Russia most of the eastern shore of the Black Sea, and Turkey recognized Russian sovereignty over Georgia and parts of present-day Armenia.
The war of 1853–56, known as the Crimean War, began after the Russian emperor Nicholas I tried to obtain further concessions from Turkey. Great Britain and France entered the conflict on Turkey’s side in 1854, however, and the Treaty of Paris (March 30, 1856) that ended the war was a serious diplomatic setback for Russia, though involving few territorial concessions... continued below...
Russia had by now secured the entire northern coast of the Black Sea. Its subsequent wars with Turkey were fought to gain influence in the Ottoman Balkans, win control of the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits, and expand into the Caucasus. The Greeks’ struggle for independence sparked the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–29, in which Russian forces advanced into Bulgaria, the Caucasus, and northeastern Anatolia itself before the Turks sued for peace. The resulting Treaty of Edirne (September 14, 1829) gave Russia most of the eastern shore of the Black Sea, and Turkey recognized Russian sovereignty over Georgia and parts of present-day Armenia.
The war of 1853–56, known as the Crimean War, began after the Russian emperor Nicholas I tried to obtain further concessions from Turkey. Great Britain and France entered the conflict on Turkey’s side in 1854, however, and the Treaty of Paris (March 30, 1856) that ended the war was a serious diplomatic setback for Russia, though involving few territorial concessions... continued below...
https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1856
Treaty of Paris, (1856), treaty signed on March 30, 1856, in Paris that ended the Crimean War. The treaty was signed between Russia on one side and France, Great Britain, Sardinia-Piedmont, and Turkey on the other. Because the western European powers had fought the war to protect Ottoman Turkey from Russia, the treaty gave special attention to this problem. The signatories guaranteed the independence and territorial integrity of Turkey. Russia was obliged to surrender Bessarabia (situated at the mouth of the Danube River) to Moldavia, which along with Walachia were reorganized as autonomous states under Ottoman suzerainty. (These two principalities later joined to form Romania.) The Black Sea was neutralized (i.e., its waters were closed to all warships), and the Danube was opened to the shipping of all nations. In 1870 Russia repudiated the demilitarization of the Black Sea and began to rebuild its naval fleet there.
The last Russo-Turkish War (1877–78) was also the most important one. In 1877 Russia and its ally Serbia came to the aid of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bulgaria in their rebellions against Turkish rule. The Russians attacked through Bulgaria, and after successfully concluding the Siege of Pleven they advanced into Thrace, taking Adrianople (now Edirne, Tur.) in January 1878. In March of that year Russia concluded the Treaty of San Stefano with Turkey. This treaty freed Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro from Turkish rule, gave autonomy to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and created a huge autonomous Bulgaria under Russian protection. Britain and Austria-Hungary, alarmed by the Russian gains contained in the treaty, compelled Russia to accept the Treaty of Berlin (July 1878), whereby Russia’s military-political gains from the war were severely restricted.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@DeWayfarer Russia must cease its imperial ambitions. It is a menace.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@Fukfacewillie pretty much why I replied with this history lesson.
History shows that they will never stop until the other countries put an end to it.
History shows that they will never stop until the other countries put an end to it.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
val70 · 51-55
Thank you for all the very nice private replies to this posting of mine. Yes, perhaps I need to write it in French too next time. And yes, of course, with my use of "moral chantage" I linked the subject matter to the widely held French academic thought these days on 'la chantage affectif' derived from studies on the human conduct during married life. What's important is the moral element in the so-called infraction; l'intention est la volonté ou la conscience d'utiliser des menaces illégitimes.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
Depending n your world view. If you still believe that the major powers are not working in concert with one another to consolidate their people's faith in their various power structures.
If no, the old paradigm. Years ago it was Russia's Afgansitan and later Syria. America's Iran was preceded with Egypt,
It's just another monkey in the middle game in my view. Like a hundred some years ago. The US fighting Spain through proxy Mexico. Better still, the US using Germany to fight Russia and Russia going after England by way of Germany back in 1941.
They're all lions leading sheep into battle. And they won't stop until a lion leads lions into a final battle.
Will that happen in Ukraine? Better hope not. It would lead to real armageddon because sure as sh1t I would black out the sun with ICBMS.
Don't fk with a lion that's willing t lead.
If no, the old paradigm. Years ago it was Russia's Afgansitan and later Syria. America's Iran was preceded with Egypt,
It's just another monkey in the middle game in my view. Like a hundred some years ago. The US fighting Spain through proxy Mexico. Better still, the US using Germany to fight Russia and Russia going after England by way of Germany back in 1941.
They're all lions leading sheep into battle. And they won't stop until a lion leads lions into a final battle.
Will that happen in Ukraine? Better hope not. It would lead to real armageddon because sure as sh1t I would black out the sun with ICBMS.
Don't fk with a lion that's willing t lead.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@Tastyfrzz Apparently you didn't notice that last time when the US threatened to block Russia from swift they set up an alternate. And yanked every asset they could out of reach of the west.
The buff isn't working on anyone but the ignorant in the west. Europe gets 60% of it's natural gas through Russia. And thanks to Joey, they have no competition.
All this small talk makes me hungry. Maybe I should have taken over a small african country before bedtime last night.
Hahahahahahaaaaaa!
Pfft.
The buff isn't working on anyone but the ignorant in the west. Europe gets 60% of it's natural gas through Russia. And thanks to Joey, they have no competition.
All this small talk makes me hungry. Maybe I should have taken over a small african country before bedtime last night.
Hahahahahahaaaaaa!
Pfft.
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 who's buying that cr**!
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SteelHands The gangster state’s foreign financial assets are already frozen, its income is diminishing (and will become steadily smaller), and the oligarchs will possibly be a little upset when their super yachts, luxury properties, and financial holding (all currently seized) are put up for sale. Even putin’s own super yacht is now safely in the West’s hands 😂
Actually, it was both fascinating and hilarious to watch the rats run for cover when they finally realised they were about to lose it all. The best way to destroy criminal gangs is to take away their money.
Actually, it was both fascinating and hilarious to watch the rats run for cover when they finally realised they were about to lose it all. The best way to destroy criminal gangs is to take away their money.
melbeacher · 61-69, M
By june Ukraine will have most of the heavy artillery and tanks donated by the west ready for a counter offensived in the east. I trully believe that Ukraine will be able t odrive the russians completely out of their country wit hthe help of the west. That is what their president is saying.
Nanoose · 61-69, M
Victory laps and parades' well the world applauds their bravery is what is next for the Ukraine. I think the Ukrainians are showing the World that Russia's bark is worse then their bite. I think there will be a regime change in Russia might be a bloody one but it is coming. Cheers!
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 46-50, MVIP
val70 · 51-55
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Atleast you're still questioning it all. Sometimes I need to remind people that they need to inform themselves and not protest that the media is always the same, etc. Somehow it's hard to view anything these days away from the set horizon. The Rwanda genocide had 800,000 killed and what happened then? A few reports here and there. Images either too terrifying or too shaming that majority of people wanted to switch off.
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 46-50, MVIP
ukraines showing russia its bark is bigger then its bite.
seriously.
if putin is what everyone claims he is, he would have glassed the whole country with big bombs.
seems to me hes systemattically picking of targets he desires and nobodies stopping him. all the while zelinskeys out begging any country with a gun or spare millions for help.
but yar.. ukraines really showing them russians whats for.. oy vey ..
seriously.
if putin is what everyone claims he is, he would have glassed the whole country with big bombs.
seems to me hes systemattically picking of targets he desires and nobodies stopping him. all the while zelinskeys out begging any country with a gun or spare millions for help.
but yar.. ukraines really showing them russians whats for.. oy vey ..
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout pootin is so stupid he thinks that a horde of people marching in fancy uniforms means that they are an effective military force.
honest question : why are you western so into democracy so much?
Mindful · 56-60, F
@YukikoAmagi I thought the Greeks started democracy
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Abstraction
Well said! That’s the heart and core of democracy!
I think for myself. This is a gift that democracy gives you. I can disagree with and criticise my government, and I do
Well said! That’s the heart and core of democracy!
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
val70 · 51-55
@ElwoodBlues Deleted 🤪
ElwoodBlues · M
@val70 So much for free speech, LOL!!!
val70 · 51-55
@ElwoodBlues Yep, actions begets reactions. You should try to grow up before I retire in a couple of years time.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
val70 · 51-55
@newjaninev2 Not frightened at all, just putting boundaries out. Trust you not to know.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@val70 Boundaries... like a play-pen in which you can feel safe?
I realise that you feel need to stay within your zone of competence, and within the bounds of what your russian masters allow.
There’s no shame in that... is there?
I realise that you feel need to stay within your zone of competence, and within the bounds of what your russian masters allow.
There’s no shame in that... is there?
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@Cierzo Humanity won't survive if either one wins. 5 years later the world will end.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@SteelHands Promises, promises.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@Diotrephes Judas mocks.
val70 · 51-55
@helenS You should be ashamed about that statement of yours. You don't know me, nor do I know you. My family has fought in a two wars of occupation. Even fallen in battle and killed under torture. I have said nothing for you to claim that I offer "barely disguised Russian war propaganda". You obviously haven't been in a war, nor know what's my fear was all about. People in the know like Anne Applebaum or Richard Haass have stated that Nato is closer to direct envolvement now than ever and thus also closer to, at best, limited nuclear war. Shame on you.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@newjaninev2 NATO did “attack” in the Balkans and it was controversial.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Fukfacewillie NATO was acting under the auspices of, and at the request of, the UN, in order to enforce UN resolutions
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
@Really a marker of course .
Adstar · 56-60, M
I think the Russian elites will organize the assassination of Putin.. If Putin orders a nuclear strike then it will be a quick assassination if Russia loses big in Donbass then it will happen later...
I don't think Ukraine should try to retake Crimea that will probably force Russia to go to full mobilization and that will be the start of a very big and long war..
NATO would be insane to engage directly with Russian forces in Ukraine.. That would be the start of a nuclear war for sure..
I don't think Ukraine should try to retake Crimea that will probably force Russia to go to full mobilization and that will be the start of a very big and long war..
NATO would be insane to engage directly with Russian forces in Ukraine.. That would be the start of a nuclear war for sure..
Sazzio · 36-40, M
Dust, debris, desserted.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@val70 Not a first strike, never. But the West must not blink. And Israel is predictably being awful.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@Fukfacewillie This seems like the rhetorically worst way to make the point you're tryna make. I agree that the US & its allies shouldn't allow itself to be blackmailed by Russia, but the real reasons why relate to the precedent that sets for international relations broadly. It encourages countries to threaten nuclear war just for relatively small strategic gains.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@BlueVeins I don’t think Putin is reading SW. But, I am being literal.
LegendofPeza · 61-69, M
helenS · 36-40, F
@LegendofPeza He has always been a liar. What he says is irrelevant.