fka ftc said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

No one's asking what it would be. They're asking what you think it should be. You keep twisting the question and moving the goal posts because you don't want to answer.

What, in your opinion, beyond just this very vague "peace" should they be negotiating for?

---

I answered your nonsensical question and just crickets and some bizarre take from your vaccine friend.

Instead of antagonizing folks with goal post comments, engage in a discussion.

---

Here's a question... Who was that post directed at? I'll hang up and wait...

Probably better if you just hang up. Be it the phone, your cleats, posting.

I will address whatever post and question I please. You and Teslag are not moderators last I checked. Quit acting like you are.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

No. Just because I can't answer an extremely complex question doesn't make you right. It just means I know the limits of valuable speculation. Sorry you are too immature to handle that.

---

So you keep talking about, "peace is better than continuing this war," but you can't even form your own opinion on what that peace should look like? This isn't Jeopardy!, it's someone asking your opinion.

---

I know you think you are this brilliant savant that is the living incarnation of George Washington and Rambo but some of us don't have our egos that highly inflated. Not knowing what the peace would be doesnt mean I don't think they should negotiate for it. Ukraine was on track to lose this war several months ago. Now they have little to bargain with. Their biggest chips are concessions to be made by the Western allies. Something the progressives won't want to do.

---

No one's asking what it would be. They're asking what you think it should be. You keep twisting the question and moving the goal posts because you don't want to answer.

What, in your opinion, beyond just this very vague "peace" should they be negotiating for?

---

Staff at what point is this considered trolling. They can ask a question I addressed it in a reasonable way. They shouldn't be able to spam and dominate discourse by repetitively asking the same asinine question.

oysterbayAG said:

---

From the latest reports, it appears everyone is running out of ammunition except Russia. Ukraine obviously doesn't have the staying power that Russia has. They are running out of trained soldiers, ammo, equipment, and money etc. and Russia isn't. As Ukraine's position approaches disaster level defeat, it will be interesting to see what our grossly incompetent Commander in Chief and his Administration Leaders do about it. They are already probably figuring out how to blame Trump !

---

Thank you for joining the thread. You are very correct, imho.

The whole Ukraine war wouldn't have happened if Trump had just listened to LTC Vindman ("oh say can you see!!"/Ciaramella/Fiona Hill etc., and hadn't questioned Saint Zelensky The Beautiful Light of this World about Biden's corruption on a phone call, that one time.

Ukrainian war supporters (pushing 'ukraine will win' narratives) are like this gal as the rest of us are the camera man:

This cameraman is a G pic.twitter.com/i4lHR0qaC2

— Luke Rudkowski (@Lukewearechange) July 24, 2023

Meanwhile:

BREAKING: Joe Biden, who is currently facing intense congressional scrutiny for allegedly accepting a $10 million bribe from a Ukrainian oligarch as VP, just approved another $400 million to Ukraine.

This is the 43rd approved aide package from the US to Ukraine since Feb 2022.

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) July 24, 2023

1) While Americans were distracted with Barbie/Oppenheimer over the weekend, the MSM quietly shifted their Ukraine narrative. 🇷🇺🇺🇦

Pro-Western analyst, LT. Gen. Kellogg, details how Ukraine’s counter-offensive is “not going well”. Admitting that Ukraine never had the numbers or… pic.twitter.com/md1TQTPbSc

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) July 24, 2023

Footage of Ships along the Danube. pic.twitter.com/DGRACphkCp

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) July 24, 2023

Let's review everything we've recently learned about the Bidens:

- A declassified FBI file alleging Joe and Hunter were bribed $5M by Burisma to get the Ukraine prosecutor investigating them fired

- A text message in which Hunter demanded payment from his CCP linked business…

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 24, 2023

🚨TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT BURISMA...THE CALL WAS PERFECT. GIULIANI WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. BIDEN AND DEM CLAIMS ARE NOW COLLAPSED🚨
(From left leaning news "Babel Ukraine")

3/28/23 - Former Director of Legal Affairs at Burisma, Andrii Kicha, takes a plea deal for a 6 million… pic.twitter.com/NC6dxpw8T7

— Truth Ninja (@TruthNinja316) July 24, 2023

Forever war!

fka ftc said:

---

Probably better if you just hang up. Be it the phone, your cleats, posting.

I will address whatever post and question I please. You and Teslag are not moderators last I checked. Quit acting like you are.

---

Says the guy crying for bans for "trolling" every day.

fka ftc said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

AND THEY CAN ALWAYS LEAVE AND STOP SHARING

If they can simply say, "Bye," and go right back to complete and total independence they are still a sovereign country. Why is this so difficult for you? "But but but when they're in the EU they share sovereignty!" But but but nothing. They are in a voluntary agreement that they can leave at anytime because they're still a sovereign country. They have not permanently and irrevocably handed plenary or decision making power to another country. They have not changed their borders. They have done nothing that would constitute becoming part of another country. Texas becoming a state in the US would be becoming part of another country. Ukraine joining the EU, a voluntary pact from which they are always free to leave and return to the current status quo, is not.

HTH

---

You skip the lesson on withdrawal form the EU. If so easy, then Brexit could have been done with an email or tweet.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Also, what borders do you think exist in the EU? Part of the whole point is to be able to freely travel between the member states. They entered into treaties that then set forth a process for withdrawing (a concept that until Lincoln's nonsense in the Civil War was part of our own history).

The density in understanding this very simple concept explains a lot.

---

Brexit happened, no? Just because it wasn't easy doesn't mean that it didn't happen or can't be done. Britain voted to leave. They got their affairs in order and then... left. Please explain to me how a process being lengthy and/or requiring agreements to sever ties and negotiate future terms means that it isn't possible. Considering the Southern states had to fight a war to try to leave the US and were ultimately unsuccessful, and most "parts of other countries" must do the same to establish sovereignty, I'd say Bregxit was pretty dang easy.

What borders do you think don't exist in the EU? We can freely travel to other states. Does Texas not have a border? Are we now a part of Nebraska? Can we tax property in other states instead of our own? No? Seems like being able to freely travel across a border has diddly to do with whether that border exists...

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

AND THEY CAN ALWAYS LEAVE AND STOP SHARING

If they can simply say, "Bye," and go right back to complete and total independence they are still a sovereign country. Why is this so difficult for you? "But but but when they're in the EU they share sovereignty!" But but but nothing. They are in a voluntary agreement that they can leave at anytime because they're still a sovereign country. They have not permanently and irrevocably handed plenary or decision making power to another country. They have not changed their borders. They have done nothing that would constitute becoming part of another country. Texas becoming a state in the US would be becoming part of another country. Ukraine joining the EU, a voluntary pact from which they are always free to leave and return to the current status quo, is not.

HTH

---

You skip the lesson on withdrawal form the EU. If so easy, then Brexit could have been done with an email or tweet.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Also, what borders do you think exist in the EU? Part of the whole point is to be able to freely travel between the member states. They entered into treaties that then set forth a process for withdrawing (a concept that until Lincoln's nonsense in the Civil War was part of our own history).

The density in understanding this very simple concept explains a lot.

---

Brexit happened, no? Just because it wasn't easy doesn't mean that it didn't happen or can't be done. Britain voted to leave. They got their affairs in order and then... left. Please explain to me how a process being lengthy and/or requiring agreements to sever ties and negotiate future terms means that it isn't possible. Considering the Southern states had to fight a war to try to leave the US and were ultimately unsuccessful, and most "parts of other countries" must do the same to establish sovereignty, I'd say Bregxit was pretty dang easy.

What borders do you think don't exist in the EU? We can freely travel to other states. Does Texas not have a border? Are we now a part of Nebraska? Can we tax property in other states instead of our own? No? Seems like being able to freely travel across a border has diddly to do with whether that border exists...

---

Starting to smell like pretzel and mustard in here. You are now arguing against your own points.

First UK just need to say "okay, cheerio and tootles, whilst be on our merry way now" but, as you like to say, the goal posts are now "well, it was a wee bit of a process and challenge with protracted legal maneuvers, but we sure got it done in the end now didn't we chaps".

With no actual discussion, I am going to leave you in the pretzel you created. Would have been better to not picked up the phone and left it hung up....

Make them admit to you that Ukraine is losing before you engage, or they're not ready yet; still too brainwashed.

Quote:

---

Ukraine is losing

---

Russia has lost 22% of what they controlled. including 5 regions completely expelling all Russian occupation, a little over a year ago but they are "winning".

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Ukraine is losing

---

Russia has lost 22% of what they controlled a little over a year ago but they are "winning".

---

I rest my case. This one is still cooking. He'll come around.

fka ftc said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

AND THEY CAN ALWAYS LEAVE AND STOP SHARING

If they can simply say, "Bye," and go right back to complete and total independence they are still a sovereign country. Why is this so difficult for you? "But but but when they're in the EU they share sovereignty!" But but but nothing. They are in a voluntary agreement that they can leave at anytime because they're still a sovereign country. They have not permanently and irrevocably handed plenary or decision making power to another country. They have not changed their borders. They have done nothing that would constitute becoming part of another country. Texas becoming a state in the US would be becoming part of another country. Ukraine joining the EU, a voluntary pact from which they are always free to leave and return to the current status quo, is not.

HTH

---

You skip the lesson on withdrawal form the EU. If so easy, then Brexit could have been done with an email or tweet.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Also, what borders do you think exist in the EU? Part of the whole point is to be able to freely travel between the member states. They entered into treaties that then set forth a process for withdrawing (a concept that until Lincoln's nonsense in the Civil War was part of our own history).

The density in understanding this very simple concept explains a lot.

---

Brexit happened, no? Just because it wasn't easy doesn't mean that it didn't happen or can't be done. Britain voted to leave. They got their affairs in order and then... left. Please explain to me how a process being lengthy and/or requiring agreements to sever ties and negotiate future terms means that it isn't possible. Considering the Southern states had to fight a war to try to leave the US and were ultimately unsuccessful, and most "parts of other countries" must do the same to establish sovereignty, I'd say Bregxit was pretty dang easy.

What borders do you think don't exist in the EU? We can freely travel to other states. Does Texas not have a border? Are we now a part of Nebraska? Can we tax property in other states instead of our own? No? Seems like being able to freely travel across a border has diddly to do with whether that border exists...

---

Starting to smell like pretzel and mustard in here. You are now arguing against your own points.

First UK just need to say "okay, cheerio and tootles, whilst be on our merry way now" but, as you like to say, the goal posts are now "well, it was a wee bit of a process and challenge with protracted legal maneuvers, but we sure got it done in the end now didn't we chaps".

With no actual discussion, I am going to leave you in the pretzel you created. Would have been better to not picked up the phone and left it hung up....

---

Did the EU at any point try to stop them, either diplomatically or military? No? Then yes, they did just say, "We'll be on our merry way." Like any divorce, there were details to figure out, but the EU never tried to force them to stay. It was as easy as pulling out of any other treaty or agreement.

You going to address the border thing? You bolded it, but then you just left it there...

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Ukraine is losing

---

Russia has lost 22% of what they controlled a little over a year ago but they are "winning".

---

I rest my case. This one is still cooking. He'll come around.

---

Could you give me an update on how the Russian occupation is going in Chernihiv, Kyiv, Sumy, Zhytomyr and Mykolaiv?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Ukraine is losing

---

Russia has lost 22% of what they controlled a little over a year ago but they are "winning".

---

I rest my case. This one is still cooking. He'll come around.

---

A cancer patient getting a good deal on cremation/burial costs is 'winning' by his definition.

Anyway, I also read a good point that while many vehicles/tanks/munitions were (and are) arriving via rail from Poland, the fuel transported by train is comparatively easy to blow up (or disrupt).

So the fuel for Ukrainian army was arriving via the grain deal ships. Now the grain deal is off, and no ships are cruising into their ports because of the simple fact none can be insured commercially for doing so, and practically this also cuts off the fuel flow.

The Ukrainian army is going to have a really tough time for the rest of this year…and into next spring. I really did not appreciate the impact the 'grain deal' was having in favor of Ukrainian finances and logistics.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

No. Just because I can't answer an extremely complex question doesn't make you right. It just means I know the limits of valuable speculation. Sorry you are too immature to handle that.

---

I didn't say anything about making myself "right". I asked for your assessment of what Ukraine should accept in a negotiated peace. It's your ****ing opinion.

Tesla has put his view of what they should accept.

I agree somewhat with his view although I'd want Ukraine to get more of their own territory back so as not to reward Russia's bull**** as much.

But, I do agree with his point that they join NATO as part of it. THAT is the guarantee that Russia doesn't break the peace agreement like they're wont to do...

It doesn't mean that we're going into WWIII and launching nukes at Moscow. Russia hasn't attacked any NATO countries - because he knows he'll get a response he doesn't want.

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

EU is not voluntary once you sign up, see Brexit. And see Ireland folks not being able to harvest and sell peat for fuel as not having any internal decision making power.

For NATO, is there not a "an attack on one is an attack on all" or some such nonsense? Seems like if France decides to FAFO with someone in the Middle East then we get dragged in to the consequences of bad decision making by the French.

US can enforce global stability without propping up the Ukes and pissing off the Russians. See Trump foreign policy for reference.

---

That's not an attack on France and probably wouldn't activate Article 5.

---

If they piss off a country in the ME and the ME launches a drone strike of Paris, that triggers Article 5. Hence the FAFO designation.

---

That could. Depends on the damage of the drone strike. Also depends on what France did.

Killing 3500 civilians might invoke it.

That's how it happened after 9/11. But, when Bin Laden tried to blow up a WTC building in NYC in 1993 it didn't, even though there were deaths.

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Something tells me you are not familiar with the EU much. Let me help with a Wikipedia introduction. You can do further learning on your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Quote:

---

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are signatories to the founding treaties of the union and thereby share in the privileges and obligations of membership. They have agreed by the treaties to share their own sovereignty through the institutions of the European Union in some, but not all, aspects of government. State governments must agree unanimously in the Council for the union to adopt some policies; for others, collective decisions are made by qualified majority voting. These obligations and sharing of sovereignty within the EU (sometimes referred to as supranational) make it unique among international organisations, as it has established its own legal order which by the provisions of the founding treaties is both legally binding and supreme on all the member states (after a landmark ruling of the ECJ in 1964). A founding principle of the union is the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions are taken collectively if and only if they cannot realistically be taken individually.

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

What COUNTRY is France part of?

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

As I am not dictator of Ukraine like the Great Z, its not particularly my place to answer.

But, my counsel to Z would be for him to work to negotiate the best deal possible. That likely means giving up all contested areas and I would ask in return for compensation from Russia for the damage to infrastructure and for a binding UN resolution regarding further incursions.

Russia could pay for any reparations through the lifting of sanctions and embargos currently in place on Russia and its oligarchs.

But again, that's just me brainstorming off the top of my head. My position isn't that Ukraine should surrender or fight to death. I am agnostic on that. My position is that quite simply it is not our fight and our involvement comes at a cost to our own stability and security and that resources and funds could be better spent on our Country or at least in our hemisphere.

---

And what guarantee will Ukraine have that Russia will not break this peace agreement like they've broken all the other ones in the past?

fka ftc said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

So you're saying that Britain couldn't do exactly what they did and peacefully leave the EU simply because they didn't want to be in it anymore? I mean telling them, "Hey, were just not feeling it anymore. Bye." and them being cool with seems pretty damn voluntary to me...

The EU countries are all still sovereign countries. They can do what Britain did and just leave if they don't like the EU restrictions they've voluntarily agreed to abide by. So yes, they are still sovereigns. It's not complicated.

You have absolutely 0 understanding of NATO's Article 5. Member nations are required to give support in the event that a member country is attacked, but it is up to those member countries to determine what they support is. It could be as little as allowing military or combat flights to use their airspace or as much as putting boots on the ground alongside them.

---

Man, do you always get other people to help explain things to you? No, you do not get to just walk away. Took over a decade and much negotiation, and that was with the UK being a EU-lite member to begin with and having the biggest stick to bargain with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union

---

There was a legal process that they followed. That process took time. They took that time to just walk away.

It's like a divorce. You can't just say THIS MARRIAGE IS OVER, I DECLARE IT! and it's done. You have to follow the process which takes time (and negotiation).

But, at the end, the UK did what ABAT said and peacefully left the EU.

texagbeliever said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Something tells me you are not familiar with the EU much. Let me help with a Wikipedia introduction. You can do further learning on your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Quote:

---

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are signatories to the founding treaties of the union and thereby share in the privileges and obligations of membership. They have agreed by the treaties to share their own sovereignty through the institutions of the European Union in some, but not all, aspects of government. State governments must agree unanimously in the Council for the union to adopt some policies; for others, collective decisions are made by qualified majority voting. These obligations and sharing of sovereignty within the EU (sometimes referred to as supranational) make it unique among international organisations, as it has established its own legal order which by the provisions of the founding treaties is both legally binding and supreme on all the member states (after a landmark ruling of the ECJ in 1964). A founding principle of the union is the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions are taken collectively if and only if they cannot realistically be taken individually.

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

This post should honestly shut up a few of the posters for at least 48 hours. The ones screaming for sovereignty admit the only solution is to cede sovereignty. Yet they are going to be like well you didn't lay out a perfect peace deal based on all countries involved so you can't be right. So juvenile.

---

The US is in NATO. To what country have we ceded our sovereignty?

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Something tells me you are not familiar with the EU much. Let me help with a Wikipedia introduction. You can do further learning on your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Quote:

---

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are signatories to the founding treaties of the union and thereby share in the privileges and obligations of membership. They have agreed by the treaties to share their own sovereignty through the institutions of the European Union in some, but not all, aspects of government. State governments must agree unanimously in the Council for the union to adopt some policies; for others, collective decisions are made by qualified majority voting. These obligations and sharing of sovereignty within the EU (sometimes referred to as supranational) make it unique among international organisations, as it has established its own legal order which by the provisions of the founding treaties is both legally binding and supreme on all the member states (after a landmark ruling of the ECJ in 1964). A founding principle of the union is the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions are taken collectively if and only if they cannot realistically be taken individually.

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

This post should honestly shut up a few of the posters for at least 48 hours. The ones screaming for sovereignty admit the only solution is to cede sovereignty. Yet they are going to be like well you didn't lay out a perfect peace deal based on all countries involved so you can't be right. So juvenile.

---

The US is in NATO. To what country have we ceded our sovereignty?

---

Post is entirely about EU. You bring up NATO. Do you see the problem?

Don't know, but last I hear the Paw was lookin' to cede US sovereignty when it comes to global pandemics.

So we got that goin for us, which is nice.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Something tells me you are not familiar with the EU much. Let me help with a Wikipedia introduction. You can do further learning on your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Quote:

---

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are signatories to the founding treaties of the union and thereby share in the privileges and obligations of membership. They have agreed by the treaties to share their own sovereignty through the institutions of the European Union in some, but not all, aspects of government. State governments must agree unanimously in the Council for the union to adopt some policies; for others, collective decisions are made by qualified majority voting. These obligations and sharing of sovereignty within the EU (sometimes referred to as supranational) make it unique among international organisations, as it has established its own legal order which by the provisions of the founding treaties is both legally binding and supreme on all the member states (after a landmark ruling of the ECJ in 1964). A founding principle of the union is the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions are taken collectively if and only if they cannot realistically be taken individually.

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

This post should honestly shut up a few of the posters for at least 48 hours. The ones screaming for sovereignty admit the only solution is to cede sovereignty. Yet they are going to be like well you didn't lay out a perfect peace deal based on all countries involved so you can't be right. So juvenile.

---

The US is in NATO. To what country have we ceded our sovereignty?

---

Post is entirely about EU. You bring up NATO. Do you see the problem?

---

I know that he doesn't, or he wouldn't have thrown such a softball/self own.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Something tells me you are not familiar with the EU much. Let me help with a Wikipedia introduction. You can do further learning on your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Quote:

---

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are signatories to the founding treaties of the union and thereby share in the privileges and obligations of membership. They have agreed by the treaties to share their own sovereignty through the institutions of the European Union in some, but not all, aspects of government. State governments must agree unanimously in the Council for the union to adopt some policies; for others, collective decisions are made by qualified majority voting. These obligations and sharing of sovereignty within the EU (sometimes referred to as supranational) make it unique among international organisations, as it has established its own legal order which by the provisions of the founding treaties is both legally binding and supreme on all the member states (after a landmark ruling of the ECJ in 1964). A founding principle of the union is the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions are taken collectively if and only if they cannot realistically be taken individually.

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

This post should honestly shut up a few of the posters for at least 48 hours. The ones screaming for sovereignty admit the only solution is to cede sovereignty. Yet they are going to be like well you didn't lay out a perfect peace deal based on all countries involved so you can't be right. So juvenile.

---

The US is in NATO. To what country have we ceded our sovereignty?

---

Post is entirely about EU. You bring up NATO. Do you see the problem?

---

Ok. Then do the UK. They were in the EU. If they'd ceded their sovereignty, how are they NOT in the EU now?

Hint: It's because they didn't cede their sovereignty by joining the EU.

I brought up NATO being key and then fkc went some rant about the EU. So it was him that couldn't keep from going over his skis.

Teslag said:

---

I brought up NATO being key and then fkc went some rant about the EU. So it was him that couldn't keep from going over his skis.

---

Caught in a lie. Goodnight Tesla!

Doh I'll cede that one as a goof on my part. Was just thinking defense for the NATO need. Eventually EU membership would be preferred for post peace rebuild.

I was just coming to post that. But I had to get back up on my skis first from falling over laughing.

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Something tells me you are not familiar with the EU much. Let me help with a Wikipedia introduction. You can do further learning on your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Quote:

---

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are signatories to the founding treaties of the union and thereby share in the privileges and obligations of membership. They have agreed by the treaties to share their own sovereignty through the institutions of the European Union in some, but not all, aspects of government. State governments must agree unanimously in the Council for the union to adopt some policies; for others, collective decisions are made by qualified majority voting. These obligations and sharing of sovereignty within the EU (sometimes referred to as supranational) make it unique among international organisations, as it has established its own legal order which by the provisions of the founding treaties is both legally binding and supreme on all the member states (after a landmark ruling of the ECJ in 1964). A founding principle of the union is the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions are taken collectively if and only if they cannot realistically be taken individually.

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

This post should honestly shut up a few of the posters for at least 48 hours. The ones screaming for sovereignty admit the only solution is to cede sovereignty. Yet they are going to be like well you didn't lay out a perfect peace deal based on all countries involved so you can't be right. So juvenile.

---

The US is in NATO. To what country have we ceded our sovereignty?

---

Post is entirely about EU. You bring up NATO. Do you see the problem?

---

Ok. Then do the UK. They were in the EU. If they'd ceded their sovereignty, how are they NOT in the EU now?

Hint: It's because they didn't cede their sovereignty by joining the EU.

---

First of all UK never adopted the Euro.
Second UK was one of the power nations, Ukraine would be the Wisconsin of EU member states.

Please explain how being under the same currency doesn't impact sovereignty. Because there were countless threads on how Greece and Spain spending was devaluing the Euro causing problems for the other nations. Basically it enabled Greeks and Spainards to steal from the Germans and French.

oysterbayAG said:

---

From the latest reports, it appears everyone is running out of ammunition except Russia. Ukraine obviously doesn't have the staying power that Russia has. They are running out of trained soldiers, ammo, equipment, and money etc. and Russia isn't. As Ukraine's position approaches disaster level defeat, it will be interesting to see what our grossly incompetent Commander in Chief and his Administration Leaders do about it. They are already probably figuring out how to blame Trump !

---

Vladimir Putin has quietly raised the upper age limit for Russian military participation

Men over age 60 can now be conscripted and senior officers can be kept in reserve up to age 65

Stealth mobilization takes on new forms

— Samuel Ramani (@SamRamani2) July 24, 2023

The Russian juggernaut is gaining steam

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Something tells me you are not familiar with the EU much. Let me help with a Wikipedia introduction. You can do further learning on your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Quote:

---

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are signatories to the founding treaties of the union and thereby share in the privileges and obligations of membership. They have agreed by the treaties to share their own sovereignty through the institutions of the European Union in some, but not all, aspects of government. State governments must agree unanimously in the Council for the union to adopt some policies; for others, collective decisions are made by qualified majority voting. These obligations and sharing of sovereignty within the EU (sometimes referred to as supranational) make it unique among international organisations, as it has established its own legal order which by the provisions of the founding treaties is both legally binding and supreme on all the member states (after a landmark ruling of the ECJ in 1964). A founding principle of the union is the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions are taken collectively if and only if they cannot realistically be taken individually.

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

This post should honestly shut up a few of the posters for at least 48 hours. The ones screaming for sovereignty admit the only solution is to cede sovereignty. Yet they are going to be like well you didn't lay out a perfect peace deal based on all countries involved so you can't be right. So juvenile.

---

The US is in NATO. To what country have we ceded our sovereignty?

---

Post is entirely about EU. You bring up NATO. Do you see the problem?

---

Ok. Then do the UK. They were in the EU. If they'd ceded their sovereignty, how are they NOT in the EU now?

Hint: It's because they didn't cede their sovereignty by joining the EU.

---

First of all UK never adopted the Euro.
Second UK was one of the power nations, Ukraine would be the Wisconsin of EU member states.

Please explain how being under the same currency doesn't impact sovereignty. Because there were countless threads on how Greece and Spain spending was devaluing the Euro causing problems for the other nations. Basically it enabled Greeks and Spainards to steal from the Germans and French.

---

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden also don't use the Euro as members. It's likely Ukraine wouldn't either.

Good article on the BRICS alliance/trade developments:

Quote:

---

Geoeconomically though, the group has entered a whole different ball game, illustrated by the multiple BRICS interconnections with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Chinese trade with BRI nations increased 9.8 percent in the first half of 2023 compared to the same period last year. That contrasts sharply with the 4.7 percent overall contraction of trade between China and the collective west: Down with the EU by 4.9 percent, and down with the US by 14.5 percent.
Chinese trade with Russia, meanwhile, alongside exports to South Africa and Singapore, raised exponentially by 78 percent. As an example, late last week, a Chinese cargo set sail from St. Petersburg loaded with fertilizers, chemicals, and paper products. It will cross the Arctic and arrive in Shanghai in early August.

Zhou Liqun, chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Russia, went straight to the point this is just the start of the "routine operation of the Arctic freight shipping route between China and Russia." It's all about "the security of logistical channels" inbuilt in the Russia-China strategic partnership.

The Arctic Silk Road, from now on, will be increasingly strategic. The Chinese can keep it open at least from July to October every year. And as a bonus, a warming Arctic allows better access to oil/gas resources. A trademark "win-win" no wonder since 2017 the development of the Arctic Silk Road is part of BRI.

All of the above shows a sharp shift in the Chinese commercial drive towards the Global South. Trade with China's BRI partners now amounts to 34.3 percent of China's total global trade in terms of value and that number is rising.

---

Russia has raised the stakes again with more strikes on ports/trading infrastructure:

Quote:

---

Moreover, there was one report that European countries do not want Ukraine to ship its grain directly to them via rail and are set to disallow this. Admittedly, I don't yet understand the exact reason for why that ismaybe my intrepid readers know and can inform us in the comments. I can only speculate that it could have something to do with Europe not having the required infrastructure to handle that much grain by rail or perhaps further insurance issues, like with the shipping routes. One must remember that trains would theoretically carry far less than a cargo ship and would therefore require a disproportionate amount of trains to carry the same load as a ship, making logistics far more inefficientor so I assume.
Also, here's another perspective on the various strikes:

Quote:

---

According to the night strike in Odessa and Nikolaev, you need to understand the following. Boris Rozhin:
1. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have long stationed and stored weapons and ammunition in ports and, most likely, were confident that these stocks were safe because of the grain deal.
2. Night detonations in Odessa allow us to conclude that everything brought to the ports, probably, for the group "South" of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was stored as tightly as possible. Some warehouses in the port area are still on fire.
3. The volume of destroyed ammunition and equipment is still difficult to understand, however, if weapons and BC were critical for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Kiev will urgently request more in the near future.
4. To compensate for the supply of destroyed weapons, you will have to spend a significant amount of time. Given that a significant part of the 152-and 155-mm shells, as well as other weapons, go to the area of the Ukrainian offensive literally from the wheels, the APU will have to change the scheme and method of delivery, and this is an additional time that is not available.

---

---

Quote:

---

My own main points:

• They state that over 15 Leopards and 20 Bradleys were destroyed in a single recent battle, when the AFU made a new incursion attempt near Rabotino yesterday
• Since July 4th, the AFU suffered "much more" than 26,000 KIA
• Polish brigades are being transferred toward the Belarus border
• The plan is being developed for Poland to annex Western Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine joining NATO
• The big point: Partition of Ukraine is unacceptable to Belarus. And if necessary, Belarus is ready to 'act' to keep Poland from enveloping it from the southern direction
• Wagner begs Lukashenko to let them invade Poland. This is likely a semi-tongue-in-cheek threat to keep Poland on its toes
• Lukashenko instructs Putin to do an official overview with the Russian MOD about Belarus's decision to actpotentially militarilyagainst Poland should they attempt to annex western Ukraine

A few things to unpack here. Firstly, one must remember that these 'front-facing' interactions are pretty much theater. They are stage performances meant to convey to the public what has already been discussed and decided on behind closed doors. Anything Lukashenko brought to bear was chosen very precisely to be spoken and understood, not only for the public audience, but specifically for Polish and NATO leadership as well.

---

The logistical mobilization/ramp up of the Russian war economy is definitely in a higher gear:

Quote:

---

Noted Russian analyst Starshe Edda summarizes it as follows:

Quote:

---

Older than Eddy: Observing the trend of using FPV drones by our army, I come to the conclusion that we will soon see an avalanche-like increase in enemy defeats with this type of weapon. Lancet will be the far arm and flagship of kamikaze drones operating at operational depth, while FPV drones will take over tactical depth. But the most important thing is not even this, but a geometric progression in the growth of professional drone calculations.

---

Russia is taking frontline drones extremely seriously now. Some of the latest developments include the following:

Quote:

---

UAV production in Moscow has increased fourfold - Mayor Sobyanin
A network of scientific and practical centers will be built throughout the country.
In 2025, about 40 thousand students will study at universities in the field of unmanned aircraft systems, in 2030 about 180 thousand people, the press service of the department told RIA Novosti.

---

This includes, in general, the latest updates about Russia's industrial production:

Quote:

---

The number of purchased weapons and equipment has increased 1.8 times since March 2022, and more than 5 times in 2023
Deliveries of UAVs of the "Orlan" type increased by 53 times
"Uralvagonzavod" increased the supply and overhaul of T-72 and T-90 tanks by 3.6 times, "Kamaz" - deliveries of vehicles by 17.6 times
Deliveries of BMP-3 increased by 2.1 times, BTR-82A - by 4 times, "Tigr-M" - by 2 times
Deliveries of Ka-52 helicopters increased by 2 times, Mi-28 by 3 times
- Russian MoD

---

---

Much more at the link, including a discussion of desertions/mutiny/casualties. Ukraine has clearly lost the war, all that remains is figuring out a final truce/conclusion in the spring, imho.

So 1,000 T90's per month now? And Ukraine has "clearly" lost.