Russia/Ukraine from Another Perspective (Relaunch Part Deux)

606,575 Views | 9883 Replies | Last: 11 hrs ago by nortex97
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag with kids said:

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

The expansion of NATO into former Soviet states was a mistake.

NATO will have caused the very war that it was designed to prevent.
It wasn't that NATO "expanded" in to former Soviet states.

It was former Soviet states WANTING to join NATO as protection against future annexation. They'd already been there done that and didn't want a repeat.
Does it make sense to descend into world war in order to give people from former soviet states what they want?

Cold War 'ended' and the west decided that Russia was no longer entitled to its own sphere of influence. The west wanted ALL the marbles.

Now everyone in the west will pay the price of that decision by way of a never ending war in Ukraine and the outbreak of WW3.

Disruption to Ukraines agriculture will eventually result in the poorest people in the ME and Africa starving to death on the basis of what people from former soviet states want.

In the 1980s preventing famine (we are the world) and preventing nuclear proliferation-WW3 was THE central issue. Now we've completely reversed course and are pro-war and also pro policy that will lead to famine.

Wild time to be alive, and a wild course of events during our lifetime.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Ukrainian regime is not 'giving people of Ukraine what they want.' Zelensky, back before he gave up on elections, yet after the Nuland CIA revolution, was elected on the basis of ending the conflict in the east, and making peace with Russia. Denying the Russians a sea port in Sevastopol or shelling Russian peoples (in the DPR) are not what the Ukrainian people 'want' any more than Americans want Joe Biden to remain POTUS and engage in a world war over the Donbas.



Quote:

Russia has shifted troops from the Kharkiv front, but so far it has moved far fewer from the vital Donbas front. 'Their commanders aren't idiots,' says the Ukrainian general-staff source. 'They are moving forces, but not as quickly as we would like. They know we can't extend logistics 80 or 100 km.
Brutal fail. But the morale and PR spin!

And…now the Ukrainian terrorist Biden-Harris proxy allies have proudly shelled a nuclear power plant, per their plan.
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
p_bubel said:

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

The expansion of NATO into former Soviet states was a mistake.

NATO will have caused the very war that it was designed to prevent.
Meh.

Russia is just being shown their ass at this point.
That seems the much simpler explanation.

More complicated is why is the nuclear plant partially on fire?
Zelensky claims the Russians set the fire but different explanation above.
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?


I see what you saying but we also talking about the expansion of NATO on a larger scale. The former soviet states were a buffer zone between east and west until the west thought it was a good idea to expand NATO up to Russia's doorstep on the basis of 'that's what the people want.'

The west was meddling in former soviet states continuously. The US was sending military envoys into Georgia as far back as 1997, (for training purposes of course).

Point is that blaming all this on Russian aggression is a simplistic view of things. This been escalating since the end of Cold War 1.0.
OPAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So did you also buy into the Russia, Russia, Russia lie, back in 2016?

Where did that whole scam/lie come from? Hmmmmm
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Interesting report, makes sense:



Lest we forget, there's stuff going on outside of the Kursk front in 'the so-called Ukraine':



And 'true Ukrainians' (which reminds me of our debate about 'real conservatives'…who somehow support Commie Kamala a la David French etc.) don't…think much of the folks in the "Russian occupied" areas:

Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:

Ag with kids said:

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

The expansion of NATO into former Soviet states was a mistake.

NATO will have caused the very war that it was designed to prevent.
It wasn't that NATO "expanded" in to former Soviet states.

It was former Soviet states WANTING to join NATO as protection against future annexation. They'd already been there done that and didn't want a repeat.
Does it make sense to descend into world war in order to give people from former soviet states what they want?

Cold War 'ended' and the west decided that Russia was no longer entitled to its own sphere of influence. The west wanted ALL the marbles.

Now everyone in the west will pay the price of that decision by way of a never ending war in Ukraine and the outbreak of WW3.

Disruption to Ukraines agriculture will eventually result in the poorest people in the ME and Africa starving to death on the basis of what people from former soviet states want.

In the 1980s preventing famine (we are the world) and preventing nuclear proliferation-WW3 was THE central issue. Now we've completely reversed course and are pro-war and also pro policy that will lead to famine.

Wild time to be alive, and a wild course of events during our lifetime.
I disagree with the bolded.

The Soviet states finally got freedom from the oppression they'd had for 40-50 years and wanted to make sure that it didn't happen again.

NATO was designed partly to PREVENT war. The soviet satellites wanted to get under that umbrella because they'd already seen it.

Russia can have sphere of influence. Influence doesn't mean FORCE. They've got Belarus...but, the rest of the satellites didn't want that anymore. They saw how awesome the west had it (and how ****ty THEY had had it) and wanted some of that.

And the disruption to Ukraine's agriculture was 100% preventable. Putin could have not invaded. This is Putin's fault. COMPLETELY.

And we're not pro war. Nobody from Europe or the US would be doing much for Ukraine right now IF PUTIN HAD NOT INVADED. Trying to stop someone from invading a country doesn't mean you're pro war.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

The Ukrainian regime is not 'giving people of Ukraine what they want.' Zelensky, back before he gave up on elections, yet after the Nuland CIA revolution, was elected on the basis of ending the conflict in the east, and making peace with Russia. Denying the Russians a sea port in Sevastopol or shelling Russian peoples (in the DPR) are not what the Ukrainian people 'want' any more than Americans want Joe Biden to remain POTUS and engage in a world war over the Donbas.

How can Zelensky hold elections in Ukraine?

A decent part of it is occupied by Russia. They can't hold elections there.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:



I see what you saying but we also talking about the expansion of NATO on a larger scale. The former soviet states were a buffer zone between east and west until the west thought it was a good idea to expand NATO up to Russia's doorstep on the basis of 'that's what the people want.'

The west was meddling in former soviet states continuously. The US was sending military envoys into Georgia as far back as 1997, (for training purposes of course).

Point is that blaming all this on Russian aggression is a simplistic view of things. This been escalating since the end of Cold War 1.0.
Notice when all those Soviet satellites joined? As soon as they could after they were free.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OPAG said:

So did you also buy into the Russia, Russia, Russia lie, back in 2016?

Where did that whole scam/lie come from? Hmmmmm
No.

That was HRC bull*****
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:



I see what you saying but we also talking about the expansion of NATO on a larger scale. The former soviet states were a buffer zone between east and west until the west thought it was a good idea to expand NATO up to Russia's doorstep on the basis of 'that's what the people want.'

The west was meddling in former soviet states continuously. The US was sending military envoys into Georgia as far back as 1997, (for training purposes of course).

Point is that blaming all this on Russian aggression is a simplistic view of things. This been escalating since the end of Cold War 1.0.
The West very nearly went to war with the Russians (communists) after WW2 so formed NATO.
But there seemed to be a detente, and the Empire freed many of the countries that then eventually joined NATO.
But Putin has been working to reconquer at least the southern part of the old Empire, including making alliances with countries like Syria, Iran, and China. Those are shaky alliances, but all currently oppose NATO.
After Russia/Ukraine finally agree to quit fighting and set a new border, will Russia be so weakened that it will be safe for NATO to accept Ukraine?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Regardless of what Nato was originally designed to prevent, it's present mutated form is absolutely pro-war, as the proxy war with Russia has illustrated, to say nothing of the wars in Libya, Serbia (pending a revolution now?), Kosovo, etc.

This is well documented in this thread, as to the history of Nato and the former Warsaw Pact members who wound up joining Nato in the past 30+ years.
Quote:

"Not one inch eastward" was the assurance given by US Secretary of State James Baker to Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9th, 1990. Seven years onward, former ambassador to the Soviet Union and architect of many American Cold War policies, George Kennan declared NATO's expansion to be "the most fateful error of American foreign policy in the entire post-Cold War era." Since this proclamation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has grown to encompass twelve former socialist republics. Each, in turn, incrementally formulating Russia's status as an international pariah.

Kennan was not alone in his fears they were championed and echoed by Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Sam Nunn, and Thomas Friedman all of whom warned in the 1990's of the inevitability of a 'new cold war' if NATO were to be expanded without the inclusion of Russia. While its proponents make the case for NATO enlargement on the grounds of historical determinism that twice in this century central and eastern Europe were the cause of Great Wars the notion that enlargement would 'lock in the dividends' of the Cold War's end is one firmly dispelled by the Ukrainian crisis.
It's amazing to me, but not really, how many still accept the 'peaceful, defensive intent' of Nato as Nato planners, logisticians, surveillance assets, and munitions aid and abet an invasion of Russia using German tanks/armor around Kursk. Putin wouldn't even be in power without our gross errors in conjunction with/directing Nato expansion:

Quote:

The critical question here is evident: could this have been avoided?

NATO conduct in the former Soviet Union flagrantly defies every basic principle and platitude of good foreign policy: 'treat former enemies magnanimously', 'do not take on unnecessary new ones', 'avoid emotion in making decisions', 'be willing to acknowledge error'. I am of the opinion that NATO manages to defy and violate every one of the aforementioned in its stance on Russia. With 1991 came the opportunity to welcome the nascent Russian Federation and the surrounding eastern bloc into the international community; to roll out a Marshall Plan style arrangement to foster the roots of fledgling democracy and market capitalism in the region. Instead came the Bush-Wolfowitz doctrine, described by Ted Kennedy as a call for "21st century American imperialism", squandering any chance of Russian integration, therefore rendering backlash inevitable.

America had taken advantage of a weakened Russia to impose a new world order that excluded them and disregarded their historical need for a buffer zone. Russia, thereafter, was forever condemned to enemy status.

There is much to be said for NATO's complicity in propelling Vladimir Putin to power. In his exploitation of a post-Glasnost identarian crisis, a crumbling economy, and the deaths of millions due to malnutrition, Putin sold the Russian population a return to greatness one whose values firmly juxtaposed those of the international community that had spurned their advances. Vladimir Pozner, the American raised journalist and Putin critic described the dictator as 'especially subdued' between the years of 2000 and 2007 his signature upon the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 2002, a clear and positive engagement with a Permanent Joint Council, is often happily forgotten in Western scholarship. This period of dtente was marred by George W. Bush's undertaking of the absurd decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the founding document of superpower relations for nearly 30 years, thereafter, directing the Pentagon to build a new missile system in Eastern Europe under the false pretence of Iranian containment.
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

will Russia be so weakened that it will be safe for NATO to accept Ukraine?
Thats the hard stop from what I understand. Russia's line in the sand, and why peace negotiations have failed to date. Weakening Russia to the point that they submit is just another name for WW3 which is what we seeing now but aren't ready to admit.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag with kids said:


How can Zelensky hold elections in Ukraine?

A decent part of it is occupied by Russia. They can't hold elections there.
Well, he says he can have a referendum. But no elections. So you tell me? My 2 cents are just that he sees the referendum as a way to extract more American money to protect the ballot boxes/voting/lobbying.

Delusions about retaking Crimea/Sevastopol are…not worth debating/discussing, any more than debates about 'well what if the confederacy held a new election next year?'
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In any event we about to be coming up on 3-years of arguing this issue.

Also this issue was the reason we had to have two separate threads. Folks raged and wanted opinions on this issue segregated because it ultimately was too nuanced for the average person. Too easy to call people Russian sympathizers / bots.

'It's Russia's fault' end of story still has about a 70% approval rating from what I can tell.
B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:

In any event we about to be coming up on 3-years of arguing this issue.

Also this issue was the reason we had to have two separate threads. Folks raged and wanted opinions on this issue segregated because it ultimately was too nuanced for the average person. Too easy to call people Russian sympathizers / bots.

'It's Russia's fault' end of story still has about a 70% approval rating from what I can tell.
And for good reason. Russian most certainly did invade Ukraine. And also there has yet to be a legitimate reason to believe NATO had any desire or reason to invade the country with more nuclear weapons than any other and a long history of wiping out invading armies. It all comes back to Russian paranoia and their oligarch's desire for Ukraine's eastern and Black Sea related resources.
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Interestingly, you failed to bring up Blackrock or the Biden familia's demonstrated long term financial interests in Ukraine's resources.

I think again such an oversimplification, or viewing the conflict through the prism one chooses of 'good vs. bad' is generally very short sighted. "He has to do something."
hsjnlssmith89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You might be a bit quick on the gun about shelling a nuclear power plant by the evil Ukranians. Could very well be simple propaganda by the Ruskies to gain sympathy. You may have played right into their hands. Best to wait to know the truth before shooting your load prematurely.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LOL, I remember when my little keyboard didn't matter. Wait, it still doesn't! Shooting my load? I am laughing now more than any time in this glorious war for freedom and democracy which has no relationship to graft, corruption, or deception on the part of any party other than the dastardly Putin.



War is all fun and games for 'got ya's' from thousands of miles away…until it isn't any more. Let's ignore the utter decimation of Ukraine's young adult male population too. I'm sure this is just…Russians setting some tires on fire and we can trust Zelensky. This time.

Thank you for joining the thread hsjnlssmith89.
PlaneCrashGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
girlfriend_experience said:

such a weird dichotomy between the two threads here, this thread the invasion is a failure, other thread Russia's is feeling the pain and high-ranking officers being killed.


If you want to know who's lying to you, post the counter narrative in both threads and see what happens in each.

ETA don't actually do this- my point is to pay attention to how each treats dissenters.
PlaneCrashGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
B-1 83 said:

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

In any event we about to be coming up on 3-years of arguing this issue.

Also this issue was the reason we had to have two separate threads. Folks raged and wanted opinions on this issue segregated because it ultimately was too nuanced for the average person. Too easy to call people Russian sympathizers / bots.

'It's Russia's fault' end of story still has about a 70% approval rating from what I can tell.
And for good reason. Russian most certainly did invade Ukraine. And also there has yet to be a legitimate reason to believe NATO had any desire or reason to invade the country with more nuclear weapons than any other and a long history of wiping out invading armies. It all comes back to Russian paranoia and their oligarch's desire for Ukraine's eastern and Black Sea related resources.


Russia invaded Ukraine, in part, because Biden said they could.
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Flashback to February 19, 2022 when Biden sent Kamala to give a major address at a security conference in Munich where she met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Kamala said that "if Russia further invades your country we will impose swift and severe economic sanctions. We have been clear about that."

This gave the greenlight to Russia for the invasion of Ukraine. This was all they needed to hear. So far sanctions have failed to deter Russia and they have largely taken the sanctions in stride.

Kamala ends her first trip to Europe.

As soon as she's gone, Russia immediately invades Ukraine.

So did the Biden admin effectively greenlight the invasion?

Probably. Whether we want to admit that or not, that's the message received by the Russians.
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another thing that people fail to acknowledge about Ukraine is that it was a global money laundering hub.

Money would get sent to Ukraine from both the east and west and it would return to the international banking system clean, above board and source largely untraceable.

This was an open secret in Europe. Everybody knew this was going on. Ukraine was a proxy playground to evade all kinds of banking and bribery regulations and nobody ever said anything. It's just the way business was done in the west.

So we talking about this going on for at least 20-years or so. Everybody was making money. Ogliarchs, bankers and politicians (Burisma). All were making money everybody was happy with this arrangement because it kept everybody's hands clean.

Except Putin and Russia. They knew well what was going on and didn't like it. Their pilled out ex-trophy wife turned sugar-baby and set up shop right next door.

So folks talk about Russia being the aggressor and wanting to retake traditional Russian territory and all that, but this economic part of it was a big factor as well that's kind of glossed over.

So you may say that Ukraine was a sovereign nation and they had a right to do what they want.

But so were Iraq and Afghanistan which were invaded and occupied for two decades for a lot less.
PlaneCrashGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Absolutely.

I was thinking of his "minor incursion" comment. Biden's poor leadership was a major contributor. I know that level of nuance doesn't sound as good as "100% Putin" internet platitudes but anyone looking at it honestly can see Biden's corruption and mistakes leading up to this.
OPAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And Brennan CIA, Comey the FBI and Obama and basically the Cabal that stole the election. They were the ones who tried to blame Putin for this BS. IT WAS A TOTAL LIE.

How about Adam Shift, Lindsey Graham, Romney and host of others who have been making bank from Ukraine for a long time.

You are just woefully ignorant (myopically so) of the back ground of all this. When did Trump get impeached and why. It was because he started going after all the corruption in Ukraine. That's why. These are the facts.

NATO is corrupt. Trump started trying to hold it accountable and they ginned up another lie with Russia as the center. Said that all the Hunter Biden stuff (lap top) was Russian misinformation. AGAIN.

Don't be so naive!
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Exactly. The money and corruption are precisely why the Biden familia (including precious Hunter) got so involved in Ukraine during Obama's presidency. But even then, note that Burisma was actually run largely by wealthy Russians. And of course, the Bidens were always happy to take Russian money, such as the widow of the mayor of Moscow herself, Elena Baturina for instance, who strangely to this day is exempt from sanctions (somewhat ironically, fwiw, her husband was fired as mayor…for corruption). Ukraine and Russia have always been heavily linked/tied together.

And this is just pure desperation on the part of the Zelensky regime:
Quote:

However, most significant to ongoing events is the correct analysis of why Zelensky would choose to strike the plant just now. It is obvious to us that it represents a terminal desperation from the AFU, which can only mean that their situation on the ground is in fact grinding to a culminating point, which answers one of the chief questions we've had about the ongoing Kursk adventure.

There was still some hesitation on my part on whether the Kursk madness was truly a sign of an AFU reaching its critical end point or not, though mostly I leaned on the affirmative. However, the latest desperate move seems to fully avow this interpretation of events. But, I believe there are a few multi-varied nuances to properly interpreting Zelensky's threatening signal.

First: it can be said that this act of desperation was a strong signal to Zelensky's own "partners" in the U.S. and the West. I predicted long agolast yearthat once things finally grind down to the gristle for Ukraine, Zelensky would have no choice but to begin threatening his partners through escalation to save his own hide. He would threaten not only pushing Russia's red lines in unnerving ways which would pose the threat of nuclear annihilation to the U.S., but as a last ditch effort he would also float the threat of unveiling many secrets and 'skeletons in the closet' of his Western partners as blackmail.

But what's happening now is in effect a double nuclear blackmail. Not only was Zelensky trying to reach the Kursk nuclear plant for this very purpose, but has now acted out his furious frustration at the ZNPP, as well. It's difficult to know for certain, but captured AFU POWs have in fact now attested to the Kursk plant as being the objective, or Kurchatov, the town where the plant sits. This was supposed to have been reached in the first day or two, which now appears to have been a miserable failure being covered up by more antics.
More on the nuclear attack at the sitrep/link. The IAEA observers heard explosions (from the Ukrainian drone strikes), but Zelensky the wonder worker claims tire fires were started by Russians? And why would the Russians start a fire at the one of 4 nuke plants they control in the former "Ukraine" vs. rocketing/striking any of the other three? Such an absurdity. Der Spiegel:
Quote:

Quote:

Gressel: The Ukrainian leadership wants to create pressure for possible negotiations with Russia. For this it needs negotiating leverage, which it now wants to gain with quickly and cheaply occupied territory.
When asked for the worst-case scenario, here's how they respond:
Quote:

Gressel: In Germany, the Wagenknecht camp would gain popularity. Ukraine could come across as an unreliable go-getter. Berlin and Washington would reduce their support. The Kursk maneuver could herald the military end of Ukraine.

Sounds under control;
Quote:

The biggest issue currently is that the much stronger than usual fog of war has allowed Western/pro-UA sources to completely confabulate various fake "advances" in the Kursk region. Virtually every new map from Western sources, whether ISW, the various articles posted above, etc., are currently completely phony. In fact, the AFU was driven out of every deep advance in the Kursk region, and now occupy only a small area around Sudzha.
About right. More at the link, as always.

PlaneCrashGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is the tire fire story coming from the same folks who signed the Hunter Laptop Russian disinfo letter? I am very weary of our own intelligence officials ever since then.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zelensky himself put out a tweet with that absurd claim, I think. If the intent was to strengthen their bargaining position…it's not working.





Again…

Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

Ag with kids said:


How can Zelensky hold elections in Ukraine?

A decent part of it is occupied by Russia. They can't hold elections there.
Well, he says he can have a referendum. But no elections. So you tell me? My 2 cents are just that he sees the referendum as a way to extract more American money to protect the ballot boxes/voting/lobbying.

Delusions about retaking Crimea/Sevastopol are…not worth debating/discussing, any more than debates about 'well what if the confederacy held a new election next year?'
That was a month into the SMO...the situation was a little more dire then...
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PlaneCrashGuy said:

girlfriend_experience said:

such a weird dichotomy between the two threads here, this thread the invasion is a failure, other thread Russia's is feeling the pain and high-ranking officers being killed.


If you want to know who's lying to you, post the counter narrative in both threads and see what happens in each.

ETA don't actually do this- my point is to pay attention to how each treats dissenters.
I see how dissenters in this thread are treated.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:

Flashback to February 19, 2022 when Biden sent Kamala to give a major address at a security conference in Munich where she met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Kamala said that "if Russia further invades your country we will impose swift and severe economic sanctions. We have been clear about that."

This gave the greenlight to Russia for the invasion of Ukraine. This was all they needed to hear. So far sanctions have failed to deter Russia and they have largely taken the sanctions in stride.

Kamala ends her first trip to Europe.

As soon as she's gone, Russia immediately invades Ukraine.

So did the Biden admin effectively greenlight the invasion?

Probably. Whether we want to admit that or not, that's the message received by the Russians.
The US says if Russia invades they will be punished. You conclusion is that this is a GREEN light for Russia???

Odd.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PlaneCrashGuy said:

Absolutely.

I was thinking of his "minor incursion" comment. Biden's poor leadership was a major contributor. I know that level of nuance doesn't sound as good as "100% Putin" internet platitudes but anyone looking at it honestly can see Biden's corruption and mistakes leading up to this.
I don't disagree the Biden being weak as **** led Putin to believe that invading would not result in a harsh response.

But, that doesn't mean that Putin suddenly got the idea to invade BECAUSE Biden was weak. It was just a good opportunity to do what he was always intending to do.

It was still 100% Putin's fault for invading. If a bully beats up a little kid because the little kid is a weakling it doesn't mean the little kid is in any way at fault for getting beat up.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OPAG said:

And Brennan CIA, Comey the FBI and Obama and basically the Cabal that stole the election. They were the ones who tried to blame Putin for this BS. IT WAS A TOTAL LIE.

How about Adam Shift, Lindsey Graham, Romney and host of others who have been making bank from Ukraine for a long time.

You are just woefully ignorant (myopically so) of the back ground of all this. When did Trump get impeached and why. It was because he started going after all the corruption in Ukraine. That's why. These are the facts.

NATO is corrupt. Trump started trying to hold it accountable and they ginned up another lie with Russia as the center. Said that all the Hunter Biden stuff (lap top) was Russian misinformation. AGAIN.

Don't be so naive!

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've discussed.
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stat Monitor Repairman said:

In any event we about to be coming up on 3-years of arguing this issue.

Also this issue was the reason we had to have two separate threads. Folks raged and wanted opinions on this issue segregated because it ultimately was too nuanced for the average person. Too easy to call people Russian sympathizers / bots.

'It's Russia's fault' end of story still has about a 70% approval rating from what I can tell.


That's about right, which makes sense when you realize that no matter what excuse is given, Putin didn't have a gun to his head with someone demanding he invade Ukraine, period.

Because you brought up the 70%, I wonder who the other 30% are that think a country being invaded is excusable. The world must look very different to them.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To the extent anyone took Harris seriously, she was threatening sanctions, and Biden said it was ok if it was a 'minor incursion' about which Putin had to do something, after they collectively fast tracked Nato membership in Nov-December 2021. The war was sought by the US blob/MIC.

Yes, that was not…the sort of diplomacy or rhetoric Putin or anyone else took seriously. It was all very gulf of Tonkin-esque, a 'day of deceit' even.
First Page Last Page
Page 243 of 283
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.