Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the home land, they will do everything to hold on to it.

---

Ukraine is Russia's "homeland"?

But I was told this was about NATO and just needing a buffer? It almost sounds like you're saying this is a land grab...

---

I will give you credit for resilience in your attempt to ignore reality in this.

It has been the Cabal that is doing the land grab. You just absolutely refuse to see anything outside of you myopic and flat wrong point of view that is entirely fueled by you hatred of Russian from you rather limited experience with the Wagner group in Syria.

Answer the question. Do you consider Ukraine to be Russia's homeland?

Ags4DaWin said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

I dont think many people on random message boards are "putin puppets" but there are people "rooting for russia" for whatever reason along with all or some of the biases that might come along with that.

---

I don't think anyone here is "rooting for russia".

Some of us on the boards saw this for what it was when it started and were castigated, vilifed, insulted, our patriotism questioned, etc......

And now that we are proven correct we are feeling vindicated.

Pointing out that we were right all along and that russia is indeed winning doesn't give us joy because Russia is winning.

It makes us feeling vindicated after two years of godawful treatment by the neocons, MIC lackies, and cold war fanatics on this board......but it is not the same as rooting for russia.

Saying "I told ya so.."

Is not the same as "Go Russia! Putin Rocks!"

---

The Tucker interview with Putin - Page 5 | TexAgs

Ag with kids said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

On every Ukraine war thread we have several F16 posters consistently call people "Putin apologists/sympathizers" and "Pro-Russia", for acknowledging historical provocation, opposing Ukraine funding, and demanding a peace deal.

Is Tulsi also a Putin puppet? She is likely to head up our national intelligence. Does that concern you, if so, why specifically?

---

This is what several Democrats have put out.

People like Wasserman Schultz

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wasserman-schultz-sparks-backlash-claiming-tulsi-gabbard-russian-asset

The NYT (like I said, Democrats)...

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-trump-russia.html

The left wing smear is on...

They are SO ****ING PREDICTABLE..

It's getting pathetic that they can't even hide it.

---

This all started with Hillary calling her that, and Wasserman Schulz is a bought and paid for sycophant of Hillary's.

93MarineHorn said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

I dont think many people on random message boards are "putin puppets" but there are people "rooting for russia" for whatever reason along with all or some of the biases that might come along with that.

---

I think this has to do with the fact that every body that is in full support of the endless stalemate in Ukraine is also very anti-MAGA and pro-establishment. You might not like the Sooners, but you're absolutely rooting for them to stomp Texas every October. It's the globablist/establishment pols v the populist Republicans. MAGA doesn't view Russia as a serious threat to US/NATO security and sees Ukraine as a corrupt cesspool with a western puppet regime installed to oppose Russia.

---

You are painting both sides with a very broad brush and I would disagree with your characterization of both. There are a lot of people who just see a free people who we promised to protect if they gave up their nukes, and think we should live up to our promises to help them stay free in the face of ruthless Russian aggression. The corruption, the NATO politics, and everything else used as justification for both sides' arguments are insignificant in the face of the fact that we agreed to help ensure their security if they gave up their nukes and when they were attacked, we did a pretty poor job first in 2014, and later in 2022 of living up to those assurances.

Teslag said:

---

This war started simply because Putin wanted Ukraine to be a part of Russia.

It is and has always been a pure land grab.

---

That is overly simplistic.

Watch that video. The US has been tacitly supportive of Ukraine obtaining nuclear weapons, AFTER we were instrumental in replacing a Russia friendly regime with a Zelensky "democratic" regime that coincidentally has suspended elections.

In addition, the US has also incrementally expanded NATO eastward and closer to Russian borders.

The combination of a Ukranian government installed by and friendly to the US, as well as the potential inclusion of Ukraine in NATO and giving them nuclear capability is an incredibly valid reason for Russia to take action.

Anyone who makes this point is currently accused of being "pro-Putin". That tells me that the analysis is on target.

Maybe Russia should ask themselves why all the former Soviet republics want to join a voluntary defensive pact that exists to protect countries from invasion by Russia.

Quote:

---

The US has been tacitly supportive of Ukraine obtaining nuclear weapons, AFTER we were instrumental in replacing a Russia friendly regime with a Zelensky "democratic" regime that coincidentally has suspended elections.

---

You mean the same US that explicitly told Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons 30 years ago and were given assurances we would protect them if they did?

Ukraine voted for independence in 1991 with over 90% support. Russia formally recognized this complete indepedence without any condition of joining or not joining NATO in the future. From that point on Ukraine was free to do whatever they wished as a free and independent nation with no allegiance or sphere of influence from Russia.

Ok, I'll stipulate the nuclear point if you'll stipulate it's not JUST a "land grab" on the part of Russia.

I would never stipulate. It is and has always been a land grab. The NATO bit is just Russian bluster and a red herring.

They simply wanted Ukraine to be part of Russia and invaded to make it happen. The only issue they have with Ukraine joining NATO is that it keeps that from ever happening.

Why do I have to answer your question? It has no bearing to the issue at all.

Russia is the side light here,

However, despite your myopic viewpoint. The truth is Russia was givne assurances by the US that NATO would not seek to take over all the former Soviet blocks.

The truth is that Russia actually inquired into joining NATO, and were rebuffed by the same MIC/Cabal/ globalst that have been using Ukraine as their base of operation for some really wicked stuff for a long time now.

Stuff that makes Putin and Russia look angelic. -- thought they are not.

Quote:

---

The truth is Russia was givne assurances by the US that NATO would not seek to take over all the former Soviet blocks.

---

This is false. Even Gorbachev said it is false.


Also, NATO is a defensive pact. It doesn't' take over anyone. That's what Russia does.

You obviously did not watch this:

The truth about the war with Russian and Ukraine. The same corrupt Elite Globalists who orchestrated the Pandemic and Covid-19 are now pushing the world into World War 3. They do not care if millions die and economies are destroyed, it is all part of their plan. pic.twitter.com/m6ZukrHCxK

— Truth Justice ™ (@SpartaJustice) February 6, 2023

Do you believe all the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax?

Why was President Trump impeached twice? What was the fulcrum.

Why did Chuck Shumer tell the press and Trump that 'the CIA, FBi, etc can 'screw ya six ways from Sunday', or something like that?

Teslag said:

---

BboroAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

This war started simply because Putin wanted Ukraine to be a part of Russia.

It is and has always been a pure land grab.

---

What about the 7 minute video posted by OPAG? Is that complete bull**** too?

---

Yes. 100% complete and total bull*****

---

But, was it CLASSIFIED bull*****

That is BS.

Ukraine has been divided along ethnicity lines for some time.

Your refusal to even acknowledge that shows how truly myopic and wrong on this as one can be.

And every single region voted for independence in 1991.

Every. Single. One.

Teslag said:

---

And every single region voted for independence in 1991.

Every. Single. One.

---

"But but but, referendums held after Russia invaded and tortured, raped, and murdered anybody who opposed them showed overwhelming support for Russia!"

/The other thread

And they also as a nation voted for a government that the CIA actively overthrew. in 2o14. To deny ethnic persecution during that time is just totally myopic and, like I said, wrong. Just like the video stated.

A vote being held in 1991 is a lot different than what has been happening from the west/cabal.

Of course according to you, none of that happened.

You are fueled entirely by your hatred of Russians. Entirely, Don't act like you really give a rip about the Ukes, ya don't and neither does Zelensky or Soros, or the CIA. or the corrupt neocons who have been useing it as a money making laundering machine for decades.

Maybe you are getting a piece of that too!?

OPAG said:

---

Why do I have to answer your question? It has no bearing to the issue at all.

Russia is the side light here,

However, despite your myopic viewpoint. The truth is Russia was givne assurances by the US that NATO would not seek to take over all the former Soviet blocks.

The truth is that Russia actually inquired into joining NATO, and were rebuffed by the same MIC/Cabal/ globalst that have been using Ukraine as their base of operation for some really wicked stuff for a long time now.

Stuff that makes Putin and Russia look angelic. -- thought they are not.

---

"The truth is Russia was givne assurances by the US that NATO would not seek to take over all the former Soviet blocks. "
This is a lie:
Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" Steven Pifer November 6, 2014
quote from the article

• It is abundantly evident that Russian President Vladimir Putin is no fan of NATO. Indeed, he displays a pronouncedalmost obsessiveantipathy toward the Alliance. He claims that NATO took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union to enlarge to its east, in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. But no such promises were madea point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union.

you guys are going back some 30 years. How convenient..

Putin inquiered about joining NATO and was rebuffed by the MIC/CIA, and Neocons.

In any case, I was Ukrainian in 1991 I would of most definitely voted for Independence.

If I was a Slav in the Donbas region or Crimea in 2014 I wouldn't have. Things change.

Just like 30 years ago, if you polled people about a Texit, it would of been a non starter.

Now., if Kamala had been allowed to steal this election. The chances of a Texit referendum would of quite possibly carried!

Things have changed in 30 years. and not to better. Ukraine is a corrupt Soros/Cabal lead state. Anyone who does not see that, is either blind. or benefiting from it. IMHO. .

yea...think I will side with Trump/Elon on this Ukraine matter.

OPAG said:

---

you guys are going back some 30 years. How convenient..

Putin inquiered about joining NATO and was rebuffed by the MIC/CIA, and Neocons.

In any case, I was Ukrainian in 1991 I would of most definitely voted for Independence.

If I was a Slav in the Donbas region or Crimea in 2014 I wouldn't have. Things change.

Just like 30 years ago, if you polled people about a Texit, it would of been a non starter.

Now., if Kamala had been allowed to steal this election. The chances of a Texit referendum would of quite possibly carried!

Things have changed in 30 years. and not to better. Ukraine is a corrupt Soros/Cabal lead state. Anyone who does not see that, is either blind. or benefiting from it. IMHO. .

---

This is a more accurate take on how different the second and third decades of the 21st C are from 1991.

You really can't go back to 1991 as a guide here. Its a case of learning what follows a big dissolution sometimes, and its not unusual for many to not be so keen on it later. Not that this is really here or there for this discussion imo, but it is correct to say 1991 offers little guidance. The italics makes the point best for many to recognize.

Quote:

---

Putin inquiered about joining NATO and was rebuffed by the MIC/CIA, and Neocons.

---

NATO was formed for the specific purpose of opposing the Soviet Union (i.e. - Russia). Why would the MIC/CIA, the Neocons, or any sane individual with an IQ north of the speed limit ever allow them to join?

Because that would of been the best thing to do. Yes it was created to be a foil against the SOVIET UNION.

When that collapsed it did not need to continue.

There was no real reason to not consider this. NONE.

You don't just (at least your not suppose to) just join NATO, there are are certain criteria that would of needed to be met.

Let tell me tell ya what is going to happen, here. Trump (if he is allowed to get in) Is going to open the door for Russian to actually become an ALLY. As they actually should be.

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

Putin inquiered about joining NATO and was rebuffed by the MIC/CIA, and Neocons.

---

NATO was formed for the specific purpose of opposing the Soviet Union (i.e. - Russia). Why would the MIC/CIA, the Neocons, or any sane individual with an IQ north of the speed limit ever allow them to join?

---

Given the events of Dec 25, 1991 it was the only logical thing to eventually do. Keeping an anti-Russia alliance after that didn't send a particularly good message and that only looked worse the more time passed and it seemed China had so much wave away with no changes and Russia's wasn't that recognized.

Did you know it is a common percpetion in Russia that it is our side that refused to let the Cold War go away? That's one of the reasons. In fact, if anything, after 9/11 NATO should have become an anti-Islamist alliance with Russia offered some kind of association with it as a start.

Soviet Union = Russia

HTH

Not it doesn't.

Unless believe Germany = Third Reich still.

Quote:

---

Not that this is really here or there for this discussion imo, but it is correct to say 1991 offers little guidance.

---

Uh, you most definitely can. That's when Russia formally recognized Ukrainian independence and they were a sovereign independent nation free to align and form whatever alliance they wished from that point on.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Not that this is really here or there for this discussion imo, but it is correct to say 1991 offers little guidance.

---

Uh, you most definitely can. That's when Russia formally recognized Ukrainian independence and they were a sovereign independent nation free to align and form whatever alliance they wished from that point on.

---

It doesn't offer guidance for where the various parties stand is what Opag was saying and that's right. The Texas analogy captures it perfectly. The political canvas is so changed. The two sections of Ukraine have been at war with each other for a while now, and its not how the mood was in say, 1995.

Ya that tends to happen when Russia kills or forcibly displaces a lot of the natives and replaces them with Russians.

jrdaustin said:

---

Teslag said:

---

This war started simply because Putin wanted Ukraine to be a part of Russia.

It is and has always been a pure land grab.

---

That is overly simplistic.

Watch that video. The US has been tacitly supportive of Ukraine obtaining nuclear weapons, AFTER we were instrumental in replacing a Russia friendly regime with a Zelensky "democratic" regime that coincidentally has suspended elections.

In addition, the US has also incrementally expanded NATO eastward and closer to Russian borders.

The combination of a Ukranian government installed by and friendly to the US, as well as the potential inclusion of Ukraine in NATO and giving them nuclear capability is an incredibly valid reason for Russia to take action.

Anyone who makes this point is currently accused of being "pro-Putin". That tells me that the analysis is on target.

---

Okay, have watched the video. Does Elon sanction that? Have long known the meddling there far pre-dates 2014 but that would imply a lot further. Never thought of Ukraine as some kind of deep-state or globalist nexus but it sure does come in for an unusual amount of running "interference for" from the Pelosi clique long before the invasion. Some of that looks not so likely. What are interested in is this 2018 EU denunciation -- is that part real? Because that would speak to at least the constant reference of Nazis. (The use of Nazis with Russians tends to be a boogeyman, like it is with the U.S. mainstream media and DNC --- so wasn't putting so much stock in it. This would give it more literal basis. At least for some of the perceptions. (Yes I know about Azov)

Quote:

---

Unless believe Germany = Third Reich still.

---

If Germany had invaded Poland like Russia invaded Ukraine, then this analogy would be pretty much spot on...

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

Unless believe Germany = Third Reich still.

---

If Germany had invaded Poland like Russia invaded Ukraine, then this analogy would be pretty much spot on...

---

Its your continual ignoring that Russia Commonwealth of present is NOT the Soviet Union is the point of the analogy. In fact, our own Left is more communist than they currently are. What they are is a Mafia style government, wicked and brutal. But not the Soviet Union. Its closer to a giant Chicago gang era oligarchy.

To answer the OP, no, there is no chance Tulsi is a Russian asset. The DemoCRATS have presided over one of the biggest periods of failure in American history. We the People won in a landslide and have demanded change. We don't want centrists. We need hammers who will gut our corrupt, rotten government. Any Republicans who resist '47's leadership WILL feel our wrath.

Quote:

---

If Germany had invaded Poland like Russia invaded Ukraine, then this analogy would be pretty much spot on...

---

Understand that to those of us that lived the Cold War and "Red Dawn" times watching it unfold, it is really annoying how both the MSM and even members of Congress talk about like they have forgotten 1989 and 1991 happened. That the USSR was on Christmas Day 1991 and fell apart -- as Teslag has reminded, voted to shatter itself then. They became a kleptocracy, a gangster state very much into business and oil sales. Since then, our campuses have been more Marxist than them or Eastern Europe. So the above comes out testier than intended, so apologies.