War in Ukraine

#86,826
#86,826
BeardedVol said:
Did you watch or read his response?

Rubio has the entire combined output of the US intelligence apparatus, and whatever information our former European allies still share with us, and he's still claiming ignorance.
Click to expand...
I don't watch any of the videos posted. I read the text provided. so I am not sure what ignorance you speak of. But coming from Rubio it would not surprise me if he was indeed ignorant of something he shouldn't be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc
#86,827
#86,827
LSU-SIU said:
That is a best case but probably not achievable, there is no easy off ramp. As soon as its over, the midget is gone one way or another and Europe will really speed up its collapse. The war has to keep going if the alternative is worse in their eyes. The issue is there is only so far one can kick this can. The European countries that act immediately in theory could be in a much better position... Hungary and Serbia are already teaming up for what comes in the decades to follow.

They're all trying to get the U.S. involved because what else is there? I mean they don't even have a plan to have a plan.
Click to expand...
Right. The can has really already been kicked.

Right again. The U.S. has looked after Europe for decades now while they have not built up their militaries, and used money they could have used on their armies to fund socialism and imported millions of migrants. Now significant civil strife boils underneath the surface in multiple European nations. They've painted themselves into a corner.
 
#86,828
#86,828
So Macron was sentenced, Germany is considering banning the AfD, UK is a socialist mess and the rest of the EU is an authoritarian regime,,Eff them. Good luck.
 
#86,831
#86,831
@LouderVol I appreciate you reading the article (Harvard Boys).

I hope you will also read the one called "Democratization, NGOs and color revolutions."

As for relevance, I have been trying to piece together for myself the backstory. It really didn't have anything to do, for me, with Putin's "narrative," or loving Putin, or favoring the invasion, or any of the other myriad things I have been randomly accused of by a few nutters for investigating NATO. It's more exploring American history.

And I can't remember if I posted this one:

warontherocks.com

Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin Was Told About NATO in 1993 and Why It Matters

Surely the Kremlin watched with no small amount of bitterness last Friday as NATO’s heads of state and government gathered for dinner at Warsaw’s
warontherocks.com

It's wasn't only Baker's "not one inch" statement (which the above article talks about.). Declassified docs have now proven that not only the Bush 1 admin, but the leaders of Britain, Germany, and France also told Gorbachev that NATO would not expand beyond the former West Germany and that the US and Europe would find a place for Russia iin Europe.

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents
nsarchive.gwu.edu nsarchive.gwu.edu

This reminds me very much of the "guarantee" to Ukraine by the US that was turned into a mere "assurance" at the time those nukes were removed. Same decade, same President. Same double talk. Bush 1, the former head of the CIA, initiated this particular false promises ploy, of course.

There were no NATO members added from the fall of the Berlin Wall until 1999. Kosovo figures in this period also.
 
Last edited:
#86,832
#86,832
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#86,833
#86,833
@LouderVol and anyone else who wants to understand instead of merely snipe. "Relevance" continued.

I guess reading up on Eisenhower, Truman, and Kennedy not too long ago kinda primed the pump. Eisenhower as head of NATO said in 1952 that if NATO still existed in 10 years it would be a failure. And in his farewell address he famously warned against the military industrial complex. The idea was to nurtue Europe until they could take over. Nuclear weapons were seen and the necessary and sufficient requirement to protectd Europe.

The one thing I found that surprised me the most was that the allied commitment to come to the defense of a member under attack was never ironclad, at least on paper, and it would not have been ratified by the Senate if it were. This was a major issue in the hearings on NATO ratification, reiterated many times, and requisite to approval. In the late 1940s, members of Congress could still believe that they had the power to declare war granted to them under the US Constitution! Secretary of State Dean Acheson highlighted this fact. It was not a minority view. Presidents were expected to come to Congress if they wanted to use military force, as Woodrow Wilson had done in April 1917 when he requested a formal declaration of war. The Imperial Presidency was still far from what it has become.

As for the "unprecedented" idea that US withdrawal from NATO is unholy, Kennedy threatened to withdraw from NATO when France was trying to make a deal that believed would transfer nuclear weapons to Germany. They backed down. As far as I know at this time, there were no objects in the US that Kennedy could not do that.
 
#86,834
#86,834
Orange. said:
There was a different French politician and party head convicted of the exact same thing not long ago. No ban, no jail, small fine.

That's a bad look. I think in the US this kind of thing is called "constituency services." lol
Click to expand...
And who was this other French politician who was charged and convicted of the same crime?

1743807494412.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc
#86,835
#86,835
BeardedVol said:
And who was this other French politician who was charged and convicted of the same crime?

View attachment 733030
Click to expand...
brusselssignal.eu

Macron ally Bayrou cleared of embezzlement as five ex-MEPs found guilty

François Bayrou was acquitted by a Paris court in a case of embezzlement of public funds. Eight others, including five former MEPs were convicted. The criminal court in Paris on February 5 gave Bayrou…
brusselssignal.eu brusselssignal.eu

François Bayrou, one of Macron’s top allies and a possible future presidential candidate, was facing a possible ban on running for public office.
---

Also just for fun:

As of this time last year, 1 in 4 incumbent Members of the European Parliament have been have been accused of breaches of the law and misconduct, including corruption, embezzlement and harassment.
 
Last edited:
#86,836
#86,836
Orange. said:
brusselssignal.eu

Macron ally Bayrou cleared of embezzlement as five ex-MEPs found guilty

François Bayrou was acquitted by a Paris court in a case of embezzlement of public funds. Eight others, including five former MEPs were convicted. The criminal court in Paris on February 5 gave Bayrou…
brusselssignal.eu brusselssignal.eu

François Bayrou, one of Macron’s top allies and a possible future presidential candidate, was facing a possible ban on running for public office.

The prosecutor’s office instead decided to request a three-year suspended ineligibility term against Bayrou (upon conviction), along with a suspended prison sentence, and a trifling fine of €70,000. This despite the further parallel that the prosecutor's office said that Bayrou was the "instigator" of the embezzlement.

But even that feather light sentence and snow job was too much for the court in the case of a Macron ally!
---
Also just for fun:

As of this time last year, 1 in 4 incumbent Members of the European Parliament have been have been accused of breaches of the law and misconduct, including corruption, embezzlement and harassment.
Click to expand...

The difference being that Beyrou was acquitted, and Le Pen was found guilty.

1743810281645.png
 
#86,837
#86,837
BeardedVol said:
The difference being that Beyrou was acquitted, and Le Pen was found guilty.

View attachment 733041
Click to expand...
The prosecutor’s office decided to request a three-year suspended ineligibility term against Bayrou in the event Bauyou were convicted. So he was deemed eligible to run for President regardless of the court's decision, along with a trifling fine of €70,000.

Yet the prosecutor's office said that Bayrou was the "instigator" of the embezzlement and use of the funds. But being the instigator was the alleged reason for the election ban in the other case.

So the stark difference in recommended sentencing preceded the court's finding.

But, yes, you're right. Even that feather-light sentence and snow job was too much for the court in the case of a Macron ally!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Orangeburst
#86,838
#86,838

Russia is an evil regime. One might could calm them a death cult.

Looks like the post isn’t embedding properly, basically Russia yet again struck a civilian target with multiple civilian deaths and casualties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc
#86,839
#86,839
Matt2496 said:

Russia is an evil regime. One might could calm them a death cult.

Looks like the post isn’t embedding properly, basically Russia yet again struck a civilian target with multiple civilian deaths and casualties.
Click to expand...

@LSU-SIU will tell you that Ukrainians trying to defend themselves from this, makes them a death cult.

 
#86,840
#86,840
This is a good article on Alexander Stubb, the President of Finland.

www.yahoo.com

Finland’s president: ‘I just met Donald Trump. Russia is running out of time’

The president of Finland is towering, lean and athletic and holds a doctorate from the London School of Economics. So I am not entirely convinced when Alexander Stubb tells me that he is struggling “to put sentences together” after an overnight flight from Florida and a day spent with Donald Trump.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#86,841
#86,841

Russia Missile Attack on Ukraine Kills 19, Including 9 Kids, in Zelensky’s home city: ‘This can never be forgiven’​


Russia targeted the home city of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky overnight Saturday, in a ballistic missile strike that killed at least 19 people, including nine children — one of the deadliest attacks on the frontline metropolis since the war began.

A residential neighborhood was leveled during the onslaught on Kryvyi Rih, where at least 72 people were also injured, one of the youngest among them a 3-month-old baby, officials said.

“There were dead children lying there, crying parents — it was horrible,” a 47-year-old woman named Yulia told Reuters.

https://nypost.com/2025/04/05/world...ng-9-kids-in-vile-russian-attack-on-ukraine/#
1743908593168.png
A woman weeps at the site of a deadly Russian missile strike on Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine on April 5, 2025.

1743908647640.png
Bodies were strewn across the ground in Kryvyi Rih after a Russian missile strike, a photo from the Ukrainian Emergency Service shows.

Zelensky remembered the youngest of the dead Saturday.

“Three-year-old Timofiy, unfortunately, died today in the hospital. Seven-year-old Radyslav. Arina, who will also be 7 forever. Nine-year-old German. Fifteen-year-old Danylo. Fifteen-year-old Nikita. Fifteen-year-old Alina. Konstantin, who will be 16 forever. Nikita is 17 years old,” he wrote Saturday on X of the youngest of the dead.

nypost.com

Russia missile attack on Ukraine kills 19, including 9 kids, in Zelensky’s home city: ‘This can never be forgiven’

A devastating Russian assault on the home city of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky overnight Saturday left at least 19 dead, including 9 children, and massive destruction in its wake.
nypost.com nypost.com
 
#86,844
#86,844
Orange. said:
@LouderVol I appreciate you reading the article (Harvard Boys).

I hope you will also read the one called "Democratization, NGOs and color revolutions."

As for relevance, I have been trying to piece together for myself the backstory. It really didn't have anything to do, for me, with Putin's "narrative," or loving Putin, or favoring the invasion, or any of the other myriad things I have been randomly accused of by a few nutters for investigating NATO. It's more exploring American history.

And I can't remember if I posted this one:

warontherocks.com

Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin Was Told About NATO in 1993 and Why It Matters

Surely the Kremlin watched with no small amount of bitterness last Friday as NATO’s heads of state and government gathered for dinner at Warsaw’s
warontherocks.com

It's wasn't only Baker's "not one inch" statement (which the above article talks about.). Declassified docs have now proven that not only the Bush 1 admin, but the leaders of Britain, Germany, and France also told Gorbachev that NATO would not expand beyond the former West Germany and that the US and Europe would find a place for Russia iin Europe.

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents
nsarchive.gwu.edu nsarchive.gwu.edu

This reminds me very much of the "guarantee" to Ukraine by the US that was turned into a mere "assurance" at the time those nukes were removed. Same decade, same President. Same double talk. Bush 1, the former head of the CIA, initiated this particular false promises ploy, of course.

There were no NATO members added from the fall of the Berlin Wall until 1999. Kosovo figures in this period also.
Click to expand...
anyone who deals with any contract language in any form knows that the exact language matters. and they also know they only thing that matters is what you get in writing.

anything before the actual signing of something is just window dressing that doesn't mean anything if it isn't included in the written part.

no global foreign policy deal ever went thru some form of written language. Germany and the USSR dividing up Poland, had the Molotov Ribbertrov Pact. a written agreement between the two. the rest of the world didn't know about it, but it was written. The war of 1812 was largely because of things that weren't included in our original peace treaty with the British. not that it likely would have mattered, but the US pulling out of Afghanistan, there wasn't anything written with the taliban, so there was nothing for them to betray when they attacked and killed 13 Americans.

What said by who to whom is completely meaningless revisionism by the losers.

the assurances we gave, vs the guarantee Ukraine wanted, falls under the same thing. the only thing we signed said assurances, so assurances are all they get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and volbound1700
#86,845
#86,845
LouderVol said:
anyone who deals with any contract language in any form knows that the exact language matters. and they also know they only thing that matters is what you get in writing.

anything before the actual signing of something is just window dressing that doesn't mean anything if it isn't included in the written part.

no global foreign policy deal ever went thru some form of written language. Germany and the USSR dividing up Poland, had the Molotov Ribbertrov Pact. a written agreement between the two. the rest of the world didn't know about it, but it was written. The war of 1812 was largely because of things that weren't included in our original peace treaty with the British. not that it likely would have mattered, but the US pulling out of Afghanistan, there wasn't anything written with the taliban, so there was nothing for them to betray when they attacked and killed 13 Americans.

What said by who to whom is completely meaningless revisionism by the losers.

the assurances we gave, vs the guarantee Ukraine wanted, falls under the same thing. the only thing we signed said assurances, so assurances are all they get.
Click to expand...

True.

Sadly, people leave stuff out of writing or have vague writing because they cannot get a consensus. I think we are going to have a hard time with that here. I see the Ukraine war turning out a lot like the Korean situation with a Cease-Fire that is going to require armament on the border with Ukraine. Ukraine will trade land to buy time to rebuild its armed forces and probably get foreign aid.

I am wondering if there is going to be some loop hole the USA will take advantage of to get military aid in once the war is over (having the military deterrence is key to avoiding future conflict).
 
#86,846
#86,846
Gn6UYJ9XUAAi6X_
 
#86,847
#86,847
volbound1700 said:
True.

Sadly, people leave stuff out of writing or have vague writing because they cannot get a consensus. I think we are going to have a hard time with that here. I see the Ukraine war turning out a lot like the Korean situation with a Cease-Fire that is going to require armament on the border with Ukraine. Ukraine will trade land to buy time to rebuild its armed forces and probably get foreign aid.

I am wondering if there is going to be some loop hole the USA will take advantage of to get military aid in once the war is over (having the military deterrence is key to avoiding future conflict).
Click to expand...
I could see some type of DMZ being set up.

I could see Ukraine pushing to have it manned by foreign troops. and the US shouldn't be involved.

I could see Russia requiring that there were no military units on either side of the DMZ, but would never actually follow it and keep their troops on the border to move it whenever they can. they have been doing this in Georgia, so I wouldn't be shocked to see it in Ukraine.
 
#86,848
#86,848
LouderVol said:
I could see some type of DMZ being set up.

I could see Ukraine pushing to have it manned by foreign troops. and the US shouldn't be involved.

I could see Russia requiring that there were no military units on either side of the DMZ, but would never actually follow it and keep their troops on the border to move it whenever they can. they have been doing this in Georgia, so I wouldn't be shocked to see it in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

I could be totally wrong but I see us getting pulled into having troops there eventually as a part of this mineral rights deal. It won't be until after Russia signs truce (if they will, right now it seems precarious. I think Russia was in a worse position before February. Their recent victory at Kursk has embolden them to play hardball again).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top