War in Ukraine

#88,826
#88,826
hog88 said:
Apparently it is. I keep asking the Ukrainiacs what sanctions, consequences do they want the US to place on Russia and get nothing in return. The only way to turn off the money paying for their war is to sanction the countries buying Russian oil/gas.
Click to expand...
You’ll be happy to hear that right after our exchange I saw a story of Trump pressuring Modi on reducing Russian petroleum imports. India is apparently their largest consumer. To your point no mention of Europe.
 
#88,828
#88,828
NorthDallas40 said:
You’ll be happy to hear that right after our exchange I saw a story of Trump pressuring Modi on reducing Russian petroleum imports. India is apparently their largest consumer. To your point no mention of Europe.
Click to expand...

India over the last 2 1/2 years has bought about 120 billion dollars, Turkey about 62 billion. Add that to what EU countries are buying and yeah Russia has got the funds to fight this war for a long time. Our "allies" are paying to kill Ukrainians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700 and LSU-SIU
#88,829
#88,829
hog88 said:
Apparently it is. I keep asking the Ukrainiacs what sanctions, consequences do they want the US to place on Russia and get nothing in return. The only way to turn off the money paying for their war is to sanction the countries buying Russian oil/gas.
Click to expand...

It would seem like the U.S. and the major European countries have officially rejected the thought Russia is responsible for all this. Why is there any sanctions at this point on anyone?



How or why did the Orange man get his way on the Security Council vote? He knows where the bodies are buried.

It makes more sense once you realize it might all just be a lie.

Budapest threatens Kyiv with electricity cut after strikes on pipeline

The Orange man knows what happened, whatever he wants all those stupid Europeans will have to go along with if he really wants them to.

The next logical step in the Idiocracy of this conflict.

Europe To Spend $100BN It Doesn't Have, To Buy Weapons America Doesn't Have, To Arm Soldiers Ukraine Now Lacks | ZeroHedge

All of this was very obvious 3 years ago, but as Mark Twain supposedly said, "It is often said that it's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled"

 
Last edited:
#88,830
#88,830
Encouraging progress....... I'm very cautiously optimistic, still so much could go sideways.
 
#88,831
#88,831
Trump yesterday said he was not ruling out having US troops in Ukraine, but today says he is ruling that out. I assume that is a condition that Putin has imposed. Will NATO troops there be a sufficient security guarantee for Ukraine to give up some territory for peace, on the premise that they are guaranteed no future Russian attack by the presence of the NATO troops?

Based on comments by the heads of state yesterday I have to wonder if that is good enough since they all seemed to repeat the sentiment that the US had to be part of the security guarantee. I suppose we could participate by providing certain defensive military equipment to Ukraine. Patriot batteries, that sort of thing.
 
#88,832
#88,832
LSU-SIU said:
It would seem like the U.S. and the major European countries have officially rejected the thought Russia is responsible for all this. Why is there any sanctions at this point on anyone?



How or why did the Orange man get his way on the Security Council vote? He knows where the bodies are buried.

It makes more sense once you realize it might all just be a lie.

Budapest threatens Kyiv with electricity cut after strikes on pipeline

The Orange man knows what happened, whatever he wants all those stupid Europeans will have to go along with if he really wants them to.

The next logical step in the Idiocracy of this conflict.

Europe To Spend $100BN It Doesn't Have, To Buy Weapons America Doesn't Have, To Arm Soldiers Ukraine Now Lacks | ZeroHedge

All of this was very obvious 3 years ago, but as Mark Twain supposedly said, "It is often said that it's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled"
Click to expand...

The Orange man knows what happened? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

A few weeks ago he didn't even know we had paused aid to them
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#88,833
#88,833
lawgator1 said:
Trump yesterday said he was not ruling out having US troops in Ukraine, but today says he is ruling that out. I assume that is a condition that Putin has imposed. Will NATO troops there be a sufficient security guarantee for Ukraine to give up some territory for peace, on the premise that they are guaranteed no future Russian attack by the presence of the NATO troops?

Based on comments by the heads of state yesterday I have to wonder if that is good enough since they all seemed to repeat the sentiment that the US had to be part of the security guarantee. I suppose we could participate by providing certain defensive military equipment to Ukraine. Patriot batteries, that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I doubt Ukraine will sign Budapest Memorandum 2.0, nor will they accept Minsk Accords 3.0.

All either do is allow Russia to rearm, and attack again in the future like they did last time.
 
#88,834
#88,834
n_huffhines said:
You ever get that desktop with the answers you were looking for?
Click to expand...

No, crappy day at work last evening. Everything fell apart in the last hour. But anyway...

I'll try to answer as best as possible on mobile. The point that I'm making, and one I'm really surprised you don't agree with, it's there's a LOT of blame and nobody can or should put all the onus on Putin. Yeah, he did the deed himself, but anyone who tries to argue against the fact there were a LOT of provocative moves by the US, EU and NATO is not looking so enough into the situation.

Who benefits from a war in Ukraine with Russia as an aggressor? Furthermore, this is history repeating itself in regards to NATO expansion. Remember Georgia in the early 2000s when they started making similar moves towards NATO membership? And what happened?

They got invaded. Seems like a common occurrence here, no? Every time NATO starts talking about expanding, we get these conflicts that pop up. But looking at this through a neutral stance, why does NATO need to expand that far forward anyway? I seem to recall a picture you posted some years ago with something to the effect of how many military bases we had surrounding Iran. "How dare they put their country in the middle of our overseas bases". The same applies to Russia. How dare they put their country right on the border of NATO members!

Russia isn't anywhere near the threat they were in in the 80s and earlier. Yet, they keep getting provoked by the western powers for some reason. And the question you have to ask is "who benefits from continual conflict with Russia?" Who pushed for lethal weapons sales? Who gave hundreds of billions of dollars with little too no accountability? Who helped destroy they weapons stockpiles to begin with hoping we (the west) would get to rearm them?

Russia and Putin were wrong to invade, but it's not like the West is lily white and innocent in all this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: midnight orange
#88,835
#88,835
BernardKingGOAT said:
The Orange man knows what happened? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

A few weeks ago he didn't even know we had paused aid to them
Click to expand...

Well, you tell that to Europe that did exactly what he said. There isn't much I can do for you for obvious reasons. You are just lashing out so you don't have to address the problem, you have disadvantages.

Europe took a knee. 🤷‍♂️
 
#88,836
#88,836
Grand Vol said:
No, crappy day at work last evening. Everything fell apart in the last hour. But anyway...

I'll try to answer as best as possible on mobile. The point that I'm making, and one I'm really surprised you don't agree with, it's there's a LOT of blame and nobody can or should put all the onus on Putin. Yeah, he did the deed himself, but anyone who tries to argue against the fact there were a LOT of provocative moves by the US, EU and NATO is not looking so enough into the situation.

Who benefits from a war in Ukraine with Russia as an aggressor? Furthermore, this is history repeating itself in regards to NATO expansion. Remember Georgia in the early 2000s when they started making similar moves towards NATO membership? And what happened?

They got invaded. Seems like a common occurrence here, no? Every time NATO starts talking about expanding, we get these conflicts that pop up. But looking at this through a neutral stance, why does NATO need to expand that far forward anyway? I seem to recall a picture you posted some years ago with something to the effect of how many military bases we had surrounding Iran. "How dare they put their country in the middle of our overseas bases". The same applies to Russia. How dare they put their country right on the border of NATO members!

Russia isn't anywhere near the threat they were in in the 80s and earlier. Yet, they keep getting provoked by the western powers for some reason. And the question you have to ask is "who benefits from continual conflict with Russia?" Who pushed for lethal weapons sales? Who gave hundreds of billions of dollars with little too no accountability? Who helped destroy they weapons stockpiles to begin with hoping we (the west) would get to rearm them?

Russia and Putin were wrong to invade, but it's not like the West is lily white and innocent in all this.
Click to expand...

Sorry about your day, pal.

When I'm talking about Iran, I'm talking about why they have reason to want to arm themselves, not why they have reason to invade other countries. If Georgia wants to join NATO, and NATO wants Georgia, Russia doesn't have cause to do anything about it, except arm themselves for the fight that will never, ever come to them.
 
#88,837
#88,837
LSU-SIU said:
It would seem like the U.S. and the major European countries have officially rejected the thought Russia is responsible for all this. Why is there any sanctions at this point on anyone?

Click to expand...

man you are just straight up lying about this.

nowhere in the resolution does it speak anywhere towards to who is responsible, yet alone passing some judgement saying that Russia is not responsible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan and NorthDallas40
#88,838
#88,838
LouderVol said:
man you are just straight up lying about this.

nowhere in the resolution does it speak anywhere towards to who is responsible, yet alone passing some judgement saying that Russia is not responsible.
Click to expand...

That is actually the point (see tweet), the Europeans wanted to condemn Russia and did so but not in the Security Council. The U.S. knows their involvement, just like the Orange man knows who was involved in Britain with them trying to overthrow a President elect here.

Friends. 🤷‍♂️
 
#88,841
#88,841
LSU-SIU said:
It would seem like the U.S. and the major European countries have officially rejected the thought Russia is responsible for all this. Why is there any sanctions at this point on anyone?
Click to expand...
1755626027642.png

Document Viewer

docs.un.org docs.un.org
john-cena-reach.gif
 
#88,843
#88,843
Grand Vol said:
No, crappy day at work last evening. Everything fell apart in the last hour. But anyway...

I'll try to answer as best as possible on mobile. The point that I'm making, and one I'm really surprised you don't agree with, it's there's a LOT of blame and nobody can or should put all the onus on Putin. Yeah, he did the deed himself, but anyone who tries to argue against the fact there were a LOT of provocative moves by the US, EU and NATO is not looking so enough into the situation.

Who benefits from a war in Ukraine with Russia as an aggressor? Furthermore, this is history repeating itself in regards to NATO expansion. Remember Georgia in the early 2000s when they started making similar moves towards NATO membership? And what happened?

They got invaded. Seems like a common occurrence here, no? Every time NATO starts talking about expanding, we get these conflicts that pop up. But looking at this through a neutral stance, why does NATO need to expand that far forward anyway? I seem to recall a picture you posted some years ago with something to the effect of how many military bases we had surrounding Iran. "How dare they put their country in the middle of our overseas bases". The same applies to Russia. How dare they put their country right on the border of NATO members!

Russia isn't anywhere near the threat they were in in the 80s and earlier. Yet, they keep getting provoked by the western powers for some reason. And the question you have to ask is "who benefits from continual conflict with Russia?" Who pushed for lethal weapons sales? Who gave hundreds of billions of dollars with little too no accountability? Who helped destroy they weapons stockpiles to begin with hoping we (the west) would get to rearm them?

Russia and Putin were wrong to invade, but it's not like the West is lily white and innocent in all this.
Click to expand...
man you are full of it here.

what conflict popped up with Finland and Sweden joining NATO? "
Every time NATO starts talking about expanding, we get these conflicts that pop up
Click to expand...

Ukraine also hadn't made any new moves to join NATO before Putin invaded. He was already in Ukraine long before 2022. Putin invaded precisely because there was no movement to join NATO. Ukraine tried to join back in like 2007, Putin never invaded then. no new application had been made until Russia went for Kyiv.

what provocative moves did the US, EU, and NATO make to Russia via Ukraine pre 2013? opening up western markets and loans to Ukraine? how would invading Ukraine fix any of that?

who benefits, Putin for one does. you got to remember that Putin was getting more and more vocal pushback in the elections. he was having to silence more and more people, and at the outset of the war he was able to use martial law to crack down on anyone he didn't like.

and Russia is still just as powerful as the Soviets in the one place it matters, or at least close enough where the difference doesn't matter. nukes. the soviets conventional forces were never going to be enough to challenge NATO. its the same today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SayUWantAreVOLution
#88,844
#88,844
LSU-SIU said:
That is actually the point (see tweet), the Europeans wanted to condemn Russia and did so but not in the Security Council. The U.S. knows their involvement, just like the Orange man knows who was involved in Britain with them trying to overthrow a President elect here.

Friends. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
it didn't happen in the security council because Russia would have just veto'd it, again. not because major nations don't think Russia is to blame for it.
 
#88,846
#88,846
LouderVol said:
Belarus is already under his thumb. Russia just put some of their own nukes back in Belarus. Russia has used Belarus as a staging area and launch point for their invasion and attacks into Ukraine. Lukashenko only has a job, and probably his life, because he sucks up to Putin.

Azerbaijan was one of the victims of Putin's "frozen" wars with soviet troops occupying some of their territory for Armenia. Azerbaijan also spent that oil money on building up their military to maintain their independence, Russia has made multiple attempts to enact their control and been thwarted so far.

he pretty much only shares a border with Kazakhstan, pretty hard to invade thru another. and he just propped Kazakhstan up to maintain what level of control they do have. Putin wasn't able to do much during that strife because he was only a few weeks from invading Ukraine and needed all of his troops on that border. it was pretty clear Putin thought Ukraine would fall easy, and then could turn around to take Kazakhstan; and its been soviet revisionism since then.

for the rest, the CSTO is Russia's NATO. although a lot more dysfunctional. which is saying a good bit.
Click to expand...

The point being is that if he's trying to put the Soviet Union back together as implied by the other poster, he's not exactly going about it the easy way.

You don't try restarting your "empire" by taking the largest country first that's going to draw the most international attention. Putin's not that dumb
 
#88,849
#88,849
LouderVol said:
Ukraine also hadn't made any new moves to join NATO before Putin invaded. He was already in Ukraine long before 2022. Putin invaded precisely because there was no movement to join NATO. Ukraine tried to join back in like 2007, Putin never invaded then. no new application had been made until Russia went for Kyiv.
Click to expand...
Blinken's response to Russia NATO demand is frankly disturbing

There are videos of personnel warning the White House of addressing this in this way.
 
#88,850
#88,850
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top