Russia about to attack Ukraine

Nov 28, 2010
78,204
31,362
113
Maryland
What changed in 2021 besides Biden publicly declaring that we wouldn’t send soldiers to defend Ukraine?

WASHINGTON – President Joe Biden said Wednesday that his administration was not considering sending U.S. troops to Ukraine amid an alarming Russian military buildup on its shared border.
“Unilateral troops in Ukraine not on the table,” Biden told reporters at the White House.



Do you think it was when he pissed in the face of the ‘little‘ members of NATO?

Biden Infuriates Eastern NATO Allies With Outreach to Russia

09 Dec 2021
(Bloomberg) -- East European countries have reacted critically to a U.S. proposal that a handful of North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies could meet with Russia to discuss its military build-up along Ukraine’s borders.
One government in the region is furious and seeking immediate clarification on what exactly President Joe Biden is planning, according to a diplomat from the country who declined to be named speaking on a confidential issue.



What do you think caused Putin to :checks notes: change absolutely nothing with regard to Russia’s policy with Ukraine?
China asked Putin to hold off until after the Olympics.

Putin had wanted to do it during the Olympics. Symbolic, because the 2014 Winter Olympics is when the US pulled off the transition in Ukraine.

Putin agreed to China's request.

Just guessing.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
15,275
15,461
113
01 October 2009
link
The first authoritative study of the war over South Ossetia has concluded that Georgia started the conflict with Russia with an attack that was in violation of international law.


What are Americans told by our propaganda organs?

August 7, 2021
Link
On August 8, 2008, Russian forces began the invasion of Georgia, marking the start of Europe’s first twenty-first century war.
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
15,518
15,787
113
I love how you ignore the possibility that Biden’s actions in public and in private may have led to Putin backing down for now. So much better than the sock puppet of a president we had before Biden.
Yup. It's a possibility, but remote.
 

Nat Algren

HR Legend
Nov 23, 2014
19,171
6,138
113
I like that the Global Times leans left, but not that is is rated "questionable" on pro China propaganda and "mixed" as to veracity.

That means you have to be careful, not that the cited info is necessarily bad.

left10.png

MBFCMixed.png


Overall, we rate Global Times Questionable based on the promotion of Pro-Chinese Government propaganda. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to bias by omission and failed fact checks.

It no doubt IS an organ of official Chinese news...much like WaPo, NYT, WSJ et al in this country or PressTV in Iran. I just don't see the propaganda angle in disclosing their business dealings.
 

Nat Algren

HR Legend
Nov 23, 2014
19,171
6,138
113
01 October 2009
link
The first authoritative study of the war over South Ossetia has concluded that Georgia started the conflict with Russia with an attack that was in violation of international law.

What are Americans told by our propaganda organs?

August 7, 2021
Link
On August 8, 2008, Russian forces began the invasion of Georgia, marking the start of Europe’s first twenty-first century war.
Agreed. @FaultyGator will have a bone to pick with you re: this.

Moreover, events leading up to Georgia aggression by US State Dept. puppet:

  • Feb. 1, 2008: Amid rumors of NATO planning to offer membership to Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warns U.S. Ambassador William Burns that “Nyet Means Nyet.” Russia will react strongly to any move to bring Ukraine or Georgia into NATO. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have Burns’s original cable from embassy in Moscow.
  • April 3, 2008: Included in Final Declaration from NATO summit in Bucharest: “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”
 

Nat Algren

HR Legend
Nov 23, 2014
19,171
6,138
113
China asked Putin to hold off until after the Olympics.

Putin had wanted to do it during the Olympics. Symbolic, because the 2014 Winter Olympics is when the US pulled off the transition in Ukraine.

Putin agreed to China's request.

Just guessing.
Bill Burns (CIA Dir.) cut the knees out from under Victoria Nuland and said there was no evidence of Russian troop build up on the Ukraine border. They are 160 miles from the Belarus border. However, R will take measures if a military build up by NATO persists.

The West took aggressive measures before while Russia hosted in Sochi.

FWIW, with all the political games being exhibited around the NS2 pipeline, (pressure from Washington onto their vassals in the EU and delaying certification of NS2 until late Spring, Putin had a call with Xi. Xi said their relationship is greater than an alliance. That's diplomatic speak for "if a war breaks out, we got your back". The next day, Putin received the President of Mongolia at the Kremlin and the 3 will start the construction of the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline into northern China. Mongolia will receive transit fees. The natgas will be sourced from the same source as the NS2. Europe just effed themselves. Moreover, they will have to pay billions for failure to complete the terms of the contract. But, Ted Cruz will be happy as LNG will be shipped from the Permian at a 30%+ higher cost than NS2.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
90,935
113,006
113
Awesome. Nat and Nole Nat cutting and pasting unrelated drivel in tandem that supports no arguments they think they are making.
 

Nat Algren

HR Legend
Nov 23, 2014
19,171
6,138
113
Looks like Putin is trying to give room to Biden to escape by orders of magnitude the humiliation he endured from the exit in Afghanistan.

Are you paying attention? Russia demands cancellation of the Global Rules-Based Order​

Alastair Crooke

Director of Conflicts Forum; Former Senior British Diplomat; Author.

Russia continues to signal NATO about its security 'red lines', while the US announces that it is ready to negotiate terms with Russia about the latters' concerns, any backing down from the actual policy seems like heresy to the States.

“Everyone understands everything perfectly, the moment of truth is coming in relations between Russia and NATO. You cannot constantly hit Russia's weak spots … The conversation must be serious … otherwise, the alternative is military-technical and military responses from Russia”, the head of Russia’s delegation to the arms control negotiations in Vienna said on Monday.

He was referring to two documents that were published by Russia on 17 December. The two documents describe in detail what Washington must do to avoid the inevitable, and looming clash over NATO’s eastward expansion up to, and onto, Russia’s borders. Essentially, they demand that NATO forces must withdraw to where they were in 1997 (i.e. bound within Germany’s borders). The documents also address other aspects of de-escalation, such as removing all US nuclear weapons from foreign territory, and confining US forces to waters and airspace from which they cannot threaten the territory of Russia.

We are talking here not of some minor shuffling to-and-fro and readjustment of force deployments. It is a framework for geo-political revolution, no less. In essence, the demand is for the ‘cancelling’ of America’s rules-based, global order (shaped around US interests and values).

Russia is telling America that the UN Security Council is, and must henceforth be, the only source of international laws. Russia demands not just the strategic roll-back of the US in Europe, but also, that all future security agreements be drafted into legally binding treaties – and for Washington to cease its unilateral regime-change, colour revolution programmes.

Though it is couched in the arcane language of a draft treaty, the thrust of it is closer to that of an ultimatum. It is very definitely not intended as some abstract discussion paper to be pored over in coming years. The call is for an immediate US reaction.

In some ways, it would seem the draft treaty has been launched into the public arena, not so much in the expectation of receiving an early substantive response from Washington, but rather, to underline that Russia deliberately is burning bridges, in order to call attention to the gravity of the situation: ‘We said it once: It was not heard’. So, we are saying it in a format that makes it clear that Moscow will not again back down from this strategic demand. ‘Are you paying attention?’ is the subtext. Because if not, we shall move to the vocabulary of military and military-technical options.

This was made clear when Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, urged Washington to give an immediate response to the proposals for security guarantees – against an incrementally deteriorating geopolitical context: “I think that there will be no refusal [from the US] as such, but there will be an attempt to add all sorts of wishes, conditions, all sorts of additional ideas just to throw the ball over to our side”, he said.

And that, predictably enough, is precisely the initial US response: The US “will not compromise” on NATO expansion, the White House reiterated on Friday. “We have seen the Russian proposals. We are discussing them with our European allies and partners”.

Jake Sullivan, the US National Security Adviser, said on the same day that whilst the Russians may have a list of security concerns, so did the US and its European allies - and that Washington was willing to negotiate on that basis. “We’ve had a dialogue with Russia on European security issues for the last 20 years”, Mr. Sullivan told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations. “We had it with the Soviet Union for decades before that”.

That process “has sometimes produced progress, sometimes produced deadlock”, Sullivan said, noting that the United States planned “to put on the table our concerns with Russian activities that we believe harm our interests and values”. “It’s very difficult to see agreements getting consummated,” he added, “if we’re continuing to see an escalatory cycle”.

‘Putting on the table’ Sullivan’s concerns about activities that are inconsistent with US interests and values has dominated US exchanges with Russia, China, and - via intermediaries - Iran throughout this Administration’s term in office. It has not been productive. Nothing has been “consummated”. It has been accompanied only by rising tensions.

Fyodor Lukyanov, considered close to the Kremlin’s worldview and known to advise senior officials, believes the West is unlikely to accept Russia’s demands, as doing so would be politically impossible. George Friedman, of CIA-linked former Stratfor lineage, strongly concurs: There are clauses that guarantee the United States will reject the document.

Russia’s demands are not new. They reflect a stance that Russia has been voicing for years. So, the question is: Why would a state launch a draft in the tough terms of an ultimatum, other than to serve as a deliberate ‘wake up’ call, before matters slide from the diplomatic sphere - to the military.

There is little sign that either the US or Europe are breaking off from their long strategic siesta. The West, however, is so taken with meme-politics that they almost certainly will think the proposals to be little more than a new Russian narrative, to be moved as quickly as possible into the long grass of endless discussion, involving not just NATO partners, but the EU too.

From the US and NATO’s perspective, even to contemplate Russia setting its own security red lines, is heresy - as NATO’s Secretary-General affirmed (on the day before Russia published the two documents): “NATO stands with Ukraine. All Allies support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And we do not recognize Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea … NATO will continue to give you [President Zelensky] practical support … The message today, to Russia is that it is for Ukraine as a sovereign nation to decide its own path; and for the 30 NATO Allies to decide when Ukraine is ready to become a member. What is important now is that we focus on reforms for Ukraine to meet NATO standards”.

If this becomes the US and final response, we will see more steps meant to demonstrate Russia’s determination to change the status quo, no matter what the West says about it. In fresh comments, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko has stressed that the proposals carry urgency, as tensions are at a tipping point. The Minister added that if Moscow gets rebuffed or ignored in these attempts to hammer out security guarantees, Russia will be forced to enact ‘counter-threats’ of its own.

So, the question now, is what is it that Russia is going to do, when the US goes down the path of: ‘we have been talking to Russia for simply decades, on such matters’ -- i.e. what’s beef; what’s the rush?

Well, the West was astonished when suddenly the Russian foot stamped down in Syria, and Washington’s overthrow of the Syrian government was blocked by Russian military force. Today’s message is: Either you ‘Finlandise’ Ukraine, or Russia will do it for you.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
15,275
15,461
113
Awesome. Nat and Nole Nat cutting and pasting unrelated drivel in tandem that supports no arguments they think they are making.
You won’t address the question because you know our tanks would roll if the Soviets supported a coup in Mexico and that coup government then tried to join the Warsaw Pact to invite Soviet bases on our border.

Your intellectual cowardice goes far enough to avoid the question, but you can’t bring yourself to lie in response (and look ridiculous) pretending we’d just watch that happen without acting.

We almost went to war for the Soviets putting missiles on our border when we already them on their border in Turkey.
 

Nat Algren

HR Legend
Nov 23, 2014
19,171
6,138
113
Awesome. Nat and Nole Nat cutting and pasting unrelated drivel in tandem that supports no arguments they think they are making.
I suppose this is one way of cowardly walking running away from a discussion. Thank you for instructing a Mastersclass for all the HROT kids coming up through the ranks so they may know how not to act.

More importantly, why are US taxpayers giving (with the support of Lucas80), $2.5Billion to a fascist country?

FH0PTxtXwAEsFbR
 
Last edited:
Nov 28, 2010
78,204
31,362
113
Maryland
It no doubt IS an organ of official Chinese news...much like WaPo, NYT, WSJ et al in this country or PressTV in Iran. I just don't see the propaganda angle in disclosing their business dealings.
Don't get me wrong. It's good to know where to turn for the official stance of different governments. All nations - along with at least some of the prominent media - push their views. When you watch or read enough official positions, it's easier to tease out the truth.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
90,935
113,006
113
You won’t address the question because you know our tanks would roll if the Soviets supported a coup in Mexico and that coup government then tried to join the Warsaw Pact to invite Soviet bases on our border.

Your intellectual cowardice goes far enough to avoid the question, but you can’t bring yourself to lie in response (and look ridiculous) pretending we’d just watch that happen without acting.

We almost went to war for the Soviets putting missiles on our border when we already them on their border in Turkey.
You’ve seen Red Dawn too many times.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
90,935
113,006
113
Looks like Putin is trying to give room to Biden to escape by orders of magnitude the humiliation he endured from the exit in Afghanistan.

Are you paying attention? Russia demands cancellation of the Global Rules-Based Order​

Alastair Crooke

Director of Conflicts Forum; Former Senior British Diplomat; Author.

Russia continues to signal NATO about its security 'red lines', while the US announces that it is ready to negotiate terms with Russia about the latters' concerns, any backing down from the actual policy seems like heresy to the States.

“Everyone understands everything perfectly, the moment of truth is coming in relations between Russia and NATO. You cannot constantly hit Russia's weak spots … The conversation must be serious … otherwise, the alternative is military-technical and military responses from Russia”, the head of Russia’s delegation to the arms control negotiations in Vienna said on Monday.

He was referring to two documents that were published by Russia on 17 December. The two documents describe in detail what Washington must do to avoid the inevitable, and looming clash over NATO’s eastward expansion up to, and onto, Russia’s borders. Essentially, they demand that NATO forces must withdraw to where they were in 1997 (i.e. bound within Germany’s borders). The documents also address other aspects of de-escalation, such as removing all US nuclear weapons from foreign territory, and confining US forces to waters and airspace from which they cannot threaten the territory of Russia.

We are talking here not of some minor shuffling to-and-fro and readjustment of force deployments. It is a framework for geo-political revolution, no less. In essence, the demand is for the ‘cancelling’ of America’s rules-based, global order (shaped around US interests and values).

Russia is telling America that the UN Security Council is, and must henceforth be, the only source of international laws. Russia demands not just the strategic roll-back of the US in Europe, but also, that all future security agreements be drafted into legally binding treaties – and for Washington to cease its unilateral regime-change, colour revolution programmes.

Though it is couched in the arcane language of a draft treaty, the thrust of it is closer to that of an ultimatum. It is very definitely not intended as some abstract discussion paper to be pored over in coming years. The call is for an immediate US reaction.

In some ways, it would seem the draft treaty has been launched into the public arena, not so much in the expectation of receiving an early substantive response from Washington, but rather, to underline that Russia deliberately is burning bridges, in order to call attention to the gravity of the situation: ‘We said it once: It was not heard’. So, we are saying it in a format that makes it clear that Moscow will not again back down from this strategic demand. ‘Are you paying attention?’ is the subtext. Because if not, we shall move to the vocabulary of military and military-technical options.

This was made clear when Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, urged Washington to give an immediate response to the proposals for security guarantees – against an incrementally deteriorating geopolitical context: “I think that there will be no refusal [from the US] as such, but there will be an attempt to add all sorts of wishes, conditions, all sorts of additional ideas just to throw the ball over to our side”, he said.

And that, predictably enough, is precisely the initial US response: The US “will not compromise” on NATO expansion, the White House reiterated on Friday. “We have seen the Russian proposals. We are discussing them with our European allies and partners”.

Jake Sullivan, the US National Security Adviser, said on the same day that whilst the Russians may have a list of security concerns, so did the US and its European allies - and that Washington was willing to negotiate on that basis. “We’ve had a dialogue with Russia on European security issues for the last 20 years”, Mr. Sullivan told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations. “We had it with the Soviet Union for decades before that”.

That process “has sometimes produced progress, sometimes produced deadlock”, Sullivan said, noting that the United States planned “to put on the table our concerns with Russian activities that we believe harm our interests and values”. “It’s very difficult to see agreements getting consummated,” he added, “if we’re continuing to see an escalatory cycle”.

‘Putting on the table’ Sullivan’s concerns about activities that are inconsistent with US interests and values has dominated US exchanges with Russia, China, and - via intermediaries - Iran throughout this Administration’s term in office. It has not been productive. Nothing has been “consummated”. It has been accompanied only by rising tensions.

Fyodor Lukyanov, considered close to the Kremlin’s worldview and known to advise senior officials, believes the West is unlikely to accept Russia’s demands, as doing so would be politically impossible. George Friedman, of CIA-linked former Stratfor lineage, strongly concurs: There are clauses that guarantee the United States will reject the document.

Russia’s demands are not new. They reflect a stance that Russia has been voicing for years. So, the question is: Why would a state launch a draft in the tough terms of an ultimatum, other than to serve as a deliberate ‘wake up’ call, before matters slide from the diplomatic sphere - to the military.

There is little sign that either the US or Europe are breaking off from their long strategic siesta. The West, however, is so taken with meme-politics that they almost certainly will think the proposals to be little more than a new Russian narrative, to be moved as quickly as possible into the long grass of endless discussion, involving not just NATO partners, but the EU too.

From the US and NATO’s perspective, even to contemplate Russia setting its own security red lines, is heresy - as NATO’s Secretary-General affirmed (on the day before Russia published the two documents): “NATO stands with Ukraine. All Allies support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And we do not recognize Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea … NATO will continue to give you [President Zelensky] practical support … The message today, to Russia is that it is for Ukraine as a sovereign nation to decide its own path; and for the 30 NATO Allies to decide when Ukraine is ready to become a member. What is important now is that we focus on reforms for Ukraine to meet NATO standards”.

If this becomes the US and final response, we will see more steps meant to demonstrate Russia’s determination to change the status quo, no matter what the West says about it. In fresh comments, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko has stressed that the proposals carry urgency, as tensions are at a tipping point. The Minister added that if Moscow gets rebuffed or ignored in these attempts to hammer out security guarantees, Russia will be forced to enact ‘counter-threats’ of its own.

So, the question now, is what is it that Russia is going to do, when the US goes down the path of: ‘we have been talking to Russia for simply decades, on such matters’ -- i.e. what’s beef; what’s the rush?

Well, the West was astonished when suddenly the Russian foot stamped down in Syria, and Washington’s overthrow of the Syrian government was blocked by Russian military force. Today’s message is: Either you ‘Finlandise’ Ukraine, or Russia will do it for you.
Biden doesn’t need any room to back up. Putin misread the situation. Perhaps because the internal situation in Russia is so horrible.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
15,275
15,461
113
You’ve seen Red Dawn too many times.
You and I both know the US wouldn’t allow a foreign power to foment a coup on our border, and then station tanks in that country.
It would mean war then.
We wouldn’t wait for the attack.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
15,275
15,461
113
LOL, that’s such a pathetic FSB creation. Did the guy in the cubicle next to yours make that?
Your ignorance is showing. Read up on the Azov battalion.

The congressional letter addressed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and pushed by freshman Rep. Max Rose (D-NY), portrays Azov as part of an ultra-right-wing “global terrorist network” analogous to al Qaeda or the so-called Islamic State, but one bent on attacking Muslims, Jews, and people of color. The letter notes that the man who carried out the mosque massacres in New Zealand last March, killing at least 50 worshippers, claimed he trained with the Azov. His livestreamed slaughter then inspired murderers in the United States who targeted a synagogue in Poway, California, and Hispanic shoppers in El Paso, Texas.

The Oct. 16 letter quoted a tweet a week before by Rita Katz, director of SITE Intelligence and a Daily Beast contributor, after the synagogue attack in Halle, Germany, on Oct. 9. Katz noted “the similarity between this video” in Halle and the New Zealand attacker’s, concluding it was “another installment from a global terrorist network, linked together via online safe havens much like ISIS.” Symbolically, at least, Azov has become a rallying point for the neo-Nazi international community.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
90,935
113,006
113
Your ignorance is showing. Read up on the Azov battalion.

The congressional letter addressed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and pushed by freshman Rep. Max Rose (D-NY), portrays Azov as part of an ultra-right-wing “global terrorist network” analogous to al Qaeda or the so-called Islamic State, but one bent on attacking Muslims, Jews, and people of color. The letter notes that the man who carried out the mosque massacres in New Zealand last March, killing at least 50 worshippers, claimed he trained with the Azov. His livestreamed slaughter then inspired murderers in the United States who targeted a synagogue in Poway, California, and Hispanic shoppers in El Paso, Texas.

The Oct. 16 letter quoted a tweet a week before by Rita Katz, director of SITE Intelligence and a Daily Beast contributor, after the synagogue attack in Halle, Germany, on Oct. 9. Katz noted “the similarity between this video” in Halle and the New Zealand attacker’s, concluding it was “another installment from a global terrorist network, linked together via online safe havens much like ISIS.” Symbolically, at least, Azov has become a rallying point for the neo-Nazi international community.
Everyone knows they are part of Putin’s “Little Green Men”, gang. They are not true Ukrainians.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
15,275
15,461
113
Everyone knows they are part of Putin’s “Little Green Men”, gang. They are not true Ukrainians.
LOL.

I'll never question your eagerness to double down on ignorance.
Can you show me the site that put this disinformation in your head? Or did you dream it up yourself?

Here the neocons at the Atlantic Council are trying to whitewash them, but you're the first I've seen call them Russians!

link
In their recent New York Times op-ed, “We once fought jihadists. Now we battle white supremacists,” Democratic Congressman Max Rose and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) special agent Ali H. Soufan raise a critical question: to what extent can we consider domestic right-wing terrorism an exclusively domestic phenomenon? As a follow up, they also ask about the role transnational links have in the radicalization process between different far-right groups.

One of the examples that the op-ed presents to the readers is that of the Ukrainian Azov Battalion, which the FBI calls “a paramilitary unit” notorious for its “association with neo-Nazi ideology.” Unfortunately, this, and other references to Azov made in the op-ed, are misleading, which makes the entire example unreasonable and, sadly, damaging for the important argument of the authors.

What the authors call a “Ukrainian Azov Battalion,” where they add a description of it as “a paramilitary unit,” is, in fact, a Special Operations Detachment “Azov”—a regiment of the Ukrainian National Guard that is part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This means that Azov is neither a paramilitary unit nor has any independence from the state, but that it is an integral part of official structures and that it follows orders given by the Interior Ministry.


Were you a John Conyers fan?
Remember him?

In March 2015 Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the Azov Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army troops in their Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[46][47] US training however was withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as US House of Representatives passed an amendment blocking any aid (including arms and training) to the battalion due to its neo-Nazi background.[48] After the vote Congressman John Conyers thanked the House saying

I am grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my amendments last night to ensure that our military does not train members of the repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, along with my measures to keep the dangerous and easily trafficked MANPADs out of these unstable regions.[47]
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
15,275
15,461
113
link

In 2010, the battalion’s founder, Andriy Biletsky, said that Ukraine ought to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans].”
...
Last month, Ukraine deported two American neo-Nazis associated with the US-based Atomwaffen Division who had attempted to set up a local branch of the group with Azov fighters to gain “combat experience.”
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
15,275
15,461
113
Everyone knows they are part of Putin’s “Little Green Men”, gang. They are not true Ukrainians.
@lucas80 can you point me to “everyone” confusing the Azov battalion with Putin’s ‘little green men’.

I’m wondering where you find this stuff, or if you just make it up.
 

Nat Algren

HR Legend
Nov 23, 2014
19,171
6,138
113
Biden doesn’t need any room to back up. Putin misread the situation. Perhaps because the internal situation in Russia is so horrible.
Yeah...because life in Ukraine = Disney World. Plus, Biden and Kamala have approval ratings in the crapper.

Why is Ukraine worth 1 drop of American blood?
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
15,275
15,461
113
Emphasizes once more the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur that ”any commemorative celebration of the Nazi regime, its allies and related organizations, whether official or unofficial, should be prohibited” by States


In the US we point and laugh at Nazis, but we don’t ban freedom of expression, even for the Nazis.
It’s one of the things that separates us from Nazis.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
15,275
15,461
113
Everyone knows they are part of Putin’s “Little Green Men”, gang. They are not true Ukrainians.
@lucas80 can you point me to “everyone” confusing the Azov battalion with Putin’s ‘little green men’.

I'd like to read the sources that inform your worldview.
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
15,518
15,787
113
I'm starting to think Putin will attack when Matt Gaetz is indicted. Both are imminent, right?
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
15,518
15,787
113
It would be nice if Biden, Dems, and Chis would worry as much about the US border as they did about Ukraine's border.
 
Nov 28, 2010
78,204
31,362
113
Maryland
It would be nice if Biden, Dems, and Chis would worry as much about the US border as they did about Ukraine's border.
Is a foreign army massing at any of our borders?

That said, I'm inclined to agree with you. We have work to do on our own borders, and the Ukraine situation seems overblown.

Then again, the Iraq WMD situation also seemed overblown, yet we went in after the war drums had been beaten for a number of months. I fear we are hearing that same drumbeat.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
90,935
113,006
113
It would be nice if Biden, Dems, and Chis would worry as much about the US border as they did about Ukraine's border.
These are the kind of posts that make people think you are a Trumper. There aren’t 100,000 drunken Russian soldiers at our border. If you want border solutions accept that there are lots of reasons why people are fleeing to the US, and we actually need some of them to get in.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
90,935
113,006
113
Yeah...because life in Ukraine = Disney World. Plus, Biden and Kamala have approval ratings in the crapper.

Why is Ukraine worth 1 drop of American blood?
Why is it worth Russian blood? It’s a sovereign nation.
 

Nat Algren

HR Legend
Nov 23, 2014
19,171
6,138
113
Why is it worth Russian blood? It’s a sovereign nation.
giphy.gif


It's under the thumb of Washington who overthrew the democratically elected, Yanukovych.

Russia drew their redline in 2008 with an e-mail to Bill Burns in February that Ukraine and Georgia will not join NATO. It was also part of the agreement for NATO NOT to move 1 inch to the east of Germany, The US/NATO, in its aggression, swallowed up 13 former Warsaw Pact members, pushing missiles closer to Russia's borders. But, remember, Russia is the aggressor. Only in Orwellian terms. After losing 27 Million lives during WW2 and Napolean invading, that's why it's worth Russian blood...for their own survival.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
90,935
113,006
113
It seems like Putin is backing down and slowly taking the offramp that Biden is providing. It would be moronic to invade Ukraine. Dead soldiers coming home. Money he can't afford to spend. And, the end result would be a few decades spent trying to pacify a large, sovereign nation, with NATO expanding as Poland, the Baltics, Finland... All ask for more troops and equipment to be stationed on their soil.
 
Nov 28, 2010
78,204
31,362
113
Maryland
It seems like Putin is backing down and slowly taking the offramp that Biden is providing. It would be moronic to invade Ukraine. Dead soldiers coming home. Money he can't afford to spend. And, the end result would be a few decades spent trying to pacify a large, sovereign nation, with NATO expanding as Poland, the Baltics, Finland... All ask for more troops and equipment to be stationed on their soil.
I doubt Putin wants to take all of Ukraine. Just more of it. More defensible borders. A buffer zone. Better control over the Black Sea.

Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't move in 2014. Probably not ready for anything that bold.

So . . . what parts of the Ukraine does Putin want most?

I suspect he wants all of Ukraine's coastline on the Sea of Azov. He probably wants all of Ukraine's Black sea coast, too, but that seems overly ambitious. It could explain the adventure in Odessa, though.