ALERT RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE - Consolidated Thread

onetimer

Veteran Member
UN-mandated inquiry concludes war crimes were committed in Ukraine - Reuters News

MORE - "Based on the evidence gathered by the Commission, it has concluded that war crimes have been committed in Ukraine," Erik Møse told the Geneva-based Human Rights Council

! MORE (2) - * Finds large number of executions with tied hands, slit throats and gunshot wounds to the head * Investigators identify victims of sexual violence aged between four and 82 years old. Children have been raped, tortured and unlawfully confined


twitter link

UN direct involvement steps
 

jward

passin' thru





FLASH
@Flash_news_ua
2m

⚡️
Zelenskyi is shocked by the lack of help from Israel, he said in an interview with Ouest-France. According to him, Israel has not provided any assistance to Ukraine to date, although it sells weapons to other countries.
 

northern watch

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Faytuks News Δ
@Faytuks


BREAKING: Russia plans to mobilize 1.2 million people, source tells Meduza


8:44 AM · Sep 23, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

View: https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1573307615610011650?s=20


Source close to Moscow’s leadership told Meduza that up to 16,000 people from the capital are slated to be drafted. Authorities in St. Petersburg plan to draft roughly 3,200 people, according to a source close to the Presidential Envoy to Russia’s Northwestern Federal District.
Russia has gone to full war mobilization. The kid gloves are coming off.
 

jward

passin' thru
Russia has gone to full war mobilization. The kid gloves are coming off.
I'm not fully confident in that quoted source, meduza, yet, simply because I've not seen them used previously...
...but all the blues clues keep leading back to a fuller mobilization. Then again, we went into this expecting full mobilization only for them to first suggest it was only partial, so, are we just where we thought we were two days ago?
:: shrug ::
 

jward

passin' thru

How Putin’s partial mobilization could backfire​


Jason Lyall

7-8 minutes



Facing battlefield setbacks, this week Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the partial mobilization of up to 300,000 reservists. Most analysts see this as a move to buy breathing space for his exhausted military — as well as appease critics in Russia who think the invasion has moved too slowly in Ukraine.
But the mobilization announcement may be a sign of weakness, not strength. A brilliantly executed Ukrainian counteroffensive near Kharkiv has recaptured nearly 2,300 square miles of Ukrainian land, freeing dozens of villages while inflicting heavy losses on a demoralized Russian army.
Six months into the war, an estimated 40,000 to 80,000 Russian soldiers are dead, wounded or have deserted. Some 6,200 military vehicles, among Russia’s most sophisticated, have been destroyed or abandoned. Deserters and refuseniks now make up an estimated 20 to 40 percent of some front-line units.
Will Russia’s partial mobilization succeed in stemming the tide and increase Russian military effectiveness? My research on the sources of military effectiveness suggests that’s unlikely.

The devil’s in the details​

Much depends on how widespread, and how quickly, the mobilization drive unfolds. Russian history offers few precedents, with only two mass mobilization drives, during World War I and II. The formidable Soviet-era mass mobilization system has atrophied over the past decade — instead, the Kremlin has sought to staff Russia’s wars with a mix of contract soldiers, short-service conscripts, mercenaries and local allies.
Historically, the Russian army trains its soldiers within their home units — but many battered units may be ill-equipped to train replacements. Public protests, draft-dodging and outright fleeing suggest that the hoped-for wave of 300,000 soldiers might be more of a trickle.

These new soldiers may not help much on the battlefield​

In the short term, the new measures might help Russia consolidate its new battlefield position. Most importantly, tucked inside this partial mobilization was an order suspending all short-term service contracts.
Seeking to plug gaps in its forces, the Russian army turned to short-term soldiers who signed lucrative contracts for four to six months of service. Now these soldiers can no longer leave service when their contract expires — or refuse to deploy to their units.
If the upcoming hastily scheduled staged referendums go through in Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, Russia will probably claim it can legally deploy Russian conscripts to these contested Ukrainian territories. Once winter sets in, mangled units might be rotated out, enabling them to rest and replenish their ranks (Russia typically leaves units in place until 50 to 60 percent of their original strength is lost).
But newly mobilized soldiers are likely to be poorly trained, their prior combat experience a distant memory. A high death rate among officers in the Russian army, in part because of deliberate Ukrainian targeting, has left Putin’s military without sufficient trainers.
In the race to master and implement the lessons of this war, the Ukrainians have surged far head. This means Russian troops will be facing skilled Ukrainian forces that have mastered the tenets of decentralized warfare by small, highly motivated and independent units.
Nor does Russia have the equipment stocks to make good on its losses. Ancient tanks cannibalized from Soviet-era stockpiles are already on the front lines; in many cases, the tanks are far older than their operators. If the best equipped and trained Russian forces couldn’t seize Kyiv or hold Kharkiv, it isn’t clear why this second wave would fare any better.

Will mobilization worsen Russia’s military problems?​

Partial mobilization risks exacerbating the structural problems inherent within the Russian military, along with military morale. The war has highlighted the importance of combat motivation and the huge disparity between Russian and Ukrainian will to fight. Contract soldiers are likely to resent being forced to fight beyond their contract end date, souring morale even further. Unsure of the war’s purpose, and keen to avoid harm, newly drafted soldiers are likely to be motivated more by survival than nationalism.
A surge of new soldiers also does little to fix Russia’s command structure. Less a military than a collection of warring tribes, the Russian army in Ukraine now comprises at least nine different organizations, including prisoner battalions, pro-Russian Chechens, local militia, the National Guard, regular army units and Wagner Group paramilitaries.
Without untangling the lines of authority, the infusion of additional soldiers seems highly likely to intensify squabbling across commands for resources — and worsen coordination and control problems. Of course, the greater the number of soldiers, the faster cascades of desertion and indiscipline might rip through the ranks. Russian commanders might find it necessary to divert incoming soldiers to the task of monitoring other soldiers, an eat-your-tail dynamic that would undermine Russia’s military goals in Ukraine.

Putin’s move is also a political gamble​

Putin’s partial mobilization is also politically risky. The “partial” nature of the mobilization risks the ire of his nationalist supporters, who could paint him as feckless. Meanwhile, any mobilization risks increasing opposition from those who have so far remained relatively silent about the war.
Does Putin have to worry? Russian leaders are only rarely overthrown after military defeat. Indeed, since 1800, Russia has lost 17 of the 49 conventional wars it has fought, but domestic opponents removed only two leaders.
But these undercurrents of opposition bear watching, especially if Putin decides to widen the social base of mobilized soldiers. To date, the war has been fought on the backs of non-Russians and poor Russians from regions far from the bright lights of Moscow and St. Petersburg. A move to alter regional quotas and draw from a more representative sample of Russian citizens might provoke the backlash Putin has been keen to avoid.
It’s also possible that the specter of a rebuilt Russian army creates incentives for Ukrainian leaders to redouble their efforts to seize additional territory now, before the window for offensive operations has closed. And Putin’s renewed commitment and nuclear threats may encourage Western allies to supply advanced weapons to Ukraine.
Partial mobilization, thus, is unlikely to deliver Russia any sort of real victory. But it will almost certainly prolong the war, allowing Russia to hang in the fight while grinding down Ukrainian forces. The cost of Putin's decree will be increased bloodshed and destruction over the coming weeks and months.

 

Abert

Veteran Member
Animation with casualties as to how things would go if the U.S. got nuked:

Excellent animation - everyone should check it out.
Without question NATO (US/UK) are working hard to somehow trigger an event that will allow direct (troops) to enter this conflict. That would likely put more pressure on Russia to send a STRONG signal - back off - with possible Tac Nukes on NATO bases - you can only poke the Bear so much - Russia has made it clear they will not go down without a fight!
At that point it is very likely the US would feel it is necessary to strike back (limited or full) - then game on. (review the animation in link)
Effectively the US would no longer exist - yes Russia would be hit HARD - but it is HUGE - 1.7 times the size of the US - many rural parts would be untouched.
Important to recall the US has no effective anti missile system - even if we did Russian Nukes are more advanced and they have more than we have. Russia has deployed advanced anti missile system around key cities - how effective they would be is unknown - but in addition they have extensive civilian shelter systems in place (and tested) - our CD systems are non existent.
Reports (valid) have stated there was a possible resolution to the conflict in April between Ukraine and Russia - but the US / UK killed it - the official position of the US it to keep this going and expand the conflict - the goal - total replacement of the current Russian Government - same game we have played with other nation for the last 50 years. But Russia is not some 3rd rate nation.
Without a clear change in US / UK policy this is only going to go one way!
 

Hfcomms

EN66iq
Russia has gone to full war mobilization. The kid gloves are coming off.

When all else fails they take you to war. The financial and economic systems are imploding and that is why this is being pushed so hard right now. GYSER!!

If you don’t have your crap squared away right frickin now get off TB2K and the computer and get it done. One second too late is too late.
 

jward

passin' thru

Faytuks News Δ
@Faytuks


BREAKING: Russia plans to mobilize 1.2 million people, source tells Meduza


8:44 AM · Sep 23, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

View: https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1573307615610011650?s=20


Source close to Moscow’s leadership told Meduza that up to 16,000 people from the capital are slated to be drafted. Authorities in St. Petersburg plan to draft roughly 3,200 people, according to a source close to the Presidential Envoy to Russia’s Northwestern Federal District.
Rob Lee
@RALee85
23m

"Russian authorities plan to conscript 1.2 million people for their 'partial mobilization,' Meduza has learned from a source close to one of the country’s federal ministries." Up to 16,000 people from Moscow are also slated to be drafted. https://meduza.io/en/feature/202

1663943849563.png
 

jward

passin' thru
I have already come to the conclusion that even if Putin picked up the phone right now and called someone in charge and offered to abandon Crimea there would still be nukes because it was part of the original plan.
But the puppeteers have to live in this world too; surely they don't fail to understand that they can only exert so much control from behind the curtain; this thing is well able, likely even, to spin out of their control in ways that NONE of us can live with

Perhaps I just never give people enough credit for how stoopid they can be?!
 

jward

passin' thru
Disclose.tv
@disclosetv


JUST IN - First nuclear reactor in Belgium will be shut down today despite high power prices due to a law on nuclear phase-out.


9:38 AM · Sep 23, 2022·Twitter Web App



~~~~~~~~~~



Orxu6R3w_normal.jpg


Zion Lights
@ziontree
· Feb 27

This is huge. Dominique Reynié: "We found that Gazprom funded environmental NGOs that provided ministers to various governments, such as Belgium, which then advocated abandoning nuclear power". Gazprom is a Russian-owned gas corporation. Less nuclear = more gas. twitter.com/KaplanBen_Fr/s…
Show this thread
 

raven

Has No Life - Lives on TB
But the puppeteers have to live in this world too; surely they don't fail to understand that they can only exert so much control from behind the curtain; this thing is well able, likely even, to spin out of their control in ways that NONE of us can live with

Perhaps I just never give people enough credit for how stoopid they can be?!
This is where the intuitive part of being an INTJ comes into play. It isn't the pesky details of day to day warfare.
It is in the endgame.
In the endgame, it isn't possible for Russia to conquer Europe. They have neither the population, nor the GDP, nor the industrial capability to conquer Europe. Europe's population is 4 times that of Russia. Russian GDP is 10% of Europe.

In the endgame, it is not sufficient for Europe to simply liberate Ukraine. Europe MUST have Russia's fossil fuel. Without it, they have no economy. Europe must extinguish Russia politically and take the gas. Unless you think that Russia will simply give it up.

Do you believe that Ukrainian freedom is going to put fuel in the engine of the European economy?
 

northern watch

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Another piece of the puzzle from Judicial Watch.org

Another “Open Letter” Warning to Americans

By Chris Farrell
September 22 2022


We now have another “Open Letter” – claiming America is “an exceptionally challenging civil-military environment” — signed by 8 former U.S. defense secretaries and 5 former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff. The letter is published by “War on the Rocks” a website advertising itself as “National Security. For insiders. By insiders.” The September 6, 2022 commentary is titled, “To Support And Defend: Principles Of Civilian Control And Best Practices Of Civil-Military Relations.”

Why a letter like this and why now? Who instigated the effort to make this pronouncement? Are we supposed to believe the letter was just “spontaneous?” Was the Open Letter coordinated with the General Mark Milley at the Pentagon or maybe the Biden White House? Cui bono?

The letter comes five days on the heels of President Biden declaring, “MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law,” and condemning half the American electorate as “represent[ing] an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

Does anyone believe this is a coincidence? Just happenstance?

Such an “Open Letter” is typically used by the elites in the national policy arena as a public signal for something to come. Something bigger. Perhaps even something a lot weirder than normal. “Thought leaders” are framing the public debate. The authors are trying to make a point, and their effort is so extraordinary and unprovoked that it arouses suspicion.

It is a reasonable suspicion. Do you remember how the National School Board Association “actively engaged”with the White House before asking the feds to investigate outspoken parents as domestic terrorists? Yes, that is exactly the sort of coordination we should consider. Journalists should pursue that line of questioning, but they will not.

Remember another instance when a group of former U.S. government “experts” got together for an Open Letter. That was when 51 former intelligence officials lied to the entire country about the validity of all the lurid, corrupt details on Hunter Biden’s laptop saying it was all Russian disinformation. All 51 were wrong. The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop were even worse than originally described, but the “experts” had already unlawfully influenced the outcome of an election.

The September 2022 Open Letter reads largely like a West Point or ROTC lesson plan for first-year cadets. It is essentially a civics lesson with an introduction and 16 enumerated points. Strong emphasis is placed on the legality of orders. There are a few interesting observations by the experts that require our attention to fully understand the subtext.

  • “… the U.S. military must simultaneously come to terms with wars that ended without all the goals satisfactorily accomplished…”
Analysis: The U.S. has not achieved a clear, decisive war victory in 77 years. The military leaders authoring this letter are largely responsible for that record and would like you to come to terms with their failures.

  • “Politically, military professionals confront an extremely adverse environment characterized by the divisiveness of affective polarization that culminated in the first election in over a century when the peaceful transfer of political power was disrupted and in doubt.”
Analysis: The peaceful transfer of power was never legitimately in doubt. That claim is an overwrought, hyperbolic canard advanced for political purposes. The authors’ message is that Trump supporters are the problem. Remember: No Trump supporters, no problem. Understand?

  • “Looking ahead, all of these factors could well get worse before they get better.”
Analysis: The groundwork is being laid for the public acceptance that there are a number of other disruptive factors caused by the Biden administration’s failing policies that could get worse: inflation, energy costs, the border crisis, record murder and crime rates, etc.

  • “Mutual trust … that civilian leaders will rigorously explore alternatives … regardless of the implications for partisan politics … that the military will faithfully implement directives that run counter to their professional military preference — helps overcome the friction built into this process …”
  • “There are significant limits on the public role of military personnel in partisan politics … Members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private views … Military and civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping the military separate from partisan political activity.”
Analysis: Ironically, these two paragraphs should serve as an indictment of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley, whose egregious subversion is the most treasonous conduct since Benedict Arnold. Unfortunately they will be twisted to justify and bolster his unlawful conduct.

What is the real message conveyed by this Open Letter from former senior military leaders?

What is their warning and what do they want? Write and speak plainly. Have the guts to “just say it out loud.” Are they worried Trump will be reelected in 2024? Are they as worried about the sustained, extreme, militant, violence and destruction of Antifa and BLM as they are the January 6th protests? What about Milley’s phone calls to his Communist Chinese counterpart? Does that meet their civics lesson test? The “Open Letter” is anything but “open.”

 

DuckandCover

Proud Sheeple
This is where the intuitive part of being an INTJ comes into play. It isn't the pesky details of day to day warfare.
It is in the endgame.
In the endgame, it isn't possible for Russia to conquer Europe. They have neither the population, nor the GDP, nor the industrial capability to conquer Europe. Europe's population is 4 times that of Russia. Russian GDP is 10% of Europe.

In the endgame, it is not sufficient for Europe to simply liberate Ukraine. Europe MUST have Russia's fossil fuel. Without it, they have no economy. Europe must extinguish Russia politically and take the gas. Unless you think that Russia will simply give it up.

Do you believe that Ukrainian freedom is going to put fuel in the engine of the European economy?

My simplistic and naive thinking is...... why not just continue to purchase the gas from Russia instead trying to TAKE it from them? Much simpler and less bloodshed. Win for both parties.

But, I don't believe Europe is helping Ukraine so they can steal Russia's gas. My thinking is that Europe is afraid that if Russia conquers Ukraine, they (at least part of 'they') may be next. This has happened before. Better to fight somewhere else than on ones own homeland.
 

northern watch

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Another piece of the puzzle from Judicial Watch.org

Another “Open Letter” Warning to Americans

By Chris Farrell
September 22 2022


We now have another “Open Letter” – claiming America is “an exceptionally challenging civil-military environment” — signed by 8 former U.S. defense secretaries and 5 former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff. The letter is published by “War on the Rocks” a website advertising itself as “National Security. For insiders. By insiders.” The September 6, 2022 commentary is titled, “To Support And Defend: Principles Of Civilian Control And Best Practices Of Civil-Military Relations.”

Why a letter like this and why now? Who instigated the effort to make this pronouncement? Are we supposed to believe the letter was just “spontaneous?” Was the Open Letter coordinated with the General Mark Milley at the Pentagon or maybe the Biden White House? Cui bono?

The letter comes five days on the heels of President Biden declaring, “MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law,” and condemning half the American electorate as “represent[ing] an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

Does anyone believe this is a coincidence? Just happenstance?

Such an “Open Letter” is typically used by the elites in the national policy arena as a public signal for something to come. Something bigger. Perhaps even something a lot weirder than normal. “Thought leaders” are framing the public debate. The authors are trying to make a point, and their effort is so extraordinary and unprovoked that it arouses suspicion.

It is a reasonable suspicion. Do you remember how the National School Board Association “actively engaged”with the White House before asking the feds to investigate outspoken parents as domestic terrorists? Yes, that is exactly the sort of coordination we should consider. Journalists should pursue that line of questioning, but they will not.

Remember another instance when a group of former U.S. government “experts” got together for an Open Letter. That was when 51 former intelligence officials lied to the entire country about the validity of all the lurid, corrupt details on Hunter Biden’s laptop saying it was all Russian disinformation. All 51 were wrong. The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop were even worse than originally described, but the “experts” had already unlawfully influenced the outcome of an election.

The September 2022 Open Letter reads largely like a West Point or ROTC lesson plan for first-year cadets. It is essentially a civics lesson with an introduction and 16 enumerated points. Strong emphasis is placed on the legality of orders. There are a few interesting observations by the experts that require our attention to fully understand the subtext.

  • “… the U.S. military must simultaneously come to terms with wars that ended without all the goals satisfactorily accomplished…”
Analysis: The U.S. has not achieved a clear, decisive war victory in 77 years. The military leaders authoring this letter are largely responsible for that record and would like you to come to terms with their failures.

  • “Politically, military professionals confront an extremely adverse environment characterized by the divisiveness of affective polarization that culminated in the first election in over a century when the peaceful transfer of political power was disrupted and in doubt.”
Analysis: The peaceful transfer of power was never legitimately in doubt. That claim is an overwrought, hyperbolic canard advanced for political purposes. The authors’ message is that Trump supporters are the problem. Remember: No Trump supporters, no problem. Understand?

  • “Looking ahead, all of these factors could well get worse before they get better.”
Analysis: The groundwork is being laid for the public acceptance that there are a number of other disruptive factors caused by the Biden administration’s failing policies that could get worse: inflation, energy costs, the border crisis, record murder and crime rates, etc.

  • “Mutual trust … that civilian leaders will rigorously explore alternatives … regardless of the implications for partisan politics … that the military will faithfully implement directives that run counter to their professional military preference — helps overcome the friction built into this process …”
  • “There are significant limits on the public role of military personnel in partisan politics … Members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private views … Military and civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping the military separate from partisan political activity.”
Analysis: Ironically, these two paragraphs should serve as an indictment of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley, whose egregious subversion is the most treasonous conduct since Benedict Arnold. Unfortunately they will be twisted to justify and bolster his unlawful conduct.

What is the real message conveyed by this Open Letter from former senior military leaders?

What is their warning and what do they want? Write and speak plainly. Have the guts to “just say it out loud.” Are they worried Trump will be reelected in 2024? Are they as worried about the sustained, extreme, militant, violence and destruction of Antifa and BLM as they are the January 6th protests? What about Milley’s phone calls to his Communist Chinese counterpart? Does that meet their civics lesson test? The “Open Letter” is anything but “open.”

How do you understand the letter, is it preparing the US for martial law which most certainly will be put into effect upon war with Russia?
 

CaryC

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Everyone has an opinion, so do I. My opinion:

1) Now that the eastern areas have voted to join Russia....
2) Russia will annex them and they will be a part of Russia/Russian soil....
3) the call up is to defend those new Russian territories/and clean them out of non-Russians.....
4) and other than that the war in Ukraine is done, like it or not....
5) the war/cold war with europe will continue through gas and oil....
6) to take better control and inflict more pain on europe, Russia's next move will be south
7) to take control of the oil and gas pipelines located in the middle east. More pain for Europe. They will have partners in this move.

Some will bring up Turkey being a NATO country, but they have never been totally in, or totally out of NATO. And with Russia taking control of the world's oil and gas, they can read the hand writing on the wall, and will side with Russia for survival purposes.

And I would note that Russia doesn't literally have to conquer the Middle East just be the controlling interest in who gets what, from the middle east.
 

raven

Has No Life - Lives on TB
My simplistic and naive thinking is...... why not just continue to purchase the gas from Russia instead trying to TAKE it from them? Much simpler and less bloodshed. Win for both parties.

But, I don't believe Europe is helping Ukraine so they can steal Russia's gas. My thinking is that Europe is afraid that if Russia conquers Ukraine, they (at least part of 'they') may be next. This has happened before. Better to fight somewhere else than on ones own homeland.
I completely agree with you.
It is simplistic and naive thinking
 

Paladin1

"In Omnia Paratus" is more than just a phrase
Everyone has an opinion, so do I. My opinion:

1) Now that the eastern areas have voted to join Russia....
2) Russia will annex them and they will be a part of Russia/Russian soil....
3) the call up is to defend those new Russian territories/and clean them out of non-Russians.....
4) and other than that the war in Ukraine is done, like it or not....
5) the war/cold war with europe will continue through gas and oil....
6) to take better control and inflict more pain on europe, Russia's next move will be south
7) to take control of the oil and gas pipelines located in the middle east. More pain for Europe. They will have partners in this move.

Some will bring up Turkey being a NATO country, but they have never been totally in, or totally out of NATO. And with Russia taking control of the world's oil and gas, they can read the hand writing on the wall, and will side with Russia for survival purposes.

And I would note that Russia doesn't literally have to conquer the Middle East just be the controlling interest in who gets what, from the middle east.
Shades of "Have you come to take a spoil?"
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
I'm not fully confident in that quoted source, meduza, yet, simply because I've not seen them used previously...
...but all the blues clues keep leading back to a fuller mobilization. Then again, we went into this expecting full mobilization only for them to first suggest it was only partial, so, are we just where we thought we were two days ago?
:: shrug ::
Putin and his camp pushed this through the Duma based on certain agreements/expectations then proceeded to break those agreements immediately.

My sense is that his intention is to act as quickly as he can and hard as he can before either Ukraine can act or the Duma try to remove him. He is hoping that a swift victory will provide him cover for all the ****ery he has perpetrated to get to this point.

I don't think it's going to work out that way. This is very, very dangerous.
 
Last edited:

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
EndGameWW3
@EndGameWW3
·
10m

If Putin believes the Oligarchs or his people will hang his ass if he loses this war then this guy has nothing to lose by starting a nuclear war. Nobody thought Hitler would do the things he did either in the beginning stages of the war.
Yep. The decisions Hitler made were irrational in the worldwide view, but fit logically with his sense of self-preservation and mania of certainly about what he thought the world should be. He was not a businessman, he was a philosopher and a politician with a serious Machiavellian streak. He didn't process things through a filter we recognize.

Putin has been generally more rational, but that is fading in the face of opposition he didn't expect. His actions are increasingly driven by a finite timetable, and he is not allowing for exit strategies outside of total victory.
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
No, the threat against Russian territorial integrity is not necessarily Western nukes. The big (yuge) issue is that the two disputed regions that Putin wants to absorb are not going to be viewed by the Ukrainians as Russian territory just because Russia says so. These regions are in an active war zone, plus Ukraine would likely fight to keep them even if they were not. From Russia's newly-minted point of view on the matter, such an attempt by the Ukraine to retain/regain that territory would therefore be a threat against Russian territorial integrity. Nukes from the West don't have to be involved. Just retaliation.

You ready for Russia to nuke the Ukraine and God knows who else because they claim that they absorbed two chunks of the Ukraine? That's where this leads. Russia wants either an easy victory, or barring that, a self-manufactured validation to drop nukes on folks.
That isn't what Putin said, at all.

And, TBH, We have sent Ukraine tens of Billions of dollars and 21 shipments out of our personal weapons stocks. We have depleted our national treasury and our national defense... Enough! We have endangered our own security, for what?

I'm sorry but much like Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think Ukraine is worth a single U.S. soldier's life.

We could have ended this in April. Putin agreed to withdraw as long as Ukraine did not seek NATO entrance. The Biden criminal cartel said, "no", because they wanted to weaken Russia's military.

1663953635640.png

Yes... I can't imagine why Russia would be, at all, concerned about Ukraine joining NATO...

This whole war was avoidable and is bullshit. I stand with neither side and I sure don't agree with the Biden policy of prolonging this war a second longer.
 

Walrus

Veteran Member
We could have ended this in April. Putin agreed to withdraw as long as Ukraine did not seek NATO entrance. The Biden criminal cartel said, "no", because they wanted to weaken Russia's military.
What galls me are the recent admissions about how incredibly close Russia and Ukraine were to signing a peace agreement in Turkey back then, until Bojo the Clown was sent to Kiev to tell Zelensky not to sign anything (the main crux is that Crimea's status as Russia was fixed, Ukraine wouldn't join NATO and it would abide by the Minsk II agreement (which was authored by the French and Germans).

And it was all because our US clown leadership wanted to weaken not only Russia's military but to destroy its economy with sanctions. We're seeing how that has turned out with the ongoing de-industrialization of Germany as well as the ongoing pattern of EU governments failing.

In the meantime, tens of thousands of young men have needlessly died, millions are headed for a huge winter kill due to not having heat and our clowns are doing victory dances when they're not lost trying to exit stage left. Did you notice who was sitting behind the stooge Blinken at the UN? Why, none other than Victoria Nuland, the architect of this whole mess since 2014.

This has gotten to the point where someone as goofy as Macron is now sounding like a world-class peacemaker statesman.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
That isn't what Putin said, at all.

And, TBH, We have sent Ukraine tens of Billions of dollars and 21 shipments out of our personal weapons stocks. We have depleted our national treasury and our national defense... Enough! We have endangered our own security, for what?

I'm sorry but much like Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think Ukraine is worth a single U.S. soldier's life.

We could have ended this in April. Putin agreed to withdraw as long as Ukraine did not seek NATO entrance. The Biden criminal cartel said, "no", because they wanted to weaken Russia's military.

View attachment 365813

Yes... I can't imagine why Russia would be, at all, concerned about Ukraine joining NATO...

This whole war was avoidable and is bullshit. I stand with neither side and I sure don't agree with the Biden policy of prolonging this war a second longer.
Russia invading Ukraine to force them to not join NATO is explicitly Sovietesque. You can try to sugar coat it, but it doesn't stick. Russia can be concerned about NATO expansion all it wants, and they may even have a valid gripe, but trying to carve away pieces of another country in response only validates why a country would enter the alliance. PUTIN could have done many other things to avoid this, could have hardened Russia's border, frozen business ties, levied tariffs, etc. and not prosecuted a war on its neighbor.

This does not excuse what Biden or Zelinsky have done together or separately, its just irrelevant to the righteousness of Putin's actions.

As for what Putin's camp has said, it DID NOT say "you nuke us, we nuke you" they said if someone violated their sovereignty they reserved the right to respond in any way and at any level they wished, including nuclear.

If the referendum is judged by Russia to have carved away the pieces of Ukraine and made them parts of Russia, any action taken by Ukraine or anyone else to defend them as Ukrainian will be considered a breach of Russian sovereignty in Putin's view.

This is a fait accompli that is engineered to provide a rationale for further, stronger military action by Russia. The conscription actions, including the breach of agreements within the Russian government itself, and the rapid failure of diplomatic finesse on Lavrov's part show that the fait accompli is expected to be successful.
 
Last edited:

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
What galls me are the recent admissions about how incredibly close Russia and Ukraine were to signing a peace agreement in Turkey back then, until Bojo the Clown was sent to Kiev to tell Zelensky not to sign anything (the main crux is that Crimea's status as Russia was fixed, Ukraine wouldn't join NATO and it would abide by the Minsk II agreement (which was authored by the French and Germans).

And it was all because our US clown leadership wanted to weaken not only Russia's military but to destroy its economy with sanctions. We're seeing how that has turned out with the ongoing de-industrialization of Germany as well as the ongoing pattern of EU governments failing.

In the meantime, tens of thousands of young men have needlessly died, millions are headed for a huge winter kill due to not having heat and our clowns are doing victory dances when they're not lost trying to exit stage left. Did you notice who was sitting behind the stooge Blinken at the UN? Why, none other than Victoria Nuland, the architect of this whole mess since 2014.

This has gotten to the point where someone as goofy as Macron is now sounding like a world-class peacemaker statesman.
Now this meddling I can definitely understand being pissed off about. If Russia and Ukraine were working out a deal, that's up to them, we should have stayed out of it. Regardless, the failure (or sabotage) of such a deal is not carte blanche for Russia to roll into Ukraine.
 

Walrus

Veteran Member
Now this meddling I can definitely understand being pissed off about. If Russia and Ukraine were working out a deal, that's up to them, we should have stayed out of it. Regardless, the failure (or sabotage) of such a deal is not carte blanche for Russia to roll into Ukraine.
Agreed.

The only sticking point is that at the time this agreement was being polished up, Russia had already rolled into Ukraine. Their main contribution to the agreement was that they agreed to withdraw (don't get me to lying about where they'd agreed to withdraw to, I simply don't remember that detail). They might've not agreed to withdraw from the LPR and DPR, for instance, but I'm reasonably certain that they would've withdrawn from southern Ukraine (Kherson oblast) and eastern Ukraine (the Azov Sea coastline).

Instead, Zelensky will ultimately be remembered as the president who lost a minimum of 5 oblasts (which is kind of a misnomer as Crimea was already annexed) instead of just "losing" one. And that blood is on our (NATO's) hands as much as anyone's. And that shed blood already has some American blood mixed in with it.
 
Top