movielover said:

---

Crimea was long ago and Obama was a weak leader, hence Putin pounced.

---

So that means Ukraine should just let them take more territory now? Your argument makes no sense.

movielover said:

---

But it could have all been prevented. Notice this didn't happen when POTUS Trump was in office?

Ukraine appears to be pawns, and we appear to be fighting an enemy from 1980. The end result may be a crippled Ukraine.

If Ukraine is taking heavy losses in our proxy war, how does our Deep State take a loss and save face?

---

We are not fighting any enemy. We are arming a free people who themselves are fighting for their own country and lives.

movielover said:

---

Any truth to Zelensky being well paid (off), and holding property in Florida?

---

Zelensky's net worth is in the half billion dollar range, he got where he is by being Kolomoisky's gopher in Ukrainian mainstream politics. Kolomoisky is your typical post-Soviet oligarch/thug, who muscled in on state industries, banks (Privaatbank) and media outlets, shrewdly funding far right militias, which he used as his enforcers, including Azov and the Dnipro brigades. He was at one point the governor of Dniepropetrosk province.

Kolomoisky funded Zelensky, and build him up as a political personality, in a heavily promoted show that featured Z. as a common man taking on their corrupt establishment. In the show, he was head of a grassroots party called Servant of the People. It was kind of a lower-brow version of the West Wing TV show. This was used to build a very well-funded real life political campaign for Zelensky using the same persona and party name as in the fictional series, in a remarkable bit of mass media predictive programming.



Kolomoisky fell out of favor as the US-backed government wanted to maintain a modicum of international respect, so he went into exile in Switzerland, then Israel, though he still maintains business ties with Zelensky. Zelensky allegedly bought a $30 million mansion in Miami. His purchase of a $5 million Tuscan beach resort villa is better documented, he has also allegedly purchased a $8 million property for his parents in Tel Aviv. This is not the kind of purchase he would have made on his comedian or president salary. You also have his wife dropping $40,000 in just one Parisian boutique last month, a spending pattern which confirms his 9-figure wealth.

https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-reveal-offshore-holdings-of-ukrainian-president-and-his-inner-circle

Quote:

---

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky rode to power on pledges to clean up the Eastern European country, but the Pandora Papers reveal he and his close circle were the beneficiaries of a network of offshore companies, including some that owned expensive London property.
Key Findings

• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his partners in comedy production owned a network of offshore companies related to their business based in the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Belize.
• Zelensky's current chief aide, Serhiy Shefir, as well as the head of the country's Security Service, were part of the offshore network.
• Offshore companies were used by Shefir and another business partner to buy pricey London real estate.
• Around the time of his 2019 election, Zelensky handed his shares in a key offshore company over to Shefir, but the two appear to have made an arrangement for Zelensky's family to continue receiving money from the offshore.

Actor Volodymyr Zelensky stormed to the Ukrainian presidency in 2019 on a wave of public anger against the country's political class, including previous leaders who used secret companies to stash their wealth overseas.

Now, leaked documents prove that Zelensky and his inner circle have had their own network of offshore companies. Two belonging to the president's partners were used to buy expensive property in London.

The revelations come from documents in the Pandora Papers, millions of files from 14 offshore service providers leaked to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and shared with partners around the world including OCCRP.

The documents show that Zelensky and his partners in a television production company, Kvartal 95, set up a network of offshore firms dating back to at least 2012, the year the company began making regular content for TV stations owned by Ihor Kolomoisky, an oligarch dogged by allegations of multi-billion-dollar fraud. The offshores were also used by Zelensky associates to purchase and own three prime properties in the center of London.

---

https://www.axios.com/2021/10/05/pandora-papers-politicians-countries

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

smh said:

---

snapshot from the dark side..

Phosphorus bombs are outlawed by the Geneva Convention but they rained on Ukraine this Christmas.
Republicans who support Russians are war criminals.

pic.twitter.com/N0GyjSg8VA

— Duty To Warn 🔉 (@duty2warn) December 26, 2022

^ click pic for bigger

---

Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes because they both don't care about humans and have shown repeated failure with military on military engagement.

Sadly, when prominent politicians criticize their propensity for war crimes, they find themselves falling out of windows. Defenestration is easily the top cause of death for billionaires in Russia. Maybe the GOP will argue that we should get rid of windows in addition to doors in schools since all lives matter.

Yeah, nothing suspicious here at all. https://t.co/gVZsJbPAcf

— Jo 🌻 (@JoJoFromJerz) December 26, 2022

---

You say this is a war crime. Cal88 does not. Who is right?

---

To be clear, I was speaking to Russia's reliance on war crimes writ large, not specifically the incident which smh shared. Lol to anyone who still relies on Cal88 for factual information in this thread given how wrong he's been for the past 10 months. I continue to urge people to invite him, not to read his posts or to respond to them ever since all of those things just encourage his spread of Kremlin propaganda and other disinformation.

There has been a lot of chatter about Russia's use of phosphorus bombs in violation of the Geneva Convention, for which he's never indicated any desire to adhere to, but I don't know whether this particular incident was a violation. Putin has overseen the commission of numerous war crimes during this campaign so far and there is no reason to think they won't continue, even more so because Russia's conventional military force continues to woefully underperform. As much as people like to say that the US and NATO have prolonged this war, everyone who isn't a Kremlin propagandist knows that Russia is and has been Ukraine's top arms supplier, predominantly from weapons left behind by fleeing Kremlin forces. There is a reason the apologists try to use smoke and mirrors to hide how poorly this war is going for their hero Putin.

Furthermore, I don't think Putin murdering his fellow kleptocrat politicians in order to stifle dissent and advance his fascist control is a war crime although it's obviously a crime (I mean except in corrupt sh)thole petrostates like Russia where the authoritarian regime has no checks).

---

You were wrong here, but in other instances they have committed war crimes. Got it.

---

Reading comprehension and logic have never been your strong suit so no one is surprised by your inability to comprehend a fairly simple statement. I quite literally did not weigh in on that specific reputed use of phosphorus bombs (and I still haven't). There have been many allegations of Russia specifically using phosphorus in violation of Geneva, which would be consistent with their overall philosophy of relying on war crimes because their conventional military is garbage.

I would offer to bet you, but we all know how that will go.

---

U2: "Oh, I didn't absolutely say that that was a war crime! I simply replied to a tweet claiming phosphorous bombs are illegal and Russia used them in Christmas with the statement, 'Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes.' That's is all I did. Don't read into it and think I was saying this was a war crime!"

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

smh said:

---

snapshot from the dark side..

Phosphorus bombs are outlawed by the Geneva Convention but they rained on Ukraine this Christmas.
Republicans who support Russians are war criminals.

pic.twitter.com/N0GyjSg8VA

— Duty To Warn 🔉 (@duty2warn) December 26, 2022

^ click pic for bigger

---

Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes because they both don't care about humans and have shown repeated failure with military on military engagement.

Sadly, when prominent politicians criticize their propensity for war crimes, they find themselves falling out of windows. Defenestration is easily the top cause of death for billionaires in Russia. Maybe the GOP will argue that we should get rid of windows in addition to doors in schools since all lives matter.

Yeah, nothing suspicious here at all. https://t.co/gVZsJbPAcf

— Jo 🌻 (@JoJoFromJerz) December 26, 2022

---

You say this is a war crime. Cal88 does not. Who is right?

---

To be clear, I was speaking to Russia's reliance on war crimes writ large, not specifically the incident which smh shared. Lol to anyone who still relies on Cal88 for factual information in this thread given how wrong he's been for the past 10 months. I continue to urge people to invite him, not to read his posts or to respond to them ever since all of those things just encourage his spread of Kremlin propaganda and other disinformation.

There has been a lot of chatter about Russia's use of phosphorus bombs in violation of the Geneva Convention, for which he's never indicated any desire to adhere to, but I don't know whether this particular incident was a violation. Putin has overseen the commission of numerous war crimes during this campaign so far and there is no reason to think they won't continue, even more so because Russia's conventional military force continues to woefully underperform. As much as people like to say that the US and NATO have prolonged this war, everyone who isn't a Kremlin propagandist knows that Russia is and has been Ukraine's top arms supplier, predominantly from weapons left behind by fleeing Kremlin forces. There is a reason the apologists try to use smoke and mirrors to hide how poorly this war is going for their hero Putin.

Furthermore, I don't think Putin murdering his fellow kleptocrat politicians in order to stifle dissent and advance his fascist control is a war crime although it's obviously a crime (I mean except in corrupt sh)thole petrostates like Russia where the authoritarian regime has no checks).

---

You were wrong here, but in other instances they have committed war crimes. Got it.

---

Reading comprehension and logic have never been your strong suit so no one is surprised by your inability to comprehend a fairly simple statement. I quite literally did not weigh in on that specific reputed use of phosphorus bombs (and I still haven't). There have been many allegations of Russia specifically using phosphorus in violation of Geneva, which would be consistent with their overall philosophy of relying on war crimes because their conventional military is garbage.

I would offer to bet you, but we all know how that will go.

---

U2: "Oh, I didn't absolutely say that that was a war crime! I simply replied to a tweet claiming phosphorous bombs are illegal and Russia used them in Christmas with the statement, 'Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes.' That's is all I did. Don't read into it and think I was saying this was a war crime!"

---

Low energy troll is back in service of a pointless argument. Use of phosphorus bombs can be in violation of Geneva convention depending on proximity to civilians. Because of how incendiary phosphorus is, it's pretty tightly regulated although not completely banned. We have good reason to believe that Putin's use of phosphorus bombs in Ukraine has resulted in war crimes but I don't know whether and to what extent the recent bombings in the tweet were war crimes.

Please continue your content less trolling. Everyone really enjoys your contributions here and elsewhere.

tequila4kapp said:

---

movielover said:

---

But it could have all been prevented. Notice this didn't happen when POTUS Trump was in office?

Ukraine appears to be pawns, and we appear to be fighting an enemy from 1980. The end result may be a crippled Ukraine.

If Ukraine is taking heavy losses in our proxy war, how does our Deep State take a loss and save face?

---

We are not fighting any enemy. We are arming a free people who themselves are fighting for their own country and lives.

---

War by proxy.

Though there has been an ever-increasing number of "advisers". American, British and Polish boots on the ground, fairly reminiscent of the Vietnam war buildup.

The Patriot battery is going to be manned by NATO contractors, a crew of about 100. Polish troops have already incurred well over 1,000 KIA. So there's your mission creep...

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

smh said:

---

snapshot from the dark side..

Phosphorus bombs are outlawed by the Geneva Convention but they rained on Ukraine this Christmas.
Republicans who support Russians are war criminals.

pic.twitter.com/N0GyjSg8VA

— Duty To Warn 🔉 (@duty2warn) December 26, 2022

^ click pic for bigger

---

Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes because they both don't care about humans and have shown repeated failure with military on military engagement.

Sadly, when prominent politicians criticize their propensity for war crimes, they find themselves falling out of windows. Defenestration is easily the top cause of death for billionaires in Russia. Maybe the GOP will argue that we should get rid of windows in addition to doors in schools since all lives matter.

Yeah, nothing suspicious here at all. https://t.co/gVZsJbPAcf

— Jo 🌻 (@JoJoFromJerz) December 26, 2022

---

You say this is a war crime. Cal88 does not. Who is right?

---

To be clear, I was speaking to Russia's reliance on war crimes writ large, not specifically the incident which smh shared. Lol to anyone who still relies on Cal88 for factual information in this thread given how wrong he's been for the past 10 months. I continue to urge people to invite him, not to read his posts or to respond to them ever since all of those things just encourage his spread of Kremlin propaganda and other disinformation.

There has been a lot of chatter about Russia's use of phosphorus bombs in violation of the Geneva Convention, for which he's never indicated any desire to adhere to, but I don't know whether this particular incident was a violation. Putin has overseen the commission of numerous war crimes during this campaign so far and there is no reason to think they won't continue, even more so because Russia's conventional military force continues to woefully underperform. As much as people like to say that the US and NATO have prolonged this war, everyone who isn't a Kremlin propagandist knows that Russia is and has been Ukraine's top arms supplier, predominantly from weapons left behind by fleeing Kremlin forces. There is a reason the apologists try to use smoke and mirrors to hide how poorly this war is going for their hero Putin.

Furthermore, I don't think Putin murdering his fellow kleptocrat politicians in order to stifle dissent and advance his fascist control is a war crime although it's obviously a crime (I mean except in corrupt sh)thole petrostates like Russia where the authoritarian regime has no checks).

---

You were wrong here, but in other instances they have committed war crimes. Got it.

---

Reading comprehension and logic have never been your strong suit so no one is surprised by your inability to comprehend a fairly simple statement. I quite literally did not weigh in on that specific reputed use of phosphorus bombs (and I still haven't). There have been many allegations of Russia specifically using phosphorus in violation of Geneva, which would be consistent with their overall philosophy of relying on war crimes because their conventional military is garbage.

I would offer to bet you, but we all know how that will go.

---

U2: "Oh, I didn't absolutely say that that was a war crime! I simply replied to a tweet claiming phosphorous bombs are illegal and Russia used them in Christmas with the statement, 'Unfortunately, Russia continues to rely on war crimes.' That's is all I did. Don't read into it and think I was saying this was a war crime!"

---

Low energy troll is back in service of a pointless argument. Use of phosphorus bombs can be in violation of Geneva convention depending on proximity to civilians. Because of how incendiary phosphorus is, it's pretty tightly regulated although not completely banned. We have good reason to believe that Putin's use of phosphorus bombs in Ukraine has resulted in war crimes but I don't know whether and to what extent the recent bombings in the tweet were war crimes.

Please continue your content less trolling. Everyone really enjoys your contributions here and elsewhere.

---

You don't like my contributions because I call your bull***** I clearly have views on things, which are consistent and I voice them. There are many topics, such as this one, in which I am learning. Please don't muddle the topic with your noncommittal misleading statements. Let's try to keep this a genuine discussion.

movielover said:

---

Any estimate on how many SBU brownshirts exist?

These 3-4 Nazi regiments - any estimate of their size, & do they coordinate much?

---

30,000 is the common figure. They also keep trusted ideologically correct troop garrisons in Kiev and strategic big cities like Odessa, Dnipro and Kharkov to keep an eye on and take out any potential rebels.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/ukraine/sbu.htm

As far as your question above on source I use, Col. Jacques Baud (pronouned Bo) really helped me understand the real situation early on. Baud is a Swiss army colonel who was the main analyst for Switzerland on EE, he worked extensively with NATO, here's how he describes his background:

"I have a master's degree in Econometrics and postgraduate diplomas in International Relations and in International Security from the Graduate Institute for International relations in Geneva (Switzerland). I worked as strategic intelligence officer in the Swiss Department of Defense, and was in charge of the Warsaw Pact armed forces, including those deployed abroad (such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Angola, etc.)

I attended intelligence training in the UK and in the US. Just after the end of the Cold War, I headed for a few years a unit in the Swiss Defense Research and Procurement Agency. During the Rwanda War, because of my military and intelligence background, I was sent to the Democratic Republic of Congo as security adviser to prevent ethnic cleansing in the Rwandan refugee camps.

During my time in the intelligence service, I was in touch with the Afghan resistance movement of Ahmed Shah Masood, and I wrote a small handbook to help Afghans in demining and neutralizing Soviet bomblets. In the mid-1990, the struggle against antipersonnel mines became a foreign policy priority of Switzerland. I proposed to create a center that would collect information about landmines and demining technologies for the UN. This led to the creation of the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining in Geneva. I was later offered to head the Policy and Doctrine Unit of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations. After two years in New York, I went to Nairobi to perform a similar job for the African Union.


Jacques Baud, Darfour.

Then I was assigned to NATO to counter the proliferation of small arms. Switzerland is not a member of the Alliance, but this particular position had been negotiated as a Swiss contribution to the Partnership for Peace with NATO. In 2014, as the Ukraine crisis unfolded, I monitored the flow of small arms in the Donbass. Later, in the same year I was involved in a NATO program to assist the Ukrainian armed forces in restoring their capacities and improving personnel management, with the aim of restoring trust in them."

So the guy is particularly well-qualified to analyze the recent proceedings in Ukraine. Being Swiss, there is a tendency to be more neutral even as a high-ranking military officer than his NATO-aligned counterparts, the Swiss have also maintained a cultural neutrality, and have also enjoyed what has arguably been the best democratic political system in the world, which unlike Scandinavian systems, is more protective of free enterprise and private property. It is a very well-run country.

Here is a long interview published last Summer:

https://www.thepostil.com/our-interview-with-jacques-baud/

Follow-up:
https://www.thepostil.com/author/jacques-baud/

Baud is a francophone Swiss, so the majority of his material is in French, though he probably is fluent in at least 5 or 6 languages, with a fair amount of online english content.

This is a great recent interview in French, with english subtitles available by clicking CC and setting translation to English. Baud goes over the Ukrainian losses here



An interview with Aaron Mate from last Fall:


Another source with less gravitas than Baud but interesting as a military scholar and somewhat entertaining in his presentations as a millennial is Alexandre Robert aka History Legends on Youtube, another French polyglot whose videos I've posted here:


this one from last week goes over the extent of military losses on both sides

new video published today on foreign fighters in Ukraine:

Cal88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

I just read the Economist article. The Ukranian general needing 300 tanks, 700 military vehicles, 500 Howitzers., isn't good.

They anticipate 200,000 new Russian troops and an offensive between January and the spring. Both sides apparently are low on artillery shells, but Russia keeps shelling.

Some think Russias next move will be towards Odessa.

---

Can't see that happening, it's literally a bridge too far, they would have to cross the Dniepr, take Nikolayev, and cross another river to get there, stretching their supply lines. I think they will just inject tens of thousands into the Donbass, densifying current positions, and apply more pressure in Zaporozhie and in the north and just use their new numeric advantage to keep grinding away.

In a sense this phase of the war amounts to one big shaping operation, once Ukraine's numbers and morale start tapering off, the Russians will have more leeway to move inside Ukraine with less friction.

The mud season starts again in March and extends to early May, they could launch offensives after that.

---

If their motivation is Russians in Donbass and NATO - and not regime change or reabsorbing Ukraine into Russia - why do they need to move inside Ukraine?

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

I just read the Economist article. The Ukranian general needing 300 tanks, 700 military vehicles, 500 Howitzers., isn't good.

They anticipate 200,000 new Russian troops and an offensive between January and the spring. Both sides apparently are low on artillery shells, but Russia keeps shelling.

Some think Russias next move will be towards Odessa.

---

Can't see that happening, it's literally a bridge too far, they would have to cross the Dniepr, take Nikolayev, and cross another river to get there, stretching their supply lines. I think they will just inject tens of thousands into the Donbass, densifying current positions, and apply more pressure in Zaporozhie and in the north and just use their new numeric advantage to keep grinding away.

In a sense this phase of the war amounts to one big shaping operation, once Ukraine's numbers and morale start tapering off, the Russians will have more leeway to move inside Ukraine with less friction.

The mud season starts again in March and extends to early May, they could launch offensives after that.

---

If their motivation is Russians in Donbass and NATO - and not regime change or reabsorbing Ukraine into Russia - why do they need to move inside Ukraine?

---

Perhaps, they can give up other territory when negotiating a peace deal. They may want to negotiate from a position of strength.

Cal88 said:

---

Regime change would also be an objective. Ideally they would want to set up in Kiev a Ukrainian government that is less ideologically driven and more pragmatic, perhaps a faction of the current Ukrainian military that is sick of fighting.

---

Call it what it is: they want a Ukrainian government that will bow to Russian interests.

Russia has no interest in peace and all of their fake interest in talks was likely just a smoke screen. Which makes sense when you acknowledge their real aim in this war is to prevent Black Sea natural gas from reaching the market under any other flags and anything short of that would be a failure. Pretty clear Putin couldn't care less about the people or Ukraine or the territory he's stealing - other than his access to natural resources to maintain his corrupt kleptocrat sh(thole petrostate. If Zelensky offered Putin the Black Sea NG to walk away, this war would be over tomorrow.

Lavrov spoke earlier today and was pretty clear that Russia won't settle for anything less than the elimination of Ukrainian sovereignty, consistent with what Putin has said in the past.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-sergey-lavrov-8dae61c0176e1d5c788828f840e1a5a5

Quote:

---

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) Russia's foreign minister on Tuesday warned anew Ukraine that it must demilitarize, threatening further military action and falsely accusing Kyiv and the West of fueling the war that started with Moscow's invasion.

Sergey Lavrov said Ukraine must remove any military threat to Russia otherwise "the Russian army (will) solve the issue." His comments also reflected persistent unfounded claims by the Kremlin that Ukraine and its Western allies were responsible for the 10-month war, which has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions.

---

The article has a lot more, including references of Russian war crimes.

movielover said:

---

More proof we wanted this?

Ron Klain liked this tweet. They’re not even pretending it’s about Ukraine anymore. https://t.co/pud8C4DT8r

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) December 23, 2022

---

Once again, if Russia had never attacked Ukraine we would not be doing any of this. So who really wanted it?

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

More proof we wanted this?

Ron Klain liked this tweet. They’re not even pretending it’s about Ukraine anymore. https://t.co/pud8C4DT8r

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) December 23, 2022

---

Once again, if Russia had never attacked Ukraine we would not be doing any of this. So who really wanted it?

---

Exactly. As if the Biden WH looked around one day and randomly said "Hey, if we spend 100 Billion that's only 5% of our defense budget...now if we could just find some willing participant to accept that military aid, be invaded by Russia and have 10's of thousands of their citizens killed and displaced..."

It is patently obvious that what Klain is saying is right. IN ADDITION to a normally correct stance of helping a democratically elected government fight for its freedom and helping to stop the Russian expansion, we ALSO get an ancillary benefit that Russia is using up a very high percentage of its military supplies. All the while NO American lives are lost.

Anyone on this board who has paid attention knows I'm not exactly a natural fan of the current administration. But they are handling this one just about exactly correct.

I agree with everything t4k says and would also add that we have made wars of conquest far less attractive to fascist regimes. Putin thought Ukraine would roll over, that they would have no support and that he had friends who would help. He was wrong on all 3 counts.

The world is a safer place today and it cost us less than any reasonable alternative. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Putin is a monster who decided to test the world and Ukraine presented a risk to his sh(thole petrostate due to all of the Black Sea natural gas they possessed.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I agree with everything t4k says and would also add that we have made wars of conquest far less attractive to fascist regimes. Putin thought Ukraine would roll over, that they would have no support and that he had friends who would help. He was wrong on all 3 counts.

The world is a safer place today and it cost us less than any reasonable alternative. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Putin is a monster who decided to test the world and Ukraine presented a risk to his sh(thole petrostate due to all of the Black Sea natural gas they possessed.

---

One more time, the notion that Russia invaded Ukraine because it covets its Black Sea gas is completely moronic, you have zero grip on the nature of these reserves relative to Russia`s natural wealth. I`m going to try one more time to fill you in on this subject.

Russia has the world`s largest gas reserves by far, and they haven`t even scratched their shale reserves potential:



The 2 trillion cubic meters in the Black Sea deposit barely register on that chart. In any case, the main deposit located in the Skifska gas field is likely in Russian territorial waters as it is off the Crimean shores.

Russia is the richest country in the world in fossil fuels, #1 in gas, #6 in oil and #2 in coal, though unlike the other current leaders it still has a large upside for further discoveries, being the largest country in the world by a wide margin. Ukraine is rich by European standards, the continent not being blessed with great mineral reserves, but it is order of magnitudes less rich than Russia.

Russia does however have real strategic aims on the Black Sea, as it is their main warm water port. The fact that Ukraine can sink any Russian ship through the use of long range missiles, as illustrated by the sinking of the Moskva, means that they have to enforce their control over the northern perimeter of the Black Sea, they are not going to tolerate a hostile nation threatening to sink their fleet, or bomb Criema, especially one that wants to reconquer Crimea.

If Ukraine wants to keep its northwestern strip of Black Sea, which is primarily a Russian-speaking region, they should come to a friendly agreement with Russia. China, the US or India would not tolerate a smaller nation at their border claiming part of their territory and bombing their fleet.

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I agree with everything t4k says and would also add that we have made wars of conquest far less attractive to fascist regimes. Putin thought Ukraine would roll over, that they would have no support and that he had friends who would help. He was wrong on all 3 counts.

The world is a safer place today and it cost us less than any reasonable alternative. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Putin is a monster who decided to test the world and Ukraine presented a risk to his sh(thole petrostate due to all of the Black Sea natural gas they possessed.

---

One more time, the notion that Russia invaded Ukraine because it covets its Black Sea gas is completely moronic, you have zero grip on the nature of these reserves relative to Russia`s natural wealth. I`m going to try one more time to fill you in on this subject.

Russia has the world`s largest gas reserves by far, and they haven`t even scratched their shale reserves potential:



The 2 trillion cubic meters in the Black Sea deposit barely register on that chart. In any case, the main deposit located in the Skifska gas field is likely in Russian territorial waters as it is off the Crimean shores.

Russia is the richest country in the world in fossil fuels, #1 in gas, #6 in oil and #2 in coal, though unlike the other current leaders it still has a large upside for further discoveries, being the largest country in the world by a wide margin. Ukraine is rich by European standards, the continent not being blessed with great mineral reserves, but it is order of magnitudes less rich than Russia.

Russia does however have real strategic aims on the Black Sea, as it is their main warm water port. The fact that Ukraine can sink any Russian ship through the use of long range missiles, as illustrated by the sinking of the Moskva, means that they have to enforce their control over the northern perimeter of the Black Sea, they are not going to tolerate a hostile nation threatening to sink their fleet, or bomb Criema, especially one that wants to reconquer Crimea.

If Ukraine wants to keep its northwestern strip of Black Sea, which is primarily a Russian-speaking region, they should come to a friendly agreement with Russia. China, the US or India would not tolerate a smaller nation at their border claiming part of their territory and bombing their fleet.

---

Or they could foster healthy diplomatic relations with a sovereign nation such that geographic proximity is irrelevant to physical safety.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I agree with everything t4k says and would also add that we have made wars of conquest far less attractive to fascist regimes. Putin thought Ukraine would roll over, that they would have no support and that he had friends who would help. He was wrong on all 3 counts.

The world is a safer place today and it cost us less than any reasonable alternative. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Putin is a monster who decided to test the world and Ukraine presented a risk to his sh(thole petrostate due to all of the Black Sea natural gas they possessed.

---

One more time, the notion that Russia invaded Ukraine because it covets its Black Sea gas is completely moronic, you have zero grip on the nature of these reserves relative to Russia`s natural wealth. I`m going to try one more time to fill you in on this subject.

Russia has the world`s largest gas reserves by far, and they haven`t even scratched their shale reserves potential:



The 2 trillion cubic meters in the Black Sea deposit barely register on that chart. In any case, the main deposit located in the Skifska gas field is likely in Russian territorial waters as it is off the Crimean shores.

Russia is the richest country in the world in fossil fuels, #1 in gas, #6 in oil and #2 in coal, though unlike the other current leaders it still has a large upside for further discoveries, being the largest country in the world by a wide margin. Ukraine is rich by European standards, the continent not being blessed with great mineral reserves, but it is order of magnitudes less rich than Russia.

Russia does however have real strategic aims on the Black Sea, as it is their main warm water port. The fact that Ukraine can sink any Russian ship through the use of long range missiles, as illustrated by the sinking of the Moskva, means that they have to enforce their control over the northern perimeter of the Black Sea, they are not going to tolerate a hostile nation threatening to sink their fleet, or bomb Criema, especially one that wants to reconquer Crimea.

If Ukraine wants to keep its northwestern strip of Black Sea, which is primarily a Russian-speaking region, they should come to a friendly agreement with Russia. China, the US or India would not tolerate a smaller nation at their border claiming part of their territory and bombing their fleet.

---

Or they could foster healthy diplomatic relations with a sovereign nation such that geographic proximity is irrelevant to physical safety.

---

I love how "the sinking of the Moskva" is the justification for why Russia has security concerns, when that attack only happened after Russia invaded Ukraine. I think Russia is creating their own problems there.

You conveniently ignor NATOs actions, expansion across a well-known 'red line', and pretending to commit to the Minsk II Agreement - while building up Ukraine to attack Russia (per Angela Merkel). (Not to mention Obama / Biden allegedly helped overthrow a duly elected Ukrainian president.)

You and Klain are pretty flippant about temporary and short-sighted gains which don't include:

- Ukraine losing 100,000 plus KIA, which could easily reach 200,000 or more
- millions of refugees fleeing Ukraine, and Europe's costs
- EU and USA ammunitions depleted
- Ukraine likely permanently losing the Donbas
- if this continues longer, possibly losing the whole country
- which would mean greater Black Sea access for Russia
- Russia gaining an experienced, battle-tested military (which they didn't have a year ago)
- America and the EU possibly rebuilding Ukraine
- the Pelosi Congress just passing a $1.6 Trillion porkulus Bill, which includes massive military spending (over $600 B?) and massive new debt

But don't worry, Blackrock Investments (Biden family) - the ultimate insiders - will profit handsomely on the MICC, and possibly rebuilding Ukraine w a pro-Moscow leader in charge.

Not a trade I would have made.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I agree with everything t4k says and would also add that we have made wars of conquest far less attractive to fascist regimes. Putin thought Ukraine would roll over, that they would have no support and that he had friends who would help. He was wrong on all 3 counts.

The world is a safer place today and it cost us less than any reasonable alternative. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Putin is a monster who decided to test the world and Ukraine presented a risk to his sh(thole petrostate due to all of the Black Sea natural gas they possessed.

---

One more time, the notion that Russia invaded Ukraine because it covets its Black Sea gas is completely moronic, you have zero grip on the nature of these reserves relative to Russia`s natural wealth. I`m going to try one more time to fill you in on this subject.

Russia has the world`s largest gas reserves by far, and they haven`t even scratched their shale reserves potential:



The 2 trillion cubic meters in the Black Sea deposit barely register on that chart. In any case, the main deposit located in the Skifska gas field is likely in Russian territorial waters as it is off the Crimean shores.

Russia is the richest country in the world in fossil fuels, #1 in gas, #6 in oil and #2 in coal, though unlike the other current leaders it still has a large upside for further discoveries, being the largest country in the world by a wide margin. Ukraine is rich by European standards, the continent not being blessed with great mineral reserves, but it is order of magnitudes less rich than Russia.

Russia does however have real strategic aims on the Black Sea, as it is their main warm water port. The fact that Ukraine can sink any Russian ship through the use of long range missiles, as illustrated by the sinking of the Moskva, means that they have to enforce their control over the northern perimeter of the Black Sea, they are not going to tolerate a hostile nation threatening to sink their fleet, or bomb Criema, especially one that wants to reconquer Crimea.

If Ukraine wants to keep its northwestern strip of Black Sea, which is primarily a Russian-speaking region, they should come to a friendly agreement with Russia. China, the US or India would not tolerate a smaller nation at their border claiming part of their territory and bombing their fleet.

---

Or they could foster healthy diplomatic relations with a sovereign nation such that geographic proximity is irrelevant to physical safety.

---

AKA the Minsk Agreements, which Ukraine and NATO had no intention of abiding by right from the start, and violated repeatedly. They are both on record today stating that Minsk II was a stalling ploy in order to rebuild Ukraine's military forces.

Ukraine's central government lost its legitimacy in 2014 the moment it overturned a democratically-elected government and imposed a foreign language and restrictions on Russophones' native language and culture, which spawned a major rebellion that grew into a civil war with 14,000 deaths, and ended up drawing Russia in 7 years later.

That is the real context of this conflict, a bit more nuanced than the "Putin bad hombre" Hollywood storyboarding.

HINT: Russia never abided by the Minsk agreement terms either.