blungld said:Figures. You couldn't do it. Guess what would happen if Russia left Ukraine?...a choice they could make at any moment...they could leave the independent country they entered and attacked...and what do you know?! There would not be another death and the war would be over and there would be a withdrawal and effectively a ceasefire. Gee, I thought Russia DOES NOT have full responsibility??? But look, by their own action and choice the war they started either continues or ends. Weird. That sounds like full responsibility to me.oski003 said:
It is a war. Russia does not have full responsibility of ceasefire and withdrawal. Ukraine making peace does not equal surrendering.
*** No, Russia does not have full responsibility to end for ceasefire and withdrawal. They invaded Ukraine with a purpose. This isn't about morality. This is about realism. Ukraine either needs to defeat Russia or make peace with them in a war that is hurting both sides. Russia and Ukraine / NATO bear the responsibility to end this war.***
It's interesting that your response to my previous post was that it was stupid because you don't THINK that people on this thread assign all responsibility to Ukraine and they are not Putin cheerleaders. And yet, even when asked to directly show that it is not true and show that you can directly denounce Russia's responsibility for the war and give a straight unequivocal condemnation of their attack on an independent country and the death and destruction that they have caused, you couldn't do it. You had to still both sides it.
*** I have no clue what the hell you are talking about about above because you just make up a bunch of crap that wasn't said and argue against it. I already called Russia a bad actor. I don't support their invasion although I feel that much of this could have been avoided by recognizing Crimean as Russia and allowing a buffer between Russia and NATO.
So, it seems that what you found stupid continues to in fact be born out and true, and rather than saying something like "I agree with where you are coming from and find Russia's actions despicable and the pro-Putin propaganda floated on these threads disturbing." You dismissed my post as stupid, and just continued the its Ukraine's own fault they were invaded and it's equally their fault that Russians are killing them. I find your double standards, hypocrisy, lack of empathy, equivocation, regurgitation of conservative Putin apologist talking points, and inability to FIRST AND FOREMOST rebuke Russia and list the ways in which they need to end the war you put all emphasis and analysis to how the victim Ukraine needs to compromise and accept what has been done to them. Your POV is inhumane and frankly offensive.
*** I find the falsehoods on both sides disturbing. I hope NATO expels Russia from Ukraine or at the very least gets a peace treaty, Ukraine joins NATO, and both countries can agree what to do about their border. Outside of folks thinking the original Russian invasion was going to succeed, most realists here have been correct as I read a ton of BS propaganda here about how great Ukraine is doing when the reality is they are losing and people are dying.
It is exactly what I wrote above that you said was so stupid: I rob a house, take a TV and car, kill the daughter...and the neighbor (you) say that I need to make it right and only keep the TV and that if the victim isn't happy with getting his car back, it's their fault if I then kill his son too. Your moral compass has spun way off.
*** I don't agree with your analogy. It misses the fact that you previously owned the house and others more powerful said you shouldn't have it and then forced you to give it to others, amongst other things.
The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread
870,826 Views |
9916 Replies |
Last: 17 hrs ago by bear2034
This tells me all I need to know about the lens through which you see things. You believe Ukraine was already Russia's. This shows the limit of your understanding of the history and politics there, and the narrative to which you buy in and how completely ignorant you are to the plight and perspective of the Ukrainian people as a whole and as a nation. You actually believe that actions of America and NATO and pockets of Ukrainian people and their depiction BY RUSSIA is factual and true and the actual motivations and justifications rather than imperialism and propaganda. You are not a stupid, but I am not the one being stupid in these matters.oski003 said:blungld said:
*** I don't agree with your analogy. It misses the fact that you previously owned the house
Out of curiosity, is Russia also entitled to Alaska? Are Poland and other countries rightfully next for Russia's taking? Does Russia need to forfeit any territory to Turkey or Japan? Does Californa and Texas belong to Mexico...where, when, and by what standard do you respect sovereignty? Ukraine is a culturally and historically completely separate people who have fought for independence for centuries. Russia does not own them. Russia has no divine right to their land and people. Russia does not decide who Ukraine aligns with and how they develop. And Russia does not get to invent threats to justify taking resources and rebuild lost empire. Neither Ukraine or NATO would EVER invade Russia. The threat is completely manufactured and every player knows this. The actions of NATO and Ukraine are ONLY a threat in that they prevent Russia expansion. Period. There is no threat to Russia itself.
Your perspective is bunk, but at least it is clear who I have been responding to.
blungld said:This tells me all I need to know about the lens through which you see things. You believe Ukraine was already Russia's. This shows the limit of your understanding of the history and politics there, and the narrative to which you buy in and how completely ignorant you are to the plight and perspective of the Ukrainian people as a whole and as a nation. You actually believe that actions of America and NATO and pockets of Ukrainian people and their depiction BY RUSSIA is factual and true and the actual motivations and justifications rather than imperialism and propaganda. You are not a stupid, but I am not the one being stupid in these matters.oski003 said:blungld said:
*** I don't agree with your analogy. It misses the fact that you previously owned the house
Out of curiosity, is Russia also entitled to Alaska? Are Poland and other countries rightfully next for Russia's taking? Does Russia need to forfeit any territory to Turkey or Japan? Does Californa and Texas belong to Mexico...where, when, and by what standard do you respect sovereignty? Ukraine is a culturally and historically completely separate people who have fought for independence for centuries. Russia does not own them. Russia has no divine right to their land and people. Russia does not decide who Ukraine aligns with and how they develop. And Russia does not get to invent threats to justify taking resources and rebuild lost empire. Neither Ukraine or NATO would EVER invade Russia. The threat is completely manufactured and every player knows this. The actions of NATO and Ukraine are ONLY a threat in that they prevent Russia expansion. Period. There is no threat to Russia itself.
Your perspective is bunk, but at least it is clear who I have been responding to.
You are again making things up I never argued. I simply said that Ukraine was part of Russia, amongst other things. It is complicated and your analogy sucks. I also refuse to lump Ukraine in with Russia selling Alaska to the U.S. What if Spain helped the South gain independence from the North in the Civil War? What if the Union later invaded the Confederacy? It isn't always black and white. Fyi, if Mexico was more powerful than the U.S., Texas and California would likely belong to Mexico right now. Perhaps, if the U.S. was losing thousands of lives to the stronger Mexico, they might have settled and given them San Diego and Houston back. Maybe Los Angeles.
With the two years of bloody war and NATO investment, hopefully we succeed. I am rationalizing a treaty that gives Russia something for the war to stop. That something seems to be recognizing Crimea, as well as Dombass independence. I don't oppose Ukraine joining NATO at this point in time. I have never heard NATO or Ukraine say anything other than demanding a full withdrawal and surrender by Russia and that is why 1000s are dying.
You said that my analogy "misses the fact that you previously owned the house" but I am not supposed to conclude that your POV is not rooted in a foundational assumption that parts of if not all of Ukraine are previously owned by Russia and therefore theirs and any acts of war to retrieve them are justified? My analogy does not suck. It's simplistic, but accurate.oski003 said:You are again making things up I never argued. I simply said that Ukraine was part of Russia, amongst other things. It is complicated and your analogy sucks. I also refuse to lump Ukraine in with Russia selling Alaska to the U.S. What if Spain helped the South gain independence from the North in the Civil War? What if the Union later invaded the Confederacy? It isn't always black and white. Fyi, if Mexico was more powerful than the U.S., Texas and California would likely belong to Mexico right now. Perhaps, if the U.S. was losing thousands of lives to the stronger Mexico, they might have settled and given them San Diego and Houston back. Maybe Los Angeles.blungld said:oski003 said:blungld said:
*** I don't agree with your analogy. It misses the fact that you previously owned the house
With the two years of bloody war and NATO investment, hopefully we succeed. I am rationalizing a treaty that gives Russia something for the war to stop. That something seems to be recognizing Crimea, as well as Dombass independence. I don't oppose Ukraine joining NATO at this point in time. I have never heard NATO or Ukraine say anything other than demanding a full withdrawal and surrender by Russia and that is why 1000s are dying.
blungld said:You said that my analogy "misses the fact that you previously owned the house" but I am not supposed to conclude that your POV is not rooted in a foundational assumption that parts of if not all of Ukraine are previously owned by Russia and therefore theirs and any acts of war to retrieve them are justified? My analogy does not suck. It's simplistic, but accurate.oski003 said:You are again making things up I never argued. I simply said that Ukraine was part of Russia, amongst other things. It is complicated and your analogy sucks. I also refuse to lump Ukraine in with Russia selling Alaska to the U.S. What if Spain helped the South gain independence from the North in the Civil War? What if the Union later invaded the Confederacy? It isn't always black and white. Fyi, if Mexico was more powerful than the U.S., Texas and California would likely belong to Mexico right now. Perhaps, if the U.S. was losing thousands of lives to the stronger Mexico, they might have settled and given them San Diego and Houston back. Maybe Los Angeles.blungld said:oski003 said:blungld said:
*** I don't agree with your analogy. It misses the fact that you previously owned the house
With the two years of bloody war and NATO investment, hopefully we succeed. I am rationalizing a treaty that gives Russia something for the war to stop. That something seems to be recognizing Crimea, as well as Dombass independence. I don't oppose Ukraine joining NATO at this point in time. I have never heard NATO or Ukraine say anything other than demanding a full withdrawal and surrender by Russia and that is why 1000s are dying.
You are wrong to assume that I feel that Russia's acts of war to retrieve parts of Ukraine that were previously theirs is justified.
I will also say that I am certainly not opposed to negotiations or a peace process, assuming both countries wish to engage in one.oski003 said:blungld said:This tells me all I need to know about the lens through which you see things. You believe Ukraine was already Russia's. This shows the limit of your understanding of the history and politics there, and the narrative to which you buy in and how completely ignorant you are to the plight and perspective of the Ukrainian people as a whole and as a nation. You actually believe that actions of America and NATO and pockets of Ukrainian people and their depiction BY RUSSIA is factual and true and the actual motivations and justifications rather than imperialism and propaganda. You are not a stupid, but I am not the one being stupid in these matters.oski003 said:blungld said:
*** I don't agree with your analogy. It misses the fact that you previously owned the house
Out of curiosity, is Russia also entitled to Alaska? Are Poland and other countries rightfully next for Russia's taking? Does Russia need to forfeit any territory to Turkey or Japan? Does Californa and Texas belong to Mexico...where, when, and by what standard do you respect sovereignty? Ukraine is a culturally and historically completely separate people who have fought for independence for centuries. Russia does not own them. Russia has no divine right to their land and people. Russia does not decide who Ukraine aligns with and how they develop. And Russia does not get to invent threats to justify taking resources and rebuild lost empire. Neither Ukraine or NATO would EVER invade Russia. The threat is completely manufactured and every player knows this. The actions of NATO and Ukraine are ONLY a threat in that they prevent Russia expansion. Period. There is no threat to Russia itself.
Your perspective is bunk, but at least it is clear who I have been responding to.
You are again making things up I never argued. I simply said that Ukraine was part of Russia, amongst other things. It is complicated and your analogy sucks. I also refuse to lump Ukraine in with Russia selling Alaska to the U.S. What if Spain helped the South gain independence from the North in the Civil War? What if the Union later invaded the Confederacy? It isn't always black and white. Fyi, if Mexico was more powerful than the U.S., Texas and California would likely belong to Mexico right now. Perhaps, if the U.S. was losing thousands of lives to the stronger Mexico, they might have settled and given them San Diego and Houston back. Maybe Los Angeles.
With the two years of bloody war and NATO investment, hopefully we succeed. I am rationalizing a treaty that gives Russia something for the war to stop. That something seems to be recognizing Crimea, as well as Dombass independence. I don't oppose Ukraine joining NATO at this point in time. I have never heard NATO or Ukraine say anything other than demanding a full withdrawal and surrender by Russia and that is why 1000s are dying.
I do object to the claims that the US or NATO is somehow blocking such a thing from happening. Whenever I dig into these claims, they appear to me to be without merit. But people keep repeating them anyway. I think the reason it hasn't happened is because at any given time, one or both of the countries has not been willing to negotiate.
Last year 43,000 migrants from Russia, 42,000 from India and 24,000 from China made the crossing. That’s up from 4,100, 2,600 and 450, respectively, in 2021 https://t.co/yC1s7IPpy5 👇
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) March 14, 2024
Most of these Russians are undoubtedly economic migrants. OTOH, wouldn't it be a good idea to know a little something about all these people given that we are at war with their country?
Topic Drift Alert!Zippergate said:Last year 43,000 migrants from Russia, 42,000 from India and 24,000 from China made the crossing. That’s up from 4,100, 2,600 and 450, respectively, in 2021 https://t.co/yC1s7IPpy5 👇
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) March 14, 2024
Most of these Russians are undoubtedly economic migrants. OTOH, wouldn't it be a good idea to know a little something about all these people given that we are at war with their country?
blungld said:Instead of snide non-substantive questions, how about you answer something. Let's be clear about where you stand: Do you support Russia's invasion of Ukraine?movielover said:
How should Putin have handled Barack Obama and John Brennan putting 12 secret C-A buildings on her border in Ukraine.
Sent potato latkes?
I support reducing our MIC, including our 400 (?) worldwide military bases.
I support getting rid of warmongers like Victoria Darth Nuland.
I support only backing coups in rare instances, not ordinary business.
I support halfing our 44 4 star generals and admirals.
I support firing and launching criminal charges against all the individuals who planned to leave $50-75 Billion worth of military gear in Afghanistan.
I support immediate and ongoing meetings between our negotiators, and Russian
negotiators (Scott Ritter claims lines of communication have stopped).
I support immediate, unconditional peace talks between Ukraine and Russia.
You didn't look very hard.
The European Conservative: Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal
"Russia was "ready to end the war if we took neutrality," Ukraine's former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, "let's just fight."
"Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine's ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.
"The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky's Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey...."
"...The lawmaker recalled that while the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow were underway in Istanbul, Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9th, 2022, telling Zelensky that he shouldn't sign anything with them at alland let's just fight."
"...Russia repeatedly signaled a willingness to hammer out a peace deal, while Ukraine obviously remained interested because otherwise, it would've left the negotiation table."
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
The European Conservative: Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal
"Russia was "ready to end the war if we took neutrality," Ukraine's former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, "let's just fight."
"Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine's ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.
"The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky's Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey...."
"...The lawmaker recalled that while the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow were underway in Istanbul, Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9th, 2022, telling Zelensky that he shouldn't sign anything with them at alland let's just fight."
"...Russia repeatedly signaled a willingness to hammer out a peace deal, while Ukraine obviously remained interested because otherwise, it would've left the negotiation table."
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
Russia lost this war and humiliated itself in the first few weeks. Everything since then has been them trying to find a face saving conclusion.
dajo9 said:
Russia lost this war and humiliated itself in the first few weeks. Everything since then has been them trying to find a face saving conclusion.
You believe that Russia lost this war exactly the same way you believe Putin is dead, both are tales from your mystical parallel universe.
I guess they have to amend their constitution that gives veto rights to the PM of UK,movielover said:
You didn't look very hard.
The European Conservative: Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal
"Russia was "ready to end the war if we took neutrality," Ukraine's former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, "let's just fight."
"Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine's ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.
"The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky's Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey...."
"...The lawmaker recalled that while the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow were underway in Istanbul, Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9th, 2022, telling Zelensky that he shouldn't sign anything with them at alland let's just fight."
"...Russia repeatedly signaled a willingness to hammer out a peace deal, while Ukraine obviously remained interested because otherwise, it would've left the negotiation table."
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
Because if Johnson did not have veto rights, did it ultimately come down to the leaders elected by the Ukrainian people electing to continue to defend their land and their borders from the invaders? Because, I don't even know what it means for a country to adopt neutrality, Change their constitution to not take sides like Switzerland? Are you sure that's really the fine print? And what is Russia's willingness to hammer our a peace deal when they weren't even willing to provide armistice while a peace treaty was being negotiated.
calbear93 said:I guess they have to amend their constitution that gives veto rights to the PM of UK,movielover said:
You didn't look very hard.
The European Conservative: Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal
"Russia was "ready to end the war if we took neutrality," Ukraine's former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, "let's just fight."
"Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine's ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.
"The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky's Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey...."
"...The lawmaker recalled that while the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow were underway in Istanbul, Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9th, 2022, telling Zelensky that he shouldn't sign anything with them at alland let's just fight."
"...Russia repeatedly signaled a willingness to hammer out a peace deal, while Ukraine obviously remained interested because otherwise, it would've left the negotiation table."
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
Because if Johnson did not have veto rights, did it ultimately come down to the leaders elected by the Ukrainian people electing to continue to defend their land and their borders from the invaders? Because, I don't even know what it means for a country to adopt neutrality, Change their constitution to not take sides like Switzerland? Are you sure that's really the fine print? And what is Russia's willingness to hammer our a peace deal when they weren't even willing to provide armistice while a peace treaty was being negotiated.
Ukraine is relying on Western Money. Those supplying them with such have heavy influence. If NATO countries were to cut off funding altogether, even with peace, Ukraine would be in trouble.
Cal88 said:golden sloth said:concordtom said:Yeah.bearister said:
…been thinking same. Plenty of terror groups willing to take his funding and go on a mission.
It seems pretty likely.
He can explode a small nuke somewhere in Ukraine, and what's the response going to be?
I mean, play it out....
The West could then send massive non-nukes and soldiers and planes into Ukraine and begin to wipe Putin out. But then he can send nukes to blow up our positions en masse.
He can then decide to blow up Warsaw if he doesn't like Poland. Or London if he doesn't like London. Where does it end? Will we launch a strike on Moscow? No. We cannot. Because then the WarGames scenario is on.
This only will end when Putin is taken out. Who is going to be the Valkyrie hero??? (I don't suppose we can get any type of agent in there....)
Any "Von Stauffenberg" type isn't going to show up until Putin endangers the entire planet. Even then....
US and NATO needs to be employing Psychological Ops with Russians.
We can't win this with helicopters and missiles. Dude has gone mad mad mad.
I hope we have James Bond and Q working on this.
I disagree with your premise. In spite of me not approving the actions of Russia, and believing they have miscalculated their assumptions, I do think Putin is acting rationally, and I do think he wants to avoid nuclear war.
I dont see the constant escalation you are talking about. NATO continues to supply Ukraine, but not commit to troops in Ukraine. This has not changed from the war's outset.
Agreed. Russia's main objective is to encircle the ~60k strong Ukrainian forces on the Donbass front, which I think they will achieve within the next 2-4 weeks. These forces are the main Ukrainian army body outside of the cities, without which Russia will have a free rein over the entire eastern bank of the Dniepr river.
Their next objective will be Nikolayev then Odessa, Russia is ultimately planning on breaking up Ukraine in 2 or 3 parts, with the Russian/russophone-majority area either forming a new state or being outright annexed, and possibly the southwestern Rusyn region seceding and/or going to Hungary. Basically Russia wants to break up Ukraine along ethnic lines, the same way NATO broke up Yugoslavia in the 1990s or the US broke up Iraq in the 00s.
This you 2 years ago predicting Russia will encircle the main Ukrainian army outside cities in 2-3 weeks?
You wrote: "Because, I don't even know what it means for a country to adopt neutrality, Change their constitution to not take sides like Switzerland? Are you sure that's really the fine print? ..."
Step 1 might be to officially notify Russia of 12 C-A secret buildings on its border.
Step 2 might be expel NATO, USA, C-A, and UK 'advisors' and special ops.
Step 3, make bigger moves to stop the civil war in Eastern Ukraine.
Step 1 might be to officially notify Russia of 12 C-A secret buildings on its border.
Step 2 might be expel NATO, USA, C-A, and UK 'advisors' and special ops.
Step 3, make bigger moves to stop the civil war in Eastern Ukraine.
No conceivable path just means they haven't come up with one yet.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/explosive-secret-french-military
While Macron might be preparing something disastrous, the French Armed Forces are trying to sound the alarm through the French media.
In the French publication Marianne, (https://www.marianne.net/monde/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-endurance-russe-echec-de-la-contre-offensive-ce-que-cache-le-virage-de-macron) which is very close to the French political class, French officers speaking on condition of anonymity spoke about their impressions of the war in Ukraine, the AFU and the Russian Armed Forces.
In summary, the officers speaking to the publication rated the Russian Army very highly. The Russian Army, contrary to Western media, trains its new recruits properly, organizes rotation of personnel and units in the frontline, and always mixes veterans with new recruits so the new soldiers can learn more quickly.
By contrast the Ukrainians blew their best and last chance for victory in the Summer 2023 offensive. The French Armed Forces also estimate Ukraine needs 30,000 - 35,000 new conscripts or recruits every month to keep their force levels steady but currently the Ukrainians are only inducting half that number.
The article assesses that there is no conceivable path currently to a Ukrainian military victory.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/explosive-secret-french-military
While Macron might be preparing something disastrous, the French Armed Forces are trying to sound the alarm through the French media.
In the French publication Marianne, (https://www.marianne.net/monde/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-endurance-russe-echec-de-la-contre-offensive-ce-que-cache-le-virage-de-macron) which is very close to the French political class, French officers speaking on condition of anonymity spoke about their impressions of the war in Ukraine, the AFU and the Russian Armed Forces.
In summary, the officers speaking to the publication rated the Russian Army very highly. The Russian Army, contrary to Western media, trains its new recruits properly, organizes rotation of personnel and units in the frontline, and always mixes veterans with new recruits so the new soldiers can learn more quickly.
By contrast the Ukrainians blew their best and last chance for victory in the Summer 2023 offensive. The French Armed Forces also estimate Ukraine needs 30,000 - 35,000 new conscripts or recruits every month to keep their force levels steady but currently the Ukrainians are only inducting half that number.
The article assesses that there is no conceivable path currently to a Ukrainian military victory.
Ukraine having once given up their nukes in exchange for a promise that Russia would respect their borders probably didn't help with the "trust factor" on whether or not Russia would honor their treaty this time.calbear93 said:I guess they have to amend their constitution that gives veto rights to the PM of UK,movielover said:
You didn't look very hard.
The European Conservative: Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal
"Russia was "ready to end the war if we took neutrality," Ukraine's former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, "let's just fight."
"Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine's ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.
"The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky's Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey...."
"...The lawmaker recalled that while the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow were underway in Istanbul, Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9th, 2022, telling Zelensky that he shouldn't sign anything with them at alland let's just fight."
"...Russia repeatedly signaled a willingness to hammer out a peace deal, while Ukraine obviously remained interested because otherwise, it would've left the negotiation table."
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
Because if Johnson did not have veto rights, did it ultimately come down to the leaders elected by the Ukrainian people electing to continue to defend their land and their borders from the invaders? Because, I don't even know what it means for a country to adopt neutrality, Change their constitution to not take sides like Switzerland? Are you sure that's really the fine print? And what is Russia's willingness to hammer our a peace deal when they weren't even willing to provide armistice while a peace treaty was being negotiated.
The other thing these guys always leave out when talking about what killed the peace negotiations is that the Bucha Massacre happened at the same time. My guess is that that killed the prospects of peace more than anything.
You mean like the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed the peace prospects with Japan?sycasey said:Ukraine having once given up their nukes in exchange for a promise that Russia would respect their borders probably didn't help with the "trust factor" on whether or not Russia would honor their treaty this time.calbear93 said:I guess they have to amend their constitution that gives veto rights to the PM of UK,movielover said:
You didn't look very hard.
The European Conservative: Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal
"Russia was "ready to end the war if we took neutrality," Ukraine's former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, "let's just fight."
"Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine's ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.
"The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky's Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey...."
"...The lawmaker recalled that while the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow were underway in Istanbul, Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9th, 2022, telling Zelensky that he shouldn't sign anything with them at alland let's just fight."
"...Russia repeatedly signaled a willingness to hammer out a peace deal, while Ukraine obviously remained interested because otherwise, it would've left the negotiation table."
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
Because if Johnson did not have veto rights, did it ultimately come down to the leaders elected by the Ukrainian people electing to continue to defend their land and their borders from the invaders? Because, I don't even know what it means for a country to adopt neutrality, Change their constitution to not take sides like Switzerland? Are you sure that's really the fine print? And what is Russia's willingness to hammer our a peace deal when they weren't even willing to provide armistice while a peace treaty was being negotiated.
The other thing these guys always leave out when talking about what killed the peace negotiations is that the Bucha Massacre happened at the same time. My guess is that that killed the prospects of peace more than anything.
https://media.tenor.com/kARlNjt1Xn0AAAAC/ok-okay.gif
Your guesses haven't been worth much in this war, but keep em coming.
So, neutrality means being completely naked to the whims of Russia, and being functionally a territory of Russia. In other words, give up sovereignty and Russia may not invade further.movielover said:
You wrote: "Because, I don't even know what it means for a country to adopt neutrality, Change their constitution to not take sides like Switzerland? Are you sure that's really the fine print? ..."
Step 1 might be to officially notify Russia of 12 C-A secret buildings on its border.
Step 2 might be expel NATO, USA, C-A, and UK 'advisors' and special ops.
Step 3, make bigger moves to stop the civil war in Eastern Ukraine.
Yes, we are helping making it more expensive for Russia to disrupt world order. As we see in some of the CA cities with liberal enforcement of laws, lack of deterrence does not reduce bad behavior.oski003 said:calbear93 said:I guess they have to amend their constitution that gives veto rights to the PM of UK,movielover said:
You didn't look very hard.
The European Conservative: Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal
"Russia was "ready to end the war if we took neutrality," Ukraine's former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, "let's just fight."
"Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine's ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.
"The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky's Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey...."
"...The lawmaker recalled that while the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow were underway in Istanbul, Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9th, 2022, telling Zelensky that he shouldn't sign anything with them at alland let's just fight."
"...Russia repeatedly signaled a willingness to hammer out a peace deal, while Ukraine obviously remained interested because otherwise, it would've left the negotiation table."
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
Because if Johnson did not have veto rights, did it ultimately come down to the leaders elected by the Ukrainian people electing to continue to defend their land and their borders from the invaders? Because, I don't even know what it means for a country to adopt neutrality, Change their constitution to not take sides like Switzerland? Are you sure that's really the fine print? And what is Russia's willingness to hammer our a peace deal when they weren't even willing to provide armistice while a peace treaty was being negotiated.
Ukraine is relying on Western Money. Those supplying them with such have heavy influence. If NATO countries were to cut off funding altogether, even with peace, Ukraine would be in trouble.
Yes, we are helping a country defend itself. However, us helping a country who can at any time choose not to fight and who still has sovereignty does not make us responsible for the war as opposed to the country that is actually invading its neighbor.
calbear93 said:So, neutrality means being completely naked to the whims of Russia, and being functionally a territory of Russia. In other words, give up sovereignty and Russia may not invade further.movielover said:
You wrote: "Because, I don't even know what it means for a country to adopt neutrality, Change their constitution to not take sides like Switzerland? Are you sure that's really the fine print? ..."
Step 1 might be to officially notify Russia of 12 C-A secret buildings on its border.
Step 2 might be expel NATO, USA, C-A, and UK 'advisors' and special ops.
Step 3, make bigger moves to stop the civil war in Eastern Ukraine.
Neutrality for Ukraine here would be the same as what Austria has been since the 1940s, and what Finland and Sweden were for decades up to last year. No NATO (or Russian) bases on their soil.
Quote:
Ukraine having once given up their nukes in exchange for a promise that Russia would respect their borders probably didn't help with the "trust factor" on whether or not Russia would honor their treaty this time.
The other thing these guys always leave out when talking about what killed the peace negotiations is that the Bucha Massacre happened at the same time. My guess is that that killed the prospects of peace more than anything.
Nearly half of weapons provided to Ukraine have been unaccounted for, according to a recent CBS report (which was pulled shortly after publication due to political pressure). Ukraine has been the hub for arms trafficking in Europe even before the war, much like the Balkans were in the 90s.
Ukraine was forced to surrender its Soviet-era nukes to Russia in the 90s by the international community (including the US) because a Ukrainian officer or oligarch in charge could have easily sold a nuke for a billion or two to a number of state agents. Not just Ukraine, but every other former Soviet state, Kazakhstan, Belarus etc. gave back their nukes to Russia.
calbear93 said:Yes, we are helping making it more expensive for Russia to disrupt world order. As we see in some of the CA cities with liberal enforcement of laws, lack of deterrence does not reduce bad behavior.oski003 said:calbear93 said:I guess they have to amend their constitution that gives veto rights to the PM of UK,movielover said:
You didn't look very hard.
The European Conservative: Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal
"Russia was "ready to end the war if we took neutrality," Ukraine's former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, "let's just fight."
"Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine's ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.
"The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky's Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey...."
"...The lawmaker recalled that while the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow were underway in Istanbul, Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9th, 2022, telling Zelensky that he shouldn't sign anything with them at alland let's just fight."
"...Russia repeatedly signaled a willingness to hammer out a peace deal, while Ukraine obviously remained interested because otherwise, it would've left the negotiation table."
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
Because if Johnson did not have veto rights, did it ultimately come down to the leaders elected by the Ukrainian people electing to continue to defend their land and their borders from the invaders? Because, I don't even know what it means for a country to adopt neutrality, Change their constitution to not take sides like Switzerland? Are you sure that's really the fine print? And what is Russia's willingness to hammer our a peace deal when they weren't even willing to provide armistice while a peace treaty was being negotiated.
Ukraine is relying on Western Money. Those supplying them with such have heavy influence. If NATO countries were to cut off funding altogether, even with peace, Ukraine would be in trouble.
Russia can afford that cost, Ukraine can't. Russia is experiencing economic growth and inflicting disproportionately large losses on Ukraine, with an advantage of nearly 10 to 1 in artillery firepower and near complete air superiority today.
The war itself, and its continuation and potential escalation is what is disrupting the world order, not the notion that Russia is going to invade and conquer Europe, which is a naive proposition.
Most Ukrainians no longer want to die or be maimed in this war, which was the fate of over 1 million Ukrainian KIA/MIA/wounded in the past two years. The diehard nationalists are already spoken for, though they still dominate the vast internal SBU security apparatus. Men of military age have been trying to flee the country in order to avoid getting sent to the meat grinder, and unfortunately most are caught as the borders have been sealed.Quote:
Yes, we are helping a country defend itself. However, us helping a country who can at any time choose not to fight and who still has sovereignty does not make us responsible for the war as opposed to the country that is actually invading its neighbor.
🇺🇦🇷🇴🚨‼️ Ukranians try to leave the country in bus loads.
— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) March 9, 2024
34 tried to sneak into Romania, to avoid the military.
They will die for your virtue signaling. pic.twitter.com/GxQrd9fiYf
Zelensky run on a peace and reconciliation platform, he himself is a Russian speaker who has only recently learned to speak Ukrainian. That's why he won, he got the most votes in the Russophone regions of the east and south. After he was elected, he did a 180 flip and took the hardline NATO/Azov path to confrontation.
Do you really think that Putin's open invitation to negotiate an end to the war is going to be carried on U.S. corporate media?sycasey said:I will also say that I am certainly not opposed to negotiations or a peace process, assuming both countries wish to engage in one.oski003 said:blungld said:This tells me all I need to know about the lens through which you see things. You believe Ukraine was already Russia's. This shows the limit of your understanding of the history and politics there, and the narrative to which you buy in and how completely ignorant you are to the plight and perspective of the Ukrainian people as a whole and as a nation. You actually believe that actions of America and NATO and pockets of Ukrainian people and their depiction BY RUSSIA is factual and true and the actual motivations and justifications rather than imperialism and propaganda. You are not a stupid, but I am not the one being stupid in these matters.oski003 said:blungld said:
*** I don't agree with your analogy. It misses the fact that you previously owned the house
Out of curiosity, is Russia also entitled to Alaska? Are Poland and other countries rightfully next for Russia's taking? Does Russia need to forfeit any territory to Turkey or Japan? Does Californa and Texas belong to Mexico...where, when, and by what standard do you respect sovereignty? Ukraine is a culturally and historically completely separate people who have fought for independence for centuries. Russia does not own them. Russia has no divine right to their land and people. Russia does not decide who Ukraine aligns with and how they develop. And Russia does not get to invent threats to justify taking resources and rebuild lost empire. Neither Ukraine or NATO would EVER invade Russia. The threat is completely manufactured and every player knows this. The actions of NATO and Ukraine are ONLY a threat in that they prevent Russia expansion. Period. There is no threat to Russia itself.
Your perspective is bunk, but at least it is clear who I have been responding to.
You are again making things up I never argued. I simply said that Ukraine was part of Russia, amongst other things. It is complicated and your analogy sucks. I also refuse to lump Ukraine in with Russia selling Alaska to the U.S. What if Spain helped the South gain independence from the North in the Civil War? What if the Union later invaded the Confederacy? It isn't always black and white. Fyi, if Mexico was more powerful than the U.S., Texas and California would likely belong to Mexico right now. Perhaps, if the U.S. was losing thousands of lives to the stronger Mexico, they might have settled and given them San Diego and Houston back. Maybe Los Angeles.
With the two years of bloody war and NATO investment, hopefully we succeed. I am rationalizing a treaty that gives Russia something for the war to stop. That something seems to be recognizing Crimea, as well as Dombass independence. I don't oppose Ukraine joining NATO at this point in time. I have never heard NATO or Ukraine say anything other than demanding a full withdrawal and surrender by Russia and that is why 1000s are dying.
I do object to the claims that the US or NATO is somehow blocking such a thing from happening. Whenever I dig into these claims, they appear to me to be without merit. But people keep repeating them anyway. I think the reason it hasn't happened is because at any given time, one or both of the countries has not been willing to negotiate.
They haven't even been able to acknowledge the Istanbul negotiations in 2022. They're still trying to convince American taxpayers that Ukraine can still "win."
If U.S. corporate media doesn't report it, propagandized Americans don't believe that it ever happened.
U.S. propagandists are 100% focused on getting the $60 Billion passed. They aren't going to jeopardize that.
You have to recognize when you're being played.
Yep.Cal88 said:calbear93 said:Yes, we are helping making it more expensive for Russia to disrupt world order. As we see in some of the CA cities with liberal enforcement of laws, lack of deterrence does not reduce bad behavior.oski003 said:calbear93 said:I guess they have to amend their constitution that gives veto rights to the PM of UK,movielover said:
You didn't look very hard.
The European Conservative: Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal
"Russia was "ready to end the war if we took neutrality," Ukraine's former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, "let's just fight."
"Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine's ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.
"The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky's Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey...."
"...The lawmaker recalled that while the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow were underway in Istanbul, Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9th, 2022, telling Zelensky that he shouldn't sign anything with them at alland let's just fight."
"...Russia repeatedly signaled a willingness to hammer out a peace deal, while Ukraine obviously remained interested because otherwise, it would've left the negotiation table."
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
Because if Johnson did not have veto rights, did it ultimately come down to the leaders elected by the Ukrainian people electing to continue to defend their land and their borders from the invaders? Because, I don't even know what it means for a country to adopt neutrality, Change their constitution to not take sides like Switzerland? Are you sure that's really the fine print? And what is Russia's willingness to hammer our a peace deal when they weren't even willing to provide armistice while a peace treaty was being negotiated.
Ukraine is relying on Western Money. Those supplying them with such have heavy influence. If NATO countries were to cut off funding altogether, even with peace, Ukraine would be in trouble.
Russia can afford that cost, Ukraine can't. Russia is experiencing economic growth and inflicting disproportionately large losses on Ukraine, with an advantage of nearly 10 to 1 in artillery firepower and near complete air superiority today.
The war itself, and its continuation and potential escalation is what is disrupting the world order, not the notion that Russia is going to invade and conquer Europe, which is a naive proposition.Most Ukrainians no longer want to die or be maimed in this war, which was the fate of over 1 million Ukrainian KIA/MIA/wounded in the past two years. The diehard nationalists are already spoken for, though they still dominate the vast internal SBU security apparatus. Men of military age have been trying to flee the country in order to avoid getting sent to the meat grinder, and unfortunately most are caught as the borders have been sealed.Quote:
Yes, we are helping a country defend itself. However, us helping a country who can at any time choose not to fight and who still has sovereignty does not make us responsible for the war as opposed to the country that is actually invading its neighbor.🇺🇦🇷🇴🚨‼️ Ukranians try to leave the country in bus loads.
— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) March 9, 2024
34 tried to sneak into Romania, to avoid the military.
They will die for your virtue signaling. pic.twitter.com/GxQrd9fiYf
Zelensky run on a peace and reconciliation platform, he himself is a Russian speaker who has only recently learned to speak Ukrainian. That's why he won, he got the most votes in the Russophone regions of the east and south. After he was elected, he did a 180 flip and took the hardline NATO/Azov path to confrontation.
The major component of Zelenskyy's peace & reconciliation campaign was having Ukraine follow the Minsk agreements. Once he was in office, though, the U.S.-backed Neo-Nazi militias threatened to kill him if he didn't let them continue shelling ethnic Russian neighborhoods in the Donbass. The whole point of supporting & arming the Neo-Nazi militias was 1) to drive ethnic Russians out of Ukraine (i.e., ethnic cleansing); 2) to build a Ukrainian army that was strong enough to invade Russia. This is how the Neo-Nazi Azov Batallion -- previously a small collection of fringe nut jobs -- was absorbed into the Ukrainian Army.
US outlets will focus on one thing. Russian propaganda will say something else.cbbass1 said:Do you really think that Putin's open invitation to negotiate an end to the war is going to be carried on U.S. corporate media?sycasey said:I will also say that I am certainly not opposed to negotiations or a peace process, assuming both countries wish to engage in one.oski003 said:blungld said:This tells me all I need to know about the lens through which you see things. You believe Ukraine was already Russia's. This shows the limit of your understanding of the history and politics there, and the narrative to which you buy in and how completely ignorant you are to the plight and perspective of the Ukrainian people as a whole and as a nation. You actually believe that actions of America and NATO and pockets of Ukrainian people and their depiction BY RUSSIA is factual and true and the actual motivations and justifications rather than imperialism and propaganda. You are not a stupid, but I am not the one being stupid in these matters.oski003 said:blungld said:
*** I don't agree with your analogy. It misses the fact that you previously owned the house
Out of curiosity, is Russia also entitled to Alaska? Are Poland and other countries rightfully next for Russia's taking? Does Russia need to forfeit any territory to Turkey or Japan? Does Californa and Texas belong to Mexico...where, when, and by what standard do you respect sovereignty? Ukraine is a culturally and historically completely separate people who have fought for independence for centuries. Russia does not own them. Russia has no divine right to their land and people. Russia does not decide who Ukraine aligns with and how they develop. And Russia does not get to invent threats to justify taking resources and rebuild lost empire. Neither Ukraine or NATO would EVER invade Russia. The threat is completely manufactured and every player knows this. The actions of NATO and Ukraine are ONLY a threat in that they prevent Russia expansion. Period. There is no threat to Russia itself.
Your perspective is bunk, but at least it is clear who I have been responding to.
You are again making things up I never argued. I simply said that Ukraine was part of Russia, amongst other things. It is complicated and your analogy sucks. I also refuse to lump Ukraine in with Russia selling Alaska to the U.S. What if Spain helped the South gain independence from the North in the Civil War? What if the Union later invaded the Confederacy? It isn't always black and white. Fyi, if Mexico was more powerful than the U.S., Texas and California would likely belong to Mexico right now. Perhaps, if the U.S. was losing thousands of lives to the stronger Mexico, they might have settled and given them San Diego and Houston back. Maybe Los Angeles.
With the two years of bloody war and NATO investment, hopefully we succeed. I am rationalizing a treaty that gives Russia something for the war to stop. That something seems to be recognizing Crimea, as well as Dombass independence. I don't oppose Ukraine joining NATO at this point in time. I have never heard NATO or Ukraine say anything other than demanding a full withdrawal and surrender by Russia and that is why 1000s are dying.
I do object to the claims that the US or NATO is somehow blocking such a thing from happening. Whenever I dig into these claims, they appear to me to be without merit. But people keep repeating them anyway. I think the reason it hasn't happened is because at any given time, one or both of the countries has not been willing to negotiate.
They haven't even been able to acknowledge the Istanbul negotiations in 2022. They're still trying to convince American taxpayers that Ukraine can still "win."
If U.S. corporate media doesn't report it, propagandized Americans don't believe that it ever happened.
U.S. propagandists are 100% focused on getting the $60 Billion passed. They aren't going to jeopardize that.
You have to recognize when you're being played.
I've tried to review the information from both. I don't believe the US or NATO actively blocked a peace deal. I believe there was little trust from the Ukrainians that Russia would honor any peace deal, and that is primarily why the talks failed. None of us were in the room, so we can't actually be sure, but that is where I'd place my bets.
I believe Israel's PM said the West wasn't for it, and who sent Boris Johnson to Istanbul?
Defense secretary Austin said we want to 'weaken' Russia. It seems like Russia's slow/ soft start emboldened the USA / MIC.
Defense secretary Austin said we want to 'weaken' Russia. It seems like Russia's slow/ soft start emboldened the USA / MIC.
movielover said:
I believe Israel's PM said the West wasn't for it, and who sent Boris Johnson to Istanbul?
Here's what else he said:
https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-claim-west-blocked-ukraine-russia-peace-deal-2023-2
Quote:
In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians in a town outside the Ukrainian capital, a war crime discovered just about a month after the full-scale invasion began.
"The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled.
I have little doubt that Boris Johnson made his opinions known. I don't buy that he was the biggest reason the deal fell through.
sycasey said:
I have little doubt that Boris Johnson made his opinions known. I don't buy that he was the biggest reason the deal fell through.
Your buying in here has not much to do with the facts.
This is the mindset that has been bringing instability and war to eastern Europe - the president of Latvia calling for Russia to be destroyed. These people are fanatics.
President of Latvia: "Russia delenda est", which means "Russia must be destroyed". In reference to the destruction of Carthage by the Romans...
— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) March 16, 2024
Europeans are losing control and going into panic mode, which is exceedingly dangerous. https://t.co/uIm6cF0YNC
U.S. aid is the entire economy of Ukraine, in addition to the vast majority of the military support.sycasey said:
I have little doubt that Boris Johnson made his opinions known. I don't buy that he was the biggest reason the deal fell through.
Follow the money. Zelenskyy was in no position to disobey Johnson & Nuland (UK & US).
And who subsides the UK? The UK can't even launch its own missiles successfully.
Edit: laugh => launch
Edit: laugh => launch
I know the UK used to be reined in and subsided by the EU, but I'm not sure what's happening in that regard since Brexit.movielover said:
And who subsides the UK? The UK can't even laugh its own missiles successfully.
Is it important that the UK laugh at its own missiles? Can they start out by giggling and work their way up to guffaws? Baby steps.
Given the timing, many of the immigrants from Russia might've been on the CIA / NED payroll, like Navalny. And now that Ukraine is launching drone attacks well into Russian territory, they're considered Russian traitors, and are getting out while they can -- before they get arrested.Zippergate said:Last year 43,000 migrants from Russia, 42,000 from India and 24,000 from China made the crossing. That’s up from 4,100, 2,600 and 450, respectively, in 2021 https://t.co/yC1s7IPpy5 👇
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) March 14, 2024
Most of these Russians are undoubtedly economic migrants. OTOH, wouldn't it be a good idea to know a little something about all these people given that we are at war with their country?
Featured Stories
See All
Cal Hosts Stanford In 127th Big Game
by Cal Athletics
Cal Wins Thriller Over Auburn
by Cal Athletics
Depleted Bears Hold Off Air Force, 78-69
by Jim McGill
Bears Host Big Group For 127th Big Game
by Jim McGill
Bears Rain 3's on Grambling State, Win 86-63
by Jim McGill