Printable View
It seems so. Propaganda should be procuded only for the outside world, while your own army should know the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
It seems Putin used propaganda even against his own army and that was a mistake because he made his army naive.
I know Ukraine is already 8 years at war, so they have some experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomenable
But I don't understand how they can handle all this weaponry coming from many diverse countries without proper training.
I see so many video's, and I wish they were all true, but I don't know ..
I guess they cleaned up the bodies before filming the scene because they didn't want the video to be NSFW / 18+ restricted?Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
Very drastic videos cannot be posted on You Tube and some other social media.
Yes, it seems Russia has a lot of naïve soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomenable
It reminds me when I was doing my service in the Belgian army.
I was supposed to command the marines who would storm the beaches like on D-day in Normandy if necessary.
And I got the impression that my subordinates were selected for the characteristic of not being capable of thinking for themselves properly.
By which I don't want to imply that our liberators who actually stormed the beaches in june 1944 had the same characteristics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northener
Hellooo,:wavey: Trump is not in power anymore, but BIDEN and the Democrats are. Biden is one of the reasons why this mess is unfolding. The Democrats are not even willing to secure the Southern Borders of their own country. You probably get your piece of information and news solely from the one-sided, biased mainstream media that is highly anti-Trump, thus notoriously distorts or misconstrues what he actually says. Here's the thing Trump can objectively acknowledge the fact that Putin made a tactical smart or genius move. However, that doesn't mean he is pro-Ukraine invasion and supports Putin. He just recognizes him as a formidable adversary. In fact, Trump said the Ukraine situation would NEVER have happened under him and that "Putin can smell Biden's weakness a mile off". Besides, you're misguided when it comes to China. Communist China is more dangerous than Russia for several reasons. Basically, the entire world depends on cheap Chinese products and technologies. China gave the world the coronavirus, forced the entire world into lockdowns, lied to the world, and BLAMED ITALY and the US Army for the outbreak of the virus. But that somehow this isn't reckless to you? With all due respect but it's beyond me how you rationally can come to this conclusion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8105527/China-government-spokesman-says-U-S-military-bought-virus-China.html
https://nypost.com/2020/11/20/china-suggests-italy-may-be-the-birthplace-of-covid-19-pandemic/
China is reckless and this is why: The Chinese regime is one of the biggest killers of the climate, one of the biggest polluters of the environment and ocean. There is an ongoing Uyghur genocide in China and labor camps are filled with people that are not in line with the communist policy. Plus, the Chinese are dismantling democracy in Hong Kong. However, according to the PC police, woke liberals, and media, how dare people criticize Chinese folks for their ethno-fascism, their spying, and stealing of technology, the covid discrimination against African migrants in their country. So, criticizing and calling out China is racist but Russia bashing not so much. Sorry, but your claim that China is not reckless is bizarre. The point is, that Communist China is subverting the Western institutions, politics, in a way that Russia can only dream of. Remember, when Donald Trump wanted to ban all travel from China because of Covid, the media and Democrats immediately turn on him and accused him of racism and xenophobia. It appears that the Russian folks I had conversations with weren't wrong when pointing out the anti-Russian hysteria, Russia bashing, and hatred in the media. There is a tendency in the West to make it almost a moral obligation to blindly hate and blast Russia without looking and examining all the information available and doing your research.
Some users were upset when I stated the fact, that we have to look at both sides of the story to understand the reasons for this escalation. This is what you do when you want to judge a conflict between individuals and nations as objectively as possible. If you look at these facts, Crimea is mostly Russian the vote on joining Russia turned out accordingly. Besides, in the eastern part of Ukraine, in the Donbass, things look pretty much the same now. From a geopolitical point of view, Putin isn't a mad man but he knows exactly what he's doing. We can all agree that the Russian invasion was wrong. However, that doesn't mean there is only one valid opinion about the reasons behind it.
The Russians have portable crematoriums so they can pick up and dispose of Russian bodies.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by real expert
We are all focusing on Putin right now, and we should.
But Putin is just playing poker, with very heavy stakes.
Once the game is over, we should focus on what China is doing behind the screens.
I disagree. May be I'm the only one here. But Biden has handled this unto now very well, he is the most experienced person in the US with regard to foreign policy. Today I saw a fragment form a Putin biographer, he found it very obvious that when Putin was asked for which persons he had most respect, then it were Xi and Biden. It is also known that when Biden looked Putin in the eyes and said to him in the face: "you don't seem to have a soul". The answer was, "I guess we can do business."Quote:
Originally Posted by real expert
And I don't think that Trump has left the building. Imo he is still the kingmaker in the Rep party, and if he wants to nominate in 2024 he is the one. And it's also obvious that the authoritarian -populist agenda of Trump near that of Putin. But enough said about him.
China isn't reckless at all. They already have gone on distance, on the indirect Chinese way. But what I have heard is that Xi wan't informed about the attack on the Ukraine. May be true or not. But China has good relationships with the Ukraine. And most of all they don't like interventions in sovereign countries.....
He has been silenced from the outside world for two years, completely panicked for corona. No one comes close to him anymore. Only surrounded by yes marbles. His speeches are full of rancor and revenge. It reminds me most of that other dictator somewhere at the end of the second world war in a bunker, isolated....with the difference that he (AH) did not have access to the red button for nuclear warheads like Putin does.....Quote:
Putin isn't a mad man but he knows exactly what he's doing. We can all agree that the Russian invasion was wrong. However, that doesn't mean there is only one valid opinion about the reasons behind it.
But they were not in control of the battlefield, so they couldn't do that in case of that destroyed unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheal
Ukrainians removed those bodies before filming the scene.
It was always clear that Ukraine, Belorussia and Georgia are red lines which should not be crossed. The USA and NATO broke all promises made in the past by interfering there, which they did, in these "orange revolutions" and by pushing and backing up Ukraine with unnecessary provocations. Especially Ukraine with the Crimea/Sevastopol is just an absolute no go. What should the Russians have done, just watch while they get kicked out by the "souvereign state of Ukraine" out of their largest military port and one of their strategically most precious positions, to let American troops take it afterwards?Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
If anybody thinks that the Western media coverage is that great and objective, I have to remind everybody on the Syrian conflict and how things got distorted there, with the "freedom fighters" which were for the most part most extreme Sunni Islamists, which butchered from the start of the "revolution" all non-Sunni Islamists and nobody cared, nobody helped, but they let the weapons flow from Turkey and the Free Syrian Army to those Islamists. On the same day one bomb went the wrong way from the Syrians, while Islamists shelled deliberately a market place frequented mostly by Christian Armenians in Aleppo. They only reported the Syrian "barrel bomb" which went wrong, no word about the other side of the city. That's how they always report things. Same here with the Donbas. If the Donbas troops shot back, it was a report, if they get shelled, nobody noticed.
There is no way one can only blame one side for this conflict and its escalation, that doesn't work out. They are "both guilty" and they chould come to terms with each other in a compromise with which both sides can live with. The alternative is just horrific for them and probably, in a worst case scenario, for the whole world. That's absolutely not worth it.
Talking about laws and what's just, when did the USA or England ever cared about that if it was not in their interest? That's just a fig leaf. Just like they only care about suppressed media and persecuted reporters when they do what is in the interest of the USA and GB, never when its about revealing their own crimes and conspirations, because than its just "fake news" which needs to be censored and suppressed, with people like Assange and Snowden having to fear for their life and freedom just like a Russian or Chinese dissident would have to.
There was absolutely no need to push Russia that far, by trying to get Ukraine in the current borders into the NATO without any agreement on Crimea/Sevastopol even. That is completely insane and like a declaration of war. Nobody in his right mind can see this otherwise, because there is some pretext to this conflict, and the Western alliance broke every promise given to the Russians over time. They are now desperate enough to say "stop" that way, which is horrible and insane too, but what did people expect? How far do they want to push the Russian leadership from now on? They can just hope, if the invasion fails, that Putin has just a mental breakdown and gives up, or otherwise we don't know where it ends.
And nobody can tell in all seriousness this was about freedom or laws, it was a geostrategical the West played with Russia, and they pushed the Ukraine to the point of confrontation. Absolutely not necessary. Just a neutral Ukraine with promises to Russia for its ethnic minorities and military bases might have sufficed 2014, but now its too late and everything went wrong for both the Russians and the Ukrainians.
Well stop and step back a second, you think there might be some folks inside Ukraine that have orders to the effect of what Martin Sheen got in Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" that is "This mission does not exist nor will it ever exist" See Youtube video "The Captains Mission (See 6:03 to 6:10 mark)."Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
Putin's move was politically retarded. He is over, it will backfire him big times. Keep defending him. I bet he regrets going in to it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani
Sorting facts, disinformation after the Russian invasion of Ukraine isn‘t easy at all. Hence determining exactly what is happening is difficult. What are the Russians really targeting? What is the military truth of that? A sober assessment of this crisis and escalation in such an emotionally charged situation and media reporting is challenging since people will quickly accuse you of being a Putin lover and supporter of authoritarian regimes.
In fact, in our own Western society, the totalitarian spirit is spreading. Take a look at Trudeau Canada, the killing of freedom of speech, and cancel culture. Anyway, the Russian neighbors I talk to pointed out that the demonization of Russia and President Putin has gone to the extent where it is almost prohibited to say anything good about Russia.
Besides, Peter Hitchens has a different take on the Russian invasion. I'm quoting his assessment of the Ukraine crisis he wrote about in the Daily Mail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...and-China.html
Quote:
....He said Nato expansion was folly, and correctly predicted it would create nationalist backlash in Moscow. Did the neo-conservatives who created this policy really think Russia, with its huge intelligence services and vast, sophisticated foreign policy establishment, would not notice that it was being targeted?
Russia guards its interests, as do all nations, just as rain falls downwards and water is wet. Out of this realisation came Vladimir Putin, the direct consequence of the Wolfowitz doctrine. We created him.
In fact, Wolfowitz and Clinton were simply wrong. China was the real danger. Think about this. In 1989, the Soviet Empire gave way to mass demonstrations in Prague and East Germany. It could have massacred protesters in Leipzig, Dresden and Berlin, but it did not. After a few nasty but feeble attempts to fight demands for independence in the Baltic states and Georgia, Russia gave up its enormous empire in Europe and Asia. In return, Russia was treated like a pariah by the EU and Nato when it sought a civilised relationship with them.
That same year, China’s Communists answered their people’s demands for freedom by murdering them on the streets of Peking.
In the years since, they have created an ever-fiercer police state regime, tightened their dictatorial grip on Tibet, and menaced Taiwan by hugely increasing their military and naval power. They have also blatantly broken their promises to maintain freedom in Hong Kong, and engaged in a shameful and racialist repression of the Uighurs.
This is a real threat, and a regime which makes Putin look relaxed. Yet we stay on friendly terms with them. When their despots come to London, and dine at Buckingham Palace, British police cravenly crush peaceful demonstrations of protest lest our tyrannical guests are offended.
We continue to pretend Taiwan is not independent. We cravenly shun the Dalai Lama for the sake of trade. Is it precisely because we are so feeble in this real struggle that we pretend to toughness in the supposed New Cold War with Russia? I often think so.
And now here we are again, in a moralising frenzy. The BBC, which insisted on strict neutrality between Britain and Argentina in its coverage of the Falklands War, flings itself into an ignorant and one-sided coverage of the Ukraine crisis..............
It would also be more convincing if our political and media establishment had not supported the Nato bombing of Belgrade in 1999 (with major civilian casualties); the crazy invasion of Iraq in 2003; and the forgotten Nato bombing of Libya, also with its toll of dismembered children killed in supposed ‘surgical strikes’.
That intervention destroyed Libya. Mr Putin, and the Chinese police state, know that we did these things, and see them as precedents for any crimes of the same kind they may commit later.
I’m told I am supporting the invasion by saying we provoked it. But if I warn a child that, if he annoys a wasp, it will sting him, am I supporting the wasp?
I am accused of treachery, or of being an apologist for Russia, for urging a different view on this crisis. Surely this is how dissent is treated in dictatorships.
I write this as a British patriot. How was it in our interests to provoke a war we cannot win, and cannot even fight, against a country which is not, in fact, our enemy?
I am accused of treachery, or of being an apologist for Russia, for urging a different view on this crisis. Surely this is how dissent is treated in dictatorships.
Furthermore, here's a clip of Russel Brand. In my opinion he puts a lot of effort to explain the complexity of this crisis. Russel Brand tries to be nuanced and balanced when discussing difficult topics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=595Esg6Mz0U
Please, let's try to discuss the reasons for the Ukraine invasion without ad hominem and getting personal. And we should not quickly dismiss the opinion of people we disagree with, they may or may not have a point.
I don't think it was right what he did, he indeed went to far. I'm rather concerned about the outcome of this mess, as should everybody else. There is definitely nothing to celebrate about this. If it remains a regionalised conflict, its the best we can hope for either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
Russian official Oleg Anisimov has apologized to the United Nations for the invasion:
https://www.france24.com/en/live-new...n-climate-meet
Putin must be raging now.
Russian offer to talk was fake?:
https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/s...49890084753411
https://i.imgur.com/6E2zHXa.png
Real Expert: Well many of the points Hitchen's made in that piece, I actually put in an earlier post (not to pat myself on the back :)!). I do believe Russia could have been handled differently in 1989 and early 1990's but when Putin took over (KGB guy) kind of ended that. Still, I have also said China is the greatest political threat economically, politically and militarily .
But the entire giving away national identity and economic independence to for the global trade system and unrestricted movement of peoples was nonsense. Nobody criticizes Japan which has a strong political culture of protecting its national identity but works with its partners and trades within the boundaries for respecting law, patent and trademarks, does not manipulate its currency which China does. I know there is some criticism of Poland by the staunch EU types because they refuse to cater to the EU on certain social issues, but I have respect for Poland. They are a loyal NATO ally (as I have noted they do spend > 2% of their GDP on NATO defense) and they took steps years ago to set up LNG terminals to import Natural Gas from sources other than Russia. They are fiercely loyal to their culture and language and do not try to tell their neighbors who to deal with social issues. I respect to UK for getting out of the EU. To me the EU should have always been a Trading and Economic union that allowed free and fair trade across borders without the EU trying to make all the countries the same on social policy, immigration. The EU leftist seemed to think that by trying to take away each countries national identity, culture, etc, would be a good approach, to the contrary, people want to have their national character. The UK people had enough of it. Yet, they have always been the biggest supporter of NATO defense and did not shirk their responsibility as the 5th largest Economy in the world to continue to do so when they left the EU. I respect the UK's right to control how they do their immigration policy, not the EU globalist bureaucrats. Denmark has gotten more stringent on its immigration policy. Denmark announced a few years ago to get to 1.5% of GDP for NATO defense, up from about 1.35%. Germany seems to be stepping up as it should given it is the 4th largest economies in the world.
And before some neo-marxist comes in with I am anti immigration. I am not, I am against unregulated immigration and the notion that anyone who is an economic migrant is an immigrant or is entitled to asylum (which legally means being persecuted by a Government for religious, political or racial-ethnic reasons) Salmon Rushdie, definitely was a legitimate asylum seeker back in the day when the Iranian Mullahs wanted to behead him. But all this EU migrant and refugee stuff, I believe pushed for by Merkel when she was in office, along with her EU allies, I do not support.
My ancestors were immigrants, from Sicily to the USA, all of them bought tickets got on a ship with documentation and entered the USA through a legal port of entry. I have every ship manifest from every great grandparent that came over which had to be given to US immigration officials when they, and other Italian immigrants from Sicily and the other regions of Southern Italy cam to the USA.
Well not to laugh but notice it was the Climate group of the UN. Good Lord. I am all for getting to less dependence on Fossil fuel, but it is not a switch you can just turn on. It is a transition that is going to take years and you can't do what Biden here in the USA did, stop domestic production as soon as you get in, and now he is looking for other countries to provide extra Oil and Gas to meet demand. I read where the USA may start buying from Iran again if some agreement on the Nuclear deal can be reached. So it is ok to buy from Iran, but not from Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Louisiana, etc, etc, etc, and all other Oil and Gas producing states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomenable
I can agree with him mostly, actually quite a good attempt. There is absolutely no moral superiority of countries like the USA and GB. The refusal to negotiate and come to an acceptable compromise was used deliberately to escalate this conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by real expert
Ahhhh...the Hitler and now Putin's apologists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Oh and the people that condemn Trudeau for clearing out the trucks that incovenienced people of Ottawa for three weeks. You want to protest do it in one to two days preferably in two days. You extend it for 3 weeks and it's an occupation. The people that live and work in that area have every right to kick the hell out. I hope that the Washington leaders prevent what happened to Ottawa from happening in DC. I have a lot of friends that work in DC that would be totally pissed if there was a 3 week occupation of DC. I don't freaking blame. The SCOTUS has always held that rights are not absolute and there can be time and place restrictions and they have to be weighed against the public interest.
Oh I also think that the offer of talks is a ruse and will be an excuse to resupply the Russian troops. Did the Ukrainian drones target the Russian resupply lines?
But Austria is not likely to get into this conflict, correct, as you all have never been a Member of NATO. Yes, I know the history, the USA, UK and Soviets all had occupation forces. The USSR agreed to elections in 1955 and to they were surprised that you all did not choose communism. To stop a potential clash between the Soviet Communist and the West, Austria pledged neutrality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
That isn't quite what I meant. World leaders size each other up. I think Putin knew that Trump would not be a Carter or even a Biden, who was, btw, the only Obama advisor who voted against going in to Bin Laden. Just my opinion; can't prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsnake49
Yes, Cruz was my man in a lot of ways. Imploded, though.
I could have lived with Romney too. He was right to say Russia was still a huge threat, for all the guff he got from Democrats and Republicans both. I do think long term China is the bigger threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northener
Malaparte redux.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Explain please Angela.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
The Russians do as they're told. How many years have they lived under a democracy? Less than a decade if memory serves.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
I don't think there's anything surprising in the fact their "invasion" is a fiasco. Ever since the inspectors reported that a very large percentage of their missiles were inoperable or at least very faulty and would never have hit the proposed targets I knew I had to take every claim about their military might with extreme skepticism. It was said even then that Russia was a third world country with nukes. I think it was true then and is true now. Thing is, even their nukes don't work.
Then, there was, of course, Chernobyl. Yes, there was operator error, but after seeing the series I went and read the actual reports. Yes, there was operator error, but the design itself was faulty, and they knew it and let their people live in the shadow of 17 reactors with the same flaw because a) it was too expensive to fix them, and b) they couldn't admit to the west that they had made such a huge error. They only "saved the day" or saved the rest of Europe from nuclear fallout by sacrificing their own people.
Now we have the Potemkin Village nature of Russia on display once again. They don't have control of the skies, and they haven't managed to put a dent in the communications systems so Ukrainian command and control is operational. One of their three prongs of attack, from the northwest, never happened, because they let their supply lines get cut.
The only time they win is when they carpet bomb. Then nobody can tell there was no accuracy.
That's not to say Russia isn't a dangerous adversary. A country with nukes led by a megalomaniac who believes his own lies about his country's "capability" if not "superiority" is a dangerous figure.
One thing you can never do with a man like that, however, is show fear.
You know I thought you and Malaparte were the same person (as well as perhaps other people we know and love ;)), but perhaps not; perhaps you're a tag team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
None of the above is worthy of a response, so I'll leave it at that, except to state neither you or Malaparte have responded to my question.
"So, NATO should have refused the appeal of the former Eastern Bloc countries when they petitioned to join?
In order to "keep the peace" and "not provoke" Russia, the entire Eastern Bloc should have been told that no defensive treaties were possible and if Russia decided to move back in and reincorporate them it was just their bad luck?"
Just want to see how far modern appeasement goes.
EU fighter jets will be provided to ukraine
https://twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/st...7Ctwgr%5Etweet
No, they don't need them. They need more drones. Fighter jets need long runways, drones don't. Fighter jets need a lot of training of the pilots, drones do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by firetown
Denmark and Britain approve the idea of Ukraine's Foreign Legion with international volunteers.
Denmark:
https://twitter.com/afp/status/1498009972512280576
"Denmark says will let volunteers join foreign brigade in Ukraine: Prime Minister"
And Britain - Liz Truss said:
"In an interview on BBC One’s Sunday Morning programme, the UK foreign secretary replied “absolutely” when asked whether she would back anyone wanting to volunteer to help the Ukrainians fighting for their freedom.
She told the programme: “That is something people can make their own decisions about. The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe. Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle, I would support them in doing that.”
The same offer was made to Germany: Neutrality or partitioning. Adenauer chose partitioning for Germany, since he was largely an US agent on the one hand, but also because he didn't trust the US and even less the Soviets to fulfil any such treaty. Like they could demand neutrality first and then invade nevertheless. But this was an option in a lot of cases, similar for Finland, Sweden etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani
That's like accusing you and anybody else which says "brute force against the Russians to the bitter end, no matter what" is the same person. Obviously there are more people out there which don't want this conflict to escalate for nothing and prefer a diplomatic solution, while seeting that both the Russian and the Ukrainian part didn't really try hard enough to achieve a compromise. Its always sad if two states and populations need to start a war, just to get back to the table for negotiations again, so useless. But the current escalation is not just the fault of Russia and Putin. They might have done it, but this war has a history, with preceding events leading up to this mess and the West and the Ukraine did their fair share for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
Quote:
"So, NATO should have refused the appeal of the former Eastern Bloc countries when they petitioned to join?
In order to "keep the peace" and "not provoke" Russia, the entire Eastern Bloc should have been told that no defensive treaties were possible and if Russia decided to move back in and reincorporate them it was just their bad luck?"
I think we can't compare countries like Poland, the Czech Republic or Romania with Belarussia, Ukraine and Georgia. The latter are much closer to, more important and have a very different history than the former. Also, its always a process and in this case, unlike the others, Russia made very clear that the West and the Ukraine crossed various red lines, which demanded a response. And the West was just going on.
Seriously, we almost got a nuclear war over Kuba, for much less than that, and Kennedy being even praised for not started a nuclear war immediately and negotiating first. Actually, that's pretty insanse, especially if comparing with this situation, which is much worse than Kuba for the USA.
There was never a serious threat of Russia to keep Poland, Czechia or Romania for example, that's just a different situation altogether. Also, Russia didn't intervene into Ukrainian policy and freedom all that much, as long as they kept some promises and basic ties. Its just when they threatened to join NATO in their current borders, and with the demands for the East and Crimea still up, unresolved, that they went mad. But this was predictable, you can't just proceed with such hostile plans against a neighbour like Russia without even trying to come to a compromise and diplomatic solution acceptable for it. Putin actually begged for a diplomatic solution, for some basic guarantees, quite long. There was just no response from the West, they just pushed the Ukraine to keep a hard stance and move forward regardless of what Russia was saying, while constantly supplying Ukraine with weapons.
I'm not saying what Russia does right now is right, absolutely not, but what the USA and other Western countries, together with the current political leadership of the Ukraine did, was also wrong, the wrong way to do it and a direct path to a foreseeable escalation. Its just horrific that it really did happen, I hoped it won't, but here we are.
Both the Ukraine and Russia should be pushed to the negotiation table and no side should believe it can win this war with brute force alone. Because if it does, this could escalate to yet another level no sane human being should want it to.
Russians are also protesting in the streets, troops don't want to be there, and this Russian official apologizes for the war, but apologists in western Europe and the U.S. think the west "provoked" him, so the west is to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomenable
That about covers it in a nutshell.
As for giving deference to the Russian apologists point of view, should Churchill have given deference to Chamberlain, or should he have continued shouting from the rooftops that Hitler should be stopped? My opinion is obviously he should have done the latter, which he did, to his everlasting credit. Too bad his countrymen didn't listen. It was a near thing for Britain because the U.S. got in so late, with Roosevelt having to fight the isolationists all the way, until Japan pushed us over the edge.
Sure, let Iran keep the jobs and get the money and energy independence. What's wrong with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani
OK, maybe defending Poland, Hungary, and Romania is justifiable, but there's a deafening silence about Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Oh well, they're small states, and have been turned over before, so I guess they're expendable?
Oh, and btw, maybe people who think it's only Ukraine which Putin was willing to go to war for, and only because the west "provoked" him should go back and read that long rambling, maniacal screed where he lays out clearly his ultimate goal. He wants it all back, guys, all of it, all of the former eastern bloc.
When dictators tell you what they want, believe them.
Putin has unleashed the whirlwind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomenable
I am not sure on the specifics but because there are sanctions by the USA on Iran, they can't export Gas and Oil as part of OPEC to the USA. But once they get back a Nuclear Deal, and OPEC allows them to sell their oil with the rest of OPEC, how does the US not buy it. Psaki was asked the question the other day, but she of course dodged it. Here is a pretty good summary on the politics and what has to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
https://money.usnews.com/investing/n...il-supply-deal
I don't want to make this all about economics, but you can't totally decouple economic policy from your national security policy, imo. But those 3 countries to their credit are hitting the > 2% of GDP on their NATO commitmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Angela
In addition, this foreign policy analysis article, from 2017, clearly showed these 3 countries recognized the need to move away from dependence on Russian Oil and Gas
https://www.fpri.org/article/2017/06...g-away-russia/
Smart leaders who recognize being dependent on Russian Oil and Gas is not only a threat to your economy, it is is also a threat to national security.
These 3 countries know what it is like to live under the boot of Soviet Communism and they deserve NATO support. I have seen nothing from these 3 countries other than being good NATO partners both in terms of shared security obligations and economic decisions.
No, I wouldn't say so. And it doesn't matter anyway, because Russia already accepted it, by and large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
That's absurd, where did he really say that? He did not, he desperately tries to not provoke the NATO and keep it at a distance. Russia in its current borders and with its current military can't bring all Eastern states back under its control. Of course, he might dream about it on the very long run, probably over generations, but that's not what he said. Some remarks shouldn't be taken literally, but I never heard him saying that he e.g. wants Poland and Romania back by force. Rather he wants to be a counterweight in Europe as such to the Washington-London influence, politically.Quote:
Oh, and btw, maybe people who think it's only Ukraine which Putin was willing to go to war for, and only because the west "provoked" him should go back and read that long rambling, maniacal screed where he lays out clearly his ultimate goal. He wants it all back, guys, all of it, all of the former eastern bloc.
As if the USA is more believable to any sovereign state around the world. There are plenty of cases which prove the opposite in the recent years alone.Quote:
When dictators tell you what they want, believe them.
The most insidious and hypocritical comments came of course from Erdogan, the butcher of the Kurds, the spreader of Islamist terror, the occupier of foreign countries against international law. He was the first to condemn Putins transgression of international law. Probably Saudi Arabia should send a message from Yemen too, if they like, just like Erdogan from Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan in general.
What did happen to Erdogan for what he did? Nothing. These are just double standards, just like it suits the Washington-London alliance. If they like it, its ok, if not, its against international law and needs to be fought with all measures. These kind of double standards make absolutely clear with which kind of geopolitical game we're dealing with.
Gypsies who live in a country ruled by a "Nazi drug addict" president - capture a Russian tank:
https://168-hu.translate.goog/kulfol...7vQfAPmjQ-OR28
"Local Roma occupied a Russian tank from the village of Ljubimivka in Herson Oblast, local residents said on 27 February. According to them, "Herszon county is on fire" - writes Transcarpathia.ma.
Earlier, UNIAN reported that civilians had taken to the streets in the village of Koryukivka in Chernivtsi County to stop Russian tanks.
The bold venture of the villagers was also shared by Adviser to the Interior Minister Anton Herashchenko. The head of the ministry expressed his appreciation for their courage."
^^^
So from Kremlin's point of view, the Russian army is facing Nazi Gypsies, led by a Nazi Jew, and supported by many drug addicts.
Makes sense.