ChicagoExpat

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Putin targets power, accommodation, hospital, and school infrastructure on a daily basis, and he is not a terrorist? Yeah right, comrade.

One side invades a country three times based on transparent lies, hits kindergartens, tortures and executes both civilians and POWs as a matter of policy:  THEIR CAUSE IS RIGHTEOUS.  ViCtORiA NuLaNd!  WW3!  NUKES!  EsCaLaTiOn!

One side hits military targets as part of a long series of brilliant, next-level actions:  TERRORISTS

24 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Just because I told you about one class I took doesn't mean I didn't take others. Many others. I've probably lost track at this point.  By the time I finished undergrad school, I had at least 175 semester hours of classes.  A double major in Politics and English, and one class shy of a major in psychology and one class shy of a major in comparative literature. So, almost four majors. Not that any of that matters much in the real world. Anyway, I've learned enough about European history, Soviet foreign policy, US foreign policy, and International relations to realize that Scott Ritter does know what he's talking about.  And I know enough to sense what's likely true and what's likely just propaganda. That works for me. 

 

As for having lived in Russia?  So what?  Lots of people live in Russia. Lots of people speak Russian. Lots of people may have read lots of Russian history. Does that make them all experts on Russian foreign policy post 1991? 

 

And yes, you were taking a cheap shot at Scott Ritter. Bringing up his past to smear him added nothing but desperation to your argument.  Character and credibility?  Is he now on trial again? Is he about to be cross-examined? 

 

Ukrainian side, Russian side, whatever.  Connecting the dots is simply about seeing the big picture when the facts are hazy or secret.  It's about trying to think for yourself. 

Yes, I would say the long list of reasons I might know something about this issue matters -- discount it if you want, who cares.  Congrats on almost quadruple majoring -- amazing you say my background is worthless while claiming yours makes you an expert.  You are shockingly deficient in self-awareness.

Cry if you want about Ritter's past being brought up -- it is relevant, especially when added to the long list of shady, shameful, and discreditable events that make the man Scott Ritter.  I'd say you're just mad about your brilliant got-to source being exposed.  "Alex, I'll take Russian simps who are also kiddy diddlers for $200."

Again, I'll put my knowledge on all of this against yours any day and wipe the floor with you... oh, look, I already am.  And a reminder that you're the one who made this personal.

21 minutes ago, jas007 said:

A ridiculous post on so many levels.

 

From what you've said so far, it doesn't sound like you understand much at all about Russia. I once e took a Soviet Foreign Policy class from a professor who had spent his entire career working for the State Department, in Russia. I'm sure he's long dead by now, as he was veery old when he taught my class, and that was 50 years ago.  Anyway, he could come in, sit down at a desk, and talk for three hours nonstop about Russia and the Soviet Union. Not a paper in sight. Just a pen in his hands. He could tell you anything you wanted to know about Russia and the history of the Soviet Union, their history, and Soviet foreign policy.  So I have some background.  

 

Why bring up the "convicted pedophile" issue if it doesn't matter?  You're just trying to smear Ritter. A cheap shot. I'm not necessarily a Ritter "supporter," but I do think he knows what he's talking about.  For purposes of a discussion about Russia, that's what matters to me.

 

As for connecting the dots?  That's part and parcel of thinking for yourself, rather than just regurgitating news stories and propaganda.  It's a necessary part of putting together the big picture. 

Well, I lived in Russia, I worked in Russia in a firm that was targeted by the FSB, I speak some Russian, I have Russian friends, I have read a ton of Russian history, I even know one of the hostages the FSB took and held in gulag until traded for a truly loathsome Kremlin-sponsored reptile.  It's astonishing that you consider having taken a class in college as "I have some background."  No, you don't.

It's not a smear or a cheap shot.  He is TWICE convicted as a pedophile over a span of years.  He did time for it.  That speaks to his character and credibility.  And while excusing the horrific crimes and sins of someone on your side is certainly not unique to you or the Russian side, it speaks to the lengths your side will go to push Russia's viewpoint on us.  And 100%, if someone on the Ukrainian side were a pedophile but somehow recognized as an expert who can CONNECT THE DOTS for us, you guys would be trumpeting it to the moon and back.

15 minutes ago, jas007 said:

A person who has forgotten more about Russia and its foreign policy than you'll ever know.  

 

Listen to him sometime. He knows his stuff.  It's been his career.  

 

As for Russia "feeding him info for his clown show"?  From what I've seen, Ritter gets his information the same way everyone else gets their information. From publicly available statements.  From publicly available news conferences given by Russian officials.  It's all out there.  All anyone has to do is look and connect the dots. 

Completely false.  I'd put my understanding of Russia against his any day.  And while his being a convicted pedophile doesn't in itself disqualify the value of the nonsense he shares, it is surprising that somehow this isn't a problem for his supporters.

"Connect the dots" -- i.e. believe that which is not supported by facts -- is a common claim of the tinfoil hat crowd.

9 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Russia has already won the war on the ground. That means the war is over, for all practical purposes. Neither the US, nor NATO, nor the EU or any combination of forces those entities could assemble would be strategically able to win a ground war against Russia. 

 

And I believe the US did help to direct the attack.  Starlink. Palantir.

 

Palantir is  under contract to the Pentagon and the CIA.  Starlink is under contract with the Pentagon. Without the technical expertise these companies provide, the drone operation would have been impossible.  And you can bet the MI6 has access to available information, in real time. 

 

And yes, for the reasons laid out above, the MI6 was involved.  

 

As for "proof"?  What do you want, front page articles from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the BBC, detailing the operation, all neatly packaged and presented to you like a Christmas present? 

 

The operations are all highly classified. Covert.  If you're waiting for the "proof" you seem to want.

you're going to have a long wait. 

 

It HASN'T won the war on the ground.  That is obvious and only an idiot or a Russian stooge would say so.  I don't think you're the former.

Who cares if the Free World helped plan the attack or not?  Not sure of the relevance.  We help Ukraine all the time, just as China, Iran, North Korea, and Belarus -- the world's pariah nations -- help Russia.

It's incredible, jas007, that you support a nation whose only allies are the worst regimes on earth.

19 minutes ago, jas007 said:

According to Scot Ritter, Russia now believes the operation was orchestrated by MI6, although the involvement of the US President and the higher echelons of the CIA remains questionable because of the very nature of the CIA charter itself and the extent to which the Russia department is compartmentalized and operates in a detached fashion.  Plausible deniability is the name of the game. 

 

Russia has now labeled Zelenskyy a "terrorist," and a response can be expected from Russia that will essentially devastate Ukraine and re-emphasize Russia's nuclear doctrine and established red lines. Despite with the UK and MI6 may think, Russia doesn't bluff.  Ritter suggests that Russia's response probably won't include nukes, but will, nonetheless, be sufficient to put the current Ukraine administration out of business. And for all practical purposes, Zelenskyy is a dead man walking. 

 

Reading between the lines and connecting a few more dots would lead one to conclude that being anywhere near London from this point forward might not be such good idea. 

 

Starmer needs to wake up. MI6 needs to wake up.  Britain has had it in for Russia since the 1850s, and they're still at it. Why?  The British Empire is gone. India is independent. To be sure, Russia's acquisition of Crimea gave them a warm water port and all that, but are we really going to let MI6 start WWIII simply because the UK still thinks it has an Empire to defend? 

Scott Ritter is an @ssclown.  If it's true that official Russians are feeding him info for his clown show, it's incredible that anyone would believe that information to be useful or genuine, and that it shows anything besides the fact that Ritter is a tool.

Russia labeling Zelenskiy as a "terrorist."  The arrogance is just astonishing -- we can hit civilian targets all day and claim the moral high ground, you hit legitimate military targets and are therefore a terrorist.  But the wonderful part of this is, yet again, Vlad is losing his sh!t after yet again, the Ukrainians outperforming his orc army.

NUKES!  >>DRINK<<

44 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Absolutely correct, after Euromaidan Ukraine entered into a formal partnership with the CIA. They supplied the CIA with intel on Russia. It is inconceivable that Ukraine would not have had CIA assistance in the recent drone attack..

 

Of course they and the US have to deny it at the moment. If you believe that you 'll believe anything.

No one denies the CIA supplies Ukraine with intel.  The very start of Russia's third invasion was the U.S. trying to warn everyone it was coming -- Burns went openly to Moscow to ask them not to invade.  Russia denied they were going to, and Ukraine didn't believe they would.  And during one of Trump's more obvious acts of serving Russia he cut off intelsharing -- particularly related to targeting.  Again, this is all open.

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Im not missing anything, Im taking the position that Ukraine could not have pulled that off without help, overt or otherwise.

 

Behind the scenes, the continuation of the war benefits Europe. Weaken Putin with Ukraine as the cannon fodder.

Why WOULDN'T Europe want to see him weakened?  Russia supporters always reveal this like it's some hidden knowledge or damning information that only the truly wise can see...  You want to see your enemies weakened.  It's what Russia did to Georgia, Moldova, and in its first two invasions of Ukraine.

23 minutes ago, jas007 said:

So, it's your opinion that, in the real world, there's no such thing as a sphere of influence?  And that anyone who thinks so is somehow spouting Russian propaganda?

 

What do you think would happen if Russia or China were to place offensive weapons along the Mexican Border, or along the Canadian border?  Do. you think the USA would say "Oh well, those are independent countries"?  Of course not. That kind of military presence wouldn't be tolerated.  Not for one day. 

 

What do you think would happen if Russia or China smuggled a bunch of specialized trucks and drones into the USA and then attacked US B-52 bombers and other strategic assets with the drones?  Do you think the USA would sit back, be patient, and wait to see what was next on the agenda?  Or would the retaliation already be underway?  

 

So yes, Ukraine is an independent country.  And in the real world and within the Russian sphere of influence, the question is "so what"?  

 

Don't think for a second that Russia has no right to address matters of strategic importance which might be an existential threat. Take a look at the codified Russian nuclear doctrine. That's not "propaganda."  That's reality, and last time I heard, Russia has thousands of nukes which they can and may well use if need be. 

 

So, independent country or not, parts of what were once Ukraine are now part of Russia.  And it may be too late for much of a settlement favorable to Ukraine. 

Nuke threats!!   >>DRINK<<

2 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

Why should Ukraine be a buffer zone? It's THEIR decision how the want to live and that they want to stay a democracy. Not Putins.

And at last we arrive at the real cause of all this:  Putin's insistence that he has the right to determine the course of the countries that border the Russian Empire.

12 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Prove a negative?. You can point to nothing to show that I "support" Russia. I just believe in reality. Your the one in fanboy dreamland.

Fanboy dreamland is so much better than Putin toesucking dreamland.  We've got beer, pelmeni, and sushki; you've got lube, and nothing else.

2 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

That was amazing -- horseface Lavrov, mentally deficient Medvedev, and the evil dwarf himself.  I only hope his end isn't quick, with a drone.

2 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

I didn't go anywhere.

Theyre overtly giving aid and money, but covertly assisting the Ukrainian forces carrying out attacks. 

It's not covert, Frank.  Openly helping Ukraine with targeting intel has been done for most of the duration thus far of Russia's third invasion.  In fact, it was for a while ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOUR SIDE ASSURED US WOULD BRING WORLD WAR 3!!!!   While you may not have gone anywhere, you definitely don't pay attention to news concerning topics you comment on.

11 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

If you think Ukrainian army are fighting Russia alone, without outside assistance then you are somewhat naïve to say the least

Ah, Frank.  So good to have you back.  I am indeed aware that many countries assist Ukraine with arms and money, and have never argued otherwise.

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Wow. So Ukraine shills, America haters and Trump haters as well as the jew haters and trans lovers here think Im a Russia supporter? Heavens to Betsy! Im destroyed! Where is my fainting couch I am having the vapours.

 

You evidently care what people think of you. I dont.

 

Notice how you deflect: Are you willing to sacrifice an American city for Ukraine?

You DO care, though.  You continually argue on behalf of your public persona -- that you are NOT a Russia supporter.  To quote you -- are you lying again?

I'm not "deflecting" -- I'm not taking the bait.  There's a difference.  I'll repeat what I've said many times -- literally no one brings up the nukes issue but Russia and its Western supporters.  "Do what Russia wants or it'll be NUKES" isn't realistic, and therefore not worth discussion.

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

So in  other words, you lied.

 

Would you sacrifice American lives on behalf of Ukraine?

Trying to prove you don't support Russia... by continually supporting Russia... is not a good strategy.  The occasional "Putin is a scumbag!  Really, he is!" is as hilarious as it is unpersuasive.  There is literally no one here, including the few who support you, that does not think you are not a Russia supporter.

Know what I heard in my years living in Russia, including after the third invasion began?  Exactly the same arguments you make here.  Weird coincidence.