4 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 Russia are still advancing in other areas - you will see the Ukrainians totally destroyed then come back and spin it as you usually do

Feeling uncomfortable comrade?

44 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Ukraine is a democracy.

Ukraine is not a democracy !

Dont know a thing about war, the military and such but didn't this guy who had his merchant army do the same and basically made it to Moscow?

10 hours ago, steven100 said:

Just bomb Moscow and wipe it of the face of the earth ....  and destroy Putin's palaces ,  flatten them.  

Bing Videos

Just now, bubblegum said:

Dont know a thing about war, the military and such but didn't this guy who had his merchant army do the same and basically made it to Moscow?

Mercenaries, sort of, but it was a misunderstanding..........🤗

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I don't know you can equate the two. Noriega was a drug trafficker and dictator, Ukraine is a democracy.

 

Russian "interests" are in getting the Soviet Union back, Putin has repeatedly said so. That ship sailed long ago.

 

Well, in relation to the point I was making, that smaller neighbouring countries of large powerful countries have to take account of the interests of the latter it is clearly irrelevant what political system a country has. It is just a valid dictate of offensive realism.

 

Noriega actually had strong associations with Cuban intelligence, as well as being a drug dealer. The US did not seem to mind the drug dealing, it was when they found out Noriega was supplying Cuban intelligence with passports and shipping restricted military equipment to Cuba (Noriega was all about money), that the US used a pretext to invade Panama.

 

I'm not equating the political systems, I am equating their real position in international relations, both were neighbours of very large powerful countries who showed a blatant disregard for the interests of that large neighbour. Panama paid the price, and so did the Ukraine.

 

This idea that Putin wants to bing back the old Soviet Union is really just propaganda that you can't take seriouly. Putin never said that. He waxed lyrical about the joint historical roots of Ukrainians and Russians, something every Russian believes, and this was spun by the Atlantic Council and others as evidence of Russian Imperial ambitions. It's just poor propaganda.

 

What Putin actually said was:

 

"Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains."

in New York Times 20 February 2000; a similar remark was attributed to General Alexander Lebed in St Petersburg Times (Florida) 28 June 1996

 

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00016963

 

In the west they usually only quote the first part of that sentence, which obviously distorts the meaning substantially.

Edited August 15, 20241 yr by Cameroni

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

If Ukraine wants to be independent it has to stop poking Russia in the eye with a stick. If you are a neighbour of a country like Russia, then you have to take into account Russian interests. Just as if you live next to America you have to take into account American interests, as Panama found out.

 

This is just the reality. Independence is all very well, but you can't antagonize countries like Russia, if you're a small neighbour. It's just no a wise way to ensure your independence.

Isn't that supposed to work both ways?

25 minutes ago, johng said:

Ukraine is not a democracy !

Ukraine is constitutionally a democracy. Obviously, it's a bit difficult to hold elections when fighting for survival.

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

Isn't that supposed to work both ways?

 

Sadly not, because in offensive realism it is the smaller neighbours that have to take into account the interests of the larger neighbour. Not the other way around. The US does not take Panamanian interests into account, but Panama has to do that with American interests. Same with Ukraine and Russia.

 

In fact Russians would say that they gave Ukraine territory, infrastructure and fought for its freedom, but again, it is the smaller countries that have to take into account the interests of the larger, more powerful neighbourt. Lest events like the war in Ukraine or the invasion of Panama get unleashed.

 

I don't think Russia can tolerate a pro American Ukraine, with nuclear weapons, as many Ukrainian politicians have demanded. For obvious reasons this is a security issue for Russia

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, in relation to the point I was making, that smaller neighbouring countries of large powerful countries have to take account of the interests of the latter it is clearly irrelevant what political system a country has. It is just a valid dictate of offensive realism.

 

Noriega actually had strong associations with Cuban intelligence, as well as being a drug dealer. The US did not seem to mind the drug dealing, it was when they found out Noriega was supplying Cuban intelligence with passports and shipping restricted military equipment to Cuba (Noriega was all about money), that the US used a pretext to invade Panama.

 

I'm not equating the political systems, I am equating their real position in international relations, both were neighbours of very large powerful countries who showed a blatant disregard for the interests of that large neighbour. Panama paid the price, and so did the Ukraine.

 

This idea that Putin was to bing back the old Soviet Union is really just propaganda that you can't take seriouly. Putin never said that. He waxed lyrical about the joint historical roots of Ukrainians and Russians, something every Russian believes, and this was spun by the Atlantic Council as other as evidence of Russian Imperial ambitions. It's just poor propaganda.

There are huge gaps in the Russia defenses against invasion. 9 of them. When the Soviet Union existed, they were all plugged. Now only Belarus remains. Finland made it worse by about 1500 km of added front, joining NATO.

 

Putin may well wax lyrical about the shared roots of Ukrainians and Russians, deporting children from captured regions in Ukraine gives the lie to that statement. But then, everyone who is not delusional knows Putin lies like a pig in sh!t.

 

Simple fact - Ukrainians hate Russians. Given what the Tsars and Stalin, now Putin have done to them, who can blame them?

 

IMO the Russian leadership is focused in entirely the wrong direction. NATO is a defensive pact, although of course the Kremlin does not see it that way.

 

History shows the invasions that inflicted the most damage on the Russian psyche were by the Mongols and Tartars, from the east. Comparatively speaking, Russia gave as good as it got with Napoleon and Hitler.

 

I am predicting when China thinks Russia is sufficiently weakened, it will be annexing eastern Siberia. It has had every opportunity to observe the incompetence of Russian logistics over a mere 50 kilometres. The Xi-Putin friendship pact has as much value as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact did.

32 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

 

 

IMO the Russian leadership is focused in entirely the wrong direction. NATO is a defensive pact, although of course the Kremlin does not see it that way.

 

It was pretty obvious when the NATO treaty was signed that it was directed against Russia. The aim being to contain and if need be fight Russia.

 

If some people in your neighbourhood armed themselves and issued a declaration patently directed against you, then moved ever closer to your house, maybe you would not see that as such a defensive set up. Pehaps you would get concerned, the way Russia got concerned.

 

One man's defense is another man's offense and vice vcersa.

Sudzha just fell to Ukraine

https://x.com/AFP/status/1824069694954811424

 

26 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

It was pretty obvious when the NATO treaty was signed that it was directed against Russia. The aim being to contain and if need be fight Russia.

 

If some people in your neighbourhood armed themselves and issued a declaration patently directed against you, then moved ever closer to your house, maybe you would not see that as such a defensive set up. Pehaps you would get concerned, the way Russia got concerned.

 

One man's defense is another man's offense and vice vcersa.

I'd be concerned if they had nukes. Tell me who in Eastern Europe did, after the Soviet Union fell. Only Ukraine, who gave them up in 1994.

 

From the viewpoint of countries such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria. Romania etc. they did not want to be under the Russian jackboot again, with everything siphoned off to Moscow.

 

The NATO pact was quite moribund, until Putin invaded the Donbas. Another of his miscalculations. Russia can bitch to sympathetic ears like yours, cuts no ice with me. A self-inflicted wound.

13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I'd be concerned if they had nukes. Tell me who in Eastern Europe did, after the Soviet Union fell. Only Ukraine, who gave them up in 1994.

 

From the viewpoint of countries such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria. Romania etc. they did not want to be under the Russian jackboot again, with everything siphoned off to Moscow.

 

The NATO pact was quite moribund, until Putin invaded the Donbas. Another of his miscalculations. Russia can bitch to sympathetic ears like yours, cuts no ice with me. A self-inflicted wound.

 

I think it's fair to say that NATO was moribund after 1990, when Russia agreed to allow Germany to unify. I still remember the euphoria and how people were questioning the very need for NATO, now that Russia is "one of us". Remember how Russia implemented western economic reform, co-operated with the US on space stations, and how Putin even talked of being part of the EU?

 

At that time, indeed NATO had seemed to lose all relevance and appeared, as you say 'moribund'. However, instead of creating a new security framework, as older Bush and Baker had promised Russia, America chose to revive NATO. This climaxed in the 2008 NATO conference in Romania when it was announced that Ukraine and Georgia would become members, eventually.

 

We see the result now, with war in Ukraine, a direct result of this foolish American policy. NATO was not a "self-inflicted" wound, it was a problem the West created for Russia, Ukraine and all of us taxpayers who pay for it.

Edited August 15, 20241 yr by Cameroni

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

I think it's fair to say that NATO was moribund after 1990, when Russia agreed to allow Germany to unify. I still remember the euphoria and how people were questioning the very need for NATO, now that Russia is "one of us". Remember how Russia implemented western economic reform, co-operated with the US on space stations, and how Putin even talked of being part of the EU?

 

At that time, indeed NATO had seemed to lose all relevance and appeared, as you say 'moribund'. However, instead of creating a new security framework, as older Bush and Baker had promised Russia, America chose to revive NATO. This climaxed in the 2008 NATO conference in Romania when it was announced that Ukraine and Georgia would become members, eventually.

 

We see the result now, with war in Ukraine, a direct result of this foolish American policy. NATO was not a "self-inflicted" wound, it was a problem the West created for Russia, Ukraine and all of us taxpayers who pay for it.

You can say America provoked Russia all you want. It's still a fact Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, and the Donbas in 2022. No one was invading Russia.

 

If Putin had not miscalculated in about half a dozen ways, by being told only what he wanted to hear, he probably would have got away with Crimea. The Donbas was a bridge too far for Europe and America.

 

Disagree, Russia created its own problems.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

I think it's fair to say that NATO was moribund after 1990, when Russia agreed to allow Germany to unify. I still remember the euphoria and how people were questioning the very need for NATO, now that Russia is "one of us". Remember how Russia implemented western economic reform, co-operated with the US on space stations, and how Putin even talked of being part of the EU?

 

At that time, indeed NATO had seemed to lose all relevance and appeared, as you say 'moribund'. However, instead of creating a new security framework, as older Bush and Baker had promised Russia, America chose to revive NATO. This climaxed in the 2008 NATO conference in Romania when it was announced that Ukraine and Georgia would become members, eventually.

 

We see the result now, with war in Ukraine, a direct result of this foolish American policy. NATO was not a "self-inflicted" wound, it was a problem the West created for Russia, Ukraine and all of us taxpayers who pay for it.

 

Again, a nice story. But Russia was a Mafia state.

56 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You can say America provoked Russia all you want. It's still a fact Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, and the Donbas in 2022. No one was invading Russia.

 

If Putin had not miscalculated in about half a dozen ways, by being told only what he wanted to hear, he probably would have got away with Crimea. The Donbas was a bridge too far for Europe and America.

 

Disagree, Russia created its own problems.

 

Well, Russia invaded Crimea after the US made clear in 2008 that it will incorporate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, after Russia had very clearly indicated that Ukrainian membership in NATO is a line in the sand. That was known for a long time by America.

 

Noone was invading Russia, but the logistical possibility that an invasion of Russia could happen became ever more of a problem with the continuing expansion of NATO. Ukraine was a bridge too far for Russia.

 

And btw, Putin will get away with Crimea, and he will get away with Donbass. There is no way Ukraine can continue the war for 5 more years. There will be a peace settlement.

 

It was the Western politicians who created this problem. The war in Ukraine was completely unnecessary.

 

Obviously Ukrainian clamouring to be part of the West did not help.

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, Russia invaded Crimea after the US made clear in 2008 that it will incorporate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, after Russia had very clearly indicated that Ukrainian membership in NATO is a line in the sand. That was known for a long time by America.

 

Noone was invading Russia, but the logistical possibility that an invasion of Russia could happen became ever more of a problem with the continuing expansion of NATO. Ukraine was a bridge too far for Russia.

 

And btw, Putin will get away with Crimea, and he will get away with Donbass. There is no way Ukraine can continue the war for 5 more years. There will be a peace settlement.

 

It was the Western politicians who created this problem. The war in Ukraine was completely unnecess

Obviously Ukrainian clamouring to be part of the West did not help.

Sometimes Russia loses.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sometimes Russia loses.

 

Not this time. Putin can unleash a nuclear device against Ukraine and end the war in short period of time if he so wishes. The US could never retaliate because they would risk being in a nuclear war with Russia. 

 

Putin has nuclear insurance. America knows this. They only pour in billions to prolong the war as long as possible in order to weaken Russia as much as possible.

 

When they both come to a negotiated settlement Putin will keep the Crimea and the Donbass. Putin will win this war, no matter what.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not this time. Putin can unleash a nuclear device against Ukraine and end the war in short period of time if he so wishes. The US could never retaliate because they would risk being in a nuclear war with Russia. 

 

Putin has nuclear insurance. America knows this. They only pour in billions to prolong the war as long as possible in order to weaken Russia as much as possible.

 

When they both come to a negotiated settlement Putin will keep the Crimea and the Donbass. Putin will win this war, no matter what.

Putin is not going to use nukes. 

That's his game to threaten that.

Just now, Jingthing said:

Putin is not going to use nukes. 

That's his game to threaten that.

 

It's not an empty threat. You can be sure Russia has included the possibility of using nukes in their plans of action.

 

Should the masses of materiel Ukraine receives turn the tide, no sign of that but hypothetically speaking, and Russia sees its territorial integrity and survival at stake long term, then you better believe Russia will use nukes. And the Ukrainian NATO issue would be settled once and for all.

15 hours ago, steven100 said:

well I guess your right .....   but if he was killed then he couldn't do anything could he .... 

Are you for real?

You think no one else would take over and turn Europe to rubble?

The US and Nato aren't going to bow to Putin's nuclear threat forever .... 

they will react when the time is right ....    and that could be coming soon.

 

they don't listen to his threats anymore ....    the boy who cried wolf   "

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

It's not an empty threat. You can be sure Russia has included the possibility of using nukes in their plans of action.

 

Should the masses of materiel Ukraine receives turn the tide, no sign of that but hypothetically speaking, and Russia sees its territorial integrity and survival at stake long term, then you better believe Russia will use nukes. And the Ukrainian NATO issue would be settled once and for all.

It is an empty threat.

China would cut them off totally and immediately. 

You think sanctions are harsh now?

Russia is already a pariah state.

 

4 minutes ago, steven100 said:

The US and Nato aren't going to bow to Putin's nuclear threat forever .... 

they will react when the time is right ....    and that could be coming soon.

 

they don't listen to his threats anymore ....    the boy who cried wolf   "

They should have never listened. 

13 hours ago, Cameroni said:

2) Russia continues to sell gas to Europe and this gas goes through Kursk. One objective was to sabotage this source of income for Russia. This has failed according to the most recent reports in Russia.

One imagines that if Ukraine cuts off Europe's gas supplies as they near winter, Europeans will not be amused.

They are certainly not giving medals for the Ukrainian suspected of sabotaging the under sea pipeline.

6 minutes ago, steven100 said:

The US and Nato aren't going to bow to Putin's nuclear threat forever .... 

they will react when the time is right ....    and that could be coming soon.

 

they don't listen to his threats anymore ....    the boy who cried wolf   "

LOL. Actually using a nuclear weapon is not something that can be overlooked, so how can they prove that they will use a nuke if they consider it necessary without escalating

to MAD?

 

I look forward to reading your considered and relevant response.

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One imagines that if Ukraine cuts off Europe's gas supplies as they near winter, Europeans will not be amused.

They are certainly not giving medals for the Ukrainian suspected of sabotaging the under sea pipeline.

It's mostly Hungary and Slovokia, isn't it? Putin loving countries.

I heard Turkiye just switched energy source from Russia to the USA. Good on Turkiye!

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Actually using a nuclear weapon is not something that can be overlooked, so how can they prove that they will use a nuke if they consider it necessary without escalating

to MAD?

 

I look forward to reading your considered and relevant response.

LOL.   That's fine what you think.    I'm saying the US & Nato don't listen to Putin's threats anymore. 

 

They will act on him when the time is right,  and that may be coming soon.       imo

Just now, steven100 said:

LOL.   That's fine what you think.    I'm saying the US & Nato don't listen to Putin's threats anymore. 

 

They will act on him when the time is right,  and that may be coming soon.       imo

Putin the paper tiger and his "colleagues" in Moscow are smelling the failure. Watch out for windows!