Zelensky to Putin: War is Coming Home

[ChicagoExpat]

22 hours ago, novacova said:

Because it’s a good business model for the MIC

Actually, if the theory that the "MIC" really runs everything were true, they'd be giving them as much as they good, no?

[ChicagoExpat]

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually there is more. The gas lines to Europe run through it.

I equate it to the Ardennes campaign that Hitler launched as a last gasp. That one ended in failure when they ran out of fuel, much like this one will, IMO.

Except Ukraine isn't trying to reach the gas lines in order to maintain a further offensive into Russia.  So, dumb and totally inappropriate analogy.

[ChicagoExpat]

14 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 

Jeeze... Medvedev, for one - and many more out there  DYOR

MEDVEDEV?!!?  That guy is a clown and universally regarded as such, especially by Russians.  He will NOT be able to hold Putin's blood and soil kleptocracy together.

 

This is part of the problem of a dictatorship, especially one that 1) has been in power for a long time and 2) kills any other competent person with leadership abilities -- there is usually no clear successor, someone with the charisma/absolute ruthlessness/a degree of ability the original autocrat had.  In fact, such systems totally depend on ensuring there is no one else.  The Stalin/Hitler dilemma.  And it's true here as well.

[ChicagoExpat]

14 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 Heroes - they defend Mother Russia. All this silly excursion will do is unite even the critics to fight. Russia is a hardened beast when woken up - ask the Germans.

They'll be killed/humiliated/imprisoned/sent purposely to die.  Even you know this, Bob.

[steven100]

4 hours 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. 

 

I disagree .....   you don't think others will retaliate when push comes to shove.   

 

I think your off touch on that.    just my opinion   

[ChicagoExpat]

12 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

Right, the usual agitprop steeped into the Russian soul -- we're always in danger of being invaded at all times!  Obey your leaders!

 

There is much I like about Russian culture, but they are the most paranoid, xenophobic people on earth.  They truly believe this nonsense, and people like Putin are only too glad to exploit that and stoke it.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

I disagree .....   you don't think others will retaliate when push comes to shove.   

 

I think your off touch on that.    just my opinion   

The west is under no treaty obligation to retaliate if Ukraine is nuked, and doing so likely invokes MAD.

Sanity indicates that if Ukraine is nuked, no western nukes will head towards Russia.

 

Russia has no need to nuke Ukraine at this point in time, IMO.

[Lacessit]

8 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 unnecessary.

 

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

Ukraine was clamoring to be part of the EU, not NATO.

 

You are posting Kremlin lies.

 

Invading the Donbas was a bridge too far for Europe. One only has to look at the energy security they sacrificed when uniting to sanction Russia. Those sanctions will make Russia a failed state, or a Chinese vassal.

 

Keep posting the propaganda, tovarisch. I've got you marked down as a Russian troll. Goodbye.

 

[Denim]

18 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

 

You actually want that to happen don't you. Some peace lover you are.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you for real?

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

Are you for real?

 

Whoever takes over from Putin will be trying to disengage Russia from Ukraine, just as Gorbachev did with Afghanistan. Once Putin goes or dies, the oligarchs that owe him their lives will come to the fore. The war is killing them financially.

[Lacessit]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The west is under no treaty obligation to retaliate if Ukraine is nuked, and doing so likely invokes MAD.

Sanity indicates that if Ukraine is nuked, no western nukes will head towards Russia.

 

Russia has no need to nuke Ukraine at this point in time, IMO.

If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine,  Putin becomes the target. A Global Predator or similar takes him out. The Americans have that kind of surveillance capability. They can probably tell you when you last farted, if they could be bothered.

 

IMO it's probably why Putin has gone very quiet on the topic in the last 6 months or so. Previously, he was brandishing nukes daily.

[ChicagoExpat]

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The west is under no treaty obligation to retaliate if Ukraine is nuked, and doing so likely invokes MAD.

Sanity indicates that if Ukraine is nuked, no western nukes will head towards Russia.

 

Russia has no need to nuke Ukraine at this point in time, IMO.

While Russia frequently makes nuclear threats, and no one who pays attention should have any doubt that they will do virtually anything to advance what Putin wants, I don't think even Putin would truly use nukes, especially on a neighbor.  Incredible for me to say it... but I think that's a bridge too far even for him.

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

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.

 

 

China may well end relations in that scenario, but if Russia uses a nuke its concern would be territorial integrity and survival as a nation. In that scenario economic concerns would be trumped by other matters. Russia has aready shown that they are immune to sanctions.

 

Russia has been sanctioned by the West to a ludicrous degree, however, as The Economist revealed a few days ago, the Russian economy is flourishing. In fact the sanctions have insulated the Russian economy from the economic malaise affecting Europe, China and North Ameica:

 

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/11/vladimir-putin-spends-big-and-sends-russias-economy-soaring

[Cameroni]

4 hours 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.

 

The truth about the Nordstream incident has just been published. Apparently some drunk Ukrainian militaries came up with the plan during a night of drinking. It was the Ukrainians who bombed Germany's Nordstream pipeline. This attack was an attack on a NATO member and could have triggered article 5 of NATO. But not only did Germany not trigger Article 5, they kept quiet, even though they've known the truth for quite some time and like good little boys they kept paying Ukraine the billions the US demanded. Why is that? Because Germany, like all of Western Europe, is a vassal state of the USA. In other words, they do as they are told. They are not able to pursue their own interests. it is to avoid this fate that Russia has attacked Ukraine.

[NowNow]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you for real?

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

 

Sounds like you are having a wet dream. Why is it, do you think, that you are unable to have a balanced view? That you are burning a torch for Russia. Did you so hate your Western experience?

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, steven100 said:

I disagree .....   you don't think others will retaliate when push comes to shove.   

 

I think your off touch on that.    just my opinion   

 

The US would not be able to retaliate with a nuclear bomb against Russia, because America herself would then be in a nuclear conflict with Russia and Americans want to live. They know Russia can wipe out all their major cites in short order. Neither the US nor any other country could reply with a nuclear bomb if Russia uses a nuclear device in Ukraine. Unless they would be mad enough to risk their own nuclear annihiliation, which nobody would be.

 

There would be retaliation, more sanctions, China and India may end relations. But if Russia uses a nuclear bomb, then only because they think their territorial integrity and survival a nation are threatened long term. In that case economic concerns would take a back seat. In fact Russia has already shown it is immune to santions. The Economist has just published an article to show how Russia's economy is flourishing.

 

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/11/vladimir-putin-spends-big-and-sends-russias-economy-soaring

 

I think you're off touch, Steven.

Edited August 16 by Cameroni

[NowNow]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The truth about the Nordstream incident has just been published. Apparently some drunk Ukrainian militaries came up with the plan during a night of drinking. It was the Ukrainians who bombed Germany's Nordstream pipeline. This attack was an attack on a NATO member and could have triggered article 5 of NATO. But not only did Germany not trigger Article 5, they kept quiet, even though they've known the truth for quite some time and like good little boys they kept paying Ukraine the billions the US demanded. Why is that? Because Germany, like all of Western Europe, is a vassal state of the USA. In other words, they do as they are told. They are not able to pursue their own interests. it is to avoid this fate that Russia has attacked Ukraine.

 

You really do post a pile of fabricated 💩

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Right, the usual agitprop steeped into the Russian soul -- we're always in danger of being invaded at all times!  Obey your leaders!

 

There is much I like about Russian culture, but they are the most paranoid, xenophobic people on earth.  They truly believe this nonsense, and people like Putin are only too glad to exploit that and stoke it.

 

Well, if you look at Russia's history, invasion by the Vikings, Mongols and many others did not abate even in the previous century, when Russia was invaded by Germany and lost 20 million lives. Sometimes there really is someone after you and your concerns are not paranoia but well founded.

 

In fact, after Russia demonstrated its good will to the West beyond doubt, helping America's space programme, sharing rockets and space station, agreeing to allow Germany to unify, implementing Western economic reforms, etc, what hapened? Russia was promised there would be no NATO expansion, and in 2008 it was announced that even Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members. As NATO encircled Russia it could be forgiven for becoming paranoid.

 

I do agree, there is much to like about Russian culture, which is why it is such a shame that western schools have closed Russian language departments in the West due to the Ukraine war. This will only create further misunderstandings and mistrust.

[Lacessit]

This map shows where China is putting its money when it invests in projects in Russia. It is very clear where the bulk of that money is going, and it is nowhere near Moscow.

 

As I have said before, the Kremlin is looking in the wrong direction. China is the real problem, but Russia has made Ukraine their goal.

 

How many soldiers can Russia send east? How long would it take them to get there?

 

IMO Russia has left the door wide open for Chinese expansion.

 

 

[ChicagoExpat]

18 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The truth about the Nordstream incident has just been published. Apparently some drunk Ukrainian militaries came up with the plan during a night of drinking. It was the Ukrainians who bombed Germany's Nordstream pipeline. This attack was an attack on a NATO member and could have triggered article 5 of NATO. But not only did Germany not trigger Article 5, they kept quiet, even though they've known the truth for quite some time and like good little boys they kept paying Ukraine the billions the US demanded. Why is that? Because Germany, like all of Western Europe, is a vassal state of the USA. In other words, they do as they are told. They are not able to pursue their own interests. it is to avoid this fate that Russia has attacked Ukraine.

You drink long and deep at the well of Kremlin agitprop.

 

It may well have been that Ukraine destroyed the pipeline.  But it's "not an attack on a NATO member."  Not in the least.  It's a pipeline owned primarily by a hostile power with investment from several Western European companies willing to do business with today's version of late 1930s Germany.  So your initial assertion is hilariously wrong.

 

You even think like a Russian.  Russia has no actual friends, just frenemies it depends on while simultaneously being taken advantage of (China, Iran) and FSU states it dictates to,  It's hard for you to imagine that the West has alliances formed out of both common interest AND friendly ties, without coercion.  The idea that Germany, of all countries -- one of the strongest economies in the world -- just does what it is told is as ignorant and baseless as your Zakharova talking point that Ukraine attacked Germany.  You obviously don't know any Germans.

 

If ANYONE has compelled Western nations to look more to the U.S. for leadership, it's Putin himself.  One of the most wonderfully ironic results of his war is that he expanded NATO, succeeding where NATO couldn't.  Well done, Vova!

 

It's absolutely incredible you shill for this guy.

[ChicagoExpat]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Well, if you look at Russia's history, invasion by the Vikings, Mongols and many others did not abate even in the previous century, when Russia was invaded by Germany and lost 20 million lives. Sometimes there really is someone after you and your concerns are not paranoia but well founded.

 

In fact, after Russia demonstrated its good will to the West beyond doubt, helping America's space programme, sharing rockets and space station, agreeing to allow Germany to unify, implementing Western economic reforms, etc, what hapened? Russia was promised there would be no NATO expansion, and in 2008 it was announced that even Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members. As NATO encircled Russia it could be forgiven for becoming paranoid.

 

I do agree, there is much to like about Russian culture, which is why it is such a shame that western schools have closed Russian language departments in the West due to the Ukraine war. This will only create further misunderstandings and mistrust.

This is all so dishonest I'm not even going to bother refuting it.

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Ukraine was clamoring to be part of the EU, not NATO.

 

You are posting Kremlin lies.

 

 

 

Completely untrue, Ukraine was clamoring to be a part of NATO already in 2002. 

 

"Ukraine established ties to the alliance with a NATO–Ukraine Action Plan in November 2002, joined NATO's Partnership for Peace in February 2005, then entered into the Intensified Dialogue program with NATO in April 2005."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

 

I will not call you a liar, Lacessit, as you just did, but clearly your beliefs are not founded on a well-read knowledge of world affairs. It has been public knowledge that Ukraine has desperately requested NATO membership for quite some time, since 2002.

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, if you look at Russia's history, invasion by the Vikings, Mongols and many others did not abate even in the previous century, when Russia was invaded by Germany and lost 20 million lives. Sometimes there really is someone after you and your concerns are not paranoia but well founded.

 

In fact, after Russia demonstrated its good will to the West beyond doubt, helping America's space programme, sharing rockets and space station, agreeing to allow Germany to unify, implementing Western economic reforms, etc, what hapened? Russia was promised there would be no NATO expansion, and in 2008 it was announced that even Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members. As NATO encircled Russia it could be forgiven for becoming paranoid.

 

I do agree, there is much to like about Russian culture, which is why it is such a shame that western schools have closed Russian language departments in the West due to the Ukraine war. This will only create further misunderstandings and mistrust.

 

 

Whilst there were discussions and verbal assurances made during the early 1990s, there is no evidence of a formal, legally binding agreement that NATO would not expand eastward. 

 

Depending on your point of view you might argue Russia was conned, and/or Russian leaders were incredibly naive to not formalise these promises in a treaty......or that yes, promises were made at the time....but times change.

 

The only person who knows the 'truth' as to why he invaded Ukraine...... is Putin himself

 

 

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

This is all so dishonest I'm not even going to bother refuting it.

 

You will not refute it, because it is impossible for you, because it is the truth. Unlike others on here, I don't deal in dishonesty, all my informtaion is 100% accurate. That is why you will not refute it. Even if you tried, you could not.

Edited August 16 by Cameroni

[ChicagoExpat]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

This map shows where China is putting its money when it invests in projects in Russia. It is very clear where the bulk of that money is going, and it is nowhere near Moscow.

 

As I have said before, the Kremlin is looking in the wrong direction. China is the real problem, but Russia has made Ukraine their goal.

 

How many soldiers can Russia send east? How long would it take them to get there?

 

IMO Russia has left the door wide open for Chinese expansion.

 

 

China is emptying Russia of its natural resources, all while telling Putin to keep looking West, that's where the real threat is.  When I was in Russian language school some years ago, part of the training of course was reading articles from Russia.  In the teens, before they were all killed, sent to Gulag, or got in line, Russian journalists used to report on this, even 10 years ago.  Of course they can't anymore.

 

Yes, Vladimir, it's the West that is the real threat, not the power- and resource-hungry Borg state that is right on your border... with whom you've had actual shooting wars in the past.

[ChicagoExpat]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

You will not refute it, because it is impossible for you, because it is the truth. Unlike others on here, I don't deal in dishonest, all my informtaion is 100% accurate. That is why you will not refute it. Even if you tried, you could not.

I just refuted your other post, chucklehead.  I destroyed it.  Killing cockroaches is neither fun nor challenging after a while of doing it.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Completely untrue, Ukraine was clamoring to be a part of NATO already in 2002. 

 

"Ukraine established ties to the alliance with a NATO–Ukraine Action Plan in November 2002, joined NATO's Partnership for Peace in February 2005, then entered into the Intensified Dialogue program with NATO in April 2005."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

 

I will not call you a liar, Lacessit, as you just did, but clearly your beliefs are not founded on a well-read knowledge of world affairs. It has been public knowledge that Ukraine has desperately requested NATO membership for quite some time, since 2002.

Very funny......😂

 

You forget, the free World is behind Ukraine, you Commies can spout what you like, you just envy the free World....😉

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You will not refute it, because it is impossible for you, because it is the truth. Unlike others on here, I don't deal in dishonesty, all my informtaion is 100% accurate. That is why you will not refute it. Even if you tried, you could not.

If you don't deal in dishonesty then provide a link to your numerous previous claims that Ukraine was deliberately targeting civilians

 

"Ukraine had the misguided idea that attacking civilians would ferment revolt and interior unrest, stoking oppostion to Putin. Again, this has failed"

[NowNow]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You will not refute it, because it is impossible for you, because it is the truth. Unlike others on here, I don't deal in dishonesty, all my informtaion is 100% accurate. That is why you will not refute it. Even if you tried, you could not.

 

It's not the truth, it's just your spin. You embellish and exaggerate in order to create a certain narrative. 

There's a reason why I don't bother to pull your silly stories apart.....

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him” (Proverbs 26:4)

 

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

Whilst there were discussions and verbal assurances made during the early 1990s, there is no evidence of a formal, legally binding agreement that NATO would not expand eastward. 

 

Depending on your point of view you might argue Russia was conned, and/or Russian leaders were incredibly naive to not formalise these promises in a treaty......or that yes, promises were made at the time....but times change.

 

The only person who knows the 'truth' as to why he invaded Ukraine...... is Putin himself

 

 

 

True, we cannot look into Putin's head, however, the fact that Russia was completely misled and lied to about NATO expansion is incredibly well documented, you can find it all here:

 

"The declassified U.S. account of one key conversation on October 22, 1993, (Document 😎 shows Secretary of State Warren Christopher assuring Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership for Peace was about including Russia together with all European countries, not creating a new membership list of just some European countries for NATO; and Yeltsin responding, “this is genius!”

Christopher later claimed in his memoir that Yeltsin misunderstood – perhaps from being drunk – the real message that the Partnership for Peace would in fact “lead to gradual expansion of NATO”;[1] but the actual American-written cable reporting the conversation supports subsequent Russian complaints about being misled."

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard

 

Not only did Warren Chrstophe lie to Russia's president, he lied to history and tried to distort the record. As did James Baker, George Bush etc...

 

Now, if Russia cannot trust the word of America's leaders, why would it be able to trust a piece of paper those leaders signed? America's leaders are liars. Contracts would have been completely pointless. If they don't keep their word why would they keep a contract? After all Russia signed the ABM treaty with the US and the US simply withdrew from it. Again, pointless