2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Zelenky's not the problem. He'll negotiate he has no choice. Putin is the problem. He wants an end to the war not a ceasefire and wants most of the territory he's captured.

Putin never expected nor claimed that the conflict would be over in 3 days. That’s just the usual western propaganda hogwash. However, I don’t think he intended for it to last this long either. How long do you think he will be able and willing to carry on until his stated objectives (no NATO membership, neutrality, demilitarisation) are met?

 

As NATO membership is clearly an existential threat to Russia, I don’t see that he has a choice but to carry on to the very end. I’m sure he will continue to get support from the global majority in propping up his economy. After all, it’s also in their interests that the west, especially America, is bogged down in an unwinnable conflict.

9 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

He wants an end to the war not a ceasefire

Likely he suspects it would be used to conscript more men and build up their equipment, which he obviously doesn't want. I agree he wants an end, and he keeps what he has PERIOD.

53 minutes ago, billd766 said:

True, BUT only after Trump made the original decision without even consulting the Afghan government and dumping the whole mess and responsibility to ex President Biden, who in turn managed to negotiate an extra few weeks. Not really long enough, but at least he tried.

 

Did you miss that bit, or are you so biased that you simply ignored it?

 

Today is a deeply sad anniversary. One year ago, the Taliban seized Kabul, the Afghan government collapsed, and U.S. President Joe Biden ordered a hasty and chaotic evacuation from Afghanistan. When the crisis ended two weeks later, 13 U.S. service members had been killed and hundreds or more U.S. citizens had been left behind to fend for themselves under the Taliban’s brutal rule.

 

After taking office, Biden undertook a superficial review of our Afghanistan policy—one that totally ignored the advice of his top military advisor and his commanders on the ground. On April 14, 2021, he reversed the Trump administration’s conditions-based drawdown policy and announced that all U.S. forces would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by Sept. 11 of that year, whether or not the Taliban had met its commitments under the 2020 agreement.

 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/08/15/afghanistan-withdrawal-pullout-military-taliban-chaos-evacuation-biden-inhofe/

Why must Ukraine cede its own land , just because the Americans say so ,

great way to start a negotiation , then in a couple of years when Russia

has strengthened its army ,it will try to take the rest of Ukraine ,Russia

needs to piss off back to Russia and stay there....

 

regards Worgeordie 

2 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

I’m sure he will continue to get support from the global majority in propping up his economy. After all, it’s also in their interests that the west, especially America, is bogged down in an unwinnable conflict.

You bring up something that the Z lovers overlook or ignore. Only some western countries support Ukraine. The rest of the world either ignores it or wants America to suffer.

I'm pretty sure more than a few leaders rejoice every time the US suffers a setback.

Just now, worgeordie said:

Why must Ukraine cede its own land , just because the Americans say so ,

great way to start a negotiation , then in a couple of years when Russia

has strengthened its army ,it will try to take the rest of Ukraine ,Russia

needs to piss off back to Russia and stay there....

 

regards Worgeordie 

Can I borrow your crystal ball. I want some winning lotto numbers.

 

How many dead Ukrainians are acceptable to try and keep that land?

19 minutes ago, TedG said:

You sure? 

Yeah I'm sure. How can I anyways, you've got hold it all the time

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can I borrow your crystal ball. I want some winning lotto numbers.

 

How many dead Ukrainians are acceptable to try and keep that land?

Or Russians to take it ... you think they are doing so good , lottery number 462974 it's a winner

I am sure if the Germans had   landed in England we would have fought too the last man standing  and

it's the same for the Ukraine people.

 

regards worgeordie

3 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

I am sure if the Germans had   landed in England we would have fought too the last man standing

I bet they would not have. They would have put up a good show and then done what any sane people do- surrender in the face of certain death. At that time they didn't know about the death camps and all that.

 

For proof, I give you Singapore, and the humiliating surrender.

8 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Or Russians to take it ... you think they are doing so good

I made no such claim. You made that up. All I'm saying is that they are winning, because that is a fact. Ukraine is losing in the east, almost lost in Kursk. Game over.

52 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are insults all you have? Apparently.

So go ahead and insult me- I'll enjoy the comedy.

 

There is a broader point about the consequences of appeasement - which of course you ignore.

1 minute ago, jayboy said:

 

There is a broader point about the consequences of appeasement - which of course you ignore.

I ignore nothing but it's of no importance in the present situation. The war is being won by Russia, PERIOD.

 

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I made no such claim. You made that up. All I'm saying is that they are winning, because that is a fact. Ukraine is losing in the east, almost lost in Kursk. Game over.

You only named Ukraine , there are two in this war ,Trump thinks and has said it , because Russia

has lots a lot of people and equipment that Russia in a settlement should keep the land it has stolen.

 

regards Worgeordie

22 hours ago, xylophone said:

Just goes to show that the old saying "Mum knows best" is totally correct in this case................

 

 

boringer  and boringer ...

5 hours ago, sharot724 said:

The strange man behind the curtain will give you a brain.

 

Did you mean All Bran?

16 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

You only named Ukraine , there are two in this war ,Trump thinks and has said it , because Russia

has lots a lot of people and equipment that Russia in a settlement should keep the land it has stolen.

 

regards Worgeordie

All right then. Russia is winning and Ukraine is losing. Is that acceptable to you?

Russians always win these negotiations. They are the world's best chess players. Just think of the Cuban missile crises. Kennedy was celebrated for winning it. In actual fact the Russians won it. The US had to promise to remove missiles from Turkey and not to invade Cuba.

 

Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 were also wildly in favour of Russia.

 

They always win these negotiations.

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Kursk salient is gone. Troops now surrounded and withdrawing. I said this may happen last week and got the usual vacuous laughing emojis. Nobody had the balls to challenge me though. The only card albeit a small one that Zelensky had has folded. Always was a strategic error and has now proven to be the case.  

 

Looks like it....unfortunately:

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/whats-happening-russias-kursk-region-why-does-it-matter-2025-03-12/

2 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Do you know if this is being reported in western msm? Or will they just simply ignore it so that the sheeple still thinks that their side is winning?

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/whats-happening-russias-kursk-region-why-does-it-matter-2025-03-12/

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All right then. Russia is winning and Ukraine is losing. Is that acceptable to you?

You seem happy about that , you a Russian lover ? you think it's OK for Russia to

invade Ukraine ...

 

regards Worgeordie

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I ignore nothing but it's of no importance in the present situation. The war is being won by Russia, PERIOD.

 

 

There was another occasion when a wicked aggressor was winning a war in which it sought sought to exterminate a militarily inferior country.The leader of that country said:

 

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

By your debased morality that leader should have  kept his bravado to himself and sough a humiliating accommodation with the aggressor.

1 hour ago, TedG said:

You sure? 

 

Better not push it too much.

54 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I bet they would not have. They would have put up a good show and then done what any sane people do- surrender in the face of certain death. At that time they didn't know about the death camps and all that.

 

For proof, I give you Singapore, and the humiliating surrender.

I said if the Germans had landed in England , there is a difference Singapore not their country,

But if you think so your the Man  555

 

regards Worgeordie

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

What?  Funding that allowed Ukrainians to keep fighting and dying, but didn't come close to allowing them to actually win?  That would take foreign boots on the ground and risk WW3 and Armageddon.

 

The sooner the money dries up, the sooner the killing will stop.  On both sides.  Then they can start spending that money on rebuilding.

 

How delusional are you? You take away  support and aide for defense and allow the opposition to increase bombing and missle strikes and claim you're stopping the killing? Are you serious? 

32 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Russians always win these negotiations. They are the world's best chess players. Just think of the Cuban missile crises. Kennedy was celebrated for winning it. In actual fact the Russians won it. The US had to promise to remove missiles from Turkey and not to invade Cuba.

 

Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 were also wildly in favour of Russia.

 

They always win these negotiations.

Nice misleading take on revising history.

On 3/13/2025 at 5:19 PM, nauseus said:

 

Looks like it....unfortunately:

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/whats-happening-russias-kursk-region-why-does-it-matter-2025-03-12/

It was inevitable. No way Putin would allow it to remain before the end on the war. Zelensky would have used it to negotiate Russia leaving part of Ukraine. That option has gone, along with the "best troops" ( if that was even true ), and a lot of equipment.

On 3/13/2025 at 5:39 PM, worgeordie said:

I said if the Germans had landed in England , there is a difference Singapore not their country,

But if you think so your the Man  555

 

regards Worgeordie

I'm being realistic. You claiming every British man would choose death over surrender is nonsense.

On 3/13/2025 at 5:24 PM, jayboy said:

 

There was another occasion when a wicked aggressor was winning a war in which it sought sought to exterminate a militarily inferior country.The leader of that country said:

 

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

By your debased morality that leader should have  kept his bravado to himself and sough a humiliating accommodation with the aggressor.

That was a speech. Britain was lucky that Churchill had rearmed the airforce, as without the airforce Britain would have been lost, and it was only that Hitler stopped attacking the airfields and attacked London instead that saved the airforce.

Churchill made another speech which you may recall "never have so many owed so much to so few" etc.

 

Ukraine doesn't have a Churchill, and they are losing. Speeches won't fix that.

On 3/13/2025 at 5:22 PM, worgeordie said:

You seem happy about that , you a Russian lover ? you think it's OK for Russia to

invade Ukraine ...

 

regards Worgeordie

My happiness or otherwise is no concern of yours.

Try discussing the topic instead of me.

 

Yawn.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Britain was lucky that Churchill had rearmed the airforce, as without the airforce Britain would have been lost

How could Churchill be responsible for rebuilding the RAF.  He only became PM on 10 May 1940 and the Battle of Britain is deemed to have started on 10 July?

He was out of government for al of the 1930's until he became First Lord of the Admiralty at the outbreak of war.