It was under Obama in 2014 that the west staged a coup.

You know Sorros and Nuland.

Just one of the many links :

Obama and Soros—Nazis in Ukraine 2014—U.S. in 2017? (schillerinstitute.com)

 

Putin had no choice.

Now he holds all the cards , like Trump would say.

1 hour ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Next you'll claim you're not a Russia supporter and eager consumer of Kremlin-approved media.

When you ask these pro kremlin mouthpieces what media they do read they only reply with what they do not read!

5 minutes ago, FlorC said:

It was under Obama in 2014 that the west staged a coup.

You know Sorros and Nuland.

Just one of the many links :

Obama and Soros—Nazis in Ukraine 2014—U.S. in 2017? (schillerinstitute.com)

 

Putin had no choice.

Now he holds all the cards , like Trump would say.

Garbage bizarre far right wing conspiracy theory source:

Schiller Institute - Wikipedia

 

Putin most certainly did have a choice.

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

It sure would appear that the romance between and Vlad and Donnie appears to be wearing off.

 

That romance has always been one side, similar to a punter finding love in Pattaya

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

It sure would appear that the romance between and Vlad and Donnie appears to be wearing off. Vlad took Donnie for a big ride and for once in his life Donnie seems to have expressed some dignity and been offended by the betrayal. 

 

So much for absolute fealty to Prince Vlad. 

That's because it the about is a fantasy of youself and the others here who are still echoing Clintons false Russian collusion narrative, the one she started bacause she could handle the fact she Lost the election

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Garbage bizarre far right wing conspiracy theory source:

Schiller Institute - Wikipedia

 

Putin most certainly did have a choice.

You will never accept the your USA pushed this war.

Bury you head in the sand and just call everyone Putin puppet

1 hour ago, ChicagoExpat said:

There is no scenario in which this war is a strategic victory for Putin -- feel free to try and make that argument -- and if you think moving a frontline forward by a few kilometers per month over three years is a tactical victory... wow.

 

The certain end result of all of this:  A little more land to add to the Empire, Europe finally taking its own defense seriously, at least two new NATO members, hundreds of thousands of Russians dead and wounded, its military hardware wiped out, permanent loss of most of Europe as energy customers, Russia diminished in the eyes of the world, and now a debtor to China, Iran, and North Korea.  Again, if you want to call this victory, feel free.

Well if the troops are dead, the weapons depleted and the rest as you say, Putin is hardly going to invade Europe...or will you contradict everything you just said to continue that conspiracy.?

4 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

That's because it the about is a fantasy of youself and the others here who are still echoing Clintons false Russian collusion narrative, the one she started bacause she could handle the fact she Lost the election

With many people, once they got attached to a theory, it was hard to get them detached. They’d screen out unhelpful facts, invent favorable ones, and ignore contradictions in their own claims. Look at those Sandy Hook, multiple fraud convictions, and Jan. 6th truthers, babbling about false flags and crisis actors and all the rest. When people were motivated enough to believe something, they were going to believe it no matter what. There was no such thing as a bridge too far.

 

That most certainly applies to Trump a hundred fold. 

 

48 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

"A little more land to add to the Empire". 20% of Ukraine since 2022 isn't as little bit of land. Ukraine is huge.

"Europe finally taking its own defense seriously". Agree. This is a good thing but has nothing to do with a strategic/tactical failure on Russia's part.

"at least two new NATO members" Why is this a strategic/tactical loss if expansionism isn't Putin's end goal and IMO it isn't? 

"hundreds of thousands of Russians dead and wounded" Huge deaths and casualties are being felt on both sides. Ukraine will feel this more than Russia. 

"its military hardware wiped out" I'd like to see you back this up. Russia has huge stockpiles. Not saying these are being depleted but weapons manufacturing is going full pace in Russia. 

"permanent loss of most of Europe as energy customers" As it is the EU continues to get energy supplies from Russia whilst the war is going. Where will they get it from when the war is over?

"Russia diminished in the eyes of the world". Do you think this bothers Putin?

"a debtor to China, Iran, and North Korea" Why? Artillery shells from North Korea and drones now made in Russia from Iran. Not exactly what I would say makes Russia in huge debt to these countries. China?

As for victory what I have said reflects the reality on the battlefield. Ukraine has now been virtually pushed out of the Kursk Oblast with Russian troops now moving into Sumi and the eastern front continues to advance. Yes, it's moving slowly but this is the nature of protracted, attritional war but it's more than a few km a month over 3 years. It's more than 64,000 km².

They only see western propaganda, what you say is all foreign to them.

12 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Well if the troops are dead, the weapons depleted and the rest as you say, Putin is hardly going to invade Europe...or will you contradict everything you just said to continue that conspiracy.?

He already has invaded Europe multiple times in the past few years.  But I see what you're trying to say.  I would counter that there is nothing in Putin's behavior, the Dugan ideology he follows, public pronouncements either official or via Kremlin mouthpieces, logic, or history that says he will not re-arm as quickly as possible and try again.  And when he does you guys will cheer him on and faithfully repeat whatever the Kremlin feeds you -- Nazis!  Had no choice!  NATO aggression!  Banderites!

5 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

You will never accept the your USA pushed this war.

Bury you head in the sand and just call everyone Putin puppet

 

@Jingthing didn't mention Putin puppet, but that the Shiller institute is far right wing, same like you, and he is correct in that.

Although it isn't difficult to see who are Putin puppets on this forum Franchesko.

1 minute ago, frank83628 said:

They only see western propaganda, what you say is all foreign to them.

Again, speaking some Russian, having lived there for years, having studied Russian history... I'd put up my knowledge and understanding against all of you combined.  Latecomers to the subject, sitting behind your keyboards in Pattaya, deluded by Russophile websites.  You guys literally know nothing about anything of substance on the issue.

11 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

You will never accept the your USA pushed this war.

Bury you head in the sand and just call everyone Putin puppet

Literally, Frank, USA tried to avert the war.  You really can't just change the historical record and think no one will notice, do you?

3 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

@Jingthing didn't mention Putin puppet, but that the Shiller institute is far right wing, same like you, and he is correct in that.

Although it isn't difficult to see who are Putin puppets on this forum Franchesko.

I thinknhe can speak for himself don't you?Putins puppet, Russian collusion its all under the same Russian hoax umbrella.

 

Purposely mispelling people names is against the rules, personally I don't care, I expect others like to report things like that

 

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

The war started under Biden. Biden did nothing to stop it from happening. This is a historical fact.

 

You totally forgot that the war started when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 while Biden was... the Vice President.
And Trump had four whole years to end the conflict — but hey, let’s pretend he just "forgot" too! 😂

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Garbage bizarre far right wing conspiracy theory source:

Schiller Institute - Wikipedia

 

Putin most certainly did have a choice.

Not only was Nuland's phone call about installing a new leader in Ukraine recorded, she openly admitted it was her at a subsequent press conference.  Did she call the recording quality "pretty good"?  Something like that.

 

Anyway, it's no big secret how things transpired in 2014.  It was a typical CIA operation.  

 

Call it a "garbage bizarre far right wind conspiracy theory" if you want, but all you're doing is exhibiting the extent to which you've been brainwashed. 

2 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Literally, Frank, USA tried to avert the war.  You really can't just change the historical record and think no one will notice, do you?

And the 5 billion Nuland said was 'invested' was just to help out? Not to back a coup to oust the pro Russian leader and advance US intrests🙄

Just now, frank83628 said:

And the 5 billion Nuland said was 'invested' was just to help out? Not to back a coup to oust the pro Russian leader and advance US intrests🙄

Quick!  Change the subject!

The spokespersons for Russia, Dmitry Peskov, Maria Zakharova, Sergey Lavrov, Sergei Shoigu among others have repeated Russian's conditions for an end of the conflict succinctly and consistently.  Those conditions are:

Russia has also been very up-front that if the US and Ukraine want to reject the conditions, Russia (who has the military advantage on the battlefield regardless of the propaganda by Western media who say the Russia troops are fighting with shovels and sticks) will just continue to do what it's been doing and continue the Special Military Operation and continue moving into Western Ukraine and taking more territory.  It's pretty simple.  Ukraine could have accepted the conditions in April 2022 and only have given up Crimea and agreed to Donesk as an autonomous state.  Now the conditions are listed above.  In other year they can probably add Odessa, historic Novorossiya, and buffer zones such as Sumy into the terms of an unconditional surrender of Ukraine.  The conditions will never become better if Ukraine continues the conflict with a losing hand. And there is not going to be a "ceasefire."  Russia saw that before during the Minsk accord:  If the conflict stops then Ukraine uses the opportunity to rearm, regroup, reentrench, and recover - Russia isn't going to allow that to happen, they'll just continue to press their military advantage.  That's just reality regardless of how much the US, EU, UK, and Ukraine what to deny it.

2 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Not only was Nuland's phone call about installing a new leader in Ukraine recorded, she openly admitted it was her at a subsequent press conference.  Did she call the recording quality "pretty good"?  Something like that.

 

Anyway, it's no big secret how things transpired in 2014.  It was a typical CIA operation.  

 

Call it a "garbage bizarre far right wind conspiracy theory" if you want, but all you're doing is exhibiting the extent to which you've been brainwashed. 

What I love about Russian narratives, as spouted by the faithful, is both the oversimpflication and the ignoring of inconvenient facts.  What was ACTUALLY happening was both Russian and the West were jockeying to sway the Western-leaning Ukrainian populace to one side or the other.  And you can bet Russian invested far more than $5 billion in the effort.  What is it that bothers you here?  That the U.S. spent money to influence Ukraine?  Because if that is the problem, as with literally any issue, Russia is far worse and you should be criticizing them.

3 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

You totally forgot that the war started when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 while Biden was... the Vice President.
And Trump had four whole years to end the conflict — but hey, let’s pretend he just "forgot" too! 😂

There was a referendum, they voted, can't change those facts 

2 minutes ago, connda said:

The spokespersons for Russia, Dmitry Peskov, Maria Zakharova, Sergey Lavrov, Sergei Shoigu among others have repeated Russian's conditions for an end of the conflict succinctly and consistently.  Those conditions are:

Russia has also been very up-front that if the US and Ukraine want to reject the conditions, Russia (who has the military advantage on the battlefield regardless of the propaganda by Western media who say the Russia troops are fighting with shovels and sticks) will just continue to do what it's been doing and continue the Special Military Operation and continue moving into Western Ukraine and taking more territory.  It's pretty simple.  Ukraine could have accepted the conditions in April 2022 and only have given up Crimea and agreed to Donesk as an autonomous state.  Now the conditions are listed above.  In other year they can probably add Odessa, historic Novorossiya, and buffer zones such as Sumy into the terms of an unconditional surrender of Ukraine.  The conditions will never become better if Ukraine continues the conflict with a losing hand. And there is not going to be a "ceasefire."  Russia saw that before during the Minsk accord:  If the conflict stops then Ukraine uses the opportunity to rearm, regroup, reentrench, and recover - Russia isn't going to allow that to happen, they'll just continue to press their military advantage.  That's just reality regardless of how much the US, EU, UK, and Ukraine what to deny it.

What is it about "consistency of their claims" that is so persuasive to you?  That confers legitimacy?  And at the rate they're going, assuming nothing changes, Russia will conquer all of Ukraine by around the year 2080.  That is not a winning argument.

5 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Quick!  Change the subject!

Not changing the subject at all, its all part of what's happening today

12 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

You totally forgot that the war started when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 while Biden was... the Vice President.
And Trump had four whole years to end the conflict — but hey, let’s pretend he just "forgot" too! 😂

Yes Crimea was under Obama and it was basically a peaceful handover so there was no conflict there for Trump to end in his 1st term.

Just now, frank83628 said:

There was a referendum, they voted, can't change those facts 

This referendum:

Was conducted in a militarily occupied territory

In buildings manned by Russian troops

excluded outside observers

is unrecognized by all civilized countries

was tallied by Russia

violated all international norms

 

It's incredible you consider that legitimate in any sense.  But if you do, you'll REALLY consider Chechnya's similar actions legitimate.  They too wanted independence and conducted a referendum.  The response?  Russia invaded twice and in the end installed the Kadyrovs as satraps.

 

6 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Not changing the subject at all, its all part of what's happening today

Yes, it is.  Because the subject was whether the U.S. tried to avert the war.  It did.

1 minute ago, ChicagoExpat said:

What I love about Russian narratives, as spouted by the faithful, is both the oversimpflication and the ignoring of inconvenient facts.  What was ACTUALLY happening was both Russian and the West were jockeying to sway the Western-leaning Ukrainian populace to one side or the other.  And you can bet Russian invested far more than $5 billion in the effort.  What is it that bothers you here?  That the U.S. spent money to influence Ukraine?  Because if that is the problem, as with literally any issue, Russia is far worse and you should be criticizing them.

It's just one more example of a pattern and practice of destabilizing countries for the purpose of exploiting the resulting chaos.  I could make you a long list of examples.

 

Perhaps the USA should respect democracy and the voice of the people in some of these countries? Or is that simply being naive?  US Imperialisn is alive and well, I'm afraid. 

 

What's the usual goal?  Resources? Preserving the US dollar as a world reserve currency?  Economic exploitation? 

 

In the case of Ukraine, I think Blackrock already has contracts in place to buy up much of the valuable farmland and mineral resources.  The war isn't even over and they're already salivating. 

10 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Yes, it is.  Because the subject was whether the U.S. tried to avert the war.  It did.

US interference and funding in Ukraine has let to where we are today. Stop the blatant lying

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

The rejection came as Russian President Vladimir Putin offered a 72-hour ceasefire next month to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe. 

 

Putin asked for 3 days ceasefire so he can have his annual military parade in Red Square. He is never genuine  with any peace plan unless he gets 25% of Ukraine land, Ukraine de-militarized and no Nato membership. He and Trump can't never be trusted for a amicable peace plan with security guarantees. Europe should step in and lead the negotiation as it is their future that is at stake. 

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Europe should step in and lead the negotiation as it is their future that is at stake. 

 

Yes that worked very well with the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements, lol.

 

Total failure.