So Long And Thanks For All The Fish - Ukraine bombs Russian Nuclear Bombers

[sharot724]

3 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? 

So first you said everybody else is drowning in propagana but yourself, lol

Claimed Russia has already won the War. lol

Then you said the US was helping to direct this attack. lol

Now you claim it is the UK  behind the attack. lol

 

 

I have yet to see on a single post you have any proof on any subject for any and all claims. lol

 

[ChicagoExpat]

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<<

[jas007]

32 minutes ago, sharot724 said:

So first you said everybody else is drowning in propagana but yourself, lol

Claimed Russia has already won the War. lol

Then you said the US was helping to direct this attack. lol

Now you claim it is the UK  behind the attack. lol

 

 

I have yet to see on a single post you have any proof on any subject for any and all claims. lol

 

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. 

 

[jas007]

15 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Scott Ritter is an @ssclown. 

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. 

[sharot724]

1 minute 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. 

Loved the drama between Scott Ritter and the Late Dr. Redpill. Putins biggest supporter.

[ChicagoExpat]

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.

[ChicagoExpat]

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.

[stevenl]

35 minutes ago, jas007 said:

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. 

But still you know exactly.

[jas007]

8 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

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.

Of course Russia has won the war on the ground.  As we'll all be seeing in the very near future, Ukraine will be finished.  

 

As for who cares if the Free World helped plan the attack?  As a human being not directly involved and yet possibly affected by how this war could escalate, I care. I care a lot, as should the vast majority of the 8 billion human beings alive today. I may be getting older, but I'm not ready to be dead quite yet.  And so I do care that some bunch of clowns are about to start WWIII because they can't accept reality and instead cling to history and a delusional world view.  

 

As for Russia's "only allies"?  Do yourself a favor and look up a list of the current BRICs members and those who have expressed an interest in joining. It's a pretty big list and, if their populations are added together, amounts to about half the people in the world.  

 

If you add the populations of the US, the UK, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia, you get about 9% of the people in the world.  

 

A slight imbalance,I'd say. 

 

For sure, the extent to which all the BRICS nations would support Russia in any war is questionable, but you'd be hard pressed to call every nation that doesn't support a war against Russia as one of the "worst regimes on earth." 

 

 

[jas007]

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

But still you know exactly.

I can make an educated guess. Take it for what it's worth. Believe it or not.  

[sharot724]

7 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I can make an educated guess. Take it for what it's worth. Believe it or not.  

Yes your post are in that gray area called Propaganda. Facts work for all of us here.

Your opinions are just that and filled with conspirancy too.

[jas007]

29 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

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.

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. 

[jas007]

11 minutes ago, sharot724 said:

Yes your post are in that gray area called Propaganda. Facts work for all of us here.

Your opinions are just that and filled with conspirancy too.

You're not saying much there. There are gray areas, and propaganda falls within that area. But is it always false? No. In fact, truth is often a useful tool in formulating propaganda. So you have to listen to people, be skeptical but have an open mind, and connect the dots. You have to draw your own conclusions. 

 

As for "facts"? As I've said, you're not going to get media propaganda machines like the BBC, The New York times, and the Wall Street Journal to run front page stories detailing the "facts" of covert operations. 

[ChicagoExpat]

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.

[ChicagoExpat]

37 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Of course Russia has won the war on the ground.  As we'll all be seeing in the very near future, Ukraine will be finished.  

 

As for who cares if the Free World helped plan the attack?  As a human being not directly involved and yet possibly affected by how this war could escalate, I care. I care a lot, as should the vast majority of the 8 billion human beings alive today. I may be getting older, but I'm not ready to be dead quite yet.  And so I do care that some bunch of clowns are about to start WWIII because they can't accept reality and instead cling to history and a delusional world view.  

 

As for Russia's "only allies"?  Do yourself a favor and look up a list of the current BRICs members and those who have expressed an interest in joining. It's a pretty big list and, if their populations are added together, amounts to about half the people in the world.  

 

If you add the populations of the US, the UK, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia, you get about 9% of the people in the world.  

 

A slight imbalance,I'd say. 

 

For sure, the extent to which all the BRICS nations would support Russia in any war is questionable, but you'd be hard pressed to call every nation that doesn't support a war against Russia as one of the "worst regimes on earth." 

 

 

RUSSIA HAS ALREADY WON! >>DRINK<<

WW3!!!  >>DRINK<<

[rabas]

34 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. 

 

Scott Ritter is a deeply disturbed person. Such people can't be a reliable source of information especially when it relates to their disturbance. Excellent sources include many Russians who have escaped Putin's grasp. Not Russian officials and propagandists. How often  did top Russian official Lavrov tell you there was no intention to invade Ukraine? Lol.

 

Also forget those who ignore Russia's unique, long historical weaponization of propaganda dating  back to the Tzars, currently flooding the world. Even dripping here.

[sharot724]

11 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Scott Ritter is a deeply disturbed person. Such people can't be a reliable source of information especially when it relates to their disturbance. Excellent sources include many Russians who have escaped Putin's grasp. Not Russian officials and propagandists. How often  did top Russian official Lavrov tell you there was no intention to invade Ukraine? Lol.

 

Also forget those who ignore Russia's unique, long historical weaponization of propaganda dating  back to the Tzars, currently flooding the world. Even dripping here.

duplicated

[sharot724]

1 minute ago, sharot724 said:

Ex-UN inspector Scott Ritter guilty in sex chat case

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13089135

[rabas]

 

Speaking of classic Russian disinformation. 

 

Russia tried to claim Ukraine's attack on their friendly nuclear long range bombers was terrorism because they were just sitting around being nice. In truth, many large bombers were blown to smithereens by tiny drones because they were fueled with heavy weapons ready to unleash an unprecedented attack on Ukraine prior to the Turkey negotiations. Quintessential Russian multilayered lie. 

 

Triple icing on the cake, Russia then blamed Ukraine for timing the attack to influence the Turkey negotiations.

 

A tiny drone could not do this without help.

 

[jas007]

35 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

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.

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. 

[Lacessit]

2 hours 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? 

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

[ChicagoExpat]

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.

[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

[jas007]

6 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

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.

When, exactly, did I say I was an "expert"?  I said I had enough of a background to discern that Scott Ritter does know what he's talking about. As far as Russia goes, I'm sure you know more abut Russia than I do.  I've never been to Russia, I haven't lived there, and I don't speak any Russian at all, except for one word.  I think, though, in terms of connecting the dots and seeing the big picture, I see it better than you do.  Just my opinion, of course.  You're too close to it all, historically, and that clouds your judgment.  

 

And you're the one who brought up Scott Ritter's past, as if that has any bearing on the issues at hand. A cheap shot.  Does that make it "personal"?  I don't think so. Quite the opposite.  I was trying to focus on the man's knowledge, not on his past. 

[sharot724]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

When, exactly, did I say I was an "expert"?  I said I had enough of a background to discern that Scott Ritter does know what he's talking about. As far as Russia goes, I'm sure you know more abut Russia than I do.  I've never been to Russia, I haven't lived there, and I don't speak any Russian at all, except for one word.  I think, though, in terms of connecting the dots and seeing the big picture, I see it better than you do.  Just my opinion, of course.  You're too close to it all, historically, and that clouds your judgment.  

 

And you're the one who brought up Scott Ritter's past, as if that has any bearing on the issues at hand. A cheap shot.  Does that make it "personal"?  I don't think so. Quite the opposite.  I was trying to focus on the man's knowledge, not on his past. 

Extrapolated your one point!

 

 

Just my opinion, of course

[impulse]

To the folks celebrating the attack on the Russkie bombers, it's not going so well for the people of Kiev last night,..

 

Depending one whose (very early) reports you read, it's either a major or a minor attack.

 

 

Personally, I think it's tragic and wrong.  But very predictable.  That's what happens when you poke the bear.

 

Russia launches missile, drone attack on Kyiv days after Ukraine’s audacious strike on bomber fleet | CNN

 

It's long past time to concede the facts and out an end to it.  The only way Russia loses this is NATO boots in Ukraine and the risk of WW3 and nuclear annihilation.  Anyone postulating dreaming otherwise is fooling themselves.

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

To the folks celebrating the attack on the Russkie bombers, it's not going so well for the people of Kiev last night,..

 

Depending one whose (very early) reports you read, it's either a major or a minor attack.

 

 

Personally, I think it's tragic and wrong.  But very predictable.  That's what happens when you poke the bear.

 

Russia launches missile, drone attack on Kyiv days after Ukraine’s audacious strike on bomber fleet | CNN

 

It's long past time to concede the facts and out an end to it.  The only way Russia loses this is NATO boots in Ukraine and the risk of WW3 and nuclear annihilation.  Anyone postulating dreaming otherwise is fooling themselves.

 

 

I agree that it is long past time to concede the facts: In 2014 - with no moral or legal  justification - Russia annexed Crimea, which was recognised under international law as forming part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. The only 'poking of the bear' was Ukraine's desire to have closer economic ties with the West i.e. the EU.

 

I know little about the military side of things so, unfortunately, you might be correct that Russia is winning the war. If so, it is to the West's shame: It should have taken tougher action in support of Ukraine in 2014.

[rabas]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

To the folks celebrating the attack on the Russkie bombers, it's not going so well for the people of Kiev last night,..

 

Depending one whose (very early) reports you read, it's either a major or a minor attack.

 

 

Personally, I think it's tragic and wrong.  But very predictable.  That's what happens when you poke the bear.

 

Russia launches missile, drone attack on Kyiv days after Ukraine’s audacious strike on bomber fleet | CNN

 

It's long past time to concede the facts and out an end to it.  The only way Russia loses this is NATO boots in Ukraine and the risk of WW3 and nuclear annihilation.  Anyone postulating dreaming otherwise is fooling themselves.

 

 

Twisted  logic. 

 

In truth, this is the massive attack (probably against civilians) that Russia planned and had already loaded its long range bombers for, which Ukraine legally and humanely stopped. Kremlin propaganda that it's Ukraine's fault we continue bombing and killing Ukraine civilians is tiring. 

 

NATO is a defense organization, principally established to stop Russian aggression. The only threat NATO poses to Russia is to stop it to from attacking its neighbors, which it has been doing forever. 

 

[jas007]

I think everyone here needs to stop, focus, and not lose sight of the fact that the issue at hand is not right or wrong. The issue at hand is not about internationally recognized borders, or who started the war or for what justification. At this point, that's all history. 

 

Russia currently holds all the cards, so to speak. The war on the ground is all but over, and parts of the Donbas have been annexed to Russia, along with Crimea.  That's not going to be undone.  Right or wrong, it's a done deal.

 

So what happens now?  Is the world going to experience WWIII and likely nuclear annihilation?  Everyone dead simply because some clowns in the UK are living in the past and think they still have an empire?  Everyone dead because the bankers and the US war machine need more and more money to sustain a fiat money Ponzi scheme that's now entering it's last years? 

 

It's not hard to understand why the Ukrainians want to fight to the death, regardless. Ukraine is their "motherland."  And unfortunately for them, they're being used simply as pawns in a proxy war.  It's a human tragedy and didn't have to happen.  Over a million young kids, dead.  God knows how many more crippled for life.  The time to stop is now, before any more people die needlessly. Eight billion people would probably agree with me. 

[impulse]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I agree that it is long past time to concede the facts: In 2014 - with no moral or legal  justification - Russia annexed Crimea, which was recognised under international law as forming part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. The only 'poking of the bear' was Ukraine's desire to have closer economic ties with the West i.e. the EU.

 

I know little about the military side of things so, unfortunately, you might be correct that Russia is winning the war. If so, it is to the West's shame: It should have taken tougher action in support of Ukraine in 2014.

 

So, can I presume you're in favor of NATO boots on the ground and risking WW3 and Armageddon?  Because that's what you're advocating.  Risking the end of the world as we know it.