19 hours ago, LosLobo said:

It’s ironic. Just as Ho Chi Minh turned to the Soviets and Chinese after the U.S. ignored his pleas for support against French colonialism, Trump-style isolationism today could push other nations — especially those under threat — to turn to China or Russia by necessity, not ideology.
 

When the U.S. steps back from global leadership or abandons allies, it doesn’t create peace — it creates a vacuum. And history shows who steps in.

You mean like what happened in Libya after it was destroyed by the west?

22 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

You mean like what happened in Libya after it was destroyed by the west?

No.

Just a coincedence this attack happens days after Lindsey Grahams visit, didnt he said 'he'd act without Trump' Graham is John Bolton without the moustache & glasses, Trump needs to bin him off

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

Just a coincedence this attack happens days after Lindsey Grahams visit, didnt he said 'he'd act without Trump' Graham is John Bolton without the moustache & glasses, Trump needs to bin him off

That may be, but it doesn't look like that's a likely outcomes, at this point, especially if reports are true that Hegseth watched the drone attack in real time.  Consider the implications of that.  That coupled with Trump's assertion at a press conference that he hadn't heard anything about a drone attack.  That can all mean only one of two or three things.  Trump was lying, Trump spaced it out and forgot he had been told about it, or, more likely, the CIA kept Trump out of the loop to establish plausible deniability.  And if that's the case, more than a few people ought to be fired. More than a few people are not doing their job or are asleep at the switch. 

 

There are so many problems with what happened it would be hard to list them all. 

18 hours ago, jas007 said:

You want to come across as someone who understands diplomacy, enforceability, and so on, but your response here demonstrates that you understand none of that or how things play out in the real world.  

 

First, you should understand how diplomacy typically operates when the issues include ending a war, and why the enforcement of any such agreement might well be problematic but not out of the question.  

 

It's not at all unusual for states to withhold security guarantees from an agreement for very real strategic concerns. When push comes to shove, as the US has so often demonstrated, countries will act in their own best interest.  Guarantees don't mean much these days. Do you understand game theory? Have you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma? Do you understand why the focus on Putin is a straw man argument and why that misses the point, in any event?

 

Ideally, guarantees operate as a deterrent because an aggressor would be unable to absolutely veto the guarantors from making good on their guarantees. The rational actor would therefore avoid the conflict.  But, as you've so aptly noted, enforcement would not come without roadblocks. In the case of a referral to the Security Council, by Putin himself or his representative at the UN. However, the UN is but one of several available enforcement mechanisms.  Moreover, the "loaded gun" analogy misses the mark. You're setting up an either/or situation that doesn't exist in the real world.  

 

Reciprocity and trust?  You must be kidding.  Look at the history of the conflict. Neither side can trust the other, and for good reasons.  Russia can't trust Ukraine, given its recent history of supposed violations of the Minsk Accords. And Ukraine certainly doesn't trust Russia. A Russia that continues to hold what Zelensky calls Ukrainian territory and an Ukraine that enters into a deal under duress?  In other words, it's a recipe for future trouble and that's not the goal of any agreement to end the war, is it?  

 

So, was there a genuine offer? Of course. Jut not an offer you like.  And I'm sure the offer may still be on the table, in spite of yesterday's drone strikes. 

 

You come across as someone who thinks tossing around buzzwords substitutes for substance — but your post shows you don’t grasp diplomacy, enforceability, or even the basics of critical reasoning.
 

You keep calling it a “genuine offer,” but Hitchens’s Razor applies: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And you’ve provided none.
 

Your argument leans heavily on a salad of logical fallacies:
 

– Begging the Question – Assuming the offer was legitimate, then using that assumption as proof of its legitimacy.

– Straw Man – Recasting my argument as a complaint about all guarantees, instead of what it was: a critique of trusting a regime actively violating prior agreements.

– False Equivalence – Comparing the challenges of enforcing normal treaties to accepting an ultimatum from an invader is bad logic — and worse diplomacy.

– Appeal to Futility – Dismissing enforceability concerns by claiming no guarantee is enforceable — after suggesting the UN Security Council, where Russia has veto power, as your solution.

– Tu Quoque – Suggesting Ukraine’s flaws justify Russia’s actions doesn’t defend your argument — it dodges it.

– Assertion-as-Evidence – Stating something repeatedly doesn’t make it true. It just makes it louder.

Frankly, your post feels disingenuous: all assertion, no proof, and riddled with logical fallacies.

Try again — this time with evidence, not rhetoric.

20 hours ago, dinsdale said:

They rarely use these for strikes. Way to valuable of an asset. The SU-34 and SU-25 are the jets doing the most damage on the battlefield dropping FAB's from Russian controlled regions. Try not to make out you know what you talking about. As for just parking up aircraft on runways you once again show your ignorance. This was more than 4000 km away out of range of missiles and drones. Obviously not out of range of trucks carrying drones. Closer to the front precautions are taken. 

Aaaah, Russian insider tech info.................

22 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

You come across as someone who thinks tossing around buzzwords substitutes for substance — but your post shows you don’t grasp diplomacy, enforceability, or even the basics of critical reasoning.
 

You keep calling it a “genuine offer,” but Hitchens’s Razor applies: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And you’ve provided none.
 

Your argument leans heavily on a salad of logical fallacies:
 

– Begging the Question – Assuming the offer was legitimate, then using that assumption as proof of its legitimacy.

– Straw Man – Recasting my argument as a complaint about all guarantees, instead of what it was: a critique of trusting a regime actively violating prior agreements.

– False Equivalence – Comparing the challenges of enforcing normal treaties to accepting an ultimatum from an invader is bad logic — and worse diplomacy.

– Appeal to Futility – Dismissing enforceability concerns by claiming no guarantee is enforceable — then turning around and suggesting the UN Security Council, where Russia has veto power, as your solution.

– Tu Quoque – Suggesting Ukraine’s flaws justify Russia’s actions doesn’t defend your argument — it dodges it.

– Assertion-as-Evidence – Stating something repeatedly doesn’t make it true. It just makes it louder.

Frankly, your post feels disingenuous: all assertion, no proof, and riddled with logical fallacies.

Try again — this time with evidence, not rhetoric.

Where as your proof is quotes of articles from Ukrainian & western media, allied with the current western narrative.

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Where as your proof is quotes of articles from Ukrainian & western media, allied with the current western narrative.

Could you rewrite that so it is understandable, or is it a Russian to English translation..........?......😬

20 hours ago, dinsdale said:

They rarely use these for strikes. Way to valuable of an asset. The SU-34 and SU-25 are the jets doing the most damage on the battlefield dropping FAB's from Russian controlled regions. Try not to make out you know what you talking about. As for just parking up aircraft on runways you once again show your ignorance. This was more than 4000 km away out of range of missiles and drones. Obviously not out of range of trucks carrying drones. Closer to the front precautions are taken. 

 

21 minutes ago, transam said:

Aaaah, Russian insider tech info.................

He's completely clueless.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-ways-ukraines-audacious-spiderweb-193330713.html

 

"Bronk said that even if only half of the claimed 41 planes were damaged or destroyed, it would have a "significant impact" on Russia's ability to launch long-range cruise missile attacks on Ukraine's civilian infrastructure.

Bronk estimates that Russia had around 60 active Tu-95 "Bear" bombers and around 20 Tu-160 "Blackjack" bombers involved in this aerial campaign, and said replacing damaged planes will be a huge challenge, as production on both models has either slowed or halted completely in recent decades."

Reportedly, Putin has been in hiding since the incidents.

 

On 6/2/2025 at 9:41 AM, dinsdale said:

These were not FPV drones. FPV drones are drones that use fibre optic cables which makes them immune to electronic counter measures. 

 

That’s just flat-out wrong.
 

FPV stands for First Person View — not “fiber optic.” It refers to drones piloted in real time using a video feed, typically over radio frequencies. No one’s flying drones thousands of kilometers with a cable dragging behind.
 

And no, FPV drones aren’t immune to electronic countermeasures. Quite the opposite — they’re especially vulnerable to jamming because they rely on radio signals for both control and video.

 

You’d expect someone with a degree in science to know the basics before lecturing others.

21 hours ago, dinsdale said:

They rarely use these for strikes. Way to valuable of an asset. The SU-34 and SU-25 are the jets doing the most damage on the battlefield dropping FAB's from Russian controlled regions. Try not to make out you know what you talking about. As for just parking up aircraft on runways you once again show your ignorance. This was more than 4000 km away out of range of missiles and drones. Obviously not out of range of trucks carrying drones. Closer to the front precautions are taken. 

 

The Tu-95 and Tu-22 long range bombers are used to launch big cruise missiles like the Kh101 targeted at a children's hospital (below). Smaller jets can't launch them. The AWACs are used to protect their assets during attacks. This is a primary means for Russia to penetrate deep in to Ukraine. They are in steady use. Days before the attack, reports suggested Russia was preparing an extra heavy attack of these deadly cruise missiles. Ukraine's attack on Russian bombers was probably the most justified defensive attack ever, as if an invaded country needs justification.  Stop supporting killer Putin.

 

 

 Tu-95 and Tu-22 bombers (with missiles), and A-50 AWACs plane.

Tu-95 (top left) with Kh101 cruise missiles.

Tu-22 (top right) with Kinzhal missiles.

 

 

43 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Reportedly, Putin has been in hiding since the incidents.

 

Hopefully he's in "permanent storage" already. 

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

Where as your proof is quotes of articles from Ukrainian & western media, allied with the current western narrative.

Whatever, Frank.

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

Hopefully he's in "permanent storage" already. 

The point is of course Russia will retaliate against Ukraine but there will also be a very dramatic blame game within Russia and heads will surely roll. I don't think they're at the point yet of erasing Putin. But no doubt he's freaking out.

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The point is of course Russia will retaliate against Ukraine but there will also be a very dramatic blame game within Russia and heads will surely roll. I don't think they're at the point yet of erasing Putin. But no doubt he's freaking out.

I think it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to predict the fall of Putin. It seems to me that it will be one of those 'here today, gone tomorrow' scenarios. 

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

You come across as someone who thinks tossing around buzzwords substitutes for substance — but your post shows you don’t grasp diplomacy, enforceability, or even the basics of critical reasoning.
 

You keep calling it a “genuine offer,” but Hitchens’s Razor applies: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And you’ve provided none.
 

Your argument leans heavily on a salad of logical fallacies:
 

– Begging the Question – Assuming the offer was legitimate, then using that assumption as proof of its legitimacy.

– Straw Man – Recasting my argument as a complaint about all guarantees, instead of what it was: a critique of trusting a regime actively violating prior agreements.

– False Equivalence – Comparing the challenges of enforcing normal treaties to accepting an ultimatum from an invader is bad logic — and worse diplomacy.

– Appeal to Futility – Dismissing enforceability concerns by claiming no guarantee is enforceable — after suggesting the UN Security Council, where Russia has veto power, as your solution.

– Tu Quoque – Suggesting Ukraine’s flaws justify Russia’s actions doesn’t defend your argument — it dodges it.

– Assertion-as-Evidence – Stating something repeatedly doesn’t make it true. It just makes it louder.

Frankly, your post feels disingenuous: all assertion, no proof, and riddled with logical fallacies.

Try again — this time with evidence, not rhetoric.

I tried.  You just don't understand, and so you want some sort of "proof."  

Dmitry Medvedev war humor:

"To all who are worried and waiting for retribution.

You need to worry - this is a normal person's quality. Retribution is inevitable.

At the same time, you should remember:

1. Our Army is actively advancing and will continue to advance. Everything that should explode will certainly explode, and those who should be exterminated will disappear;

2. The negotiations in Istanbul are not needed for a compromise peace on unrealistic conditions invented by someone, but for our speedy victory and the complete destruction of the neo-Nazi government. This is the meaning of the Russian Memorandum, which was published yesterday."

And there you go.  

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

You come across as someone who thinks tossing around buzzwords substitutes for substance — but your post shows you don’t grasp diplomacy, enforceability, or even the basics of critical reasoning.
 

You keep calling it a “genuine offer,” but Hitchens’s Razor applies: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And you’ve provided none.
 

Your argument leans heavily on a salad of logical fallacies:
 

– Begging the Question – Assuming the offer was legitimate, then using that assumption as proof of its legitimacy.

– Straw Man – Recasting my argument as a complaint about all guarantees, instead of what it was: a critique of trusting a regime actively violating prior agreements.

– False Equivalence – Comparing the challenges of enforcing normal treaties to accepting an ultimatum from an invader is bad logic — and worse diplomacy.

– Appeal to Futility – Dismissing enforceability concerns by claiming no guarantee is enforceable — after suggesting the UN Security Council, where Russia has veto power, as your solution.

– Tu Quoque – Suggesting Ukraine’s flaws justify Russia’s actions doesn’t defend your argument — it dodges it.

– Assertion-as-Evidence – Stating something repeatedly doesn’t make it true. It just makes it louder.

Frankly, your post feels disingenuous: all assertion, no proof, and riddled with logical fallacies.

Try again — this time with evidence, not rhetoric.

Sorry if you don't understand what I wrote.  Maybe I wasn't clear enough.  And I think I've already answered this question somewhere in the last three days.  

 

A number of topics, all connected and all important to establishing a diplomatic framework for settlement.  It all works together. Diplomacy can be messy, and we're not talking about theory. We're talking real world.  That's where things matter.   That's the part you want so desperately to avoid. 

 

You ask for "evidence."  And yet sometimes, the thing speaks for itself, so to speak. Res ipsa loquitur.  It's not hard to connect the dots, sometimes. If you don't understand that, I can come up with many examples. 

 

Appeal to futility?  An agreement may be difficult to achieve, but not impossible.  Anyone will tell you that.  Again, consider history. Consider other diplomatic solutions, and connect the dots. It can be done. 

 

False equivalence?   It's not false if there's areal connection in the mind of one of the parties.  In this example, what you think doesn't matter.  What Putin thinks absolutely does matter.  Unless, of course, he's taken out of the equation and one of your theoretical straw men is substituted in his place.

 

And yes, much of your argument does beg the question.  Maybe you should go back and read it again. 

 

Tu Qouque?  Give me a break. If you understand any of the above you'd know why that's not the case. 

 

 

19 hours ago, jas007 said:

I agree in part.  As I've previously indicated, Putin suspended Russia's participation the New Start Treaty s few yers ago. So I suppose the US is no longer legally obligated.  In any event, you're otherwise absolutely correct.

 

People cheering on this war and its escalation apparently have no clue what's been done or why it matters.  And they certainly don't understand the ramifications of a global thermonuclear war.  They can''t stay in their bunkers forever. 

aren you trying to say/divert that Ukraine started the war and they don't have the right to defend themselves

On 6/2/2025 at 4:44 PM, BLMFem said:

By what they've posted in this thread and others the following posters seem to favour Putin's Russia:

Frank/Dmitry, Cameroni, JaxxBKK, FlorC, jas007, impulse

you just listed a couple and now I realized why, the list it's so big that this topic will not have have pages to show all of them

3 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Where as your proof is quotes of articles from Ukrainian & western media, allied with the current western narrative.

Dimitry !!!! did u use google translate!!!, you must have pushed the wrong button

17 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

aren you trying to say/divert that Ukraine started the war and they don't have the right to defend themselves

Not at all.  Who "started" the war?  How far back in history do you want to go? 

 

Sure, Ukraine has a right to defend itself. That goes without saying. And the rest of us have some interest in not being turned into dust via thermonuclear war.  

 

So what's the solution? A diplomatic solution. One that establishes transparency and a framework for agreement and verification.  And yet all that is complicated by the fact that, after yesterday's drone attacks, the US can no longer be trusted.  Or rather, the Russians may not trust the USA at this point, given the recent history of CIA meddling and the Maiden Revolution. And of course, the failed Minsk accords.  

 

So, justified or not, Russia may not trust the USA at this point and they may well think Trump is a wishy washy madman.  And that complicates the situation and makes war more likely, not less likely.  Read up on Game Theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma, and why a lack of transparency and an irrational actor can make it more likely that a nation act in it's perceived best interest and less likely to agree to any kind of diplomatic framework for a solution.   

 

The bottom line: the sooner this war is stopped, the better.  Otherwise, we're headed for trouble. 

1 minute ago, jas007 said:

So what's the solution?

simple or very simple, Putin to pack and go back where he came from, he's not welcomed in Ukraine and was never invited to go, assuming you have some friends/relatives/acquaintances and you show up at their place(s) uninvited, they will tell you and will show you (by their actions) that you are not welcomed, what will you do, impose yourself by force, maybe killing all of them or the majority of them or will you leave and go back to you home

Kremlin propagandist Vladimir Solovyov called for the execution of the conscript who recorded the drone attack on a Russian airbase. His words provoked outrage among Russian war bloggers.

"Can we execute him, this conscript? Just take this scum and shoot him in front of everyone like a traitor to the homeland," declared Vladimir Solovyov on his programme, broadcast on Rossiya1.

 The young soldier filmed not only his face but also the aftermath of the Ukrainian drone attack on the airbase, where several burning machines were visible. 

Kremlin's call for conscript execution sparks blogger backlash

How many villas did Solovyov have in Italy? Two in his name, two in his mother's , and another partly owned.

Yes, he's a true patriot.

 

20 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Ludicrous nonsense.  Russia never had the goal to take "over all of Ukraine". It is neither wanted nor desired. Nor would it even be possible..

 

Far too melodramtaic an assessment, and plain false.

I see - more jibber jabber from you as always - since they made an attempt at the heart of Kiev at the very start of the war...or sorry in your case it would be "special operation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022)

 

Putin apologist. Why don't you enlist and do us all a favour on the front line?

 

 

7 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

I see - more jibber jabber from you as always - since they made an attempt at the heart of Kiev at the very start of the war...or sorry in your case it would be "special operation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022)

 

Putin apologist. Why don't you enlist and do us all a favour on the front line?

 

 

 

"On 14 June 2024 Russian President Putin claimed that "Russian troops were near Kyiv in March 2022", but "There was no political decision to storm the three-million-strong city; it was a coercive operation to establish peace.""

 

From your own link, lol.

 

In other words, there was never an intention to occupy Kiev, much less in 3 days, it was just mean to apply pressure to the Ukrainians because at the time Putin was still negotiating for peace with the Ukrainians. Of course after Johnson visited the peace negotiations fell apart.

Notice how the narrative that we are fighting to save democracy  in Ukrain is gone ?  now it's all about defeating Russia, which it was all along, a NATO proxy war to bring anout the collapse of Russia.