Russia is winning

It's like you think "glory" is something you can have too much of. You keep saying "Russia has more of this than they know what to do with", as if you can predict Putin like this.

Of course Russia is a threat to the Ukraine. It has been for a long time.

Presidential candidates poisoned (along with all the other poisonings, like Litvinenko and Skripal in the UK which more or less prove they poisoned Yushchenko).

Essentially Putin saw the Ukraine as Russian territory to do with as they chose. When the Ukraine moved away from Russia towards the EU they attacked. They poisoned Yushchenko because they wanted to dictate who the leader of the Ukraine was.

Putin claimed the Ukraine was supplying arms to Georgia. At the same time Putin was saying how he had an obligation for the Russians in the Ukraine and Georgia. I mean, this is what Hitler did. This was his casus belli in the Sudentenland and Austria.

Oh, if you think Russia had nothing to do with Georgia, you're living in a fantasy world. In 2007 two fighter jets launched a missile into Georgia. In the same year the Russian ambassador said the Georgian people were a "dying-out nation". I mean..... Why?

In April 2008 a Russian plane shot down a Georgian drone in Georgia.

Russia denies all of this though.

In fact Russia denied shooting down the MA flight over the Ukraine in 2014. They claimed the Ukrainians had shot it down. They even provided the "evidence" of a google maps shot showing the exact point this happened.


This was AFTER Russia had reported that the rebels in the Ukraine had done it.


"Muratov: It’s of course connected to the tragic fate of the Malaysian Boeing. I know that Aleksandr Boroday called the head of one of the main media organizations which covers events in Ukraine approximately 40 minutes after the Boeing perished and said, “likely we shot down a civilian airline.”"

So we know Russia lies. We know they use misinformation all the time. We know right now Russia is doing just that, lying to its people about EVERYTHING that's going on in the Ukraine. So why would they have told the truth in Georgia?

Wrong.
There is no "glory" in Russia having to deal with a fascist culture like the Ukraine.
Russia is xenophobic, and wants nothing at all to do with countries like the Ukraine.

Russia has NEVER been a threat to the Ukraine.
Litvinenko was in the UK as a defector, and not only deserved being poisoned, but had nothing at all to do with the Ukraine.
Yushchenko was poisoned by other Ukrainians, not Russians.
Russia wants nothing to do with Ukrainians.
All Russia wants is for the Ukraine to stop murdering ethnic Russians in the Donetsk and Crimea.
And by the way, Hitler was totally and completely correct about the Sudetenland being half ethnic Germans who had their nationality stolen by the corrupt Treaty of Versailles, that stole about half of Germany.

Sure Russia is not reliable and lies, but the Ukraine is at least 10 times worse.
They are on record stealing over $20 billion in Russian oil, murdering 14k ethnic Russians, violating treaties, trying to get NATO nukes, and it was Ukrainians who manned about 80% of the death camps for Hitler in WWII, like Demjanjuk at Sobibor.
 
Wrong.
There is no "glory" in Russia having to deal with a fascist culture like the Ukraine.
Russia is xenophobic, and wants nothing at all to do with countries like the Ukraine.

Russia has NEVER been a threat to the Ukraine.
Litvinenko was in the UK as a defector, and not only deserved being poisoned, but had nothing at all to do with the Ukraine.
Yushchenko was poisoned by other Ukrainians, not Russians.
Russia wants nothing to do with Ukrainians.
All Russia wants is for the Ukraine to stop murdering ethnic Russians in the Donetsk and Crimea.
And by the way, Hitler was totally and completely correct about the Sudetenland being half ethnic Germans who had their nationality stolen by the corrupt Treaty of Versailles, that stole about half of Germany.

Sure Russia is not reliable and lies, but the Ukraine is at least 10 times worse.
They are on record stealing over $20 billion in Russian oil, murdering 14k ethnic Russians, violating treaties, trying to get NATO nukes, and it was Ukrainians who manned about 80% of the death camps for Hitler in WWII, like Demjanjuk at Sobibor.

You just make stuff up that's clearly WRONG.

Russia isn't a threat to the Ukraine. Fuck off, it's just INVADED the Ukraine.
 
They are on record stealing over $20 billion in Russian oil, murdering 14k ethnic Russians, violating treaties, trying to get NATO nukes, and it was Ukrainians who manned about 80% of the death camps for Hitler in WWII, like Demjanjuk at Sobibor
In this set of claims maybe only the last one is more or less correct (though, I am not sure about that), you lying twat.
 
Litvinenko was in the UK as a defector, and not only deserved being poisoned, but had nothing at all to do with the Ukraine.
Yushchenko was poisoned by other Ukrainians, not Russians.
Bolds statements. Do you have any source for Yushcehnko being poisoned by other Ukrains?
All Russia wants is for the Ukraine to stop murdering ethnic Russians in the Donetsk and Crimea.
I tend to agree.
And by the way, Hitler was totally and completely correct about the Sudetenland being half ethnic Germans who had their nationality stolen by the corrupt Treaty of Versailles, that stole about half of Germany.
I'm sure he was right but he took the whole of Czechian, not only Sudetenland.
 

Screen Shot 2021-01-14 at 9.33.13 AM.png

July 10, 2018
Screen Shot 2022-05-20 at 11.23.22 AM.png

Russia's bonds are trading at a premium which means they are in demand ...Militarily Russia is winning...
Economically Russia holds all the cards...Russia clearly - if wins militarily - wins a lot of treasure in invading Ukraine...
Russia is playing a long game and it looks like the US made some significant blunders.

Amazing. NATO will prove itself "obsolete", and...
Screen Shot 2022-05-20 at 11.09.56 AM.png

"Johnny and Amber will reconcile, and enjoy a torrid
second honeymoon as guests on a Putin mega-yacht!"
 
Trump got it wrong on Nato obviously. Without Nato US aggression against Russia wouldn't be possible.

This US war against Russia has been constructed in the only way US aggression against Russia is possible.

After this war, if indeed there's an 'after' for the world, it will be an interesting question on whether or not Nato has become obsolete.

I think Russia is considering this war to be the last one it will need to fight to defend their borders. Win or lose, Russia has too much invested to change course now.
 
Trump got it wrong on Nato obviously. Without Nato US aggression against Russia wouldn't be possible.

This US war against Russia has been constructed in the only way US aggression against Russia is possible.
That's an F-ing good point.
After this war, if indeed there's an 'after' for the world, it will be an interesting question on whether or not Nato has become obsolete.
I guess this depends upon the purpose of NATO, its origins not-withstanding. If there is to be ANY peace in the world NATO will have to be destroyed. This brings two additional questions to the surface: (1) Won't the US (in its function of treacherous misdeeds) also need to be destroyed and/or (2) what will fill the void once it (or they) have been destroyed and what roll will it play?
I think Russia is considering this war to be the last one it will need to fight to defend their borders. Win or lose, Russia has too much invested to change course now.
I agree with this unless China stands shoulder to shoulder with the Kremlin, relieving some of the pressure.
 
NATO should have been laid to rest already if you ask me.
I suspect that Finland and Sweden didn't ask you.

I'd expect to get a more cogent response if I were to ask Zelenskyy and all those slain, maimed, and displaced Ukrainian "nazi" children, women, and men.
 
That's an F-ing good point.

I guess this depends upon the purpose of NATO, its origins not-withstanding. If there is to be ANY peace in the world NATO will have to be destroyed.
I welcome a rational discussion, and so I hope that my creating disagreements won't disrupt.
My opinion is that Nato is only a tool of US aggression. But that isn't my agreement that America needs to be destroyed. Although, along with the rest of the world, that would do it. Let's not go there yet!
This brings two additional questions to the surface: (1) Won't the US (in its function of treacherous misdeeds) also need to be destroyed and/or (2) what will fill the void once it (or they) have been destroyed and what roll will it play?
Can we first agree that America is in a 'life or death' fight for world supremacy and taking down Russia is the first step.
I agree with this unless China stands shoulder to shoulder with the Kremlin, relieving some of the pressure.
I think there's a lot of truth in that statement. But currently it's not decided on whether Russia can win it's objectives (limited by details) without China actively taking part. There's no doubt China is only acting with Russia covertly so far.

China doesn't want a hot war with their military involvement. That's not their methods.

However, I thing China will watch very closely for Russia losing serious ground and then become involved in their 'own' interests. America fully intends to finish with Russia and then move on to stopping China.

It's pretty elementary but I wanted to get my full POV out there for a start. Finer details not necessary for now.

How does this apply to Nato?
The US is Nato. Nato countries aren't being threatened by Russia!
 
I suspect that Finland and Sweden didn't ask you.

....
That's correct. Sweden has put in its application for NATO membership already, and "no" you are right, government didn't ask us ie. no vote. On Saturday, I went to a gathering where I met a volunteer for the Social Democratic party. The discussion on NATO membership was front and centre and I put my two cents in immediately on our loss of neutrality and the default fact that we will be sending our boys to fight and die in some American falsely motivated war somewhere on the globe. "This is a misconception", responds Bonzo Boy, "we will not be compelled to go to war rather we will be able to decide on an individual basis whether we want to or not!" I wanted to slap him and I might have done it except that the host is a decent guy. What Bonzo Boy failed to mention is that the "we" who will decide whether or not to take part in some war are the same "we" who volunteered the county to join NATO without asking us in the first place!
 
..... My opinion is that Nato is only a tool of US aggression.
Yes.
But that isn't my agreement that America needs to be destroyed. Although, along with the rest of the world, that would do it. Let's not go there yet!
Thats not our doing. Neither yours nor mine. If the US puts all of its eggs in one basket and "goes for broke" then they will have to suffer the consequences if they get the shit kicked out of them.
Can we first agree that America is in a 'life or death' fight for world supremacy ....
No, absolutely not. As I said above if the US puts everything on the line ... and gets desrtoyed ... then it will be a "death" fight for them but whos put on the gloves and made a line in the sand. Not us. "Life or death" is when your opponent is bent on destroying you and your DEFENCE is the only way to survive. But the world is not trying to destroy the US.
.... America fully intends to finish with Russia and then move on to stopping China.
Not "stopping" China, destroying it.
.... How does this apply to Nato?
That is a rhetorical question.
The US is Nato. Nato countries aren't being threatened by Russia!
True and true.
 
Yes.

Thats not our doing. Neither yours nor mine. If the US puts all of its eggs in one basket and "goes for broke" then they will have to suffer the consequences if they get the shit kicked out of them.
Sorry, you're not making any sense to me. To begin with, the US doesn't have to risk one egg if it can win using the current method. Only Russia can get the shit kicked out of them. America can live to fight another day. I'm saying that Russia considers this their last fight against the US. If Russia can accomplish it's intended gains and keep them, America's power will be severely demonstrated to be finished.
No, absolutely not. As I said above if the US puts everything on the line ... and gets desrtoyed ... then it will be a "death" fight for them but whos put on the gloves and made a line in the sand. Not us. "Life or death" is when your opponent is bent on destroying you and your DEFENCE is the only way to survive. But the world is not trying to destroy the US.
The US has manipulated the situation so that it need put very little on the line.
Who is 'us' you keep referring to?
America is seeking the destruction of Russia and that makes it life or death for Russia.
Not "stopping" China, destroying it.
Just different terms being used.
That is a rhetorical question.

True and true.
We're together on that at least.
Otherwise, so far there's some misunderstanding of each other in my opinion.
 
That's correct. Sweden has put in its application for NATO membership already, and "no" you are right, government didn't ask us ie. no vote. On Saturday, I went to a gathering where I met a volunteer for the Social Democratic party. The discussion on NATO membership was front and centre and I put my two cents in immediately on our loss of neutrality and the default fact that we will be sending our boys to fight and die in some American falsely motivated war somewhere on the globe. "This is a misconception", responds Bonzo Boy, "we will not be compelled to go to war rather we will be able to decide on an individual basis whether we want to or not!" I wanted to slap him and I might have done it except that the host is a decent guy. What Bonzo Boy failed to mention is that the "we" who will decide whether or not to take part in some war are the same "we" who volunteered the county to join NATO without asking us in the first place!
Actually, this boy was right. NATO membership doesn't require a member state to participate in 'expansionist' war. Look at the Iraq war as an example. Not all NATO members agreed to sent their troops there.
 
Actually, this boy was right. NATO membership doesn't require a member state to participate in 'expansionist' war. Look at the Iraq war as an example. Not all NATO members agreed to sent their troops there.
Sweden and Finland must also understand that an agression by one Nato member is an aggression by all nato members, and will bring about the unthinkable upon the enemys (Russia's) choice of victims. This is why Finland has drawn the line against Nato bases and nuclear weapons on it's soil.

Regardless, Russia will make the decision.
 
Sweden and Finland must also understand that an agression by one Nato member is an aggression by all nato members, and will bring about the unthinkable upon the enemys (Russia's) choice of victims. This is why Finland has drawn the line against Nato bases and nuclear weapons on it's soil.

Regardless, Russia will make the decision.
This Finland's decision is strange. Either you agree to take part in defence policy or you stay out from the alliance.
 
That's correct. Sweden has put in its application for NATO membership already, and "no" you are right, government didn't ask us ie. no vote. On Saturday, I went to a gathering where I met a volunteer for the Social Democratic party. The discussion on NATO membership was front and centre and I put my two cents in immediately on our loss of neutrality and the default fact that we will be sending our boys to fight and die in some American falsely motivated war somewhere on the globe. "This is a misconception", responds Bonzo Boy, "we will not be compelled to go to war rather we will be able to decide on an individual basis whether we want to or not!" I wanted to slap him and I might have done it except that the host is a decent guy. What Bonzo Boy failed to mention is that the "we" who will decide whether or not to take part in some war are the same "we" who volunteered the county to join NATO without asking us in the first place!
Putin certainly would have strongly urged Finland and Sweden not to join the defensive coalition.

Such solidarity among European democracies constitutes a strong disincentive for his rebuilding the Soviet empire.
 
Actually, this boy was right. NATO membership doesn't require a member state to participate in 'expansionist' war. Look at the Iraq war as an example. Not all NATO members agreed to sent their troops there.
What do you mean "He's right"? Are you not following this dialogue?
 

Forum List

Back
Top