Russia Switches to Focus of Liberating the Donbass.

[Meathead]

I'm taking Putin by what he said at the beginning of the war, which included

1. "De-Nazifying Ukraine" whatever the fuck that means
2. De-militarizing Ukraine

We also know that he sent assassins into Kyiv that were liquidated by Ukrainian forces. Why would he do that? Hmm, let's do a tiny bit of thinking here.

"We" don't know shit. BTW, any "tiny bit of thinking" is a dangerous proposition at the best of times. After all, it is the lot of tiny minds.

 

[Donald H]

Yes. This all could have been easily avoided. It appears Washington wanted war.

Hey Toro…please read if you can.
"So you think Ukraine should just GIVE Putin the Donbas and Crimea and neutrality, to end a war that Putin started??"

No I think Ukraine should sacrifice rivers of blood serving as US proxy cannon fodder for years to drain Moscow while you sit at home eating Pop Tarts and tweeting.

LOL

I definitely think every single Ukrainian man, woman and child should be sacrificed to this US proxy war for geostrategic dominance rather than yield some Russian-speaking parts of eastern Ukraine who want to be part of Russia anyway. Only a Putin-loving monster would disagree.

Well said!

The only humanitarian position is to continue the US plan to flood the nation with just enough weapons to bleed Russia without actually winning for years to subvert Moscow in the grand chessboard maneuverings of a few sociopaths in Washington. -Caitlin Johnstone

And that really nails it down too!
Except that I just don't think Russia will be willing to play the game that long.

What would the most likely result be of a tactical nuke hitting Warsaw? Could Russia's hand be pushed that far?

And would America still quote Article 5?

It doesn't hurt to explore all possibilities now, before the fact.

 

[badger2]

LOL

Well said!

And that really nails it down too!
Except that I just don't think Russia will be willing to play the game that long.

What would the most likely result be of a tactical nuke hitting Warsaw? Could Russia's hand be pushed that far?

And would America still quote Article 5?

It doesn't hurt to explore all possibilities now, before the fact.

The Duma document suggests six nations requiring denazification. It's a good idea not to get amnesia about the origins of the swastika symbol or its wolfsangel Ukrainian cousin. Its evolution in Asia always had two fylfots opposing one another, one counter-clockwise.
Pathologies to study include countries mentioned here:

 

[Toro]

"We" don't know shit. BTW, any "tiny bit of thinking" is a dangerous proposition at the best of times. After all, it is the lot of tiny minds.

And your mind is tiniest.

 

[Toro]

LOL

Well said!

And that really nails it down too!
Except that I just don't think Russia will be willing to play the game that long.

What would the most likely result be of a tactical nuke hitting Warsaw? Could Russia's hand be pushed that far?

And would America still quote Article 5?

It doesn't hurt to explore all possibilities now, before the fact.

The anti-American gipper whores for Russian trolls.

No surprise there.

 

[Meathead]

And your mind is tiniest.

Hell of a retort. I tire of idiots, yet that is the nature of the internet.

At least I admit I don't know squat whereas you have a certainty with what you spew.

 

[Toro]

Hell of a retort. I tire of idiots, yet that is the nature of the internet.

At least I admit I don't know squat whereas you have a certainty with what you spew.

Thank you for your anti-American, pro-Putin retort, loser!

 

[Meathead]

Thank you for your anti-American, pro-Putin retort, loser!

Me? Anti-American and pro-Putin? WTF is wrong with you? I am one of those rare expats who is unbridally proud to be American. Most expats I find are dingbats of your ilk and almost as vacuous.

 

[Toro]

Me? Anti-American and pro-Putin? WTF is wrong with you? I am one of those rare expats who is unbridally proud to be American. Most expats I find are dingbats of your ilk and almost as vacuous.

Then stop acting like you're an anti-American pro-Putin troll.

 

[gipper]

The anti-American gipper whores for Russian trolls.

No surprise there.

Tonto says,
”What so Russia should just get to dictate whether its neighbors can join NATO and the EU??"

Tonto says,
People say "This is not a proxy war! How dare you call this a proxy war?"

Pouring billions of dollars worth of weaponry into a foreign nation to be used by CIA-trained fighters with the direct ongoing assistance of US military intelligence is in fact the exact thing that a proxy war is. That is what those words mean.

If the Ukraine war is not a proxy war, then there has never been a proxy war.

❖
Tonto says,
"So you think Ukraine should just GIVE Putin the Donbas and Crimea and neutrality, to end a war that Putin started??"

No I think Ukraine should sacrifice rivers of blood serving as US proxy cannon fodder for years to drain Moscow while you sit at home eating Pop Tarts and tweeting.

Tonto says COOL.

I definitely think every single Ukrainian man, woman and child should be sacrificed to this US proxy war for geostrategic dominance rather than yield some Russian-speaking parts of eastern Ukraine who want to be part of Russia anyway. Only a Putin-loving monster would disagree.

Tonto is ignorant…
People like Tonto don’t address US hegemony are either truly ignorant of US hegemony, willfully ignorant of US hegemony, or supportive of US hegemony. There are no other options. And there really is no way to address it in a way that makes Russia's position look unreasonable. It's simply not legitimate to claim Moscow has no right to even the slightest degree of any sphere of influence while the US empire exerts a sphere of influence the size of Earth.

 

[Toro]

Tonto says,
”What so Russia should just get to dictate whether its neighbors can join NATO and the EU??"

Tonto says,
People say "This is not a proxy war! How dare you call this a proxy war?"

Pouring billions of dollars worth of weaponry into a foreign nation to be used by CIA-trained fighters with the direct ongoing assistance of US military intelligence is in fact the exact thing that a proxy war is. That is what those words mean.

If the Ukraine war is not a proxy war, then there has never been a proxy war.

❖
Tonto says,
"So you think Ukraine should just GIVE Putin the Donbas and Crimea and neutrality, to end a war that Putin started??"

No I think Ukraine should sacrifice rivers of blood serving as US proxy cannon fodder for years to drain Moscow while you sit at home eating Pop Tarts and tweeting.

Tonto says COOL.

I definitely think every single Ukrainian man, woman and child should be sacrificed to this US proxy war for geostrategic dominance rather than yield some Russian-speaking parts of eastern Ukraine who want to be part of Russia anyway. Only a Putin-loving monster would disagree.

Tonto is ignorant…
People like Tonto don’t address US hegemony are either truly ignorant of US hegemony, willfully ignorant of US hegemony, or supportive of US hegemony. There are no other options. And there really is no way to address it in a way that makes Russia's position look unreasonable. It's simply not legitimate to claim Moscow has no right to even the slightest degree of any sphere of influence while the US empire exerts a sphere of influence the size of Earth.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anti-American conspiracy loons believes every single lie pushed by America's enemies.

LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

An interesting question for you and the very few others to understand.

If America allows the Ukraine to join Nato, what are the full implications?

Article 5 clearly states that an injury to one is an injury to all. Meaning of course that if Russia attacks one member then we will almost certainly be into world war 3.

But also implied is:

An aggression by one is an aggression by all! Which pretty clearly means that if one Nato country attacks Russia directly, then all Nato countries are held responsible.

Therefore, it's only reasonable to say that no further US aggression will be possible through the Ukraine, when the Ukraine becomes a Nato member.

Hence, completely tying America's hands, due to Russia's need to respond to the Ukraine's military action against Russia.

America can't possibly allow the Ukraine to become a Nato member. In fact, it would bring about a peace between Russia and the Ukraine. That's not what America wants quite obviously!

What if a NATO country is attacked?

The text of Article 5 goes on to say that "the parties [to the agreement] agree that an armed attack against one or more of them would be considered an attack against all of them." The United States does not include an obligation to defend another country against attack in its treaty...

datahack4fi.org

What does Article 5 state?​

The core of NATO as an organization is Article 5, sometimes known as the "one-for-all and all-for-one" article. Thus asserts that a "armed attack" on one member is an attack on all, and it opens the door to collective self-defense. The article was not intended to be used as a license for military action by any nation against another; rather, its purpose is to ensure that no nation can be attacked without all members coming to its aid.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Donbass region would become a buffer state?
That would probably be unacceptable to Russia.
The Ukraine becoming a buffer state?
That would probably be unacceptable to America.

The attempt by Putin to regain territory is unacceptable to many in America. Ukraine was part of the USSR which NATO was created to protect against Russia. It's very purpose is against Russia and still is today. Many of the newer NATO countries were not countries til the USSR failed and the Ukraine is one of them.

Ukraine is strategic for Russia because of the Black Sea Ports and why Putin is hammering them now.........Odessa is bracing for a hit and are digging in right now.

Putin will take them all if he can........but he's taking loses and the world is slinging weapons into the fray and it will get worse. We shall see if he is willing to WITHDRAW.

 

[Donald H]

What if a NATO country is attacked?

The text of Article 5 goes on to say that "the parties [to the agreement] agree that an armed attack against one or more of them would be considered an attack against all of them." The United States does not include an obligation to defend another country against attack in its treaty...

datahack4fi.org

What does Article 5 state?​

The core of NATO as an organization is Article 5, sometimes known as the "one-for-all and all-for-one" article. Thus asserts that a "armed attack" on one member is an attack on all, and it opens the door to collective self-defense. The article was not intended to be used as a license for military action by any nation against another; rather, its purpose is to ensure that no nation can be attacked without all members coming to its aid.

And as usual, you're too stupid to understand what I said and so I'll try again in slightly different words.

An aggression by one is an aggression by all is also implied. And so if Poland enters the war then Russia will understand that Article 5 applies when Russia kills Polish people.

Then Russia is provided the cause it needs to nuke America back into the stone age.
And vice versa of course. I warned that few would be able to understand.

 

[eagle1462010]

What would the most likely result be of a tactical nuke hitting Warsaw? Could Russia's hand be pushed that far?

More WHAT IFS..........always..............is PUTIN UNSTABLE........Nuclear War there are no WINNERS..........If we think he is about to use Nukes he needs to be taken out.

 

[eagle1462010]

And as usual, you're too stupid to understand what I said and so I'll try again in slightly different words.

An aggression by one is an aggression by all is also implied. And so if Poland enters the war then Russia will understand that Article 5 applies when Russia kills Polish people.

Then Russia is provided the cause it needs to nuke America back into the stone age.
And vice versa of course. I warned that few would be able to understand.

Baloney.........It doesn't justify Poland attacking 'Russia...........It is if Russia attacked Poland.......If Poland initiates it..........then the obligation is not there.

 

[eagle1462010]

Then Russia is provided the cause it needs to nuke America back into the stone age.
And vice versa of course. I warned that few would be able to understand.

What is there to understand.................the MAD PRINCIPLE has been around forever. If he uses NUKES........the world WILL END.

That is exactly why we have not fought each other directly since WWII

 

[Likkmee]

Google translate sucks.
Dons bass is what it meant.
Free from that damned filthy water !

 

[eagle1462010]

Google translate sucks.
Dons bass is what it meant.
Free from that damned filthy water !

Too big.......pan size tastes better. Think that one came from a drainage ditch from a Nuclear plant.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Russia Says 'First Stage' of Invasion Over, Will Focus on 'Liberating' the Donbas - News From Antiwar.com

Russia's 1,351 of its soldiers have been killed in the war

news.antiwar.com

The question: Is this a step back by Russia now, due to overwhelming pressure by the world's countries that have aligned with America's goal.

or

Is this just Russia realizing it has accomplished it's goal?

The most positive note for peace is in the fact that both America/Nato and Russia can spin this as a win.

Should we on this board allow either side to spin this as victory?

If Putin had done that in the beginning, he might, MIGHT, have gotten away with it like he did with Ossetia and Crimea. But since he attempted to take all of Ukraine, no one is going to let his annexation of Donbass stand and he might very lose Crimea.