Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the MAGAs, Putin was clearly afraid of Trump, right? Right? And that's why they didn't decide to invade under his administration. Or as Trump just acknowledged, he'd just hand over parts of Ukraine to Russia:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/09/donald-trump-have-let-putin-annex-ukraine-end-war/

Parts of Ukraine are not his to hand over. What he's saying is that he would not get involved and let the war play out on its own merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Trump had been re-elected...

Bad statement, that is true.

But lets not forget Biden's atrocious statements, "An incursion is not an invasion," and his offer to "give President Zelenskyy a ride" out of Ukraine / encouraging him to cowardly flee and abandon Ukraine.

NATO / the EU has fortunately made him heel to their plan, and begrudgingly comply with what needs to be done: the defeat of Russia (and hopefully its collapse).

That Biden phrasing was because Russia already incursing due to Crimea and Donetsk.

Nobody brought Zelensky to heel. It's more the other way round. By staying and by Ukraine fighting back they proved their willingness and capacity to fight for their own country. If they hadn't done that then they wouldn't have gotten support.

Sorry; poor phrasing: it was Biden who was brought to heel, and made to understand the Russian threat to all of Europe.

Russia has repeatedly said they will take back all of Ukraine, and they have no intention of stopping there. Russia’s main threats involve re-invading the Baltics and Poland.

LOL so people say the Russian army is poorly supplied, poorly commanded, obsolete and fighting with wooden sticks and basically a second away from collapsing.

AND

They are about to invade the Baltics and Poland, NATO MEMBERS, with this supposedly ragtag army. Hmmmm..

One of these things doesn't fit.

Also, you should know that the French, the Spanish, the Italian, the German etc. do not at all feel threatened by this mythical Russian invasion. "All of Europe", suuure.

Ask Russia why they keep explicitly threatening Poland, the Baltics, etc. I agree that it doesn't make any logical sense because they dont have either the capacity or capability to do so. Nevertheless they keep making the threats.

There are many layers of complexity, for example starting with the fact that Putin has for years surrounded himself with legions of yes-men who tell him whatever he wants to hear; there are his "friends" - the oligarchs who promised to "help" him but in turn just enriched themselves by stealing money intended for maintaining Russian military equipment, training personnel and other vital functions. It is in fact both true that Putin earnestly believed that he could conquer Ukraine in 3 days yet not understand that this was in fact not true.

There is an old Russian movie called the Twelve Chairs which takes place in the years after the revolution (the premise is someone held the family jewels in an upholstered chair that was part of a set of 12 and he is desperately hunting across the USSR to find the chair). Anyway, there is a scene in which he finds a room labeled something like “The People’s orchestra of the victorious hero workers” —when he opens the door, it is one guy with a sad old tuba — because everything else has been stolen through grift. All name, no instruments. As it ever was in Russia.
Oddly, Mel brooks made a remake of that same movie!

And yet....a guy with a sad old tuba has done a tremendous amount of damage, wouldn't you say so? Imagine what could happen with a full orchestra in situ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Trump had been re-elected...

Bad statement, that is true.

But lets not forget Biden's atrocious statements, "An incursion is not an invasion," and his offer to "give President Zelenskyy a ride" out of Ukraine / encouraging him to cowardly flee and abandon Ukraine.

NATO / the EU has fortunately made him heel to their plan, and begrudgingly comply with what needs to be done: the defeat of Russia (and hopefully its collapse).

That Biden phrasing was because Russia already incursing due to Crimea and Donetsk.

Nobody brought Zelensky to heel. It's more the other way round. By staying and by Ukraine fighting back they proved their willingness and capacity to fight for their own country. If they hadn't done that then they wouldn't have gotten support.

Sorry; poor phrasing: it was Biden who was brought to heel, and made to understand the Russian threat to all of Europe.

Russia has repeatedly said they will take back all of Ukraine, and they have no intention of stopping there. Russia’s main threats involve re-invading the Baltics and Poland.

LOL so people say the Russian army is poorly supplied, poorly commanded, obsolete and fighting with wooden sticks and basically a second away from collapsing.

AND

They are about to invade the Baltics and Poland, NATO MEMBERS, with this supposedly ragtag army. Hmmmm..

One of these things doesn't fit.

Also, you should know that the French, the Spanish, the Italian, the German etc. do not at all feel threatened by this mythical Russian invasion. "All of Europe", suuure.

Ask Russia why they keep explicitly threatening Poland, the Baltics, etc. I agree that it doesn't make any logical sense because they dont have either the capacity or capability to do so. Nevertheless they keep making the threats.

There are many layers of complexity, for example starting with the fact that Putin has for years surrounded himself with legions of yes-men who tell him whatever he wants to hear; there are his "friends" - the oligarchs who promised to "help" him but in turn just enriched themselves by stealing money intended for maintaining Russian military equipment, training personnel and other vital functions. It is in fact both true that Putin earnestly believed that he could conquer Ukraine in 3 days yet not understand that this was in fact not true.

That part is true and I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Trump had been re-elected...

Bad statement, that is true.

But lets not forget Biden's atrocious statements, "An incursion is not an invasion," and his offer to "give President Zelenskyy a ride" out of Ukraine / encouraging him to cowardly flee and abandon Ukraine.

NATO / the EU has fortunately made him heel to their plan, and begrudgingly comply with what needs to be done: the defeat of Russia (and hopefully its collapse).

That Biden phrasing was because Russia already incursing due to Crimea and Donetsk.

Nobody brought Zelensky to heel. It's more the other way round. By staying and by Ukraine fighting back they proved their willingness and capacity to fight for their own country. If they hadn't done that then they wouldn't have gotten support.

Sorry; poor phrasing: it was Biden who was brought to heel, and made to understand the Russian threat to all of Europe.

Russia has repeatedly said they will take back all of Ukraine, and they have no intention of stopping there. Russia’s main threats involve re-invading the Baltics and Poland.

LOL so people say the Russian army is poorly supplied, poorly commanded, obsolete and fighting with wooden sticks and basically a second away from collapsing.

AND

They are about to invade the Baltics and Poland, NATO MEMBERS, with this supposedly ragtag army. Hmmmm..

One of these things doesn't fit.

Also, you should know that the French, the Spanish, the Italian, the German etc. do not at all feel threatened by this mythical Russian invasion. "All of Europe", suuure.

Ask Russia why they keep explicitly threatening Poland, the Baltics, etc. I agree that it doesn't make any logical sense because they dont have either the capacity or capability to do so. Nevertheless they keep making the threats.

People say all kinds of things; doesn't mean it's true.

Remember that in 2008 Putin could have very easily overtaken Tbilisi yet chose not to.

Does that mean that this is not a threat despite being a clearly worded threat?
https://twitter.com/PMSimferopol/status/1634111915596173312

Russia really needs to work on its communication skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the MAGAs, Putin was clearly afraid of Trump, right? Right? And that's why they didn't decide to invade under his administration. Or as Trump just acknowledged, he'd just hand over parts of Ukraine to Russia:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/09/donald-trump-have-let-putin-annex-ukraine-end-war/

Parts of Ukraine are not his to hand over. What he's saying is that he would not get involved and let the war play out on its own merits.

Ah yes, the Neville Chamberlain strategy. And then Montenegro. And then NATO disbanded. And then Poland. And on and on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who blew up Nordstream now? Some Ukrainian guys but not with zelensky authoriAtion?

I don’t think we will ever know. There is “low confidence” intelligence that it is operatives aligned with Ukraine, likely with former special operations training.

Frankly it sounds like someone paid ex-SEALS to do the dirty work. There are supposedly 40+ boats that passed through the area with their homing beacons purposely disabled.

I’ve always thought it was done by oligarchs disgruntled with Putin. Alternatively it could have been done by Ukrainian oligarchs/nationalists without Zalensky’s approval. Two groups with the same objective.

Either way, the move was pretty critical in forcing Europe closer to Ukraine. And Scholz is dirty dirty dirty, so the Ukrainians knew he couldn’t be trusted, so they forced his hand.

One obvious theory would look at who benefits from Europe's alternative purchasing sources. Clearly that guy had a major interest in cutting out the competitors, wouldn't you say so?

Well then that wouldn’t be Ukraine, as they have no gas to sell. Instead, you’re looking at Saudis, or German coal mining, or US natural gas suppliers, or North Sea drillers. Or, just maybe, the Scandinavians or Baltics sabotaged it themselves since they share borders with Russia.

Lots of nation states with a security interest in seeing Europe move closer to Ukraine and imposing hardships on the German people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who blew up Nordstream now? Some Ukrainian guys but not with zelensky authoriAtion?

I don’t think we will ever know. There is “low confidence” intelligence that it is operatives aligned with Ukraine, likely with former special operations training.

Frankly it sounds like someone paid ex-SEALS to do the dirty work. There are supposedly 40+ boats that passed through the area with their homing beacons purposely disabled.

I’ve always thought it was done by oligarchs disgruntled with Putin. Alternatively it could have been done by Ukrainian oligarchs/nationalists without Zalensky’s approval. Two groups with the same objective.

Either way, the move was pretty critical in forcing Europe closer to Ukraine. And Scholz is dirty dirty dirty, so the Ukrainians knew he couldn’t be trusted, so they forced his hand.

One obvious theory would look at who benefits from Europe's alternative purchasing sources. Clearly that guy had a major interest in cutting out the competitors, wouldn't you say so?

Well then that wouldn’t be Ukraine, as they have no gas to sell. Instead, you’re looking at Saudis, or German coal mining, or US natural gas suppliers, or North Sea drillers. Or, just maybe, the Scandinavians or Baltics sabotaged it themselves since they share borders with Russia.

Lots of nation states with a security interest in seeing Europe move closer to Ukraine and imposing hardships on the German people.

Except Ukraine has a lot of natural gas reserves in the Black Sea. Preventing Ukraine from exploiting those resources is one of the reasons why Russia invaded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who blew up Nordstream now? Some Ukrainian guys but not with zelensky authoriAtion?

I don’t think we will ever know. There is “low confidence” intelligence that it is operatives aligned with Ukraine, likely with former special operations training.

Frankly it sounds like someone paid ex-SEALS to do the dirty work. There are supposedly 40+ boats that passed through the area with their homing beacons purposely disabled.

I’ve always thought it was done by oligarchs disgruntled with Putin. Alternatively it could have been done by Ukrainian oligarchs/nationalists without Zalensky’s approval. Two groups with the same objective.

Either way, the move was pretty critical in forcing Europe closer to Ukraine. And Scholz is dirty dirty dirty, so the Ukrainians knew he couldn’t be trusted, so they forced his hand.

One obvious theory would look at who benefits from Europe's alternative purchasing sources. Clearly that guy had a major interest in cutting out the competitors, wouldn't you say so?

Well then that wouldn’t be Ukraine, as they have no gas to sell. Instead, you’re looking at Saudis, or German coal mining, or US natural gas suppliers, or North Sea drillers. Or, just maybe, the Scandinavians or Baltics sabotaged it themselves since they share borders with Russia.

Lots of nation states with a security interest in seeing Europe move closer to Ukraine and imposing hardships on the German people.

Except Ukraine has a lot of natural gas reserves in the Black Sea. Preventing Ukraine from exploiting those resources is one of the reasons why Russia invaded.

Sure, but they are not in a position to sell it in the short or even medium term. There's no current profit motive for Ukraine to bomb it.

Anyways, the pipeline is a piece of Russian infrastructure in international waters. No reason for Ukraine to avoid bombing it when it would be materially funding the war for Russia. From a direct war perspective, it's absolutely within Ukraine's interest for the pipeline to be non operational. Similarly, there are at least a dozen countries with self-security interest to see Germany and Russia wedged apart and moved closer Europe (for example - Poland or Finland....both are capable of bombing it and its in their interest for it to be non-operational right now).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the MAGAs, Putin was clearly afraid of Trump, right? Right? And that's why they didn't decide to invade under his administration. Or as Trump just acknowledged, he'd just hand over parts of Ukraine to Russia:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/09/donald-trump-have-let-putin-annex-ukraine-end-war/

Parts of Ukraine are not his to hand over. What he's saying is that he would not get involved and let the war play out on its own merits.

Ah yes, the Neville Chamberlain strategy. And then Montenegro. And then NATO disbanded. And then Poland. And on and on.

I thought you said all they had was a sad old tuba?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who blew up Nordstream now? Some Ukrainian guys but not with zelensky authoriAtion?

I don’t think we will ever know. There is “low confidence” intelligence that it is operatives aligned with Ukraine, likely with former special operations training.

Frankly it sounds like someone paid ex-SEALS to do the dirty work. There are supposedly 40+ boats that passed through the area with their homing beacons purposely disabled.

I’ve always thought it was done by oligarchs disgruntled with Putin. Alternatively it could have been done by Ukrainian oligarchs/nationalists without Zalensky’s approval. Two groups with the same objective.

Either way, the move was pretty critical in forcing Europe closer to Ukraine. And Scholz is dirty dirty dirty, so the Ukrainians knew he couldn’t be trusted, so they forced his hand.

One obvious theory would look at who benefits from Europe's alternative purchasing sources. Clearly that guy had a major interest in cutting out the competitors, wouldn't you say so?

Well then that wouldn’t be Ukraine, as they have no gas to sell. Instead, you’re looking at Saudis, or German coal mining, or US natural gas suppliers, or North Sea drillers. Or, just maybe, the Scandinavians or Baltics sabotaged it themselves since they share borders with Russia.

Lots of nation states with a security interest in seeing Europe move closer to Ukraine and imposing hardships on the German people.

Except Ukraine has a lot of natural gas reserves in the Black Sea. Preventing Ukraine from exploiting those resources is one of the reasons why Russia invaded.

Sure, but they are not in a position to sell it in the short or even medium term. There's no current profit motive for Ukraine to bomb it.

Anyways, the pipeline is a piece of Russian infrastructure in international waters. No reason for Ukraine to avoid bombing it when it would be materially funding the war for Russia. From a direct war perspective, it's absolutely within Ukraine's interest for the pipeline to be non operational. Similarly, there are at least a dozen countries with self-security interest to see Germany and Russia wedged apart and moved closer Europe (for example - Poland or Finland....both are capable of bombing it and its in their interest for it to be non-operational right now).

If what you're saying is that this pipeline (only 51% of which is owned by Russia; the rest is German, Dutch and French) is a legitimate war target (although Nord Stream 2 was never used), then why doesn't Ukraine claim responsibility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the MAGAs, Putin was clearly afraid of Trump, right? Right? And that's why they didn't decide to invade under his administration. Or as Trump just acknowledged, he'd just hand over parts of Ukraine to Russia:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/09/donald-trump-have-let-putin-annex-ukraine-end-war/

Parts of Ukraine are not his to hand over. What he's saying is that he would not get involved and let the war play out on its own merits.

Ah yes, the Neville Chamberlain strategy. And then Montenegro. And then NATO disbanded. And then Poland. And on and on.

As if there aren't dozens of wars at any point of time on the planet in which the US doesn't get involved, or gets involved on the wrong side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the MAGAs, Putin was clearly afraid of Trump, right? Right? And that's why they didn't decide to invade under his administration. Or as Trump just acknowledged, he'd just hand over parts of Ukraine to Russia:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/09/donald-trump-have-let-putin-annex-ukraine-end-war/

Parts of Ukraine are not his to hand over. What he's saying is that he would not get involved and let the war play out on its own merits.

Ah yes, the Neville Chamberlain strategy. And then Montenegro. And then NATO disbanded. And then Poland. And on and on.

As if there aren't dozens of wars at any point of time on the planet in which the US doesn't get involved, or gets involved on the wrong side.

And how many of those wars involve an unprovoked invasion of a country on Western Europe's doorstep by a nuclear-armed nation that has spent its entire existence trying to destroy and destabilize the US, including interfering with our democratic election process?

Oh, just this one? I wonder why this one may be different...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the MAGAs, Putin was clearly afraid of Trump, right? Right? And that's why they didn't decide to invade under his administration. Or as Trump just acknowledged, he'd just hand over parts of Ukraine to Russia:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/09/donald-trump-have-let-putin-annex-ukraine-end-war/

Parts of Ukraine are not his to hand over. What he's saying is that he would not get involved and let the war play out on its own merits.

Ah yes, the Neville Chamberlain strategy. And then Montenegro. And then NATO disbanded. And then Poland. And on and on.

As if there aren't dozens of wars at any point of time on the planet in which the US doesn't get involved, or gets involved on the wrong side.

And how many of those wars involve an unprovoked invasion of a country on Western Europe's doorstep by a nuclear-armed nation that has spent its entire existence trying to destroy and destabilize the US, including interfering with our democratic election process?

Oh, just this one? I wonder why this one may be different...

Bolded the wrong parts for you, very helpfully.

[Anonymous]

I just learned Poland delivered 10 more Leopard 2A4 advanced main battle tanks to Ukraine yesterday.

Additionally, the German army transferred two more Gepard air defense armored vehicles yesterday. At minimal operational cost, the Gepard system has proven highly effective against the primitive Iranian made Shahed-136 suicide drones, which are nicknamed “mopeds” due to their crude engines.

All bravado and arrogance aside, Ivan, you do realize your country stands no chance of “winning” this war, not of keeping a single square centimeter of Ukrainian soil, right?

Wouldn’t it be more logical for the Russians to simply return home to Russia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the MAGAs, Putin was clearly afraid of Trump, right? Right? And that's why they didn't decide to invade under his administration. Or as Trump just acknowledged, he'd just hand over parts of Ukraine to Russia:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/09/donald-trump-have-let-putin-annex-ukraine-end-war/

Parts of Ukraine are not his to hand over. What he's saying is that he would not get involved and let the war play out on its own merits.

Ah yes, the Neville Chamberlain strategy. And then Montenegro. And then NATO disbanded. And then Poland. And on and on.

As if there aren't dozens of wars at any point of time on the planet in which the US doesn't get involved, or gets involved on the wrong side.

And how many of those wars involve an unprovoked invasion of a country on Western Europe's doorstep by a nuclear-armed nation that has spent its entire existence trying to destroy and destabilize the US, including interfering with our democratic election process?

Oh, just this one? I wonder why this one may be different...

Bolded the wrong parts for you, very helpfully.

Where was the unprovoked invasion, comrade? I love how Republicans like to defend the indefensible. You used to be the party of neocons and hawks on the world stage. Sad really.