Garden of Eden Escorts
Toronto Escorts

Air Base Attacks Deep Inside Russia Point to CIA Covert Ops and a Planned War

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
27,495
48,731
113
Obviously, you are not aware of Putin's tactics and decisions. He would have invaded Ukraine irrespective of who was in charge. What would Trump do to stop it? All he would say is that Putin is a genius and when he takes over The Ukraine he will probably reveal all the "Dirt" on the Bidens. Something that Zelensky rightly scoffed at him for requesting such ridiculous demands.

But seriously, there is no way that Putin would start any invasions between 2016 and 2021. The reason was that Russia was hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2018. The Russians would have been pissed with him if he torpedoed this event as a very high percentage of Russians were looking forward to this event.
Then there were the Beijing Winter games in 2022. Putin was the only Head of State from a major country that attended it at Xi's request. Xi has a close bond with Putin and in no way would have appreciated Putin's invasion prior to this event. That is why immediately after these games he instructed his forces to invade Ukraine. Facts are difficult to accept but stomach it!!
There is also the simple fact that as long as Trump was looking like he might do serious damage to NATO or even possibly pull out, invading Ukraine and giving NATO something to point to as proof it should stay united was counter productive. With Trump gone and Biden looking to restore NATO cohesion, that factor changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: squeezer

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
How do we get Russia to stop the war?



Why is this the best time to get a deal, when you have been saying that Ukraine should surrender and take whatever deal Russia offers from the beginning?
If Ukraine surrenders now, why would it get a good deal?

What deal do you think Ukraine can get right now?
What do you think is on the table from Russia?



So you think Russia will take no deal because they think they can win with overwhelming force and take even more of Ukraine than they have now and somehow give some to Poland?



So you feel NATO should "escalate to de-escalate" and hope that Russia realizes that its massive winter offensive will result in armageddon?

Or is your position just "Russia is a nation of madmen who would rather destroy the world than not get what they want, so everyone should give them anything they want at all times and hope they don't ask for more?
Or, since your argument seems to be that if Russia doesn't get whatever it wants, it will nuke the world, the US should do its best to push for regime change, since while that is risky, it is less risky than the guaranteed nuclear armageddon you are promising?
I don't think there are any good outcomes at this time. I see nothing less than catastrophies.

There was an agreed upon solution to the situation, Minsk I and Minsk II, that were negotiated between The parties, and guaranteed by France and Germany. It turned out to have been negotiated in bad faith by.France and Germany.

Since then the situation, now full fledged war, has steadily escalated, such that I at least don't see any good outcomes.

Ukraine and many leaders in the west see no end to the war before Russia is defeated and there is regime change in Russia. The West has declared that it will continue arming and training Ukraine for as long as it takes.

Russia sees this as an existential struggle for survival and will not end the war before the Ukrainian army is soundly defeated. It is likely that Russia is preparing a winter offensive.

Somebody said:"In a war, every available weapon will eventually be used"

There are likely no chance for successful negotiations right now. What is horrible, is that nobody even attempts negotiations.
 
Last edited:

Darts

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2017
23,061
11,160
113
Russia is the only invader in this war. Russia can pull out like they did in Afghanistan.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
27,495
48,731
113
I don't think there are any good outcomes at this time. I see nothing less than catastrophies.

There was an agreed upon solution to the situation, Minsk I and Minsk II, that were negotiated between The parties, and guaranteed by France and Germany. It turned out to have been negotiated in bad faith by.France and Germany.
Except that's not true.
Minsk I was violated almost instantly and Minsk II was never actually settled since both sides argued a different interpretation of how it was implemented.
"It turned out to have been negotiated in bad faith by.France and Germany" is just untrue, as people constantly posting those articles about how "it bought Ukraine time" keep proving.

You're right though - Russia's history of respecting the treaties it signs is very bad.
That makes finding a new deal both sides will accept incredibly difficult.

Since then the situation, now full fledged war, has steadily escalated, such that I at least don't see any good outcomes.
Right. It is a full fledged war now.
Why you think this is the best time to strike a deal and "the best deal Ukraine will get" is very bizarre since Russia clearly doesn't want to offer a deal.
If you can think of a way to force Russia to negotiate in good faith, let's talk about a deal.
I just don't see how that is going to happen right now.
Neither side is at the negotiating stage.

Ukraine and many leaders in the west see no end to the war before Russia is defeated and there is regime change in Russia. The West has declared that it will continue arming and training Ukraine for as long as it takes.

Russia sees this as an existential struggle for survival and will not end the war before the Ukrainian army is soundly defeated. It is likely that Russia is preparing a winter offensive.
As I said, neither Ukraine or Russia expects negotiations to go anywhere right now and neither finds the other's position acceptable.
Which is why your "force a peace" is just "make Ukraine Surrender".

Somebody said:"In a war, every available weapon will eventually be used"
They were wrong, of course.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Except that's not true.
Minsk I was violated almost instantly and Minsk II was never actually settled since both sides argued a different interpretation of how it was implemented.
"It turned out to have been negotiated in bad faith by.France and Germany" is just untrue, as people constantly posting those articles about how "it bought Ukraine time" keep proving.

You're right though - Russia's history of respecting the treaties it signs is very bad.
That makes finding a new deal both sides will accept incredibly difficult.



Right. It is a full fledged war now.
Why you think this is the best time to strike a deal and "the best deal Ukraine will get" is very bizarre since Russia clearly doesn't want to offer a deal.
If you can think of a way to force Russia to negotiate in good faith, let's talk about a deal.
I just don't see how that is going to happen right now.
Neither side is at the negotiating stage.



As I said, neither Ukraine or Russia expects negotiations to go anywhere right now and neither finds the other's position acceptable.
Which is why your "force a peace" is just "make Ukraine Surrender".



They were wrong, of course.
Listen, I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth.

I wrote that there are no negotiations being attempted, and that I see no good outcomes.

Do you believe that Ukraine or NATO will defeat Russia and procure regime change?
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,711
3,410
113
Listen, I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth.

I wrote that there are no negotiations being attempted, and that I see no good outcomes.

Do you believe that Ukraine or NATO will defeat Russia and procure regime change?
I think at this point Putin and Russia will accept the complete and utter trashing of all Ukrainian infrastructure as a win along with keeping Crimea. They will take in the Russian speakers in the east as refugees, and arm them later to continue to fight within.

The West will have to decide to do a mini Marshal plan or not, either draining resources for decades, or not and take the moral hit.

That or an offensive wins Kiev. And they take the nation.
 

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
18,460
5,127
113
Lewiston, NY
Do you believe that Ukraine or NATO will defeat Russia and procure regime change?
Increasingly likely outcome. Vlad is sick and could fall out a window any time...
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
27,495
48,731
113
Listen, I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth.
You wrote " Stop the war and negotiate a peace. I don't believe Ukraine/west will get a better deal than now, and no more people will die. "
I'm not putting those words in your mouth.

You then followed it up with either Russia takes all of Southern and Eastern Ukraine or Russia blows up the world.

I presume from those statements that the "better deal" Ukraine would get now is losing less of the territory Russia will claim in the winter offensive.

I wrote that there are no negotiations being attempted, and that I see no good outcomes.
There were no good outcomes once Russia invaded, obviously.
War sucks.

Negotiations have been attempted and will again - right now no one is biting because each side's list is unacceptable given what they think the situation on the ground is now.

Do you believe that Ukraine or NATO will defeat Russia and procure regime change?
I think defeating Russia is quite possible.
I think regime change is unlikely.
I suspect Putin is far more invested in preserving his regime than in preserving Russia.
He won't let it get to regime change. (Could regime change be a knock on long-term consequence of the war? Sure. Maybe. But that isn't going to be what the "end of the war" looks like.)
 

KDK13

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2022
936
1,329
93
So, you free Ukrainians through:
Wholesale slaughter and rape of civilians? Looting their houses? Attacking hospitals and infrastructure?

This is how you free your oppressed fellow Russians by doing this?
Or denazification by blowing up civilian infrastructure?

I suppose it's like hunters who say they love animals, which is why they like to kill them.
This line of argument is such bullshit and falls apart with the smallest of inquiry.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
You then followed it up with either Russia takes all of Southern and Eastern Ukraine or Russia blows up the world.
I did not say that.

Both parties in the war has ample supplies of nuclear weapons, tactical and intercontinental.

I believe a full fledged war will eventually result in nuclear weapons being used. I hope I am wrong.

I still see no other outcomes than the 3 (2.5) I outlined:

1. Russia takes all southern and eastern parts of Ukraine, Poland takes a piece. A ceasefire ensues.
2. A full fledged war between NATO and Russia ensues, which leads to nuclear armageddon.
2.5. Russia is beaten by Ukraine with help from NATO, which leads to nuclear Armageddon

I doubt very much that Russia can be beaten without the war going nuclear. But you may be right.
 
Last edited:

jazzbox

Well-known member
Jan 29, 2009
1,084
520
113
Putin is a nefarious actor running a ramshackle tin pot dictatorship with little economic clout to support imperial ambitions. Putin prepared for war starting more the 15 years ago grabbed Crimea and then Donbas and Luhansk. Denied it was planning any attack on Ukrainian up to the day of the invasion. Russia needs its ass kicked now not later. Ukraine has shown it is possible with Western support. lets keep providing it.
 

Darts

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2017
23,061
11,160
113
Putin is a nefarious actor running a ramshackle tin pot dictatorship with little economic clout to support imperial ambitions. Putin prepared for war starting more the 15 years ago grabbed Crimea and then Donbas and Luhansk. Denied it was planning any attack on Ukrainian up to the day of the invasion. Russia needs its ass kicked now not later. Ukraine has shown it is possible with Western support. lets keep providing it.
No matter the outcome of the war, the future of Russia is bleak. Depopulating and short lifespans.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,088
2,733
113
No matter the outcome of the war, the future of Russia is bleak. Depopulating and short lifespans.
They also have a window problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jazzbox

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
27,495
48,731
113
I did not say that.
Yes you did, and you repeated it below.

Either scenario 1 - Russia takes all southern and eastern parts of Ukraine and for some reason Poland takes some - or Scenario 2 or 2.5 - Nuclear Armageddon.

Scenario 2 is escalation to full fledged war.

2.5 is that if Russia "loses" (is forced to retreat from Ukraine) - it blows up the world.

I still see no other outcomes than the 3 (2.5) I outlined:

1. Russia takes all southern and eastern parts of Ukraine, Poland takes a piece. A ceasefire ensues.
2. A full fledged war between NATO and Russia ensues, which leads to nuclear armageddon.
2.5. Russia is beaten by Ukraine with help from NATO, which leads to nuclear Armageddon

I doubt very much that Russia can be beaten without the war going nuclear. But you may be right.
You literally aren't offering "Russia retreats from Ukraine" as an option without them blowing up the planet.
You aren't saying "Russia keeps Crimea but gives up all post 2014 gains" without them blowing up the planet.

Either Russia gets Southern and Eastern Ukraine, or there is nuclear Armageddon.

I'm not putting words in your mouth - you literally repeated it in this post I am replying to.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,088
2,733
113
Yes you did, and you repeated it below.

Either scenario 1 - Russia takes all southern and eastern parts of Ukraine and for some reason Poland takes some - or Scenario 2 or 2.5 - Nuclear Armageddon.

Scenario 2 is escalation to full fledged war.

2.5 is that if Russia "loses" (is forced to retreat from Ukraine) - it blows up the world.



You literally aren't offering "Russia retreats from Ukraine" as an option without them blowing up the planet.
You aren't saying "Russia keeps Crimea but gives up all post 2014 gains" without them blowing up the planet.

Either Russia gets Southern and Eastern Ukraine, or there is nuclear Armageddon.

I'm not putting words in your mouth - you literally repeated it in this post I am replying to.
"I don't recall"

"I don't remember"

"Come again?"
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Yes you did, and you repeated it below.

Either scenario 1 - Russia takes all southern and eastern parts of Ukraine and for some reason Poland takes some - or Scenario 2 or 2.5 - Nuclear Armageddon.

Scenario 2 is escalation to full fledged war.

2.5 is that if Russia "loses" (is forced to retreat from Ukraine) - it blows up the world.



You literally aren't offering "Russia retreats from Ukraine" as an option without them blowing up the planet.
You aren't saying "Russia keeps Crimea but gives up all post 2014 gains" without them blowing up the planet.

Either Russia gets Southern and Eastern Ukraine, or there is nuclear Armageddon.

I'm not putting words in your mouth - you literally repeated it in this post I am replying to.
No, I did not say that.

In a full fledged war between NATO and Russia, I cannot predict who will use Nuclear weapons first - and blow up the world - so I did not say "Russia will blow up the world" in the case number 2.

May I remind you, that the only country in history which have used nuclear weapons in war is USA.

To be clear, I do not believe that Russia can be defeated, i.e. be thrown out of Donbass, without nuclear weapons being employed. Russia has pretty much said so. But maybe they are playing chicken or maybe they will change their minds.

It is clear that we disagree on some of the fundamentals about the war in Ukraine. You may have noticed from my posting history here that I have been against every single war.

I do not want to do die - and I do not want my grandchildren to die - as a result of a border dispute between Ukraine and Russia. I could not care less if an area with predominantly ethnic Russian people belong to Ukraine or Russia.
 
Last edited:

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
27,495
48,731
113
I do not want to do die - and I do not want my grandchildren to die - as a result of a border dispute between Ukraine and Russia. I could not care less if an area with predominantly ethnic Russian people belong to Ukraine or Russia.
Ah. There we go then.

So who would they have to attack for you to care?
Is this just pure isolationism or do you have a red line?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jsanchez

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Let us
Ah. There we go then.

So who would they have to attack for you to care?
Is this just pure isolationism or do you have a red line?
Let us try to have a civilized and friendly discussion, even as we agree on many things.

I am against people getting killed. I have always been. Wars eventually end after large number of innocent people including soldiers having been killed.

Who are "they" ?
 
Last edited:

poker

Everyone's hero's, tell everyone's lies.
Jun 1, 2006
7,746
6,009
113
Niagara
You are delusional.
The one thing you guys don’t acknowledge in any of this… Nobody force Putin to invade Ukraine this time… just like nobody forced him to Annex Crimea last time.

Putin does, what Putin wants. He has an ego, and believes his own hype.

Nobody was planning to invade Russia. Nobody. And Russia wants a war, then they get a war. It really is that simple.

And go figure, the US has spies.

However. Posting an article based on what someone else figures “must be the reasoning” with no actual evidence… is bad form. Perhaps by watching some YouTube videos, we can solve the Kennedy assassination next.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts