(11-21-2024 02:23 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Putin is in no position to 'set firm conditions' but I won't be surprised if his bro Trump bails him out.

Putin wanted Kamala to win. We've been over this several times.

(11-21-2024 02:23 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Putin is in no position to 'set firm conditions' but I won't be surprised if his bro Trump bails him out.

But, won't this stop the war? Man, it's nice having family in Russia.

LAST WARNING:

"I repeat: we are testing the Oreshnik missile system in combat conditions in response to the aggressive actions of NATO countries against Russia. The question of further deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will be decided by us depending on the actions of the United States and its satellites. The targets to be hit during further tests of our newest missile systems will be determined by us based on threats to the security of the Russian Federation. We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow Ukraine to use their weapons against our facilities, and in the event of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond just as decisively and in a mirror image. I recommend that the ruling elites of those countries that have plans to use their military contingents against Russia also think about this seriously. "

(11-21-2024 02:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:23 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Putin is in no position to 'set firm conditions' but I won't be surprised if his bro Trump bails him out.

This negotiation actually will have THREE interested parties with a lot at stake.

Trump cant come out of this looking like the loser. I expect a fair deal---Trump cant afford looking like he was completely taken in his first big negotiation with Putin. It would seen as weakness by the public. In fact, a big Putin victory in these peace talks would be viewed as the Trump version of the Biden Afghan pull out---a complete disaster for him very early in the term. For Trump---emerging with NO deal is better than walking away with a deal where he looks like he was taken by Putin. Trump "bailing out" Putin is a complete non-starter.

Like Ive said forever---it will be a land for security deal. I dont see how Putin can politically survive walking away from the conflict without some new territory. I dont see how Zelesnsky can survive if he signs a deal that does not give Ukraine NATO Article 5 protection (or the equivalent protection from a "coalition of the willing" that includes at least 2 nuclear powers). Neither will want to give up anything----but this is the only deal both could sign and still call it "victory" (which will give each the ability---but not a gurantee---of political survival).

Russia will not allow Ukraine in NATO.

They will fight for a thousand more years.

Its a.a fools game.

Russia is not in a position to dictate NATO membership anymore than we can tell Russia they cant be allied with China.

That said---its semantics. The guarantee doesnt have to come from NATO. Its a chip that can be given away as long as the security guarantees for Ukraine are equivalent to NATO Article 5 guarantees. Either way----the United States is going to be right in the fat middle of it--like it or not.

Any non-NATO security solution means the Ukrainian security guarantor would be a "coalition of the willing" likely consisting of the US, UK, France, Poland, and probably more than half of NATO. Its a semantic difference without any real distinction. If Russia doesnt like it---they will like it less when we arm Ukraine to the teeth---which is why they will accept it.

Frankly, the whole "Russia thinks NATO is a security risk" is BS anyway. If bordering NATO was such a big deal, then why didnt the mighty fight for a 1000 years Russian Army storm into Finland when they began talks with NATO? Cuz there are no valuable resources there---thats why. This was never about Nazis, Victoria Newland, NATO, or any of that ridiculous Russian propaganda crap. This was always a resources land grab. Nothing more.

(11-21-2024 02:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  LAST WARNING:

"I repeat: we are testing the Oreshnik missile system in combat conditions in response to the aggressive actions of NATO countries against Russia. The question of further deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will be decided by us depending on the actions of the United States and its satellites. The targets to be hit during further tests of our newest missile systems will be determined by us based on threats to the security of the Russian Federation. We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow Ukraine to use their weapons against our facilities, and in the event of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond just as decisively and in a mirror image. I recommend that the ruling elites of those countries that have plans to use their military contingents against Russia also think about this seriously. "

In non-propaganda talk for the Tucker bots and Russia bots:

We have a new weapon. Yeah! We decided to use it on civilian targets in Ukraine and blame it on the US.

Both Putin and Zelenskyy suck ass. There. I said it.

Can we please remove them from power? Seriously, they both suck.

(11-21-2024 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  LAST WARNING:

"I repeat: we are testing the Oreshnik missile system in combat conditions in response to the aggressive actions of NATO countries against Russia. The question of further deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will be decided by us depending on the actions of the United States and its satellites. The targets to be hit during further tests of our newest missile systems will be determined by us based on threats to the security of the Russian Federation. We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow Ukraine to use their weapons against our facilities, and in the event of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond just as decisively and in a mirror image. I recommend that the ruling elites of those countries that have plans to use their military contingents against Russia also think about this seriously. "

In non-propaganda talk for the Tucker bots and Russia bots:

We have a new weapon. Yeah! We decided to use it on civilian targets in Ukraine and blame it on the US.

Bookmarked

When they do im bumping this. Slavitards keep poking th bear. When he tears their heads of they will cry foul.

(11-21-2024 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:23 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Putin is in no position to 'set firm conditions' but I won't be surprised if his bro Trump bails him out.

This negotiation actually will have THREE interested parties with a lot at stake.

Trump cant come out of this looking like the loser. I expect a fair deal---Trump cant afford looking like he was completely taken in his first big negotiation with Putin. It would seen as weakness by the public. In fact, a big Putin victory in these peace talks would be viewed as the Trump version of the Biden Afghan pull out---a complete disaster for him very early in the term. For Trump---emerging with NO deal is better than walking away with a deal where he looks like he was taken by Putin. Trump "bailing out" Putin is a complete non-starter.

Like Ive said forever---it will be a land for security deal. I dont see how Putin can politically survive walking away from the conflict without some new territory. I dont see how Zelesnsky can survive if he signs a deal that does not give Ukraine NATO Article 5 protection (or the equivalent protection from a "coalition of the willing" that includes at least 2 nuclear powers). Neither will want to give up anything----but this is the only deal both could sign and still call it "victory" (which will give each the ability---but not a gurantee---of political survival).

Russia will not allow Ukraine in NATO.

They will fight for a thousand more years.

Its a.a fools game.

Russia is not in a position to dictate NATO membership anymore than we can tell Russia they cant be allied with China.

That said---its semantics. The guarantee doesnt have to come from NATO. Its a chip that can be given away as long as the security guarantees for Ukraine are equivalent to NATO Article 5 guarantees. Either way----the United States is going to be right in the fat middle of it--like it or not.

Any non-NATO security solution means the Ukrainian security guarantor would be a "coalition of the willing" likely consisting of the US, UK, France, Poland, and probably more than half of NATO. Its a semantic difference without any real distinction. If Russia doesnt like it---they will like it less when we arm Ukraine to the teeth---which is why they will accept it.

Frankly, the whole "Russia thinks NATO is a security risk" is BS anyway. If bordering NATO was such a big deal, then why didnt the mighty fight for a 1000 years Russian Army storm into Finland when they began talks with NATO? Cuz there are no valuable resources there---thats why. This was never about Nazis, Victoria Newland, NATO, or any of that ridiculous Russian propaganda crap. This was always a resources land grab. Nothing more.

Exactly. Donetsk has valuable minerals. Luhansk is really just farm land. Kherson has hydro electric and nuclear power and water resources. Crimea has neither, but it has a warm weather port. Zaphorizia was simply between Donetsk and Kherson.

All but Crimea have a strong Ukrainian majority. Donetsk and Luhansk do have 30-35% Russian minorities. Few Russians lived in Kherson or Zaphorizia.

(11-21-2024 04:11 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Both Putin and Zelenskyy suck ass. There. I said it.

Can we please remove them from power? Seriously, they both suck.

They both got democratically elected and are popular. We have no influence on Russia anyway.

(11-21-2024 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:23 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Putin is in no position to 'set firm conditions' but I won't be surprised if his bro Trump bails him out.

This negotiation actually will have THREE interested parties with a lot at stake.

Trump cant come out of this looking like the loser. I expect a fair deal---Trump cant afford looking like he was completely taken in his first big negotiation with Putin. It would seen as weakness by the public. In fact, a big Putin victory in these peace talks would be viewed as the Trump version of the Biden Afghan pull out---a complete disaster for him very early in the term. For Trump---emerging with NO deal is better than walking away with a deal where he looks like he was taken by Putin. Trump "bailing out" Putin is a complete non-starter.

Like Ive said forever---it will be a land for security deal. I dont see how Putin can politically survive walking away from the conflict without some new territory. I dont see how Zelesnsky can survive if he signs a deal that does not give Ukraine NATO Article 5 protection (or the equivalent protection from a "coalition of the willing" that includes at least 2 nuclear powers). Neither will want to give up anything----but this is the only deal both could sign and still call it "victory" (which will give each the ability---but not a gurantee---of political survival).

Russia will not allow Ukraine in NATO.

They will fight for a thousand more years.

Its a.a fools game.

Russia is not in a position to dictate NATO membership anymore than we can tell Russia they cant be allied with China.

That said---its semantics. The guarantee doesnt have to come from NATO. Its a chip that can be given away as long as the security guarantees for Ukraine are equivalent to NATO Article 5 guarantees. Either way----the United States is going to be right in the fat middle of it--like it or not.

Any non-NATO security solution means the Ukrainian security guarantor would be a "coalition of the willing" likely consisting of the US, UK, France, Poland, and probably more than half of NATO. Its a semantic difference without any real distinction. If Russia doesnt like it---they will like it less when we arm Ukraine to the teeth---which is why they will accept it.

Frankly, the whole "Russia thinks NATO is a security risk" is BS anyway. If bordering NATO was such a big deal, then why didnt the mighty fight for a 1000 years Russian Army storm into Finland when they began talks with NATO? Cuz there are no valuable resources there---thats why. This was never about Nazis, Victoria Newland, NATO, or any of that ridiculous Russian propaganda crap. This was always a resources land grab. Nothing more.

Nuland

Ive explained what this is. You are duped.

(11-21-2024 04:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:23 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Putin is in no position to 'set firm conditions' but I won't be surprised if his bro Trump bails him out.

This negotiation actually will have THREE interested parties with a lot at stake.

Trump cant come out of this looking like the loser. I expect a fair deal---Trump cant afford looking like he was completely taken in his first big negotiation with Putin. It would seen as weakness by the public. In fact, a big Putin victory in these peace talks would be viewed as the Trump version of the Biden Afghan pull out---a complete disaster for him very early in the term. For Trump---emerging with NO deal is better than walking away with a deal where he looks like he was taken by Putin. Trump "bailing out" Putin is a complete non-starter.

Like Ive said forever---it will be a land for security deal. I dont see how Putin can politically survive walking away from the conflict without some new territory. I dont see how Zelesnsky can survive if he signs a deal that does not give Ukraine NATO Article 5 protection (or the equivalent protection from a "coalition of the willing" that includes at least 2 nuclear powers). Neither will want to give up anything----but this is the only deal both could sign and still call it "victory" (which will give each the ability---but not a gurantee---of political survival).

Russia will not allow Ukraine in NATO.

They will fight for a thousand more years.

Its a.a fools game.

Russia is not in a position to dictate NATO membership anymore than we can tell Russia they cant be allied with China.

That said---its semantics. The guarantee doesnt have to come from NATO. Its a chip that can be given away as long as the security guarantees for Ukraine are equivalent to NATO Article 5 guarantees. Either way----the United States is going to be right in the fat middle of it--like it or not.

Any non-NATO security solution means the Ukrainian security guarantor would be a "coalition of the willing" likely consisting of the US, UK, France, Poland, and probably more than half of NATO. Its a semantic difference without any real distinction. If Russia doesnt like it---they will like it less when we arm Ukraine to the teeth---which is why they will accept it.

Frankly, the whole "Russia thinks NATO is a security risk" is BS anyway. If bordering NATO was such a big deal, then why didnt the mighty fight for a 1000 years Russian Army storm into Finland when they began talks with NATO? Cuz there are no valuable resources there---thats why. This was never about Nazis, Victoria Newland, NATO, or any of that ridiculous Russian propaganda crap. This was always a resources land grab. Nothing more.

Nuland

Ive explained what this is. You are duped.

And her war is going to go down as a failure up for US foreign policy. We will be even more broke and even further in debt before Russia accepts NATO as anything but an aggressor.

Putin will get what he wants and what Russia needs, or they will keep fighting. We will give up before him because we are fighting there for commercial reasons and clout, and Russia is fighting for its own security.

(11-21-2024 04:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 04:11 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Both Putin and Zelenskyy suck ass. There. I said it.

Can we please remove them from power? Seriously, they both suck.

They both got democratically elected and are popular. We have no influence on Russia anyway.

Yes, that's true, at least about not having influence on Russia.

That said, I need to mention this because this is where we somewhat disagree. Vladimir Putin while democratically elected, has been part of the Russian power structure since, I wanna say, at least part of the Clinton Administration. He's the Russian equivalent of what we would call the establishment. Every time since he first served as Prine Minister of Russia, under Boris Yeltsin, he's been either the PM or President. (Or at least very, very high in the Russian power structure.) So I clearly don't trust him.

As for Zelenskyy, he's suspended elections at least a couple times since the war began. Even if he was democratically elected originally, that's not a good look to me. I don't trust him either.

(11-21-2024 06:29 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 04:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 04:11 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Both Putin and Zelenskyy suck ass. There. I said it.

Can we please remove them from power? Seriously, they both suck.

They both got democratically elected and are popular. We have no influence on Russia anyway.

Yes, that's true, at least about not having influence on Russia.

That said, I need to mention this because this is where we somewhat disagree. Vladimir Putin while democratically elected, has been part of the Russian power structure since, I wanna say, at least part of the Clinton Administration. He's the Russian equivalent of what we would call the establishment. Every time since he first served as Prine Minister of Russia, under Boris Yeltsin, he's been either the PM or President. (Or at least very, very high in the Russian power structure.) So I clearly don't trust him.

As for Zelenskyy, he's suspended elections at least a couple times since the war began. Even if he was democratically elected originally, that's not a good look to me. I don't trust him either.

That's fair, but my point is that countries should choose their own leaders.
As crooked as Russia's elections are, Putin would win without cheating. Just not by as big a margin. He doesn't want to allow an opposition a base to form around.

(11-21-2024 06:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 06:29 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 04:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 04:11 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Both Putin and Zelenskyy suck ass. There. I said it.

Can we please remove them from power? Seriously, they both suck.

They both got democratically elected and are popular. We have no influence on Russia anyway.

Yes, that's true, at least about not having influence on Russia.

That said, I need to mention this because this is where we somewhat disagree. Vladimir Putin while democratically elected, has been part of the Russian power structure since, I wanna say, at least part of the Clinton Administration. He's the Russian equivalent of what we would call the establishment. Every time since he first served as Prine Minister of Russia, under Boris Yeltsin, he's been either the PM or President. (Or at least very, very high in the Russian power structure.) So I clearly don't trust him.

As for Zelenskyy, he's suspended elections at least a couple times since the war began. Even if he was democratically elected originally, that's not a good look to me. I don't trust him either.

That's fair, but my point is that countries should choose their own leaders.
As crooked as Russia's elections are, Putin would win without cheating. Just not by as big a margin. He doesn't want to allow an opposition a base to form around.

Oh, absolutely they should. I hate dictatorships and oligarchies with a passion. Besides, I'm just tired of both of 'em.