RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630?

---

Mothra?

---

Was looking for an answer to my question to you. You must have missed it. Here it is again:

Let me try this one more time: If Russia invades, do you believe that NATO should send NATO troops (including US troops) into Ukraine to fight the Russians or not? Simple yes or no will clear up any confusion.

Russia jailed opposition leader Alexey Navalny for two years and eight months Tuesday.⁰⁰

As the order was read, Navalny pointed to his wife Yulia in the courtroom and traced a heart on the glass cage where he was being held https://t.co/cMyZFuS8R9 pic.twitter.com/mPVtoRN1hO

— Bloomberg Quicktake (@Quicktake) February 2, 2021

After the US warnings that a Russian attack might come today on Ukraine, this was the scene in Lviv in western Ukraine this morning- army cadets watching a giant flag be raised.
One of the “Day of Unity” events the government decided to hold in a show of defiance. pic.twitter.com/WPUOGYCiaE

— Patrick Reevell (@Reevellp) February 16, 2022

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630?

---

Mothra?

---

Was looking for an answer to my question to you. You must have missed it. Here it is again:

Let me try this one more time: If Russia invades, do you believe that NATO should send NATO troops (including US troops) into Ukraine to fight the Russians or not? Simple yes or no will clear up any confusion.

---

I do not believe we should tell our enemies our intentions. People like you give the Putin and Xi's of the world what they want. Might as well just give em what they want and save months of angst if you are not willing to physically stop them. Didn't work in 38 and won't work now.

I believe it is wring to take anything off the table by making those types declarations that people like you will use later, no matter how the circumstances change.

We are NATO, we must take part and be front and center. (Nephew deployed yesterday to Germany)
Right now, US troops on Ukraine soil, no. Later, who knows?

Stop with the lawyer crap trying to force a yes or no answer to a question. There is no yes or no answer to a war situation and if you truly believe No under any circumstance you are a fool.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630?

---

Mothra?

---

Was looking for an answer to my question to you. You must have missed it. Here it is again:

Let me try this one more time: If Russia invades, do you believe that NATO should send NATO troops (including US troops) into Ukraine to fight the Russians or not? Simple yes or no will clear up any confusion.

---

I do not believe we should tell our enemies our intentions. People like you give the Putin and Xi's of the world what they want. Might as well just give em what they want and save months of angst if you are not willing to physically stop them. Didn't work in 38 and won't work now.

I believe it is wring to take anything off the table by making those types declarations that people like you will use later, no matter how the circumstances change.

We are NATO, we must take part and be front and center. (Nephew deployed yesterday to Germany)
Right now, US troops on Ukraine soil, no. Later, who knows?

Stop with the lawyer crap trying to force a yes or no answer to a question. There is no yes or no answer to a war situation and if you truly believe No under any circumstance you are a fool.

The longer I live, the more I agree with Shakespeare.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630?

---

Mothra?

---

Was looking for an answer to my question to you. You must have missed it. Here it is again:

Let me try this one more time: If Russia invades, do you believe that NATO should send NATO troops (including US troops) into Ukraine to fight the Russians or not? Simple yes or no will clear up any confusion.

---

I do not believe we should tell our enemies our intentions. People like you give the Putin and Xi's of the world what they want. Might as well just give em what they want and save months of angst if you are not willing to physically stop them. Didn't work in 38 and won't work now.

I believe it is wring to take anything off the table by making those types declarations that people like you will use later, no matter how the circumstances change.

We are NATO, we must take part and be front and center. (Nephew deployed yesterday to Germany)
Right now, US troops on Ukraine soil, no. Later, who knows?

Stop with the lawyer crap trying to force a yes or no answer to a question. There is no yes or no answer to a war situation and if you truly believe No under any circumstance you are a fool.

---

You have an annoying tendency to answer questions I haven't asked, and assume my position on subjects we haven't discussed. I'd suggest not reading more into my comments than what I have written. If you have a question about my beliefs, just ask me - like I have done with you. Unlike you, I will answer your questions as clearly and succinctly as I can. But having to constantly correct your mischaracterizations is frustrating and not conducive to discussion.

Now, as for each of your points:

I agree with you we should not telegraph what we are going to do in Ukraine and keep our enemies guessing. I've never said or suggested otherwise.

I didn't ask whether we should send troops into Ukraine right now. I instead asked whether you would be in favor of sending troops if Russia invades Ukraine. I believe you have indicated that "yes," you are in favor of a NATO ground war in Ukraine if Russia invades, but then again, you've kind of been all over the place since our initial discussion of this topic, which is why I asked a simple yes or no question so you could clarify your position. I don't want to mischaracterize you.

If you are too afraid to answer my simple question, that is fine. Just say so. But let's stop with the "lawyer crap" bull ***** We both know that is subterfuge and misdirection so you can avoid answering the question. This is an internet message board, you are not the federal govt., and I am not Russia. Answering that question isn't going to disclose anything, other than you may be a war monger.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630?

---

Mothra?

---

Was looking for an answer to my question to you. You must have missed it. Here it is again:

Let me try this one more time: If Russia invades, do you believe that NATO should send NATO troops (including US troops) into Ukraine to fight the Russians or not? Simple yes or no will clear up any confusion.

---

I do not believe we should tell our enemies our intentions. People like you give the Putin and Xi's of the world what they want. Might as well just give em what they want and save months of angst if you are not willing to physically stop them. Didn't work in 38 and won't work now.

I believe it is wring to take anything off the table by making those types declarations that people like you will use later, no matter how the circumstances change.

We are NATO, we must take part and be front and center. (Nephew deployed yesterday to Germany)
Right now, US troops on Ukraine soil, no. Later, who knows?

Stop with the lawyer crap trying to force a yes or no answer to a question. There is no yes or no answer to a war situation and if you truly believe No under any circumstance you are a fool.

---

We both know that is subterfuge and misdirection so you can avoid answering the question. This is an internet message board, you are not the federal govt., and I am not Russia. Answering that question isn't going to disclose anything, other than you may be a war monger.

---

Exactly

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630?

---

Mothra?

---

Was looking for an answer to my question to you. You must have missed it. Here it is again:

Let me try this one more time: If Russia invades, do you believe that NATO should send NATO troops (including US troops) into Ukraine to fight the Russians or not? Simple yes or no will clear up any confusion.

---

I do not believe we should tell our enemies our intentions. People like you give the Putin and Xi's of the world what they want. Might as well just give em what they want and save months of angst if you are not willing to physically stop them. Didn't work in 38 and won't work now.

I believe it is wring to take anything off the table by making those types declarations that people like you will use later, no matter how the circumstances change.

We are NATO, we must take part and be front and center. (Nephew deployed yesterday to Germany)
Right now, US troops on Ukraine soil, no. Later, who knows?

Stop with the lawyer crap trying to force a yes or no answer to a question. There is no yes or no answer to a war situation and if you truly believe No under any circumstance you are a fool.

---

You have an annoying tendency to answer questions I haven't asked, and assume my position on subjects we haven't discussed. I'd suggest not reading more into my comments than what I have written. If you have a question about my beliefs, just ask me - like I have done with you. Unlike you, I will answer your questions as clearly and succinctly as I can. But having to constantly correct your mischaracterizations is frustrating and not conducive to discussion.

Now, as for each of your points:

I agree with you we should not telegraph what we are going to do in Ukraine and keep our enemies guessing. I've never said or suggested otherwise.

I didn't ask whether we should send troops into Ukraine right now. I instead asked whether you would be in favor of sending troops if Russia invades Ukraine. I believe you have indicated that "yes," you are in favor of a NATO ground war in Ukraine if Russia invades, but then again, you've kind of been all over the place since our initial discussion of this topic, which is why I asked a simple yes or no question so you could clarify your position. I don't want to mischaracterize you.

If you are too afraid to answer my simple question, that is fine. Just say so. But let's stop with the "lawyer crap" bull ***** We both know that is subterfuge and misdirection so you can avoid answering the question. This is an internet message board, you are not the federal govt., and I am not Russia. Answering that question isn't going to disclose anything, other than you may be a war monger.

---

It is not a yes or no situation. You have an annoying habit of playing litigator in a discussion. You are trying to force me into an either/or. There is not an absolute answer. There are situations where I would not be in favor of going in and there are situations where I would be in favor of going in. I cannot say.

I do say it is stupid to announce to a KGB Thug that he does not have to worry about the US hitting him, but please be nice to Ukraine.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630?

---

Mothra?

---

Was looking for an answer to my question to you. You must have missed it. Here it is again:

Let me try this one more time: If Russia invades, do you believe that NATO should send NATO troops (including US troops) into Ukraine to fight the Russians or not? Simple yes or no will clear up any confusion.

---

I do not believe we should tell our enemies our intentions. People like you give the Putin and Xi's of the world what they want. Might as well just give em what they want and save months of angst if you are not willing to physically stop them. Didn't work in 38 and won't work now.

I believe it is wring to take anything off the table by making those types declarations that people like you will use later, no matter how the circumstances change.

We are NATO, we must take part and be front and center. (Nephew deployed yesterday to Germany)
Right now, US troops on Ukraine soil, no. Later, who knows?

Stop with the lawyer crap trying to force a yes or no answer to a question. There is no yes or no answer to a war situation and if you truly believe No under any circumstance you are a fool.

---

You have an annoying tendency to answer questions I haven't asked, and assume my position on subjects we haven't discussed. I'd suggest not reading more into my comments than what I have written. If you have a question about my beliefs, just ask me - like I have done with you. Unlike you, I will answer your questions as clearly and succinctly as I can. But having to constantly correct your mischaracterizations is frustrating and not conducive to discussion.

Now, as for each of your points:

I agree with you we should not telegraph what we are going to do in Ukraine and keep our enemies guessing. I've never said or suggested otherwise.

I didn't ask whether we should send troops into Ukraine right now. I instead asked whether you would be in favor of sending troops if Russia invades Ukraine. I believe you have indicated that "yes," you are in favor of a NATO ground war in Ukraine if Russia invades, but then again, you've kind of been all over the place since our initial discussion of this topic, which is why I asked a simple yes or no question so you could clarify your position. I don't want to mischaracterize you.

If you are too afraid to answer my simple question, that is fine. Just say so. But let's stop with the "lawyer crap" bull ***** We both know that is subterfuge and misdirection so you can avoid answering the question. This is an internet message board, you are not the federal govt., and I am not Russia. Answering that question isn't going to disclose anything, other than you may be a war monger.

---

It is not a yes or no situation. You have an annoying habit of playing litigator in a discussion. You are trying to force me into an either/or. There is not an absolute answer. There are situations where I would not be in favor of going in and there are situations where I would be in favor of going in. I cannot say.

I do say it is stupid to announce to a KGB Thug that he does not have to worry about the US hitting him, but please be nice to Ukraine.

---

I am just trying to make it as easy as possible for you to give me a straight answer. I appreciate the attempt to do so.

So in what situations do you believe Nato going to war with Russian in Ukraine is a good idea?

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630?

---

Mothra?

---

Was looking for an answer to my question to you. You must have missed it. Here it is again:

Let me try this one more time: If Russia invades, do you believe that NATO should send NATO troops (including US troops) into Ukraine to fight the Russians or not? Simple yes or no will clear up any confusion.

---

I do not believe we should tell our enemies our intentions. People like you give the Putin and Xi's of the world what they want. Might as well just give em what they want and save months of angst if you are not willing to physically stop them. Didn't work in 38 and won't work now.

I believe it is wring to take anything off the table by making those types declarations that people like you will use later, no matter how the circumstances change.

We are NATO, we must take part and be front and center. (Nephew deployed yesterday to Germany)
Right now, US troops on Ukraine soil, no. Later, who knows?

Stop with the lawyer crap trying to force a yes or no answer to a question. There is no yes or no answer to a war situation and if you truly believe No under any circumstance you are a fool.

---

You have an annoying tendency to answer questions I haven't asked, and assume my position on subjects we haven't discussed. I'd suggest not reading more into my comments than what I have written. If you have a question about my beliefs, just ask me - like I have done with you. Unlike you, I will answer your questions as clearly and succinctly as I can. But having to constantly correct your mischaracterizations is frustrating and not conducive to discussion.

Now, as for each of your points:

I agree with you we should not telegraph what we are going to do in Ukraine and keep our enemies guessing. I've never said or suggested otherwise.

I didn't ask whether we should send troops into Ukraine right now. I instead asked whether you would be in favor of sending troops if Russia invades Ukraine. I believe you have indicated that "yes," you are in favor of a NATO ground war in Ukraine if Russia invades, but then again, you've kind of been all over the place since our initial discussion of this topic, which is why I asked a simple yes or no question so you could clarify your position. I don't want to mischaracterize you.

If you are too afraid to answer my simple question, that is fine. Just say so. But let's stop with the "lawyer crap" bull ***** We both know that is subterfuge and misdirection so you can avoid answering the question. This is an internet message board, you are not the federal govt., and I am not Russia. Answering that question isn't going to disclose anything, other than you may be a war monger.

---

It is not a yes or no situation. You have an annoying habit of playing litigator in a discussion. You are trying to force me into an either/or. There is not an absolute answer. There are situations where I would not be in favor of going in and there are situations where I would be in favor of going in. I cannot say.

I do say it is stupid to announce to a KGB Thug that he does not have to worry about the US hitting him, but please be nice to Ukraine.

---

I am just trying to make it as easy as possible for you to give me a straight answer. I appreciate the attempt to do so.

So in what situations do you believe Nato going to war with Russian in Ukraine is a good idea?

---

Human rights abuses, chemical weapons, use of Ukraine to invade Europe, claims the UN/World Court ruled in Ukraine's favor, WMD evidence of use, shipment or preparation for use, restrict of trade routes and blocking sea lanes. Off the top of my head.

Now, not all would be a full invasion or the full monty.
You find concentration camp/gulags in use or being set up, you have to go in at least as NATO, preferably full UN.
Block sea lanes, freedom of navigation is adequate.
We get satellites of mobile ballistic missiles being prepped, you have to do something.
Russia starts bombing or using air power to restrict space, you have to protect air corridors.

In my opinion, it is not a simple yes or no. China complicates it, because now sanctions will not work as well if China will make them whole.

Now, my question to you, how long can you turn the other way while Putin does this crap? He gets Ukraine, against their will, what is next Baltics? NATO members, but they are small. Is that the next rationale to avoid a conflict with Putin?

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630?

---

Mothra?

---

Was looking for an answer to my question to you. You must have missed it. Here it is again:

Let me try this one more time: If Russia invades, do you believe that NATO should send NATO troops (including US troops) into Ukraine to fight the Russians or not? Simple yes or no will clear up any confusion.

---

I do not believe we should tell our enemies our intentions. People like you give the Putin and Xi's of the world what they want. Might as well just give em what they want and save months of angst if you are not willing to physically stop them. Didn't work in 38 and won't work now.

I believe it is wring to take anything off the table by making those types declarations that people like you will use later, no matter how the circumstances change.

We are NATO, we must take part and be front and center. (Nephew deployed yesterday to Germany)
Right now, US troops on Ukraine soil, no. Later, who knows?

Stop with the lawyer crap trying to force a yes or no answer to a question. There is no yes or no answer to a war situation and if you truly believe No under any circumstance you are a fool.

---

You have an annoying tendency to answer questions I haven't asked, and assume my position on subjects we haven't discussed. I'd suggest not reading more into my comments than what I have written. If you have a question about my beliefs, just ask me - like I have done with you. Unlike you, I will answer your questions as clearly and succinctly as I can. But having to constantly correct your mischaracterizations is frustrating and not conducive to discussion.

Now, as for each of your points:

I agree with you we should not telegraph what we are going to do in Ukraine and keep our enemies guessing. I've never said or suggested otherwise.

I didn't ask whether we should send troops into Ukraine right now. I instead asked whether you would be in favor of sending troops if Russia invades Ukraine. I believe you have indicated that "yes," you are in favor of a NATO ground war in Ukraine if Russia invades, but then again, you've kind of been all over the place since our initial discussion of this topic, which is why I asked a simple yes or no question so you could clarify your position. I don't want to mischaracterize you.

If you are too afraid to answer my simple question, that is fine. Just say so. But let's stop with the "lawyer crap" bull ***** We both know that is subterfuge and misdirection so you can avoid answering the question. This is an internet message board, you are not the federal govt., and I am not Russia. Answering that question isn't going to disclose anything, other than you may be a war monger.

---

It is not a yes or no situation. You have an annoying habit of playing litigator in a discussion. You are trying to force me into an either/or. There is not an absolute answer. There are situations where I would not be in favor of going in and there are situations where I would be in favor of going in. I cannot say.

I do say it is stupid to announce to a KGB Thug that he does not have to worry about the US hitting him, but please be nice to Ukraine.

---

I am just trying to make it as easy as possible for you to give me a straight answer. I appreciate the attempt to do so.

So in what situations do you believe Nato going to war with Russian in Ukraine is a good idea?

---

Human rights abuses, chemical weapons, use of Ukraine to invade Europe, claims the UN/World Court ruled in Ukraine's favor, WMD evidence of use, shipment or preparation for use, restrict of trade routes and blocking sea lanes. Off the top of my head.

Now, not all would be a full invasion or the full monty.
You find concentration camp/gulags in use or being set up, you have to go in at least as NATO, preferably full UN.
Block sea lanes, freedom of navigation is adequate.
We get satellites of mobile ballistic missiles being prepped, you have to do something.
Russia starts bombing or using air power to restrict space, you have to protect air corridors.

In my opinion, it is not a simple yes or no. China complicates it, because now sanctions will not work as well if China will make them whole.

Now, my question to you, how long can you turn the other way while Putin does this crap? He gets Ukraine, against their will, what is next Baltics? NATO members, but they are small. Is that the next rationale to avoid a conflict with Putin?

---

Thanks. I don't think you ever look the other way when Putin does this crap. I would certainly agree with arming Ukraine and neighboring countries, sanctioning Russia, and providing air support where necessary, but at least to me, Ukraine is not worth American blood being spilled. As you admitted, we cannot be the world's policeman.

And I simply don't buy the slippery slope fallacy that not going to war with Russia over Ukraine will lead to other armed conflicts with Russia down the road.

this will be putin's undoing.

bonehead move.

william said:

---

this will be putin's undoing.

bonehead move.

---

How? Who will stand up to him?

Canon said:

---

william said:

---

this will be putin's undoing.

bonehead move.

---

How? Who will stand up to him?

---

the rest of the world - unprovoked attack - all he will have is xi (and he will fold once he sees the world reax) and maybe iran.

all he gets is looking like an unstable criminal thug - wh/ everyone knows he is - now his idiocy will embolden those who were willing to work him on some scale to break and effectively sever ties.

- KKM

nord2 will be closed and russia can sell oil to china and iran.

they will be shut off from world markets in fuel and finance.

william said:

---

Canon said:

---

william said:

---

this will be putin's undoing.

bonehead move.

---

How? Who will stand up to him?

---

the rest of the world - unprovoked attack - all he will have is xi (and he will fold once he sees the world reax) and maybe iran.

all he gets is looking like an unstable criminal thug - wh/ everyone knows he is - now his idiocy will embolden those who were willing to work him on some scale to break and effectively sever ties.

- KKM

nord2 will be closed and russia can sell oil to china and iran.

they will be shut off from world markets in fuel and finance.

---

Interesting take on Putin's planning against the world reaction:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/putin-has-methodically-planned-to-invade-ukraine-and-deflect-western-retaliation/

How can you not question this when we all know they lied about WMD's to start the Afghanistan "war"?

BIDEN: “We have reason to believe that Russian forces are planning and intend to attack Ukraine in the coming week—coming days.”

“We believe that they will target Ukraine’s capital Kyiv…”pic.twitter.com/17LFyMb8Te

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) February 18, 2022

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can you not question this when we all know they lied about WMD's to start the Afghanistan "war"?

BIDEN: “We have reason to believe that Russian forces are planning and intend to attack Ukraine in the coming week—coming days.”

“We believe that they will target Ukraine’s capital Kyiv…”pic.twitter.com/17LFyMb8Te

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) February 18, 2022

---

(150k) troops don't lie.

- sect of state rasheed wallace

D!

up to 190k. hell he has to invade now.

moron.

- KKM

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-has-massed-up-190000-personnel-near-ukraine-us-says-2022-02-18/

my dumb question is what does Russia have to gain by conquering The Ukraine? more natural resources?

they will say the Ukraine will act as a buffer to NATO but I just don't see western nations with much resolve to fight a massive war against a country like Russia.

When @MittRomney called Russia the “major geopolitical foe”of America, he was attacked by many on left & right. That was 2012. He was right.

— stuart stevens (@stuartpstevens) February 14, 2022

And of course, don't forget about Putin's personal yacht Graceful, which a week ago was fleeing from the same port in Hamburg maintained by Blohm+Voss https://t.co/9V8xXAaulG

— Daria Kaleniuk (@dkaleniuk) February 14, 2022

Poland cleared to buy 250 M1A2 SEPv3 advanced Abrams tanks: https://t.co/SqsCgicRA1

— The War Zone (@thewarzonewire) February 19, 2022

william said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How can you not question this when we all know they lied about WMD's to start the Afghanistan "war"?

BIDEN: “We have reason to believe that Russian forces are planning and intend to attack Ukraine in the coming week—coming days.”

“We believe that they will target Ukraine’s capital Kyiv…”pic.twitter.com/17LFyMb8Te

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) February 18, 2022

---

(150k) troops don't lie.

- sect of state rasheed wallace

D!

---

I thought WMD was Iraq? The highest tech Afghanistan had was a Toyota Tundra or two.

Biden has given Putin a brilliant off-ramp. By announcing to the world that Putin plans to invade, Putin can now embarrass Biden by not invading and blaming the West for beating the "drums of war." Take it Mr. Putin. Embarras my president! (Small price to pay for avoiding war.)

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) February 19, 2022

President Biden was superb yesterday. I hope he will give more updates. It shows he is calm, steady and in command. His performance through the early hours of a defining test has been very strong. I can see a Russian General whispering to Putin: “this President sips with 1 hand”

— Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES) February 19, 2022

He didn’t expected the NATO alliance to hold. The goal was to split the US from Europe and he had a willing partner in Trump. He has been caught off guard by President Biden and European leadership.

— Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) February 19, 2022

Some were skeptic whether he would really come to @MunSecConf in this hour of danger for Ukraine.

But Zelensky has come and what a strong speech he is delivering. The listener are on the edge of their seats - also due to the fantastic simultaneous translation in English. pic.twitter.com/RbYIjzhNxF

— Simon Pfeiffer (@SimonDPfeiffer) February 19, 2022

It's worth watching the speech. Here it is in English: https://t.co/J3BD3Erb6k https://t.co/bsbSbVM8PC

— Jane Lytvynenko (@JaneLytv) February 19, 2022

Zelensky's speech today was emotional & undiplomatic, as many might say. But he told the truth. The truth is, 2 Ukrainian soldiers were killed today, 4 were wounded. All UA's residents are waiting war every day. Nobody knows when/where it might happen. #Ukraine's realities 2022.. https://t.co/wsyIddZq4c

— Viktoria (@Ukropo4kA) February 19, 2022

Full text of Zelensky's speech at today's Munich Security Conference#BREAKING #news #UkraineConflict #PutinsWar https://t.co/72ealEzuzg

— Free Press Forever (@_Free_Press) February 20, 2022

🇺🇦President Zelensky: The architecture of world security is fragile and needs to be updated. The rules that the world agreed on decades ago no longer work. They do not keep up with new threats. They are not effective for overcoming them. https://t.co/i18tAEQjD2

— Larysa Gerasko (@GeraskoLarysa) February 20, 2022

“By the blood of our people are your lands kept safe.”
-- Boromir, Lord of the Rings

also
-- Zelensky, Ukraine

In his speech at the security conference in Munich, Zelensky reminded them that Ukraine has been a shield for Europe against Russian aggression for 8 years pic.twitter.com/XjeGyT4RMa

— unworry (@unworry) February 19, 2022

Ukrainian President Zelensky is extraordinarily brave. His speech today @ Munich Security Conference was poignant & urgent. He should not have to beg for help to free his country fr the clutches of Russian thugs & to ensure Ukraine’s security. For yrs US & NATO dropped the ball. https://t.co/gsBubLA6Cd

— Nolla Norris (@NollaNorris) February 19, 2022

#Zelensky, in a fiery speech at #munichsecurityconference, calls out Merkel by name, attacks the cowardice, corruption, & ineptitude of Western leaders.https://t.co/JKU6wJ27UG

— Irina Tsukerman (@irinatsukerman_) February 20, 2022

Zelensky gave a hell of a speech at the Munich security conference.

As in, "it will be in the history books" good.

— Andrew Kosenko (@ak2912) February 19, 2022

Zelensky’s speech in Munich, in which he pledged no surrender, got him a standing ovation. Regardless of what happens next, it’s for the history books. https://t.co/aFJmFkK6Ha

— Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) February 19, 2022

This article describes some of the effects of having Russian military in large numbers in Belarus.  TLDR: It's not pretty, for the locals, the soldiers, the Russian army or Putin. 1/9https://t.co/Y0hkQGGz5c

— Katsiaryna Shmatsina (@kshmatsina) February 18, 2022

Russia did this to Grozny. Nothing was ever done about it. The West did nothing. Today, Chechens are not free or independent. They live under Russian occupation in the Russian Federation. pic.twitter.com/6yHz9UW956

— ArianaGic/Аріянॳць (@GicAriana) February 20, 2022

pretty soon now......

- KKM

putin's self-imposed (getting feeble??) deadline to start the 'reunification of the old USSR'.

clueless buffoon.

My guess is a back room deal between Putin, Biden etc has already been struck. We are being played. Maybe/Maybe not ?

chriscbear said:

---

My guess is a back room deal between Putin, Biden etc has already been struck. We are being played. Maybe/Maybe not ?

---

Putin is just playing addled old Biden like a penny whistle. Biden couldn't sell free vodka to a Russian, much less a political deal.

ilbb990912 said:

---

my dumb question is what does Russia have to gain by conquering The Ukraine? more natural resources?

they will say the Ukraine will act as a buffer to NATO but I just don't see western nations with much resolve to fight a massive war against a country like Russia.

---

The Donbas (short for Donets Coal Basin) has value because of its resources.

Sucks for Ukraine but it's not our fight.

President Biden's threat to shut down Nordstream 2 seems highly unlikely and would hurt an ally at least as much.

Canon said:

---

chriscbear said:

---

My guess is a back room deal between Putin, Biden etc has already been struck. We are being played. Maybe/Maybe not ?

---

Putin is just playing addled old Biden like a penny whistle. Biden couldn't sell free vodka to a Russian, much less a political deal.

---

Elections have consequences.


if there were any questions about Biden's mental status affecting his obligations as Commander in Chief ........the Aftgan debacle removed all doubts.

Putin is facing a shell and knows it.

Biden desperately needs ANY kind of facing saving 'compromise '.......Putin knows this as well.

Luckily for Biden..... 90% of Biden's constituents couldn't find Ukraine on a map.....even fewer care about fighting a war for it . He'll just toss them another 'stimulus' package . accept a few thousand Ukraine refugees.....then on to the mid terms .

Where the voters will magically maintain Dem majorities in the House and Senate.

So do we allow the two break off areas of Ukraine to go independent or fight to maintain them as part of the country? If we allow it to move to independence/Russian sphere of influence, do we then get the rest of Ukraine in NATO? What about elections for independence in the two break off areas?

Best case for Putin is to turn Ukraine into a war zone for the next decade. Worst case is he gains the rebel territory uncontested by the west. He is going to come away with a win here regardless. We aren't going to poke a KGB member that very likely could have a terminal disease at this point.

Russia will be irrelevant in the coming years. China is our real adversary. Let's just keep Putin away from ending the world before he goes.

On the other hand, I have many friends in Lviv so would feel warm inside if we went in guns blazing. No chance of that though.

sanction the hell out of them.

hopefully europe will wise up and gain significant energy independence.

nuclear reactors are now 5th gen and small scale.

and for the love of god - keep kamala (#HeelsUpEmptySuit) at home.

- KKM

sadly - putin killed off any one who might have given him good advice. the down side to a thugocracy / kleptocracy.

now all he has is an echo chamber of imbeciles and sycophants.

that didnt work for saddam and gadhafi.

russia could be leading the world now - but rejected the perestroika / glasnost almost as soon as they adopted it.

and I know of a few BU'ers who have lived and spent some sig. time in Russia... maybe they are adding to thread. not sure.

stephen cohen would be a great resource now - sadly he died last year.

I wish we would sanction them. I don't believe Biden has the balls to do anything

BornAgain said:

---

I wish we would sanction them. I don't believe Biden has the balls to do anything

---

We will do that for sure. Sanctions have hurt them. A major issue is with the increase of oil and billions in foreign cash reserves I don't think Russia is going to be crushed by these.