Why Are We in Ukraine?

418,727 Views | 6287 Replies | Last: 6 hrs ago by whiterock
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 6:06p, 6/16/24
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
Reply Quote
3
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 6:29p, 6/16/24
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 6:00a, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Reply Quote
4
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 7:13a, 6/17/24
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.
Reply Quote
1
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:25a, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.


The eventual placement of NATO nuclear weapons in Ukraine was completely unacceptable to the security of Russia.

The United States bares a significant amount of responsibility for the Russian response and the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Possibly the worst foreign policy blunder since US troops invaded North Korea while ignoring China's warnings that they would respond with a million troops.
Reply Quote
1
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:31a, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.
link?
Reply Quote
3
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:46a, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:

A governing majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU.
So did Yanukovych. Just not on the predatory terms that we the Ukrainian parliament tried to dictate.
FIFY
It was the Ukrainian parliament that had failed to pass the necessary legislation on the day Yanukovych suspended the deal.
LOL your historical revisionism has achieved full inversion of truth.

It was not just Yanukovych's refusal to sign the bill already passed by Parliament that caused his fall. It was his rejection of it in favor of a similar pact with Russia.
Wrong.
Quote:
Ukraine rejects Tymoshenko bills
Hopes of trade and political agreements with the EU are evaporating.
NOVEMBER 21, 2013 5:10 AM CET

The Ukrainian parliament has rejected a set of laws that would enable the jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to receive medical treatment in Germany.

The vote -- the second time that the Verkhovna Rada has turned down the bills -- substantially reduces the prospects of Ukraine signing political and trade deals with the European Union next week.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-rejects-tymoshenko-bills/#:~:text=Hopes%20of%20trade%20and%20political%20agreements%20with%20the%20EU%20are%20evaporating.&text=The%20Ukrainian%20parliament%20has%20rejected,receive%20medical%20treatment%20in%20Germany.
Good grief, man. If you'd bothered to read the link, you'd seek the elementary cause/effect problem with your point.
Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:48a, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.
and that neutrality agreement was still in place the day Russia invaded.....
Reply Quote
4
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:54a, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.

No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.
we didn't start a war to decolonize Russia.

Russia started a war to re-colonize Ukraine.

In that context, the word "decolonize" is a sound threat to issue in the jabbering about the end game. It means, "desist now, or you will end up WORSE off than when you started."
Reply Quote
5
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 11:15a, 6/17/24
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:

A governing majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU.
So did Yanukovych. Just not on the predatory terms that we the Ukrainian parliament tried to dictate.
FIFY
It was the Ukrainian parliament that had failed to pass the necessary legislation on the day Yanukovych suspended the deal.
LOL your historical revisionism has achieved full inversion of truth.

It was not just Yanukovych's refusal to sign the bill already passed by Parliament that caused his fall. It was his rejection of it in favor of a similar pact with Russia.
Wrong.
Quote:
Ukraine rejects Tymoshenko bills
Hopes of trade and political agreements with the EU are evaporating.
NOVEMBER 21, 2013 5:10 AM CET

The Ukrainian parliament has rejected a set of laws that would enable the jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to receive medical treatment in Germany.

The vote -- the second time that the Verkhovna Rada has turned down the bills -- substantially reduces the prospects of Ukraine signing political and trade deals with the European Union next week.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-rejects-tymoshenko-bills/#:~:text=Hopes%20of%20trade%20and%20political%20agreements%20with%20the%20EU%20are%20evaporating.&text=The%20Ukrainian%20parliament%20has%20rejected,receive%20medical%20treatment%20in%20Germany.
Good grief, man. If you'd bothered to read the link, you'd seek the elementary cause/effect problem with your point.
The point is that VY was entirely within his rights. It was the mob that acted lawlessly, with our help.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 11:17a, 6/17/24
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.
link?
Putin talked about it last week while delivering his ultimatum to Ukraine.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 11:25a, 6/17/24
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.
and that neutrality agreement was still in place the day Russia invaded.....
And the Ukes should have stuck to it.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 11:27a, 6/17/24
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.

No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.
we didn't start a war to decolonize Russia.

Russia started a war to re-colonize Ukraine.

In that context, the word "decolonize" is a sound threat to issue in the jabbering about the end game. It means, "desist now, or you will end up WORSE off than when you started."
What is the end game in your mind? You can't possibly still think Russia will leave Crimea and the Donbas.
Reply Quote
1 edit
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 11:34a, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.
link?
Putin talked about it last week while delivering his ultimatum to Ukraine.
Please tell me you're joking
Reply Quote
5
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 12:07p, 6/17/24
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.
link?
Putin talked about it last week while delivering his ultimatum to Ukraine.
Please tell me you're joking
I forgot the "just listen to Putin" crowd never actually listens. Please tell me you're not that brainwashed.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 12:12p, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.
link?
Putin talked about it last week while delivering his ultimatum to Ukraine.
You mean his weakly ultimatum update? I think he does that right after he puts his Nuclear crews on alert.

Or is it vice-versa? You lose track at what his message is this week. Sorry, missed it...
Reply Quote
4
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:36p, 6/17/24
Reply Quote
2
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 12:40p, 6/17/24
Doc Holliday said:
Time to write a check to Trumps campaign.
Reply Quote
3
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:02p, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.
link?
Putin talked about it last week while delivering his ultimatum to Ukraine.
Please tell me you're joking
I forgot the "just listen to Putin" crowd never actually listens. Please tell me you're not that brainwashed.
I don't trust any politicians. But if I had to rank them, yes, I'd probably trust Putin the least.

That has never been reported anywhere. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe - even if it the source was someone other than Putin. To paraphrase Pat Buchanan on Slick Willy, how do you know when Putin is lying . . . his lips are moving.
Reply Quote
4
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:39p, 6/17/24
WTH

Reply Quote
1
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 2:49p, 6/17/24
KaiBear said:
Doc Holliday said:
Time to write a check to Trumps campaign.
He's shifted more than the San Andreas fault on Ukraine
Reply Quote
4
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 2:50p, 6/17/24
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.
link?
Putin talked about it last week while delivering his ultimatum to Ukraine.
Please tell me you're joking
I forgot the "just listen to Putin" crowd never actually listens. Please tell me you're not that brainwashed.
I don't trust any politicians. But if I had to rank them, yes, I'd probably trust Putin the least.

That has never been reported anywhere. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe - even if it the source was someone other than Putin. To paraphrase Pat Buchanan on Slick Willy, how do you know when Putin is lying . . . his lips are moving.
It was widely reported that Blinken met with Lavrov (not Putin -- my mistake), that the placement of weapons on Russia's border was an issue, and that no agreement was reached. We already have nuclear-capable installations in Romania and Poland. Nor is anyone denying Putin's claim on our side. It's really not that hard to believe unless you're determined not to.
Reply Quote
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 3:09p, 6/17/24
sombear said:
KaiBear said:
Doc Holliday said:
Time to write a check to Trumps campaign.
He's shifted more than the San Andreas fault on Ukraine


Regardless :

how many millions of illegals are invading our country and demanding perpetual care

the amount of fentanyl that is allowed to enter the country killing almost 100,000 Americans annually

an inflation rate that continues to destroy our working class

that our national debt is now increasing another TRILLION dollars every ONE HUNDRED days

our foreign policy is openly risking World War 3 over a country few Americans can even find on a map

You are going to vote for the oldest president in US history to get another 4 year term. A man who clearly and obviously is suffering from cognitive decline.

You are going to vote for Joe Biden. Maybe out of habit, family tradition or just plain stubbornness.

But we are all going to reap what you sow.

Just don't get amnesia about your choice down the road.











Reply Quote
1
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 3:17p, 6/17/24
I'm 55 and have never voted for a Dem. I do plan on leaving my Pres ballot blank.

And I was just making the point that nobody really knows what Trump will do about Ukraine if he wins. He's been all over the place and back.
Reply Quote
3
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 3:25p, 6/17/24
sombear said:
I'm 55 and have never voted for a Dem. I do plan on leaving my Pres ballot blank.

And I was just making the point that nobody really knows what Trump will do about Ukraine if he wins. He's been all over the place and back.


Trump is not an unknown commodity.

He was president for 4 years.


And in those 4 years Trump kept the US out of foreign wars.

Despite all the fear mongering Trumps foreign policy moves were excellent for the most part.
Reply Quote
1
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 4:50p, 6/17/24
KaiBear said:
sombear said:
I'm 55 and have never voted for a Dem. I do plan on leaving my Pres ballot blank.

And I was just making the point that nobody really knows what Trump will do about Ukraine if he wins. He's been all over the place and back.


Trump is not an unknown commodity.

He was president for 4 years.


And in those 4 years Trump kept the US out of foreign wars.

Despite all the fear mongering Trumps foreign policy moves were excellent for the most part.
Friendly wager . . . I bet that, if Trump wins, he will not end Ukraine support.
Reply Quote
3
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 5:00p, 6/17/24
sombear said:
KaiBear said:
sombear said:
I'm 55 and have never voted for a Dem. I do plan on leaving my Pres ballot blank.

And I was just making the point that nobody really knows what Trump will do about Ukraine if he wins. He's been all over the place and back.


Trump is not an unknown commodity.

He was president for 4 years.


And in those 4 years Trump kept the US out of foreign wars.

Despite all the fear mongering Trumps foreign policy moves were excellent for the most part.
Friendly wager . . . I bet that, if Trump wins, he will not end Ukraine support.
I bet Russia stops if he wins
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 6:37p, 6/17/24
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.
link?
Putin talked about it last week while delivering his ultimatum to Ukraine.
You mean his weakly ultimatum update? I think he does that right after he puts his Nuclear crews on alert.

Or is it vice-versa? You lose track at what his message is this week. Sorry, missed it...
It followed a meeting of the full war cabinet, the first such meeting since late 2021. Considering developments on the battlefield in recent months, the implications are fairly obvious.
Reply Quote
1 edit
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 7:07p, 6/17/24
Doc Holliday said:
sombear said:
KaiBear said:
sombear said:
I'm 55 and have never voted for a Dem. I do plan on leaving my Pres ballot blank.

And I was just making the point that nobody really knows what Trump will do about Ukraine if he wins. He's been all over the place and back.


Trump is not an unknown commodity.

He was president for 4 years.


And in those 4 years Trump kept the US out of foreign wars.

Despite all the fear mongering Trumps foreign policy moves were excellent for the most part.
Friendly wager . . . I bet that, if Trump wins, he will not end Ukraine support.
I bet Russia stops if he wins
I'll take that bet
Reply Quote
3
ATL Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:52p, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.

No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.
we didn't start a war to decolonize Russia.

Russia started a war to re-colonize Ukraine.

In that context, the word "decolonize" is a sound threat to issue in the jabbering about the end game. It means, "desist now, or you will end up WORSE off than when you started."
What is the end game in your mind? You can't possibly still think Russia will leave Crimea and the Donbas.
Maybe start with Billions in compensation due Ukraine when they invaded the Crimean area, instantly nationalized Chornomornaftogaz and its billions in energy assets with their puppet install regional government and turned it over to Gazprom.

I mean you have to hand it to the Russians. They have duped so many people into thinking this was a NATO issue in 2013/2014. No one remembers when they scuttled the DCFTA precursor to EuroMaiden (and almost had their riotous mob moment) in 2011 when they gave the Yanukovych regime the made up goods in 2010 to get his political opponent Yulia Tymoshenko imprisoned on a deal with the Russians (done under duress BTW) so he could turn around and sign a new deal with them that wasn't much better for Ukraine, but included a 30 year lease extension on Sevastopol. BTW, what does Russia owe for that abrogation? Usurpation has worked much better for Russia than poison or diplomacy.

This was and always has been about economic and political control for Russia that was slipping away as Ukraine aligned with the EU more. Nah, couldn't be. It's about Nazis, Nuland, and history…
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
ATL Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 8:03p, 6/17/24
KaiBear said:
sombear said:
I'm 55 and have never voted for a Dem. I do plan on leaving my Pres ballot blank.

And I was just making the point that nobody really knows what Trump will do about Ukraine if he wins. He's been all over the place and back.


Trump is not an unknown commodity.

He was president for 4 years.


And in those 4 years Trump kept the US out of foreign wars.

Despite all the fear mongering Trumps foreign policy moves were excellent for the most part.
Trump laid the ground work to what's happening. He aced a top Iranian commander, started a trade war with China putting a further distance between us, started the arms provisioning to Ukraine, and escalated our shenanigans with Zelensky and Ukraine from Manafort to his "perfect call" madness.

Sombear is right. Who the heck knows what he will do? I'd place my money on likely not a lot different than what Biden has. Welcome to the world of two poor candidates.
Reply Quote
3
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ATL Bear • 8:10p, 6/17/24
I'm asking for an end game, not a wish list. At this point our grievances, whether real or imagined, have led us to attack Russia's nuclear early warning system. How far do we escalate when that doesn't work? And to what end?
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:47p, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
These guys get it.

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...
Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.
Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.



No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.


Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.
Why did they agree to what?


The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.
They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.


That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.
Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.
link?
Putin talked about it last week while delivering his ultimatum to Ukraine.
You mean his weakly ultimatum update? I think he does that right after he puts his Nuclear crews on alert.

Or is it vice-versa? You lose track at what his message is this week. Sorry, missed it...
It followed a meeting of the full war cabinet, the first such meeting since late 2021. Considering developments on the battlefield in recent months, the implications are fairly obvious.


Oh, full war cabinet? Which means? Nothing. Putin makes ALL decisions. A message from the full war cabinet is no different than a Pravda quote. 2021? So he invaded Ukraine without meeting with it? Hell of a barometer

You guys are too worried about gamesmanship. He is not going to war with NATO over Ukraine. Besides Putin won't make thst decision Xi will.
Reply Quote
3
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 8:52p, 6/17/24
No, they met for the last time in late 2021 before going to war in early 2022. That's your barometer.
Reply Quote
ATL Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 9:38p, 6/17/24
Sam Lowry said:
I'm asking for an end game, not a wish list. At this point our grievances, whether real or imagined, have led us to attack Russia's nuclear early warning system. How far do we escalate when that doesn't work? And to what end?
You're asking for the end game of the wrong party.
Reply Quote
1
First Page Last Page
Page 137 of 180 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.