sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

Man, what a difference a day makes

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth:

"As far as Vladimir Putin being emboldened, he's going to declare victory no matter what - you sort of can expect that - no matter what the outcome is. Thankfully, the bravery of the Ukrainians and allies that came alongside them, especially… pic.twitter.com/S6dbyekLHA

— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) February 14, 2025

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

---

JD Vance is a ****ing idiot... he is completely mediocre in everyway. He has zero Rizz or personality... and if he is speaking out of turn, Trump needs to call him into the oval office and ***** slap him

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

---

JD Vance is a ****ing idiot... he is completely mediocre in everyway. He has zero Rizz or personality... and if he is speaking out of turn, Trump needs to call him into the oval office and ***** slap him

---

Yeah, Vance is a lightweight.

Anyone who thinks he could be our next president, has not read his autobiography.

I haven't read it but I know enough about his history to know that it is foolish to underestimate JD Vance.

No Lefty has any room to criticism Vance since the last two Dem VP's were, and still are, complete morons. If they think either was qualified to be VP or President then they are demonstrating monumentally poor judgment. Voting for either is proof of such terrible judgment.

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

---

JD Vance is a ****ing idiot... he is completely mediocre in everyway. He has zero Rizz or personality... and if he is speaking out of turn, Trump needs to call him into the oval office and ***** slap him

---

Yeah, Vance is a lightweight.

Anyone who thinks he could be our next president, has not read his autobiography.

---

Ben Carson would have been the ideal VP.

I think he is a great role model for ALL Americans and his life story is incredible!

Ben would have understood the role and he is a very prudent and careful speaker... he is too smart to ever appear to publicly contradict Trump.

And he comes across as a pretty modest guy who isnt interested in running for President again.

But Ben never visited the wailing wall or took millions in political donations from the Chabad cult or AIPAC.

historian said:

---

I haven't read it but I know enough about his history to know that it is foolish to underestimate JD Vance.

---

I like Vance.

However prior to reading his autobiography I thought he was so intelligent , such a Marine....that he had what it takes to replace Trump.

Not anymore.

That said he is clearly a better VP than Pence.

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

---

JD Vance is a ****ing idiot... he is completely mediocre in everyway. He has zero Rizz or personality... and if he is speaking out of turn, Trump needs to call him into the oval office and ***** slap him

---

Yeah, Vance is a lightweight.

Anyone who thinks he could be our next president, has not read his autobiography.

---

Ben Carson would have been the ideal VP.

I think he is a great role model for ALL Americans and his life story is incredible!

Ben would have understood the role and he is a very prudent and careful speaker... he is too smart to ever appear to publicly contradict Trump.

And he comes across as a pretty modest guy who isnt interested in running for President again.

But Ben never visited the wailing wall or took millions in political donations from the Chabad cult or AIPAC.

---

Good post

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

---

Trump surrendered on every point yesterday. Hell he invited them back to the G7 without concession 1 from Putin. You don't take it off the table until you have something in return, and the only thing Putin truly fears is a direct war with us.

---

Trump wants an agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles... and sacrificing Ukraine is a great way to achieve such an agreement.

Yeah. Europe should protect itself instead of relying on America. That’ll show Trump. He’d hate that. pic.twitter.com/AYnGn3Ub63

— Magills (@magills_) February 14, 2025

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

Y'all still spiking your footballs?????

In an Interview yesterday with the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Vice-President JD Vance stated that the United States would issue Major Sanctions against the Russian Federation, as well as possibly deploy Troops to Ukraine, if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not come to the… pic.twitter.com/QkiJFhaZ9s

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 14, 2025

---

lol you are citing a well known Ukranian propaganda twitter account...

---

Uh, Vance's comments are quoted all over the place.

---

Holy crap. Read the headline Wall Street Journal printed next to the actual transcript of the interview with @JDVance. This is one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time. When Did @WSJ turn into the Huffington Post? pic.twitter.com/9J8TuzwFmv

— Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) February 14, 2025

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

---

Trump surrendered on every point yesterday. Hell he invited them back to the G7 without concession 1 from Putin. You don't take it off the table until you have something in return, and the only thing Putin truly fears is a direct war with us.

---

Trump wants an agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles... and sacrificing Ukraine is a great way to achieve such an agreement.

---

.

Listen to what you just said, sacrificing another Nation to her concessions. We are a morally bankrupt country if that is acceptable.

This is always what DC does with its failed wars.

Those who start them always blame those who finally have to end them.

Everyone knew Ukraine was losing and NATO's "victory goals" were impossible. Since only Trump admitted it, they'll blame him for losing their failed war. https://t.co/n5hDWH1mo3

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 12, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

---

Trump surrendered on every point yesterday. Hell he invited them back to the G7 without concession 1 from Putin. You don't take it off the table until you have something in return, and the only thing Putin truly fears is a direct war with us.

---

Trump wants an agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles... and sacrificing Ukraine is a great way to achieve such an agreement.

---

.

Listen to what you just said, sacrificing another Nation to her concessions. We are a morally bankrupt country if that is acceptable.

---

Ukraine is being asked to give up the lands where ethnic Russians are the majority

DC literally did that same thing to Serbia in the 1990s. Used force to make the Serbs give up those areas of their county (Kosovo) that were populated by Albanian Muslims

Was the USA morally bankrupt then?

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

---

Trump surrendered on every point yesterday. Hell he invited them back to the G7 without concession 1 from Putin. You don't take it off the table until you have something in return, and the only thing Putin truly fears is a direct war with us.

---

Trump wants an agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles... and sacrificing Ukraine is a great way to achieve such an agreement.

---

.

Listen to what you just said, sacrificing another Nation to her concessions. We are a morally bankrupt country if that is acceptable.

---

If being a morally bankrupt country eliminates the greatest possibility of human extinction. I am completely fine with that!

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

---

JD Vance is a ****ing idiot... he is completely mediocre in everyway. He has zero Rizz or personality... and if he is speaking out of turn, Trump needs to call him into the oval office and ***** slap him

---

Yeah, Vance is a lightweight.

Anyone who thinks he could be our next president, has not read his autobiography.

---

Ben Carson would have been the ideal VP.

I think he is a great role model for ALL Americans and his life story is incredible!

Ben would have understood the role and he is a very prudent and careful speaker... he is too smart to ever appear to publicly contradict Trump.

And he comes across as a pretty modest guy who isnt interested in running for President again.

But Ben never visited the wailing wall or took millions in political donations from the Chabad cult or AIPAC.

---

I like Carson, but you last point is weak. He is as staunch an Israel supporter as anyone.

---

https://instagr.am/p/C9jSFekNdZP

5 months later the guy who called Trump "Hitler" gets picked as VP...

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Weak bluff.

---

Bluffing on Russia and Ukraine, just Russia, just Ukraine?

---

Both leaders know Trump would never commit US ground troops.

So Vance is acting stupidly.

---

Trump surrendered on every point yesterday. Hell he invited them back to the G7 without concession 1 from Putin. You don't take it off the table until you have something in return, and the only thing Putin truly fears is a direct war with us.

---

Trump wants an agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles... and sacrificing Ukraine is a great way to achieve such an agreement.

---

.

Listen to what you just said, sacrificing another Nation to her concessions. We are a morally bankrupt country if that is acceptable.

---

Ukraine is being asked to give up the lands where ethnic Russians are the majority

DC literally did that same thing to Serbia in the 1990s. Used force to make the Serbs give up those areas of their county (Kosovo) that were populated by Albanian Muslims

Was the USA morally bankrupt then?

---

Yeah, pretty much. And Clinton got crucified for it and that was using US air power. In Ukraine the US just provided weapons.

Let's face it. Trump has a soft spot for Putin. He aligns with Putin more than the EU or even the UK. He is basically giving Ukraine to Russia, without any path to NATO Ukraine stands no chance of surviving. We are sending them back to the USSR... Watch the next bit out of this will be Ukraine paying reparations to Russia, probably through mining or Ag land. It does not effect you, so signing off millions in Eastern Europe to Putin is not an issue. That is morally bankrupt, as you pick and choose what to be the line that can't be crossed.


Looking at Bosnia, Clinton Sees Only Hard, Ugly Choices : Diplomacy: The Clinton team criticized the Vance-Owen plan as a sellout to Serbian rapists. But now they would be lucky to get it. - Los Angeles Times

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

Y'all still spiking your footballs?????

In an Interview yesterday with the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Vice-President JD Vance stated that the United States would issue Major Sanctions against the Russian Federation, as well as possibly deploy Troops to Ukraine, if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not come to the… pic.twitter.com/QkiJFhaZ9s

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 14, 2025

---

lol you are citing a well known Ukranian propaganda twitter account...

---

Uh, Vance's comments are quoted all over the place.

---

Holy crap. Read the headline Wall Street Journal printed next to the actual transcript of the interview with @JDVance. This is one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time. When Did @WSJ turn into the Huffington Post? pic.twitter.com/9J8TuzwFmv

— Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) February 14, 2025

---

WSJ got it right. Andrew has trouble with reading comprehension.

"Everything on the table" could not be clearer, particularly after a question on troops.

WSJ 1, X Warrior 0.

Redbrickbear said:

---

This is always what DC does with its failed wars.

Those who start them always blame those who finally have to end them.

Everyone knew Ukraine was losing and NATO's "victory goals" were impossible. Since only Trump admitted it, they'll blame him for losing their failed war. https://t.co/n5hDWH1mo3

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 12, 2025

---

Does he mean like Trump blaming Biden for Afghanistan?

And this is such a straw man regardless. Nobody is blaming Trump for wanting to end the war. What is everyone is doing is prematurely spiking the football or panicking. Ukraine supporters are panicking based on wildly inconsistent statements from the administration. Anti-Ukraine support is spiking the football thinking Russia will get everything it wants.

As with most things, we need to see how it all shakes out. Trump has injected himself into this, which he has every right to do. He's a big boy. He can take the scrutiny that comes with it.

GG, on the other hand, is a shell of his former self and unfortunately is now just a whiny little snowflake . . . .

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

Y'all still spiking your footballs?????

In an Interview yesterday with the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Vice-President JD Vance stated that the United States would issue Major Sanctions against the Russian Federation, as well as possibly deploy Troops to Ukraine, if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not come to the… pic.twitter.com/QkiJFhaZ9s

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 14, 2025

---

lol you are citing a well known Ukranian propaganda twitter account...

---

Uh, Vance's comments are quoted all over the place.

---

Holy crap. Read the headline Wall Street Journal printed next to the actual transcript of the interview with @JDVance. This is one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time. When Did @WSJ turn into the Huffington Post? pic.twitter.com/9J8TuzwFmv

— Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) February 14, 2025

---

WSJ got it right. Andrew has trouble with reading comprehension.

"Everything on the table" could not be clearer, particularly after a question on troops.

WSJ 1, X Warrior 0.

---

WSJ headline: "Vance pledged to hit Russia with sanctions and potential military action"


He made no such pledge

He simply said nothing was off the table (a very reasonable position to take)

Below is the entire section unedited. There is no other way to read this other than (1) the U.S. will use whatever leverage is necessary, (2) that leverage will include sanctions and might include U.S. troops, and (3) everything is on the able.

I love calling out the media and have specifically called out WSJ. But this headline is accurate. I cannot think of better way to word it. And BTW, this isn't like 60 minutes. WSJ included the full interview.

Q: I think President Zelensky will probably ask you tomorrow, or wherever you're seeing him, I don't know, but I
Vance: I think it's tomorrow, right? Yeah.
Q: He will ask how can you guarantee that in a year, in two years time, Putin will not attack again? What do we do to deter?
Vance: Sure.
Q: What's the answer to that question?
Vance: Well, look, we understand Ukraine is going to have to have some security guarantees. That's part of Ukraine being a long-term sovereign state. But what those security guarantees ultimately look like, I think it's way too early to make predictions or to make promises. There are any number of formulations of configurations, but we do care about Ukraine having sovereign independence. They fought very bravely, and that's going to be something that figures very prominently in the negotiations.
Q: And is there a sense as to what is the stick for Putin? I mean, obviously any kind of deal would have to entail an implicit threat that you have to stick to this, or else, or you have to even sign on the dotted line. Are there any
Vance: Well
Q: are there any instruments of pressure that you're thinking of?
Vance: I think certainly, look, there, there are instruments of pressure, absolutely. And again, if you look at President Trump's approach to this, hethe range of options is extremely broad. And there are economic tools of leverage, there are, of course, military tools of leverage. There's a whole host of things that we could do. But fundamentally, I think, the president wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with Zelensky.
I think his view, and certainly my view, is that it's not in Russia's long-term interest to be effectively the stepchild of the stepI shouldn't say the stepchild. I should say it's not in Putin's interest to be the little brother in a coalition with China. There are economic relationships and economic ties, of course, that exist between the Russians and the Chinese. There are, of course, a lot of opportunities in the future for relationships between Russia and the West. So I think there are carrots and sticks, and the president is going to use all those things to try to bring this thing to a rapid close.

Q: Can I just ask, and this could be off the record, do you actually have the figure for the losses on both sides? How many people died? How many people
Vacce: Look, yeah. I mean, it doesn't have to be off the record. We've seen a number of estimates, they, you know, it's very hard to get an accurate count. Many of the counts that you see are based on publicly available information. Some that double count casualties. Some that under count casualties.
We believe that hundreds of thousands on each side have been killed, wounded, or missing. And you know, whether the total number on both sides ends up being 1.5 million or 1 million or 2 million, it's way too much. It's totally unnecessary. And we just, we can't lose people like that. It's not good for humanity to have so many people die in such an unnecessary way.
Q: There's been some criticism of Secretary Hegseth's comments on Ukraine yesterday. For the main part ofthe criticism, mainly, is that the administration gave up a little bit of leverage already in the negotiations by stating its positions too clearly. You know, on the, on the land territory not returning to 2014, even Zelensky said that. So, like, that, that sure thing is off the table. But the notion of, you know, maybe Ukraine won't join NATO anytime soon, or even the use of U.S. troops in some fashion, that while the administration was unlikely to support those ideas by taking those off the table already so publicly, that lessens your leverage. Is that, is that a fair critique in your mind?

Vance: I don't think that's the right way to look at it. I mean, first of all, Secretary Hegseth, who's a friend of mine, he was in Europe, fundamentally, to talk to our allied friends and their militaries, about the need to ramp up military spending
Q: Sure.
Vance: for what is, I think, a very new security situation, one where the Europeans have to take a little bit more ownership of their own security situation, of course, as the United States focuses on some of our challenges in East Asia, and I think that was fundamentally the context in which you have to understand a lot of these, these, these discussions. As Secretary Hegseth is really telling our European friends, "You guys, you're very impressive, you're very impressive economically, you've got to step up a little bit militarily."
Now in terms of taking things off the table or reducing leverage, I just don't think that's the right way to think about President Trump's role in anyor President Trump's position in any negotiation because President Trump could, could say, "Look, we don't want this thing, we might not like this thing, but we're willing to put it back on the table if the Russians aren't being good negotiating partners, or there are things that are very important to Ukrainians that we might want to take off the table." He might put them back on the table if he doesn't think the Ukrainians aren't being good negotiating partners.

The president is very, very good, again, at opening up the field of options in order to accomplish a goal. I think that you're going to see things that come out of this negotiation, and I really do believelook, it is ridiculous for the United States to have a posture where we're trying to push Russia into the hands of the Chinese. I think it's ridiculous for the Russians to have a posture where they are fundamentally the junior partner to the Chinese. I think it's ridiculous for the Ukrainians, for the war to continue, because it's such an incredible strain on manpower and on resources.
And I think there is a deal that is going to come out of this that's going to shock a lot of people, where things that we assumed were not on the table actually are on the table, and where the Ukrainians, the Russians, the Americans, and the Europeans are fundamentally happy with where it lands. And I think the reason it will land in that place is because the president is not going to go in this with blinders on. He's going to say "Everything is on the table, let's make a deal."

Q: So just want to make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that even thoughthe possibility of a NATO, of a Ukraine-NATO accession at the end of this process, or even the presence of U.S. troops in Ukraine is not officially off the table.
Vance: I think the president has been very clear that he doesn't like the idea of moving Ukraine into NATO.
Q: Sure.
Vance: OK. He's been very clear.
Q: There's no question about that.
Vance: I also think the president is very clear that whenever he walks into negotiation, everything is on the table.
Q: OK, everything remains on the table. Will you tell the Europeans to put boots on the ground to delineate the warring parties?
Vance: I think that goes into this negotiating leverage, where we don't want to pre-commit to things, because there are so many different configurations of what this could look like. You know, we could run through 100 different hypotheticals, each of which is equally plausible. And I think the president's view is, let's let this negotiation play out. We're certainly going to be in constant contact with our European friends about what shape this ultimately takes, and we'll see where this thing lands.

De Gaulle, “The Franco-Polish Alliance”, 1919

The forgotten origins of general De Gaulle's geostrategic thinking.
A prophetic text where he predicted the behavior of Russia and Germany today.
🧵 1/20 pic.twitter.com/P3s7oIbSDj

— Daniel Foubert (@d_foubert) February 22, 2023

"On that day, Russia will see herself as peace will leave her, that is to say, deprived of Estonia, Livonia, Courland, Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Bessarabia, perhaps Ukraine, reduced in a word to the limits of old Muscovy."
14/20
De Gaulle, “The Franco-Polish Alliance”, 1919

— Daniel Foubert (@d_foubert) February 22, 2023

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

Y'all still spiking your footballs?????

In an Interview yesterday with the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Vice-President JD Vance stated that the United States would issue Major Sanctions against the Russian Federation, as well as possibly deploy Troops to Ukraine, if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not come to the… pic.twitter.com/QkiJFhaZ9s

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 14, 2025

---

lol you are citing a well known Ukranian propaganda twitter account...

---

Uh, Vance's comments are quoted all over the place.

---

Holy crap. Read the headline Wall Street Journal printed next to the actual transcript of the interview with @JDVance. This is one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time. When Did @WSJ turn into the Huffington Post? pic.twitter.com/9J8TuzwFmv

— Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) February 14, 2025

---

WSJ got it right. Andrew has trouble with reading comprehension.

"Everything on the table" could not be clearer, particularly after a question on troops.

WSJ 1, X Warrior 0.

---

"Everything on the table" is standard pre-negotiation talk. It's not a promise of anything.

Ukrainian "democracy" FTW:

Quote:

---

Ukraine opens criminal cases against ex-President Poroshenko, sanctioned oligarchs, businessmen
by Tim Zadorozhnyy
February 14, 2025

Prosecutor General's Office announced on Feb. 14 that criminal proceedings have been opened against businessmen and former high-ranking officials recently sanctioned by the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC).

The list includes oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, billionaire Konstantin Zhevago, former PrivatBank co-owner Hennadiy Boholyubov, Ukraine's 5th President Petro Poroshenko, and former pro-Russian lawmaker Viktor Medvedchuk.

"Each of these five individuals is being held criminally liable for committing serious and especially serious crimes," the Prosecutor General's Office said in a post on Telegram.

Poroshenko was charged in 2021 with high treason and aiding terrorist organizations for allegedly conspiring with Russian-backed separatists between November 2014 and January 2015. The scheme reportedly generated over Hr 3 billion ($72 million) in profits from coal supplies.

https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-opens-criminal-cases-against-ex-president-poroshenko-sanctioned-oligarchs-businessmen/

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ukrainian "democracy" FTW:

Quote:

---

Ukraine opens criminal cases against ex-President Poroshenko, sanctioned oligarchs, businessmen
by Tim Zadorozhnyy
February 14, 2025

Prosecutor General's Office announced on Feb. 14 that criminal proceedings have been opened against businessmen and former high-ranking officials recently sanctioned by the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC).

The list includes oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, billionaire Konstantin Zhevago, former PrivatBank co-owner Hennadiy Boholyubov, Ukraine's 5th President Petro Poroshenko, and former pro-Russian lawmaker Viktor Medvedchuk.

"Each of these five individuals is being held criminally liable for committing serious and especially serious crimes," the Prosecutor General's Office said in a post on Telegram.

Poroshenko was charged in 2021 with high treason and aiding terrorist organizations for allegedly conspiring with Russian-backed separatists between November 2014 and January 2015. The scheme reportedly generated over Hr 3 billion ($72 million) in profits from coal supplies.

https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-opens-criminal-cases-against-ex-president-poroshenko-sanctioned-oligarchs-businessmen/

---

---

At least they haven't poisoned them . . . .

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

Y'all still spiking your footballs?????

In an Interview yesterday with the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Vice-President JD Vance stated that the United States would issue Major Sanctions against the Russian Federation, as well as possibly deploy Troops to Ukraine, if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not come to the… pic.twitter.com/QkiJFhaZ9s

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 14, 2025

---

lol you are citing a well known Ukranian propaganda twitter account...

---

Uh, Vance's comments are quoted all over the place.

---

Holy crap. Read the headline Wall Street Journal printed next to the actual transcript of the interview with @JDVance. This is one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time. When Did @WSJ turn into the Huffington Post? pic.twitter.com/9J8TuzwFmv

— Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) February 14, 2025

---

WSJ got it right. Andrew has trouble with reading comprehension.

"Everything on the table" could not be clearer, particularly after a question on troops.

WSJ 1, X Warrior 0.

---

"Everything on the table" is standard pre-negotiation talk. It's not a promise of anything.

---

Read in conjunction with the answers about asserting leverage if Russia is unreasonable, it is a perfectly accurate summation.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

Y'all still spiking your footballs?????

In an Interview yesterday with the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Vice-President JD Vance stated that the United States would issue Major Sanctions against the Russian Federation, as well as possibly deploy Troops to Ukraine, if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not come to the… pic.twitter.com/QkiJFhaZ9s

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 14, 2025

---

lol you are citing a well known Ukranian propaganda twitter account...

---

Uh, Vance's comments are quoted all over the place.

---

Holy crap. Read the headline Wall Street Journal printed next to the actual transcript of the interview with @JDVance. This is one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time. When Did @WSJ turn into the Huffington Post? pic.twitter.com/9J8TuzwFmv

— Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) February 14, 2025

---

WSJ got it right. Andrew has trouble with reading comprehension.

"Everything on the table" could not be clearer, particularly after a question on troops.

WSJ 1, X Warrior 0.

---

"Everything on the table" is standard pre-negotiation talk. It's not a promise of anything.

---

Read in conjunction with the answers about asserting leverage if Russia is unreasonable, it is a perfectly accurate summation.

---

I think the more one looks at the context, the less accurate that reading appears. There's a passing reference to military action, on what's arguably a list of items in descending order of importance, contrasted with what he says is the president's fundamental wish, followed by a paragraph that's all about Russia's interest in economic relations with the West as opposed to China. He couldn't have downplayed the military angle any more if he'd been trying, and that's because he was trying as hard as he could. The final exchange is almost comical. The reporter is desperately trying to pin him down before the interview ends, and Vance is having none of it.

So, it's a possibility. Not a promise by any means.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

Y'all still spiking your footballs?????

In an Interview yesterday with the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Vice-President JD Vance stated that the United States would issue Major Sanctions against the Russian Federation, as well as possibly deploy Troops to Ukraine, if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not come to the… pic.twitter.com/QkiJFhaZ9s

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 14, 2025

---

lol you are citing a well known Ukranian propaganda twitter account...

---

Uh, Vance's comments are quoted all over the place.

---

Holy crap. Read the headline Wall Street Journal printed next to the actual transcript of the interview with @JDVance. This is one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time. When Did @WSJ turn into the Huffington Post? pic.twitter.com/9J8TuzwFmv

— Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) February 14, 2025

---

WSJ got it right. Andrew has trouble with reading comprehension.

"Everything on the table" could not be clearer, particularly after a question on troops.

WSJ 1, X Warrior 0.

---

"Everything on the table" is standard pre-negotiation talk. It's not a promise of anything.

---

Read in conjunction with the answers about asserting leverage if Russia is unreasonable, it is a perfectly accurate summation.

---

I think the more one looks at the context, the less accurate that reading appears. There's a passing reference to military action, on what's arguably a list of items in descending order of importance, contrasted with what he says is the president's fundamental wish, followed by a paragraph that's all about Russia's interest in economic relations with the West as opposed to China. He couldn't have downplayed the military angle any more if he'd been trying, and that's because he was trying as hard as he could. The final exchange is almost comical. The reporter is desperately trying to pin him down before the interview ends, and Vance is having none of it.

So, it's a possibility. Not a promise by any means.

---

The pledge was the "potential" for troops. That is 100% accurate.

Although I disagree, I at least see the opposing view on the pledge of economic sanctions. One can at least argue there not a pledge of anything guaranteed. But, again, I believe Vance made it clear that the first card Trump will play if Russia is unreasonable is increased sanctions.

And Vance had every chance to say "U.S. troops are completely off the table." In fact, I expected that. But he did not. In fact, he responded to the direct question on it by saying "everything is on the table."