Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine
nan said:
Jaytee said:
“Moscow can knock out the lights across Ukraine, but it cannot, it will not, extinguish the Ukrainian spirit. President Putin thought he could divide the trans-Atlantic alliance; instead, he’s brought us even closer together.”
Anthony Blinken
Also Antony Blinken:
“The strategy that we’ve put in place — massive support for Ukraine, massive pressure against Russia, solidarity with more than 30 countries engaged in these efforts — is having real results. The bottom line is this: We don’t know how the rest of this war will unfold, but we do know that a sovereign independent Ukraine will be around a lot longer than Vladimir Putin is on the scene.”https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/25/us-makes-it-clear-its-aim-is-to-weaken-russia/
Those words you posted are propaganda platitudes. Blinken does not give a crap about Ukraine. He just wants to use it as a proxy for regime change. That's what this war is really about.
You think that last statement is a call for regime change?
LOL
drummerboy said:
You think that last statement is a call for regime change?
LOL
Anything short of Elon Musk-type fawning over Putin is considered "a call for regime change".
nohero said:
nan said:
Yeah, no. The most important issue right now is to support peace negotiations so we don't have WWIII and nuclear war. The Russians are going to win this unless NATO admits they are fighting this war for real and we have WWIII. There is also the dangerous possibility of NATO false nuclear/chemical flags (historically, we have seen that). That is where we are headed. Because the West stopped the peace process, the Russians now have more land and there may be regime change in Ukraine. It did not have to be that way. The whole war could have been easily avoided but the US/West/EU/NATO wanted regime change and they don't care about anything else, including the well-being of citizens in the EU/UK/US/Ukraine.
You are cheering for WWIII and nuclear war. You are ready to sacrifice yourself and your family for Ukraine.
That is nuts.
No, you are relying on sources of information which are either deranged or deliberately dishonest.
I am relying on the sane people who have been predicting this catastrophe for decades and those who are seeing how every day that goes by where we don't have peace negotiations is one day closer to WWIII and possible use of nukes (especially from the NATO side).
You are relying on the mainstream media which pushes the profitable endless war.
nan said:
I am relying on the sane people who have been predicting this catastrophe for decades and those who are seeing how every day that goes by where we don't have peace negotiations is one day closer to WWIII and possible use of nukes (especially from the NATO side).
You are relying on the mainstream media which pushes the profitable endless war.
And I see your anti-MSM pundits you rely on have nothing to do with your constant mantra - right? WWIII Anti -MSM. It's the same crew at every crisis - the professional contrarian squad. It's very predictable. I love the "predicted this catastrophe for decades" part of it. If nothing happens - their predictions will continue I suppose. Good gig if you can keep it up!
One thing that remains true with a lot of them is denouncing Putin's brutal actions and the justification of the decimation of a sovereign nation. As well as supporting the result of a sham election that I have so far found zero accountability in the results.
nan said:
I am relying on the sane people who have been predicting possible use of nukes (especially from the NATO side).
In case you were too busy watching Jimmy and Aaron predict stuff, you may have missed Putin threatening to use nukes…
nan said:
Jaytee said:
nan said:
I am relying on the sane people who have been predicting possible use of nukes (especially from the NATO side).
In case you were too busy watching Jimmy and Aaron predict stuff, you may have missed Putin threatening to use nukes…
Why don't you show me where he did that.
Why should he? You will simply discount it as a threat, as you already have. You discount everything that could be perceived as Russian bad behavior.
Everything.
Because you're on their side.
Just admit it. You'll feel a lot better.
Do you still believe Russia has a no first-use policy?
Jaytee said:
I'm confused. Russia says the attack on the Black Sea Fleet was a terrorist attack. But the Ukrainian power grid is a legitimate military target?
Somebody help me understand. When Russia had to upgrade the SMO because they were winning so much, did they upgrade to an anti-Satanist operation or a full-fledged terrorist operation. So hard to keep up with these upgrades.
tjohn said:
I'm confused. Russia says the attack on the Black Sea Fleet was a terrorist attack. But the Ukrainian power grid is a legitimate military target?
Somebody help me understand. When Russia had to upgrade the SMO because they were winning so much, did they upgrade to an anti-Satanist operation or a full-fledged terrorist operation. So hard to keep up with these upgrades.
Pablo will come on after midnight to address your questions…
What no one is mentioning here is, because of these Ukraine/UK (?) terrorist drone attacks on Russian ships, Russia has now stopped participating in the grain deal (bringing grain to poor countries ). Their safety was supposed to be guaranteed to complete these deliveries.
Biden said it was outrageous that the Russians had pulled out of the grain deal, but did not mention the broken promise to not attack the ships.
Russia also said that the same group who attacked these ships--Ukraine/UK--were the ones to blow up Nordstream. However, no evidence has been presented yet. They called for a joint investigation of these attacks. Twitter/internet rumors (not reliable but interesting) say there are taped Liz Truss phone calls but we will have to wait and see.
nan said:
What no one is mentioning here is, because of these Ukraine(?) terrorist drone attacks on Russian ships, .
Please confirm that you just called a strike on a legitimate military target (Russian warships that, from time to time, launch cruise missiles at targets in Ukraine) a terrorist attack.
Also, I took UK out of your comments. You seem to have been infected by the same obsession with UK that Putin and Lavrov exhibit.
According to Russia, Ukraine conducted “massive air and sea strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles against ships and infrastructure of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at the naval base in Sevastopol."
Not civilian cargo ships. Not “terrorism”.
Russia is holding food hostage, to demand that its Navy not be attacked.
Ridiculous and just plain dangerous to accuse the UK of destroying their war ships. Reckless just like the Russian warmongers.
nan said:
Russia also said that the same group who attacked these ships--Ukraine/UK--were the ones to blow up Nordstream. However, no evidence has been presented yet. They called for a joint investigation of these attacks. Twitter/internet rumors (not reliable but interesting) say there are taped Liz Truss phone calls but we will have to wait and see.
I thought it was supposed to be the U.S.
tjohn said:
nan said:
What no one is mentioning here is, because of these Ukraine(?) terrorist drone attacks on Russian ships, .
Please confirm that you just called a strike on a legitimate military target (Russian warships that, from time to time, launch cruise missiles at targets in Ukraine) a terrorist attack.
Also, I took UK out of your comments. You seem to have been infected by the same obsession with UK that Putin and Lavrov exhibit.
They were supposed to let the grain go out. They all agreed to that and it's a humanitarian mission. So, the Ukrainians bombing the grain boats is terrorism. I don't see how anyone can criticize Russia for quitting this program.
The Russians evidently have evidence that Nordstream was blown up by the Russians coordinated with the US. We will see if they show what they have. It's not an obsession--it's an accusation. We don't know if it is true, but they have called for an investigation. Don't see why they would do that if they did not have evidence.
nan said:
They were supposed to let the grain go out. They all agreed to that and it's a humanitarian mission. So, the Ukrainians bombing the grain boats is terrorism. I don't see how anyone can criticize Russia for quitting this program.
nohero said:
According to Russia, Ukraine conducted “massive air and sea strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles against ships and infrastructure of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at the naval base in Sevastopol."
Not civilian cargo ships. Not “terrorism”.
Russia is holding food hostage, to demand that its Navy not be attacked.
nan said:
tjohn said:
nan said:
They were supposed to let the grain go out. They all agreed to that and it's a humanitarian mission. So, the Ukrainians bombing the grain boats is terrorism. I don't see how anyone can criticize Russia for quitting this program.
The Russians evidently have evidence that Nordstream was blown up by the Russians coordinated with the US. We will see if they show what they have. It's not an obsession--it's an accusation. We don't know if it is true, but they have called for an investigation. Don't see why they would do that if they did not have evidence.
Ukraine bombed the grain ships? Where in the he1l are you getting your infromation?
btw - The UN, Turkey and Ukraine agreed to move 16 ships that are in Turkish waters. The three parties also agreed to inspect another 40 ships.
nan said:
tjohn said:
nan said:
The Russians evidently have evidence that Nordstream was blown up by the Russians coordinated with the US. We will see if they show what they have. It's not an obsession--it's an accusation. We don't know if it is true, but they have called for an investigation. Don't see why they would do that if they did not have evidence.
I don't think you meant to say "was blown up by the Russians coordinated with the U.S." In any event, you orignally said that it was Ukraine/UK. So now you're saying it's the U.S., the U.K. and Ukraine. Maybe you want to include a few more countries.
cramer said:
I don't think you meant to say "was blown up by the Russians coordinated with the U.S." In any event, you orignally said that it was Ukraine/UK. So now you're saying it's the U.S., the U.K. and Ukraine. Maybe you want to include a few more countries.
"It was blown up by NotRussia." That should cover it.
nohero said:
nan said:
They were supposed to let the grain go out. They all agreed to that and it's a humanitarian mission. So, the Ukrainians bombing the grain boats is terrorism. I don't see how anyone can criticize Russia for quitting this program.
nohero said:
According to Russia, Ukraine conducted “massive air and sea strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles against ships and infrastructure of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at the naval base in Sevastopol."
Not civilian cargo ships. Not “terrorism”.
Russia is holding food hostage, to demand that its Navy not be attacked.
That was the agreement. They don't attack the ships so they can get the food out. The Ukrainians are breaking the agreement so the Russians can't trust them and have stopped the food program. This is not "holding food hostage." This is refusing to be a sitting duck.
nan said:
That was the agreement. They don't attack the ships so they can get the food out. The Ukrainians are breaking the agreement so the Russians can't trust them and have stopped the food program. This is not "holding food hostage." This is refusing to be a sitting duck.
If you didn't read all of the words the first and second time I posted them, I'm not going to bother posting them a third time.
[Edited to add] They're trying a workaround without Russia. Ukraine, Turkey and UN move forward with preparations for departure of 14 ships from Ukrainian ports (msn.com)
cramer said:
nan said:
tjohn said:
nan said:
The Russians evidently have evidence that Nordstream was blown up by the Russians coordinated with the US. We will see if they show what they have. It's not an obsession--it's an accusation. We don't know if it is true, but they have called for an investigation. Don't see why they would do that if they did not have evidence.
I don't think you meant to say "was blown up by the Russians coordinated with the U.S." In any event, you orignally said that it was Ukraine/UK. So now you're saying it's the U.S., the U.K. and Ukraine. Maybe you want to include a few more countries.
I said the US was the most likely country. I don't think the Ukrainians could technically do it. If the UK did it, they most likely were instructed by the US.
nan said:
I said the US was the most likely country. I don't think the Ukrainians could technically do it. If the UK did it, they most likely were instructed by the US.
You are worming your way right into the rabbit hole. This is not the whatabout thread. Stay focused on one lie at a time. You’re sounding ridiculous.
nohero said:
cramer said:
I don't think you meant to say "was blown up by the Russians coordinated with the U.S." In any event, you orignally said that it was Ukraine/UK. So now you're saying it's the U.S., the U.K. and Ukraine. Maybe you want to include a few more countries.
"It was blown up by NotRussia." That should cover it.
No it was blown up by US/US_Proxy
Jaytee said:
nan said:
I said the US was the most likely country. I don't think the Ukrainians could technically do it. If the UK did it, they most likely were instructed by the US.
You are worming your way right into the rabbit hole. This is not the whatabout thread. Stay focused on one lie at a time. You’re sounding ridiculous.
These are not lies. These are guesses based on facts. Who do you think did it and on what evidence?
No, you are relying on sources of information which are either deranged or deliberately dishonest.