|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 30, 2022 12:47:02 GMT -6
Wasn't it Hillary who was fed false information by Russian intelligence. You know that whole pesky Steele dossier. Oh and Presidents share classified info with foreign ambassadors all the time. It had to do with ISIS testing a bomb hidden in airport equipment, the only reason it was a story is the media were upset they were prohibited from publicly reporting the same. You are such a hack. They share after discussion with their . They also read the damned reports and ask questions. Trump wanted comic books.. What ? That is completely incoherent. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 30, 2022 12:50:56 GMT -6
He supposedly (according to John Bolton) asked his advisors what the consequences of a withdrawal would be. He never discussed actually doing it. You are just an idiot. If there is one thing leftists hate it's facts. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Mar 30, 2022 22:09:30 GMT -6
I am worried less about Ukraine than the the next threat(s). I think you, and all of us, should worry about what happens next in Ukraine. Fox has a military analyst named Jack Keane I really like. He's a former 4-star general in the US Army and unlike a many of the former military guys these networks run-out as talking heads, really seems to make sense. He thinks the Biden Administration is deathly afraid of the Ukrainians winning over Russia because of what it might lead Putin to do. He goes so far to suggest the Biden Administration is "slow-walking" military supplies and equipment to Ukraine to prevent them from pushing the Russians out. Think about what Putin will do if his army really starts losing. At what point will Putin use tactical nukes? Putin isn't going to accept a loss. Keane thinks the best result for Biden is if the Russians win enough territory (maybe the entire eastern half of Ukraine) that they go home happy. That's why no one in the Biden Administration wants to say the Ukrainians can win over Russia. What is Joe going to do if a tactical nuke is used in Ukraine? |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Mar 31, 2022 7:01:08 GMT -6
Putin won't use a tactical nuke. Prevailing winds would blow fallout over Russia. If he tried, I'd be more afraid of a military coup, as I'm sure his generals would advise against it strongly.
Any withdrawal would be spun as a win by their state media. As usual.
If he managed to use a tactical nuke, it would demand a response, so NATO would start lining its borders with troops (if they haven't already) and take over Ukrainian airspace, Russia would be removed from the security council and labeled a terrorist state. Of course, that means Putin would react...poorly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 13, 2022 9:19:58 GMT -6
Sweden and Finland are looking to join NATO.
Everyone is choosing a side.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Apr 28, 2022 16:45:02 GMT -6
"A leading Kremlin mouthpiece has warned that the West’s overt backing for Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory could lead not to Russia’s defeat but to the “total annihilation” of Ukraine" via the use of nuclear weapons. www.yahoo.com/news/top-kremlin-mouthpiece-says-russia-115702782.htmlHer exact words: “What choice do you leave us, idiots? The total annihilation of what remains of Ukraine? A nuclear strike?”"Putin himself got in on the threat in a speech to lawmakers in St Petersburg on Wednesday. “If someone intends to intervene in the ongoing events from the outside, and create strategic threats for Russia that are unacceptable to us, they should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast,” he said. “We have all the tools for this, things no one else can boast of having now. And we will not boast, we will use them if necessary. And I want everyone to know that.” It is not the first time that Kremlin leaders or propagandists have warned of a nuclear conflagration, although the threats have become ever clearer and less veiled as the war drags on." Hopefully this is all bluster and not a real consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 29, 2022 6:07:27 GMT -6
"A leading Kremlin mouthpiece has warned that the West’s overt backing for Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory could lead not to Russia’s defeat but to the “total annihilation” of Ukraine" via the use of nuclear weapons. www.yahoo.com/news/top-kremlin-mouthpiece-says-russia-115702782.htmlHer exact words: “What choice do you leave us, idiots? The total annihilation of what remains of Ukraine? A nuclear strike?”"Putin himself got in on the threat in a speech to lawmakers in St Petersburg on Wednesday. “If someone intends to intervene in the ongoing events from the outside, and create strategic threats for Russia that are unacceptable to us, they should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast,” he said. “We have all the tools for this, things no one else can boast of having now. And we will not boast, we will use them if necessary. And I want everyone to know that.” It is not the first time that Kremlin leaders or propagandists have warned of a nuclear conflagration, although the threats have become ever clearer and less veiled as the war drags on." Hopefully this is all bluster and not a real consideration. This is how Putin negotiates, through overt acts of machismo. Try to instill fear in your opponent with over-the-top statements, which gives you a stronger position to begin negotiations. By "strategic threats" he means NATO membership for border nations... like Ukraine and Finland. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 29, 2022 9:42:15 GMT -6
"A leading Kremlin mouthpiece has warned that the West’s overt backing for Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory could lead not to Russia’s defeat but to the “total annihilation” of Ukraine" via the use of nuclear weapons. Hopefully this is all bluster and not a real consideration. This is how Putin negotiates, through overt acts of machismo. Try to instill fear in your opponent with over-the-top statements, which gives you a stronger position to begin negotiations. By "strategic threats" he means NATO membership for border nations... like Ukraine and Finland. A lot of it is also for domestic consumption. He wants to be perceived as the strong man protecting the motherland. If it is to instill fear that seems to be working better in the US press than in Europe.
As a negotiation stance it adds little to the really powerful threat those nations face with Russia massing troops on the border, and his natural gas assets... His bluster is understood by the diplomats.
For Scandinavia they have made a national policy of not being any kind of threat, but if anything this latest Putin game seems to have ended that and they want in NATO.
The NATO nations are no real threat, except to the image of Russia as dominant over their neighbors and maybe that Putin narrative that Russia someday will recover their old empire. Russia has screwed up with its mafiosa government which isn't serving the people and they may envy their neighbors (especially Ukraine) but the people being restless about that is probably in large part why Putin has decided to just destroy the relative success story just across the border. Sure, if they succeed they will also have annexed substantial resources.
This whole idea NATO is a "threat" to him, I don't get. It just isn't an aggressive force unless you buy that the border countries really somehow belong to Russia? (I am not clear why the right wants to back his play so much on this.)
So this seems to be a Putin screw up on several levels unless he wins, and if he doesn't he has to somehow sell the home folks on his being a hero of a noble war some way.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Apr 29, 2022 10:01:33 GMT -6
This is how Putin negotiates, through overt acts of machismo. Try to instill fear in your opponent with over-the-top statements, which gives you a stronger position to begin negotiations. By "strategic threats" he means NATO membership for border nations... like Ukraine and Finland.
It just isn't an aggressive force unless you buy that the border countries really somehow belong to Russia? (I am not clear why the right wants to back his play so much on this.)
Would you care to clarify that remark ? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 29, 2022 10:56:20 GMT -6
It just isn't an aggressive force unless you buy that the border countries really somehow belong to Russia? (I am not clear why the right wants to back his play so much on this.)
Would you care to clarify that remark ? It's probably a minority on the right but it sure seems there is more support there than on the left. Maybe it's just the right wing FOX guy, Tucker Carlson, who is shilling for Putin, but there is support on the far right for Putin? Trump complicates things by his bromance with Putin, but who knows what that is about. He seemed to think it was genius hardball real estate dealing until the tanks started rolling.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Apr 29, 2022 10:58:42 GMT -6
Would you care to clarify that remark ? Maybe it's just the right wing FOX guy, Tucker Carlson, who is shilling for Putin............
Putin tangentially threatens to use nuclear weapons, Biden has stated multiple times he doesn't want an escalation with a nuclear power, therefore using your bizarre logic Biden must be shilling for Putin. Of course that doesn't really make any sense, but it makes as much sense as those idiotic articles you posted. You really are a moron............ |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 29, 2022 11:25:40 GMT -6
Maybe it's just the right wing FOX guy, Tucker Carlson, who is shilling for Putin............ Putin tangentially threatens to use nuclear weapons, Biden has stated multiple times he doesn't want an escalation with a nuclear power, therefore using your bizarre logic Biden must be shilling for Putin. Of course that doesn't really make any sense, but it makes as much sense as those idiotic articles you posted. You asked for some reasons Putin is being supported, the articles do show that.
Calling the articles idiotic, why?
As for why Biden saying we don't want nuclear war, I am not clear how that is shilling for Putin. He's not saying we back down from our policy, but drawing a line on how far the US will go to engage in active warfare in Ukraine. You oppose that?
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Apr 29, 2022 11:35:52 GMT -6
Putin tangentially threatens to use nuclear weapons, Biden has stated multiple times he doesn't want an escalation with a nuclear power, therefore using your bizarre logic Biden must be shilling for Putin. Of course that doesn't really make any sense, but it makes as much sense as those idiotic articles you posted.
As for why Biden saying we don't want nuclear war, I am not clear how that is shilling for Putin.
I clearly said Biden isn't shilling for Putin, and the fact is neither is Carlson or any member of Congress. Good God you are dense............... |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 29, 2022 11:48:58 GMT -6
As for why Biden saying we don't want nuclear war, I am not clear how that is shilling for Putin. I clearly said Biden isn't shilling for Putin, and the fact is neither is Carlson or any member of Congress. That's a quibble about words. If it's not shilling what is it? Those posts show where there is support on the right for Putin's position he is "threatened." And his claim his war has a basis? Actually voting against arms for Ukraine, what's that about? |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Apr 29, 2022 13:10:52 GMT -6
I clearly said Biden isn't shilling for Putin, and the fact is neither is Carlson or any member of Congress. Those posts show where there is support on the right for Putin's position he is "threatened." Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm...........................So you can't understand how Russia might find NATO missiles on their Western border threatening. I think Putin is a piece of shit, but get real NATO is in fact a threat to him. In fact NATO is designed to be a threat to the Eastern Block Powers, it's their sole purpose. No one is supporting Putin. Are you five years old ? |
|
