• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Preemptive self-defence is a real term and it is what Russia does, among other things such as defence of russian population of Ukraine from regime in Kiev.
 
barbos said:
Preemptive self-defence is a real term and it is what Russia does, among other things such as defence of russian population of Ukraine from regime in Kiev.
Click to expand...
It's also the excuse Cheney and Bush Jnr used to illegally invade Iraq. Barbos must be so proud Putin is a modern day Dick Cheney.
 
Patooka said:
barbos said:
Preemptive self-defence is a real term and it is what Russia does, among other things such as defence of russian population of Ukraine from regime in Kiev.
Click to expand...
It's also the excuse Cheney and Bush Jnr used to illegally invade Iraq. Barbos must be so proud Putin is a modern day Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...
No, not also.
Russia had legitimate security concerns, US did not.
 
barbos said:
Patooka said:
barbos said:
Preemptive self-defence is a real term and it is what Russia does, among other things such as defence of russian population of Ukraine from regime in Kiev.
Click to expand...
It's also the excuse Cheney and Bush Jnr used to illegally invade Iraq. Barbos must be so proud Putin is a modern day Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...
No, not also.
Russia had legitimate security concerns, US did not.
Click to expand...
OK Hannity.
 
So stories are floating around that Biden has hit Russia's shadow fleet of oil tankers with sanctions. Near as I can figure, Russia's shadow fleet consists of about 630 old-ass rust buckets with dubious insurance coverage shipping oil primarily to India and China. The Biden administration started hitting ships individually with sanctions in 2023 after Russia found a workaround on the $60 per barrel price cap but then stopped in March of 2024 to ensure the price of oil didn't rise too high during election season, if you can believe that. But now the individual sanctioning is back on with 185 of those 630 ships specifically named. India and China will not accept these ships out of concern for getting hit with secondary sanctions if they do so. Okay. So now reports are at least 65 of these ships that were at sea dropped anchor with nowhere to go.

It was like pulling teeth trying to get amplifying information on this story. You'd think they'd provide some backstory and a bit of detail but no. Go fish. So I fished. And that's it in a nutshell.

What Dickhead might do once he's in office I've read nothing on.
 
barbos said:
Unemployed russian man from Kamchatka out scammed Biden the Dickhead administration out of 70K rubles.
Click to expand...
This is America. I remember massive corporations applying for the small business assistance during the pandemic. They got paid. The US Government clearly isn't omniscient. Just as the Russian military isn't omnipotent.
 
barbos said:
Patooka said:
barbos said:
Preemptive self-defence is a real term and it is what Russia does, among other things such as defence of russian population of Ukraine from regime in Kiev.
Click to expand...
It's also the excuse Cheney and Bush Jnr used to illegally invade Iraq. Barbos must be so proud Putin is a modern day Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...
No, not also.
Russia had legitimate security concerns, US did not.
Click to expand...
So, when is Russia going to actually take those concerns seriously? Russia has the capacity to lay down Kiiv to protect itself... yet, all this talk about protecting Russia from Ukraine, and Russia hasn't taken off the gloves... instead choosing a grinding invasion of attrition. Nothing has changed in Kiiv, so Russia would be under the same threat.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
barbos said:
Unemployed russian man from Kamchatka out scammed Biden the Dickhead administration out of 70K rubles.
Click to expand...
This is America. I remember massive corporations applying for the small business assistance during the pandemic. They got paid. The US Government clearly isn't omniscient. Just as the Russian military isn't omnipotent.
Click to expand...
It does not prevent US government from thinking that they can scam random russian dude in Kamchatka
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
barbos said:
Patooka said:
barbos said:
Preemptive self-defence is a real term and it is what Russia does, among other things such as defence of russian population of Ukraine from regime in Kiev.
Click to expand...
It's also the excuse Cheney and Bush Jnr used to illegally invade Iraq. Barbos must be so proud Putin is a modern day Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...
No, not also.
Russia had legitimate security concerns, US did not.
Click to expand...
So, when is Russia going to actually take those concerns seriously? Russia has the capacity to lay down Kiiv to protect itself... yet, all this talk about protecting Russia from Ukraine, and Russia hasn't taken off the gloves... instead choosing a grinding invasion of attrition. Nothing has changed in Kiiv, so Russia would be under the same threat.
Click to expand...
Things are changing in Kiev.
 
Mandatory read for you, neocons.
Authors are not pro-putin at all. But at least they don't deny the obvious that it was US who started all this.
Biden is a war criminal and a scumbag who should be put to trial, the rest of his administration as well.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Will Trump’s Foreign Policy Mirror Biden’s Blunders?

The U.S. is weaker and less secure after four years of Democratic government. Will anything change?
www.theamericanconservative.com www.theamericanconservative.com
 
barbos said:
Mandatory read for you, neocons.
Authors are not pro-putin at all. But at least they don't deny the obvious that it was US who started all this.
Biden is a war criminal and a scumbag who should be put to trial, the rest of his administration as well.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Will Trump’s Foreign Policy Mirror Biden’s Blunders?

The U.S. is weaker and less secure after four years of Democratic government. Will anything change?
www.theamericanconservative.com www.theamericanconservative.com
Click to expand...
Lol, you are so deluded. The article's authors clearly blame Russia for the war. They know Putin is a depraved psychopath and is responsible for the violence in Ukraine, they just think that Democrats are stupid for not recognizing Putin's psychopathy and predicting his unpredictable nature. Of course, you won't find any articles from THEM predicting Putin. And they would insist that the Democrats are stupid no matter what they did because that's the whole premise of that magazine.
 
zorq said:
Lol, you are so deluded. The article's authors clearly blame Russia for the war.
Click to expand...
No. I am not deluded, you are.
They clearly and unambiguously call Biden Administration liars,
Biden administration came up with this "unprovoked" invasion narrative, which was a lie.
US administration not only provoked it, they admitted it. And they lied about it of course becasue that's what they do.
From the article:
Although Moscow should not have threatened war, it responded to decades of reckless deceit by Washington and European governments.
Click to expand...

Square that with "unprovoked invasion"


The invasion was a criminal act (it actually was not, the authors are wrong here, but they are obligated to say that), but blame is widely shared. The cost was terrible. The proxy war launched by Washington and European governments has ensnared America in a conflict not its own and continues to risk expansion and escalation. Russia isn’t likely to chance full-scale war with NATO as long as it believes it is winning, but an accident or error could bring on the global conflict that no sane person desires. Biden’s hapless policy has been to hope that the Russian economy collapses before the Ukrainian army does.
Click to expand...
Square that with garbage you post here.
My only regret is that old ublyudok is too old and too senile and dies before people realize what a piece of shit he was.
 
Last edited:
barbos said:
zorq said:
Lol, you are so deluded. The article's authors clearly blame Russia for the war.
Click to expand...
No. I am not deluded, you are.
They clearly and unambiguously call Biden Administration liars,
Biden administration came up with this "unprovoked" invasion narrative, which was a lie.
US administration not only provoked it, they admitted it. And they lied about it of course becasue that's what they do.
From the article:
Although Moscow should not have threatened war, it responded to decades of reckless deceit by Washington and European governments.
Click to expand...

Square that with "unprovoked invasion"


The invasion was a criminal act (it actually was not, the authors are wrong here, but they are obligated to say that), but blame is widely shared. The cost was terrible. The proxy war launched by Washington and European governments has ensnared America in a conflict not its own and continues to risk expansion and escalation. Russia isn’t likely to chance full-scale war with NATO as long as it believes it is winning, but an accident or error could bring on the global conflict that no sane person desires. Biden’s hapless policy has been to hope that the Russian economy collapses before the Ukrainian army does.
Click to expand...
Square that with garbage you post here.
My only regret is that old ublyudok is too old and too senile and dies before people realize what a piece of shit he was.
Click to expand...

From the link the authors used to come up with their story about the war of Ukraine aggression:
The declassified U.S. record includes new evidence on internal American thinking, such as a specific calendar for expansion in one early September 1993 document from the State Department (see Document 2), up to and including the ultimate admission of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia to NATO in 2005, after the Central and Eastern Europeans and the Baltics. But Yeltsin’s September 15 letter contributed to intense debates on the American side, including the Defense Department rejection of the State Department’s calendar, leading to the Partnership for Peace idea rather than explicit NATO expansion in the fall of 1993. One October 5, 1993, document (Document 5) summarized the debate as between the “State approach to NATO expansion” or the Office of the Secretary of Defense approach, “partnership for peace with general link to membership,” and the latter became Christopher’s presentation to Yeltsin on October 22: partnership for all, not membership for some.

In January 1994, President Clinton told Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership for Peace was “the real thing now.” On the way to Moscow, Clinton delivered the famous “not whether but when” speech in Prague, which would be seized on by NATO expansion proponents in the Clinton administration to win the internal debate.[4] The declassified memcons of Clinton’s Prague meetings with the leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia show the American president arguing for the Partnership for Peace as a “track that will lead to NATO membership” and that “does not draw another line dividing Europe a few hundred miles to the east.” (See Document 11) Clinton candidly admitted to Vaclav Havel “there is no consensus now among NATO allies to extend formal security guarantees” because of uncertainty about which countries could contribute, and because “the reaction in Russia could be the reverse of what we want.”

Polish President Lech Walesa told Clinton (Document 12): “Russia had signed many agreements, but its word was not always good: one hand held a pen; the other a grenade. Yeltsin told the Poles in Warsaw last summer that Russia had no objection to Poland’s membership in NATO; he, Walesa, had a paper with Yeltsin’s signature to prove it. But Yeltsin had changed his mind. The Visegrad countries here represented, Walesa continued, kept their word; they had a Western culture. Russia did not.” Czech President Vaclav Havel immediately responded, “it was neither possible nor desirable to isolate Russia.”

The Americans kept trying to reassure Yeltsin. Quotations from President Clinton’s face-to-face conversations with Yeltsin in 1994, particularly September 27, 1994, at the White House, show Clinton “emphasizing inclusion, not exclusion …. NATO expansion is not anti-Russian; it’s not intended to be exclusive of Russia, and there is no imminent timetable…. the broader, higher goal [is] European security, unity and integration – a goal I know you share.”[5]
Click to expand...
So Russia had a history of breaking agreements before talk of NATO (including Russian inclusion) expansion began. It also shows the history of US non aggression and expressed efforts towards partnership for mutual benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom