What's next, taking T-34s from the monuments? Upgraded with those funny wire cages on turret roofs because they r e a l l y made all the difference.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia
Collapse
X
-
Russia appears to be beefing up it's tank force in Ukraine with.....T-54s and T-55
Leave a comment:
-
It is completely ludicrous and totally irresponsible to see anything other than blatant aggression coupled with serious war crimes that have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people as ANYTHING other than Russia's responsibility at this point.
TENS of THOUSANDS dead and probably HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS DEAD. This would not be the case if the Russian military had not invaded. This was not caused by anything other than a megalomaniacs desire of Empire. He has basically said as much himself. To me this is case closed!
- Likes 4
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Berzerker View PostWhere did I claim that?
Originally posted by Berzerker View PostI said the separatists didn't want to be ruled by the coup backers
Your entire premise that this Donbas war and especially Russia's subsequent vast 3 sided invasion of Ukraine is an engineered proxy war imposed by Washington spycraft is absurd. From its very roots this war had direct Russian material and managerial support and direction. Even if it had not, the rebellion would have constituted an act of war through insurrection. Short of sending in an army to "liberate" the area like Russia tried to do, there is nothing Washington could have done to make or to allow peace in the area.
Furthermore, a signed peace agreement is not peace. The Separatists never complied with any of the agreements. You say Zelensky tried to implement the agreement and Nazi miltias under Washington control stopped him by threating violence. That's not what candidate Zelensky said. He said "The Minsk peace process, which has stopped: It must be restarted. It is a war with Russia, so the talks should be with Russia. It must be in the diplomatic format, with the presence of Western partners. We will never sacrifice our people or our territories." The problem Berz is that Russia claimed it was not bound by treaty as it was not a party to it. Russia had neo-nazi Alexander Zakharchenko and neo-nazi Igor Plotnitsky as the lead negotiators (and frequent Moscow visitors) on behalf of the Separatists who were led by non-Ukrainian resident FSB agent and Russian citizen Igor Girkin who had never lived a day of his life in Ukraine, let lone the Donbas. Russia also had fellow muscovite Russian citizen Mikhail Zurabov to separately represent Russia themselves. The OSCE also had a chair, represented by a Swiss Heidi Tagliavini and Ukraine had one chair for a Ukrainian to represent its interests. The agreement was thus the result of two Russian agents from Ukraine reporting to a Russian citizen FSB agent, one Russian diplomatic official, one Swiss and one Ukrainian. Russia had 3 out of 5 chairs, yet Russia claimed it was not a party to the agreement. You ask over and over why Russia would sign a peace agreement if it didn't want peace? It signed because it It flatly declared all along that it had no obligations under the agreement. Its signature said "our enemy Ukraine must meet these demands". How does that indicate Russia wanted peace? How does that indicate Russia wanted an end to the proxy war? It also signed to gain leverage to end the Sanctions against Russia. It clearly would not need peace to lobby for that. Russia refused to meet with Zelensky about the treaty and disavowed any obligations to it. The one time Putin met with a desperate Zelensky he refused to even discuss Minsk II or the earlier Minsk I. Russian soldiers were serving in the Donbas, reporting to Putin. This in addition to any Donbas originating soldiers who were also illegally present in Ukraine and had to leave per the Agreement. If Russia wanted a Minsk peace it would have to at least acknowledge the treaty obligations and it refused. When Zelensky didn't not "implement Minsk" it wasn't a broken promise. He had insisted all along that the Minsk process was stopped and it was incumbent on talks with Russia to proceed with it. Talks Russia refused to have. Russia willfully kept the war going Berz. The Russian trained and commanded Separatist army never stopped attacking Ukraine or receiving fresh supplies from the Russian border.
How does anything about Minsk make you think Russia wanted peace?
Originally posted by Berzerker View PostThen why did they agree to Minsk? About a 1/3rd voted for independence and a small majority voted for a Minsk-like deal
Originally posted by Berzerker View Post'April 2014: The Azov Battalion’s first violent attack was in April 2014 when it clashed with Russian-backed separatists in Donetsk'
Originally posted by Berzerker View PostSo a half year after the war started the Donbas told Moscow they needed help because local recruitment couldn't stop Azov. I thought the separatists were little green men.
Leave a comment:
-
How many missiles would it take before Russia managed to hit the building they are aiming for?
Leave a comment:
-
Dmitry Medvedev threatens to launch missile strike on ICC in response to war crimes warrant against PutinRussian Security Council Deputy Chair Dmitry Medvedev lashed out at the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Monday, warning on Telegram that Russia might respond to the body’s decision to issue an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin by launching a missile strike on its building in The Hague.
Kremlin threats are sooo 2022....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Geronimo View PostDauphin's right that the lack of interest in offering a narrow constitutional amendment to facilitate the court means that there must be more motive to dodging the court than just constitutional adherence. Claiming that dodging the court is purely about respecting the constitution would be like Russia claiming its refusal to negotiate the status of any part of the oblasts annexed from Ukraine is purely about respecting the Russian constitution's prohibitions against negotiating the status of any Russian territory with any foreign state.
In both cases the conversation shouldn't end with using the constitution as an excuse. Rather, if the constitution is really the barrier, the conversation would be how to fix that in a way that preserves the intended goal of the constitutional obstruction.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Geronimo View PostSo do you claim that the Separatists were unarmed?
Did uncle Sam round up and arm a bunch of Nazis christen them "Azov" and give them secret order to start a proxy war with Russia by attacking the unarmed Separatists? When did the Separatists get armed? Who armed them? You've said that the Separatists declared independence because they wanted peace. Historically not really the ideal way to obtain peace, especially in a state that is not at war IMHO, but whatever. If they wanted peace so bad why do we have no attempts to surrender? That seems like a legitimate pacifist response when attacked by a force that is not otherwise at war from a state you just declared independence from. Can you find a single instance of such a surrender?
They wanted to conquer the entire Donbas from Ukraine and make it part of Russia.
Azov was a brand new militia limited to Mariupol
In August 2014 however, before Azov did much of anything besides fight those Mariupol street fights with Separatist Neo-nazi militias, the Ukrainian government Anti-terrorist operation had almost reached the Russian borders. The neo-nazi street fighting was overrun by Ukrainian government forces. Peace was about to break out. The Ukrainian government forces weren't ethnic cleansing or genociding. They were literally taking the streets back from the gangs. Separatist "Minister of Defence" Igor Girkin (Muscovite employed by FSB) publicly warned that without Russian military involvement the Donbas republics would collapse. He said recruitment from the locals was failing.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
You should look into what is required to amend the Constitution in this country. (We reversed the Prohibition amendment roughly nine years after it was clear it was a mistake that caused us a LOT of damage)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BlackCat View Post
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Dauphin View PostI appreciate you are an an asshat and can't read. I said you can make an amendment. You choose not to, means it's not the constitution, but rather a desire to not offer up US citizens for prosecution
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: