BashiChuni

any other fucking brain busters @raimius?

ukraine is a simple rook in the geopolitical chess game played by the west post WWII. a chess game where the west has demonstrated strong opening moves but disastrous long term strategic thinking. no one in the west, NATO, or the EU gives one flying fuck about ukraine or its people. they are a means to a end. to answer your question russia invaded after seeing nato (US) and the cia fucking around and finding out in the ukraine. "For years, the Kremlin made it emphatically clear that inviting Ukraine to join NATO would cross a red line that threatened Russia’s vital security interests." "Evidence grew in recent years that the United States had begun to treat Ukraine as a NATO ally in all but name. Steps included pouring nearly $3 billion in “security assistance” (primarily weaponry) into the country since 2014." "Predictably, such conduct ultimately produced a geopolitical explosion. U.S. and NATO officials used Ukraine as a strategic pawn against Russia and are now fuming with outrage at Moscow’s decision to go to war. Russia’s invasion was indeed a horrid overreaction, but it was far from being unprovoked. The Ukrainian people, unfortunately, are the ones paying a high price in blood for the gullibility of their country’s leaders and the shocking arrogance of U.S. leaders." https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-ukraine-war# standing by for "the CATO institute is a secret KGB run dis/mis/trans-information campaign! "The split between Washington and both Paris and Berlin about admitting Ukraine to NATO emerged clearly in 2008 when President George W. Bush lobbied ferociously for extending such an invitation. French and German leaders firmly opposed that step at the NATO summit. In her memoir, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recalled that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was especially outspoken, dismissing Ukraine as a “corrupt mess” and warning that a membership offer would dangerously provoke Russia. The allied opposition held, and the best that Bush could come away with was a summit declaration affirming that “someday” Ukraine would become a NATO member. " https://www.cato.org/commentary/making-ukraine-nato-member-all-name standing by for "Angela Merkel is a puppet of putin!"

it is true and has been confirmed by both sides. stop spreading misinformation.

you are picking which promises you want to be honored. we promised the Russians no more NATO expansion east. You never addressed that.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ar-BB1n6Myr weak.

was that promise voted on in the senate and formalized in a treaty? or was it a legally non-binding agreement? is ukraine a part of nato?

except you're not. snap.

nato expanding up to the borders of russia was provocation.

1. there is zero need for ukraine to join nato. it's incendiary and serves no purpose. would the US be upset if canada or mexico joined BRICS or the warsaw pact? to answer your question...possibly, but no way to know. i think he would have invaded before ukraine joined NATO (such as present day conditions). 2. ironic. generally yes, but historically when has the US kept promises? also which promise are you going to reference? "U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents"

NATO didn't need any more members...for what purpose? hope hundreds of thousands of ukranian lives were worth it. foolish. certainly not a "unprovoked" invasion.

"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that." "So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders" - NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg 07 Sep 2023 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

what does the Lord say?

there needs to be serious prison time.

the only side that needs to re-equip and re-arm ain't the russian side.

palenske fucks

seen it work both ways. depends on the relationship.

I’d bet a nice bottle of scotch it doesn’t go well.

“In another step in the creeping escalation, the US said sending military trainers” to participate in the War in Ukraine is “inevitable,” The New York Times (NYT) reported on May 16” “In addition to an ammo crisis, Ukraine is suffering from a manpower shortage, as undisclosed losses reach “catastrophic levels”, according to Ukraine’s former top general Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was removed from office earlier this year.” “So far, the US has rejected these calls but Brown said at a press conference that a Nato deployment of trainers appeared to be “inevitable.” “We’ll get there eventually, over time,” he said.” things seem to be going well!

Lawman I think we can both agree Ukraine is not winning. So if you want to say Russia isn’t winning then you’re playing word games. what if Russia’s strategy isn’t to capture Ukraine, but to drain them of manpower and equipment? If I had a 10:1 or 12:1 advantage I’d be happy to let the other side fight me in a war of attrition. You speak like you know exact Russian military objectives. In reality you know what we know. OH sorry jk you know secret stuff. anyway BL is Ukraine has no national security implications for the US. We shouldn’t fund or fight in that war. And if we do I wouldn’t want the current crop of US military leaders (who just lost a 20 year war) in charge.

Throw in some f-16s, M-1s, Bradley’s and victory is guaranteed! And a few more billion! Hell, sprinkle some American “advisors” on top for good measure.

OOPS!

The next scene of the play waits impatiently behind the curtains: ”NATO allies are inching closer to sending troops into Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, a move that would be another blurring of a previous red line and could draw the United States and Europe more directly into the war.” history repeats. ————— “While attending the Armed Forces Staff College in late 1964, just as the U.S. Army was gearing up to deploy its own combat forces to Vietnam, Col. Volney F. Warner attended a speech by the Marine commandant, Gen. Wallace Greene. Before he began his talk, Gen. Greene asked his audience of a hundred 100 majors and colonels a pointed question: “How many of you think that U.S. forces should be sent to fight in Vietnam and draw the line against communism there?” Virtually everyone in the audience raised their hands enthusiastically. Then Greene, a decidedly hawkish member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked a second question: “How many think we should stay out of Vietnam?” Six officers raised their hands … hesitantly. Warner was among them.“ “There are a few cowards in every bunch,” quipped the commandant. But those six officers weren’t cowards. They were soldiers and Marines who had recently returned stateside from tours of duty as advisers to South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) combat units. They knew from firsthand experience what the senior leadership of the American armed forces did not: That the ARVN officer corps, like the government it served, was riven by nepotism, corruption, and indifferent to the plight of the peasantry it was supposed to protect. Moreover, the ARVN was fighting a decidedly unconventional, “people’s war” against small units of guerrillas with tactics and doctrine developed by the U.S. Army for conventional conflicts between regular armies. Not surprisingly, it was losing”