How is Schröder not under investigation for treason? Openly a Russian asset for many years.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
It may take a long time, but those that carry this burden have secured a prosperous and free future for their children. I'm imagining a lot of investment and tourism. People flocking from around the world to hear incredible stories and do their bit to help rebuild.
Having zero tolerance for Russian/far-right propaganda gives them a unique opportunity to set an example to the world of what a democracy can and should be. Especially while having a 'not a cnut' politician to lead the way. EU membership will be a slam dunk once their borders are secure.
No, they will never see adequate reparations, but I expect their future is bright, or hope at least.
I suppose they would need to identify a tangible law that he's broken since being friendly with Putin is itself, probably not illegal.
Well the Turks had to learn from someone how to it right, didn't they?
I need help... I just can''t resist triggering him, it is just too easy
Because nothing he did as a politician appears to be treacherous. He made sure that Germany got a reliable energy supply from Russia, and good Russian/German relationships (especially personal relationships between the leaders) were often crucial for beneficial developments for Germany. In hindsight being close to Putin appears to be a mistake, but at the time there was broad support for it in Germany (and don't forget, that Putin himself appeared to be far more moderate than in later years).
Schröder left office in 2005, everything after that happened under Merkel as chancellor.
Exactly, he hasn't - any deal he made was beneficial at the time for Germany. There was a point in time when those deals should have been cancelled (in my opinion in 2014) - but that was much later.
If anything I think the other two names are more cause for concern, since Schröder is some dinosaur that's largely irrelevant today.
I certainly want to believe in a prosperous future for Ukraine. I understand when you say that national identity and spirit that has already been forged by this war, and would only grow in case of a victory, can drive the country forward in a way that wasn't possible before the war. But they need to win for this to be possible, and that's where I'm frustrated that they're not getting even more equipment, more supplies, more support.
Ukraine (Greece) supported a military coup d'état of Crimea (Cyprus) - which didn't belong to them - causing Russia (Turkey) to invade to ensure that Russian (Turkish) enclaves weren't attacked any longer like they had been at the beginning of the coup?
Top history lesson.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Bakhmut region looks better again after the last couple of days. Ukrainian forces advanced a few km on the flanks, the regular russian military seems to abandon their posts Wagner captured previously. Insane that Ukraine not only holds that position successfully, but also doing counter attacks. Fecking heros.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Regarding motivation, its a big if not huge part, Russians are thrown there from their every day lives to wage a mad man's war while Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland and existence itself.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Definitely. The only ones motivated to wage war on Russian side is Wagner. They are bloodthirsty mercenaries who live to fight, torture, kill and rape. The regular army was motivated only in the beginning, because they saw Ukraine as an easy target to loot and rape. Now they know better and I'm pretty sure most of them simply want to go home. That's why I expect they will start running as soon as Bradleys, Leopards and Challengers appear on the horizon. Their 5 layers of fortifications won't mean much if the troops won't fight to the death to defend them. At least, that's what the west is hoping.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This would be such a huge news if true, well done UK.
Is that the edgiest name for a missile ever?
....Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I think Ukraine will still want to wait for the cheap GLSDB (with a 150km range) to arrive first before pressing ahead with their plans. Undermining logistics to the point of collapse is the key. US better be quick in providing those, time is ticking.
Thankfully, it will be long over until then even if US population will be stupid enough to vote him in again.
Call me crazy, but I think Trump would have given Ukraine even more weapons than the Biden admin. His ramblings are just the usual opposition talk. Oldest rule in politics, if you want to get votes. You don't get them by supporting the current government. But remember his cruise missiles on Assad's military bases although Russian forces already supported Assad? I doubt Biden would have dared.
I can imagine his press conference after Putins missile wave: "Those beautiful, beautiful Ukrainian children were cruelly murdered. We give them anything they ask for, so they will never suffer such horror again!" Trump is a talker, but I believe he would have supported Ukraine all the way.
Trump said:
I can imagine his press conference after Putins missile wave: "Those beautiful, beautiful Ukrainian children were cruelly murdered. We give them anything they ask for, so they will never suffer such horror again!" Trump is a talker, but I believe he would have supported Ukraine all the way.
You forget that Zelensky didn't want to play ball on the Hunter Biden issue to the point that he withhold sending arms to Ukrraine if he would not do it. So I doubt that he would give everything to him. Mostly nothing and flip the bird to him
Your crazy
I will call you crazy since you asked…Trump (irrespective of kompromat rumours) relies on far right goons who love Putin’s anti-modern, anti-liberal agenda.
Not a chance. Trump is a transactional opportunist whose primary goal is self-aggrandizement, therefore he would've done just what he suggested last night. He would've cast himself as the arbiter of peace and in the process pressured the Europeans to "pay their fair share" just as he did with NATO nations when he was in office. Putin would've in turn interpreted Trump's actions as a tacit bat signal that he could use far more powerful weapons in Ukraine, because he assessed Trump wouldn't do anything about it, which would be an accurate assessment on Putin's part.
Could be of course, but how do you explain then his cruise missiles on Assad's bases when Putin already supported him?
You’re batshit.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It was the correct proportional response (well, two responses) to the chemical attacks by the Assad regime. There was no possibility of Russian retaliation imo. These were transactional.
I am with you on this topic. Trump surely acted and talked like a madman, but I think this is exactly what would have prevented Putin from starting the invasion. It is just extemely difficult to predict how he would have reacted and I don't think Putin would have dared to test it.
He thought he could calculate how the west reacted and miscalculated, but at least Putin was quite sure of the response.
I don't think it's that difficult to predict what Trump would have done. He wouldn't have helped Ukraine at all, probably on the excuse of 'America first'.
I think if Trump were elected he probably would end the war quickly as he says. He'd threaten to withhold all aid from Ukraine if they didn't bow down to whatever terms Russia offered.
It's a mistake to think Trump won't act like he talks. I think many made that mistake in 2016 of assuming he couldn't possibly act as bad as he talked, turns out he did much worse.
True. So let's listen to what he says. He says he would stop the fighting, he doesn't say that he wants one side or the other to win and I do think he maybe does not even care about that.
So how could it look if he wants the US to stay "neutral" but to stop the war? Simple! Just destroy everyone and everything still fighting! Let the Air Force shoot down every plane flying over Ukraine, let it bomb every firing piece of artillery etc. Easily announced in big words and simple sentences, perfectly transporting his ignorance to the world and actually stopping the fighting. That's the kind of plan I would assume Trump might be thinking about.
And of course he would be whining about America first and how the European NATO partners should do their part as well.
Trump's isolationism is real. It's not 100% consistent (killing Soleimani, bombing Syria), but it is one of his core views, however few he has. He doesn't think the US gets anything out of extending any real blanket of protection to anywhere in the world, and therefore he wants out. He doesn't want the Air Force to go fight for Ukraine.
A good thread about the Storm Shadow and what it can and can't do. I wouldn't expect it to be able to reach the Kerch bridge since it would have to cross large spaces of open water where it can't use the terrain as cover from Russian radars.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date