I googled it and as far as i read, 50% of congress OR 2/3rds of senate
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Love the part about believing Putin wont invade any other country after Ukraine because he said so.
I'd say the Ukrainians have learned this the hard way, from the 1994 Budapest Agreement to the present.
Nearly every argument except the inconvenient reality of nukes being involved in Russia/Ukraine, which wasn't a consideration for NATO and Kosovo.
Gary, the king of chess. It was easy to bomb Yugoslavia for situation in Kosovo that was nowhere near as deadly as what is happening in Israel for example. Just look at official civilian deaths in Kosovo war vs civilian deaths in Gaza since October 7th. People are still dying of cancer because of depleted uranium used in NATO ammunition. Why not bomb Israel, give Palestine independence and install a large NATO base in Palestine ? I know… whataboutism. 
As far Russia goes… Those feckers can fight back so it is difficult to discipline them into democracy.
As far Russia goes… Those feckers can fight back so it is difficult to discipline them into democracy.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He knew that brilliant Redcafe posters were onto him and needed to create a diversion.
Intervention in Kosovo made sense and needed to be done, situation is a bit different in Ukraine though.
Moldova 'next victim' in West’s hybrid war against Russia — Lavrov - Russian Politics & Diplomacy - TASS
Just seen this although its from November. Lavrov making ground for the next invasion.
Although, didnt Putin say he wont invade any other country after Ukraine..
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/03/politics/senate-immigration-negotiations-congress/index.html
The big take-away :
In interviews with CNN, a wide-range of House Republicans said that they would only accept a border deal that resembles the hardline immigration bill that passed their chamber last year – known as HR 2 – even though Senate Democrats and the White House strongly oppose that plan and call it a non-starter.
And some Republicans were even more direct, suggesting that any deal should be rejected if it could bolster President Joe Biden’s standing ahead of November.
“Let me tell you, I’m not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden’s approval rating,” Rep. Troy Nehls, a Texas Republican, told CNN. “I will not help the Democrats try to improve this man’s dismal approval ratings. I’m not going to do it. Why would I? Chuck Schumer has had HR 2 on his desk since July. And he did nothing with it.”
There you have it, they are just blatantly admitting that they will pass exactly nothing, no matter what the circumstances, all to make Biden look bad.
The big take-away :
In interviews with CNN, a wide-range of House Republicans said that they would only accept a border deal that resembles the hardline immigration bill that passed their chamber last year – known as HR 2 – even though Senate Democrats and the White House strongly oppose that plan and call it a non-starter.
And some Republicans were even more direct, suggesting that any deal should be rejected if it could bolster President Joe Biden’s standing ahead of November.
“Let me tell you, I’m not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden’s approval rating,” Rep. Troy Nehls, a Texas Republican, told CNN. “I will not help the Democrats try to improve this man’s dismal approval ratings. I’m not going to do it. Why would I? Chuck Schumer has had HR 2 on his desk since July. And he did nothing with it.”
There you have it, they are just blatantly admitting that they will pass exactly nothing, no matter what the circumstances, all to make Biden look bad.
"Gentlemen, an immovable Parliament is more obnoxious than an immovable king! You are drunkards, tricksters, villains, whoremasters, godless, self-seeking, ambitious tricksters. You are no more capable of conducting the affairs of this nation than you are of running a brothel!"
That's how I feel about Congress right now, especially when Republicans control the House.
Rest of NATO has to step up, but i doubt that they will, a dark year ahead for Ukraine.
I think there is also a need to include a couple of big players from the Far East as well. South Korea already supplies Poland with brand new tanks while Japan already ended the arms exports ban around a decade ago (Japan CAN sell weapons and they already do by selling homemade Patriot missiles to the US). Those Asian players should see this as a solid testing ground for their own hardware as well.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Where is the promised strong response from the White House? I remember them warning NK against supplying Russia with ammo/ missiles. What a weak and pathetic administration with non-functional congress, the remaining credibility of US is being embarrassed and shattered on the worldwide stage.
Obviously we may never know the truth of what happened in these early discussions but anyway, WSJ wrote an article. It seems the discovery of Bucha was a major turning point.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't think there's really been anything to even remotely suggest Ukraine has ever been open to a peace deal. His wording there even... "Ukraine blew its best chance for peace"... As if Ukraine would ever want "peace" under occupation.
Usual wsj pro-russian clickbait bull.
Yaroslav Trofimov is hardly pro-Russian. But you do you.
Nepal halts work permits for Russia, Ukraine after soldiers killed
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...sia-ukraine-after-soldiers-killed-2024-01-05/
Don't know or care who he is and wouldn't waste my time reading the article, just observing that's a pro-russian statement he's making. All too common from the wsj.
In fairness, he's saying republicans (and putin) are making that statement, i dunno if he's trying to insinuate there's some truth in it.
Last edited:
You are aware that he quotes the opinion of pro-Russian politicians, not his own, in that tweet?
Its a fairly common occurrence to dismiss the contents of an article without reading it if its published by a author they dislike or a newspaper that falls on wrong side of their political spectrum. I do it myself sometimes, but not doing it its great way not to be stuck in an echo chamber.
I just read it wrong, I don't have time to read full sentences, jeez.
You've missed the main point he was making: that the situation in Ukraine was partially precipitated by the U.S. meddling. Victoria Nuland, the Under Secretary of State, was caught on tape 'engineering' the next Ukrainian government, a fact inconveniently leaked out
(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957). There's probably a lot more where that came from.
From Putin's perspective, he witnessed a democratically elected government being overthrown and a new, unfriendly government installed, pulling the country toward NATO. He clearly communicated that this was unacceptable and that he would act accordingly. The US/UK/EU assumed this risk, but in my opinion, it was a miscalculation. Strictly speaking, there is no benefit for the US in admitting Ukraine to NATO; it's a situation that is more dilutive than accretive. What the West should have done was to take NATO off the table and slow-walk the EU talks. In 20 years, Ukraine could have been a member of both. However, under the current scenario, Ukraine might lose millions of people, become completely obliterated, lose territory, and probably end up as a failed state within the next decade. That's realpolitik for you.
Additionally, Putin didn't attempt a full-blown invasion. You don't invade a country like Ukraine with less than 200,000 soldiers—it's not feasible. In my opinion, he aimed to solidify control of Crimea, secure the two eastern regions, and intimidate Zelenskyy into resigning or accepting quick concessions. However, it didn't work as the Ukrainian Army is incredibly strong, resilient, and well-armed/trained, effectively countering his actions. That was Putin's miscalculation, and that could have been the time for peace talks and ending hostilities. The West pressed on, Putin regrouped, and the Russians, as they typically do, became stronger as the war went on (see WWII, 1941 vs. 1943, etc.). The reality is they are winning the war and no amount of wishful thinking could change that.
I am not pro-Putin; I am pro-U.S., but I realize that we should keep our powder dry for issues that matter and not get tangled into yet another useless conflict.
Wait until you find out what actually triggered the protests you are talking about.
But that's not true, he had his army march on Kyiv, his goal was all of Ukraine, that's why there was plans for Moldova next.
Also, how many times do we have to go over how silly the notion of "peace talks" is?
Firstly and most importantly, it's not the west that is pushing for this, Ukraine and it's people wants nothing to do with Russia, they want them out.
Also, how many times do we have to go over how silly the notion of "peace talks" is?
Firstly and most importantly, it's not the west that is pushing for this, Ukraine and it's people wants nothing to do with Russia, they want them out.
Putin didn't attempt a full blown invasion? Do you mean Kyiv was a "feint"? What were those troops coming in from Belarus supposed to do?
I know about the Nuland story by the way, it's the famous "Maidan coup" argument. I'm not going to pretend that what Nuland said or did was the smart thing to do but it's telling that 10 years after Maidan it's the only story wheeled out about this so called Western coup. The Nuland story in itself isn't necessarily the most convincing evidence of a Western full-blown effort to overthrow Yanukovych. Speaking about Yanukovych, who pressured him to not go along with the EU economic deal?
Forcing a regime change. It's the reason why Russia didn't open up broad frontlines but marched towards a few key cities.
To add to this - the idea that Putin is simply responding to the overthrow of Yanukovich seems to miss the broader point that Yanukovich was Putin's guy in Kiev. Once he realized he couldn't control Ukraine through a proxy, he invaded in 2014, and again in 2022 - this time attempting to overthrow the entire goverment and reinstall his own puppet.
Therefore his objective in Ukraine was never to peacefully live side by side with a sovereign neighboring country - it was always to expand the authoritarian Russian sphere eastward (a new mini Soviet Union if you like), as a means to ensure western democracy never reached Moscow, which would've resulted in his own overthrow and almost certain death.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
@Suedesi I try to sympathize with the general gist of your arguments. I really do. The problem in my opinion is the over-exaggerated focus on NATO. Putin didn't want Ukraine to sign an economic deal with the EU before Maidan happened. Putin doesn't want Ukraine in NATO. You tell me, what are the Ukrainians allowed to do without getting invaded?
Seems like the only way for Ukraine to have avoided war is remaining a backwater corrupt country under Putin's thumb. A developing and independently moving Ukraine is something that Putin would have always considered a threat, whether it's on economic policy or military affairs. That's how I interpret it anyway. Never mind all the crazy rhetoric on Ukraine's identity as a people espoused on Russian state television and by Putin himself.
Seems like the only way for Ukraine to have avoided war is remaining a backwater corrupt country under Putin's thumb. A developing and independently moving Ukraine is something that Putin would have always considered a threat, whether it's on economic policy or military affairs. That's how I interpret it anyway. Never mind all the crazy rhetoric on Ukraine's identity as a people espoused on Russian state television and by Putin himself.
Last edited:
Where Putin is concerned, we should be beyond guesses, or assurances, we should want guarantees.
The only way to guarantee he won't in the future, is to deny him the capability today. NATO has the resources and capability for that.
Right. They came in from the north, east and south while bombing the country. Sounds like a full blown invasion to me.
Peter Zeihan semes to think that Putin would move on the likes of Poland and Romania to block the potential invasion routes from outside into their heartlands if they win the war in the Ukraine. When that happens, NATO will have to involve (obviously) and the Russians will use nuclear weapons pretty quickly because their forces can't match the NATO's. So the goal for "The West' is to keep the Russians inside the Ukraine.
I would think that that is pretty much how most people think anyway at least at this point.
I would think that that is pretty much how most people think anyway at least at this point.
If that would be the plan, russia could just throw the nukes now
Russia is an unhinged country, who would no doubt continue grabbing territory, if they ever get their hands on Ukraine, but Poland? That ain't it, it has a strong army at this point, and they will only continue to get stronger in the coming years.
Russia might try one of the baltic states, and obviously Moldova, i doubt they will take Poland on, anytime soon though, they would get their asses kicked.
His viewpoint probably aligns with those who think that the West just gives enough aid to the UKR to keep the Russians busy there as long as possible so that Putin won't be able to touch any NATO countries for awhile.
But obviously, if Putin is able to overcome the UKR obstacle in this situation, it could give him some illusion that his military is good enough to do more.
I am going to point out again that Russia poisoned Yushchenko in 2004.
To be clear if you try to justify Russia's action because of Maidan in 2014 " oh what were the west doing interfering in the democratic process in Ukraine"
You have a hell of a hill to climb given Russian action predates it, and includes the attempted assassination of a candidate opposed to having Russian puppets as Ukrainian presidents.
It doesn't wash at all.
South Korea has provided more 155mm artillery ammunition than the whole EU for last year. I'm glad that South Korea are offering counterbalance to North Korea's efforts in supplying Russia, but this is just embarrassing for Europe.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date