What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** Official Russia vs. Ukraine Discussion - Invasion has begun *** (5 Viewers)

put me in the "lets stop killing people" category.

I don't understand alot about this war but I've skimmed wikipedia (which is likely not the best source) so I have a question here

2) One of the contingencies of it would be "free" elections in the occupied territories to see if they want to remain Ukrainian or revert back to Russia.
Are the Donetsk and Luhansk regions more or less pro-russian regions and the Ukraine is basically like "no you can't have that territory."?

Did this all start as a civil war?
 
put me in the "lets stop killing people" category.

I don't understand alot about this war but I've skimmed wikipedia (which is likely not the best source) so I have a question here

2) One of the contingencies of it would be "free" elections in the occupied territories to see if they want to remain Ukrainian or revert back to Russia.
Are the Donetsk and Luhansk regions more or less pro-russian regions and the Ukraine is basically like "no you can't have that territory."?

Did this all start as a civil war?
no
 
The nomination of Hegseth to head the DoD could be a positive indication for Ukraine as he has argued for faster provision of more US weapons to Ukraine for its defense against Russia.
 
The nomination of Hegseth to head the DoD could be a positive indication for Ukraine as he has argued for faster provision of more US weapons to Ukraine for its defense against Russia.
And the nomination of Gabbard is probably a negative indication.
The Director of National Intelligence is going to heavily influence Ukraine policy? That's quite a stretch.

The Director is required to "have extensive national security expertise" and "shall not be located within the Executive Office of the President."
 
The nomination of Hegseth to head the DoD could be a positive indication for Ukraine as he has argued for faster provision of more US weapons to Ukraine for its defense against Russia.
And the nomination of Gabbard is probably a negative indication.
Much more worrying is the allowance by the US of long range missile use into Russia (missile use, which, BTW, probably requires direct US involvement to use the system). Russia is talking nuclear provocation now. The current military/executive mindset on the Ukraine war is possibly catastrophic right before a change in administration.
 
The nomination of Hegseth to head the DoD could be a positive indication for Ukraine as he has argued for faster provision of more US weapons to Ukraine for its defense against Russia.
And the nomination of Gabbard is probably a negative indication.
Much more worrying is the allowance by the US of long range missile use into Russia (missile use, which, BTW, probably requires direct US involvement to use the system). Russia is talking nuclear provocation now. The current military/executive mindset on the Ukraine war is possibly catastrophic right before a change in administration.
It does not.
 
The nomination of Hegseth to head the DoD could be a positive indication for Ukraine as he has argued for faster provision of more US weapons to Ukraine for its defense against Russia.
And the nomination of Gabbard is probably a negative indication.
Much more worrying is the allowance by the US of long range missile use into Russia (missile use, which, BTW, probably requires direct US involvement to use the system). Russia is talking nuclear provocation now. The current military/executive mindset on the Ukraine war is possibly catastrophic right before a change in administration.
It does not.
You are correct, they do not require any US involvement.
 
The nomination of Hegseth to head the DoD could be a positive indication for Ukraine as he has argued for faster provision of more US weapons to Ukraine for its defense against Russia.
And the nomination of Gabbard is probably a negative indication.
Much more worrying is the allowance by the US of long range missile use into Russia (missile use, which, BTW, probably requires direct US involvement to use the system). Russia is talking nuclear provocation now. The current military/executive mindset on the Ukraine war is possibly catastrophic right before a change in administration.
Russia has talked nuclear provocation from day 1. The biggest failure has been being too cautious because of that saber rattling. Understandably to a degree considering the ultimate potential for world ending catastrophic results if it went bad but at the same point, if Ukraine was given the weapons and permission, we have slowly given them piecemeal over time then the course of this war would be very different right now.

Russia knows that they are hopelessly outmatched by NATO. They know that if they went nuclear, in the least, our conventional forces would wipe Russian conventional forces out in a matter of days out of occupied Ukraine. And at worse, that is the end of the world. Furthermore, China, which has a tremendous amount of influence over Russia as they have basically made Russia their female dog would obviously have no interest in having nuclear exchange to the extreme and they have made they very clear.

Putin has no interest in committing suicide. Nuclear war means he is no longer living, let alone not in power. Russia knows this is their one chess piece that we actually fear as their conventional military is laughably short of being a near peer threat.
 
The nomination of Hegseth to head the DoD could be a positive indication for Ukraine as he has argued for faster provision of more US weapons to Ukraine for its defense against Russia.
And the nomination of Gabbard is probably a negative indication.
Much more worrying is the allowance by the US of long range missile use into Russia (missile use, which, BTW, probably requires direct US involvement to use the system). Russia is talking nuclear provocation now. The current military/executive mindset on the Ukraine war is possibly catastrophic right before a change in administration.
Perhaps the system will be used on a limited basis and is more of a tool designed to strategically increase leverage prior to an attempted negotiated settlement
 
The nomination of Hegseth to head the DoD could be a positive indication for Ukraine as he has argued for faster provision of more US weapons to Ukraine for its defense against Russia.
And the nomination of Gabbard is probably a negative indication.
Much more worrying is the allowance by the US of long range missile use into Russia (missile use, which, BTW, probably requires direct US involvement to use the system). Russia is talking nuclear provocation now. The current military/executive mindset on the Ukraine war is possibly catastrophic right before a change in administration.
Perhaps the system will be used on a limited basis and is more of a tool designed to strategically increase leverage prior to an attempted negotiated settlement
Given the cost of the system ( :moneybag: :moneybag: :moneybag: ), they can't be splashing these around everywhere.
 
Reports Russia hit the city of Dnipro with the first icbm ever used in a war.
So they still work?
Evidently so. This is pretty big escalation.

There is some execrable decision making going on here.
I genuinely don't understand how so many people arrived at the conclusion that Ukraine is worth starting a nuclear war over. This is exactly the kind of irresponsible foreign policy that I thought I was voting against in 2020.

If this was actually an ICBM launch -- which seems to be disputed at the moment -- it almost certainly put our own nuclear arsenal on high alert. We should not be messing around with this.
 
Russia sent a volley of missiles at the eastern city of Dnipro on Thursday, Ukrainian officials said, the latest assault in a week of rising hostilities between the two adversaries.
Ukraine claimed Russia had used an intercontinental ballistic missile, which would have represented a significant escalation in its assaults. But several Western officials said that the weapon was not an ICBM and instead was likely an intermediate-range missile that flies shorter distances.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a private Western intelligence assessment.
The Ukrainians did not provide much detail on the strike, saying only that the missile had been launched from the Russian region of Astrakhan and was part of a volley aimed at Dnipro. The Russian Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia had attacked Ukraine with a new class of missile. “All the parameters — speed, altitude — match those of an intercontinental ballistic missile,” he said. “All expert evaluations are underway.”

A senior U.S. official said the weapon appeared to be an intermediate-range ballistic missile, adding, “But it is a new type we have been tracking.”
 
According the nuclear war book that everybody read recently, the US should have been able to distinguish between an ICBM launch and an intermediate-range missile launch instantly, so our unnamed senior military leaders probably know what they're talking about and Zelensky probably doesn't. Then again, I don't trust unnamed sources so who knows.

The reason why Russia launching an ICBM would be so bad is because while we can detect an ICBM launch instantaneously, we have no way to determine what it's armed with until it reaches its target. And honestly, even if it carries a nuclear warhead, we can't know for sure if it will even detonate. But if the US detects an ICBM launch, some guy in an underground bunker in Omaha is getting on the phone with the president and putting him on a clock. We shouldn't want that. And of course Russia doesn't want that either, which is why it's more likely that fired off a shorter-range rocket an not an ICBM. They know how our nuclear response works too.
 
Last edited:
Reports Russia hit the city of Dnipro with the first icbm ever used in a war.
So they still work?
Evidently so. This is pretty big escalation.

There is some execrable decision making going on here.
I genuinely don't understand how so many people arrived at the conclusion that Ukraine is worth starting a nuclear war over. This is exactly the kind of irresponsible foreign policy that I thought I was voting against in 2020.

If this was actually an ICBM launch -- which seems to be disputed at the moment -- it almost certainly put our own nuclear arsenal on high alert. We should not be messing around with this.
This world is going to be a much worse place to live if we abandon our role as a hegemonic military power and back down every time one of our enemies makes empty threats about nuclear action.
 
Reports Russia hit the city of Dnipro with the first icbm ever used in a war.
So they still work?
Evidently so. This is pretty big escalation.

There is some execrable decision making going on here.
I genuinely don't understand how so many people arrived at the conclusion that Ukraine is worth starting a nuclear war over. This is exactly the kind of irresponsible foreign policy that I thought I was voting against in 2020.

If this was actually an ICBM launch -- which seems to be disputed at the moment -- it almost certainly put our own nuclear arsenal on high alert. We should not be messing around with this.
This world is going to be a much worse place to live if we abandon our role as a hegemonic military power and back down every time one of our enemies makes empty threats about nuclear action.
How is the world a worse place if we let Russia keep the territory it has conquered? I'm genuinely interested in hearing why I should care about that. With specifics.

I know why it would matter if Russia attacked Poland, say. Poland is in NATO, so we have treaty obligations with them.

I know why it would matter if China attacked Taiwan. We have a longstanding military relationship with Taiwan, and we have lots of allies in the region who rely on us for protection. And Taiwan is economically important to the US.

Ukraine is just some random country. We have no treaty relationship with it, it has no strategic importance for us, and we have few economic ties to them. This is like if Chad attacked Central African Republic and stole 20% of their land. That would be wrong, but who cares, and why should we go to war over it? I don't get it.

More generally, what's the point of having a treaty organization like NATO if you're going to go to the felt for non-NATO countries?

I would be happy to take a link to a long-form article that makes the strongest possible case for why we should be so committed to Ukraine. I don't understand why people feel so strongly about Ukraine and nobody can give me an explanation that doesn't somehow involve Neville Chamberlain, which is a ludicrous analogy.
 
Last edited:
Reports Russia hit the city of Dnipro with the first icbm ever used in a war.
So they still work?
Evidently so. This is pretty big escalation.

There is some execrable decision making going on here.
I genuinely don't understand how so many people arrived at the conclusion that Ukraine is worth starting a nuclear war over. This is exactly the kind of irresponsible foreign policy that I thought I was voting against in 2020.

If this was actually an ICBM launch -- which seems to be disputed at the moment -- it almost certainly put our own nuclear arsenal on high alert. We should not be messing around with this.
This world is going to be a much worse place to live if we abandon our role as a hegemonic military power and back down every time one of our enemies makes empty threats about nuclear action.
How is the world a worse place if we let Russia keep the territory it has conquered? I'm genuinely interested in hearing why I should care about that. With specifics.

I know why it would matter if Russia attacked Poland, say. Poland is in NATO, so we have treaty obligations with them.

I know why it would matter if China attacked Taiwan. We have a longstanding military relationship with Taiwan, and we have lots of allies in the region who rely on us for protection. And Taiwan is economically important to the US.

Ukraine is just some random country. We have no treaty relationship with it, it has no strategic importance for us, and we have few economic ties to them. This is like if Chad attacked Central African Republic and stole 20% of their land. That would be wrong, but who cares, and why should we go to war over it? I don't get it.

(More generally, what's the point of having a treaty organization like NATO if you're going to go to the felt for non-NATO countries?)
Do you not think it was worth supplying Ukraine with aid to fight one of our geopolitical foes from pursuing a naked war of aggression? If yes, do you think it sets a good precedent to allow said geopolitical foe to bully us into withdrawing support for Ukraine with merely empty threats about nuclear escalation?

I'm not opposed to Ukraine entering into a peace deal and allowing Russia to keep what it's grabbed. That's a sunk cost at this point. But I do think it is imperative that we reestablish the type of deterrence with our enemies that has allowed the world to enjoy a historic era of peace since WW2. At one point I was sympathetic to more isolationist tendencies but I think we're seeing the scary impact of us withdrawing from the world stage as a feared military power.
 
Do you not think it was worth supplying Ukraine with aid to fight one of our geopolitical foes from pursuing a naked war of aggression? If yes, do you think it sets a good precedent to allow said geopolitical foe to bully us into withdrawing support for Ukraine with merely empty threats about nuclear escalation?
Bangladesh making nuclear threats is empty. Russia making nuclear threats is anything but, by definition.
 
Reports Russia hit the city of Dnipro with the first icbm ever used in a war.
On one side.... you would think this could not be true for many reasons but among them would be the wasting of their last actual useful military power they have (deterrence via nuclear war) on the other side, they have a lot of ICBM's that are rusting away and it sure would fit Russian MO of digging up every piece of rusting crap built in the 60's to throw into this war because they are running out of the ability to throw more than just men into these human wave attacks.
 
How is the world a worse place if we let Russia keep the territory it has conquered? I'm genuinely interested in hearing why I should care about that. With specifics.

I know why it would matter if Russia attacked Poland, say. Poland is in NATO, so we have treaty obligations with them.

I know why it would matter if China attacked Taiwan. We have a longstanding military relationship with Taiwan, and we have lots of allies in the region who rely on us for protection. And Taiwan is economically important to the US.

Ukraine is just some random country. We have no treaty relationship with it, it has no strategic importance for us, and we have few economic ties to them. This is like if Chad attacked Central African Republic and stole 20% of their land. That would be wrong, but who cares, and why should we go to war over it? I don't get it.

More generally, what's the point of having a treaty organization like NATO if you're going to go to the felt for non-NATO countries?

I would be happy to take a link to a long-form article that makes the strongest possible case for why we should be so committed to Ukraine. I don't understand why people feel so strongly about Ukraine and nobody can give me an explanation that doesn't somehow involve Neville Chamberlain, which is a ludicrous analogy.
I don't know a lot about this, but isn't the Budapest memorandum kind of meaning we would have their back if a country displayed hostility against them? Again, don't know a lot about it, and not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but if that was the case, sticking to your word would be kind of important.
 
Reports Russia hit the city of Dnipro with the first icbm ever used in a war.
So they still work?
Evidently so. This is pretty big escalation.

There is some execrable decision making going on here.
I genuinely don't understand how so many people arrived at the conclusion that Ukraine is worth starting a nuclear war over. This is exactly the kind of irresponsible foreign policy that I thought I was voting against in 2020.

If this was actually an ICBM launch -- which seems to be disputed at the moment -- it almost certainly put our own nuclear arsenal on high alert. We should not be messing around with this.
This world is going to be a much worse place to live if we abandon our role as a hegemonic military power and back down every time one of our enemies makes empty threats about nuclear action.
How is the world a worse place if we let Russia keep the territory it has conquered? I'm genuinely interested in hearing why I should care about that. With specifics.

I know why it would matter if Russia attacked Poland, say. Poland is in NATO, so we have treaty obligations with them.

I know why it would matter if China attacked Taiwan. We have a longstanding military relationship with Taiwan, and we have lots of allies in the region who rely on us for protection. And Taiwan is economically important to the US.

Ukraine is just some random country. We have no treaty relationship with it, it has no strategic importance for us, and we have few economic ties to them. This is like if Chad attacked Central African Republic and stole 20% of their land. That would be wrong, but who cares, and why should we go to war over it? I don't get it.

More generally, what's the point of having a treaty organization like NATO if you're going to go to the felt for non-NATO countries?

I would be happy to take a link to a long-form article that makes the strongest possible case for why we should be so committed to Ukraine. I don't understand why people feel so strongly about Ukraine and nobody can give me an explanation that doesn't somehow involve Neville Chamberlain, which is a ludicrous analogy.

What level of involvement in a non-treaty/allied country would you be comfortable with if another country was being invaded?

I don't believe we should have American soldiers in Ukraine; nor do I think we should start a nuclear war over the country; but to me, our limited involvement here is acceptable.
 
Why is Putin going so hard now? With Biden leaving and trump coming in...there's an almost universal understanding this war will be over sooner than later. What would be the motives for Putin to do this now?
 
Do you not think it was worth supplying Ukraine with aid to fight one of our geopolitical foes from pursuing a naked war of aggression? If yes, do you think it sets a good precedent to allow said geopolitical foe to bully us into withdrawing support for Ukraine with merely empty threats about nuclear escalation?
Bangladesh making nuclear threats is empty. Russia making nuclear threats is anything but, by definition.
No, Russia understands the gravity of the use of these weapons and in the case of this conflict has been making threats it won't carry through on for purposes of getting us to back off. It's an empty threat if there's no significant likelihood of follow through, even if it comes from a nuclear power. The counter position of backing off every time Russia threatens the use of weapons is totally untenable.
 
Reports Russia hit the city of Dnipro with the first icbm ever used in a war.
So they still work?
Evidently so. This is pretty big escalation.

There is some execrable decision making going on here.
I genuinely don't understand how so many people arrived at the conclusion that Ukraine is worth starting a nuclear war over. This is exactly the kind of irresponsible foreign policy that I thought I was voting against in 2020.

If this was actually an ICBM launch -- which seems to be disputed at the moment -- it almost certainly put our own nuclear arsenal on high alert. We should not be messing around with this.
This world is going to be a much worse place to live if we abandon our role as a hegemonic military power and back down every time one of our enemies makes empty threats about nuclear action.
How is the world a worse place if we let Russia keep the territory it has conquered? I'm genuinely interested in hearing why I should care about that. With specifics.

I know why it would matter if Russia attacked Poland, say. Poland is in NATO, so we have treaty obligations with them.

I know why it would matter if China attacked Taiwan. We have a longstanding military relationship with Taiwan, and we have lots of allies in the region who rely on us for protection. And Taiwan is economically important to the US.

Ukraine is just some random country. We have no treaty relationship with it, it has no strategic importance for us, and we have few economic ties to them. This is like if Chad attacked Central African Republic and stole 20% of their land. That would be wrong, but who cares, and why should we go to war over it? I don't get it.

(More generally, what's the point of having a treaty organization like NATO if you're going to go to the felt for non-NATO countries?)
Do you not think it was worth supplying Ukraine with aid to fight one of our geopolitical foes from pursuing a naked war of aggression? If yes, do you think it sets a good precedent to allow said geopolitical foe to bully us into withdrawing support for Ukraine with merely empty threats about nuclear escalation?

I'm not opposed to Ukraine entering into a peace deal and allowing Russia to keep what it's grabbed. That's a sunk cost at this point. But I do think it is imperative that we reestablish the type of deterrence with our enemies that has allowed the world to enjoy a historic era of peace since WW2. At one point I was sympathetic to more isolationist tendencies but I think we're seeing the scary impact of us withdrawing from the world stage as a feared military power.
Yeah, I've been 100% fine with sending arms to Ukraine since the beginning of all of this. There's a very long precedent for that sort of thing, with notable examples including the US arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan and the Soviets arming the North Vietnamese. I'm still fine with that. But . . .

a) There are obviously lines that I'm not willing to cross. "Here, go attack the Russian homeland " is walking right up to that line. We would respond very strongly to direct attacks on the United States, so we should all be able to see why that is a massive escalation.

b) When Russia invaded Ukraine, we thought they would succeed and that there was a real chance of Russia making further moves in Europe. We now know that those concerns were baseless. Russia's military is pathetic. It poses no threat to NATO aside from its nuclear arsenal. That's why I'm getting so irritated at the WWII analogies. We know that Hitler was capable of conquering Europe because he did actually conquer Europe. Russia got its *** handed to it by a nobody country like Ukraine. The EU would kick the ever-loving **** out of Russia if it somehow came to that.
 
Why is Putin going so hard now? With Biden leaving and trump coming in...there's an almost universal understanding this war will be over sooner than later. What would be the motives for Putin to do this now?
Some theories:
1. He is escalating because Ukraine is escalating. Ukraine is now firing missiles into Russia and he is responding.
2. He wants to grab as much territory as possible since most peace proposals have Russia keeping the territory it has captured.
3. He has no intention of agreeing to any peace proposal.
 

b) When Russia invaded Ukraine, we thought they would succeed and that there was a real chance of Russia making further moves in Europe. We now know that those concerns were baseless. Russia's military is pathetic. It poses no threat to NATO aside from its nuclear arsenal. That's why I'm getting so irritated at the WWII analogies. We know that Hitler was capable of conquering Europe because he did actually conquer Europe. Russia got its *** handed to it by a nobody country like Ukraine. The EU would kick the ever-loving **** out of Russia if it somehow came to that.
I don't agree this is a foregone conclusion. The EU is a crap show. And I think we even overestimate the United States' capability to comfortably win in a protracted slugfest like the one Ukraine is engaged in. Our military is optimized for shorter conflicts against overpowered foes and our industrial base that is necessary to support a lengthy land war has been totally hollowed out. History has been almost universally unkind to predictions like, "we'd walk all over that opponent in a few days."
 
Why is Putin going so hard now? With Biden leaving and trump coming in...there's an almost universal understanding this war will be over sooner than later. What would be the motives for Putin to do this now?
The expectation from both Ukraine and Russia is that Trump will force them to the negotiation table. I find the fact that both sides believe that and acting on that to be extremely interesting but really any discussion of that will hit the politics gestapo wall.

Putin wants Ukraine out of Russia and as much Ukrainian land as possible to go into negotiations with a stronger hand. Ukraine wants the opposite and holding Russian land is more valuable than taking back Ukrainian land at this point (and was easier too).
 
Reports Russia hit the city of Dnipro with the first icbm ever used in a war.
So they still work?
Evidently so. This is pretty big escalation.

There is some execrable decision making going on here.
I genuinely don't understand how so many people arrived at the conclusion that Ukraine is worth starting a nuclear war over. This is exactly the kind of irresponsible foreign policy that I thought I was voting against in 2020.

If this was actually an ICBM launch -- which seems to be disputed at the moment -- it almost certainly put our own nuclear arsenal on high alert. We should not be messing around with this.
This world is going to be a much worse place to live if we abandon our role as a hegemonic military power and back down every time one of our enemies makes empty threats about nuclear action.
How is the world a worse place if we let Russia keep the territory it has conquered? I'm genuinely interested in hearing why I should care about that. With specifics.

I know why it would matter if Russia attacked Poland, say. Poland is in NATO, so we have treaty obligations with them.

I know why it would matter if China attacked Taiwan. We have a longstanding military relationship with Taiwan, and we have lots of allies in the region who rely on us for protection. And Taiwan is economically important to the US.

Ukraine is just some random country. We have no treaty relationship with it, it has no strategic importance for us, and we have few economic ties to them. This is like if Chad attacked Central African Republic and stole 20% of their land. That would be wrong, but who cares, and why should we go to war over it? I don't get it.

(More generally, what's the point of having a treaty organization like NATO if you're going to go to the felt for non-NATO countries?)
Do you not think it was worth supplying Ukraine with aid to fight one of our geopolitical foes from pursuing a naked war of aggression? If yes, do you think it sets a good precedent to allow said geopolitical foe to bully us into withdrawing support for Ukraine with merely empty threats about nuclear escalation?

I'm not opposed to Ukraine entering into a peace deal and allowing Russia to keep what it's grabbed. That's a sunk cost at this point. But I do think it is imperative that we reestablish the type of deterrence with our enemies that has allowed the world to enjoy a historic era of peace since WW2. At one point I was sympathetic to more isolationist tendencies but I think we're seeing the scary impact of us withdrawing from the world stage as a feared military power.
Yeah, I've been 100% fine with sending arms to Ukraine since the beginning of all of this. There's a very long precedent for that sort of thing, with notable examples including the US arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan and the Soviets arming the North Vietnamese. I'm still fine with that. But . . .

a) There are obviously lines that I'm not willing to cross. "Here, go attack the Russian homeland " is walking right up to that line. We would respond very strongly to direct attacks on the United States, so we should all be able to see why that is a massive escalation.

b) When Russia invaded Ukraine, we thought they would succeed and that there was a real chance of Russia making further moves in Europe. We now know that those concerns were baseless. Russia's military is pathetic. It poses no threat to NATO aside from its nuclear arsenal. That's why I'm getting so irritated at the WWII analogies. We know that Hitler was capable of conquering Europe because he did actually conquer Europe. Russia got its *** handed to it by a nobody country like Ukraine. The EU would kick the ever-loving **** out of Russia if it somehow came to that.


It's my understanding that if France and Britain had put their foot down in 36 in the Rhineland, Germany wouldn't have been able to stand up to them. It wasn't until after that that Germany realized the rest of the world was more interested in peace than a potential war. Granted, Germany didn't get their *** handed to them in trying to occupy the Rhineland or any of the other territories it took before invading Poland; but I don't think it's outside the realm of reasonability for Putin and his military to learn from the mistakes they made here and rectify them if/when he's interested in expansion.
 
There are claims that suggest the US was very active in propping up an anti-Russian shadow government in Ukraine. These claims suggest this as the reason Putin invaded and not that he is some madman trying to expand his territory.

They still acknowledge that Putin is 100% wrong, it is just a discussion on his motivation.

I don’t know what to make of this other than to know there is a lot I don’t know.

For those interested, look on YouTube for RFK Jr on the Howie Mandel show (seriously) and also a Rogan episode about it.

IF (capital letters) there is ANY merit to this train of thought, a US promise to stop meddling in the region could go a long way toward a peace agreement.

These videos claim that before the invasion Russia had worked out a deal with Ukraine and once the West got involved Ukraine backed out.
 
There are claims that suggest the US was very active in propping up an anti-Russian shadow government in Ukraine. These claims suggest this as the reason Putin invaded and not that he is some madman trying to expand his territory.

They still acknowledge that Putin is 100% wrong, it is just a discussion on his motivation.

I don’t know what to make of this other than to know there is a lot I don’t know.

For those interested, look on YouTube for RFK Jr on the Howie Mandel show (seriously) and also a Rogan episode about it.

IF (capital letters) there is ANY merit to this train of thought, a US promise to stop meddling in the region could go a long way toward a peace agreement.

These videos claim that before the invasion Russia had worked out a deal with Ukraine and once the West got involved Ukraine backed out.
I would encourage you to find more credible sources on Ukraine than RFKJ.
 
There are claims that suggest the US was very active in propping up an anti-Russian shadow government in Ukraine. These claims suggest this as the reason Putin invaded and not that he is some madman trying to expand his territory.

They still acknowledge that Putin is 100% wrong, it is just a discussion on his motivation.

I don’t know what to make of this other than to know there is a lot I don’t know.

For those interested, look on YouTube for RFK Jr on the Howie Mandel show (seriously) and also a Rogan episode about it.

IF (capital letters) there is ANY merit to this train of thought, a US promise to stop meddling in the region could go a long way toward a peace agreement.

These videos claim that before the invasion Russia had worked out a deal with Ukraine and once the West got involved Ukraine backed out.
I would encourage you to find more credible sources on Ukraine than RFKJ.
Maybe his brain worm told him Ukrainian secrets.
 
There are claims that suggest the US was very active in propping up an anti-Russian shadow government in Ukraine. These claims suggest this as the reason Putin invaded and not that he is some madman trying to expand his territory.

They still acknowledge that Putin is 100% wrong, it is just a discussion on his motivation.

I don’t know what to make of this other than to know there is a lot I don’t know.

For those interested, look on YouTube for RFK Jr on the Howie Mandel show (seriously) and also a Rogan episode about it.

IF (capital letters) there is ANY merit to this train of thought, a US promise to stop meddling in the region could go a long way toward a peace agreement.

These videos claim that before the invasion Russia had worked out a deal with Ukraine and once the West got involved Ukraine backed out.
I would encourage you to find more credible sources on Ukraine than RFKJ.
Agreed.

After some research I have found many articles confirming that Ukraine and Russia had the framework for a peace deal in place in April 2022 and Ukraine was advised not to accept by the UK and US.

Point being that maybe it is possible with US support that a deal can be worked quickly. Whether that is a good deal for Ukraine, I am too ignorant to know.
 
There are claims that suggest the US was very active in propping up an anti-Russian shadow government in Ukraine. These claims suggest this as the reason Putin invaded and not that he is some madman trying to expand his territory.

They still acknowledge that Putin is 100% wrong, it is just a discussion on his motivation.

I don’t know what to make of this other than to know there is a lot I don’t know.

For those interested, look on YouTube for RFK Jr on the Howie Mandel show (seriously) and also a Rogan episode about it.

IF (capital letters) there is ANY merit to this train of thought, a US promise to stop meddling in the region could go a long way toward a peace agreement.

These videos claim that before the invasion Russia had worked out a deal with Ukraine and once the West got involved Ukraine backed out.
I would encourage you to find more credible sources on Ukraine than RFKJ.
Agreed.

After some research I have found many articles confirming that Ukraine and Russia had the framework for a peace deal in place in April 2022 and Ukraine was advised not to accept by the UK and US.

Point being that maybe it is possible with US support that a deal can be worked quickly. Whether that is a good deal for Ukraine, I am too ignorant to know.
Keep looking
 

U.S. Embassy Closes, Orders Evacuation Over Airstrike Intelligence​


The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine issued an alert on Wednesday, warning of credible intelligence suggesting an imminent large-scale airstrike. In response, the embassy announced its closure and ordered staff to evacuate.

On Wednesday, a security alert posted on the embassy’s website cited specific information about a potential major airstrike.

As a precaution, the embassy will remain closed, and staff have been directed to seek shelter. The diplomatic mission also strongly urged U.S. citizens to prepare for immediate evacuation in the event of air raid sirens.
 

Military help for Ukraine 'too sensitive', but rep office a goal, Taiwan envoy says​


BERLIN (Reuters) - Taiwan is not involved in military assistance for Ukraine as it is "too sensitive" but would like to establish a representative office in the country, Taiwan Deputy Foreign Minister Francois Wu said.

Taiwan has offered strong moral support to Ukraine since Russia's invasion two years ago, seeing parallels with the threat Taipei says it faces from its neighbour China, which views the democratically governed island as its own territory, a claim Taiwan's government rejects.


Taiwan has provided millions in dollars of humanitarian aid for Ukrainian refugees and joined in Western-led sanctions on Russia. While senior Taiwan officials have spoken directly with some city mayors, there has been no acknowledged direct contact between the two governments.

Speaking to Reuters on Wednesday during a visit to Berlin, Wu, who until August was Taiwan's high-profile de facto ambassador in Paris, said Taiwan's goal was to win as many friends as possible.

"Ukraine, even while receiving Taiwan's support and sensing hostility from China - since China collaborates with Russia, which continues its war against Ukraine - is very careful about its relationship with Taiwan," he said.

"There is a fear within Ukraine that angering China could lead to closer China-Russia collaboration, intensifying military pressure."

Last year, China, which has not condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine, put forward a 12-point paper that set out general principles for ending the war, but did not get into specifics. China did not attend a Swiss peace conference on the war earlier this year.

Wu said Taiwan is focusing on developing relationships with Ukraine through its neighbours and providing humanitarian aid.

"However, military assistance is still too sensitive, so I don't think we're working on security equipment with Ukraine just yet."

Taiwan's defence minister said last week it was up to the United States to decide what to do with Taiwan's decommissioned HAWK anti-aircraft missiles, when asked if they would be transferred to Ukraine.

In Europe, Taiwan only maintains formal diplomatic relations with the Vatican. But it has de facto embassies in many European countries, including Russia, though not in Ukraine. There is no Ukraine representative office in Taipei either.

China regularly denounces any kind of interaction between Taiwan and other countries, and in 2021 Lithuania infuriated Beijing by allowing Taiwan to open a representative office in its capital Vilnius.


"We are also doing our utmost to develop relations with Ukraine. But for now, we haven't gone as far as establishing a representative office. Perhaps in the future - it's certainly Taiwan's wish - but for now, I don't think we are there yet," Wu said.
 

Priority target: Russia threatens Poland over US base opening​


Recently, a new US missile defense base, Aegis Ashore, was opened on the territory of Poland. The Russian Federation began threatening Warsaw with a "potential strike", Maria Zakharova, Spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, states.

"The missile defense base in Poland has long been added to the list of priority targets for potential strikes, which can be ensured, if necessary, by a wide range of the latest weapons," Zakharova said.

A spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry also added that the United States allegedly continues to provoke Russia and contribute to "increasing tensions and strategic risks".

US base in Poland

On November 13, the US Aegis Ashore missile defense base was officially opened in the village of Redzikowo, located in the Pomeranian Voivodeship in northern Poland.

Key Polish officials, including President Andrzej Duda, Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak, and Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, attended the opening ceremony. Admiral Stuart Munsch of the US Navy and Ambassador Mark Brzezinski visited the event from the US side.

As Sikorski noted, the idea of establishing the base came from Republican US President George W. Bush. Construction began under Barack Obama's Democratic administration, continued during Donald Trump's presidency, and was completed under the leadership of Joe Biden.

Russia's threats

Russia has repeatedly used rhetoric of threats, including nuclear ones, as a part of its foreign policy, especially since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Kremlin seeks to intimidate both Ukraine and its international allies, demonstrating a readiness to escalate.

In addition to nuclear threats, Russia actively spreads conventional threats, including destabilization efforts in other countries, energy blackmail, and disinformation campaigns.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top