Posted on 10/11/2022 9:50:11 AM PDT by JonPreston
except regaining occupied territory
My guess is the Kerch bridge will be toast after Ukraine gets longer range missiles and better air defense. They would also help defend against any future attack from Belarus. The Ukrainians will still have to make progress on the ground in the east and south to press the issue. Looks like Wagner is trying to prove a point at Bakhmut, but they have only advanced about 2km at very high cost, but that’s still a variable.
“Afganistan (who know’s why)”
Because Russia invaded Afghanistan last century to prop up the Communist leader of Afghanistab who was loosing support. Ten years of unsuccesful war, retreat of Russia, and civil war, and Taliban, and 9/11. That’s why.
+100
Killing more of the Russians who are occupying it's territory isn't "nothing.". And that's what they're going to keep doing.
People have no concept of preventing problems before they
fester and grow to be much worse problems.
The next time the Taliban does something wrong, you’ll find
this same group blaming in on the U.S.
Never mind that we helped them against Russia, before their
Taliban group was formed. (if it was formed earlier than
I knew, it still applies)
Your post #12, containing the Russian demands, is exactly why negotiations at this time are utterly pointless. The Russians are insisting on conditions to which Ukraine (rightly) will never agree.
In their negotiations Putin will be taking candy from a baby.
The big guy needs the 10% so he can build his mansion next to Obama’s on Martha’s Vineyard.
Repeating what the Russians are actually saying. Of course, when you’re trying to decide whether to push nuclear war who wants to know what the other side’s position is? Although the big guy’s lies and what you gobble down at the media masters feeding trough might be enough for you media stooges, I’d like to actually hear both sides’ disinfo.
From viewing a lot of the post explosion footage, it appears the explosion took place on top of the ruined road bed. There are matching smudges of black on the fallen piece of road and on the surviving road. There were views of the underside of the fallen road piece and the surviving road. I could not see any damage that suggested a major explosion under the roads.
“This war will now have to be fought to a conclusion.”
So says the person who has never fought in a war or been a civilian caught in the middle of a war.
It’s easy to talk tough when you have no skin in the game.
Possibly, but Biden’s addled brain is now gung-ho for war and I think that he (well, his handlers) see this as a way to make NATO into the EU’s army, controlled by the US.
I don’t think anybody among the Dems is really interested in peace because this has been so useful to them. I actually saw one of their great brains say something positive about the possibilities of a “limited nuclear war,” so I’d guess that tells us all we need to know.
That is not happening. The disciples of George Soros and Lying Joe Biden have to do their bidding. And there is too much dirty money being made by George Soros and the Bidens for the fighting to stop. They make X numbers of dollars from every death.
Anyway, after an awful lot of utter cockwombling, Putin finally gets down to brass tacks: his demands. Note they're not aimed at Ukraine, they're all aimed at NATO.
First, to prevent further NATO expansion.
Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders.
And finally, rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they
were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.
On point 1: NATO expansion is nothing to do with Moscow and NATO was never going to say yes to this, under any circumstances, ever, no matter who demands it. The idea that a mutual defence treaty organisation can have a third party tell it who can and can't join is completely demented - I'm sure when NATO heard him say this they thought, he must be on 'shrooms.
On point 2: "Russian borders" don't include the borders on the WEST sides of any NATO or non-NATO countries west of Russia. So Putin's demand here is a bit daft - basically he's saying it's fine for Ukraine to have NATO assault weapons on its territory as long as they're not along the eastern border. Which they weren't, and were unlikely ever to be. NATO could've easily said yes to this without changing anything it was already doing.
On point 3: Putin should've re-read the Founding Act before citing it - it acknowledged NATO expansion but also indicated this wouldn't be a problem because NATO and Russia were not enemies; the whole point of the agreement was to create PARTNERSHIP. Thanks, Vlad - I was sure I'd missed a treaty that you'd signed that reinforced commitments you reneged on. Yup, this is another one.
refraining from the threat or use of force against each other as well as against any other
state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence in any manner
inconsistent with the United Nations Charter and ... the Helsinki Final Act;
respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their
inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of
borders and peoples' right of self-determination ...
Any actions undertaken by NATO or Russia, together or separately, must be consistent
with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE's governing principles.
https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm
So: Point 1 was in effect demanding NATO never expand in any direction, Point 2 was retarded, and Point 3 was effectively asking NATO to not just tear up the Founding Act but chuck every state out of NATO that had joined since 1996.
And if there was any doubt that this is exactly what Putin intended... well, in his own words, in his own speech:
These principled proposals of ours have been ignored. To reiterate, our Western partners have
once again vocalised the all-too-familiar formulas that each state is entitled to freely choose
ways to ensure its security or to join any military union or alliance. That is, nothing has
changed in their stance, and we keep hearing the same old references to NATO’s
notorious “open door” policy.
I invite any pro-Putin sympathiser to clarify: Are UN Charter states entitled (under UN founding principles) to freely choose their own security arrangements or not?
If they are not, then who should be able to unilaterally veto those arrangements? USA? Russia? China?
And if Russia has already signed a treaty saying in effect that NATO is not an enemy and it's fine with NATO expansion, is it something Russia can later go to war over?
putin is losing! So he wants US attention but it’s not Biden’s call, it’s Zelenskys.
And Zelensky is done with putin. he only negotiate with a new leader of russia.
Peace talks with Biden? President Alzheimer’s doesn’t run the Ukraine.
Biden doesn’t care what happens as long as gets britney griener out.
I read Tass every day. If you want an honest appraisal of Biden from a national press outlet, Tass is about the best you will find anywhere in the world. As far as factually stating Moscow’s position, you will pretty much find nothing but lies anywhere else in the world. This piece appeared today. It recounts the Russian missile attack yesterday, the motivation for it and their position on further incidents. It also explains what’s going on in Belarus. Nowhere else do you see this, what I believe is factual. Most of what they say about their view of NATO, Biden and DC in general now is true. It’s obvious that Brussels and DC dismiss everything Moscow says about their fears and plans. That’s why we are in this miss. I challenge you to find for me a western source for Uke news that, after wading through both sides’ disinfo, has produced a more factual account of both sides to date.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.