Ukraine: Invasion Imminent?

[trastrick]

15 hours ago, cuttsie said:

 these pop singers , film stars , tv celebs ,all multi millionaires spouting on TV about about poverty   . photo shoots with top Labour MP's  ., Pleading with Joe soap to give to this that and the other charity while posing on private yachts , or swanning around at red carpet does in London , Paris , New York or Rome . . Plastic socialists the lot of em . Some of em could give millions to these charities them selves and not even notice ,do they ??????

It's a game, Cuttsie.

 

They do give some of their spare change to "worthy causes" of the Left.

 

This guarantees them a free pass from the Misinformation Media, and ensures their mansions, winery estates, will not be targeted by the sign waving, marching have nots.

 

Then they can go on about their business living in abject luxury, without having to deal with poor folk, excepting their servants. of course.

[trastrick]

3 hours ago, Waldo said:

@trastrick

 

If they don’t want to, of course nobody should make them. Who here is advocating for that?

 

The issue I have with your position, is that they do want to fight, but you’re suggesting they shouldn’t be furnished with the means to do so. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

 

I’m more of a mind that we (all humanity really) should absolutely resist tyranny wherever it manifests. Especially when the tyrant in question has his finger on the button; no one person should ever have such power.

Not at all.

 

My position is that if a bully is manhandling a small  boy or girl in a schoolyard.

 

The fact that your have given him a knife and promised him. "We'll stand by you!", and, "The World stands with you!",  he may be misled into thinking you will come to his aid at the right time.

 

But the bully has a gun, and  you are sitting on the schoolyard wall, cheering him on from the sidelines, but not daring to come to his /her aid.

 

You've even told the bully that you will not interfere with his villainy!

 

Not a strategy designed for a successful outcome, as I would advise my clients.

Edited March 28, 2022 by trastrick

[Kidorry]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

Your question was:

 

"So, the West should give Putin what he wants on a platter. Then what?"

 

To which I answered that OBama/Biden had already handed Putin Ukrainian Crimea "on a platter".

 

I said they fed the Bear.

 

"Then what?"

 

He'll just come back for more. 

 

Unless you draw a line in the sand, and have the will to enforce it, the Bear will keep on coming.

 

Throwing a few apparently disposable Russian satellite countries in his way, may slow him down, but will not stop him.

 

Now I'm one who was prepared to fight for my country against communism and fascism, but by the quirks of fate, it never came to that.

 

But you have to pick your battles, when you have the means and the will to prevail. Sending Ukraine up against your mortal enemy is not a good military strategy. They get defeated, then what you got? Death and defeat!

 

As for Putin "not doing diplomacy"?

 

You don't follow the news.

 

Putin has been very active in diplomatic efforts in the Middle East with Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan,  even playing a mediatiung role in the current Palestine/Israeli conflict.  He also has a strong ally in China, despite his military support and deep ties with India,

 

It's a question of filling the void of Western withdrawal from the hotbeds of conflict.

 

Putin is more concerned about the respect and fear he instills in the aforementioned countries, rather than the Western pearl clutchers, and their "concern".

 

As for signing "bits of paper".

 

Far better, diplomatic discussions and cease fires, until cooler heads can prevail over the heat of war and the futile slaughter.

 

Then to have a REAL strategy to deal with fascists, communists, and Islamists who have vowed to "bury you". 

 

It's been done before, by a greater generation.

 

With today's telly celebrity worshipping and partying and freeloading generation, it may take a little time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They already had a massive presence in Crimea before they took it over. Submarine pens in Balaclava, Black sea fleet and several army establishments as well. Plus all the buildings and training grounds to support their troops there. I know this for a fact because I saw them. When was the last time you were in Russia or the Crimea?

[trastrick]

49 minutes ago, Kidorry said:

They already had a massive presence in Crimea before they took it over. Submarine pens in Balaclava, Black sea fleet and several army establishments as well. Plus all the buildings and training grounds to support their troops there. I know this for a fact because I saw them. When was the last time you were in Russia or the Crimea?

Exactly!

 

Obama/Biden had been in office for 5 full years, (2009, to 2014) before Putin decided it was a good time to attack Crimea. Lots of time to deal with the  Russian "massive presence".

 

Obama/Biden's strategy was to allow Putin to  take over Ukrainian Crimea, and not send lethal military aid to the defenders. So Putin did just that.

 

Trump was inaugurated in January 2017. In that same year he approved Javelin lethal anti-tank missiles to be placed on Ukrainian soil as a deterrent to Russia's further plans.

 

(In 2001/2/3/4,  I was in  Eastern Europe, Poland, Hungary, Czech, Sovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, and only 50 miles from the Russian Border at times, but that's not relevant here.)

Edited March 28, 2022 by trastrick

[altus]

50 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Exactly!

 

Obama/Biden had been in office for 5 full years, (2009, to 2014) before Putin decided it was a good time to attack Crimea. Lots of time to deal with the  Russian "massive presence".

Just how do you think Obama/Biden should have dealt with the legally there, as agreed in a 1997 treaty, Russian base at Sevastopol? You're doing the equivalent of arguing the Cubans should chuck the US out of their base at Guantanamo Bay.

 

Quote

Trump was inaugurated in January 2017. In that same year he approved Javelin lethal anti-tank missiles to be placed on Ukrainian soil as a deterrent to Russia's further plans.

We've covered Trump's blocking of military aid to Ukraine because they wouldn't help him get re-elected before. So don't try and claim Trump was some kind of supporter of Ukraine, history shows he was nothing of the sort.

[harvey19]

I keep reading that the Russian army is made up of conscripts in Ukraine.

Where is the regular army then ?

 

[trastrick]

50 minutes ago, altus said:

Just how do you think Obama/Biden should have dealt with the legally there, as agreed in a 1997 treaty, Russian base at Sevastopol? You're doing the equivalent of arguing the Cubans should chuck the US out of their base at Guantanamo Bay.

 

We've covered Trump's blocking of military aid to Ukraine because they wouldn't help him get re-elected before. So don't try and claim Trump was some kind of supporter of Ukraine, history shows he was nothing of the sort.

By honoring the legal agreement.

 

What's that got to do with Russia invading and annexing all of Ukrainian Crimea? 

 

And do NOT put YOUR words into MY mouth.

 

I am NOT "arguing the Cubans should chuck the U.S. out of their base at Guantanamo Bay".

 

Lol

 

Here's a supporter of the Ukraine, demanding and getting their top prosecutor fired, for investigating Burisma, where his lad happened to be hired on.

 

Lol

 

 

 

This happened long before Trump was in office.

 

As President, Trump was right to ask Zelensky to look into these nefarious dealings

 

If you were U.S. point man for Ukrainan affairs (Joe says he was there 13 times) and your drug addict son was working for the biggest (and most corrupt) energy company in the Ukraine, do you think Joe would know about that?

 

He say's he didn't! 

Edited March 28, 2022 by trastrick

[Chekhov]

I am a bit concerned that some people are starting to hint that the Ukraine should compromise to try and restore peace. What that means is Putin should gain something for his deadly aggression.

No thanks, not so long as the Ukrainians actually want to fight.

[altus]

45 minutes ago, trastrick said:

By honoring the legal agreement.

 

What's that got to do with Russia invading and annexing all of Ukrainian Crimea? 

Kidorry pointed out Russia had a massive presence in Crimea before the 2014 invasion of the rest of it and you said Obama had five years to deal with it before 2014. The Russians were there legally in their military bases. What do you think Obama could have done to deal with the situation whilst honouring the fact that they were there legally in their bases?

Quote

And do NOT put YOUR words into MY mouth.

 

I am NOT "arguing the Cubans should chuck the U.S. out of their base at Guantanamo Bay".

I did not put words into your mouth. I put "You're doing the equivalent of" in front of the bit you selectively quoted. Don't selectively quote other people to change the meaning of what they post.

[hackey lad]

52 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I am a bit concerned that some people are starting to hint that the Ukraine should compromise to try and restore peace. What that means is Putin should gain something for his deadly aggression.

No thanks, not so long as the Ukrainians actually want to fight.

 Agree with that . If they do compromise ,  Putin wins