Russian Ukraine War------>Political Shitshow

[UMass]

If Joe Biden made a phone call to zelensky and told him no more weapons, equipment and cash were going to be coming from the US into Ukraine, the war would end in days and negotiations would start.

Not at all, Zelensky still has 40 other countries sending him aid, and enough money and equipment to have an offensive and keep the war going until at least the fall.


Just because some libertarian talking head says Biden can end it with a phone call doesn't make it so. You don't know what you're talking about. They had 5 peace summits between Russia/Ukraine last year before congress sent a dollar of aid.

In other words, Washington creates the perception of public opinion and has gone as far as to create a social media bot army to project an image of public opinion in support of Ukraine.

Nobody has ever alleged that Washington has any bots like Russia or Ukraine does, because we don't.

If Joe Biden isn't overthrown before the next election in a year and a half are you willing to admit you have no perception of reality and leave the forum?

 

[UMass]

Russia objected to NATO expansion from the beginning after being lied to about giving up Eastern Germany in return for hollow promises NATO would not expand "one inch East".

We've been through this too. When Gorbachev and Baker had this discussion the NATO/Warsaw Pact map looked like this:

The USSR hadn't dissolved yet and they didn't foresee it dissolving for sure. The talks were about reuniting East Germany into West Germany and the only country NATO could possibly expand into was East Germany.

The documents you say gave a "not one inch" promise actually say:


It wasn't an agreement, it was just preliminary talks. The final agreement was in writing and the Soviets signed it (in exchange for aid), which said NATO would expand Eastward into East Germany.

Johns Hopkins Historian and author of a book on it explains it here:

So which part of this is wrong? Why do you have to keep making this claim?

 

[UMass]

I’m tracking the entire conversation but wanted to add in something here with the head on a platter bit.

I’m sure that you remember that bin Laden was a CIA asset. we even treated him for dialysis in the 90’s. It makes it difficult to believe that we didn’t have a good eye on him or know where he was.

When they “got” him finally it’s never really been believable for me. All those years and we finally get him and to my knowledge the public never saw him dead. Operation happens, fly back to the boat, night time sea burial. Sure. Dude had been in retirement on a beach somewhere for 15 years when that happened. Or dead already.

Almost all those operatives died in a helo crash not long after.

Could it all be real? Sure. But it’s some Tom Clancy level story telling.

If you like a good conspiracy, Seymour Hersh (the guy who says we blew up the Nordstream pipeline) also wrote that bin Laden was really held prisoner in that compound by the Pakistani ISI. The article alleged Pakistan had kept bin Laden, with financial support from Saudi Arabia, as leverage against al-Qaeda, and that it agreed to give him up in exchange for increased U.S. military aid and a "freer hand in Afghanistan". Further allegations were that bin Laden's DNA had been collected by a Pakistani Army doctor, not by Shakil Afridi in a fake vaccination drive by the CIA; that the Navy SEALs met no resistance at the compound, and were escorted by an ISI officer; that bin Laden's body was torn apart by rifle fire so photographs of the body were too gruesome to show; and that pieces of his corpse were tossed out over the Hindu Kush mountains on the flight back to Jalalabad, rather than being buried at sea
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v37/n10/seymour-m.-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

The article had heavy criticism and is not considered very credible though.

 

[white ape]

If you like a good conspiracy, Seymour Hersh (the guy who says we blew up the Nordstream pipeline) also wrote that bin Laden was really held prisoner in that compound by the Pakistani ISI. The article alleged Pakistan had kept bin Laden, with financial support from Saudi Arabia, as leverage against al-Qaeda, and that it agreed to give him up in exchange for increased U.S. military aid and a "freer hand in Afghanistan". Further allegations were that bin Laden's DNA had been collected by a Pakistani Army doctor, not by Shakil Afridi in a fake vaccination drive by the CIA; that the Navy SEALs met no resistance at the compound, and were escorted by an ISI officer; that bin Laden's body was torn apart by rifle fire so photographs of the body were too gruesome to show; and that pieces of his corpse were tossed out over the Hindu Kush mountains on the flight back to Jalalabad, rather than being buried at sea
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v37/n10/seymour-m.-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

The article had heavy criticism and is not considered very credible though.

I love a good conspiracy

 

[Hughinn]

Not at all, Zelensky still has 40 other countries sending him aid, and enough money and equipment to have an offensive and keep the war going until at least the fall.
View attachment 39367

Just because some libertarian talking head says Biden can end it with a phone call doesn't make it so. You don't know what you're talking about. They had 5 peace summits between Russia/Ukraine last year before congress sent a dollar of aid.

How ridiculous.

Look at your own stupid graph.

Washington stops paying for the war, the party's over.

It's that simple

Nobody has ever alleged that Washington has any bots like Russia or Ukraine does, because we don't.

Lmfao.

How delusional. You don't think Washington uses bots to influence public opinion?

Your very naive, bordering on childish with your ignorance and petulance

They've literally been caught using bots and never denied it

Twitter Aided the Pentagon in Its Covert Online Propaganda Campaign

Internal documents show Twitter whitelisted CENTCOM accounts that were then used to run its online influence campaign abroad.

theintercept.com

If Joe Biden isn't overthrown before the next election in a year and a half are you willing to admit you have no perception of reality and leave the forum?

"Overthrown"?

WTF are you talking about? Talk about no perception of reality.

You don't have any friends here. Nobody likes you, nobody wants you here.

I was invited here years ago by the members here.

You were not and have been invited and asked to leave multiple times by multiple people.

So stop playing little girl games. No more PMing people trying to get people on your "side" talk like a man and speak for yourself.

 

[Hughinn]

We've been through this too. When Gorbachev and Baker had this discussion the NATO/Warsaw Pact map looked like this:

The USSR hadn't dissolved yet and they didn't foresee it dissolving for sure. The talks were about reuniting East Germany into West Germany and the only country NATO could possibly expand into was East Germany.

The documents you say gave a "not one inch" promise actually say:
View attachment 39374

It wasn't an agreement, it was just preliminary talks. The final agreement was in writing and the Soviets signed it (in exchange for aid), which said NATO would expand Eastward into East Germany.

Johns Hopkins Historian and author of a book on it explains it here:

So which part of this is wrong? Why do you have to keep making this claim?

Nothing you copy and paste says any different than Washington knew for a fact, from thier own experts that NATO expansion would lead to conflict with Russia.

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored | Ted Galen Carpenter

It has long been clear that Nato expansion would lead to tragedy. We are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance

www.theguardian.com

Every foreign policy expert for the past thirty years has been sounding the alarm.

Opposition to NATO Expansion | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

You've got to be totally delusional and separated from reality not to understand that IRREFUTABLE fact.

Washington's own internal documents show not only that they knew, but that lied about the assurances they've made.

NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard | National Security Archive

Washington, D.C., March 16, 2018 – Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership for Peace was the alternative to NATO expansion, rather than a precursor to it, while simultaneously...

nsarchive.gwu.edu

You're copying and pasting volumes of horseshit propoganda doesn't change anything

You're a delusional, dishonest, conniving and disingenuous person.

You know you're wrong. It's literally a checkmate.

Instead of acknowledgement of it, you double talk, contradict and perform bizzare mental gymnastics to circumvent the point.

You're only making yourself look stupid.

That's why everyone wants you to leave

 

[Hughinn]

I love a good conspiracy

Conspiracy theories?




I suppose @UMass is one of those people that think Russia blew up it's own pipeline, that nobody lied about COVID etc etc

 

[Hughinn]

I guess @UMass has to keep lying that "nobody was against NATO expansion" because otherwise the bullshit propoganda narrative of an "unprovoked invasion" falls completely apart.

Then so does his entire argument claiming this is all because the Russians are evil imperialist and any objections they have to US interference in other nations is just because they're evil.

It's childish really.

But that one lie he has to keep telling or otherwise he exposes himself for the fraud he is

The thing is, just imagine the dishonesty and the bizarre contradictions and paradoxes it takes to deny that there were warnings about NATO expansion from the very beginning and most every other step of the way to this point.

The evidence is overwhelming. Even Washington's own experts are on record sounding the alarms.

How do you parrot such a lie knowing you're lying?

That takes a very specific type of person. The type you do not turn your back on.

 

[Hughinn]

My Dad told me that a coward is the most dangerous enemy a man could have.

Because the coward is not like another Man, who you will see coming. A man you have a beef with will state his position and intentions clearly, and when he comes, it will be deliberate and he'll usually make sure you see him coming. If not, he'll announce his intentions upon his arrival into your presence.

A coward is different. He hides his intentions and often cloaks them in the guise of partnership or compromise. To get you to turn your back or let your guard down.

You won't see a coward coming, because he's not going to meet you in the streets on equal terms. He won't stare into your eyes and show himself to you.

He'll cut your throat or stab you from behind.

Dad said when it comes to a coward, the best thing a man can do is to shun him from your presence and not accept his encroachment into your space under any circumstances. That doesn't mean you're hostile towards him necessarily, but that you keep him at a safe distance at all times. Never too close.

While a man seen as adversary, can often be invited to your house and counselled with at times, sometimes even when you disagree. Often, under these circumstances you can be totally safe on his turf all alone. Because the man will separate your beef with him from each other's families and livelyhoods. His beef is with you and when it's time to settle, he will settle it with just him and you. Your wife, family and livelyhood have no part in his problem with you.

Some of any man's best of friends and allies are often former adversaries. When their men. You're a man, and your beef has been settled. You respect each other , because you've both earned the other man's respect, and find a common ground to coexist.

When it comes to cowards, those rules you might believe are universal, no longer apply. A coward can smile in your face, while holding a dagger at your back.

My dad

I understand what Dad was saying.

A coward would not understand.

 

[UMass]

HEvery foreign policy expert for the past thirty years has been sounding the alarm.

You don't know what you're talking about, and again you're having trouble with timelines.

There was some alarm sounded in 1997 not to add more countries, but not any predictions about it leading to war. Your article, written by libertarian Ted Galen Carpenter of the libertarian Cato Institute, is obviously biased for one thing. He doesn't quote the experts who thought NATO expansion was a good thing. He quotes:

• himself as saying “It would be extraordinarily difficult to expand Nato eastward without that action’s being viewed by Russia as unfriendly."
• He quotes Madeline Albright as saying "Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed."
• He quotes Strobe Talbott as saying “Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country"
• He quotes George Kennan as saying "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies" and he thinks its the beginning of a "cold war"

There are no more quotes, and nobody predicted an actual war back then in 1997, at least not a hot one. Predicting a war would happen 25 years later because they added 3 countries in 1997 (Poland, Hungary and Czech) would have been nuts. They said it was a bad idea and would be ounterproductive, but not lead to war.

Then Putin came into power in late 1999 and from 2000-2007 which is when we added these 7 red countries, including countries on Russia's border:

there was no objection from Putin and no perceived problem. You won't find any alarm being sounded during this period from 2000-2007. Putin was at the 2002 NATO summit where they were given action plans and he did not object. In fact, in 2004 Putin said he "hopes expansion of NATO has positive effect on international relations" which was just one of many times he said it was ok.

So again, during this period no one predicted NATO expansion would lead to war, it would have been nuts to say so, as with the 1997 period.

Then in 2007 Putin objected in for the first time, and in 2008 we had the brightest of red lines memo by Burns to Rice, and in 2008 we saw war in Georgia and 2014/2022 in Ukraine.


So here I've laid out why you can't say "Every foreign policy expert for the past thirty years has been sounding the alarm." Is any of it wrong? You can say there were some experts 15 years ago predicting it but we haven't really expanded for the past 15 years, and never added Georgia or Ukraine.

But you have trouble with timelines, and you see a bunch of people opposed it in the 90's then a few people predicted war in 2008 if we added Georgia/Ukraine (which we didn't) and suddenly you're saying "Every foreign policy expert for the past thirty years has been sounding the alarm." which isn't right; it's just factually not right.

 

[UMass]

Every foreign policy expert for the past thirty years has been sounding the alarm.

Opposition to NATO Expansion | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

This was from 1997. This is what they wrote:
"In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the "ins" and the "outs," foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included;"

Again, nobody predicted war. They predicted it would undercut reforms they're trying to make and maybe they wouldn't sign the START nuclear treaties, but no war.

Washington's own internal documents show not only that they knew, but that lied about the assurances they've made.

NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard | National Security Archive

Washington, D.C., March 16, 2018 – Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership for Peace was the alternative to NATO expansion, rather than a precursor to it, while simultaneously...

nsarchive.gwu.edu

That's not what they say. This is what they say:

There was no agreement until the signed one that said NATO would expand.

 

[UMass]

My dad

I understand what Dad was saying.

A coward would not understand.

Real men don't talk about what a tough guy they are, especially when they are not a middle aged keyboard warrior like you. This comes from narcissism and insecurities. I'm actually a pretty tall, very big guy whose wrestled internationally and trained in boxing, but you antagonize a person enough get a visit in person and there is no referee. They don't come to see who is better in the octagon, that would be pointless - nobody cares about your MMA skills, they come for death or dismemberment. So get back on track talking about the topic rather than how your your middle aged ass is such a tough guy and I'm a coward.

You would never see Jon Jones getting scary angry and talking tough, calling others cowards, using force to get others to back down over politics. It's the short bully with a temper that does that.

 

[UMass]

How ridiculous.

Look at your own stupid graph.

Washington stops paying for the war, the party's over.

It's that simple

Not immediately like you're claiming, of course not. Maybe it's over this fall without US aid, maybe not. Maybe Putin wants to control all of Ukraine. Before congress sent Ukraine a dollar of aid last May Zelensky offered Putin pretty much everything he wanted except regime change and Putin said no:

Zelensky offers a neutral Ukraine for Russian withdrawal, but there are some big caveats

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week UK

theweek.com

And the Ukrainians want to keep fighting, regardless of how much equipment they have. In the first battle of Fallujah the defending Iraqis beat the attacking American forces with very little equipment.

So, no you don't have a crystal ball in your head. Nobody can say that would end the war, and nobody would say it would end immediately. That would be nuts to claim.

 

[Hughinn]

You don't know what you're talking about, and again you're having trouble with timelines.

There was some alarm sounded in 1997 not to add more countries, but not any predictions about it leading to war. Your article, written by libertarian Ted Galen Carpenter of the libertarian Cato Institute, is obviously biased for one thing. He doesn't quote the experts who thought NATO expansion was a good thing. He quotes:

• himself as saying “It would be extraordinarily difficult to expand Nato eastward without that action’s being viewed by Russia as unfriendly."
• He quotes Madeline Albright as saying "Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed."
• He quotes Strobe Talbott as saying “Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country"
• He quotes George Kennan as saying "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies" and he thinks its the beginning of a "cold war"

There are no more quotes, and nobody predicted an actual war back then in 1997, at least not a hot one. Predicting a war would happen 25 years later because they added 3 countries in 1997 (Poland, Hungary and Czech) would have been nuts. They said it was a bad idea and would be ounterproductive, but not lead to war.

Then Putin came into power in late 1999 and from 2000-2007 which is when we added these 7 red countries, including countries on Russia's border:

there was no objection from Putin and no perceived problem. You won't find any alarm being sounded during this period from 2000-2007. Putin was at the 2002 NATO summit where they were given action plans and he did not object. In fact, in 2004 Putin said he "hopes expansion of NATO has positive effect on international relations" which was just one of many times he said it was ok.

So again, during this period no one predicted NATO expansion would lead to war, it would have been nuts to say so, as with the 1997 period.

Then in 2007 Putin objected in for the first time, and in 2008 we had the brightest of red lines memo by Burns to Rice, and in 2008 we saw war in Georgia and 2014/2022 in Ukraine.


So here I've laid out why you can't say "Every foreign policy expert for the past thirty years has been sounding the alarm." Is any of it wrong? You can say there were some experts 15 years ago predicting it but we haven't really expanded for the past 15 years, and never added Georgia or Ukraine.

But you have trouble with timelines, and you see a bunch of people opposed it in the 90's then a few people predicted war in 2008 if we added Georgia/Ukraine (which we didn't) and suddenly you're saying "Every foreign policy expert for the past thirty years has been sounding the alarm." which isn't right; it's just factually not right.

Lmfao

The double talk, mental gymnastics and bizzare paradoxes contradictions and straight up horseshit here is just absurd.

"Nobody objected to NATO expansion"
"Well maybe they did, but nobody said 'war' so it doesn't count"

"Well maybe they did threaten war, but that wasn't until 2007"

"Well maybe Kennan said 'cold war' but that doesn't count "

"Burns called it the brightest of red lines, but that was only to the secretary of state"

"So you see, nobody had any warning signs to this totally unprovoked invasion except for the numerous official warnings by the dozens of foreign policy experts, but they didn't say 'war' just one said 'cold war' and therefore none of it counts so I'm right"


Lmfao

Absolutely fukkin pathetic.

You're just making yourself look stupid

 

[Hughinn]

Not immediately like you're claiming, of course not. Maybe it's over this fall without US aid, maybe not. Maybe Putin wants to control all of Ukraine. Before congress sent Ukraine a dollar of aid last May Zelensky offered Putin pretty much everything he wanted except regime change and Putin said no:

Zelensky offers a neutral Ukraine for Russian withdrawal, but there are some big caveats

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week UK

theweek.com

And the Ukrainians want to keep fighting, regardless of how much equipment they have. In the first battle of Fallujah the defending Iraqis beat the attacking American forces with very little equipment.

So, no you don't have a crystal ball in your head. Nobody can say that would end the war, and nobody would say it would end immediately. That would be nuts to claim.

Again the double talk and mental gymnastics.

"Ukraine could keep fighting without US aid because look at my graph of people giving aid"

Now we're down to
"Well they wouldn't have to stop right away, so it wouldn't count" lmfao

Double talk, mental gymnastics and bizzare contradiction.

Just pathetic

 

[Hughinn]

Real men don't talk about what a tough guy they are, especially when they are not a middle aged keyboard warrior like you. This comes from narcissism and insecurities. I'm actually a pretty tall, very big guy whose wrestled internationally and trained in boxing, but you antagonize a person enough get a visit in person and there is no referee. They don't come to see who is better in the octagon, that would be pointless - nobody cares about your MMA skills, they come for death or dismemberment. So get back on track talking about the topic rather than how your your middle aged ass is such a tough guy and I'm a coward.

You would never see Jon Jones getting scary angry and talking tough, calling others cowards, using force to get others to back down over politics. It's the short bully with a temper that does that.

Well, then nerf cowboy?

Is that a threat? Should I PM the mods and start sniveling like you would?

Naw..

Only thing stopping you is air and opportunity.

I ain't going anywhere

 

[UMass]

Lmfao

The double talk, mental gymnastics and bizzare paradoxes contradictions and straight up horseshit here is just absurd.

"Nobody objected to NATO expansion"
"Well maybe they did, but nobody said 'war' so it doesn't count"

"Well maybe they did threaten war, but that wasn't until 2007"


Lmfao

Absolutely fukkin pathetic

Most policies have debate, people who are pro and con, but the fact is that not every expert for the past 30 years were sounding any alarms, and nobody before 2007 was predicting a war like this, and from 2007 on NATO never expanded.

It's not "mental gymnastics" to point out that Russian objection wasn't consistent. That were was moderate objection in 1997 when we added 3 countries, little to none in 2000-2007 when we added 7, and very strong objection from 2007 onwards which made us not really expand anymore or add Ukraine/Georgia.

It's just a bit too complicated for the layperson. You see some objection in '97 and extreme objection in '08 and think they were always objection and it always was strong objection. It wasn't.

 

[UMass]

Again the double talk and mental gymnastics.

"Ukraine could keep fighting without US aid because look at my graph of people giving aid"

Now we're down to
"Well they wouldn't have to stop right away, so it wouldn't count"

Double talk, mental gymnastics and bizzare contradiction.

Just pathetic

They could and would keep fighting at this level without US aid but we don't know for how long, I think can agree it would be at least until the fall, and maybe indefinately. We can't predict the future - I hope you realize that, right? You don't have a crystal ball in your head. Joe Biden can't end this war immediately (or probably even this fall) with a phone call saying we're cutting off aid.

 

[Hughinn]

Most policies have debate, people who are pro and con, but the fact is that not every expert for the past 30 years were sounding any alarms, and nobody before 2007 was predicting a war like this, and from 2007 on NATO never expanded.

It's not "mental gymnastics" to point out that Russian objection wasn't consistent. That were was moderate objection in 1997 when we added 3 countries, little to none in 2000-2007 when we added 7, and very strong objection from 2007 onwards which made us not really expand anymore or add Ukraine/Georgia.

It's just a bit too complicated for the layperson. You see some objection in '97 and extreme objection in '08 and think they were always objection and it always was strong objection. It wasn't.

Lmfao

So now we're down to

"Well they did object from the beginning and sometimes very harshly but it wasn't consistent every single time we shit on them so it's just too complicated for anybody but me to understand" - @UMass

 

[Hughinn]

They could and would keep fighting at this level without US aid but we don't know for how long, I think can agree it would be at least until the fall, and maybe indefinately. We can't predict the future - I hope you realize that, right? You don't have a crystal ball in your head. Joe Biden can't end this war immediately (or probably even this fall) with a phone call saying we're cutting off aid.

In other words, Washington stops paying for war, then war stops.

Wow, something simple enough to actually understand as a straight up fuckin fact

And you still twist it up, double talk and copy and paste a load of horseshit that doesn't change anything.

Imagine that