Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[BADecker]

^^^ DumBAss, you do not want peace, you want surrender which means another war in a couple of years.

I know you are not great at providing reasons, you just throw stuff to see how much sticks, but perhaps you will answer a couple of questions:

If Putin gets what he wants, what stops him for wanting more? And what stops him from going to war again and again to get it?

You do not have real answer to any of this, you are just repeating slogans from you local MAGA priest / part time janitor.

By your own writings, Russian military is SO bad that they can't attack anyone after Ukraine, and if they do, you'll send 10 SAS
members and they will wipe whole Russian army

Most people in the West don't know that there have been troops from the West in the war for months - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=SAS+ukraine+war&ia=web.

[DaRude]

...

[...]

X sending X made bombs, transporting on X equipment, programmed by X personnel, using X made secret maps, and X guidance system, and X satellites during the flight only for Y to push the red button, apparently didn't convince anyone that X shouldn't be considered to be a part of the conflict. And rightfully so, wouldn't you say?

Try turning that around, what if Russia gave missiles to Yemen, transported them to Yemen, Russians programing the missile to strike deep inside US, Russians then loaded their secret maps, and then using Russian guidance system and satellites, only for a Yemeni to press the red button would absolve Russia from any responsibility? I'm sure the US would totally see it that way too

That's the whole premise for countries exporting advanced weapons being liable for it. Why else do you think nations receiving the advanced weapons must ask for permission. Otherwise we would've already nuked our blue marble with humanities last words laying blame on some proxy country.

That is something solved by international law, war is not a "new thing". International law allows neutral countries to trade with whomever they wish. Weapons are goods and services, like training or maintaining, are equally tradeable. So...

I load a gun, sell you a loaded gun, guide you through target practice with the gun and tell you how to aim the gun and what are the best targets, all done according to the law.

You fire the gun and kill someone. Who is going to jail if caught?

Isn't it obvious that both will, it's called being an accomplice (at best).

If X wants to shoot you, tells Y and Y knowingly approves, Y drives X to your house in Y's car, Y loads Y's gun with Y's bullets and hands it to X, then Y also provides the map of your house to X. X executes the plan. What country are you in that you think Y should not be held liable in such crime?

Even just handing someone a weapon to commit a crime would mean you're liable in US.

Did you know what they were going to do with the gun?

If you loaned someone your firearm knowing that they were going to use it to commit a criminal offense, you could find yourself in serious legal trouble for aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting is when someone helps or encourages another person to commit a crime. If you give someone a weapon to be used during a crime, you can be charged. This is true even if you didn’t have any other role in the crime and weren’t present at the scene.

[paxmao]

^^ dumBAss, there are many reasons to start a war, but there is a guaranteed way of having another war with even more victims real soon - Providing Putin with a good reason to have one - namely, letting him "win" this one. Yes, Ukraine surrenders, Putin takes over and... there are Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova,...

There is a very good reason why the US and the allies formed NATO: Ruzzia is a problem. It is not pacific, it is not democratic and is eager to rebuild the USSR. I am not sure if you remember the panic all over the US about the nuclear threat in the 50s and 60sor if you were there, but that is when you let someone like Putin have it their way.

^^^ DumBAss, you do not want peace, you want surrender which means another war in a couple of years.

I know you are not great at providing reasons, you just throw stuff to see how much sticks, but perhaps you will answer a couple of questions:

If Putin gets what he wants, what stops him for wanting more? And what stops him from going to war again and again to get it?

You do not have real answer to any of this, you are just repeating slogans from you local MAGA priest / part time janitor.

By your own writings, Russian military is SO bad that they can't attack anyone after Ukraine, and if they do, you'll send 10 SAS
members and they will wipe whole Russian army

It is terrible, I think you can even agree to that. Before the war in Ukraine it was assumed to be a well armed, technologically advanced and well seasoned army. But this war has shown that they cannot really defend their skies, they need to send more than 1000 soldiers a day to the meatgrinder for minimal advances and that the generals are pretty much butchers.

I can give you that they can put up a good defence when the enemy plan is telegraphed a few months in advance, they are attacked without aviation or other combined arms and they have a number's superiority of 1 to 5. That, they can do.

If the enemy does not publish the plan well in advance then... well, you get Kursk.

...

[...]

X sending X made bombs, transporting on X equipment, programmed by X personnel, using X made secret maps, and X guidance system, and X satellites during the flight only for Y to push the red button, apparently didn't convince anyone that X shouldn't be considered to be a part of the conflict. And rightfully so, wouldn't you say?

Try turning that around, what if Russia gave missiles to Yemen, transported them to Yemen, Russians programing the missile to strike deep inside US, Russians then loaded their secret maps, and then using Russian guidance system and satellites, only for a Yemeni to press the red button would absolve Russia from any responsibility? I'm sure the US would totally see it that way too

That's the whole premise for countries exporting advanced weapons being liable for it. Why else do you think nations receiving the advanced weapons must ask for permission. Otherwise we would've already nuked our blue marble with humanities last words laying blame on some proxy country.

That is something solved by international law, war is not a "new thing". International law allows neutral countries to trade with whomever they wish. Weapons are goods and services, like training or maintaining, are equally tradeable. So...

I load a gun, sell you a loaded gun, guide you through target practice with the gun and tell you how to aim the gun and what are the best targets, all done according to the law.

You fire the gun and kill someone. Who is going to jail if caught?

Isn't it obvious that both will, it's called being an accomplice (at best).

If X wants to shoot you, tells Y and Y knowingly approves, Y drives X to your house in Y's car, Y loads Y's gun with Y's bullets and hands it to X, then Y also provides the map of your house to X. X executes the plan. What country are you in that you think Y should not be held liable in such crime?

Even just handing someone a weapon to commit a crime would mean you're liable in US.

Did you know what they were going to do with the gun?

If you loaned someone your firearm knowing that they were going to use it to commit a criminal offense, you could find yourself in serious legal trouble for aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting is when someone helps or encourages another person to commit a crime. If you give someone a weapon to be used during a crime, you can be charged. This is true even if you didn’t have any other role in the crime and weren’t present at the scene.

Wait... you are talking about Iran, North Korea and China?

[DaRude]

^^ dumBAss, there are many reasons to start a war, but there is a guaranteed way of having another war with even more victims real soon - Providing Putin with a good reason to have one - namely, letting him "win" this one. Yes, Ukraine surrenders, Putin takes over and... there are Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova,...

There is a very good reason why the US and the allies formed NATO: Ruzzia is a problem. It is not pacific, it is not democratic and is eager to rebuild the USSR. I am not sure if you remember the panic all over the US about the nuclear threat in the 50s and 60sor if you were there, but that is when you let someone like Putin have it their way.

^^^ DumBAss, you do not want peace, you want surrender which means another war in a couple of years.

I know you are not great at providing reasons, you just throw stuff to see how much sticks, but perhaps you will answer a couple of questions:

If Putin gets what he wants, what stops him for wanting more? And what stops him from going to war again and again to get it?

You do not have real answer to any of this, you are just repeating slogans from you local MAGA priest / part time janitor.

By your own writings, Russian military is SO bad that they can't attack anyone after Ukraine, and if they do, you'll send 10 SAS
members and they will wipe whole Russian army

It is terrible, I think you can even agree to that. Before the war in Ukraine it was assumed to be a well armed, technologically advanced and well seasoned army. But this war has shown that they cannot really defend their skies, they need to send more than 1000 soldiers a day to the meatgrinder for minimal advances and that the generals are pretty much butchers.

I can give you that they can put up a good defence when the enemy plan is telegraphed a few months in advance, they are attacked without aviation or other combined arms and they have a number's superiority of 1 to 5. That, they can do.

If the enemy does not publish the plan well in advance then... well, you get Kursk.

...

[...]

X sending X made bombs, transporting on X equipment, programmed by X personnel, using X made secret maps, and X guidance system, and X satellites during the flight only for Y to push the red button, apparently didn't convince anyone that X shouldn't be considered to be a part of the conflict. And rightfully so, wouldn't you say?

Try turning that around, what if Russia gave missiles to Yemen, transported them to Yemen, Russians programing the missile to strike deep inside US, Russians then loaded their secret maps, and then using Russian guidance system and satellites, only for a Yemeni to press the red button would absolve Russia from any responsibility? I'm sure the US would totally see it that way too

That's the whole premise for countries exporting advanced weapons being liable for it. Why else do you think nations receiving the advanced weapons must ask for permission. Otherwise we would've already nuked our blue marble with humanities last words laying blame on some proxy country.

That is something solved by international law, war is not a "new thing". International law allows neutral countries to trade with whomever they wish. Weapons are goods and services, like training or maintaining, are equally tradeable. So...

I load a gun, sell you a loaded gun, guide you through target practice with the gun and tell you how to aim the gun and what are the best targets, all done according to the law.

You fire the gun and kill someone. Who is going to jail if caught?

Isn't it obvious that both will, it's called being an accomplice (at best).

If X wants to shoot you, tells Y and Y knowingly approves, Y drives X to your house in Y's car, Y loads Y's gun with Y's bullets and hands it to X, then Y also provides the map of your house to X. X executes the plan. What country are you in that you think Y should not be held liable in such crime?

Even just handing someone a weapon to commit a crime would mean you're liable in US.

Did you know what they were going to do with the gun?

If you loaned someone your firearm knowing that they were going to use it to commit a criminal offense, you could find yourself in serious legal trouble for aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting is when someone helps or encourages another person to commit a crime. If you give someone a weapon to be used during a crime, you can be charged. This is true even if you didn’t have any other role in the crime and weren’t present at the scene.

Wait... you are talking about Iran, North Korea and China?

How come everything was fine before 2014, and there was no discussion of anyone attacking anyone? No sanctions, talks of nukes, trade was wide open both ways, Russia was not aligned with China and was exporting most of its resources west. What could've possibly happened to change all of this Oh right, surely just a coincidence...





Following this logic, if things go back to status quo of 2013, why would Russia attack Ukraine again or Lithuania, Estonia especially that they are in NATO? As we can see both sides appear to be trying to avoid direct confrontation, thankfully.

[BADecker]

^^ dumBAss, there are many reasons to start a war, but there is a guaranteed way of having another war with even more victims real soon - Providing Putin with a good reason to have one - namely, letting him "win" this one. Yes, Ukraine surrenders, Putin takes over and... there are Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova,...

There is a very good reason why the US and the allies formed NATO: Ruzzia is a problem. It is not pacific, it is not democratic and is eager to rebuild the USSR. I am not sure if you remember the panic all over the US about the nuclear threat in the 50s and 60sor if you were there, but that is when you let someone like Putin have it their way.

~

You seem to like the idea of playing with strategy theory. So, consider this.

The Ukraine/Russia border is quite a lengthy stretch of land. With a million troops in reserve, Russia could easily send a thousand troops to any section of this border, and take over a whole bunch of Ukraine land. Ukraine could do nothing to stop them, because Ukraine troops are spread way to thin as it is. Why doesn't Russia do this? Because it isn't in their mind to conquer Ukraine. All they want is NATO out, and the Black Sea Corridor.

Look at Kharkiv. Russia wasn't forced out of the area by Ukraine troops. Russia was simply humanitarian, and didn't want a bunch of Ukrainian citizens harmed. So they left. Same with Kiev at the beginning of the war. Russia left because they didn't want to harm Ukrainians and didn't want Kiev, period.

You keep on acting like Ukraine has a chance. And when everybody can see that Ukraine is going to fail, then you start to talk military strategy. Or you focus on some little, momentary success that Ukraine has, while ignoring all kinds of Ukrainian losses. Most importantly, you ignore the impetus/inertia of the war which anybody can see is in the Ukraine-loss direction.

How much are you getting paid to attempt to continue a war that is killing dozens of Ukrainians every day along with a few Russians? The principle isn't even there since it was Ukraine that started the war back in 2014.

At the rate Ukraine is going, they will lose it all to Russia by almost literally suiciding themselves. They are almost at this stage right now. Just a little longer and Russia will have it all by simply being patient.

[Kingperry22]

This war has lingered for too long. Causing serious problems and damages that are irreparable to human lives. It started as joke but many have lost people from both side. It's high time the Ukrainian-Russian war end it has equally cause economic devastation and geopolitical tension across the globe. The cost of commodities has risen to peak causing a persistent hike in cost of basic living. The world and big players needs to do better. What's the essence of having the United Nations if not for geopolitical crisis. NATO anchor the meeting between Russia and Ukraine whereas the UN act as a mitigator.

[BADecker]

^^^ Should a war linger at all? Of course it should. At least that's what the US and NATO think in this war. If you look up the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, you will see that way back in 2004/2005 Ukraine resisted the West successfully. But that didn't stop the US. The CIA infiltrated the Ukraine government and started the war in 2014 or earlier. Russia, wanting peace all along, took their fine time to resist by their formal entrance into the war in 2022.

Get the US out of Ukraine so there can be peace.

[cpu6502]

Get the US out of Ukraine so there can be peace.

So the Kremlin's disinformation campaign frantically keeps telling us.

[paxmao]

^^ dumBAss, there are many reasons to start a war, but there is a guaranteed way of having another war with even more victims real soon - Providing Putin with a good reason to have one - namely, letting him "win" this one. Yes, Ukraine surrenders, Putin takes over and... there are Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova,...

There is a very good reason why the US and the allies formed NATO: Ruzzia is a problem. It is not pacific, it is not democratic and is eager to rebuild the USSR. I am not sure if you remember the panic all over the US about the nuclear threat in the 50s and 60sor if you were there, but that is when you let someone like Putin have it their way.

^^^ DumBAss, you do not want peace, you want surrender which means another war in a couple of years.

I know you are not great at providing reasons, you just throw stuff to see how much sticks, but perhaps you will answer a couple of questions:

If Putin gets what he wants, what stops him for wanting more? And what stops him from going to war again and again to get it?

You do not have real answer to any of this, you are just repeating slogans from you local MAGA priest / part time janitor.

By your own writings, Russian military is SO bad that they can't attack anyone after Ukraine, and if they do, you'll send 10 SAS
members and they will wipe whole Russian army

It is terrible, I think you can even agree to that. Before the war in Ukraine it was assumed to be a well armed, technologically advanced and well seasoned army. But this war has shown that they cannot really defend their skies, they need to send more than 1000 soldiers a day to the meatgrinder for minimal advances and that the generals are pretty much butchers.

I can give you that they can put up a good defence when the enemy plan is telegraphed a few months in advance, they are attacked without aviation or other combined arms and they have a number's superiority of 1 to 5. That, they can do.

If the enemy does not publish the plan well in advance then... well, you get Kursk.

...

[...]

X sending X made bombs, transporting on X equipment, programmed by X personnel, using X made secret maps, and X guidance system, and X satellites during the flight only for Y to push the red button, apparently didn't convince anyone that X shouldn't be considered to be a part of the conflict. And rightfully so, wouldn't you say?

Try turning that around, what if Russia gave missiles to Yemen, transported them to Yemen, Russians programing the missile to strike deep inside US, Russians then loaded their secret maps, and then using Russian guidance system and satellites, only for a Yemeni to press the red button would absolve Russia from any responsibility? I'm sure the US would totally see it that way too

That's the whole premise for countries exporting advanced weapons being liable for it. Why else do you think nations receiving the advanced weapons must ask for permission. Otherwise we would've already nuked our blue marble with humanities last words laying blame on some proxy country.

That is something solved by international law, war is not a "new thing". International law allows neutral countries to trade with whomever they wish. Weapons are goods and services, like training or maintaining, are equally tradeable. So...

I load a gun, sell you a loaded gun, guide you through target practice with the gun and tell you how to aim the gun and what are the best targets, all done according to the law.

You fire the gun and kill someone. Who is going to jail if caught?

Isn't it obvious that both will, it's called being an accomplice (at best).

If X wants to shoot you, tells Y and Y knowingly approves, Y drives X to your house in Y's car, Y loads Y's gun with Y's bullets and hands it to X, then Y also provides the map of your house to X. X executes the plan. What country are you in that you think Y should not be held liable in such crime?

Even just handing someone a weapon to commit a crime would mean you're liable in US.

Did you know what they were going to do with the gun?

If you loaned someone your firearm knowing that they were going to use it to commit a criminal offense, you could find yourself in serious legal trouble for aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting is when someone helps or encourages another person to commit a crime. If you give someone a weapon to be used during a crime, you can be charged. This is true even if you didn’t have any other role in the crime and weren’t present at the scene.

Wait... you are talking about Iran, North Korea and China?

How come everything was fine before 2014, and there was no discussion of anyone attacking anyone? No sanctions, talks of nukes, trade was wide open both ways, Russia was not aligned with China and was exporting most of its resources west. What could've possibly happened to change all of this Oh right, surely just a coincidence...

[...]
Following this logic, if things go back to status quo of 2013, why would Russia attack Ukraine again or Lithuania, Estonia especially that they are in NATO? As we can see both sides appear to be trying to avoid direct confrontation, thankfully.

Everything was not fine, but Putin was ok as long as Ukraine was doing Putin's whim, the problem came when the government of Ukraine started doing what all sovereign nations are perfectly entitled to do: choose their foreign relations, trade agreement and allies. It is quite simple.

But going back to your question, given that Iran, North Korea, China and other supplied weapons to X ... etc. etc. is it ok to bomb them then?

[BADecker]

This thread will be dissolving into a military strategy and theory thread soon. It's going that direction at times right now. But the interest in Ukraine is collapsing, just like Ukraine is.


Ukrainian Lines Collapsing In East With World's Attention On Middle East War


https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukrainian-lines-collapsing-east-worlds-attention-middle-east-war#google_vignette
Currently Russian forces have advanced to merely within a few a few kilometers of Pokrovsk, a key Ukrainian logistical hub in the region. As we've highlighted before, the collapse of Pokrovsk will likely portend a Russian takeover of the whole of Donetsk.

On Wednesday the Ukrainian army announced that it has fully withdrawn from the eastern town of Vuhledar, describing that it abandoned the area after being almost fully encircled, and coming under heavy Russian artillery bombardment.

"The High Command gave permission for a maneuver to withdraw units from Vuhledar in order to save personnel and military equipment and take up a position for further operations," a Ukrainian unit deployed there said in a Telegram post.

It cited specifically the "threat of encirclement" and heavy troop losses, and there are reports that Russian forces had already taken control of Vuhleda by the time the Ukrainian announcement was made.

Vuhleda is a significant achievement, and suggests Russia forces will continue to plow through Ukrainian defenses, given it was dubbed a "fortress" city given its long having heavily-fortified surroundings and being in an upland position.

Even The Daily Beast recently underscored that while President Zelensky was pitching his 'victory plan' in Washington, his forces were suffering loss after loss:

On a visit to the U.S. last week, Volodymyr Zelensky gave the hard sell to his "Victory Plan" for Ukraine. In meetings with President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, and an awkward encounter with former President Donald Trump, the Ukrainian leader insisted his country could still–with Western help–emerge victorious in its long-running war with Russia.

...After two and a half years of war, soldiers are tired. The same soldiers who gave Vladimir Putin's forces a bloody nose after the February 2022 invasion, and pushed the invaders from Kyiv and Kharkiv, say they are under-equipped and complain that they are being ordered to carry out impossible missions as Kyiv struggles to supply the military with new recruits and acquire more Western weapons to ward off Russian advances.
...

[rimoeee]

The war has drained the resources of  UN and other nations worldwide, the devastating impact has sucked the oxygen out of all the nations on earth. It's hi-time this crazy war is put to an end. If it continues what happened last week where Russia released a ballistic missile which be the other of the day, this time hitting Kiev and other major cities.

Even when many nations has cried out for diplomacy and to resolve the problems Putin has stood his ground and still wants to annex some part of Ukraine

[BADecker]

Jens Stoltenberg’s bold statement (which has barely been the object of media coverage) has opened up a Pandora’s Box, or best described “A Can of Worms” on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance.

It was the US-NATO in Ukraine that started the war in 2014. The purpose of the Ukraine War [started by the US-NATO in 2014] was to prevent war. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it. But read between the lines of what NATO's Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, says.

There's a whole lot more including video at the site.


The Smoking Gun: Who Started the War? Was it Russia or Was it US-NATO? NATO Confirms that the Ukraine “War Started in 2014”


https://www.globalresearch.ca/bombshell-nato-says-war-started-in-2014-nato-war-against-russia-fake-pretext-to-invoke-article-5-of-atlantic-treaty/5828312

First published on  August 27, 2023. Slight Change in title of the article
Author’s Update

An aerial view of the Bürgenstock resort on Mount Bürgenstock.On June 15-16, delegates from 90 countries met at the Bürgenstock resort near Lucerne, in the context of a Peace Conference organized by the Swiss government to which Russia was not invited.

The Swiss peace initiative was an utter failure. Fundamental issues were no addressed.

WHEN, AND WHO STARTED THIS WAR?

This article addresses the history of the Ukraine war and more specifically WHO started this war.
The Smoking Gun is Who Started the War. Was it Russia or US-NATO?
The Answer comes from the Horse’s Mouth.

Of utmost significance:  On September 7, 2023, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg  in a presentation to the European Parliament, formally acknowledged that:
“the war didn’t start in February last year [2022]. It started in 2014.”

This far-reaching declaration confirms his earlier statement in May 2023 to the effect that the Ukraine War
“didn’t start in 2022”, “The war started in 2014”.

Stoltenberg’s Interview with the Washington Post: (emphasis added, complete text of Washington Post Interview in Annex)

Speaking on behalf of NATO, what this statement implies is that US-NATO was already at war in 2014. It also tacitly acknowledges that Russia did not “initiate the war” on Ukraine in February 2022.

In a twisted irony, in his presentation to the European Parliament, Stoltenberg portrays “the purpose” of the Ukraine war,  which has resulted in more than 300,000 casualties as a means “to prevent war”.

“Therefore, we have already increased our presence in eastern part of the Alliance, to send a very clear message to Moscow. To remove any room for misunderstanding, miscalculation. That NATO is there to defend every inch of NATO territory, one for all for one. [“NATO Territory”]

At the NATO summit, we agreed new plans for the defence of the whole Alliance. We also agreed to establish and identify more high readiness troops, 300,000 troops on different levels of high readiness, and also have more air and naval capabilities, ready to quickly reinforce if needed.

The purpose of this is to prevent war. The purpose of this is to ensure that NATO continues to be the most successful Alliance in history because we have prevented any military attack on any NATO Allies. And when there’s a full-fledged war going on in Europe, then it becomes even more important that we have credible deterrence and by strengthening our deterrence and defence, we are preventing war, preserving peace for NATO Allies, because there’s no room for miscalculation.

And the third thing was that NATO Allies have really now demonstrated that they are delivering on the commitment we made in 2014, because the war didn’t start in February last year. It started in 2014. The full-fledged invasion happened last year, but the war, the illegal annexation of Crimea, Russia went into eastern Donbas in 2014. (emphasis added)

What Stoltenberg fails to acknowledge is US-NATO’s role in triggering the 2014 EuroMaidan massacre which was conducive “in the name of Western democracy” to a “regime change”: namely the instatement of a Neo-Nazi puppet regime in Kiev.

US-NATO is firmly embedded in the Kiev regime’s Neo-Nazi project the objective of which is to destroy Ukraine as well wage war on Russia.

Ironically the head of State of this neo-Nazi government –hand-picked by US intel– is of Russian-Jewish descent, who prior to entering politics did not speak a word of Ukrainian:

Zelensky is Jewish. He supports the Nazi Azov Battalion, the two Nazi parties, which have committed countless atrocities against the Jewish community in Ukraine.  And now this Jewish-Russian proxy president wants to “ban everything Russian”, including the Russian language (his mother tongue), …
...

[DaRude]

^^ dumBAss, there are many reasons to start a war, but there is a guaranteed way of having another war with even more victims real soon - Providing Putin with a good reason to have one - namely, letting him "win" this one. Yes, Ukraine surrenders, Putin takes over and... there are Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova,...

There is a very good reason why the US and the allies formed NATO: Ruzzia is a problem. It is not pacific, it is not democratic and is eager to rebuild the USSR. I am not sure if you remember the panic all over the US about the nuclear threat in the 50s and 60sor if you were there, but that is when you let someone like Putin have it their way.

^^^ DumBAss, you do not want peace, you want surrender which means another war in a couple of years.

I know you are not great at providing reasons, you just throw stuff to see how much sticks, but perhaps you will answer a couple of questions:

If Putin gets what he wants, what stops him for wanting more? And what stops him from going to war again and again to get it?

You do not have real answer to any of this, you are just repeating slogans from you local MAGA priest / part time janitor.

By your own writings, Russian military is SO bad that they can't attack anyone after Ukraine, and if they do, you'll send 10 SAS
members and they will wipe whole Russian army

It is terrible, I think you can even agree to that. Before the war in Ukraine it was assumed to be a well armed, technologically advanced and well seasoned army. But this war has shown that they cannot really defend their skies, they need to send more than 1000 soldiers a day to the meatgrinder for minimal advances and that the generals are pretty much butchers.

I can give you that they can put up a good defence when the enemy plan is telegraphed a few months in advance, they are attacked without aviation or other combined arms and they have a number's superiority of 1 to 5. That, they can do.

If the enemy does not publish the plan well in advance then... well, you get Kursk.

...

[...]

X sending X made bombs, transporting on X equipment, programmed by X personnel, using X made secret maps, and X guidance system, and X satellites during the flight only for Y to push the red button, apparently didn't convince anyone that X shouldn't be considered to be a part of the conflict. And rightfully so, wouldn't you say?

Try turning that around, what if Russia gave missiles to Yemen, transported them to Yemen, Russians programing the missile to strike deep inside US, Russians then loaded their secret maps, and then using Russian guidance system and satellites, only for a Yemeni to press the red button would absolve Russia from any responsibility? I'm sure the US would totally see it that way too

That's the whole premise for countries exporting advanced weapons being liable for it. Why else do you think nations receiving the advanced weapons must ask for permission. Otherwise we would've already nuked our blue marble with humanities last words laying blame on some proxy country.

That is something solved by international law, war is not a "new thing". International law allows neutral countries to trade with whomever they wish. Weapons are goods and services, like training or maintaining, are equally tradeable. So...

I load a gun, sell you a loaded gun, guide you through target practice with the gun and tell you how to aim the gun and what are the best targets, all done according to the law.

You fire the gun and kill someone. Who is going to jail if caught?

Isn't it obvious that both will, it's called being an accomplice (at best).

If X wants to shoot you, tells Y and Y knowingly approves, Y drives X to your house in Y's car, Y loads Y's gun with Y's bullets and hands it to X, then Y also provides the map of your house to X. X executes the plan. What country are you in that you think Y should not be held liable in such crime?

Even just handing someone a weapon to commit a crime would mean you're liable in US.

Did you know what they were going to do with the gun?

If you loaned someone your firearm knowing that they were going to use it to commit a criminal offense, you could find yourself in serious legal trouble for aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting is when someone helps or encourages another person to commit a crime. If you give someone a weapon to be used during a crime, you can be charged. This is true even if you didn’t have any other role in the crime and weren’t present at the scene.

Wait... you are talking about Iran, North Korea and China?

How come everything was fine before 2014, and there was no discussion of anyone attacking anyone? No sanctions, talks of nukes, trade was wide open both ways, Russia was not aligned with China and was exporting most of its resources west. What could've possibly happened to change all of this Oh right, surely just a coincidence...

[...]
Following this logic, if things go back to status quo of 2013, why would Russia attack Ukraine again or Lithuania, Estonia especially that they are in NATO? As we can see both sides appear to be trying to avoid direct confrontation, thankfully.

Everything was not fine, but Putin was ok as long as Ukraine was doing Putin's whim, the problem came when the government of Ukraine started doing what all sovereign nations are perfectly entitled to do: choose their foreign relations, trade agreement and allies. It is quite simple.

But going back to your question, given that Iran, North Korea, China and other supplied weapons to X ... etc. etc. is it ok to bomb them then?

Hows "what all sovereign nations are perfectly entitled to do: choose their foreign relations, trade agreement and allies" works for Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan...? And once again, we're back to hypocrisy and double standards of the ‘For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law’ logic, and the reason for wars.

You are aware that Ukraine existed in that form before Putin right? Is everything fine in Taiwan/China, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Cuba, Mexico, China, Moldova, Georgia, Ireland, Scotland... and all other countries? Or you're proposing that a third-highest ranking US diplomat shows up in any of those countries with cookies and pushes them into wars too, you know as long as not everything is perfect with them? How many wars do you think can be started with such pretext? This logic can only have two logical outcomes, either a one world government or never ending wars, well i guess three, we can just kill each other with another world war. Are you invested in the military industrial complex by chance?

There's a huge jump between being an accomplice, a party to a conflict, and ok to bomb someone. The export only applies to advance weapons i.e. no one really controls Kalashnikovs exports around the world. If it's not just propaganda and they are proven to knowingly supply advance weapons to X, with which X attacks Y, then yes i do believe Y is justified to consider those countries to be part of a conflict to some extent.

In other news, looks like Israelis want Trump to be elected, so they're going to hit oil storage/production in Iran sending oil prices up, screwing Biden/Harris before elections, and indirectly helping Russian economy. Let's check with agent Boris on this

Exclusive Boris Johnson interview: Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump was president

Vladimir Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Donald Trump had been president, Boris Johnson has suggested, saying the world is a better place when the United States has a strong leader.

“One of the virtues of Trump is his sheer unpredictability. That’s one of the reasons why I look at how he actually behaved on foreign affairs and I contrast it with what people say about him.

[AgrarniyyChel]

It is a pity that the city of Ugledar was lost...

[BADecker]

It is a pity that the city of Ugledar was lost...

Ugledar wasn't lost. It was won. It was Vugledar that was lost.

[BADecker]

The sorry plight of Ukraine, and the loss of face in the West, is something that may have to be accepted by all.


Kiev May Have to Accept Loss of Territory, Says Ex-NATO Boss


https://www.infowars.com/posts/kiev-may-have-to-accept-loss-of-territory-says-ex-nato-boss
Stoltenberg ended his ten-year tenure as the chief of the US-led alliance on October 1. In a conversation with the Financial Times published on Friday, he said that Kiev may be forced to rethink seeing the restoration of the 1991 borders as a prerequisite for any peace deal.

Stoltenberg suggested that "a kind of new momentum" would come after the US presidential election in early November, possibly ushering in "ways to try to get movement on the battlefield combined with movement around the negotiating table."

The West should "make the conditions" that would enable Ukraine to "sit down with the Russians and get something which is acceptable… something where they survive as an independent nation."

Asked what he would propose to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, the former NATO chief offered a comparison to the resolution of the Soviet-Finnish war nearly 85 years ago.

"Finland fought a brave war against the Soviet Union in '39. They imposed much bigger costs on the Red Army than expected," he said. "The war ended with them giving up 10% of the territory. But they got a secure border."

Under the March 1940 treaty, Finland ceded a large portion of the Karelia region and Viipuri, its second-largest city at the time (known as Vyborg in Russia).

Stoltenberg argued that Ukraine could obtain security guarantees from NATO even "if there is a line that is not necessarily the internationally recognized border." He noted that the US defense pact with Japan does not cover Tokyo's claim on the Kuril Islands, which are part of Russia, and that West Germany was admitted to NATO despite the fact that East Germany was controlled at the time by a separate, Soviet-aligned government.
...

[paxmao]

[...]
Hows "what all sovereign nations are perfectly entitled to do: choose their foreign relations, trade agreement and allies" works for Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan...? And once again, we're back to hypocrisy and double standards of the ‘For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law’ logic, and the reason for wars.

You are aware that Ukraine existed in that form before Putin right? Is everything fine in Taiwan/China, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Cuba, Mexico, China, Moldova, Georgia, Ireland, Scotland... and all other countries? Or you're proposing that a third-highest ranking US diplomat shows up in any of those countries with cookies and pushes them into wars too, you know as long as not everything is perfect with them? How many wars do you think can be started with such pretext? This logic can only have two logical outcomes, either a one world government or never ending wars, well i guess three, we can just kill each other with another world war. Are you invested in the military industrial complex by chance?

There's a huge jump between being an accomplice, a party to a conflict, and ok to bomb someone. The export only applies to advance weapons i.e. no one really controls Kalashnikovs exports around the world. If it's not just propaganda and they are proven to knowingly supply advance weapons to X, with which X attacks Y, then yes i do believe Y is justified to consider those countries to be part of a conflict to some extent.

In other news, looks like Israelis want Trump to be elected, so they're going to hit oil storage/production in Iran sending oil prices up, screwing Biden/Harris before elections, and indirectly helping Russian economy. Let's check with agent Boris on this

[...]

So, Iran, North Korea and China are accomplices of Ruzzia? Thus, since NK and Iran have provided ballistic missiles to Ruzzia according to your X.. Y ... Z ...theory they can now be nuked / bombed or whatever?

Ukraine chose a government that wanted to take further steps to approach the European Union an the US. Putin could not live with it - it simply gives too many ideas to the rest of the nations under his foot. It is simple as it gets.

You still think it is all about cookies, but, as said many times, you cannot defend a country in the way Ukraine is defending just because someone gave - according to your theory = whatever incentives. In the end, to maintain a government, you need a level of support from the population, the army, the economic powers...

It is simply a conceptual error that a diplomatic visit and a few giveaways is all it takes to change the direction of a country. It is time for you to start recognising that there were many mistakes before that in the way Putin was approaching the relations with Ukraine. Failing that, Ukraine could have never been looking somewhere else.

And now, keep whatabouting... it is amusing to see how you defend Venezuela (particularly after simply ignoring the last elections result) or Scotland (which had a referendum not that long ago) or Taiwan??? Please, open threads on these, there is plenty of people in the forum from those countries who would love to post about them.

[Branko]

Ukraine chose a government that wanted to take further steps to approach the European Union an the US. Putin could not live with it - it simply gives too many ideas to the rest of the nations under his foot. It is simple as it gets.

No, someone else chose it for them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu6PoBFPthc


Imagine Lavrov or Zakharova giving cookies in front of White House on 6th January if you want analogy