Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky
-
@Jolly said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Are there any Trump opponents, on this board or in public
I guess it's possible, but not likely.
@Copper said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
@Jolly said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Are there any Trump opponents, on this board or in public
I guess it's possible, but not likely.
Ain't been any ideas from our resident geniuses, has it?
-
Jon and Renauda are on team Escalate, but without actual danger of nuclear conflict. Renauda would first prefer that Russia establishes its unwillingness to negotiate a peace deal. Of course I do not presume to speak for either of them, but that is my understanding.
-
Horace, I am sure that the y’all cock of the walk, Beauregard Foghorn, is fully capable of reading my posts but only if he were to grow a pair of cojones and remove the cowardly block he is pretending to hide behind. I will however continue to call out his bullshit and gossip as I see fit, and at my choosing. Same goes for the trite huckleberry troll.
-
Since TNCR loves a good conspiracy theory, here is one: President Trump was recruited as a Soviet spy back in 1987
The USSR reportedly recruited Donald Trump as a KGB agent in 1987, a former Soviet Intelligence officer has claimed. This officer, Alnur Mussayev, was the head of the Kazakhstan's National Security Committee. Mussayev said his job was to recruit "businessmen from capitalist countries" and claimed that Trump was one of his recruits. The now-US President was then a 40-year-old New York real estate developer.
-
@Horace LOL
I would rank it up with the "stolen election" conspiracy". 555
-
I’ve completely lost the plot on what we’re trying to do in Ukraine now.
Do we just want our money back? (I don’t think so)
Do we want the war to end for humanitarian reasons? (We don’t care about all wars in the world, so this can’t be the only thing)
Do we think we there’s a risk of nuclear escalation with Russia? (Sure, but they did support the opposite side as us when the Syria war was going on)
I could understand the old stance - don’t appease Russia, don’t let countries capture land through conquest.
I don’t understand what the current goal is. I’m not even debating what’s right or wrong. I really don’t get the objective.
-
I’ve completely lost the plot on what we’re trying to do in Ukraine now.
Do we just want our money back? (I don’t think so)
Do we want the war to end for humanitarian reasons? (We don’t care about all wars in the world, so this can’t be the only thing)
Do we think we there’s a risk of nuclear escalation with Russia? (Sure, but they did support the opposite side as us when the Syria war was going on)
I could understand the old stance - don’t appease Russia, don’t let countries capture land through conquest.
I don’t understand what the current goal is. I’m not even debating what’s right or wrong. I really don’t get the objective.
@xenon said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
I could understand the old stance - don’t appease Russia, don’t let countries capture land through conquest.
Except we were letting Russia capture land through conquest. Not letting them, would have required military escalation.
Maybe such escalation could exist without any threat of nuclear war. Doesn't seem like that's a provable claim either way, though.
Education is extremely important.
-
He has. But I don’t know why. Money? It might goad Russia into attacking us? Humanitarian/moral aversion to war? The world is not our problem?
If it’s the last one - we should drastically remake our military.
-
@xenon said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
I could understand the old stance - don’t appease Russia, don’t let countries capture land through conquest.
Except we were letting Russia capture land through conquest. Not letting them, would have required military escalation.
Maybe such escalation could exist without any threat of nuclear war. Doesn't seem like that's a provable claim either way, though.
Maybe such escalation could exist without any threat of nuclear war. Doesn't seem like that's a provable claim either way, though.
You’re right. It’s not. However the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) backed up with a reciprocal policy of maintaining a credible deterrence has kept any use of nukes in check between nuclear powers. Both Russia and the US adhere to the principles of nuclear deterrence developed in the Cold War. Crossing the nuclear threshold is always regarded as a last resort deployment. We used to call it thinking the unthinkable.
-
Not even allowed to plan. This isn’t appeasement, it’s straight up surrender.
Unless that stand down order extends to NSA and SIGINT I don’t think it is at all significant in terms of security. From what I can tell as is, it only eliminates a level of unnecessary redundancy more than adequately covered by the other two.
