Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    4,686
    Reaction score
    11,842
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    Russia continues to mass assets within range of Ukraine - though the official explanations are that they are for various exercises. United States intelligence has noted that Russian operatives in Ukraine could launch 'false flag' operations as a predicate to invasion. The West has pressed for negotiations and on Friday in Geneva, the US Sec. State Blinken will meet with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

    Certainly the Russian movements evidence some plan - but what is it? Some analysts believe that Putin's grand scheme involves securing Western commitments that NATO would never expand beyond its current composition. Whether that means action in Ukraine or merely the movement of pieces on the chess board remains to be seen.


    VIENNA — No one expected much progress from this past week’s diplomatic marathon to defuse the security crisis Russia has ignited in Eastern Europe by surrounding Ukraine on three sides with 100,000 troops and then, by the White House’s accounting, sending in saboteurs to create a pretext for invasion.

    But as the Biden administration and NATO conduct tabletop simulations about how the next few months could unfold, they are increasingly wary of another set of options for President Vladimir V. Putin, steps that are more far-reaching than simply rolling his troops and armor over Ukraine’s border.

    Mr. Putin wants to extend Russia’s sphere of influence to Eastern Europe and secure written commitments that NATO will never again enlarge. If he is frustrated in reaching that goal, some of his aides suggested on the sidelines of the negotiations last week, then he would pursue Russia’s security interests with results that would be felt acutely in Europe and the United States.

    There were hints, never quite spelled out, that nuclear weapons could be shifted to places — perhaps not far from the United States coastline — that would reduce warning times after a launch to as little as five minutes, potentially igniting a confrontation with echoes of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.






     
    Who said that it was a bad thing to have an interview? Nobody.

    What was being said was that Putin was extremely disrespectful of Tucker, and Tucker took it. He openly ridiculed Tucker, and all Tucker did was kiss his butt. That isn’t journalism.
    Adam Kinzinger and Boris Johnson said he was a traitor before the interview even came out.

    I've seen clips of the interview and I haven't seen the entire interview, but it didn't look anything like you described it.

    Have you seen any clips?

    Can you point out which parts of the the interview where Putin was disrespectful and ridiculed Tucker? What parts did Tucker kiss Putin's butt? I have a feeling that you won't despite making the claims.

    I did see this part. This is journalism despite what Anne Applebaum or David Frum told you:

     
    Nope. And lol, if we're having to define journalism, you've completely lost the plot.
    It's hard to tell the difference between you and MT15 anymore. You have taken her tactic of hiding behind vague claims and you often fail to get specific when you answer questions.

    The definition was for you because you obviously pick the people that you don't like what they are reporting and claim they aren't journalists. If you can't define what a journalist is while you claim actual journalists aren't journalists then your opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.

    Julian Assange and Tucker are journalists despite your claims otherwise and they have both have reported bigger stories than the people you would say are journalists.
     
    Last edited:
    It's hard to tell the difference between you and MT15 anymore. You have taken her tactic of hiding behind vague claims and you often fail to get specific when you answer questions.

    The definition was for you because you obviously pick the people that you don't like what they are reporting and claim they aren't journalists. If you can't define what a journalist is while you claim actual journalists aren't journalists then your opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.

    Julian Assange and Tucker are journalists despite your claims otherwise and they have both have reported bigger stories than the people you would say are journalists.
    Kinda hard to debate someone who lives in fantasy land. They're not journalists no matter how much you want them to be. If they are, then you might as well include every independent blogger and YouTuber or what have you.
     
    Adam Kinzinger and Boris Johnson said he was a traitor before the interview even came out.
    He has said plenty before this that would support their opinions. They knew he went there as a sycophant. So, they have their opinions. How does that prove anything?

    I've seen clips of the interview and I haven't seen the entire interview, but it didn't look anything like you described it.
    You just admitted you have only seen clips. Knowing you, you’ve only seen carefully curated clips from people sympathetic to Tucker and Putin. Why don’t you watch some clips from other sources? Or, horrors, watch the entire interview?

    Can you point out which parts of the the interview where Putin was disrespectful and ridiculed Tucker? What parts did Tucker kiss Putin's butt? I have a feeling that you won't despite making the claims.
    Yes. Tucker allowed Putin to spew total garbage made-up history. He didn’t push back when Putin said that Poland provoked Hitler to invade them. He was deferential in his speech towards Putin. Putin made Tucker wait for quite a while. He pointed out Tucker’s failure to join the CIA in a mocking way.

    Putin has also claimed since the interview that Tucker was paid to come and take part in the “interview”. The interview was basically a chance for Putin to spew propaganda without any meaningful pushback from a lightweight like Tucker. Why do you suppose he chose Tucker? It’s not because he respects him, it’s because he knew he could control the interview. And he did. It was shameful.

     
    Reuters supports Putin!


    MOSCOW/LONDON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin's suggestion of a ceasefire in Ukraine to freeze the war was rejected by the United States after contacts between intermediaries, three Russian sources with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters.

    The failure of Putin's approach ushers in a third year of the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War Two and illustrates just how far apart the world's two largest nuclear powers remain.


     
    Reuters supports Putin!


    MOSCOW/LONDON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin's suggestion of a ceasefire in Ukraine to freeze the war was rejected by the United States after contacts between intermediaries, three Russian sources with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters.

    The failure of Putin's approach ushers in a third year of the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War Two and illustrates just how far apart the world's two largest nuclear powers remain.


    What would it take for you to actually read what you post BEFORE you post it so that you won’t make stupid claims like you just did? I’m serious. You are a complete waste of everyone’s time on here.

    Russians are claiming that discussions recently happened, the US says they didn’t and that there will be no talks that don’t involve Ukraine. I know I don’t believe any anonymous Russian sources about anything. Why would anyone believe them?

    How is Reuters supporting Putin in this article? I already know you won’t answer, because all you want to do is troll this board.

    From the article:

    “A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.”
     
    What would it take for you to actually read what you post BEFORE you post it so that you won’t make stupid claims like you just did? I’m serious. You are a complete waste of everyone’s time on here.

    Russians are claiming that discussions recently happened, the US says they didn’t and that there will be no talks that don’t involve Ukraine. I know I don’t believe any anonymous Russian sources about anything. Why would anyone believe them?

    How is Reuters supporting Putin in this article? I already know you won’t answer, because all you want to do is troll this board.

    From the article:

    “A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.”
    Reuters supports Putin was a sarcastic comment considering the CIA talking points that anyone that says anything that criticizes US foreign policy or the narrative is supporting Putin.

    Yeah I saw the US denial. We keep getting more people that confirmed that the US had and continues to block any peace talks or ceasefire, but the supporters of the military industrial complex..I mean Ukraine continue to deny reality.

    You have tried to discredit that the US has stopped peace talks and ceasefire by claiming they are from questionable sources.

    Now we have the most credible corporate media according to many here and you will still deny reality.

    Here's the headline since you only read the parts of the article that include the US claims:

    1000004412.jpg
     
    You have tried to discredit that the US has stopped peace talks and ceasefire by claiming they are from questionable sources.

    Now we have the most credible corporate media according to many here and you will still deny reality.
    You will need to quote where the article says that the US is stopping peace talks and a ceasefire.

    What it actually says is that the US will not negotiate with Russia about the Ukraine war without the involvement of Ukraine.

    Is it your contention that Russian anonymous sources are to be trusted and US sources are not to be trusted?

    Do you think the US should negotiate the fate of another sovereign nation without that nation’s consent?

    These are simple yes or no questions. I wonder when you will ever start answering any of them.
     
    You will need to quote where the article says that the US is stopping peace talks and a ceasefire.

    What it actually says is that the US will not negotiate with Russia about the Ukraine war without the involvement of Ukraine.

    Is it your contention that Russian anonymous sources are to be trusted and US sources are not to be trusted?

    Do you think the US should negotiate the fate of another sovereign nation without that nation’s consent?

    These are simple yes or no questions. I wonder when you will ever start answering any of them.
    The truth matters little to these sycophants.

    All they want to do is obfuscate until folks get to a point of either not caring or fall into the trap of "hmmm maybe so". Because they don't feel like investing any energy into discovery of the truth. Rather, it's easier to just roll with what someone else says to form an opinion.

    SFL is a quintessential example of one of those people and his engage/disengage style of discussion is a hallmark of those types of people.

    He won't answer your question because you already know why. He can't. He is selective in what he responds to on purpose.
     
    Good. They should rename it the Military Industrial Complex bill.


    He may not have a choice. The bill would easily pass in a bi-partisan fashion.

    And it’s foolhardy to abandon Ukraine, an ally, to someone bent on genocide. We made a promise to Ukraine (as did Russia, but they aren’t to be trusted) when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. It would be a black mark on the US if the pro-Putin party supports war crimes and genocide by rewarding Putin for his treachery. The GOP will own this disaster.
     

    What do you think that means? Why would you think that's a bad thing? You spew a constant stream of garbage on nearly every thread, it's awfully tiresome. Do you want Russian or Chinese economic hegemony? You're damn right I want American economic hegemony. What country are you a citizen of?
     
    What do you think that means? Why would you think that's a bad thing? You spew a constant stream of garbage on nearly every thread, it's awfully tiresome. Do you want Russian or Chinese economic hegemony? You're damn right I want American economic hegemony. What country are you a citizen of?
    Thanks for the compliments. That was very nice.

    I thought NATO was a defensive alliance.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom