Things are heating up in the Donbass

spat · Jun 15, 2024

holdover said:
Bullys? lol. Does the word hypocrisy mean anything to you? You do know that if the war starts you and your family are going to die right?

Well, what else do you call a guy who keeps invading his neighbors because he wants their territory?

Do you get kick your neighbors out of their house because you don't like who they invite over for BBQ ?

spat · Jun 15, 2024

holdover said:
LOL! buffer? yes! They had a fucking buffer for the last thirty 30 years! what the west wanted was /is an expansion into the buffer zone when they wanted Ukraine to join NATO. ie: NATO bases on Russias border , Loss of the black sea fleet . The target had always been the break up of russia into several counties which could be played against each other and fall under the direction of the EU .

Putin told the EU, world economic forum , and globalism to go fuck thier mother. they arnt playing . You dont see African migrants in Moscow do you? You see them in N korea? China? ? All of them are enemy's to globalization. Putin was'nt going to have any of that nonsense .

Your siding with a dementia filled, shit stained, pedophile who sold us out and cant tie his own shoes . Your siding with the most corrupt administration this country has ever seen . And your proposing a nuclear fucking war ! This aint TV man . Millions of people (and dogs)dead .Theres no un ringing that bell , no do overs . Just poisoned ash ruins and bones .

Better tell Putin to stop fucking around before he kills everyone then.

spat · Jun 16, 2024

holdover said:
Putin just said

"Any airfields hosting Ukraine's F-16 fighter jets, whether they are in or outside the country, will be legitimate targets for the Russian military if they participate in combat missions against Moscow’s forces."

So being attacked by NATO planes is an escalation on Russias Part? Its common fucking sense that if they are attacked by NATO they are forced to respond . they could have aattacked those airfields 6 months ago , 2 years ago . if they were the aggressor , they didnt have to wait to be attacked

Your blind.

I don't get why you are such an apologist for Putin.

You literally say "well, he warned us, so it's our fault".

Well, how about "we warned him, so it's his fault".

How about "pack up your shit and get it out of Ukraine or we'll eliminate it".

Well, we warned him, it's his fault 3/4 of the Russian military is a smoking wreck now.

spat · Jun 16, 2024

holdover said:
Its not apologist at all. Nothing was wrong with the arrangement the way it was. Ukraine agreed to be neutral, Ukraine agreed to the Minsk accords , NATO agreed not one inch Eastward

"You promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly," -Vladimir Putin

Nato expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”-Vladimir Putin

NATO expanded first to add the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland; then seven more countries even farther east, including the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; and finally with Albania and Croatia in 2009.

And now Ukraine.

In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.”

In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

View attachment 237257

Nothing to see here.

According to the western story, Putin woke up one day and thought invadeing ukraine with a smaller army and then take over the rest of Europe was a great idea. That Putin is the same as Adolph Hitler. and plans to dominate all of Europe .

what kind of high school bullshit is that?

It had nothing to do with the CIA overthrow of Ukraine , or of placeing NATO armys on Russias border, or the elimination of black sea fleet. Had nothing to do with that. there is absolutely no national security threat to Russia there right?

Why the hell do you think Biden pulled all US assets out of Ukraine 6 months before the war started? Russian aggression my ass . Sorry to say, Our government is an organized crime syndicate that answers to no one .

The only strategic purpose of Ukraine joining NATO is that it is one step closer to Moscow . Thats it . For the new world order to work it must bring Russia into the envelope. Its a must. Russia is standing in the way of a new global economic hegemony.

The other day Putin offered the third peace treaty to Ukraine , albeit a shitty deal no doubt, and the next one will be even shittyer . but its take the deal or lose it all anyway. Ukriane choose poorly , They are truely fucked now.

And those planes ever cross the Ukraine border they are going to see missiles headed right for the airfields they just left , no doubt.
the decision to start WW3 lies on the decision to launch attacks against Russia or not. Not Russias response to those attacks , thats a no brainer.

Except NATO doesn't expand by conquering territory.

That is the fundamental difference.

NATO offers nations security so that they voluntarily join.

Russia conquers them.

Would Russia have been happier if Ukraine just penned a mutual defense pact with each NATO member individually?

Maybe no NATO at all, but the US just leases some land and builds some bases like we do everywhere else in the world ?

No, Russia doesn't get to tell Ukraine who they can be friends with. That's not how it works.

Would Ukraine be justified in invading western Russia because they wanted a buffer against Moscow ?

Why is Russia the only country entitled to buffer ?

Mosinitis · Jun 16, 2024

International agreements bound all sides or none. How about NATO getting back behind Elbe river and Russian troops back to the East of Elbe to start things over?

The West expended NATO in violation of the agreement it made and proclaimed any resistance to this sweeping Eastward martch an aggression.

To those in Washington, Brussels and Kiev who think it is unacceptable for Russian people to live on their historic territory, speak their language and honor their victories, prominent figures and heroes all I can say is go fuck yourselves. History and odds are not on your side.

Defilade · Jun 16, 2024

How much you wanna bet all the "woke" liberals who cheered the Ukraine war will run and hide the moment the US government announces a mandatory military draft? It's one thing to change your avatar icon to a Ukrainian flag... it's quite another to die in a trench under Russian artillery fire or FPV drone strikes. If you don't know what war is, stop cheering for it. Because when it finds you, life becomes hell.

Robin · Jun 16, 2024

According to that personification of Nazism, Putin, we almost had a nuclear war this week.
Robin

spat · Jun 16, 2024

Robin said:
According to that personification of Nazism, Putin, we almost had a nuclear war this week.
Robin

He's either serious, in which case we should get it over with.

Or he's not, in which case we should ignore his bullshit.

In neither case is backing down because of his bellowing the right move.

So, if you think Putin is serious, then the logical answer is a massive first strike *right fucking now* to eliminate as much of his arsenal as possible, to limit our damage.

If he's just blowing smoke, then it doesn't matter what he says.

spat · Jun 16, 2024

holdover said:
ORRRRR, we can avoid a nuclear Apocalypse and not attack him . We dont have to . We can just say no to nuclear war.

Do you think he is going to start one over conventional forces in Ukraine ?

If your answer is yes, then hitting him first is the only answer.

Anything less and he can do anything he wants anywhere he wants, and he will know it.

If you back down here, again, he can just assume you will always back down.

spat · Jun 16, 2024

holdover said:
Hitting him first with nuclear weapons , not Hitting him with conventional weapons , thats a provocation which is designed to place blame on Russia.

Russia isnt going to nuke anyone if they are not attacked

The problem is Russia attacks other people, then when they defend themselves he says "we are being attacked". You can't invade half of Ukraine and expect Ukraine not to strike targets in Russia.

And you can't insist that nobody trades with Ukraine so you can beat them into submission.

If that's his definition, then he is claiming that he can attack anywhere and any meaningful defense will trigger nuclear war.

So, he invades Poland, and says "if Poland attacks me back it will be nuclear war".

No. Just no.

If that's his attitude, then a decapitation strike is the only answer.

So, is that his attitude ?

spat · Jun 16, 2024

holdover said:
Hitting him first with nuclear weapons , not Hitting him with conventional weapons , thats a provocation which is designed to place blame on Russia.

Russia isnt going to nuke anyone if they are not attacked

We no longer need to use nuclear weapons to eliminate his nuclear weapons. We *can* eliminate his nuclear threat with conventional weapons only.

That wasn't the case in the cold war, but it is today.

spat · Jun 16, 2024

holdover said:
Well your correct there

In theory, but in reality, thats what NATO was intended to stop . ANY attack against NATO could result in a nuclear war. the nuclear deterrence

Ukraine was not a part of NATO , there was no nuclear trip wire where we were committed to go. but that was all going to change when Ukraine decided to join NATO . Ukraine would have been covered by NATO , Russia would have lost the black sea fleet , the gas lines , shipping lanes and would not have been able to do a dam thing about it , except pound sand . Ready or not , They had to make a move before Ukraine joined NATO .

Meanwhile, knowing that a Ukraine /Russia , war was likely, NATO began arming Ukraine 8 years prior. Thats why when the media says Putin is just a mad man bent on the take over of Europe story is total bullshit. Its an open book if you choose to read it . the war was planned and financed in the US state dept years earlier.

Yea, Ukraine joining NATO would have put an end to Putin's designs on conquering it.

That doesn't mean he had any right to do it LOL.

Literally the only difference between this and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait is Russia's nukes, and mud vs sand.

This all could have been avoided if Biden had a little backbone. But I'm pretty sure he *wanted* the invasion to happen, and Putin walked right into it.

spat · Jun 17, 2024

holdover said:
Dam right it would have. Putin even admitted that Russia cant beat NATO.

NATO is a national security threat to Russia, just because you dont think so doesnt mean anything. The Russians see it that way and rightfully so.

LOL that and a huge list of other things you cant typically see

Dam right he wanted it , they planned it for the last 25 years. Putin was forced into it . Its not like the west had no fucking clue what would happen, Putin had screamed it for the last 30 fucking years Ukraine joining NATO would mean war . that was national policy for 30 years for gods sake !!! it was no secret. Now everybody is shocked??In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.

In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.”

In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

Man, I never saw that coming! Your in denial of the facts.

View attachment 237338

It doesn't matter if Russia had said they wanted Ukraine for 100 years.

That doesn't give them the right to take it.

And why is Russia's "national security" more important than Ukraines ?

Throwing a tantrum because you don't get your way doesn't mean people should let you have what you want, especially when it is invading your neighbors.

Russia could have kept their troops behind their own border for 100 years and nothing would have happened. If Putin thought otherwise, that's his mistake that cost millions of people their lives.

Mosinitis · Jun 17, 2024

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs speaks about Western Russophobic Schizophrenia and its dangerous path.
"What's a nuclear war among friends" Collective West Mentality.

spat · Jun 17, 2024

holdover said:
Your right, but thats not what they said. Putin or anybody else never said anything like that.

Your whole Premise is wrong, and therefore your arguments are wrong . Russia had total control of Ukraine , and had allowed them thier own sovereignty under the agreement they would never join NATO . Ukraine and Russia were both westernizing, they had no conflicts of interest. Russia had no reason to do anything to Ukraine. The conflict of intrests began with the overthrow of the Ukraine goverment by the benevolent and peace loving peoples of NATO who would never expand thier control .

Its circumstantial for sure, but if someone points a loaded weapon in your face , its totally appropriate to blow thier fucking head off, You dont have to wait until they shoot first . Its assumed they mean you harm and your actions are justified .

It is to the Russians .

Nothing would have happened Says you.

“I propose to divide Russia into 200 ethnic states. Russia is the largest colonial power in the world and is holding 200 ethnic states captive.” - Polish President Duda.»

View attachment 237355

There is a small but growing lobby in Europe and the United States making the case for the break-up of the Russian Federation. Their main argument is that Putin’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist proves that the Russian state is irredeemable imperialist, and that none of its neighbors can feel safe living alongside such a revisionist and expansionist state.

Advocates of this position also draw the analogy with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union seemed to be a permanent feature of the international landscape, but it abruptly collapsed like a house of cards in 1991. They argue the same thing could happen to the Russian Federation, which occupies 60 percent of the territory of the Soviet Union and rules over 190 ethnic groups inside 21 republics in the federation.

Such arguments were advanced at a meeting in Brussels convened by the European Conservatives and Reform group, the conservative bloc in the European Parliament, on January 31. They called for the creation of 34 new states on the territory of the Russian Federation. In Washington, DC the Hudson Institute and Jamestown Foundation met to discuss “Preparing for the dissolution of the Russian Federation” on February 14; while a “Free Peoples of Russia Forum” convened in Sweden in December 2022. The case was laid out by Janusz Bugajski in his book “Failed State: A Guide to Russia’s Rupture.”

They have some supporters in Ukraine. On October 18, 2022, Ukraine’s Parliament declared the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria “temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation.” In February, novelist Oksana Zabuzko published an op-ed in the New York Times calling for the break-up of Russia.

1. Any peace with Russia is just a pause before a new Russian attack. And even the military defeat of Moscow or long-term international sanctions do not mean the elimination of the Russian threat.

The only way to liberate the subjects of the Russian Federation from slavery, and the world from the Russian threat, is the collapse of the prison of nations. And the only engine of such a collapse can only be national and regional movements within the Russian Federation.

Recently, Oleksiy Danilov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, spoke about the need to decolonize Russia and provide the peoples enslaved by Moscow with the opportunity to exercise the right of self-determination .

8. The decolonization of Russia is a key condition for peace and security in Ukraine, and not only in Ukraine. Therefore, the full support of this process is the task of every responsible Ukrainian. This is not about any artificial dismemberment, but about giving freedom to enslaved peoples. And for people living in the open spaces occupied by Moscow, there is an opportunity to break forever with Russian identity and realize their belonging to these free countries and peoples.

9. The prison of nations will collapse. And everyone will benefit from this. And the peoples of Russia who will become free. And the Russians themselves, who will finally be able to take care of their own lives, and not wars of conquest, will condemn Russian imperialism and war criminals and, through repentance, will emerge from international isolation.

Yes, I can certainly see the argument for breaking up Russia today.

Putin's Ukranian adventure played right into the hands of rhe people who are advocating that.

But, you still can't seem to explain how if "national security" is justification for Russia to invade Ukraine to counter NATO expansion, that NATO moving into Ukraine to counter Russian expansion wouldn't be equally justified.

spat · Jun 17, 2024

holdover said:
Ill explain it like this, Ukraine was a neutral state. It worked out well for both sides , neither side were supposed to use Ukraine for military purposes . Ukraine was buffer state for Europe and for the Russians it worked out well for both sides . the Ukrainians agreed to this neutrality and even put it into their new constitution , they were supposed to be like Switzerland .

Which ever side violated this neutral territory would be considered the aggressor . Thats how it works.

NATO moving into Ukraine to counter ""the Russian threat"" is in fact, a violation of the neutrality actually justifying the Russian attack.

NATOs attempted move into the Ukraine was a complete violation of the agreement between Russia and Ukraine .

The threat to the national security of Russia is obvious , NATOs plan to move into the Ukraine would have fucked Russia to the wall

Further more , rumors of the plans to break up Russia into pieces didnt sit well with the Russians . for months before the war began Russians saber rattled that they would be forced into a war if this continued . This red line was unacceptable

NATO was faced with a choice to make Ukraine a defacto member of NATO and arm them to the teeth with a western puppet in charge and let it go. or insist Ukraine will enter NATO knowing full well it meant war with Russia .

Now I ask you honestly, would it have made any difference if Ukraine remained a defacto member of NATO ? Not really. Unless the objective was more than the obvious. The war could have been avoided by simply not forceing the NATO issue and arming the shit out of Ukraine , with an under the table agreement they would help if Russia invaded . Now you have an acceptable buffer zone, avoided a war , have your hands in the pockets of Ukraine win win for the west .

Thats not the objective , and thats the read the Russians were seeing . After an attempt to bring Georgia into NATO , then Ukraine , The Russians are raising thier eyebrows . The whole reason they went into Georgia was the same thing, they had to prevent Georgia from joining NATO.

Theres no surprises here. This has always been thier policy The Russians see these moves as being pointed right at the heart of Russia

When NATO agreed to allow Ukraine into NATO, but had not signed them up yet , the Russians were compelled to shit or get off the pot. they had to make a move before the NATO armies were on thier doorstep. Russia stood to lose a lot .

Personally after watching the performance of the Russian military first year of the war , I dont believe the Russians were planning to fight at all . It was an ad hoc move . the Russian military didnt seem prepared to fight . which supports my belief they had no intentions of taking Ukraine at any point until NATO jumped into the picture.

Im off on a rant, back to the point , the act of NATO entering Ukraine would have been seen as a violation of neutrality justifying a Russian response . It was the west that was going to violate the neutrality of Ukraine. The Russians had to beat them to the punch

So, if NATO moving in *invited* would have been a violation, WTF do you call Russia rolling tanks across the border ?

And why do you relegate Ukraine to a setting in all this ? They are a sovereign nation with just as many rights as Russia has.

Would it be reasonable for Ukraine to demand Russia stop cozying up to China because it constitutes a threat to Ukraine ?

Drinkthekoolaid · Jun 17, 2024

holdover said:
Putin just said

"Any airfields hosting Ukraine's F-16 fighter jets, whether they are in or outside the country, will be legitimate targets for the Russian military if they participate in combat missions against Moscow’s forces."

So being attacked by NATO planes is an escalation on Russias Part? Its common fucking sense that if they are attacked by NATO they are forced to respond . they could have aattacked those airfields 6 months ago , 2 years ago . if they were the aggressor , they didnt have to wait to be attacked

Your blind.

I've made this exact point repeatedly in this thread.

Russia is going to hit NATO airfields and NATO will respond by establishing a no fly zone over western Ukraine and we will be a defacto state of war just waiting for an escalation to go direct peer on peer fight no proxy.

Drinkthekoolaid · Jun 17, 2024

spat said:
Yes, I can certainly see the argument for breaking up Russia today.

Putin's Ukranian adventure played right into the hands of rhe people who are advocating that.

But, you still can't seem to explain how if "national security" is justification for Russia to invade Ukraine to counter NATO expansion, that NATO moving into Ukraine to counter Russian expansion wouldn't be equally justified.

NATO has been incrementally expanding for decades I think that's the point. Russia wanted to join NATO at one time and they were denied. That would have been genuine world stability. China wouldn't dare step out of line unlike the disaster of a world we have in 2024.

I genuinely feel for the Ukrainian people. I do. I also don't think Russia is so great. Russia isn't some hero but Ukraine is a corrupt puppet and we have forced this war on Russia. We backed them into a corner until we knew they were going to have enough and be forced to act.

Russia isn't as vilionous as they are being portrayed. The US has fought wars for lesser reasons.

I'm just trying to be objective and not biased.

Things are heating up in the Donbass

.475 A&M Magnum

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

.950 JDJ

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

.338 Win Mag

.475 A&M Magnum

​

.700 Nitro Express

.577 Tyrannosaur.

.950 JDJ

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

.475 A&M Magnum

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

.950 JDJ

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

.338 Win Mag

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

.475 A&M Magnum

.475 A&M Magnum