Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[VorZakone]

As for EU peacekeepers, at some point European voters are going to ask when their troops will come back.

They ought to think through how they'll prepare for withdrawal. Will they bolster Ukraine's military in the meantime, arm it to the teeth to signal to Russia that another invasion would be extremely costly? Will they push for NATO membership of the free parts of Ukraine aka the "West Germany" model?

 

[neverdie]

And in the meantime you will be filling the blanks yourself however you want, ignoring everything that doesn't fit your one narrative and complain that other people are toxic in the discourse.

No. I ignore this thread and the war for long periods of time and just wait until it looks like peace talks are on the horizon. That's what it looks like now. I win nothing from any of this except desire to see conflict end.

 

[neverdie]

Will they push for NATO membership of the free parts of Ukraine aka the "West Germany" model?

I cannot see the US accepting that. It was said recently, as in a week or two ago, by Rubio I think that this is never happening.

 

[B20]

Maybe that's why you need more spending? Clearly not that intelligent. Others could see it and you couldn't.

Open source political cables, thanks to wikileaks, provide a backdrop where the annexation is a contingency. It wasn't completely unknown. Proven pretty easily.

fecking hell, but you are an entitled little turd building condescension on pure retroactive fantasy.

The truly ignorant always think they are the smartest personin the room and you well and truly demonstrate it.

 

[Lemoor]

No. I ignore this thread and the war for long periods of time and just wait until it looks like peace talks are on the horizon. That's what it looks like now. I win nothing from any of this except desire to see conflict end.

If this is legitimately the case, you rewriting and imagining every possible event in a way that puts full blame on the West while pretending that Putin is some sort of purely reactive force of nature is extremely weird.

 

[stefan92]

I cannot see the US accepting that. It was said recently, as in a week or two ago, by Rubio I think that this is never happening.

At this point I think EU membership is more likely (a few years down the line) than NATO membership. Which would also include them in military guarantees.

 

[neverdie]

fecking hell, but you are an entitled little turd building condescension on pure retroactive fantasy.

The truly ignorant always think they are the smartest personin the room and you well and truly demonstrate it.

OK.

Spoiler: ...

Go read the China cold war thread and the last argument which centered around proofs if you want context to any of that. If you don't, then name-call away. We just don't agree and it's evident to each of us so I just ignore now.

(I also never pretended that the Russian economy would collapse, which you and others did). I.e., not retrospective.

 

[neverdie]

At this point I think EU membership is more likely (a few years down the line) than NATO membership. Which would also include them in military guarantees.

Last I recall the Russians said that they had no problems with Ukraine being the the EU which is a twist from their no-EU stand sometime ago. I agree with you.

Question then is whether the German-French axis wants it in the EU? There will be a lot of pressure for admission but other nations have been on the long-hold (decades) and might resent an instant admission or an accelerated admission?

 

[ericking]

I know this is overly simplistic but I can't help but feel that the deal Trump is proposing is:

Russia gets (the valuable bits of) Ukraine
US gets Greenland (and Canada?)
China gets Taiwan

 

[Red Star One]

If this is legitimately the case, you rewriting and imagining every possible event in a way that puts full blame on the West while pretending that Putin is some sort of purely reactive force of nature is extremely weird.

I mean, this thread really serves as a good example of how 2025 russophiles are just too much of cowards to admit their sympathies and would rather get into aggressive/abrasive/idiotic rants where they call much more competent people 'not that intelligent'
just be honest with yourselves and the others, don't be ashamed of your true colours! It's really cringe and tiring to read another post 'I don't like Putin BUT he had every right to attack Ukraine, it's a defensive war on the Russian side that's all West fault, I don't support Russia BUT Ukraine has no right to defend their territory and should've given up in the first week, it's a Russian zone of influence anyway and they all speak Russian, right? Why don't you think about those poor Russian recruits dying in this unjust war, if it wasn't for the evil west they would still be alive" rinse and repeat ad nauseum

 

[VorZakone]

What tends to be forgotten by the way is that territorial discussions are more than just about the Donbas and Crimea. There is still territory being occupied in Ukraine's south-east by Russia that they took post-2022 invasion. Is Russia going to give that up in negotiations?

 

[neverdie]

What tends to be forgotten by the way is that territorial discussions are more than just about the Donbas and Crimea. There is still territory being occupied in Ukraine's south-east by Russia that they took post-2022 invasion. Is Russia going to give that up in negotiations?

Cannot see Russia giving up the corridor to Crimea. Might get some concessions but that to me seems like their prize (also, the areas they took are the most mineral rich, by density, in all Ukraine).

 

[VorZakone]

 

[tomaldinho1]

Debt-trap, proxy war, Ukraine cannot possibly win, etc.

Things that are all true but were not tolerated at the time. Will become very obvious in the months ahead. A terrible outcome but all predictable.

Not in a confrontational way but didn't everyone predict the same thing, it doesn't make people soothsayers on war? If you didn't think Putin would invade, many did, it surely is quite a big oversight as well?

The two schools of thought were either Russia would bulldoze in and win quickly or this would happen - the long and drawn out war that the US probably wants as it drastically weakens one of their main geopolitical opponents.

Ukraine can definitely 'win' though, it just depends on how long they can hold on, how long they are supported etc. If US/NATO want them to eventually win, they will, if US/NATO feel like they've weakened Russia enough and want the world economy to settle down a bit, we will see the narratives now shift dramatically to talks of Ukraine's borders shrinking and peace being the only real option etc.

 

[Pexbo]

Fecking Lavrov the Cnut banning Europe from the negotiating table because shock horror they might actually stick up for Ukraine. That Cnut like Putin deserves his just desserts.

The plan is for US and Russian oligarchs to split Ukraine’s valuable natural resources between themselves.

 

[neverdie]

t didn't everyone predict the same thing, it doesn't make people soothsayers on war?

Yep. Not everyone, but a lot of people have said it for a long time. My only gripe is the extent to which it became unsayable here in the early years when it was obviously correct. Many were treated like shit for just saying what is/was true. It died down but that's classic propaganda hype.

I'm no soothsayer. I just listen to people who know more than me about these things and if there's "value" there I study them and so on. The people who predicted this conflict coming, which I had been engaged with for over a decade, personally, all said it would come for various reasons which some people don't allow you to speak of or some how throw the predictive power of those statements away as "whatever" because it doesn't suit their ideological understanding of this conflict. Not something I'll ever get into again because that is the most toxic this forum has ever been.

 

[neverdie]

Ukraine can definitely 'win' though, it just depends on how long they can hold on, how long they are supported etc. If US/NATO want them to eventually win, they will, if US/NATO feel like they've weakened Russia enough and want the world economy to settle down a bit, we will see the narratives now shift dramatically to talks of Ukraine's borders shrinking and peace being the only real option etc.

But this is wrong. Ukraine cannot win. It never was going to be able to win.

 

[stefan92]

But this is wrong. Ukraine cannot win. It never was going to be able to win.

Given enough support Ukraine could win a conventional war against Russia. It doesn’t because the West is just dragging things along instead of opening the floodgates. But that doesn't mean that it cannot win, it still is a political question.

 

[VorZakone]

But this is wrong. Ukraine cannot win. It never was going to be able to win.

Was this also said about the Algerians fighting France or the Vietnamese fighting the French and Americans, or the Afghans fighting the Soviets/Americans?

That's not to say I'm gonna claim the opposite that Ukraine can win. I don't know, perhaps they can make it costly enough for Russia to withdraw.

But I'm always curious if the "they can't win" argument was used for other countries resisting a colonial/invading power.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Yep. Not everyone, but a lot of people have said it for a long time. My only gripe is the extent to which it became unsayable here in the early years when it was obviously correct. Many were treated like shit for just saying what is/was true. It died down but that's classic propaganda hype.

I'm no soothsayer. I just listen to people who know more than me about these things and if there's "value" there I study them and so on. The people who predicted this conflict coming, which I had been engaged with for over a decade, personally, all said it would come for various reasons which some people don't allow you to speak of or some how throw the predictive power of those statements away as "whatever" because it doesn't suit their ideological understanding of this conflict. Not something I'll ever get into again because that is the most toxic this forum has ever been.

Apologies if I have missed something but I don't understand this post. What were people unable to say?

I thought you had said initially you did not think Putin would invade but you seem to be saying here you had many sources telling you the opposite?

Re Ukraine winning, how would it not be possible? I'm not saying it will happen but you have to admit it is a possibility?

 

[VorZakone]

So the European summit has started, initiated by Macron I think. Curious what they'll come up with.

 

[Jotun]

Yep. Not everyone, but a lot of people have said it for a long time. My only gripe is the extent to which it became unsayable here in the early years when it was obviously correct. Many were treated like shit for just saying what is/was true. It died down but that's classic propaganda hype.

I'm no soothsayer. I just listen to people who know more than me about these things and if there's "value" there I study them and so on. The people who predicted this conflict coming, which I had been engaged with for over a decade, personally, all said it would come for various reasons which some people don't allow you to speak of or some how throw the predictive power of those statements away as "whatever" because it doesn't suit their ideological understanding of this conflict. Not something I'll ever get into again because that is the most toxic this forum has ever been.

Nothing has been unsayable, but people are challenged on their ludicrous, fictional or fabricated claims.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof for your claim that west has torpedoed peace talks. Nor provided what exactly were the russian or ukranian demands.

You are also speaking about debt trap, which is absolute nonsense. After covid ravaged economies, the first thing EU decided is they want a war in neighbourhood and to lose access to cheap oil from russia, via sanctions. Yes, how, no.

There is only one person who wanted this war, Putin, and he was never interested in real negotiations. If you see his demands before war and during war... nah, you would still find some way to blame the west. Despite west only supporting and helping. Ukraine throughout. But maybe we should have let Russians to do to rest of Ukraine, what they did in Bucha.

It's also funny how no Ukrainians are complaining about the help or the your so called debt trap. In fact they are asking for more.

 

[Red in STL]

Hmm it could have a stronger army but it's worth pointing out that Israel almost uniformly spends >5% of its GDP on on the military, has compulsory military service and seems to paint almost every conflict as an existential battle for their people's very survival.

All of that might potentially be sellable to the citizens of Poland or Latvia. I think you'd have a much harder time convincing the citizens of Spain or the UK for example that the level of threat to them warranted the above.

+ however much the US gives them

 

[Bepi]

But this is wrong. Ukraine cannot win. It never was going to be able to win.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with all your Cassandra posts over here? The battlefield serves more purposes than just having one winner and one loser. Namely: an adjustement of influences, an assessment of real capabilities (military, economic, propaganda, fifth columns, spies and so on), the disentanglement from past agreements and different times, knowing better who your friends and foes are, the update of priorities (even the European Union waking up it seems, at last), and so on. Without this war, we would just have Putin and China still scheming while penetrating the West through different, hybrid manners? The world is really dangerous these days but much much clearer than three years ago, and only thanks to a latent war become hot. What happens now is in the hands and the heads of people playing their cards as open as you can get, which was not the case before 2022.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

fecking hell, but you are an entitled little turd building condescension on pure retroactive fantasy.

The truly ignorant always think they are the smartest personin the room and you well and truly demonstrate it.

Par for the course with them.

 

[VorZakone]

Nothing has been unsayable, but people are challenged on their ludicrous, fictional or fabricated claims.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof for your claim that west has torpedoed peace talks. Nor provided what exactly were the russian or ukranian demands.

You are also speaking about debt trap, which is absolute nonsense. After covid ravaged economies, the first thing EU decided is they want a war in neighbourhood and to lose access to cheap oil from russia, via sanctions. Yes, how, no.

There is only one person who wanted this war, Putin, and he was never interested in real negotiations. If you see his demands before war and during war... nah, you would still find some way to blame the west. Despite west only supporting and helping. Ukraine throughout. But maybe we should have let Russians to do to rest of Ukraine, what they did in Bucha.

It's also funny how no Ukrainians are complaining about the help or the your so called debt trap. In fact they are asking for more.

Some are. They're quite shocked by the change in tone and rhetoric and insulted by how the Trump admin tried to impose a mineral agreement on Zelensky.

 

[neverdie]

But I'm always curious if the "they can't win" argument was used for other countries resisting a colonial/invading power.

Israel used Russia's invasion as cover for what they are doing in Gaza/WB imo and Trump is using it for things like Greenland and now also Gaza

Landgrabbing and expansionalism (colonialism/etc).

I've been curious about it myself and the pattern seems clear enough. I cannot, therefore, figure out why Zelensky supported Israel unless he didn't want to upset the US.

 

[neverdie]

Nothing has been unsayable, but people are challenged on their ludicrous, fictional or fabricated claims.

Early on in this thread a lot was "sayable" if and only if you could accept 30 people responding, incorrectly, for hours, demonstrating why it could not a proxy war. That was a hot topic.

I remember because that and other reasons made me just leave this thread alone. I only come near it when it seems people are discussing the peace developments. Thankfully, although there's a lot of problems, it seems to me to be at its end.

 

[Jotun]

Some are. They're quite shocked by the change in tone and rhetoric and insulted by how the Trump admin tried to impose a mineral agreement on Zelensky.

I was referring to help they received so far. Yes, ofcourse, they should be wary of Trump and his deals.

 

[neverdie]

I thought you had said initially you did not think Putin would invade but you seem to be saying here you had many sources telling you the opposite?

I didn't go from any sources really I just didn't think he'd invade. Got it wrong. Happy to admit it.

Thing like "this is a proxy war" or anything related to NATO (without ever, once, trying to use NATO as a justification for the invasion which I have never once justified).

In hindsight, I think it's obvious enough. Highly emotive topic and no one really wanted a geopolitical debate (call it what you want, perhaps too geopolitical and speculative) at that time.

 

[neverdie]

Was this also said about the Algerians fighting France or the Vietnamese fighting the French and Americans, or the Afghans fighting the Soviets/Americans?

That's not to say I'm gonna claim the opposite that Ukraine can win. I don't know, perhaps they can make it costly enough for Russia to withdraw.

But I'm always curious if the "they can't win" argument was used for other countries resisting a colonial/invading power.

The thing is, you look at that map and it hasn't moved. I mean I play that map back over three years and I just see Russia consolidating the East and South East. At high cost, yes, to Russian troops, the people generally, and so on, but the few breakthroughs you can cite are barely worth talking about outside the context of negotiation. I just do not see how Ukraine can win and never have. With all the support in the world (Western) they haven't a chance of breaking through (not so far and things are harder now than before Russian consolidation) and without it I don't see how they sustain that effort? I just cannot see a path for them. Peace is only coming through negotiation imo.

 

[Suedesi]

This has been my position since about early 2023.

Which is, "I would rather have US aid than not have US aid, but US aren't in it for altruism here. But the whole blame of the war is on Putin/Russia's shoulders."

It is completely far cry from your position of, "Feck the USA and NATO, it's all their fault."

So do me a favour and pipe the feck down.

Oh, now you’re a nuanced centrist? Weren't you screeching for bans on anyone who dared question NATO’s “total victory” fantasy? Or calling dissenters “Putin apologists” or "Russian farm trolls"? Or dismissing peace talks anytime that argument was brought on by pretty credible sources? Keep scrubbing your hilariously wrong takes down the memory hole haha.

You’re right about one thing: The war started with Putin’s invasion. But pretending the U.S. didn’t pour gasoline on this fire for years—NATO expansion, regime-change ops in Kyiv, sabotaging Minsk—is like blaming a forest fire on the spark while ignoring the arsonists with jerrycans. And let’s not forget your boy Sullivan’s galaxy-brain “attrition” plan: Spend $100B to turn Ukraine into a meat grinder, hollow out our own stockpiles, and hand China a sanctioned Russia on a silver platter. Brilliant

Now you’re clutching pearls over Trump’s “quiet part out loud”? Please. Biden’s team did the same thing—they just wrapped it in “democracy” slogans while outsourcing Ukrainian lives to test obsolete gear. You don’t get to posture as the moral arbiter after years of shilling for NATO’s proxy war which has left Ukraine shattered, Russia unbroken, but your own NATO career advancement intact

And spare me the “blame Putin” mantra. Nobody’s absolving him. But if you truly gave a damn about Ukraine, you’d admit this proxy war was a lose-lose from the start. Instead, you’re stuck doing damage control because your neocon playbook blew up in your face

PS: Pipe down? Nah. I’ll keep shouting until the grown-ups in the room admit that letting NATO’s LinkedIn warriors run foreign policy wasn’t the genius move you all swore it was. A million unnecessary casualties deserves some stridency of tone

 

[Jotun]

Early on in this thread a lot was "sayable" if and only if you could accept 30 people responding, incorrectly, for hours, demonstrating why it could not a proxy war. That was a hot topic.

I remember because that and other reasons made me just leave this thread alone. I only come near it when it seems people are discussing the peace developments.

If you think it was a proxy war because of a few shipments of Javelins, then yes it's a proxy war between NATO and North Korea. FFS. Yes later on, the military help became bigger and more substantial. But in the classical sense where the goal is to bleed the enemy dry in a war where you don't have much geopolitical interests (such as soviet - afghanistan) conflict, it's completely different. We are not helping Ukraine because Russia is our enemy. FFS, Russia was a friend, a trade partner with half the NATO. This war has caused significant instability in the world and is in no-ones interest (not even Putins). We are helping an innocent, democratic country in a war for their survival as a nation, as a people.

Also, mighty of you to accuse people of lying with your fabricated claims that west torpedoed the negotiations. You still haven't provided any info on what the demands and what the outcome was supposed to be. You also haven't provided any info on how those talks were torpedoed by the west.

Thankfully, although there's a lot of problems, it seems to me to be at its end.

You sure you don't mean, thankfully Ukraine will finally get shafted by the Trump?

 

[Jotun]

Oh, now you’re a nuanced centrist? Weren't you screeching for bans on anyone who dared question NATO’s “total victory” fantasy? Or calling dissenters “Putin apologists” or "Russian farm trolls"? Or dismissing peace talks anytime that argument was brought on by pretty credible sources? Keep scrubbing your hilariously wrong takes down the memory hole haha.

You’re right about one thing: The war started with Putin’s invasion. But pretending the U.S. didn’t pour gasoline on this fire for years—NATO expansion, regime-change ops in Kyiv, sabotaging Minsk—is like blaming a forest fire on the spark while ignoring the arsonists with jerrycans. And let’s not forget your boy Sullivan’s galaxy-brain “attrition” plan: Spend $100B to turn Ukraine into a meat grinder, hollow out our own stockpiles, and hand China a sanctioned Russia on a silver platter. Brilliant

Now you’re clutching pearls over Trump’s “quiet part out loud”? Please. Biden’s team did the same thing—they just wrapped it in “democracy” slogans while outsourcing Ukrainian lives to test obsolete gear. You don’t get to posture as the moral arbiter after years of shilling for NATO’s proxy war which has left Ukraine shattered, Russia unbroken, but your own NATO career advancement intact

And spare me the “blame Putin” mantra. Nobody’s absolving him. But if you truly gave a damn about Ukraine, you’d admit this proxy war was a lose-lose from the start. Instead, you’re stuck doing damage control because your neocon playbook blew up in your face

PS: Pipe down? Nah. I’ll keep shouting until the grown-ups in the room admit that letting NATO’s LinkedIn warriors run foreign policy wasn’t the genius move you all swore it was. A million unnecessary casualties deserves some stridency of tone

So it was NATO, who caused the Putin to annex crimea? It was NATO who caused Putin to send Girkin to incite rebellion in Ukraine. FFS. Stop inventing outright lies.

As for those peace talks, it's funny, how people like you are spouting these lies, when they were a complete sham from the start. But, I'll be honest. So please provide proof for the following claims:
US instigated regime change in Kyev.
US sabotaged Minsk deals.
Credible sources that peace talks would result in a deal acceptable to both Ukraine and Putin.

I really love those peace talks claims by folks, when from even before invasion, Putin's demands were maximalists and beyond any sanity.

 

[Red Star One]

Oh, now you’re a nuanced centrist? Weren't you screeching for bans on anyone who dared question NATO’s “total victory” fantasy? Or calling dissenters “Putin apologists” or "Russian farm trolls"? Or dismissing peace talks anytime that argument was brought on by pretty credible sources? Keep scrubbing your hilariously wrong takes down the memory hole haha.

You’re right about one thing: The war started with Putin’s invasion. But pretending the U.S. didn’t pour gasoline on this fire for years—NATO expansion, regime-change ops in Kyiv, sabotaging Minsk—is like blaming a forest fire on the spark while ignoring the arsonists with jerrycans. And let’s not forget your boy Sullivan’s galaxy-brain “attrition” plan: Spend $100B to turn Ukraine into a meat grinder, hollow out our own stockpiles, and hand China a sanctioned Russia on a silver platter. Brilliant

Now you’re clutching pearls over Trump’s “quiet part out loud”? Please. Biden’s team did the same thing—they just wrapped it in “democracy” slogans while outsourcing Ukrainian lives to test obsolete gear. You don’t get to posture as the moral arbiter after years of shilling for NATO’s proxy war which has left Ukraine shattered, Russia unbroken, but your own NATO career advancement intact

And spare me the “blame Putin” mantra. Nobody’s absolving him. But if you truly gave a damn about Ukraine, you’d admit this proxy war was a lose-lose from the start. Instead, you’re stuck doing damage control because your neocon playbook blew up in your face

PS: Pipe down? Nah. I’ll keep shouting until the grown-ups in the room admit that letting NATO’s LinkedIn warriors run foreign policy wasn’t the genius move you all swore it was. A million unnecessary casualties deserves some stridency of tone

Trainwreck of a post and you can tell it comes from someone who is not from Central or Eastern Europe, doesn’t know the region and has no idea what he talks about. If you think the Baltics or CEE post Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO because “US was pouring gasoline” and not for their history with Russia/USSR and Russian influence (covert or not) you really have no clue and enjoy taking shite no one treats seriously

 

[Lemoor]

So it was NATO, who caused the Putin to annex crimea? It was NATO who caused Putin to send Girkin to incite rebellion in Ukraine. FFS. Stop inventing outright lies.

As for those peace talks, it's funny, how people like you are spouting these lies, when they were a complete sham from the start. But, I'll be honest. So please provide proof for the following claims:
US instigated regime change in Kyev.
US sabotaged Minsk deals.
Credible sources that peace talks would result in a deal acceptable to both Ukraine and Putin.

I really love those peace talks claims by folks, when from even before invasion, Putin's demands were maximalists and beyond any sanity.

He literally claimed on multiple occasions that Russia would have never invaded Ukraine, if Ukrainians were aiming to join EU, but ignore NATO. This is beyond parody.

 

[neverdie]

You sure you don't mean, thankfully Ukraine will finally get shafted by the Trump?

Yes. But that they were going to get shafted was always the case after a certain point in time. Or you might even say after the initial invasion? They lose regardless of how this ends at the negotiating table, the only question is how much they lose.

I just want it to end. I don't see how Ukraine can win (no matter how many hundreds of billions) and assume their best chance is negotiating a settlement.

 

[neverdie]

But in the classical sense where the goal is to bleed the enemy dry in a war where you don't have much geopolitical interests (such as soviet - afghanistan) conflict, it's completely different. We are not helping Ukraine because Russia is our enemy

It was called a proxy war by Hillary Clinton from the get-go and for a liar she was remarkably accurate. Many intelligent posters I never agree with on these issues knew this was a proxy war, too, because they said, in the realpolitik world, that the US would be foolish not to try and make this as costly for Russia as possible. I don't think most (we'd need a poll of people without bias, and not online) would consider this anything but a proxy war for the US, UK, some EU nations and then something else for Ukraine (obviously) and also certain other EU nations which are in that region. Even then, if we stay in that region, or along/near the Russian border(s), it would be viewed as a proxy war. That is, the "Ukraine is fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" (completely orthodox opinion from Washington, Brussels, London, and Kyiv) = proxy war.

It's no slight to Ukraine to call it what it is, imo, and so I never understood why people were irritated with that one. The NATO thing is understandable and we required a whole new thread for it. It's a far more complex claim whether you think it complete nonsense or not.

 

[nimic]

I'm tired.

5 weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine

Potential NATO invasion of Russia would not be incorrect either. Poor one-sided reporting from Western outlets.

NATO has expanded to circumscribe Russia and Russia is weary of it. Nothing else to it. Russia won't invade the Ukraine.

4 weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine

whats going to happen here lads?

No one really knows but best case scenario would be security talks which addressed the right of Ukraine to maintain its own course but also denies it the right of NATO membership. Ukraine is split like 75-25 with the Russian areas being in the east and centre and the dominant Ukranian areas being in the West. Around Kiev and so on. Russia doesn't want to invade Ukraine because it would cause enormous losses. But if Ukraine attacks Russian areas, there might be a response.

Jaw jaw is better than war war in this scenario, too.

 

[neverdie]

I'm tired.

5 weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine


4 weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine

Cheers. First: was wrong, and said so.

Same thing in the second.

I, too, am tired of vendetta posters.

I won't bring NATO into this thread because I'm not trying to rile anyone up. Left it alone years ago. Now is Nimic perfect and will his posts (let's go back ten years) make him seem infallible (you know, human?)?

Btw, you tried this before and it was pointless then and is pointless now. It's basically a bs attempt to try and discredit points which have been met and others which have nothing to do with my actual mistake at the start (many people made the same).

This thread has always been a cultish madness at times. This sort of scapegoating nonsense being indicative of it.