Russia vs. Ukraine Part 2

[1DOWN4UP]

Again, you're confusing me. You're saying that Ukraine has no chance in one breath and saying Russia has no chance in the next. And it's not just "nazis" that were holed up in that plant in Marioupul.

I do think Putin thought this was going to be easier than it is.I think Ukraine will have to sue for peace,( read Azov said they will wack
ZELINSKYY if he does) so this thing will be a meat grinder for some time
So the new vacation spot for Nato officers is in Mariupol?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Empire of Bioweapon Lies | The Vineyard of the Saker

A bird's eye view of the vineyard

thesaker.is

Here is something from the enemies perspective.

 

[wagyu52]

As for Crimea, that has been the home of Russias Black Sea Fleet since the Rule of Catherine the Great. That will always be Russian property.

Until Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954

 

[oze]

Would you care to name a few unbiased news sources?

1) Pravda

 

[oze]

Is it General Olson (whom I can find nothing about) or *Admiral* Olson, who retired in 2011? And that cute little hammer and sickle icon sure leads me to believe that this is truly, at long last, the unbiased news source that we have all been waiting for.

 

[oze]

Empire of Bioweapon Lies | The Vineyard of the Saker

A bird's eye view of the vineyard

thesaker.is

Here is something from the enemies perspective.

Oh for G*d's sake. Sourcing "The Saker" again?!?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Oh for G*d's sake. Sourcing "The Saker"

And you sourcing CNN!

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Why Funding Ukraine Is Just Dead Wrong - Revolver News

Americans are paying $40 billion for the "privilege" of chancing nuclear war, and condemning the Ukraine to an endless war.

www.revolver.news

 

[smokingman]

Until Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954

It was Boris Yeltsin who gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1997. A treaty granted Russia permission to base its small Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol in exchange for Moscow forgiving Ukraine’s debt(which it did). The lease was set to expire after 20 years. With the recent extension(*my note it was extended in 2010 to 2042 in return for a 30% discount on Russian natural gas vs open market price...with the option to extend it 5 more years to 2047 requested to be added by Ukraine,to continue the discount if they choose), the Kremlin will have legal access to Sevastopol until 2042.

The reason Russia simply took over Crimea was Wolodymyr Selenskyj,at the insistence of the USA declared the lease void and that Ukraine no longer needed a discount on natural gas(probably because of the Billions the USA,EU,and Australia where pumping into Ukraine since 2014). Mind you there was an open civil war going on with two separatist regions in Ukraine,but at the time of the cancellation Crimea was not one of them. Then the shelling began destroying a few naval buildings the Russian's used and 18 civilians in one neighborhood near by where killed. So Russia invaded and the governor of Crimea decided they would vote on rather or not to join Russia(in no small part due to the ongoing civil war in Ukraine and over throw of a president just a few years ealier,it also did not hurt that the Russian language had been made illegal to teach,use in schools, or use in official documents when 97% of those in Crimea spoke Russian with less than 40% speaking Ukrainian as well).

The people voted yes. Dust settled and Crimea was not touched in any of the fighting for 3 years(other than a few border crossing issues of people wanting to get into Crimea). Though Ukraine did kill the power and cut off the river that feed it 93% of its fresh water. Russia built a power plant(and had ships fill in for awhile),helped drill new water(most of the water well drilling failed due to salt water intrusion,but a few succeeded) sources and of course imported millions of gallons of water. Crimea has still had very little conflict even in the current war,though many troops left from it and are stationed there,and a few missiles that hit the port.

Since the new conflict started the river was opened again(day 3 of the invasion by Russian troops)and the hydro power station put back in operation,though it has been shelled by mortars twice the dam/powerplant has thus far held up almost undamaged.

In 1954 it was decided to allow Crimea to be governed by Ukraine but with their own elected governor,the land was not given to Ukraine until 1997. Those are two very different things.

 

[wagyu52]

Why Did Russia Give Away Crimea Sixty Years Ago?

In 1954 the Soviet Union transferred control of Crimea to Soviet Ukraine. Mark Kramer (Harvard) explains the reasons behind this surprising decision, one which has come back to haunt Ukraine today with tragic consequences.

www.wilsoncenter.org

 

[oze]

View attachment 200622
And you sourcing CNN!

Never did and never will.

 

[Redhorse]

Fake.

 

[Brad69]

I have a solution!

Can the Ukrainians pay us back in baby formula?

 

[DadSmith]

Russia suspected of moving ‘nuclear-capable’ missiles towards Finland border

The Kremlin earlier warned Finland and Sweden joining Nato would be a ‘grave mistake with far reaching consequences’.

metro.co.uk

 

[KG1]

Putin now says that he sees no threat to Russia if Finland and Sweden joined NATO but cautioned that they would respond if the US led alliance bolstered military infrastructure in the Nordic region.

Putin sees no threat from NATO expansion, warns against military build-up

President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that there was no threat to Russia if Sweden and Finland joined NATO but cautioned that Moscow would respond if the U.S.-led alliance bolstered military infrastructure in the new Nordic members.

www.reuters.com

Putin needs to be reminded that a NATO alliance was formed strictly as a defensive mechanism against an attack and as such any military bolstering would be for defensive purposes only as a deterrent and not to precipitate an attack on Russia.

The point that must be stressed to Putin is Russia faces no threat of an attack initiated by a NATO member which they are prohibited from doing so by NATO charter and any action taken must only be in response if they are attacked first. If not other members are not obligated to come to their aid.

I think that is an important point and it would tend to discourage any individual NATO member from initiating an attack and it serves as a guarantee so to speak for Russia that it will not be attacked first.

Therefore Russia would only face military action triggered by a defensive response from the alliance if they chose to attack a NATO member first.

That is and always has been a NATO alliance charter and NATO has never threatened to initiate an attack on Russia.

 

[Leadeye]

US weapon stockpiles worry some lawmakers as Ukraine war rages on

Shipments to Ukraine of weapons such as Javelin anti-tank missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles have cut into the Pentagon’s inventory by about one-third, according to estimates by some lawmakers and experts during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

www.stripes.com

While modern weapons are more complex, I take great comfort that this country could in one factory make a B-24 four engine bomber every hour.

 

[Thor]

NATO is a defense pact, Russia is an imperialistic invasion threat. There is no reason for Putin to fear NATO expansion unless he intends to invade his neighbors.

Yeah, if he decides to invade Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, etc he should fear NATO because we've had enough of his **** and we will come for him to the end. We will be in Moscow in a week; just make us take that step Vlad; Polish tanks will be rolling through red square.

You nuke us dirt bag we'll nuke you right back.

 

[Redhorse]

Putin now says that he sees no threat to Russia if Finland and Sweden joined NATO but cautioned that they would respond if the US led alliance bolstered military infrastructure in the Nordic region.

Putin sees no threat from NATO expansion, warns against military build-up

President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that there was no threat to Russia if Sweden and Finland joined NATO but cautioned that Moscow would respond if the U.S.-led alliance bolstered military infrastructure in the new Nordic members.

www.reuters.com

Putin needs to be reminded that a NATO alliance was formed strictly as a defensive mechanism against an attack and as such any military bolstering would be for defensive purposes only as a deterrent and not to precipitate an attack on Russia.

The point that must be stressed to Putin is Russia faces no threat of an attack initiated by a NATO member which they are prohibited from doing so by NATO charter and any action taken must only be in response if they are attacked first. If not other members are not obligated to come to their aid.

I think that is an important point and it would tend to discourage any individual NATO member from initiating an attack and it serves as a guarantee so to speak for Russia that it will not be attacked first.

Therefore Russia would only face military action triggered by a defensive response from the alliance if they chose to attack a NATO member first.

That is and always has been a NATO alliance charter and NATO has never threatened to initiate an attack on Russia.

Putin won't have to worry about it if his buddy in Turkey, Erdogan, has his way. He's strongly hinting at blocking Sweden and Finland joining NATO unless they take a hardline stance against the Kurds.

 

[KG1]

Putin won't have to worry about it if his buddy in Turkey, Erdogan, has his way. He's strongly hinting at blocking Sweden and Finland joining NATO unless they take a hardline stance against the Kurds.

I heard about that. Maybe that's what prompted Putin to make his remark knowing that Turkey will cover Russia and not allow them to join.

 

[KG1]

Things are not looking good for a Finland/Sweden NATO acceptance based on a Turkish veto that Erdogan is using as leverage over a political beef.

Erdogan says Swedish, Finnish delegations should not bother coming to Turkey

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Monday that Swedish and Finnish delegations should not bother coming to Ankara to convince it to approve their NATO bid.

www.reuters.com