Also, hard to know when this video was recorded. He's possibly claiming the army is cutting off his supplies and Putin is unaware. Entirely possible given the fog of war.
The Russian military tolerates this guy because he has helped them do their dirty deeds. He’s a convenient barbarian, because they can always wash their hands and blame him when the war crimes are exposed. Wagner is not given any warm welcome by the army. So yes, I believe the Russian army is deliberately rationing his ammunition. They hate him because Putin has given him too much authority to defend the country, and they feel like he’s Putin’s right hand man…. Thing is Putin will throw him out a window or down a flight of stairs in a heartbeat if he goes against him. They’re all being used by Putin to seize resources from Africa and the third world, making him the richest man in the world. It’s all a massive criminal organization run by Putin who wants to rule the world really.
You have to go back to the tentative agreement that Ukraine and Russia reached before it was sabotaged by the US and UK for the basis of an agreement which has been made possible by the annexations that were made possible by the US/UK/NATO decision to weaken Russia instead of reaching a deal. China's proposal provides a framework to navigate and negotiate these issues.
Here's a summary of the un-debunked evidence of the the US/UK sabotage of a negotiated settlement a year ago:
You made the claim that a peace agreement was "sabotaged" by the "US/UK/NATO here before, and it was shown before that your "proof" didn't prove that at all. Waiting for a while and then repeating the same claim doesn't improve the "proof".
All of your "proof" is consistent with Russia not moving forward with peace discussions, and deciding to rely on war instead of peace. Russia deciding to end peace discussions at that time, is consistent with its behavior at the start of the war, when it "replied" to peace proposals by launching the full-scale invasion.
Can you refocus your refocus and explain how you propose to stop Putin?
It will be difficult. One big problem, is that as long as he thinks that enough Americans eventually will be willing to undercut support for Ukraine, so that support for Ukraine would be withheld, he'll keep bombing cities there.
I don't think the folks you support, who are trying to make that happen, will succeed in that, Paul.
I know that you support fighting to the last Ukrainian, but my question was addressed to @tjohn. I'm sure that he'll propose something creative/s.
Using the derogatory "you support fighting to the last Ukrainian" term for anyone who says the Ukrainian people should be helped to defend themselves against an outside aggressor is something all the appease activists say.
Using the derogatory "you support fighting to the last Ukrainian" term for anyone who says the Ukrainian people should be helped to defend themselves against an outside aggressor is something all the appease activists say.
"appease activist" is both a nice pun and an objective description of Paul's position. Since he'll insist that it's not, let's review:
- he believes Russia was justified in taking Crimea, because it is land formerly held by the Russian empire that has a significant Russian speaking population
- he believes this overrides international law and agreements, including those made by Russia itself, that recognize the 1991 borders of Ukraine
- he believes other countries which consist of territory in whole in or part formerly held by the Russian empire and that have significant Russian-speaking populations should not have joined NATO
- he believes that nothing should be done to resist ongoing Russian aggression -- Ukraine should stop fighting, no nation should help arm Ukraine, no non-military pressure should be applied against Russia by anyone
- he believes nothing should be done to prevent future Russian aggression -- Ukraine's military should be weak, no other country should directly or indirectly commit to any military or non-military acts against Russia in the case of renewed aggression.
Taken all together, this is objectively a pro-Russian position that supports not only Russia's current illegal war against Ukraine, but would also justify any Russian war against a large swath of nations from central Asia through eastern Europe.
Also, hard to know when this video was recorded. He's possibly claiming the army is cutting off his supplies and Putin is unaware. Entirely possible given the fog of war.
The Russian military tolerates this guy because he has helped them do their dirty deeds. He’s a convenient barbarian, because they can always wash their hands and blame him when the war crimes are exposed. Wagner is not given any warm welcome by the army. So yes, I believe the Russian army is deliberately rationing his ammunition. They hate him because Putin has given him too much authority to defend the country, and they feel like he’s Putin’s right hand man…. Thing is Putin will throw him out a window or down a flight of stairs in a heartbeat if he goes against him. They’re all being used by Putin to seize resources from Africa and the third world, making him the richest man in the world. It’s all a massive criminal organization run by Putin who wants to rule the world really.
Yes, Wagner is effectively what the SS was in Germany in WW2, operating outside of the main army, applying whatever rules seem to make sense when carrying out a genocide. Useful to have the regular army in competition with privateers? Seems notsomuch.
Yes, Wagner is effectively what the SS was in Germany in WW2, operating outside of the main army, applying whatever rules seem to make sense when carrying out a genocide. Useful to have the regular army in competition with privateers? Seems notsomuch.
Amazing how history repeats itself. Wagner announced today that they will be retreating from Bakhmut. Major developments.
You have to go back to the tentative agreement that Ukraine and Russia reached before it was sabotaged by the US and UK for the basis of an agreement which has been made possible by the annexations that were made possible by the US/UK/NATO decision to weaken Russia instead of reaching a deal. China's proposal provides a framework to navigate and negotiate these issues.
Here's a summary of the un-debunked evidence of the the US/UK sabotage of a negotiated settlement a year ago:
You made the claim that a peace agreement was "sabotaged" by the "US/UK/NATO here before, and it was shown before that your "proof" didn't prove that at all. Waiting for a while and then repeating the same claim doesn't improve the "proof".
All of your "proof" is consistent with Russia not moving forward with peace discussions, and deciding to rely on war instead of peace. Russia deciding to end peace discussions at that time, is consistent with its behavior at the start of the war, when it "replied" to peace proposals by launching the full-scale invasion.
I documented the claim with three inside sources: from Foreign Affairs, Ukrainska Pravda and the recorded words of Naftali Bennet.
Yes, Wagner is effectively what the SS was in Germany in WW2, operating outside of the main army, applying whatever rules seem to make sense when carrying out a genocide. Useful to have the regular army in competition with privateers? Seems notsomuch.
Amazing how history repeats itself. Wagner announced today that they will be retreating from Bakhmut. Major developments.
Kadyrov says his forces will replace them. It's a clown show, that will likely be clarified within 48 hours.
Kadyrov says his forces will replace them. It's a clown show, that will likely be clarified within 48 hours.
Russian forces will replace them … that’s gonna be a clown show for real. If it wasn’t for Wagner, Ukrainian forces would have retaken their country by now. Wagner has been decimated in Bakhmut. I think they are done with. We shall see what happens in Melitopol in the coming weeks. Once Ukrainians cut a dividing line between the Russian forces they will surrender because their supplies will be cut off. Notice every day another Russian fuel depot is catching on fire? pay attention, things are heating up. With the patriot system in place Russia won’t dare fly over Ukrainian territory.
No, we all shouldn't "agree to disagree" about the claim that "a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK" because that's not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
Not the first time this has been pointed out.
Here's the evidence that the US and UK sabotaged the tentative peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia in April 2022, that's been posted here before: ...
Yes, that's why I wrote, "Not the first time this has been pointed out". And the misrepresentations being repeated were previously debunked. Quick summary -
No, the Fiona Hill and Angela Stent article in Foreign Affairs doesn't support your claim that Boris Johnson or anybody else from NATO countries "sabotaged" an agreement. Not to mention, Putin said on April 11 that there wasn't going to be an agreement: "In the strongest signal to date that the war will grind on for longer, Putin said Kyiv had derailed peace talks by staging what he said were fake claims of Russian war crimes and by demanding security guarantees to cover the whole of Ukraine." Putin says peace talks with Ukraine are at dead end, goads the West | Reuters
As for former Israeli PM Bennett, he also recognized that Russia's atrocities had sabotaged any prospects for peace at that time: "The Bucha massacre - once that happened I said, It's over." Screenshots and captions from that same interview that you cite -
I documented the claim with three inside sources: from Foreign Affairs, Ukrainska Pravda and the recorded words of Naftali Bennet.
You can't rebut them so you obfuscate, as usual.
In addition to the rebuttal from last month (see above), it was previously rebutted on this thread last September. As I said, waiting a while and repeating the false claim doesn't make it true.
I've posted this before, but since you've apparently forgotten, here's the link to the report in Foreign Affairs by Fiona Hill and Angela Stent on the tentative deal reached by Russia and Ukraine in April 2022 (see screenshot below):
And finally, for the umpteenth time, Russia never tried to block NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. However, for 30 years it has warned that NATO expansion into Ukraine was considered an existential threat and implied it would go to war to stop it.
The Fiona HIll report has nothing to do with the speculation about Boris Johnson. It's misused as a way to imply that there's any substance behind the report that there was a deal that Johnson scuttled.
The theory that there was a deal is a hypothetical, and not even the best one that could be drawn from the available evidence.
Now, while Paul writes that Russia "warned that NATO expansion into Ukraine was considered an existential threat and implied it would go to war to stop it", under the deal being discussed in the Spring, "Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and in return receive security guarantees from a number of countries."
Putin didn't put a deal like that "on the table" when he made the choice to invade. That's a strong indication that he had other reasons for invading.
The referenced article excerpt, which doesn't say what Paul claims it says.
I documented the claim with three inside sources: from Foreign Affairs, Ukrainska Pravda and the recorded words of Naftali Bennet.
You can't rebut them so you obfuscate, as usual.
In addition to the rebuttal from last month (see above), it was previously rebutted on this thread last September. As I said, waiting a while and repeating the false claim doesn't make it true.
I've posted this before, but since you've apparently forgotten, here's the link to the report in Foreign Affairs by Fiona Hill and Angela Stent on the tentative deal reached by Russia and Ukraine in April 2022 (see screenshot below):
And finally, for the umpteenth time, Russia never tried to block NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. However, for 30 years it has warned that NATO expansion into Ukraine was considered an existential threat and implied it would go to war to stop it.
The Fiona HIll report has nothing to do with the speculation about Boris Johnson. It's misused as a way to imply that there's any substance behind the report that there was a deal that Johnson scuttled.
The theory that there was a deal is a hypothetical, and not even the best one that could be drawn from the available evidence.
Now, while Paul writes that Russia "warned that NATO expansion into Ukraine was considered an existential threat and implied it would go to war to stop it", under the deal being discussed in the Spring, "Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and in return receive security guarantees from a number of countries."
Putin didn't put a deal like that "on the table" when he made the choice to invade. That's a strong indication that he had other reasons for invading.
I've posted this before, but since you've apparently forgotten, here's the link to the report in Foreign Affairs by Fiona Hill and Angela Stent on the tentative deal reached by Russia and Ukraine in April 2022 (see screenshot below):
And finally, for the umpteenth time, Russia never tried to block NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. However, for 30 years it has warned that NATO expansion into Ukraine was considered an existential threat and implied it would go to war to stop it.
The Fiona HIll report has nothing to do with the speculation about Boris Johnson. It's misused as a way to imply that there's any substance behind the report that there was a deal that Johnson scuttled.
The theory that there was a deal is a hypothetical, and not even the best one that could be drawn from the available evidence.
Now, while Paul writes that Russia "warned that NATO expansion into Ukraine was considered an existential threat and implied it would go to war to stop it", under the deal being discussed in the Spring, "Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and in return receive security guarantees from a number of countries."
Putin didn't put a deal like that "on the table" when he made the choice to invade. That's a strong indication that he had other reasons for invading.
The referenced article excerpt, which doesn't say what Paul claims it says.
When taken as a whole, the referenced article you cite, plus the two other references say exactly what I claim they say. Really dumb of you to attempt to obfuscate by citing and misrepresenting two of three sources.
All three referenced, screenshot and quoted here:
Ukraine had negotiated a tentative agreement with Russia to end the conflict in March-April 2022, but Zelensky ended the talks when Boris Johnson told him the West would not support such an agreement (which involved no NATO membership and autonomy for Donbas).
No, we all shouldn't "agree to disagree" about the claim that "a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK" because that's not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
Not the first time this has been pointed out.
Here's the evidence that the US and UK sabotaged the tentative peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia in April 2022, that's been posted here before: ...
Yes, that's why I wrote, "Not the first time this has been pointed out". And the misrepresentations being repeated were previously debunked. Quick summary -
No, the Fiona Hill and Angela Stent article in Foreign Affairs doesn't support your claim that Boris Johnson or anybody else from NATO countries "sabotaged" an agreement. Not to mention, Putin said on April 11 that there wasn't going to be an agreement: "In the strongest signal to date that the war will grind on for longer, Putin said Kyiv had derailed peace talks by staging what he said were fake claims of Russian war crimes and by demanding security guarantees to cover the whole of Ukraine." Putin says peace talks with Ukraine are at dead end, goads the West | Reuters
As for former Israeli PM Bennett, he also recognized that Russia's atrocities had sabotaged any prospects for peace at that time: "The Bucha massacre - once that happened I said, It's over." Screenshots and captions from that same interview that you cite -
No, we all shouldn't "agree to disagree" about the claim that "a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK" because that's not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
Not the first time this has been pointed out.
Here's the evidence that the US and UK sabotaged the tentative peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia in April 2022, that's been posted here before: ...
Yes, that's why I wrote, "Not the first time this has been pointed out". And the misrepresentations being repeated were previously debunked. Quick summary -
No, the Fiona Hill and Angela Stent article in Foreign Affairs doesn't support your claim that Boris Johnson or anybody else from NATO countries "sabotaged" an agreement. Not to mention, Putin said on April 11 that there wasn't going to be an agreement: "In the strongest signal to date that the war will grind on for longer, Putin said Kyiv had derailed peace talks by staging what he said were fake claims of Russian war crimes and by demanding security guarantees to cover the whole of Ukraine." Putin says peace talks with Ukraine are at dead end, goads the West | Reuters
As for former Israeli PM Bennett, he also recognized that Russia's atrocities had sabotaged any prospects for peace at that time: "The Bucha massacre - once that happened I said, It's over." Screenshots and captions from that same interview that you cite -
Read further and you'll find that Bennet said the real motivation of the UK and US to stop the negotiations was their desire to "strike" Russia -- per the hardline position among Western leaders.
"In the strongest signal to date that the war will grind on for longer, Putin said Kyiv had derailed peace talks by staging what he said were fake claims of Russian war crimes and by demanding security guarantees to cover the whole of Ukraine."
Using the derogatory "you support fighting to the last Ukrainian" term for anyone who says the Ukrainian people should be helped to defend themselves against an outside aggressor is something all the appease activists say.
"appease activist" is both a nice pun and an objective description of Paul's position. Since he'll insist that it's not, let's review:
- he believes Russia was justified in taking Crimea, because it is land formerly held by the Russian empire that has a significant Russian speaking population
Moronic on several levels. Shows PVW has a reading retention problem (I'm assuming he's read my posts)
- he believes other countries which consist of territory in whole in or part formerly held by the Russian empire and that have significant Russian-speaking populations should not have joined NATO
Example where PVW shows either a reading retention disorder or just an uncontrolled compulsion to make stuff up to "win" an argument or both.
- he believes that nothing should be done to resist ongoing Russian aggression -- Ukraine should stop fighting, no nation should help arm Ukraine, no non-military pressure should be applied against Russia by anyone
Says advocating a negotiated settlement = "nothing should be done". Symptom of establishment hegemonic foreign policy brainwashing over many years, and especially the last year.
- he believes nothing should be done to prevent future Russian aggression -- Ukraine's military should be weak, no other country should directly or indirectly commit to any military or non-military acts against Russia in the case of renewed aggression.
Hasn't read or retained Russia's proposals for European security arrangement and instead offers World War III as an alternative.
Taken all together, this is objectively a pro-Russian position that supports not only Russia's current illegal war against Ukraine, but would also justify any Russian war against a large swath of nations from central Asia through eastern Europe.
He's said Ukraine is defeating Russia, but now thinks Russia will go to war against Eastern Europe and Central Asia. A real dummy.
Russia using phosphorus bombs on Bakhmut today may 5 2023. They mean to wipe this place off the face of the earth in order to forget their losses there. Criminal, barbaric thugs.
Using the derogatory "you support fighting to the last Ukrainian" term for anyone who says the Ukrainian people should be helped to defend themselves against an outside aggressor is something all the appease activists say.
"appease activist" is both a nice pun and an objective description of Paul's position. Since he'll insist that it's not, let's review:
- he believes Russia was justified in taking Crimea, because it is land formerly held by the Russian empire that has a significant Russian speaking population
Moronic on several levels. Shows PVW has a reading retention problem (I'm assuming he's read my posts)
- he believes other countries which consist of territory in whole in or part formerly held by the Russian empire and that have significant Russian-speaking populations should not have joined NATO
Example where PVW shows either a reading retention disorder or just an uncontrolled compulsion to make stuff up to "win" an argument or both.
- he believes that nothing should be done to resist ongoing Russian aggression -- Ukraine should stop fighting, no nation should help arm Ukraine, no non-military pressure should be applied against Russia by anyone
Says advocating a negotiated settlement = "nothing should be done". Symptom of establishment hegemonic foreign policy brainwashing over many years, and especially the last year.
- he believes nothing should be done to prevent future Russian aggression -- Ukraine's military should be weak, no other country should directly or indirectly commit to any military or non-military acts against Russia in the case of renewed aggression.
Hasn't read or retained Russia's proposals for European security arrangement and instead offers World War III as an alternative.
Taken all together, this is objectively a pro-Russian position that supports not only Russia's current illegal war against Ukraine, but would also justify any Russian war against a large swath of nations from central Asia through eastern Europe.
He's said Ukraine is defeating Russia, but now thinks Russia will go to war against Eastern Europe and Central Asia. A real dummy.
Perhaps I have missed or failed to retain something you've said -- so here's your chance to correct me. I've only seen you advocate for countries to take steps to urge Ukraine to stop fighting -- what steps have you been advocating to urge Russia to stop fighting? I can't recall seeing any.
Second, once the fighting eventually stops, how do you propose to deter Russia from renewing its attacks? You don't want Ukraine armed. You don't want other countries promising to use their militaries on Ukraine's behalf. You've endorsed Russia's call for NATO to withdraw defensive weapons from eastern Europe.
You're not advocating with a negotiated settlement, you're advocating for Russian victory and Russian freedom of action for whatever war it wishes to start in the future. And as shown in the discussion of Crimea, you believe Russia is justified in this.
Let's refocus here. Putin launched an illegal, unjustified, unwise and unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. He needs to be stopped.
Can you refocus your refocus and explain how you propose to stop Putin?
More artillery and shells. More AFVs. Unwavering support for Ukraine. Continuing and intensifying efforts to isolate Russia.
I was hoping for something new.
Well, that's one of the many problems with wars. Often, the final outcome is visible long before the warring parties figure out how to end the fighting. Look at Vietnam - Nixon's obsession with peace with honor resulted in the Vietnam War dragging on for several additional years.
In this case, this is Putin's war and he knows two things.
1. He has no path to any result that puts Russia in a better position than before he started his war.
2. He knows he will be ended either literally or politically if he doesn't win.
That's quite a problem for a country run by an unchecked dictator.
Can you refocus your refocus and explain how you propose to stop Putin?
More artillery and shells. More AFVs. Unwavering support for Ukraine. Continuing and intensifying efforts to isolate Russia.
I was hoping for something new.
Well, that's one of the many problems with wars. Often, the final outcome is visible long before the warring parties figure out how to end the fighting. Look at Vietnam - Nixon's obsession with peace with honor resulted in the Vietnam War dragging on for several additional years.
In this case, this is Putin's war and he knows two things.
1. He has no path to any result that puts Russia in a better position than before he started his war.
2. He knows he will be ended either literally or politically if he doesn't win.
That's quite a problem for a country run by an unchecked dictator.
So the fighting continues.
"How do you propose to stop Putin?" does call to mind "How do you stop Johnson/Nixon?" In the latter, it was to keep fighting until the people of the aggressor nation demanded that the war be stopped. I know Paul is familiar with the "until the people demand that the war be stopped" solution. I don't know if he has any thoughts on what could be done if that option is off the table with respect to Russia.
When taken as a whole, the referenced article you cite, plus the two other references say exactly what I claim they say. Really dumb of you to attempt to obfuscate by citing and misrepresenting two of three sources.
"When taken as a whole" is doing a lot of the work, there. You're doing that little trick where you are correctly quote a source, but then use the quote to support a claim that's not stated by the source.
So, yes, the sources say the words that you cite. But then you make the claim that the words are consistent with the scenario that Ukraine called off the negotiations. That's where your accusation of my "attempt to obfuscate" is just projection.
All of the quotes are just as consistent with Russia not being serious about peace negotiations, and breaking them off when it was evident that Ukraine wasn't going to simply surrender right then and there. Mr. Cramer pointed out the Putin statement on 11 April of 2022, which I included in last month's rebuttal and repeated above, which you keep ignoring -
"In the strongest signal to date that the war will grind on for longer, Putin said Kyiv had derailed peace talks by staging what he said were fake claims of Russian war crimes and by demanding security guarantees to cover the whole of Ukraine."
All of your sources are consistent with this quote from Putin, that he called off the negotiations. And this is what I and others here have said before.
Second, once the fighting eventually stops, how do you propose to deter Russia from renewing its attacks? You don't want Ukraine armed. You don't want other countries promising to use their militaries on Ukraine's behalf. You've endorsed Russia's call for NATO to withdraw defensive weapons from eastern Europe.
You're not advocating with a negotiated settlement, you're advocating for Russian victory and Russian freedom of action for whatever war it wishes to start in the future. And as shown in the discussion of Crimea, you believe Russia is justified in this.
Sure, Russia violated its agreement with Ukraine when the Soviet Union broke up, and its agreement with Ukraine when Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons. But third time's a charm, so Russia should be trusted to abide by any agreement not to invade again.
Second, once the fighting eventually stops, how do you propose to deter Russia from renewing its attacks? You don't want Ukraine armed. You don't want other countries promising to use their militaries on Ukraine's behalf. You've endorsed Russia's call for NATO to withdraw defensive weapons from eastern Europe.
You're not advocating with a negotiated settlement, you're advocating for Russian victory and Russian freedom of action for whatever war it wishes to start in the future. And as shown in the discussion of Crimea, you believe Russia is justified in this.
Sure, Russia violated its agreement with Ukraine when the Soviet Union broke up, and its agreement with Ukraine when Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons. But third time's a charm, so Russia should be trusted to abide by any agreement not to invade again.
And there's then there's the record of the "Reluctant Sheriff":
Violated 1991 agreement on NATO not moving "one inch" toward Russia Rendered Budapest Agreement Null and Void Violated UN Charter in Iraq Violated UN Charter in Serbia Violated ABM Treaty Violated INF Treaty Violated Open Skies Treaty Violated Iran Nuclear Deal Violated Minsk Agreement (confirmed by Merkel, Hollande) Violating One China Agreement
But 11th time's a charm, so the USA should be trusted by any agreement we sign from here on.
Daniel Davis is one of the most reliable sources on the war in Ukraine:
Discussing the latest on the meltdown by Prigozhin of Russia's mercenary group Wagner with @NicholeBerlie of @NewsNationNowUS@NewsNation. It has proven an embarrassment for Putin, but if Kodyrov enters w fresh Chechen troops, might b trouble for Kyiv. https://t.co/ycF4apP5ro
The Russian military tolerates this guy because he has helped them do their dirty deeds. He’s a convenient barbarian, because they can always wash their hands and blame him when the war crimes are exposed. Wagner is not given any warm welcome by the army. So yes, I believe the Russian army is deliberately rationing his ammunition. They hate him because Putin has given him too much authority to defend the country, and they feel like he’s Putin’s right hand man…. Thing is Putin will throw him out a window or down a flight of stairs in a heartbeat if he goes against him. They’re all being used by Putin to seize resources from Africa and the third world, making him the richest man in the world. It’s all a massive criminal organization run by Putin who wants to rule the world really.