What does Putin want (and whatabout it)
NATO had zero plans on invading - ever. Prove that point wrong.
You really should tune into Russia media more. It's a lot scarier than our MSM.
The Boris Johnson issue and Nuland are such lame examples but are a big part in the Putin media - that's why I always think you or who you listen to is parroting some of what they say. The most annoying thing about Vlad media is that it's impossible to search for past articles.
Top article right now is - Europe has forgotten who has liberated it from Nazism. So - why the need to constantly remind us of this? Because they know how to exterminate nazis and are the only one doing it again? Most other articles are gloating about how Ukraine is falling apart. Their mentality is stuck in the soviet union era. Their news is pure propaganda on saving the Motherland from the "Angle saxons".
And this just in on Vlad media:
Right now. The United States unexpectedly announced the end of the conflict in Ukraine
https://ria.ru/20240421/ukraina-1941380858.html
And who's the deliverer of this news???? Our favorite predator - Scott Ritter!
The conflict in Ukraine could end in 2024 with the complete defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, former US Army intelligence officer Scott Ritter suggested in an interview with the Dialogue Works YouTube channel .
“Russians usually do not adhere to time frames, they are guided by goals. <...> They are talking about collapse by the end of this summer, beginning of autumn, that Ukraine will not exist, that hostilities will not continue after 2024. <...> I think that this collapse that is happening is the last, final stage of the death of Ukraine,” the material says.
jamie said:
NATO had zero plans on invading - ever. Prove that point wrong.
You really should tune into Russia media more. It's a lot scarier than our MSM.
The Boris Johnson issue and Nuland are such lame examples but are a big part in the Putin media - that's why I always think you or who you listen to is parroting some of what they say. The most annoying thing about Vlad media is that it's impossible to search for past articles.
Top article right now is - Europe has forgotten who has liberated it from Nazism. So - why the need to constantly remind us of this? Because they know how to exterminate nazis and are the only one doing it again? Most other articles are gloating about how Ukraine is falling apart. Their mentality is stuck in the soviet union era. Their news is pure propaganda on saving the Motherland from the "Angle saxons".
And this just in on Vlad media:
Right now. The United States unexpectedly announced the end of the conflict in Ukraine
https://ria.ru/20240421/ukraina-1941380858.html
And who's the deliverer of this news???? Our favorite predator - Scott Ritter!
The conflict in Ukraine could end in 2024 with the complete defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, former US Army intelligence officer Scott Ritter suggested in an interview with the Dialogue Works YouTube channel .
“Russians usually do not adhere to time frames, they are guided by goals. <...> They are talking about collapse by the end of this summer, beginning of autumn, that Ukraine will not exist, that hostilities will not continue after 2024. <...> I think that this collapse that is happening is the last, final stage of the death of Ukraine,” the material says.
The conflict is over but they will drag it out until the election. I do think Ukraine is ready to collapse. They have been having a lot of personal changes and Zelensky is not looking good.
Boris Johnson telling Zelensky to rip up the peace proposal is a big deal and Victoria Neuland is one of the most evil people alive. Why did Biden put her in his administration?
Here's the person I was trying to remember last week. This woman scares me more than Scott Ritter and she is the editor of an influential publication.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
nan said:
Boris Johnson telling Zelensky to rip up the peace proposal is a big deal
Paul Surovell posted an article that debunks that.
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.
For the record, nan, last night you raised two unconvincing arguments in just a couple of hours. One, that the Nuland dialogue is evidence of a U.S. attack on Ukraine. (See the unconvinced replies from nohero and PVW.) Two, that having NATO on Russia’s doorstep is an existential threat, since it first happened 20 years ago and by your own description Russia is thriving.
This is why letting the thread speak for itself was my response to your request for examples. It’s full of them, and only Sisyphus would have had the endurance to roll them out again.
PVW said:
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.
And the whole geography thing with the US running the show.
nan said:
PVW said:
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.
And the whole geography thing with the US running the show.
Let's pretend you're right and that Ukraine is controlled by the U.S. You still have yet to explain how that is an attack on Russia.
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.
And the whole geography thing with the US running the show.
Let's pretend you're right and that Ukraine is controlled by the U.S. You still have yet to explain how that is an attack on Russia.
You don't get it. As long as Putin claims it is an attack, what you or I or the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant.
DaveSchmidt said:
For the record, nan, last night you raised two unconvincing arguments in just a couple of hours. One, that the Nuland dialogue is evidence of a U.S. attack on Ukraine. (See the unconvinced replies from nohero and PVW.) Two, that having NATO on Russia’s doorstep is an existential threat, since it first happened 20 years ago and by your own description Russia is thriving.
This is why letting the thread speak for itself was my response to your request for examples. It’s full of them, and only Sisyphus would have had the endurance to roll them out again.
I'm so glad you brought this up because I've had some thoughts that I was not going to mention because I think it's more important/interesting to focus on the topic than personalities. But, since you are back to attacking me, I will say this: your own words prove you wrong.
You told me I was not able to convince anyone to change their positions, but you also told me that no one was saying anything about winning. That's a big position change for this thread where the majority loudly proclaimed Ukraine was going to send those incompetent Russkies running, with their economy in tatters, and bring sunshine and democracy back to Ukraine. I've also posted some other stuff--for example about the effect all this is having on the US dollar and no one called me names. That means they either agree with me or think I have a decent argument. Normally nothing I do goes unchallenged so what they don't say can speak volumes.
I am only speaking in sweeping generalities, but I notice the general views of the MOL posters in this thread have shifted somewhat more towards my viewpoint than I have shifted to theirs (that's 0% on my side). They are now grappling with what I have been saying all along--this war will be fought to the last Ukrainian and Russia will win and Europe will suffer economically. They are not openly admitting it so much but you can tell because they are not speaking about Ukraine in the same way they once did and the optimism is gone. I think Jamie is really taking it hard.
Anyway, you are on shaky ground when you declare yourself the expert on whose opinions have the power to convince others on an anonymous message board. It's not something that can be measured accurately or fairly so it's much closer to petty meanness than science.
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Sensible? Like shoes?
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.
And the whole geography thing with the US running the show.
Let's pretend you're right and that Ukraine is controlled by the U.S. You still have yet to explain how that is an attack on Russia.
I've explained to you many times but you can't accept it. And why is Russia arguing with Ukraine of interest to the US exactly? The US invades lots of places so how do we have a leg to stand on when Russia does humanitarian aid? Obama said the region meant nothing to us. And yet we have been sending billions and billions and billions of dollars to Ukraine, arming them to the teeth,talking about putting them in NATO, training and running their armies and waving cute Ukrainian flags in Congress. Why?
Do you not question what is really going on here? Does none of this make you turn your head sideways and go huh? Without the whole Putin as Hitler meme the whole story falls apart.
For the record, DaveSchmidt has never "attacked" nan or called himself an "expert." If I'm wrong, nan, just indicate where by reference.
ETA: two more boulders to push up that hill, to use the Camus allusion.
nohero said:
nan said:
Boris Johnson telling Zelensky to rip up the peace proposal is a big deal
Paul Surovell posted an article that debunks that.
I posted that article before Paul did and it does not debunk the involvement of Boris Johnson. It's a mainstream publication so it has a certain bias and acceptance of myth, such as saying these peace meetings were secret--they were right out in in the open if you paid attention--did not get much coverage in the news. The big deal with this article is that a mainstream publication is now talking about peace negotiations and admitting some things that happened in the past.
nan said:
Anyway, you are on shaky ground when you declare yourself the expert on whose opinions have the power to convince others on an anonymous message board. It's not something that can be measured accurately or fairly so it's much closer to petty meanness than science.
It was a judgment of whether your arguments made sense (a judgment we can all make for ourselves), not whether they changed minds. And it originated as my objection to your being called nuts.
I’m glad you’re glad now.
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.
And the whole geography thing with the US running the show.
Let's pretend you're right and that Ukraine is controlled by the U.S. You still have yet to explain how that is an attack on Russia.
I've explained to you many times but you can't accept it.
You're right -- I can't accept that an attack on Ukraine is an attack on Russia. I mean, I disagree there was an attack on Ukraine in the first place, but if I accept that in order to make your position as strong as possible, it's still self-negating.
It's as if you told me you visited Canada because you went to Augusta, Maine, and since Maine has a lot of residents of French Canadian background then visiting Maine's capital is visiting Canada.
Your argument isn't with me, Nan -- it's with geography and basic definitions of words.
dave said:
For the record, DaveSchmidt has never "attacked" nan or called himself an "expert." If I'm wrong, nan, just indicate where by reference.
ETA: two more boulders to push up that hill, to use the Camus allusion.
He's talking about me in a negative way on a thread about Ukraine and he seems to have taken it upon himself to be the expert on who's an acceptable and convincing poster. I guess he feels he has a right to do that as you are just piling on in support of him. I am coming to the same conclusion I came to the last time I left. It's impossible to discuss topics when you are the minority opinion with no administrative support (in fact the opposite of that). Is it too much to ask that I don't have to defend myself personally every few posts when I'm not the topic of the thread? I'm not a narcissist; I would prefer if this thread was not about me.
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.
And the whole geography thing with the US running the show.
Let's pretend you're right and that Ukraine is controlled by the U.S. You still have yet to explain how that is an attack on Russia.
I've explained to you many times but you can't accept it.
You're right -- I can't accept that an attack on Ukraine is an attack on Russia. I mean, I disagree there was an attack on Ukraine in the first place, but if I accept that in order to make your position as strong as possible, it's still self-negating.
It's as if you told me you visited Canada because you went to Augusta, Maine, and since Maine has a lot of residents of French Canadian background then visiting Maine's capital is visiting Canada.
Your argument isn't with me, Nan -- it's with geography and basic definitions of words.
No, because I have a very different view of what happened in Ukraine and that includes events that you deny even happened. It also involves Russia/Putin's motives for the war and future. This makes it impossible for us to agree on very much, if anything. Perhaps as things change going forward, there might be some new revelations.
nan said:
He's talking about me in a negative way on a thread about Ukraine and he seems to have taken it upon himself to be the expert on who's an acceptable and convincing poster. I guess he feels he has a right to do that as you are just piling on in support of him. I am coming to the same conclusion I came to the last time I left. It's impossible to discuss topics when you are the minority opinion with no administrative support (in fact the opposite of that). Is it too much to ask that I don't have to defend myself personally every few posts when I'm not the topic of the thread? I'm not a narcissist; I would prefer if this thread was not about me.
it’s about Putin… but you brought up all the “whataboutism”…
If referring to you by name is a personal attack then all of us should be banned.
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.
And the whole geography thing with the US running the show.
Let's pretend you're right and that Ukraine is controlled by the U.S. You still have yet to explain how that is an attack on Russia.
I've explained to you many times but you can't accept it.
You're right -- I can't accept that an attack on Ukraine is an attack on Russia. I mean, I disagree there was an attack on Ukraine in the first place, but if I accept that in order to make your position as strong as possible, it's still self-negating.
It's as if you told me you visited Canada because you went to Augusta, Maine, and since Maine has a lot of residents of French Canadian background then visiting Maine's capital is visiting Canada.
Your argument isn't with me, Nan -- it's with geography and basic definitions of words.
No, because I have a very different view of what happened in Ukraine and that includes events that you deny even happened. It also involves Russia/Putin's motives for the war and future. This makes it impossible for us to agree on very much, if anything. Perhaps as things change going forward, there might be some new revelations.
You're right -- so long as you insist that an attack on one country is an attack on a separate country, we're not going to agree on much. Hope you enjoyed your trip to Montreal, Maine.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Anyway, you are on shaky ground when you declare yourself the expert on whose opinions have the power to convince others on an anonymous message board. It's not something that can be measured accurately or fairly so it's much closer to petty meanness than science.
It was a judgment of whether your arguments made sense (a judgment we can all make for ourselves), not whether they changed minds. And it originated as my objection to your being called nuts.
I’m glad you’re glad now.
Can you not see that your comment after someone else called me nuts (multiple times) was the wrong thing to say? It made it worse not better. And now Dave is jumping on as well. Junior High is back.
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.
And the whole geography thing with the US running the show.
Let's pretend you're right and that Ukraine is controlled by the U.S. You still have yet to explain how that is an attack on Russia.
I've explained to you many times but you can't accept it.
You're right -- I can't accept that an attack on Ukraine is an attack on Russia. I mean, I disagree there was an attack on Ukraine in the first place, but if I accept that in order to make your position as strong as possible, it's still self-negating.
It's as if you told me you visited Canada because you went to Augusta, Maine, and since Maine has a lot of residents of French Canadian background then visiting Maine's capital is visiting Canada.
Your argument isn't with me, Nan -- it's with geography and basic definitions of words.
No, because I have a very different view of what happened in Ukraine and that includes events that you deny even happened. It also involves Russia/Putin's motives for the war and future. This makes it impossible for us to agree on very much, if anything. Perhaps as things change going forward, there might be some new revelations.
You're right -- so long as you insist that an attack on one country is an attack on a separate country, we're not going to agree on much. Hope you enjoyed your trip to Montreal, Maine.
There is a Moscow, Maine. I actually don't understand how your analogy works but you could not understand how the Cuban Missile crisis is a good analogy either so we are like warships passing in the night. So romantic.
Jaytee said:
nan said:
He's talking about me in a negative way on a thread about Ukraine and he seems to have taken it upon himself to be the expert on who's an acceptable and convincing poster. I guess he feels he has a right to do that as you are just piling on in support of him. I am coming to the same conclusion I came to the last time I left. It's impossible to discuss topics when you are the minority opinion with no administrative support (in fact the opposite of that). Is it too much to ask that I don't have to defend myself personally every few posts when I'm not the topic of the thread? I'm not a narcissist; I would prefer if this thread was not about me.
it’s about Putin… but you brought up all the “whataboutism”…
If referring to you by name is a personal attack then all of us should be banned.
No, the only one who should be banned is you.
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, it did.
Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.
There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine.
Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.
And the whole geography thing with the US running the show.
Let's pretend you're right and that Ukraine is controlled by the U.S. You still have yet to explain how that is an attack on Russia.
I've explained to you many times but you can't accept it.
You're right -- I can't accept that an attack on Ukraine is an attack on Russia. I mean, I disagree there was an attack on Ukraine in the first place, but if I accept that in order to make your position as strong as possible, it's still self-negating.
It's as if you told me you visited Canada because you went to Augusta, Maine, and since Maine has a lot of residents of French Canadian background then visiting Maine's capital is visiting Canada.
Your argument isn't with me, Nan -- it's with geography and basic definitions of words.
No, because I have a very different view of what happened in Ukraine and that includes events that you deny even happened. It also involves Russia/Putin's motives for the war and future. This makes it impossible for us to agree on very much, if anything. Perhaps as things change going forward, there might be some new revelations.
You're right -- so long as you insist that an attack on one country is an attack on a separate country, we're not going to agree on much. Hope you enjoyed your trip to Montreal, Maine.
There is a Moscow, Maine. I actually don't understand how your analogy works but you could not understand how the Cuban Missile crisis is a good analogy either so we are like warships passing in the night. So romantic.
If you recall your history, the crisis started when the U.S. got photographic evidence of Soviet nuclear missile facilities in Cuba. This is a poor analogy for Ukraine because there were no nuclear missiles or facilities for them at the time of Russia's 2014 invasion, nor was there any evidence of any construction of such facilities, and to this day there are none. Poor an analogy as it is, it works against your position because the U.S. did not invade, unlike Russia in Ukraine.
A better analogy, as I've pointed out to you multiple times (oh shoot, there goes that boulder...) is US action against Cuba prior to the missile crisis. U.S. action here was triggered by the fact of Cuba allying itself to the USSR, and so makes a good analogy for Ukraine allying itself with the US. As I noted, Castro taking power was not an attack on the U.S. (there's that stubborn geography again -- Cuba and the U.S. are different countries), and although your position if applied consistently rather than partisanly would support U.S. actions such as the Bay of Pigs, I disagree and find such actions were not justifiable. A country allying itself with a rival is not an existential threat and not sufficient reason to invade and occupy it.
Maybe we can try this as a table, comparing and contrasting the Bay of Pigs and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
| Bay Of Pigs | Russian Invasion of Ukraine | Consistent? |
| Justified | Justified | Yes |
| Not Justified | Not Justified | Yes |
| Justified | Not Justified | No |
| Not Justified | Justified | No |
You're the last row here. I'm the second.
nan said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Anyway, you are on shaky ground when you declare yourself the expert on whose opinions have the power to convince others on an anonymous message board. It's not something that can be measured accurately or fairly so it's much closer to petty meanness than science.
It was a judgment of whether your arguments made sense (a judgment we can all make for ourselves), not whether they changed minds. And it originated as my objection to your being called nuts.
I’m glad you’re glad now.
Can you not see that your comment after someone else called me nuts (multiple times) was the wrong thing to say? It made it worse not better. And now Dave is jumping on as well. Junior High is back.
Can't you see how the post of 7:08 is in fact defending you from ad hominem attacks?
Saying we're back in Jr high and I'm "jumping on" is itself a weird response in any debate club. Are you debating or simply tossing verbal bombs because people don't see things as you do? Respect goes both ways. I hope you do not read this as an attack. And yes, some here are prone to less civil responses.
dave said:
nan said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Anyway, you are on shaky ground when you declare yourself the expert on whose opinions have the power to convince others on an anonymous message board. It's not something that can be measured accurately or fairly so it's much closer to petty meanness than science.
It was a judgment of whether your arguments made sense (a judgment we can all make for ourselves), not whether they changed minds. And it originated as my objection to your being called nuts.
I’m glad you’re glad now.
Can you not see that your comment after someone else called me nuts (multiple times) was the wrong thing to say? It made it worse not better. And now Dave is jumping on as well. Junior High is back.
Can't you see how the post of 7:08 is in fact defending you from ad hominem attacks?
Saying we're back in Jr high and I'm "jumping on" is itself a weird response in any debate club. Are you debating or simply tossing verbal bombs because people don't see things as you do? Respect goes both ways. I hope you do not read this as an attack. And yes, some here are prone to less civil responses.
So you are saying that Dave was defending me from someone saying I'm batshit crazy (and a Russian Agent in another post) by declaring that the real problem is that I don't have convincing arguments that make sense? That's the classic with friends like that who needs enemies.
I've never been in a debate club but I'm guessing they don't allow personal attacks or switching the topic to the political allegiance of the speaker or stopping in the middle of the debate to give another speaker a competency score. Those are the kind of things you hear in junior high cliques. Hence my analogy.
nan - are you on board when Russia claims that it wasn't a coincident the we funded the Ukrainian Nazis on Hitler's birthday. This is Vlad media on an hourly basis. The war over nazis is a guiding theme in Vlad media. (I just wish I knew who their leader was.)
nan said:
So you are saying that Dave was defending me from someone saying I'm batshit crazy (and a Russian Agent in another post) by declaring that the real problem is that I don't have convincing arguments that make sense?
No.
That's the classic with friends like that who needs enemies.
Your take.
I've never been in a debate club
Already assumed as much.
they don't allow personal attacks
Correct, so why do you make them?
or switching the topic
Depends.
to the political allegiance of the speaker
It could come into play if one's bias shines through.
or stopping in the middle of the debate to give another speaker a competency score.
Certainly not out of bounds, but could backfire.
Those are the kind of things you hear in junior high cliques.
I'll leave the analogies for others to fathom.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
They were not happy about that and Ukraine was the final straw. They have been making it clear for decades they did not want NATO near them. After the fall of the Berlin Wall there were promised made to not expand NATO.