Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
POSTED BY: captaincrunch
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 21:09
VIEWED: 562266
PAGE 405 of 1104
More pirate links on Haken's site. Must be Monday.
--------------------------------------------------
Growing up in a Republic was nice... Shame we couldn't keep it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:WHAT are we waiting for, THUGR? Something is missing! This time you got a deadline but not an event.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Let's give it another two weeks, shall we?
T
Epic fail.
Try to keep up comrade.
T
Ukraine military urges 'silence' ahead of expected counteroffensive
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HAHAHAHA!!
YOU'RE keeping YOUR predictions silent bc you have... what?
Secret knowledge from der Fuhrer himself?
You're revealing Important Intellignce to Powerful People?
You think anyone is fooled, or impressed, by your claims?
Hate to tell you this, but we don't take you all that seriously. And nobody takes US all that seriously. This is a discussion board, dood, not some super-secret intelligence-gathering site. And I'm sure Russia has MUCH better source of real intel than here!
Oh BTW, your "I've got a secret about two weeks from now and I'm not telling" is not only patently obvious, it's patently childish.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ukraine-Russia border ‘demilitarised zone’ inside Russian territory
A demilitarised zone between 100 and 120 kilometres wide (62 to 75 miles) should be established in Russian border territory with Ukraine as part of any post-war settlement, an adviser to Ukraine’s presidential office has said.
Mykhailo Podolyak, the adviser to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, said the demilitarised zone should cover the Russian regions of Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk and Rostov in order to protect adjacent territories in Ukraine.
Such a zone, which cannot be used or occupied by military forces, would likely require “a mandatory international control contingent at the first stage”, Podolyak said.
A demilitarised zone should be a “key topic” of a post-war settlement, said the presidential adviser, adding that such a buffer would “prevent the recurrence of aggression in the future”.
The International Committee of the Red Cross says there are detailed rules for the creation and recognition of demilitarised zones and the concept is not far removed from hospital zones and other areas deemed neutral during conflicts.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/30/ukraine-russia-border-demilit
arised-zone-floated-for-peace-deal
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Ukraine-Russia border ‘demilitarised zone’ inside Russian territory
A demilitarised zone between 100 and 120 kilometres wide (62 to 75 miles) should be established in Russian border territory with Ukraine as part of any post-war settlement, an adviser to Ukraine’s presidential office has said...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
In their dreams!
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Eyes of the World Are Upon Ukraine
By Paul Krugman
June 5, 2023, 3:08 p.m. ET
Seventy-nine years ago Allied paratroopers began landing behind the beaches of Normandy.
World War II was a long time ago, but it still lives on in America’s memory. And the anniversary of D-Day, on Tuesday, seems especially evocative this year, as we await the moral equivalent of D-Day, coming any day now when Ukraine begins its long-awaited counterattack against Russian invaders (which may have already started).
I use the term “moral equivalent” advisedly. World War II was one of the few wars that was clearly a fight of good against evil.
Now, the good guys were by no means entirely good. Americans were still denied basic rights and occasionally massacred because of their skin color. Britain still ruled, sometimes brutally, over a vast colonial empire.
But if the great democracies all too often failed to live up to their ideals, they nonetheless had the right ideals; they stood, however imperfectly, for freedom against the forces of tyranny, racial supremacy and mass murder.
If Ukraine wins this war, some of its supporters abroad will no doubt be disillusioned to discover the nation’s darker side. Before the war, Ukraine ranked high on measures of perceived corruption — better than Russia, but that’s not saying much. Victory won’t make the corruption go away.
And Ukraine does have a far-right movement, including paramilitary groups that have played a part in its war. The country suffered terribly under Stalin, with millions dying in a deliberately engineered famine; as a result, some Ukrainians initially welcomed the Germans during World War II (until they realized that they, too, were considered subhuman), and Nazi iconography is still disturbingly widespread.
Yet like the flaws of the Allies in World War II, these shadows don’t create any equivalence between the two sides in this war. Ukraine is an imperfect but real democracy, hoping to join the larger democratic community. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is a malevolent actor, and friends of freedom everywhere have to hope that it will be thoroughly defeated.
I wish I could say that the citizens of Western democracies, America in particular, were fully committed to Ukrainian victory and Russian defeat. In reality, while most Americans support aid to Ukraine, only a minority are willing to sustain that aid for as long as it takes. For what it’s worth, U.S. public opinion on aid to Ukraine right now looks remarkably similar to polls from early 1941 (that is, well before Pearl Harbor) on the lend-lease program of military aid to Britain.
What about those who oppose helping Ukraine at all?
Some of those who oppose Western aid just don’t see the moral equivalence with World War II. On the left, in particular, there are some people for whom it’s always 2003. They remember how America was taken to war on false pretenses — which, for the record, I realized was happening and vociferously opposed at the time — and can’t see that this situation is different.
On the right, by contrast, many of those who oppose helping Ukraine — call it the Tucker Carlson faction — do understand what this war is about. And they’re on the side of the bad guys. The “Putin wing” of the G.O.P. has long admired Russia’s authoritarian regime and its intolerance. Before the war, Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz contrasted what they perceived as Russian toughness with the “woke, emasculated” U.S. military; Russia’s military failures threaten such people’s whole worldview, and they would be humiliated by a Ukrainian victory.
The point is that the stakes in Ukraine right now are very high. If Ukraine’s counteroffensive succeeds, the forces of democracy will be strengthened around the world, not least in America. If it fails, it will be a disaster not just for Ukraine but for the world. Western aid to Ukraine may dry up, Putin may finally achieve the victory most people expected him to win in the war’s first few days, and democracy will be weakened everywhere.
What’s going
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
HAHAHAHA!!
YOU'RE keeping YOUR predictions silent bc you have... what?
Secret knowledge from der Fuhrer himself?
You're revealing Important Intellignce to Powerful People?
You think anyone is fooled, or impressed, by your claims?
Hate to tell you this, but we don't take you all that seriously. And nobody takes US all that seriously. This is a discussion board, dood, not some super-secret intelligence-gathering site. And I'm sure Russia has MUCH better source of real intel than here!
Oh BTW, your "I've got a secret about two weeks from now and I'm not telling" is not only patently obvious, it's patently childish.
You are without a doubt comrade a complete wack job.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ukraine and NATO, A change in tone and the Ukrainian counteroffensive
Phillips P. O’Brien, Jun 4, 2023
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-31
Another week with almost no change on the front line between the Ukrainian and Russian armies, but this did not stop it from giving some powerful indications of the direction of travel in the war. In particular, two things stood out, the growing focus of Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO, and, the change in tone that is coming out of major western state’s about how the war is trending in Ukraine’s favor. And in many ways the two discussions are interrelated.
Ukraine and NATO
This week saw a fascinating uptick in the discussion of Ukraine’s future relationship with (hopefully in) NATO. Its one of the most fascinating changes that we have seen since February 24, 2022. Then, even the prospect that Ukraine would join NATO far in the future was seen as justification enough for Putin to launch the full scale invasion.
However what the war has shown is that one of the only reasons Putin felt free to invade Ukraine was because it was not a NATO member. Since then, watching the discussion evolve over Ukraine eventually joining NATO has been like watching one of the discussions over Ukraine getting a new weapons systems (think MBTs or F-16s) only longer and more tortured.
Its because the end point of this relationship is clear—at some point Ukraine will have to be in NATO. There can be no permanent peace after this genocidal invasion without it. For Ukraine, Russia is unconquerable. Thus, Ukraine outside of NATO will always be a possible victim of another Russian attack. The country needs to think not years, but decades into the future, when it could be confronted by a rebuilt Russian military.
What the war has shown is that anything short of a full-NATO membership is in security terms, worthless. Ukraine actually had different types of security guarantee given to it a number of times since the dissolution of the USSR. According to the Budapest Memorandum of 1993, for instance, Ukraine agreed to give up Soviet nuclear weapons in its border. In exchange for this, Ukraine had its full territorial integrity, including Crimea, recognized by the USA, Russia and the UK. Of course this did nothing to stop both the Russian invasion of Crimea and Donbas in 2014 and what has come later.
If Ukraine is going to have enduring, long-term security after the war, it will only be through full membership of NATO and the application of NATO’s Article 5. This fundamental difference between Ukraine and the Baltic states, for instance, is what has kept Putin from ever convincingly threatening other former members of the USSR such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It's also why immediately after February 24, Finland and Sweden did their historic pivots and decided to become NATO members.
The importance of this cannot be understated. As a number of Ukrainians said to me during my visit—how can we expect investors to invest large sums of money helping rebuild the country after the war if Ukraine doesn’t have the iron-clad protections of NATO membership? It's a very hard position with which to disagree.
Now for much of the time since February 24, 2022 the idea of Ukraine joining NATO still seemed a step too far. It was seen as potentially too escalatory and too threatening to Russia—a step that would make an eventual peace deal between Ukraine and Russia almost impossible. And then, as with the F-16s to Ukraine idea, the notion of Ukraine joining NATO started to change, and last week it became, for many NATO members of NATO now a question no longer of it—but instead a question of when.
At the end of April, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg ramped up the pressure when he stated during his visit to Kyiv that “Ukraine's rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you make it possible.”
That statement still had no timetable, and it could be argued that it would be many years after the conclusion of this war befo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lets repost this shall we?
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently Ukrainian attacks were repelled and Kiev lost more than 16 tanks and 3,000 soldiers killed or wounded.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME