Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
POSTED BY: captaincrunch
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 21:09
VIEWED: 562266
PAGE 298 of 1104
Quote:You are referring to http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64887&mid=11692
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:I don't want to nitpick as a lawyer would, but you need a source for your accusation... Blah blah blah...Russia blah blah blah....
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Maybe if Norway hadn't helped blow up 3 of 4 Nordstream pipelines, they wouldn't be eperiencing a well-earned butt-puckering moment.
This is why I think you're posting from a psych ward.
You posted Sy Hersch's article IN FULL on this very topic, as a copyright challenge.
Why should I take your posts seriously when it's clear that even YOU don't?
91#1169291
Russia and North Korea continuously and angrily wonder why they get relatively poorer compared to Canada and South Korea, which never threaten to use nukes, but steadily grow richer.
Russia owned those pipelines and it is positively good that Russian property is being destroyed for once rather than Russia getting a free pass to destroy anything in Ukraine while, at the very same time, the destruction of anything inside Russia is yet another excuse for Russia to threaten to nuke the world, a threat that Russia has made thousands of times since it built its first A-bomb.
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
Russia doesn't threaten to use nukes. It reiterates it's self defense posture, which is that if it is attacked on its own soil and it's existence is threatened it may use nukes. That has been it's nuclear weapons policy for a long time.
The USA OTIH constantly threatens first strike and/or use of tactical nukes, and has backed that up by withdrawing from a whole series of nuclear weapons treaties and placing missile launchers in Poland.
So pry your head out if your ass, SECOND, and stop lying to yourself and everyone else.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are in error, Signym. From today:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Russia doesn't threaten to use nukes. It reiterates it's self defense posture, which is that if it is attacked on its own soil and it's existence is threatened it may use nukes. That has been it's nuclear weapons policy for a long time.
The USA OTIH constantly threatens first strike and/or use of tactical nukes, and has backed that up by withdrawing from a whole series of nuclear weapons treaties and placing missile launchers in Poland.
So pry your head out if your ass, SECOND, and stop lying to yourself and everyone else.
A Russian TV host and close ally of Vladimir Putin has issued yet another threat against the UK for its support of Ukraine.
Can't we finally strike at London? What is the problem?
He added:
No, no, no—only at military targets. Well, at the parliament, too.
Solovyov then referred to the Kremlin’s widely dismissed claims that the West's support of Ukraine is encouraging neo-Nazism and Russophobia:
In this case we will not recognize at all—for us then there is no England at all. No France. No Germany. Instead, there are Nazi states united by hatred for everything Russian,
And so let's get serious. Do they think there are no red lines? OK. Well, let's show them that there are no more red lines. Let's strike! So that the fist would ring.
He went on to describe French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as 'Nazi b*****ds'.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vladimir-putin-ally-issues-terrif
ying-threat-on-russian-tv-can-t-we-finally-strike-london/ar-AA17qP9q
The Russian fallback position would be that since London has not been nuked there was no real threat to nuke London. It is all a big joke. We're not serious. It is just talk-talk-talk. "You can not seriously believe Russia would nuke London until you see the mushroom cloud, can you?" Russians might say. No threat. No threat. Never mind what got said.
Sorry to let you know this, Signym, but that was another threat by Russia to nuke the world.
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:Quote:You are in error, Signym. From today:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Russia doesn't threaten to use nukes. It reiterates it's self defense posture, which is that if it is attacked on its own soil and it's existence is threatened it may use nukes. That has been it's nuclear weapons policy for a long time.
The USA OTIH constantly threatens first strike and/or use of tactical nukes, and has backed that up by withdrawing from a whole series of nuclear weapons treaties and placing missile launchers in Poland.
So pry your head out if your ass, SECOND, and stop lying to yourself and everyone else.
A Russian TV host and close ally of Vladimir Putin has issued yet another threat against the UK for its support of Ukraine.
Can't we finally strike at London? What is the problem?
He added:
No, no, no—only at military targets. Well, at the parliament, too.
Solovyov then referred to the Kremlin’s widely dismissed claims that the West's support of Ukraine is encouraging neo-Nazism and Russophobia:
In this case we will not recognize at all—for us then there is no England at all. No France. No Germany. Instead, there are Nazi states united by hatred for everything Russian,
And so let's get serious. Do they think there are no red lines? OK. Well, let's show them that there are no more red lines. Let's strike! So that the fist would ring.
He went on to describe French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as 'Nazi b*****ds'.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vladimir-putin-ally-issues-terrif
ying-threat-on-russian-tv-can-t-we-finally-strike-london/ar-AA17qP9q
The Russian fallback position would be that since London has not been nuked there was no real threat to nuke London. It is all a big joke. We're not serious. It is just talk-talk-talk. "You can not seriously believe Russia would nuke London until you see the mushroom cloud, can you?" Russians might say. No threat. No threat. Never mind what got said.
Sorry to let you know this, Signym, but that was another threat by Russia to nuke the world.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Jeezus, SECOND, you're a twisted fuck.
a) It was a TV HOST. Not Putin, not Shoigu, not anyone in their Security Council. A TV HOST. One is not like the others.
b) Did he say NUCLEAR strike? No, he did not. Aiming at "Parliament" with a nuclear warhead is a little like shooting a mosquito with an elephant gun. Can you say "overkill"? Sure you can!
But I can assure you, a visit from Mr Kinzhal or Mr Zircon would surely ruin Parliament's day.
Fuck you, maroon. And that's an insult to maroons everywhere.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ordinary people take these death threats emanating from Russia seriously:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Jeezus, SECOND, you're a twisted fuck.
a) It was a TV HOST. Not Putin, not Shoigu, not anyone in their Security Council. A TV HOST. One is not like the others.
b) Did he say NUCLEAR strike? No, he did not. Aiming at "Parliament" with a nuclear warhead is a little like shooting a mosquito with an elephant gun. Can you say "overkill"? Sure you can!
But I can assure you, a visit from Mr Kinzhal or Mr Zircon would surely ruin Parliament's day.
Fuck you, maroon. And that's an insult to maroons everywhere.
When asked in what scenario Russia would use nuclear weapons, Putin appeared to feign offense at the question, and said: "If someone decides to destroy Russia, then we have a legal right to respond. Yes, for humanity it will be a global catastrophe, for the world it will be a global catastrophe."
Putin added: "But still, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state, then I want to ask myself the question: 'Why do we need such a world if there is no Russia there?'"
Signym, Putin issued a death threat. He says he has a legal right. "If someone decides to destroy Russia" is the trigger and the words "If someone decides . . ." might be as minor as an attack on Crimea. But Putin doesn't actually need a reason. He can end the world just for the hell of it.
Putin's stupid mouth said the words. This is exactly the kind of fast and loose thinking that has impoverished both Russia and North Korea. Both countries ought to stop issuing death threats and, instead, in the case of North Korea, start emulating South Korea if North Korea wishes to prosper. Russia could emulate Canada if Russia wishes to prosper. If Russia and North Korea won't stop making threats and building more nukes, they will ruin themselves.
https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-said-2018-would-use-nuclear-weap
ons-if-russia-attacked-2022-4
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
Meanwhile, let's not forget that we blew up the energy supply of a supposed democratic ally.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let's not forget that it was "Anonymous" who gave the tip to the writer, who then elaborated a few thousand more words on the tip. For all we know, "Anonymous" is a fictional creation by the writer of the article. Let's also not forget this article:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Meanwhile, let's not forget that we blew up the energy supply of a supposed democratic ally.
Kremlin 'Crazy' Enough To Use Nukes, Russian TV Pundits Warn
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-crazy-enough-nuclear-weapons-state-tel
evision-1780790
"We need to win, that is all. We have to achieve this with the means that we have. I would remind you that a nuclear weapon is not just a bomb, it is the heritage of the whole Russian people." Definitely crazy talk.
The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) assumes both sides are sane, but one side can get a cheap psychological advantage over the other by hinting that they are crazy. For example, North Korea has been hinting for years that Kim is crazy enough to use nukes whenever he feels an urge in his loins. It doesn't take much effort to feign craziness but that will make the never-ending parade of newly elected South Korean leaders insomniatic, nervous, and anxious, which is the whole point of what Kim is doing.
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
Oh, so NOW you remember your extended quote on the topic?
You're a brainless twat posting from a psych ward.
Unlike NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN and other liars that you splatter the board with so liberally, Seymour Hirsch's articles in the end are proven right.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Seymour Hersh's Abusive Use of Anonymous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous_sources
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, so NOW you remember your extended quote on the topic?
You're a brainless twat posting from a psych ward.
Unlike NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN and other liars that you splatter the board with so liberally, Seymour Hirsch's articles in the end are proven right.
In 2015, Vox's Max Fisher wrote that "Hersh has appeared increasingly to have gone off the rails. His stories, often alleging vast and shadowy conspiracies, have made startling — and often internally inconsistent — accusations, based on little or no proof beyond a handful of anonymous 'officials'."[71] Slate magazine's James Kirchick wrote, "Readers are expected to believe that the story of the Bin Laden assassination is a giant ‘fairy tale’ on the word of a single, unnamed source... Hersh's problem is that he evinces no skepticism whatsoever toward what his crank sources tell him, which is ironic considering how cynical he is regarding the pronouncements of the U.S. national security bureaucracy."[17][72] Politico wrote in 2015 that Hersh's reporting had increasingly been called into question due to "his almost exclusive reliance on anonymous sources".[73]
Nord Stream sabotage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Nord_Stream_sabotage
In February 2023, in a post to Substack, Hersh claimed that the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines had been carried out by the US Navy, the CIA, and the Norwegian Navy, under the direct order of President Biden. Hersh's report relied on an anonymous source who stated that, in June 2022, US Navy divers placed explosive C4 charges on the pipelines at strategic locations selected by the Norwegians. The source said that charges were placed under the cover of a multi-nation wargame simulation known as BALTOPS 22, and remotely detonated three months later by a signal from a sonar buoy dropped by a Norwegian P-8 surveillance plane.[57][58]
Russia's foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, said the United States had questions to answer over its role in the explosions.[59] A spokesperson for the United States National Security Council said the report was "utterly false and complete fiction".[60] The CIA said the claims were "completely false", and this was also the reaction from the Norwegian Foreign Department.[61]
Hersh wrote that NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg had been cooperating with US intelligence services since the Vietnam war and has been cleared ever since, and that this was part of the reason why the U.S. involved Norway in the operation.[62] At the time the Vietnam war ended, Jens Stoltenberg was 16 years old and, as late as 1985, Stoltenberg advocated for Norway leaving NATO.[62] Hersh's article said the U.S. divers who planted the explosives had operated from a Norwegian Alta-class minesweeper. The Norwegian Defence Forces said no Norwegian Alta-class mine sweepers had participated in BALTOPS 22 or were in the vicinity of the explosions during the exercise.[62]
Following Hersh's report, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) tweeted that if the story was true, he and many of his fellow senators were not informed of the attack on Nord Stream. "If this turns out to be true, we've got a huge problem," Lee tweeted on 2/8/23.[63] The Chair of Russia's lower house of parliament called for an international investigation for "bringing Biden and his accomplices to justice".[64]
Hersh's reporting was heavily criticized by other journalists.[65] Eliot Higgins, the founder of investigative journalism group Bellingcat, said that Hersh was unable to get his article published in a reputed newspaper and that his reporting would only impress the likes of people who support Putin and al-Assad.[66] Bellingcat investigative journalist Christo Grozev described Hersh's report as "total fiction"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/13/russia-putin-war-ukraine-disaster/
Putin's War Is a Long-Term Disaster for Russians
by Brent Peabody
As Russia ramps up its second offensive, a debate has erupted over whether Moscow or Kyiv will have the upper hand in 2023. While important, such discourse also misses a larger point related to the conflict’s longer-term consequences. In the long run, the true loser of the war is already clear; Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will be remembered as a historic folly that left Russia economically, demographically, and geopolitically worse off.
Start with the lynchpin of Russia’s economy: energy. In contrast to Europe’s (very real) dependence on Russia for fossil fuels, Russia’s economic dependence on Europe has largely gone unremarked upon. As late as 2021, for example, Russia exported 32 percent of its coal, 49 percent of its oil, and a staggering 74 percent of its gas to OECD Europe alone. Add in Japan, South Korea, and non-OECD European countries that have joined Western sanctions against Russia, and the figure is even higher. A trickle of Russian energy continues to flow into Europe, but as the European Union makes good on its commitment to phase out Russian oil and gas, Moscow may soon find itself shut out of its most lucrative export market.
In a petrostate like Russia that derives 45 percent of its federal budget from fossil fuels, the impact of this market isolation is hard to overstate. Oil and coal exports are fungible, and Moscow has indeed been able to redirect them to countries such as India and China (albeit at discounted rates, higher costs, and lower profits). Gas, however, is much harder to reroute because of the infrastructure needed to transport it. With its $400 billion gas pipeline to China, Russia has managed some progress on this front, but it will take years to match current capacity to the EU. In any case, China’s leverage as a single buyer makes it a poor substitute for Europe, where Russia can bid countries against one another.
This market isolation, however, would be survivable were it not for the gravest unintended consequence of Russia’s war — an accelerated transition toward decarbonization. It took a gross violation of international law, but Putin managed to convince Western leaders to finally treat independence from fossil fuels as a national security issue and not just an environmental one.
This is best seen in Europe’s turbocharged transition toward renewable energy, where permitting processes that used to take years are being pushed up. A few months after the invasion, for example, Germany jump-started construction on what will soon be Europe’s largest solar plant. Around the same time, Britain accelerated progress on Hornsea 3, slated to become the world’s largest offshore wind farm upon completion. The results already speak for themselves; for the first time ever last year, wind and solar combined for a higher share of electrical generation in Europe than oil and gas. And this says nothing of other decarbonization efforts such as subsidies for heat pumps in the EU, incentives for clean energy in the United States, and higher electric vehicle uptake everywhere.
The cumulative effect for Russia could not be worse. Sooner or later, lower demand for fossil fuels will dramatically and permanently lower the price for oil and gas—an existential threat to Russia’s economy. When increased U.S. shale production depressed oil prices in 2014, for example, Russia experienced a financial crisis. Lower global demand for fossil fuels will play out over a longer timeline, but the result for Russia will be much graver. With its invasion, Russia hastened the arrival of an energy transition that promises to unravel its economy.
Beyond a smaller and less efficient economy, Putin’s war in Ukraine will also leave Russia with a smaller and less dynamic population. Russia’s demographic problems are well-documented, and Putin had intended to start reversing the country’s long-running population decline in
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME