February 12, 20223 yr On 2/9/2022 at 8:37 PM, Abracadabra said: The liberation of Germany is overdue. Noch Nicht.
February 12, 20223 yr 11 minutes ago, mihailo said: I think the issue you have to take into consideration here is that there is a vast population of Russians in parts of Ukraine. It isn't solely a matter of this is my land, this is your land, one has to also take note that Russia is obliged to protect its citizens, around 8 million to be exact. This issue is played out throughout the whole of Europe, not just in Russia. Just to illustrate, if there were 8 million Americans feeling threatened whilst living in Northern Mexico, I am certain the US would not sit back and say: "We fully respect the sovereignty of your nation, carry on". To clarify, I don't think this justifies Russia's actions, I simply believe the issue is far more complicated than saying, respect my borders. I understand that. Donbas is very pro-Russia, as is/was Crimea. That doesn't make those regions Russian land, however. So while it's not a simple issue, that Russia specifically settled in what is sovereign Ukrainian territory doesn't give Russia cause to amass troops at Ukraine's border with the clear intent to force concessions.
February 12, 20223 yr Hard to get full conclusions from the public tea leaves but it looks like Putin is going in to me. Likely just the remote eastern part of the county plus a thin strip of land down to the land border with Crimea.
February 12, 20223 yr Author On 2/11/2022 at 10:34 AM, Abracadabra said: Of course it's pilot error. No way the most expensive aircraft in the world failed to complete the task for which it was designed. The fact that the plane cracks when firing it's gun is pilot error too. The fact that the cockpit falls apart is clearly on the pilots. The fact that only 36% of the fleet is operational for it's stated mission has to be pilot error. How about blowing up on take-off? That isn't even a US Carrier
February 12, 20223 yr 5 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I understand that. Donbas is very pro-Russia, as is/was Crimea. That doesn't make those regions Russian land, however. So while it's not a simple issue, that Russia specifically settled in what is sovereign Ukrainian territory doesn't give Russia cause to amass troops at Ukraine's border with the clear intent to force concessions. The concessions Russia is trying to force is a peaceful resolution to the Donbas issue according to the Minsk agreements. That's it. Russia has never threatened to invade Ukraine. The West is using the false flag of an invasion as an excuse to build up NATO forces around Russia.
February 12, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: The West is using the false flag of an invasion as an excuse to build up NATO forces around Russia. Why does the West want to put forces on the border of Russia?
February 12, 20223 yr 29 minutes ago, toolg said: Why does the West want to put forces on the border of Russia? I think the strategy goes back to Zbigniew Brzezinski and The Grand Chessboard. Anglo-Saxon dominance of Eurasia is at stake.
February 13, 20223 yr 10 hours ago, Abracadabra said: The A-10 is a very capable aircraft. It's a bit slow for this day and age but it works. The quest to replace the A-10 with the F-35 has failed. They'd be better of ramping up production of the Warthog than squandering money on the F-35. Funny, because when the A-10 was first fielded people hated it because the terrain following radar kept killing pilots when it would slam the plane into mountainsides. Also you can’t ramp up production of the A-10 because the line is closed. We got what we got. Shows that you know D about military aircraft and aircraft procurement.
February 13, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Abracadabra said: I think the strategy goes back to Zbigniew Brzezinski and The Grand Chessboard. Anglo-Saxon dominance of Eurasia is at stake. So then Europe is fearful Russia might invade? NATO cannot attack Russia. NATO is a defense treaty. If a NATO country like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland says Russia is threatening its borders, than NATO comes to provide support to its members.
February 13, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Bill said: Funny, because when the A-10 was first fielded people hated it because the terrain following radar kept killing pilots when it would slam the plane into mountainsides. Also you can’t ramp up production of the A-10 because the line is closed. We got what we got. Shows that you know D about military aircraft and aircraft procurement. If you point is that they should stick with the over-priced, poorly performing failure of the F-35 because the A-10 had it's problems early on too, well, the A-10 wasn't supposed to be the multi-task, all around aircraft that the F-35 was billed as being. Multiple mission scenarios are failing all at once. That makes sense only if your head is up the ass of the MIC. They can open up production if they really wanted to do that, chief. The A-10s are getting long in the tooth. Better to have brand new, relatively cheap and capable aircraft over a piece of crap failing in multiple theatres. Incorporate some of the newer tech in A-10s and at least you have something going for you. 36% mission capable is embarrassing. I only know what I read. Maybe the F-35 is a great aircraft being piloted by incompetent boobs. Meanwhile, we'll have to fish them out of the sea to find out.
February 13, 20223 yr 16 minutes ago, toolg said: So then Europe is fearful Russia might invade? NATO cannot attack Russia. NATO is a defense treaty. If a NATO country like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland says Russia is threatening its borders, than NATO comes to provide support to its members. LOL! Tell that to Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. The idea that NATO is a defensive organization is BS!
February 13, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Abracadabra said: LOL! Tell that to Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. The idea that NATO is a defensive organization is BS! Why does NATO want to invade Russia? Does Putin get to amass troops at the border unchecked?
February 13, 20223 yr 36 minutes ago, toolg said: Why does NATO want to invade Russia? Does Putin get to amass troops at the border unchecked? I didn't say NATO wants to invade Russia. The "Great Game" is much more nuanced than that. In the short term, I think the Anglo-Saxons want to deny Germany the Nord Stream II pipeline. Germany's economy is already leading the way in Europe. If Germany has a solid source of energy, that will increase Germany's advantage. The Brits want that pipeline cancelled. There is no massing of troops on Ukraine's border. Those troops are at permanent barracks near the border. Are the troops at Fort Sam Houston massing on Mexico's border?
February 13, 20223 yr 14 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: There is no massing of troops on Ukraine's border. Those troops are at permanent barracks near the border. Are the troops at Fort Sam Houston massing on Mexico's border? Yes, there is! Russia has amassed forces capable of invasion on 3 sides of Ukraine, on its border and in Belarus. We’re not talking about Russia sending its troops to one or two bases.
February 13, 20223 yr 21 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: I didn't say NATO wants to invade Russia. The "Great Game" is much more nuanced than that. In the short term, I think the Anglo-Saxons want to deny Germany the Nord Stream II pipeline. Germany's economy is already leading the way in Europe. If Germany has a solid source of energy, that will increase Germany's advantage. The Brits want that pipeline cancelled. There is no massing of troops on Ukraine's border. Those troops are at permanent barracks near the border. Are the troops at Fort Sam Houston massing on Mexico's border? Mmmk crackpot
February 13, 20223 yr 8 hours ago, Abracadabra said: I didn't say NATO wants to invade Russia. The "Great Game" is much more nuanced than that. In the short term, I think the Anglo-Saxons want to deny Germany the Nord Stream II pipeline. Germany's economy is already leading the way in Europe. If Germany has a solid source of energy, that will increase Germany's advantage. The Brits want that pipeline cancelled. There is no massing of troops on Ukraine's border. Those troops are at permanent barracks near the border. Are the troops at Fort Sam Houston massing on Mexico's border? They don't want to cancel the pipeline because of what it gives Germany. They want to cancel it because of what it would deny Russia.
February 13, 20223 yr 11 hours ago, Abracadabra said: If you point is that they should stick with the over-priced, poorly performing failure of the F-35 because the A-10 had it's problems early on too, well, the A-10 wasn't supposed to be the multi-task, all around aircraft that the F-35 was billed as being. Multiple mission scenarios are failing all at once. That makes sense only if your head is up the ass of the MIC. They can open up production if they really wanted to do that, chief. The A-10s are getting long in the tooth. Better to have brand new, relatively cheap and capable aircraft over a piece of crap failing in multiple theatres. Incorporate some of the newer tech in A-10s and at least you have something going for you. 36% mission capable is embarrassing. I only know what I read. Maybe the F-35 is a great aircraft being piloted by incompetent boobs. Meanwhile, we'll have to fish them out of the sea to find out. *One airframe lost due to pilot error.* You: [insert stupid comment] The F-35 had runaway costs years ago in development. Operationally the costs are expected. Also where the F-35 is good is where it needs to be: situational awareness. A more situationally aware pilot is more dangerous than one without it in the better airframe. Also a bigger buildout of A-10s is dumb AF when in our next war we’re not going to be doing CAS in uncontested airspace. Doing gun runs on the Muj is a lot different than doing gun runs on a modern army with SAM capabilities.
February 13, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, DrPhilly said: They don't want to cancel the pipeline because of what it gives Germany. They want to cancel it because of what it would deny Russia. Russia doesn't have any shortage of customers. They just signed a deal with China for a big increase in gas transfers. Nord Stream II was Germany's idea. The Russians were reluctant partners.
February 13, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: Russia doesn't have any shortage of customers. They just signed a deal with China for a big increase in gas transfers. Nord Stream II was Germany's idea. The Russians were reluctant partners. This is basic geo politics 101 my fellow poster. It literally requires no more than about a 7th grade level of understanding to be able to grasp the political power one has as a significant energy supplier to another country especially when one backs it up with a strong military and nuclear power. Ask yourself why the US is so skeptical toward this pipeline. I'll give you a hint. It isn't purely or even largely an economic one. Not directly.
February 13, 20223 yr 10 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Mmmk crackpot Like I said, those forces are at permanent barracks. Russia has every right to move troops around on it's own soil. The forces in Belarus are participating in an exercise which ends on the 20th. The exercises are intended to practice repelling another CIA coup like the ones which happened recently in Belarus and Kazakhstan.
February 13, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: This is basic geo politics 101 my fellow poster. It literally requires no more than about a 7th grade level of understanding to be able to grasp the political power one has as a significant energy supplier to another country especially when one backs it up with a strong military and nuclear power. Ask yourself why the US is so skeptical toward this pipeline. I'll give you a hint. It isn't purely or even largely an economic one. Not directly. I just indicated why the U.S. doesn't want this pipeline. It has everything to do with economics. Economies need reliable energy supplies to remain competitive. A strong economy would give Germany more independence. Germany would be less likely to buy into the Russia containment strategy of the West. If this pipeline damages German security, why did they suggest the project and spend months convincing the Russians to agree? As long as Russia fulfills the contracts they sign, there's no damage to Germany, at all. Does Russia have a history of reneging on energy contracts? No. They are very reliable suppliers.
February 13, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: I just indicated why the U.S. doesn't want this pipeline. It has everything to do with economics. Economies need reliable energy supplies to remain competitive. A strong economy would give Germany more independence. Germany would be less likely to buy into the Russia containment strategy of the West. If this pipeline damages German security, why did they suggest the project and spend months convincing the Russians to agree? As long as Russia fulfills the contracts they sign, there's no damage to Germany, at all. Does Russia have a history of reneging on energy contracts? No. They are very reliable suppliers. The point here is the "political control and influence" that Russia can apply on Germany. That's the issue. That's why the US doesn't want the pipeline. The economy is just the vessel.
February 13, 20223 yr 29 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: Like I said, those forces are at permanent barracks. Russia has every right to move troops around on it's own soil. No, they're not comrade. They've moved to forward positions and are now positioned to be able to execute a pincer between Belarus and Crimea cutting off the more Russia friendly western Ukraine from the rest of the nation. OSINT makes this clear. This doesn't mean an invasion is imminent. But you're lapping up Russian propaganda if you think there's nothing to it. And you're clearly doing so.
February 13, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: No, they're not comrade. They've moved to forward positions and are now positioned to be able to execute a pincer between Belarus and Crimea cutting off the more Russia friendly western Ukraine from the rest of the nation. OSINT makes this clear. This doesn't mean an invasion is imminent. But you're lapping up Russian propaganda if you think there's nothing to it. And you're clearly doing so. Russia is prepared to act if the Ukrainian army moves on Donbas. They've said this repeatedly. They deny any plans to invade just for the hell of it. They deny that these forces are "on the border". The facts back them up. Sorry if this bursts the neo-con warmonger bubble.
Create an account or sign in to comment