moon
Satire for Sanity
Fuck off. I'm moron intolerant.
Outrage as Russian overnight attacks on Ukraine cities kill at least nine civilians
- Thread starter moon
- Start date
moon
Satire for Sanity
Only as long as it is supported by US Evangelists- and that won't be for much longer. There is a Latino majority coming to the USA,.
Scott
Verified User
This fable could be applied to Russia too. It wasn't enough that they successfully defended themselves against Nazi Germany, but they felt the need to take over all the states not occupied by the West.As I said before, if this was just about the Palestinians, I agree that they might just go the way of the native americans. Only Israel's now expanded things beyond Palestinian lands. I'm sure you've heard of the saying of biting off more than you can chew. Another idea that comes to mind:
The Dog and The Shadow - Fables of Aesop
If you covet all, you may lose all. A dog carrying food crossed a bridge and sees its reflection. Wanting the reflection's food the dog drops his. Ooops.fablesofaesop.com
In the end they lost the Baltics and the Balkans.
And now they've caused once neutral Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
You sure they really lost all of the Balkans? Some history on the relationship between Russia and Serbia, from the dissolution of the USSR to the present, first from Wikipedia:
**
1991–2000
The breakup of Yugoslavia and the dissolution of the Soviet Union occurred nearly concurrently. Throughout the 1990s, FR Yugoslavia was hard hit with sanctions from the Western world; meanwhile Russia was undergoing painful structural reforms that were accompanied by a steady economic decline in production until 1999. Relations between the countries were largely neglected until the spring 1999.In 1998, the Kosovo War began, followed by break-up of relations between Yugoslavia and the West and to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, which Russia strongly condemned. In March 1999, Russian president Boris Yeltsin described NATO's military action against sovereign Yugoslavia as an ″open aggression″. Russia condemned NATO at the United Nations and supported the statement that NATO air strikes on Serbia were an illegal military action. Volunteers and mercenaries from Russia were cited to have gone to Kosovo in large numbers to fight the KLA, and to resist and complicate NATO operations. Around the time of the bombing, a Russia-friendly rhetoric developed in the Serbian political team as Borislav Milošević, the brother of Slobodan Milošević and the Yugoslav ambassador to Moscow at the time, proposed that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia could join the Union State which is composed by Belarus and Russia.
After Vladimir Putin became the President of Russia at the start of 2000, months after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, relations between the countries began to gain momentum. Following the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević, the new President of Yugoslavia Vojislav Koštunica paid a visit to Putin in October 2000.
In January 2008, a major deal was struck between Moscow and Belgrade that by the end of the year transferred 51 percent of Serbia's oil and gas company Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS) to Russia's Gazprom Neft (a subsidiary of Gazprom) in exchange for 400 million Euros and 550 mln Euros of investments; later Gazprom increased its stake in NIS to 56,5 percent.
In April 2012, Ivica Dačić, then Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia and the Minister of Internal Affairs of Serbia, and Vladimir Puchkov, Deputy Minister of Emergency Situations of Russia, opened the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Center in Niš, an intergovernmental nonprofit organization.
**
I'll pause at this point to note that not -everything- has gone Russia's way here. The next part gets into that:
**
While Serbia has intensive military cooperation with NATO (Serbia's military-to-military cooperation with the U.S. being much bigger than with Russia) and in early 2016 the Serbian parliament ratified an agreement that granted NATO staff freedom of movement in the Serbian territory and diplomatic immunity, the Serbian government has refused to grant similar status to the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Center in Niš.
**
But soon after, the Russia/Serbian momentum continued to grow, despite their clearly being some dissent against the Russian side:
**
The visit to Russia by Serbia's president Aleksandar Vučić in December 2017 was hailed by Politika as a symbolic ending of ″decades of stagnation in relations″. In November 2019 Serbian security services revealed activities of Russian intelligence operatives who were meeting and passing money to Serbian army officials.
Serbia did not impose sanctions on Russia following the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war in 2014.
On 25 February 2022, in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Vučić stated that while Serbia felt it was wrong to violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine, it also felt that it was not in Serbia's interest to impose sanctions against Russia. On 11 March 2022, the People's Patrol, a far-right anti-immigrant and vigilante group, held a rally in support of Russia in Belgrade, attended by thousands of pro-Russia Serbs. On 21 March, a protest against Russia's invasion of Ukraine took place in the Serbian capital. It was the second reported pro-Ukraine demonstration since the start of the war, with the first one organised by peace activists and Russians living in Serbia. In the following month, more demonstrations in support of Ukraine were held. Pro-Ukraine demonstrations have attracted smaller numbers of participants than that of ones in support of the invasion.
In March 2022, Serbia voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In April, Serbia voted in favour of expelling Russia from the UN Human Rights Council.
In January 2023, Vučić emphasized that Serbia cannot and will not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, stating, “For us, Crimea is Ukraine, Donbas is Ukraine, and it’ll remain so.” This statement is a significant shift in Serbia’s position since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine almost 11 months ago. Vučić clarified that it would be wrong to assume that his government fully endorses the leadership in Moscow, stating “We are not always jubilant about some of their stances. We have a traditionally good relationship, but it doesn’t mean that we support every single decision or most of the decisions that are coming from the Kremlin.”
In March 2025, Serbia voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution. Vučić apologised to the citizens of Serbia for mistakenly voting in favour of the resolution and said that the country should have abstained from voting instead. [85]
**
Wikipedia is a bit mysterious as to what this March 2025 UN General Assembly resolution was about, but the [85] reference link gets into it:
Serbian president walks back support of Ukraine in UN resolution
Vučić says Serbia made “mistake” in voting for European-supported measure.
www.politico.eu
Now, I know that Serbia is currently embroiled in protests, but I think it's telling that the Serbian President apologized to his people for supporting Ukraine rather than for supporting Russia.
Scott
Verified User
What's publicly visible is generally just the tip of the iceberg. If you'd like a deep dive into the American role in the 2014 Euromaidan coup, I highly recommend the following article:
Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”
As Russia actually do launch an invasion or “special operation” in Ukraine, we thought now was a good time to recap on how we got here. The historical, political and ethnic divisions in…
off-guardian.org
Some words from American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs' are also good. Quoting from an article that's taken from a speech Sachs made to European Parliament:
**
As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me.
If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation.
There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.
(Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have often led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.)
That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.
They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government.
The Maidan Revolution & Aftermath
Now in 2014, the U.S. worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and the U.S. ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call, and they put it on the Internet.
It’s fascinating. By doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That’s the job. When the Maidan occurred, I was called soon after. “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis.” So, I flew to Kyiv, and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the U.S. paid the money for all the people around the Maidan, the “spontaneous” Revolution of Dignity.
Ladies and gentlemen, please, how did all those Ukrainian media outlets suddenly appear at the time of the Maidan? Where did all this organization come from? Where did all these buses come from? Where did all those people come from? Are you kidding? This is an organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except perhaps to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly.
**
Full article:
Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace
The author explains manipulative U.S. post-war foreign policy to European MPs, explodes myths about Ukraine and urges an independent European foreign policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcMoDFU1xg&ab_channel=MichaelvonderSchulenburg This is an edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’
consortiumnews.com
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Yes. Their politcs are no longer controlled by the Kremlin.
That does not mean they are controlled by the Kremlin. Nothing wrong with being partial to Moscow as long as it's their free will.
BartenderElite
Verified User
They just showed a clip from the debate w/ Harris where Trump didn't just say he'd end the war on Day 1 - he said he'd end it if elected, and even before he became President.
He's such a fucking liar.
He's such a fucking liar.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
No doubt the U.S. supported the Maidan Revolution (which was irresponsible), but they couldn't have caused it. Some Ukranian people caused it.What's publicly visible is generally just the tip of the iceberg. If you'd like a deep dive into the American role in the 2014 Euromaidan coup, I highly recommend the following article:
Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”
As Russia actually do launch an invasion or “special operation” in Ukraine, we thought now was a good time to recap on how we got here. The historical, political and ethnic divisions in…
Some words from American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs' are also good. Quoting from an article that's taken from a speech Sachs made to European Parliament:
**
As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me.
If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation.
There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.
(Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have often led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.)
That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.
They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government.
The Maidan Revolution & Aftermath
Now in 2014, the U.S. worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and the U.S. ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call, and they put it on the Internet.
It’s fascinating. By doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That’s the job. When the Maidan occurred, I was called soon after. “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis.” So, I flew to Kyiv, and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the U.S. paid the money for all the people around the Maidan, the “spontaneous” Revolution of Dignity.
Ladies and gentlemen, please, how did all those Ukrainian media outlets suddenly appear at the time of the Maidan? Where did all this organization come from? Where did all these buses come from? Where did all those people come from? Are you kidding? This is an organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except perhaps to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly.
**
Full article:
Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace
The author explains manipulative U.S. post-war foreign policy to European MPs, explodes myths about Ukraine and urges an independent European foreign policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcMoDFU1xg&ab_channel=MichaelvonderSchulenburg This is an edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’
That's pretty much irrelevant now. We must deal w/ the present and move forward.
Here's my take: Ukraine was a dysfunctional state in 2014 and Russia got Crimea. Uk did nothing about it until the 2022 invasion. Too late and there's little they can do now. Trump is right, Z must finally cede Crimea.
Cede existing areas where Russia has control of the Donbass, nothing more.
Z. will not like this.
Security guarantees for what's left of Uk. and once they get their politics in order allow them to join the EU.
Putin will not like this.
But that's what happens in a negotiated settlement, neither side gets all of what they what.
Scott
Verified User
Ah, I see we misunderstood what we were saying to each other. I'll explain in the next bit...
I had never meant to imply that the Kremlin was controlling Serbia. I had meant to imply that Serbia is aligning more with Russia and less with the west as time goes by.
Scott
Verified User
Trump is certainly one to make promises he can't keep and he certainly does lie at times as well. But he has at least taken steps to avoid any further escalations with Russia. I know it's not much, but given that the only other choice was Kamala, I suspect he was the better choice when it came to calming things down with Russia.
SIMPLICIUS Ѱ
@simpatico771
Wow...is that real? Close-up video purportedly shows Iskander-M slamming into Kiev
@simpatico771
Wow...is that real? Close-up video purportedly shows Iskander-M slamming into Kiev
Scott
Verified User
No doubt the U.S. supported the Maidan Revolution (which was irresponsible), but they couldn't have caused it. Some Ukranian people caused it.What's publicly visible is generally just the tip of the iceberg. If you'd like a deep dive into the American role in the 2014 Euromaidan coup, I highly recommend the following article:
Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”
As Russia actually do launch an invasion or “special operation” in Ukraine, we thought now was a good time to recap on how we got here. The historical, political and ethnic divisions in…
Some words from American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs' are also good. Quoting from an article that's taken from a speech Sachs made to European Parliament:
**
As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me.
If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation.
There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.
(Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have often led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.)
That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.
They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government.
The Maidan Revolution & Aftermath
Now in 2014, the U.S. worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and the U.S. ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call, and they put it on the Internet.
It’s fascinating. By doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That’s the job. When the Maidan occurred, I was called soon after. “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis.” So, I flew to Kyiv, and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the U.S. paid the money for all the people around the Maidan, the “spontaneous” Revolution of Dignity.
Ladies and gentlemen, please, how did all those Ukrainian media outlets suddenly appear at the time of the Maidan? Where did all this organization come from? Where did all these buses come from? Where did all those people come from? Are you kidding? This is an organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except perhaps to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly.
**
Full article:
Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace
The author explains manipulative U.S. post-war foreign policy to European MPs, explodes myths about Ukraine and urges an independent European foreign policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcMoDFU1xg&ab_channel=MichaelvonderSchulenburg This is an edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’
The U.S. certainly -worked- with some Ukrainians to get the job done. But Victoria Nuland's tapped call with Pyatt, the United States' Ambassador to Ukraine at the time is pretty revealing as to who was in the driver's seat. The article Off Guardian article I referenced and linked to earlier gets into some pretty telling details:
**
FEBRUARY
7/2/2014 – A recorded phone call between Nuland and Pyatt is leaked to the press, famously dubbed the “fuck the EU” call.
In the conversation, dated January 28th, Nuland and Pyatt discuss at length the structure of the Ukrainian cabinet once Yanukovych is gone. This is still 25 days before Yanukovych was removed from power
A poll published that same day by the Kyiv Post found more Ukrainians opposed the Maidan protests than supported them.
**
So, we have a poll showing that more Ukrainians opposed the Maidan protests than supported them, and yet Victoria is so confident that Yanukovych will be removed from power shortly that she's discussing which politicians will replace his Administration. The call does -not- sound like she's divining things, but that she and others in the U.S. government were pulling the strings behind the scenes. Now for a bit of the call in question itself, along with commentary from BBC journalist Jonathan Marcus:
**
Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?
- Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
- Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role.
Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing.
Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.
**
Source:
Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call
A transcript of the alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the crisis in Ukraine.
www.bbc.com
I think it's quite clear from this call that the U.S. was not only pulling most of the strings but deciding to do it without the consent of the EU, with Nuland even using using the f word on them.
And we're not even getting into the possibility that the U.S. government may have been involved in something much darker than simply organizing things politically, the Euromaidan massacre. For more on that, I found this article to be quite good:
The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence - Global Research
The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) have not paved their way to the international mainstream media.
www.globalresearch.ca
Scott
Verified User
I think it's real, I believe I've seen it elsewhere too.
My read of this attack against Ukrainian military manufacturing is that the Russians had already decided that Trump was never going to take America out of participating in and in many ways driving the killing of Russians......As always negotiating with America is useless......this will be settled on the battlefield.....were NATO will continue to lose.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
If you look at the former republics of the Soviet Union I can't think of any that have an ounce of affinity for Russia.
Of all the former Warsaw Pact countries, Serbia is the only one I can think of that aligns w/ Russi and Serbia is only part of a former W. P. country. Bosnia has limited ties due to it's diverse ethnicity. The rest of the former Yugo is West oriented.
What does that tell you?
If it is true that only 9 died it is more evidence that the Russians are being very careful.
Scott
Verified User
I agree about this being settled on the battlefield for the forseeable future. The only wrinkle I'd add is that if NATO, or even just the U.S., were to go ballistic and make this a nuclear war, I think that -everyone- could lose, but I don't see Ukraine winning either way. I also think that it'd be better not just for Ukraine but for everyone if they just lost the war with Russia without nukes getting involved.
Scott
Verified User
It tells me that not all of the Balkans have aligned with the west. I also think that as Russia continues to win in Ukraine, other countries close to Russia will realize the value of having a good relationship with them.
Scott
Verified User
Yes, I've never seen any hard evidence that Russia's military ever tried to hurt civilians. From what I've seen, the same can't be said for the Ukrainian military.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Serbia. That's it.
Hope that Trump will prevent this from going nuclear is fading fast as he continues to fail to track with reality...pushing the idiotic Kellogg plan being the latest iteration.
He needed to take America out of this war when he came into office, instead he decided to play pretend peacemaker.