3/1 = 3

I haven't seen any evidence that Russia needs to take Odessa in order to survive. That being said, I do believe that the longer the war goes on, the more likely it is that Russia -will- take Odessa.
Yes, Putin's hope is war, his only argument to stay in power, but this approach is wrong.

I'd say that from Putin's perspective, as well as many Russians, his goal is to eliminate a nation engaging in terrorist activities against his own. I'm sure you know how the United States reacted to Afghanistan after 9/11, or even Iraq after that, regardless of how skimpy the evidence was that Iraq had anything to do with Al Qaeda. I've seen absolutely no evidence that this has anything to do with Putin wanting to stay in power. What's more, even if Putin were to die tomorrow, I see no evidence that anyone who would likely replace him would change course.

If earlier the West still hoped to persuade Putin to abandon the war, today, after Putin's refusal to negotiate, the West will use all resources to leave Putin no chance of victory.

I see absolutely no evidence for that at all, which I'm thankful for. At this point, what western elites like to do more than anything is talk. Talking doesn't win wars.
 
I'd say that from Putin's perspective, as well as many Russians, his goal is to eliminate a nation engaging in terrorist activities against his own. I'm sure you know how the United States reacted to Afghanistan after 9/11, or even Iraq after that, regardless of how skimpy the evidence was that Iraq had anything to do with Al Qaeda. I've seen absolutely no evidence that this has anything to do with Putin wanting to stay in power. What's more, even if Putin were to die tomorrow, I see no evidence that anyone who would likely replace him would change course.



I see absolutely no evidence for that at all, which I'm thankful for. At this point, what western elites like to do more than anything is talk. Talking doesn't win wars.
The cocaine fueled overnight train ride to Kiev is exactly where we are....Useless narrative warring.
 
I'd say that from Putin's perspective, as well as many Russians, his goal is to eliminate a nation engaging in terrorist activities against his own. I'm sure you know how the United States reacted to Afghanistan after 9/11, or even Iraq after that, regardless of how skimpy the evidence was that Iraq had anything to do with Al Qaeda. I've seen absolutely no evidence that this has anything to do with Putin wanting to stay in power. What's more, even if Putin were to die tomorrow, I see no evidence that anyone who would likely replace him would change course.



I see absolutely no evidence for that at all, which I'm thankful for. At this point, what western elites like to do more than anything is talk. Talking doesn't win wars.
You can't win a war with talk, so Germany has a new chancellor to replace the former cowardly chatterbox.
 
Unlike goat, I don't see any evidence that Russia -needs- to have Odessa at this point. That being said, the longer this war goes on, the more they may come to believe that they do. The way I see it, the Ukrainian military has basically been acting like a terrorist organization against eastern Ukrainians for 8 years now. A team of German journalists went to eastern Ukraine for a few months -before- Russia's military operation and basically made it clear how bad things were in eastern Ukraine within those 8 years. It can be seen here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFVNRZv2eM&ab_channel=NuoViso


Now that a good chunk of eastern Ukraine is now officially Russian, Russians are increasingly seeing it that way as well. Ukraine's incursions into places like Kursk definitely didn't help matters either. So, what happens when a super power believes, rightly or wrongly, that a country is responsible for atrocities against its citizens? Think Afghanistan. Heck, think Iraq. Yes, the "evidence" connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda was paper thin, but it was still used anyway.
My war sources have been wrong about most everything but that's mostly because I expect what they say to happen instantly when the European elite have a 50 year plan for Ukraine. History shows that Europe has been wanting to control Russia for a very long time. I don't see that ending anytime soon, especially if they have access to a Black Sea port.
 
Alik Bakhshi

3/1=3

Under pressure fro/m the West, which threatened, in the event of Putin's refusal to accept a 30-day ceasefire, with new sanctions and the supply of weapons to Ukraine in the required quantity, including missiles with a longer range, Putin urgently gathered his full-time propagandists at 2 a.m. to quickly, before the threat was put into action, inform the World of his readiness to begin direct negotiations with Kiev in Turkey on May 15. Zelensky, in turn, immediately expressed his readiness to fly to Istanbul and meet face-to-face with Putin, letting the Master of the Kremlin know not to look for excuses. Putin's haste put him in a situation that he clearly did not foresee. In any case, a personal meeting with Zelensky was definitely not part of his plans. Putin expected to send a group of diplomats to the negotiations, whose task, one must assume, was to endlessly delay for the entire time the war is going on, a war that for Putin is a guarantee of his stay as president. As long as the war is going on, which feeds the imperial worldview of the Russian people, Putin has nothing to fear for his power. Therefore, war for the fascist Putin is like a straw for a drowning man (1).

The likelihood of Putin appearing at the negotiations in Istanbul is zero. The fact is that at the meeting with Zelensky, it will immediately become clear not only Putin's unwillingness to have a 30-day truce, but also to end the war. Putin will not come just to say that he wants to fight. Moreover, the meeting, one might say, will take place indirectly in the presence of Trump, who expressed a desire to be seen at this moment in Turkey in order to evoke in the world community his involvement in such a significant event, which is quite in his spirit of self-praise. One cannot help but take into account Erdogan, the formal organizer of the meeting, whose position is known as a supporter of Ukraine's sovereignty, who has great plans for Crimea with its indigenous Turkic-speaking population. In this regard, if Putin comes to the meeting with Zelensky, he will appear alone in Turkey before three ideological opponents. However, such a scenario is unlikely. In the best case, as I said, a group of negotiators who do not decide anything will arrive in Turkey, with whom it is useless to negotiate.

Be that as it may, there will most likely be a meeting of the three presidents Zelensky, Trump and Erdogan, the final result of which in relation to Russia will be comparable to the result of the Tehran meeting of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin in relation to fascist Germany. Thus, the end of the war between Ukraine and Russia, which attacked it, can be achieved only in one case, namely, with a victory over fascist Russia, with the subsequent fall of the regime of Fuhrer Putin. (2)

1. Putin in a panic. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/128808.html
2. Great Russian chauvinism, and Putin its Fuhrer. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/21133.html

13.05.2025
such bullshit and horrible writing too.

please get a new job.
 
You can't win a war with talk, so Germany has a new chancellor to replace the former cowardly chatterbox.

For the love of -.-... Look, Europe's many speeches will certainly get it nowhere, but that's much better than -actually- fighting Russia. I just finished watching the second season of Silo. Without giving up too much in case you (or someone else here) still hasn't seen both seasons, it -appears- that the U.S. government decided to build a silo in order for people to survive what looks like a nuclear holocaust. I don't see any escalation on the Ukraine war on the part of the west leading to Russia backing down. I -do- think that it might get nuclear weapons involved though. It's best for everyone if they just keep on chattering about sanctions and stuff of that nature while Russia completes its objectives in Ukraine.
 
My war sources have been wrong about most everything but that's mostly because I expect what they say to happen instantly when the European elite have a 50 year plan for Ukraine. History shows that Europe has been wanting to control Russia for a very long time. I don't see that ending anytime soon, especially if they have access to a Black Sea port.

You may be right that -eventually-, Russia will considering taking Odessa to be crucial. I just don't think that it's gotten to that point yet.
 
For the love of -.-... Look, Europe's many speeches will certainly get it nowhere, but that's much better than -actually- fighting Russia. I just finished watching the second season of Silo. Without giving up too much in case you (or someone else here) still hasn't seen both seasons, it -appears- that the U.S. government decided to build a silo in order for people to survive what looks like a nuclear holocaust. I don't see any escalation on the Ukraine war on the part of the west leading to Russia backing down. I -do- think that it might get nuclear weapons involved though. It's best for everyone if they just keep on chattering about sanctions and stuff of that nature while Russia completes its objectives in Ukraine.
There will be no nuclear war, everything will be decided by the economy, as happened at the end of the Cold War.
 
For the love of -.-... Look, Europe's many speeches will certainly get it nowhere, but that's much better than -actually- fighting Russia. I just finished watching the second season of Silo. Without giving up too much in case you (or someone else here) still hasn't seen both seasons, it -appears- that the U.S. government decided to build a silo in order for people to survive what looks like a nuclear holocaust. I don't see any escalation on the Ukraine war on the part of the west leading to Russia backing down. I -do- think that it might get nuclear weapons involved though. It's best for everyone if they just keep on chattering about sanctions and stuff of that nature while Russia completes its objectives in Ukraine.
There will be no nuclear war, everything will be decided by the economy, as happened at the end of the Cold War.

Your comment reminds me of something Jake Sullivan, Biden's National Security Advisor, told American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs a little before Russia began its war with Ukraine. I'll quote the section where he is said to have said "there will be no war" shortly before Russia began its war in Ukraine, putting the actual words in orange to make it easier to spot below:

**
Then Biden came into office in 2021. I hoped for better but was profoundly disappointed once again. I used to be a member of the Democratic Party. I now am a member of no party because both are the same anyway. The Democrats became complete warmongers over time, and there was not one voice in the party calling for peace. Just as with most of your parliamentarians, the same way.

At the end of 2021, Putin put on the table a last effort to reach a modus operandi with the U.S., in two security agreement drafts, one with Europe and one with the United States. He put the Russia-U.S. draft agreement on the table on Dec. 15, 2021.

Following that, I had an hour-long call with [National Security Advisor] Jake Sullivan in the White House, begging, “Jake, avoid the war. You can avoid the war. All the U.S. has to do is say, ‘NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine.’” And he said to me, “Oh, NATO’s not going to enlarge to Ukraine. Don’t worry about it.”

I said, “Jake, say it publicly.”

“No. No. No. We can’t say it publicly.”

I said, “Jake, you’re going to have a war over something that isn’t even going to happen?”

He said, “Don’t worry, Jeff. There will be no war.”

These are not very bright people. I’m telling you, if I can give you my honest view, they’re not very bright people. They talk to themselves. They don’t talk to anybody else. They play game theory. In noncooperative game theory, you don’t talk to the other side. You just make your strategy. This is the essence of non-cooperative game theory. It’s not negotiation theory. It’s not peacemaking theory. It is unilateral, noncooperative theory, if you know formal game theory.

That’s what they play. That kind of game theory started [in application] at the RAND Corporation. That’s what they still play. In 2019, there’s a paper by RAND, “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground.”

Incredibly, the paper, in the public domain, asks how the U.S. should annoy, antagonize, and weaken Russia. That’s literally the strategy. We’re trying to provoke Russia, trying to make Russia break apart, perhaps have regime change, maybe unrest, maybe an economic crisis.

That’s what you in Europe call your ally. So, there I was with my frustrating phone call with Sullivan, standing out in the freezing cold. I happened to be trying to have a ski day.

“Oh, there’ll be no war, Jeff.”

We know what happened next: the Biden administration refused to negotiate over NATO enlargement. The stupidest idea of NATO is the so-called open-door policy, based on Article 10 of the NATO Treaty (1949). NATO reserves the right to go where it wants, as long as the host government agrees, without any neighbor – such as Russia — having any say whatsoever.

Well, I tell the Mexicans and the Canadians, “Don’t try it.” You know, Trump may want to take over Canada. So, the Canadian government could say to China, “Why don’t you build a military base in Ontario?” I wouldn’t advise it. The U.S. would not say, “Well, it’s an open door. That’s Canada’s and China’s business, not ours.” The U.S. would invade Canada.

Yet grownups, including in Europe, in this Parliament, in NATO, in the European Commission, repeat the absurd mantra that Russia has no say in NATO enlargement. This is nonsense stuff. This is not even baby geopolitics. This is just not thinking at all. So, the Ukraine War escalated in February 2022 when the Biden Administration refused any serious negotiations.

**

Full article:

There will always be people, many in positions of great power, who are -sure- that things will be fine until they aren't.
 
There will be no nuclear war, everything will be decided by the economy, as happened at the end of the Cold War.
no.

fuck you and your retarded brinksmanship.

  1. Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Brinkmanship

    Brinkmanship - Wikipedia

    Brinkmanship is the practice of trying to achieve an advantageous outcome by pushing dangerous events to the brink of active conflict. The maneuver of pushing a situation with the opponent to the brink succeeds by forcing the opponent to back down and make concessions rather than risk engaging in a conflict that would no longer be beneficial to ...
  2. merriam-webster.com

    Only include results for this siteHide site from these results

    Share feedback about this site

    Merriam Webster

    https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › brinkmanship

    BRINKMANSHIP Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

    The meaning of BRINKMANSHIP is the art or practice of pushing a dangerous situation or confrontation to the limit of safety especially to force a desired outcome. How to use brinkmanship in a sentence.
  3. britannica.com

    Only include results for this siteHide site from these results

    Share feedback about this site

    Britannica
 
Back
Top