Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

ironseal said:

Justin Mendoza16 Asks:
☕That whole thing about Ukraine joining NATO? It was nothing more than a convenient excuse for pure, unadulterated aggression. Their actual goal was always to seize the entire country, grab a foothold, and then just keep rolling straight toward Moldova and Kaliningrad.🙂

I get that much, but I’m asking the people who are still swallowing that garbage. Also, why don't they just go after Finland and Sweden since they both announced they're joining NATO?

😁 Look, you got all kinds of people out there—some are just naive and blinded by the hype, while others are spreading that narrative on purpose for their own reasons... whether it's ideological, how they were raised, or just doing their job.🤣

As for Finland and Sweden, 🙂those guys realized the Russian establishment and its madness was a real threat, so they flipped from being neutral to joining up with NATO for collective defense... if some massive bully tries anything, they'll face a serious 5th amendment situation—and trust me, that's gonna end badly for the Russian Federation and their military units.

🕺By attacking Ukraine, the Russians totally embarrassed themselves with all those lies and pure incompetence. Nobody believes them anymore. They've basically set themselves up for a huge reality check where this aggression against an independent nation—which wasn't even a threat to them—comes back to haunt them and changes things big time back in Russia itself.

Not to mention, they showed everyone militarily that they aren't some global superpower. They're just a local force causing chaos in neighboring countries for no real reason. That whole dream of building a "Russian World" or a Russian Empire—trying to expand their influence🐔—it's nothing but the empty wishes of a crumbling, washed-up political establishment that's lost its touch in old age.😁

Justin Mendoza16 said:😁 Look, you got all kinds of people out there—some are just naive and blinded by the hype, while others are spreading that narrative on purpose for their own reasons... whether it's ideological, how they were raised, or just doing their job.🤣

As for Finland and Sweden, 🙂those guys realized the Russian establishment and its madness was a real threat, so they flipped from being neutral to joining up with NATO for collective defense... if some massive bully tries anything, they'll face a serious 5th amendment situation—and trust me, that's gonna end badly for the Russian Federation and their military units.

🕺By attacking Ukraine, the Russians totally embarrassed themselves with all those lies and pure incompetence. Nobody believes them anymore. They've basically set themselves up for a huge reality check where this aggression against an independent nation—which wasn't even a threat to them—comes back to haunt them and changes things big time back in Russia itself.

Not to mention, they showed everyone militarily that they aren't some global superpower. They're just a local force causing chaos in neighboring countries for no real reason. That whole dream of building a "Russian World" or a Russian Empire—trying to expand their influence🐔—it's nothing but the empty wishes of a crumbling, washed-up political establishment that's lost its touch in old age.😁

Cuba wasn't a threat to the USA either, yet they still wouldn't let them put missiles on their soil to deter an attack.☕

Neither Iran, Iraq, nor Syria were threats to anyone. Even the Kurds aren't a threat to Turkey, yet there they go again, having regular military picnics inside another country's borders.☕

Sure, this kind of resistance from Ukrainians was expected, but it's nothing new. You saw it with ISIS—despite being outmatched technologically and militarily by the forces trying to kick them out of cities, they still put up hell of a fight.

rowdyraven112 said:Cuba wasn't a threat to the USA either, yet they still wouldn't let them put missiles on their soil to deter an attack.☕

Neither Iran, Iraq, nor Syria were threats to anyone. Even the Kurds aren't a threat to Turkey, yet there they go again, having regular military picnics inside another country's borders.☕

Sure, this kind of resistance from Ukrainians was expected, but it's nothing new. You saw it with ISIS—despite being outmatched technologically and militarily by the forces trying to kick them out of cities, they still put up hell of a fight.

I have no desire to engage with your Russian whataboutism, but I should remind you that within a ten-year span, Iraq invaded two sovereign nations, so saying they weren't a threat to anyone simply isn't accurate.
It's funny—we all know the invasion of Iraq was a crime and a violation of rights, but if Iraq attacks other sovereign states, suddenly everything is fine! It becomes perfectly acceptable.
The same logic applies to Libya. An attack by Libya on Chad is tolerated—it's even welcomed, because a modern, sovereign, non-aligned nation like Libya deserves the right to flex its muscles. But an attack on Libya? That's a crime!

rowdyraven112 said:Cuba wasn't a threat to the USA either, yet they still wouldn't let them put missiles on their soil to deter an attack.☕

Neither Iran, Iraq, nor Syria were threats to anyone. Even the Kurds aren't a threat to Turkey, yet there they go again, having regular military picnics inside another country's borders.☕

Sure, this kind of resistance from Ukrainians was expected, but it's nothing new. You saw it with ISIS—despite being outmatched technologically and militarily by the forces trying to kick them out of cities, they still put up hell of a fight.

It's not even a fair comparison. ISIS fighters aren't looking to survive a battle; they're looking to die in it.
If you gave ISIS the kind of support Ukrainians have right now, they wouldn't stop until they hit Moscow.
But Ukrainians aren't fanatics. We already saw what happens when the Russians go up against a slightly less extreme version of that mindset back in Afghanistan in the eighties.

rowdyraven112 said:Cuba wasn't a threat to the USA either, yet they still wouldn't let them put missiles on their soil to deter an attack.☕

Neither Iran, Iraq, nor Syria were threats to anyone. Even the Kurds aren't a threat to Turkey, yet there they go again, having regular military picnics inside another country's borders.☕

Sure, this kind of resistance from Ukrainians was expected, but it's nothing new. You saw it with ISIS—despite being outmatched technologically and militarily by the forces trying to kick them out of cities, they still put up hell of a fight.

☕As for Cuba itself, there's more to it when you look at that "established democratic state" as a model of communist prosperity under Castro...🤣 I was just watching an ABC documentary about Cuba recently—the average car is from 1958 and wages are like 50 or 60 bucks...🤣I mean, seriously—so much prosperity that the Russians fell in love with them immediately...

Regarding Iraq—their downward spiral started right around when they hit Kuwait, back in '91 or '92, I think.

They got wrecked back then, and the whole country just fell apart along tribal lines... which ended with the regime collapsing.

Iran—that place is always pushing extreme politics and labeling itself a threat to its neighbors—which is true even today, with the nuclear ambitions, supporting Hamas in Gaza, and all that. Basically, just terrorism wrapped in clear plastic.🙂

Syria—not much to say there besides it being a dictatorship run by one family that flirted with Russian interests. It's a land rich in gas and oil sitting right where global powers clash and major pipelines cross. They can't really claim any democracy other than following whatever Russia wants...

George Robinson43 said:I have no desire to engage with your Russian whataboutism, but I should remind you that within a ten-year span, Iraq invaded two sovereign nations, so saying they weren't a threat to anyone simply isn't accurate.
It's funny—we all know the invasion of Iraq was a crime and a violation of rights, but if Iraq attacks other sovereign states, suddenly everything is fine! It becomes perfectly acceptable.
The same logic applies to Libya. An attack by Libya on Chad is tolerated—it's even welcomed, because a modern, sovereign, non-aligned nation like Libya deserves the right to flex its muscles. But an attack on Libya? That's a crime!

☕Regarding Libya—Gaddafi basically signed his own death warrant when he pushed to neutralize big conglomerates in the Middle East and tried to unite with others to kick the dollar and US companies out of global dominance.

We all know how that played out and how it ended... plus you had all kinds of terrorism being funded by that state too...

George Robinson43 said:I have no desire to engage with your Russian whataboutism, but I should remind you that within a ten-year span, Iraq invaded two sovereign nations, so saying they weren't a threat to anyone simply isn't accurate.
It's funny—we all know the invasion of Iraq was a crime and a violation of rights, but if Iraq attacks other sovereign states, suddenly everything is fine! It becomes perfectly acceptable.
The same logic applies to Libya. An attack by Libya on Chad is tolerated—it's even welcomed, because a modern, sovereign, non-aligned nation like Libya deserves the right to flex its muscles. But an attack on Libya? That's a crime!

The real crime was having that hateful West meddling in everything. Honestly, if the Chinese decided to wipe out half of Asia, they'd probably give them a thumbs up.

It’s worth pointing out—and I really think this needs to be highlighted—that he hasn't actually deployed any nuclear weapons to new NATO allies, and he’s pulled almost his entire military presence out of Europe.

jadetinker85 said:A friend of mine over in Ohio tells me the Canadians are running military drills right up against our border constantly. Apparently, there's flashing all through the night. Who knows what they're getting ready for.

The Canadians likely know exactly what's happening; after all, they've already dealt with an intervention from the friendly Russian people once before.

Justin Mendoza16 said:☕Regarding Libya—Gaddafi basically signed his own death warrant when he pushed to neutralize big conglomerates in the Middle East and tried to unite with others to kick the dollar and US companies out of global dominance.

We all know how that played out and how it ended... plus you had all kinds of terrorism being funded by that state too...

Even if it happened with Hillary Clinton's backing, Libya was mostly a French operation. The dollar wasn't even the main driver here. Has everyone seriously forgotten those leaked emails?

Clinton emails suggest France bombed Gaddafi’s regime for oil

analogbear5 said:Even if it happened with Hillary Clinton's backing, Libya was mostly a French operation. The dollar wasn't even the main driver here. Has everyone seriously forgotten those leaked emails?

Clinton emails suggest France bombed Gaddafi’s regime for oil

Gaddafi essentially paid the ultimate price because he kept playing aggressive anti-West politics from the moment he took power.

1. Overthrowing the pro-Western government in Libya

2. The Expulsion of Italians and Jews from the country along with seizing all their assets

3. Kicking Western corporations out and nationalizing everything they owned

4. Handing over military bases to the USSR

5. Direct military aggression against Chad, occupying a third of the country, and openly meddling in other African nations against the interests of the West

6. Funding terrorist groups like the IRA and ETA, plus direct involvement in terror tactics like shooting down planes and stuff

7. Crushing the Libyan Berbers and treating the Black population of Libya like slaves

The only thing he didn't do was turn into a cannibal like Go Amin; honestly, the guy was a total degenerate who got exactly what was coming to him.

But here's the kicker—the West actually overlooked almost everything listed above, and this was the real breaking point that triggered his downfall: Articles from 2009Russian military expansion: New bases in Libya, Syria, and Yemen

It's pretty wild how two years later, all three of those countries were hit by the West, whether through direct action or via proxies. In this case, the West just decided the Russian influence had gone too far.

Adam Lee13 said:Gaddafi essentially paid the ultimate price because he kept playing aggressive anti-West politics from the moment he took power.

1. Overthrowing the pro-Western government in Libya

2. The Expulsion of Italians and Jews from the country along with seizing all their assets

3. Kicking Western corporations out and nationalizing everything they owned

4. Handing over military bases to the USSR

5. Direct military aggression against Chad, occupying a third of the country, and openly meddling in other African nations against the interests of the West

6. Funding terrorist groups like the IRA and ETA, plus direct involvement in terror tactics like shooting down planes and stuff

7. Crushing the Libyan Berbers and treating the Black population of Libya like slaves

The only thing he didn't do was turn into a cannibal like Go Amin; honestly, the guy was a total degenerate who got exactly what was coming to him.

But here's the kicker—the West actually overlooked almost everything listed above, and this was the real breaking point that triggered his downfall: Articles from 2009Russian military expansion: New bases in Libya, Syria, and Yemen

It's pretty wild how two years later, all three of those countries were hit by the West, whether through direct action or via proxies. In this case, the West just decided the Russian influence had gone too far.

Let us not forget that he was crushed by the Frenchmen in Chad, which gave them a clear path through the desert straight to Tripoli.
It is almost certain that he was given mercy under specific conditions, but he clearly violated those terms repeatedly until he simply wore them thin. It stands to reason why the French were the first to move against him.
As for the comparison to Idi Amin, we all know whose army stood by him. Look at the facts—it was the Libyan army.

Adam Lee13 said:Gaddafi essentially paid the ultimate price because he kept playing aggressive anti-West politics from the moment he took power.

1. Overthrowing the pro-Western government in Libya

2. The Expulsion of Italians and Jews from the country along with seizing all their assets

3. Kicking Western corporations out and nationalizing everything they owned

4. Handing over military bases to the USSR

5. Direct military aggression against Chad, occupying a third of the country, and openly meddling in other African nations against the interests of the West

6. Funding terrorist groups like the IRA and ETA, plus direct involvement in terror tactics like shooting down planes and stuff

7. Crushing the Libyan Berbers and treating the Black population of Libya like slaves

The only thing he didn't do was turn into a cannibal like Go Amin; honestly, the guy was a total degenerate who got exactly what was coming to him.

But here's the kicker—the West actually overlooked almost everything listed above, and this was the real breaking point that triggered his downfall: Articles from 2009Russian military expansion: New bases in Libya, Syria, and Yemen

It's pretty wild how two years later, all three of those countries were hit by the West, whether through direct action or via proxies. In this case, the West just decided the Russian influence had gone too far.

None of that is the real reason. The main driver was just grabbing the oil—pretty much the same logic behind Putin seizing territory in Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...03377653796874

Looks like Solovyev had another one of his classic meltdowns 😂

James Phillips92 said:None of that is the real reason. The main driver was just grabbing the oil—pretty much the same logic behind Putin seizing territory in Ukraine.

🤣

James Phillips92 said:None of that is the real reason. The main driver was just grabbing the oil—pretty much the same logic behind Putin seizing territory in Ukraine.

Basically, if you look closer, it's always just about the money, isn't it?

wanderingmaker3 said:Basically, if you look closer, it's always just about the money, isn't it?

Exactly—everything else is just smoke and mirrors for the folks who want to believe the hype.

James Phillips92 said:Exactly—everything else is just smoke and mirrors for the folks who want to believe the hype.

Look, you just don't get how things actually work in the United States. For them, the bottom line is keeping the oil flowing in massive quantities and making sure producers aren't getting too cozy with Russ or China—they couldn't care less about who's pocketing the oil money over there. Their real play is keeping gas and diesel cheap enough for domestic industry and everyday folks, selling a mountain of weapons to those same countries, and then eventually cycling all that oil profit right back into the American stock market.

If you want proof, just look at those Gulf nations with state-run oil giants doing all the heavy lifting.

Adam Lee13 said:Look, you just don't get how things actually work in the United States. For them, the bottom line is keeping the oil flowing in massive quantities and making sure producers aren't getting too cozy with Russ or China—they couldn't care less about who's pocketing the oil money over there. Their real play is keeping gas and diesel cheap enough for domestic industry and everyday folks, selling a mountain of weapons to those same countries, and then eventually cycling all that oil profit right back into the American stock market.

If you want proof, just look at those Gulf nations with state-run oil giants doing all the heavy lifting.

Exactly! It's not even about the profit for Americans, it's more about the leverage you get from controlling the oil supply. It's more important to them that everyone else *doesn't* gain that kind of influence. Maybe that's just how it goes.

Ukraine will eventually wrap up its whole situation with Russia, but I think that's just one chapter in the much bigger American playbook.
They're going straight for Russia's throat. It's all about resource control. After that, China might just have to become the biggest supporter of renewable energy.

Seriously, the United States has a now or never moment right now. They could take down Russia, and maybe even China too. And honestly, it's probably all thanks to Putin and his way of dealing with frustration through these imperialist power plays.

boldotter2 said:Exactly! It's not even about the profit for Americans, it's more about the leverage you get from controlling the oil supply. It's more important to them that everyone else *doesn't* gain that kind of influence. Maybe that's just how it goes.

Ukraine will eventually wrap up its whole situation with Russia, but I think that's just one chapter in the much bigger American playbook.
They're going straight for Russia's throat. It's all about resource control. After that, China might just have to become the biggest supporter of renewable energy.

Seriously, the United States has a now or never moment right now. They could take down Russia, and maybe even China too. And honestly, it's probably all thanks to Putin and his way of dealing with frustration through these imperialist power plays.

The US doesn't care who owns the oil or how much they have, as long as it’s sold in US Dollars. Libya and Iraq tried moving away from the greenback, but it didn't last. Then came Iran and Venezuela, and they got hit with embargos.