DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ukraine

I certainly doubt your understanding. You say that like more nukes would be a good thing. I'm also not sure that it's true. Everywhere I look shows Russia with around 500 more nuclear warheads.

I'm not sure you fully comprehend the differing psyches of different cultures. Not everyone thinks the same way you do. Russia's nuclear doctrine refers to ending the world, themselves included, under certain circumstances.

Putin seems to be in the "if I can't have it, nobody can" mold.

You don't seem to see a lot.

I see plenty. You think a man like Putin would kill himself to get his way. He can't get his way when he's dead. If Putin actually was willing to use the nuclear option he's had since 1999 to do it and had plenty of excuses to do so since that time. Yet here we are. I certainly do understand what you have convinced yourself of as well but that doesn't mirror the reality. For 25 years Putin has been sitting on those warheads while blowing the same bluster about them over and over again. And as I said before, here we are.

Not being able to launch a successful takeover of Ukraine is not anything that would be a legitimate threat of Putin using nukes over.

If it were just being unable to advance, that'd be one thing. On the other hand, losing face by having Ukraine take his territory is a new situation. Some people (not naming any names, though I'm sure you'll get offended) have a tendency to lash out irrationally when they lose face, and double down on the crazy things they've said.

Edit: was predictable of you to completely ignore your being wrong about comparative arsenal sizes

Let me ask you, if the U.S. too has enough nuclear capability to destroy the earth several times over just like Russia does, does it really make any difference?

I don't think you have an understanding of what the term lash out or the word irrationally means. But you certainly have it correct that you lash out.

Yes, more nukes (or more people with nukes) increases the possibility/probability of their use. Any country (or individual/organization) launching a nuke would likely set off a chain of events that can't be come back from. Or do you think someone like Trump having access to nukes is a good thing?

Quit trying to think, Pit. Just let the Internet give you talking points and regurgitate those some more. Occasionally those are coherent.

This has been my view since before most people had the internet. These are not some internet talking points I saw. Mutual world destruction is not something even Putin wants. And in case you missed it, I'm trying not to get trump elected. Not attacking everything and everyone besides trump while ignoring most everything he does. You do love that word "possibility" when we have been discussing the likelihood.

Darn, I was hoping, if I wrote in the imperative, you might take it as a command when the voice in your head read it.

I can't go back to before the internet existed to check what you posted, but making false claims about what you previously said wouldn't be a surprise. Going back to a time when I can't find the damning evidence is one of your better recent ideas.

I guess I'll have to go back to questions that you'll try to avoid answering.

How confident are you in what Putin wants? Wait, nevermind, I'm sure you're certain. You think you know what everyone means better than they do.

How much time have you spent immersed in a foreign culture? In a collectivist culture? When was the last time you were in Russia? Out of the US? Out of Tennessee?

How many times have you resisted pressing the submit button when you were angry and losing? Can you resist doing it now? If you can't, is that tantamount to admitting that Putin has more restraint than you?

The harsh reality is that Putin would be more likely to nuke the Ukraine occupied area of Russia that Ukraine.

That’s the ticket. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with your BS. Your consistent buffoonery retorts are simply ridiculous.

If in fact Putin was threatened being taken over by Ukraine you would have a point. But we both know that isn't going to happen. I don't have to go back far at all to show you where you don't even believe that Ukraine can defend itself much less take over Russia. Now suddenly you claim that Putin would be so threatened by Ukraine that he would use nukes. The fact is that if both you and I know that Ukraine lacks the manpower and weaponry to launch an invasion into Moscow, so does Putin.

It was you who used the claimed they lacked manpower in a position that Russia could overwhelm them due to a lack of troop size at any time lest you forget. Unless in your superiority complex you feel you know more than Putin. So at first Ukraine was no threat to Putin and now Putin is so threatened by them he will use nukes? Two totally differing positions by you. Some would call that talking out both sides of your mouth and I would agree.

What even you should know is that all Putin cares about is power. As long as he knows his power will remain in tact, he won't insure his own mutual destruction. And he knows Ukraine lacks the ability to invade Russia on agrand scale. You used to know that too until you decided to take an opposite approach simply to be a contrarian.

Nothing you can do would anger me. You decide to change your opinion and what you say on any given topic at any given time. Just like you have done here. First Ukraine could never threaten Russia or even defend itself against Putin. Now shortly after you take the position that Putin is so threatened by Ukraine he might use nukes. Your foolishness doesn't anger me.

Try again. It appears you consider yourself to be smarter than what you really are. What you've done here is easy to see through.

Boom. The world ended. I suspected you couldn't resist pressing the button. Couldn't even hold out one day. Knowing the button is there when one is angry makes it hard to resist. Do you think Putin is never angry?

"Nothing you can do would anger me"? Seriously? Going with that blatant lie? You're the angriest person outside of me that I've ever witnessed.

What you seem to keep overlooking is that ending the world is pretty much the ultimate expression of power.

Ukraine lacked in manpower to resist a siege. They weren't going to win a purely defensive war. It seems even Zelensky has come to realize that. Going on the offensive is a different matter. One which I, grudgingly, advocated for. Yet, it increases the nuclear risk.

In many collectivist cultures, they take the "death before dishonor" slogan seriously.

I don't consider myself smart. I think smart is a lousy label that isn't consistent across contexts. I have seen plenty of evidence that you don't know as much as you think you do, though.

You are the opinion changer. I simply have multiple complex opinions that you try to paint as something simplistic that they aren't.

If it was easy to see through, why did you do what I expected you to anyway?

Your claim of they can't even defend themselves that has changed into Putin is threatened by them isn't some nuance based on multiple complexity.

You claiming I'm angry is based on nothing more than you opinion and "feelings". Try reading what you just posted and tell me who it is that sounds angry.

Russia is 11% of the worlds total land mass. And the only one you're going to convince that Putin is going to start an all out nuclear war over what is reported as 400 sq. miles controlled by Ukraine while Russia controls 17.5% of Ukraine is ludicrous.

Now read both your latest response and compare it to mine. Then tell me who looks angry? And remember, everyone on this board can read. Nobody is buying that BS. Not even you.

I don't try to hide what I am. Wave a red cape in my face, and I'm going to try to "gore" you. It's in the name. It's in the sig.

You're the one in a constant state of denial.

One can be angry while speaking the truth. A liar lies. Anger can be righteous or festering self-loathing and all other kinds in between.

When you reply to me with lies, it angers me. It's a natural reaction. But we're supposed to believe that you don't experience a basic human emotion?

Your affliction is self induced. Trying to shift the blame on me shows your total lack of personal responsibility in taking ownership of your own words.

jc

So Putin basically told people in the occupied territory ukraine took to get used to a new normal. thats some great leadership

I wish we would turn Ukraine loose with the long range weapons.

it might happen with Belarus doing a build up at their border.

I won't lie. This really ticked me off. Trump talking about Hitler and Napoleon, like it's even comparable. I won't comment any further because I'm just angry for the moment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lashes-zelenskyy-ukraines-leader-204300620.html

Trump lashes out at Zelenskyy after Ukraine's leader questioned his claim he could end war
ALEXANDRA HUTZLER, KELSEY WALSH, LALEE IBSSA and SOO RIN KIM
Wed, September 25, 2024 at 3:43 PM CDT·4 min read
3.4k


Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and painted a picture of an "absolutely obliterated" Ukraine as the foreign leader is in the U.S. to present what he calls his "victory plan" to 2024 candidates and President Joe Biden.

At a campaign event in North Carolina, Trump went after Zelenskyy for "making little nasty aspersions" toward him.

While Trump didn't elaborate on what the comments were, Zelenskyy was recently critical of Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, in an interview with The New Yorker.

Zelenskyy expressed doubt Trump knew how to end the Russia-Ukraine war despite Trump's assertions, without detail or specifics, that the war never would have happened if he were president and he could end it on the first day of his new administration.

"My feeling is that Trump doesn't really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows how," Zelenskyy told the magazine. "With this war, oftentimes, the deeper you look at it the less you understand. I've seen many leaders who were convinced they knew how to end it tomorrow, and as they waded deeper into it, they realized it's not that simple."

Zelenskyy also called Vance "too radical" over his position that Ukraine will likely have to cede territory taken by Russia. Zelenskyy said the senator's "message seems to be that Ukraine must make a sacrifice."

Trump, in his freewheeling stump speech on Wednesday, claimed Ukraine is "obliterated" with towns and cities gone that can "never be duplicated." He said "millions and millions" were dead and accused Ukraine of "using young children and old men" as its military experiences a shortage of soldiers.

Trump continued to call Zelenskyy the "greatest salesman on Earth" amid his apparent criticism of the amount of aid the U.S. has given to Ukraine to help the nation fight President Vladimir Putin's forces, and how Zelenskyy has used the aid.

"Those buildings are down. Those cities are gone. They're gone. And we continue to give billions of dollars to a man who refuses to make a deal," Trump said.

A day prior, at a campaign event in Georgia, Trump expressed little confidence Ukraine could win while praising Russia's military capabilities.

"But we're stuck in that war unless I'm president. I'll get it done. I'll get it negotiated. I'll get out. We got to get out. Biden says we will not leave until we win. What happens if they win? That's what they do, is they fight wars. As somebody told me the other day, they beat Hitler. They beat Napoleon. That's what they do."

Zelenskyy will hold meetings with President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday to present what his "victory plan." The proposal includes specific figures and amounts of military assistance that he says Ukraine needs to force Russia to stop the war, as well as a list of certain diplomatic and political steps, a source close to Zelenskyy told ABC News.

Trump said last week that he would "probably" be meeting with Zelenskyy but now is not expected to meet with him while he is here in the U.S. this week, sources said, saying Trump's plans were never firm.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, the top Republican on Capitol Hill, also won't meet with Zelenskyy, a source familiar with the matter said Wednesday after a meeting had been previously announced. Johnson, who has a mixed record on Ukraine aid, has recently taken issue with Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova organizing a tour for Zelenskyy of an American munitions manufacturing plant in election battleground Pennsylvania.

Vance on Wednesday, during a call with reporters hosted by the Republican National Committee, was asked if he sees an opportunity to discuss with Zelenskyy how a Trump-Vance administration would approach the conflict and if he believed Ukraine should cede land in exchange for the war to end.

Vance said "everything's going to be on the table" in negotiating an end to the war and that "the biggest problem here is that this war has distracted and consumed a lot of resources at a time when Americans are suffering."

"I think that the president has said very clearly that, first of all, Russia would have never invaded Ukraine if he had been president, and he's gonna negotiate an end to the conflict," he said.

While Trump and Vance voiced skepticism of how much further assistance should be given to Ukraine, President Biden, in his final address at the United Nations General Assembly, urged world leaders not to relent on the issue.

"The world now has another choice to make: Will we sustain our support to help Ukraine win this war and preserve its freedom, or walk away, let aggression be renewed and a nation be destroyed? I know my answer," Biden said. "We cannot grow weary. We cannot look away and we will not let up on our support for not Ukraine."

ABC News' Katherine Faulders, Hannah Demissie and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

I just can't get over all the republicans (maybe just most of them) that show support for Putin and Russia. I mean, Reagan is turning over in his grave... So is Nixon and Ike. For that matter, JFK and LBJ as well.

Remember something that Trump wants you to forget.... Putin started this. He attacked Ukraine. They didn't Russia.

This is tough.

05, break it down for me. It seems you become more frustrated with his attitude toward Ukraine lately.

Trump will go to (figurative) war against media that criticizes him in any way, allies, his own cabinet members the moment they stop their bootlicking, and our own democratic process... but the moment a bald head and a Russian accent is across the table from him he wilts.

It's shameful.

He’s a Manchurian Candidate, period. And he has been mostly that since 2015.


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/manchurian-candidate#

I’m going to do a big breakdown here soon, but first let me post a video of this absolute FOOL:



That video was a great combination of rambling nonsense and just pure ignorance, with heavy undertones of something very fishy.

What’s funny is the dude actually just said something like “AS SOMEONE RECENTLY INFORMED ME, Russia beat Napoleon and they beat Hitler.” How are you a president of the United States and someone had to recently inform you of that???

Ok, Don, if you want a history lesson, check out the last time a despotic invader was appeased by countries just giving up lands and everyone trying to “make a bad deal.” How did that work out? How many “lives were saved” as the end result?

Oh, here’s another one, how has Russia fared when they were the aggressor or occupying force? What is that track record like?

It has been made clear time and time and time again that appeasement to Russia and Putin is seen as weakness, yet Trump is all about making a deal - even a bad one per his own words - TO A FOREIGN AGGRESSOR WHO HAS COMMITTED ABUNDANT HUMAN RIGHTS ATROCITIES.

On top of that, you got Moscow Mike Johnson sending a letter requesting Ukraine fire their ambassador because Zelenskyy was allowed to visit plants where weapons are made because it might “interfere with the election.”

I would ask two things: 1) How have Trump and Johnson responded with Zelensky’s offers to meet or visit Ukraine and 2) Didn’t Trump, not the current POTUS mind you, hold meetings with Orban (a known despot and Russian sympathizer), and Benjamin Netanyahu at MAL?

Absolute worst. I’m seething on this one.

Pretty sure Vlad Zelensky will love hearing that Ukraine is gone. Probably news to him.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in his meeting today with Trump.

It's crazy .... and the Trump supporters will find a way to justify it somehow. (Probably a bit like the Biden supporters justifying some of his mental frailty 3+ months ago I guess)

I don't think much substance will come from it. Trump really showed his arse on his recent Ukraine comments, in addition to both he and Johnson showing their arses previously in not meeting with Zelensky or visiting Ukraine. His team knows that he flipped up and they are just doing this for appearances and damage control. If Trump genuinely came out of this and offered any authentic change in tune, I would truly and genuinely be shocked. My expectation is that he will use it to double down or justify his position while also saying he checked the box by meeting with Zelensky. I guess we'll see.

Go ahead and contrast Trump with this guy from across the pond.

Trump continues to show he supports Putin and so does Mike Johnson. It was Republicans that held up funding Ukraine for six months in hopes they would crumble under the military might of Russia without the military aid of America. Fortunately that didn't happen but it wasn't because they lacked the effort to make it so. This is simply an extension of what's been going on for a while now. I would have expected no different coming from trump.

From everything seen so far, it seems to be exactly that. Checked the box of meeting Zelensky. Now he can go on his merry way talking about how Ukraine is being unreasonable by not just surrendering its own territory to a foreign aggressor who unjustly invaded and committed human rights atrocities.

Lammy hit a lot of nails right on the head. Can you imagine Trump trying to have a discussion/debate over Ukraine with this dude?? ey ey ey

https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/20...-agree-putin-cant-win-in-ukraine-en-news

Zelensky meets Trump in New York, says both agree ‘Putin can’t win’ in Ukraine

Dont wet yourselves libtards.

Sadly for you and everyone else he already opened his mouth and told everyone what he thinks about Ukraine.

Brother, it ain’t even worth the key strokes sometimes.

In case anyone was confused by any wildly ignorant posts that may have taken place recently, here’s something to look at.

Because cherry picking quotes and making up a fake convo with them means something?

I see you decided to wet your pants.

The biggest problem for his team: they work on his team.


As almost any real professional from his 2016-2020 team will tell you, this dud(e) does what he wants, regardless of expert advice.
It's why his current team are always playing defense this time around.

It's not so much that press coverage has become tighter... it's that their client is mentally more unwound than he was in 2015, but with the same basic personality traits,- now freed by age-related cognitive decline. This campaign season, his Team Captains have been Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, two consummate professionals among the best at what they do. And yet- their best efforts are routinely thwarted by their very own client... forcing them to once again, play defense in the political newsphere. They may have the skills and stamina of Michael Phelps, but there is only so hard and fast you can swim against a current that your client helps create.

They can never nail an approach, set the hook, and drag new voters onto the boat... because their bait insists on 'scenting the waters' with bait that no new fish wants to hit.

Whatever Susie and Chris are being paid, it's a fraction of what they deserve, trying to lipstick this pig on a daily basis.

#2worstjobsinpolitics

You hit the nail on the head, as usual.

Just wanted to post something else on the topic. I actually don’t like Krassenstein much at all so I ignore his comments, but check out what McConnell is saying here.



Gee what a libtard he is. Hope I don’t need purple…

There was no cherry picking of quotes. This is the same BS trump always says about Ukraine. That they should "negotiate" with the the man who invaded their country. And it does sound like you're an expert when it comes to wetting your pants.

McConnell may as well hangem up. Between freeze ups and putting down the chosen one. He’s finished.

It would've been a LOT more helpful if he'd have grown a spine while he was essentially leading the party. Still, I guess it's helpful to officially know what everyone with a couple working brain cells figured out about the border bill timeline.