BREAKING: INVASION HAS BEGUN..... Putin's "3-day war"... NOW... 1 YEAR 338 DAYS ...WAGNER HEAD SAYS GROUP STANDING DOWN AFTER CLAIMS OF DEAL

Mask

"OneOfTheBest"
Platinum Member
:lol: people were really in this thread believing Putin's line about Ukraine needing to be "denazified"



Putin had to have something to go with…

shit he use our formula that we use in a Iraq said Saddam had weapons of massive destruction then next you know we was in Pakistan and Afghanistan

Saddam ass didn’t even have a goddamn rocket launch :lol:

Shit didn’t that work against Qaddafi also
 
Last edited:

slewdem100

Rising Star
OG Investor
Interesting point.

My mother used to work as an editor for the BBC World Service for nearly 40 years. She was talking with one of her colleagues this morning who pointed out that something that I have not heard any news agency comment on.

APPARENTLY.

When the eastern block fell, it was written into the agreements with Gorbachev that NATO would not advance nearer the Russian border, this meant that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia should never have been able to become part of NATO.

If this is true then Russia would feel like
  • the agreement had not been adhered to,
  • that thier borders were being encroahed upon,
  • and at what point do you make a stand?
I have not researched this but these people (who work in news agencies) remember a lot of details that most people (Joe Public) forget.
I believe it's true...Russia is being boxed in
 

zod16

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Interesting point.

My mother used to work as an editor for the BBC World Service for nearly 40 years. She was talking with one of her colleagues this morning who pointed out that something that I have not heard any news agency comment on.

APPARENTLY.

When the eastern block fell, it was written into the agreements with Gorbachev that NATO would not advance nearer the Russian border, this meant that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia should never have been able to become part of NATO.

If this is true then Russia would feel like
  • the agreement had not been adhered to,
  • that thier borders were being encroahed upon,
  • and at what point do you make a stand?
I have not researched this but these people (who work in news agencies) remember a lot of details that most people (Joe Public) forget.

This is a good read because it directly addresses your question. I thought something similar before reading it:

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.



I'm still wondering why they chose to secure Chernobyl, too. But to use it as the world's largest dirty bomb...on their own (Russia's) front door has me questioning that move.

It's already an uninhabited place...so, more radiation, while bad, may not change things there significantly.

The big downside, though, is universal world condemnation...even from his own people, cuz depending on which way the wind blows, they could get the brunt of it.

You set off a dirty bomb of that magnitude...
:smh: :smh: :smh:

People are positing that they planned to use it as a staging area for fuel trucks etc. because nobody would dare target it.
 

madgoose

International
International Member
I'd guess that they jointly decided to protect Chernobyl because if it blew it would devastate both Ukraine and Russia. You can't fight an urban war with fallout in the air.

Yeah, but you sabotage the fuck out of it as you retreat, making it a priority with consequences, might even be able to swing it that it was due to Ukrainian negligence.

I get that. But why would you set off a dirty bomb in your own area...where you're damn near guaranteed to get a big dose of radiation? Even his own citizens would be pissed.

All that other stuff is irrelevant....cuz if they wanted to argue that, there's the greater counter argument that Russia and the US agreed to security commitments for Ukraine, if they gave up their nukes.

seem like this was talked about but never actually signed…

No doubting you because to put your name to something on BGOL you got to come correct, but i was going to ask you for the link becasue I have not had time to research it but was interested to know, Zod16 posted up a linnk if you have not seen it yet it is quoted in his post.


I believe it's true...Russia is being boxed in

You can atleast then understand the thinking, even if the motive is fucked up.

This is a good read because it directly addresses your question. I thought something similar before reading it:

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.





People are positing that they planned to use it as a staging area for fuel trucks etc. because nobody would dare target it.

Cheers for that Zoddy! I just told my Mum that somebody had researched her colleagues claims and that I had emailed the article to her for her inspection. Her face lit up like she was working on a breaking stroy again.
 

zod16

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
man my whole life has been a lie
these mofos are really awful at this war shit
this convoy just screams bomb the shit out of me
and how theyre positioned they couldnt even defend themselves
when UA gets planes in the air theyre going to finish these fools off easily

They are approaching the same number of dead as they had from the entire first Chechen war in a matter of days.


Meanwhile, Ukranians out here wild as shit :lol:



 

Mask

"OneOfTheBest"
Platinum Member
@madgoose this article kinda states what I was talking about. This is not the initial article I read but pretty much touch on the matter…

I’ll see if I can find the other later that article had signed documents on it…(not that they were real :lol:)


NATO: Why Russia has a problem with its eastward expansion

After its Soviet enemy crumbled, NATO kept growing. Whether that helped ensure peace or constitutes a threat is still debated today — and plays into Russian actions towards Ukraine.
23.02.2022

60892601_505.jpg

The role of NATO— the trans-Atlantic military alliance founded in 1949 specifically to counter the Soviet Empire in Europe — has been an evolving discussion since the breakup of the USSR in 1991.

Back then, many foreign policy experts were urging triumphant Western leaders to establish a new security framework to redefine relations with Russia, which inherited the ruins of the Soviet Union.

The West "held all the cards in 1990-1991," Dan Plesch, a professor of diplomacy at the SOAS University of London, told DW. "The Soviet Union managed a [relatively] peaceful end to empire, which is almost unprecedented and for which they got no credit," he said.

The demise of the USSR led to a flurry of high-level meetings and negotiations between American and Soviet — later Russian — officials, but "we never made a serious effort to bring the Russians in," according to Plesch.


A hammer without a nail
Amid intense political and economic instability in Russia during the 1990s, opposing the Western alliance was one of the few issues that united the country's fractious political spectrum, according to declassified documents maintained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

"We believe that the eastward expansion of NATO is a mistake and a serious one at that," Boris Yeltsin, Russia's first post-Soviet president, told reporters at a 1997 news conference with US President Bill Clinton in Helsinki, where the two signed a statement on arms control.

Indeed, documents show a pattern of promises US negotiators made to their Russian counterparts as well as internal policy discussions opposing NATO expansion to Eastern Europe.

"In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees," according to a State Department memorandum in 1990, while those states were still emerging from Soviet control as the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. "[We] do not, in any case, wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border. Such a coalition would be perceived very negatively by the Soviets."

60788784_7.png

Post-USSR order: Changing security policy
None of these discussions ever became official policy, and none of the alleged pledges ever made it into a legally binding document with Russia. Moreover, they took place in a specific contemporary historical context: The Berlin Wall had just fallen in 1989.

Especially the Baltic Sea states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia — which were part of the Soviet Union from the 1940s to 1991 — saw an increased drive for political self-determination and a reorientation of the region's security structure.

The three states pointed to the UN Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, which refers to "political independence both internally and externally."

NATO's open-door policy with Russia
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union the Eastern European military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, disbanded in 1991. US president Bill Clinton pursued Partnership for Peace, which Russia joined in 1994. However, there was disagreement over whether that was an alternative to NATO membership or a pathway to it.

In 1997 NATO and Russia signed the "Founding Act" on mutual relations, cooperation, and security, and the NATO-Russia Council was founded in 2002, both of which were intended to boost cooperation. Moscow received access and a permanent presence at NATO headquarters in Brussels. But this exchange has been largely halted since Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2014.

All the while, NATO maintained an "open door" policy on membership and stood by all countries' right to choose their alliances. From the Western perspective, keeping NATO to its Cold War borders was only valid so long as Soviet forces remained in Eastern Europe.

In the "Two plus Four" negotiations for a reunited Germany in 1990, the two German states and the four World War II allies — the US, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union — agreed that no NATO soldiers may be stationed on the territory of the former East German communist GDR. To this day, only the German Bundeswehr operates here.

Russia's sensitivities over NATO's possible eastward expansion were well known. "No matter how nuanced, if NATO adopts a policy which envisions expansion into Central and Eastern Europe without holding the door open to Russia, it would be universally interpreted in Moscow as directed against Russia," US diplomat James Collins wrote in a State Department cable in 1993.


In 2004 George W. Bush greeted seven new eastern European NATO members in Washington: Latvia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia
But since 1990, NATO has gone through five rounds of enlargement to include former parts of the Soviet Union and several former Warsaw Pact states.

In 2010, NATO's strategic concept, which governs alliance policy, says "NATO poses no threat to Russia" and calls for a "true strategic partnership" between the two sides. The document came out two years after Russia's military intervention in Georgia but before its first attack on Ukraine. It is based on many of the post-Cold War arrangements that Putin now appears to want to abandon.

In 2008 NATO floated the possibility of Georgia joining and intensified cooperation with Ukraine in 2014. At the same time, many of the Cold War fail-safes — such as arms control verification and lines of communication — have fallen away.

Misjudgment of Kremlin aims
NATO carried out an aerial bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo war. Serbia was a Russian ally. Vladimir Putin was elected president not long thereafter.

He still cites the bombing as proof of NATO aggression — also in the context of the current crisis.


The latest crisis over Ukraine has led NATO defence ministers to meet
The issue has taken a central role as he has ordered his armed forces towards Ukraine's borders, most recently sending some of them into breakaway regions that Russia supports.

"If Ukraine were to join NATO, it would serve as a direct threat to the security of Russia," Putin said in televised remarks on Monday, during which he described Ukraine as a "springboard" for a NATO strike against Russia.

NATO has dismissed Putin's sense of encirclement, given Russia's massive size that extends to the Pacific Ocean. However, the vast majority of the Russian population lives on the country's European side.

JD Bindenagel, a former deputy US ambassador to Germany, told DW that he believes NATO's mistake was not so much the actual enlargement, but with not taking seriously the Russian view that it had been betrayed.

"We never engaged with it; we thought this was a ridiculous narrative. And so we would say, 'no that didn't happen,'" he said.

60891869_505.jpg

In 2004 George W. Bush greeted seven new eastern European NATO members in Washington: Latvia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia
 

Mixd

Duppy Maker
BGOL Investor
Sanctions against Russia not set in stone - US State Dept

The US has claimed it will soften sanctions against Russia, should the situation in Ukraine de-escalate - Spox Ned Price said during a Monday brief.

“If Russia continues to escalate, these measures will be calibrated accordingly."
 

ZuluSam

Rising Star
Platinum Member
man my whole life has been a lie
these mofos are really awful at this war shit
this convoy just screams bomb the shit out of me
and how theyre positioned they couldnt even defend themselves
when UA gets planes in the air theyre going to finish these fools off easily


Bruh....for real. But Obama busted Putin down years ago....when he said “The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us,” he said at his end-of-year press conference on Friday. “They are a smaller country, they are a weaker country, their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy except oil and gas and arms. They don't innovate.”

They are a shell of what the Soviet Union once was....those muhfuckas running out of gas....LOL...in many ways....
 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
man my whole life has been a lie
these mofos are really awful at this war shit
this convoy just screams bomb the shit out of me
and how theyre positioned they couldnt even defend themselves
when UA gets planes in the air theyre going to finish these fools off easily
It's Monday
 
Top