Liberal Forum

The thread title is not my claim. It is Russia's claim. 

I just happen to agree with Moscow, 100%.

Consider Russia's argument, and see if you agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkdq2eNf534

And it's  still the Gulf of Mexico..

Gorby tore down that wall man..

You gotta build it again.. 

Vibrant has not cleared the YouTube filter yet here..
 

I did find the PBS doc on people 3D Printing drones and weapons parts in their living rooms this week as interesting as Quite Frankly..

It's in the Asymmetric Warfare thread..

No weapons factory to blow up.. 3D Printed Army is dispersed and works remote guerilla insitu warrfare. Maybe there was a reason Putin hit apartment buildings..
 

I'm willing to bet Canada is not helping Iran with it's new missiles..

Cannonpointer » Today, 3:48 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 3:48 pm

The thread title is not my claim. It is Russia's claim. 

I just happen to agree with Moscow, 100%.

Consider Russia's argument, and see if you agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkdq2eNf534

When does your history begin, Usefool?

BV shut you **** retarded cumtrap

Cannonpointer » Today, 3:48 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 3:48 pm

The thread title is not my claim. It is Russia's claim. 

I just happen to agree with Moscow, 100%.

Consider Russia's argument, and see if you agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkdq2eNf534

Kiev is actually older than Russia by a long shot. So it depends what timeframe you need to go back to in order to support one view versus another. 30+ years, 1200 years, 1600 years.
So the upstart Russia wants to claim "some farmland" based on conditions releasing that vassal state a few decades ago? How convenient. However, things changed since 1990. oops...

It took Russia long enough to come up with this reasoning. Wasn't this started because ethnic Russians were being brutalized? In a state that we now know didn't exist? I smell propaganda.

Blackvegetable » Today, 6:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:39 pm

When does your history begin, Usefool?

Why can't the entirety of NATO defeat Russia after.... how many years now? 


Either Russia is strong, or NATO is weak. Which is it?

DeezerShoove » 54 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

54 minutes ago

Kiev is actually older than Russia by a long shot. So it depends what timeframe you need to go back to in order to support one view versus another. 30+ years, 1200 years, 1600 years.
So the upstart Russia wants to claim "some farmland" based on conditions releasing that vassal state a few decades ago? How convenient. However, things changed since 1990. oops...

It took Russia long enough to come up with this reasoning. Wasn't this started because ethnic Russians were being brutalized? In a state that we now know didn't exist? I smell propaganda.

It's a legal argument - not "propaganda." When you find yourself calling anything and everything one side says "propaganda," you become part of the problem. You make matters ireeconcilable, since language is no longer language but a dirty word instead. Nothing is left but sticks and stones, once you fromally reject language as a means to end a war. 

Russia DID raise the issue AT THE TIME that Coupkraine broke the Big Treaty of Friendship (Russia's formal recognition of Ukraine's sovereignty based on Ukraine obeying the treaty - which treaty incorporated the pledges made in the Declaration of Independence). In response to Coupkraine breaking the treaty, Russia took Crimea and began to back the separatists in the oblasts which did not agree with the coup. 

Waht you need to understand is that when a coup takes place, not everyone is going to recognize the coup. Some will remain loyal. 

In the case of Coupkraine, remaining loyal was a no-brainer, because the first thing the coup government did was to outlaw the languages of minority Ukrainians. That's a problem for people, having their language outlawed. 

As to Kiev being the original capital of the Rus, that is correct. But the Rus moved their capital. So what? 
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 6:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:39 pm

When does your history begin, Usefool?

When your mom gets off my dick, fruit.
 

JohnnyYou » Today, 4:38 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:38 pm

I did find the PBS doc on people 3D Printing drones and weapons parts in their living rooms this week as interesting as Quite Frankly..

It's in the Asymmetric Warfare thread..

No weapons factory to blow up.. 3D Printed Army is dispersed and works remote guerilla insitu warrfare. Maybe there was a reason Putin hit apartment buildings..

You're a queer. Putin never aimed at apartment buildings. Your master in the green t-shirt DID. 
 

FJB » Today, 7:20 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:20 pm

BV shut you **** retarded cumtrap

BV's just being the dick sucker his mama raised. 

One can begin history at the big bang, and Ukraine was never a sovereign state until 1990, when Russia granted them their statehood. ANd that was based on promises.

They broke the promises.

They lost their statehood. 

Now, they are just the ground where east and west are fighting - instead of being the ground that guaranteed east and west would never fight. 
 

SouthernFried » 48 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

48 minutes ago

Why can't the entirety of NATO defeat Russia after.... how many years now? 

Either Russia is strong, or NATO is weak. Which is it?

Every week, they are reporting that Russia is "likely" to strike a nato nation soon.
Every week, they are reporting that Russia is in danger of immanent economic collapse. 
Russia was "just about" to run entirely out of missiles 4 years ago. 

Everything they have ever said has been a lie - DEMONSTRABLY. And I am waiting to hear @Deezer Shoove  call the west's proveably false blather of the past four years "propaganda."
 

SouthernFried » Today, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:33 pm

Why can't the entirety of NATO defeat Russia after.... how many years now? 

Either Russia is strong, or NATO is weak. Which is it?

Because Russia isn't fighting "the entirety of NATO", or anything close to it.

And this may go down in history as the most inept military campaign ever.

Cannonpointer » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

Every week, they are reporting that Russia is "likely" to strike a nato nation soon.
Every week, they are reporting that Russia is in danger of immanent economic collapse. 
Russia was "just about" to run entirely out of missiles 4 years ago. 

Everything they have ever said has been a lie - DEMONSTRABLY. And I am waiting to hear @Deezer Shoove  call the west's proveably false blather of the past four years "propaganda."

Every week, they are reporting that Russia is "likely" to strike a nato nation soon.

No "they" aren't. 

Every week, they are reporting that Russia is in danger of immanent economic collapse. 

Not seeing that either, but it surely is being squeezed and operating inefficiently.

 

Blackvegetable » 35 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

35 minutes ago

No "they" aren't. 

Not seeing that either, but it surely is being squeezed and operating inefficiently.

I can't help that Vanity Fair is more interested in fiction than in reportage, fruity. 

For all of the squeezing and resulting inefficiency - and I object to neither claim, - Russia has an enormous advantage over the west. The government controls the MIC. In the west, the MIC controls the government, forcing it to fight with whatever weapons it pleases the MIC to sell. 

What a hundred cardboard drones does to a patriot battery is a source of mirth for the very gods of Olympus. 
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 10:34 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:34 pm

Because Russia isn't fighting "the entirety of NATO", or anything close to it.

And this may go down in history as the most inept military campaign ever.

Yes they are. Are you saying that NATO hasn't thrown billions to Ukraine? Especially the U.S. thanks to the previous joke of an administration. Where are the results? 

SouthernFried » Yesterday, 11:34 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:34 pm

Yes they are. Are you saying that NATO hasn't thrown billions to Ukraine? Especially the U.S. thanks to the previous joke of an administration. Where are the results?

you're a **** idiot. 
 

Cannonpointer » Yesterday, 11:12 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:12 pm

I can't help that Vanity Fair is more interested in fiction than in reportage, fruity. 



 

List your sources.