For what it's worth I'm not sure Trump would have responded so robustly to Russia but we don't know that and you should at least acknowledge you're not comparing like with like.don't worry rich, stick your oar in, I don't mind.
biden has a big team of neocons on his bench, including ofc victoria "fuck the EU" nuland, he knows whats he's doing
Cos the right are constantly playing up his links to China... try typing "China Biden" into twitter and you'll see tons of this, including a parody account called Beijing Biden etcnot sure why you think hes a chinese agent however
With respect dude, this is rubbish. "Not being defeated" is the lowest of bars. They've lost what? 200,000 men, God knows how many injured, the military is utterly weakened and exposed, Putin has had to go cap in hand to Xi, its going to have huge knock on effects on their arms trade etc etc. Just because there's not been total collapse - yet - doesn't mean they aren't losing pretty badly. Which is not the same as saying Ukraine is poised to take all their territory back.wrt war with nato, russia is doing pretty well. i.e., it hasn't been defeated. it's still a live concern. was the invasion a good idea? no, obviously not.
Challenging a rouge state like Russia strengthens the West IMO. I would say strategically it seems like a success so far, in that it's not got too hot. I don't know what the long term effects will be but you could certainly argue liberal democracy will come out looking a lot stronger.but that goes both ways. are we benefiting? is this as success of western strategy? no, it's not that either.
This is one of the reasons that I think a lot rides on the Spring offensive. Zelensky et al know they have to demonstrate some strategic gains to stop the attrition of the war effort which would obvs get a lot worse under a Trump/Republican presidency.For what it's worth I'm not sure Trump would have responded so robustly to Russia but we don't know that and you should at least acknowledge you're not comparing like with like.
I don't really see how NATO is "weaker", given that it's just acquired or is about to acquire two new members, and all existing members have pledged to increase their defence spending: https://commonslibrary.parliament.u...by-nato-members-since-russia-invaded-ukraine/both sides are substantially weaker. within russia, putin is probably stronger. which is fine.
Trump, if anything, would be more inclined to sent military aid to Russia, if he could possibly get away with it.For what it's worth I'm not sure Trump would have responded so robustly to Russia but we don't know that and you should at least acknowledge you're not comparing like with like.
Yeah, it's hard to square "doing pretty well" with being in receipt of aid from DPRK: https://www.csis.org/analysis/north-korea-sends-ammunitions-russiaWith respect dude, this is rubbish. "Not being defeated" is the lowest of bars. They've lost what? 200,000 men, God knows how many injured, the military is utterly weakened and exposed, Putin has had to go cap in hand to Xi, its going to have huge knock on effects on their arms trade etc etc. Just because there's not been total collapse - yet - doesn't mean they aren't losing pretty badly. Which is not the same as saying Ukraine is poised to take all their territory back.
If they really did destroy a bunker in UKR with hundreds of NATO staff inside recently, that would be a win. Anyone heard anything about that?
What was the whole David Mikkelson thing?I did read about this last month but it seems to be disinformation, unless you mean a different NATO bunker
![]()
Did Russian Forces Strike a 'NATO Command Center' in Lviv, Ukraine?
A lazy piece of obvious propaganda has become incorporated into several false claims about the war in Ukraine.www.snopes.com
Not to say Snopes are perfect after the whole david mikkelson thing, but it does seem like a bit of a reach
What was the whole David Mikkelson thing?
![]()
The Cofounder Of The Fact-Checking Site Snopes Was Writing Plagiarized Articles Under A Fake Name
“You can always take an existing article and rewrite it just enough to avoid copyright infringement."www.buzzfeednews.com
Sure, but you can imagine this looks worse for a fact-checking website that often presents its articles as being original research, though, right? And it sounds like they could have avoided this just by adding a little "According to a report in the NYT..." here and there.He just said out loud what thousands of website do every day. Those sites don't have hundreds of reporters covering different beats; they probably have a few people who just take news that breaks on AP, Reuters, Washington Post, NY Times, etc., slightly reword it, and post it on their own site. If they're generous, they'll include a link to the original source, or at some point say "the news first appeared on AP" or something.
He was a trendsetter in many regardsSure. I was just pointing out that it's an approach that's all over online sites.
The latest US-RUS proxy war, sparked by the latter's Red Sea naval base deal, fighting broke out when govt. pressed ahead with signing it, US-backed paramilitaries stepped in to fuck shit up.Funny to see Russia calling for an immediate end to hostilities in Sudan earlier.