Is Zelenskyya's mouth now a liability for Ukraine?

[gbg3]

Of course he won't surrender. Would we?

No, we're militarily quite strong and capable.

 

[Rogue Valley]

One is far stronger and more capable than the other. While that isn't a pleasant situation for one of them, it's certainly a reality they have to recognize and are hamstrung with.

The Russian military has been decimated, reduced to depending on North Korean reinforcements and Iranian drones.

 

[Juin]

he doesnt have to surrender, Z simply has to recognize reality that Russia gets territory out of this war. it is what it is

Zelensky lives in a parallel universe of philosophical abstraction. In the real world you surrender only what is in your possession. In Zelensky's parallel universe of philosophical abstraction what is not in his possession is still his to surrender. It's surreal. Add to this his latest claim that the chat at the funeral he extorted from Trump will have historical significance! Trump didn't want the chat. Ukraine has tons of channels of communication with the White House. Just about any item of discussion has been discussed ad infinitum. So exactly what did the Green Goblin hope to communicate in the shadows of a papal funeral? Was he appealing to the ghost of the departed post to descend on the scene and move Trump to grant the pleas of the Goblin from Kyiv. Strange!

 

[MamboDervish]

Zelensky lives in a parallel universe of philosophical abstraction.

Zelensky lives in the very real universe of a nation fighting to defend the lives of its citizens, and the very existence of its identity as an independent European state. It is YOU who lives in the parallel universe of philosophical abstraction - because YOU have nothing at stake!

In the real world you surrender only what is in your possession. In Zelensky's parallel universe of philosophical abstraction what is not in his possession is still his to surrender. It's surreal. Add to this his latest claim that the chat at the funeral he extorted from Trump will have historical significance! Trump didn't want the chat. Ukraine has tons of channels of communication with the White House. Just about any item of discussion has been discussed ad infinitum. So exactly what did the Green Goblin hope to communicate in the shadows of a papal funeral? Was he appealing to the ghost of the departed post to descend on the scene and move Trump to grant the pleas of the Goblin from Kyiv. Strange!

No. Nothing at all strange about one European head of state attending the funeral of another European head of state.

 

[Juin]

Zelensky lives in the very real universe of a nation fighting to defend the lives of its citizens, and the very existence of its identity as an independent European state. It is YOU who lives in the parallel universe of philosophical abstraction - because YOU have nothing at stake!

Zelensky cannot surrender what is not in his possession. Crimea is Russia's possession, that makes Russia the only party to keep or surrender it

No. Nothing at all strange about one European head of state attending the funeral of another European head of state.

Hijacking the funeral mass for the pope is another thing

 

[MamboDervish]

Zelensky cannot surrender what is not in his possession. Crimea is Russia's possession, that makes Russia the only party to keep or surrender it

OK, so your point is .... what?

Hijacking the funeral mass for the pope is another thing

It certainly would be - if anybody had done that.

 

[Roadvirus]

He's also in his 70s so his aspirations aren't that grand, despite Zelensky's slimy sales pitch that Russia wants to take over the world

Most of the leaders in the EU share that opinion. But not to take "the world". Just Eastern Europe again.

and that he's a threat to the US.

Considering he has threatened to use nukes on us several times in the last 3 years...

I was proud of Trump slapping him down on that whopper

You were proud that Trump treated an ally like shit?

Btw, Ukraine and the west are equally responsible for Russia's wrath and have been for awhile. Nobody likes missiles pointed at them right across the border, and that's what a NATO membership would have entailed, albeit disguised as a "missile defense system."

Can you prove that NATO had planned to plant missiles in Ukraine if they were a member?

 

[Juin]

Can you prove that NATO had planned to plant missiles in Ukraine if they were a member?

No proof needed. Nato can plant missiles anywhere within its jurisdiction

 

[Logophile]

Most of the leaders in the EU share that opinion. But not to take "the world". Just Eastern Europe again.



Considering he has threatened to use nukes on us several times in the last 3 years...



You were proud that Trump treated an ally like shit?




Can you prove that NATO had planned to plant missiles in Ukraine if they were a member?

Have a gander, Part I:

When top Russian officials huddled before whirlwind arms control talks with the United States this week, they weren’t preoccupied with fears of a state-of-the-art futuristic U.S. weapons system being developed in a clandestine Pentagon laboratory.

Instead, with Russian troops continuing to build up on the Ukrainian border, their minds were on a U.S. weapons system that was first deployed way back in the Reagan administration, on U.S. destroyers, to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The Mark 41 missile launcher, also known as the MK 41, has been fired more than 4,000 times since first entering service in the 1980s by the United States and its allies and over three decades has become the Defense Department’s weapon of choice for retaliatory strikes, used everywhere from Iraq and Syria to the former Yugoslavia. Now Russia is worried that it could be the next target.

The United States also uses the MK 41 in a defensive capacity—as launchers to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles in mid-flight. The Pentagon has set up missile defense batteries, known as Aegis Ashore, on former Soviet turf in Romania and will soon do so in Poland. The Kremlin smells a U.S. cover-up. It fears the United States could covertly adapt the defensive batteries to fire Tomahawks into Moscow’s airspace.

“When we express concern about this, we are told, in effect: ‘Just trust us,’” Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to the United States, wrote in Foreign Policy last month. (Antonov is under sanctions in the European Union and Canada for his role in Russia’s 2014 military incursion in eastern Ukraine, when he served as Russia’s No. 2 defense official.) https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/12/putin-russia-us-missile-defense-nato-ukraine/


Part II:

The theoretical possibility of MK 41s being used on European soil for offensive purposes has become a subject of increasing heartburn for Russia as NATO and its missile defenses have crept deeper into Eastern Europe. These missile defenses are a protective shell of sensors and batteries, the Americans say; the Obama administration said they were needed to defend against Iran before inking the 2015 nuclear deal.

Especially galling to the Russians is that starting in 2013, the Obama team raised concerns about Moscow’s compliance with Cold War-era arms control treaties, arguing that Russia’s development and deployment of ground-launched cruise missiles went beyond the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. That treaty forbids both sides from developing land-based missiles and launchers that could hit targets between 310 and 3,400 miles away.

In response, the Kremlin began calling out perceived INF violations—including the MK 41 launchers creeping closer to Russia’s borders. (The United States withdrew from the treaty in 2019 at the direction of then-President Donald Trump.)

Experts said Russia’s argument against the MK 41 deployments is partly grounded in a hard-learned historical lesson. Ever since the United States went back on promises not to expand NATO in the 1990s, particularly by extending the alliance into the Baltic states, Russia has fought back hard against the possibility of Western military hardware creeping up toward its border.

“It is a matter of national security for Russia because it regards NATO’s military presence in terms of the distance of a [precision-guided munition] strike into the Russian heartland from NATO’s easternmost border,” said Samuel Bendett, an advisor with the CNA think tank and a member of the organization’s Russia Studies Program.

 

[MamboDervish]

Have a gander, Part I:

When top Russian officials huddled before whirlwind arms control talks with the United States this week, they weren’t preoccupied with fears of a state-of-the-art futuristic U.S. weapons system being developed in a clandestine Pentagon laboratory.

Instead, with Russian troops continuing to build up on the Ukrainian border, their minds were on a U.S. weapons system that was first deployed way back in the Reagan administration, on U.S. destroyers, to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The Mark 41 missile launcher, also known as the MK 41, has been fired more than 4,000 times since first entering service in the 1980s by the United States and its allies and over three decades has become the Defense Department’s weapon of choice for retaliatory strikes, used everywhere from Iraq and Syria to the former Yugoslavia. Now Russia is worried that it could be the next target.

The United States also uses the MK 41 in a defensive capacity—as launchers to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles in mid-flight. The Pentagon has set up missile defense batteries, known as Aegis Ashore, on former Soviet turf in Romania and will soon do so in Poland. The Kremlin smells a U.S. cover-up. It fears the United States could covertly adapt the defensive batteries to fire Tomahawks into Moscow’s airspace.

“When we express concern about this, we are told, in effect: ‘Just trust us,’” Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to the United States, wrote in Foreign Policy last month. (Antonov is under sanctions in the European Union and Canada for his role in Russia’s 2014 military incursion in eastern Ukraine, when he served as Russia’s No. 2 defense official.) https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/12/putin-russia-us-missile-defense-nato-ukraine/


Part II:

The theoretical possibility of MK 41s being used on European soil for offensive purposes has become a subject of increasing heartburn for Russia as NATO and its missile defenses have crept deeper into Eastern Europe. These missile defenses are a protective shell of sensors and batteries, the Americans say; the Obama administration said they were needed to defend against Iran before inking the 2015 nuclear deal.

Especially galling to the Russians is that starting in 2013, the Obama team raised concerns about Moscow’s compliance with Cold War-era arms control treaties, arguing that Russia’s development and deployment of ground-launched cruise missiles went beyond the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. That treaty forbids both sides from developing land-based missiles and launchers that could hit targets between 310 and 3,400 miles away.

In response, the Kremlin began calling out perceived INF violations—including the MK 41 launchers creeping closer to Russia’s borders. (The United States withdrew from the treaty in 2019 at the direction of then-President Donald Trump.)

Experts said Russia’s argument against the MK 41 deployments is partly grounded in a hard-learned historical lesson. Ever since the United States went back on promises not to expand NATO in the 1990s, particularly by extending the alliance into the Baltic states, Russia has fought back hard against the possibility of Western military hardware creeping up toward its border.

“It is a matter of national security for Russia because it regards NATO’s military presence in terms of the distance of a [precision-guided munition] strike into the Russian heartland from NATO’s easternmost border,” said Samuel Bendett, an advisor with the CNA think tank and a member of the organization’s Russia Studies Program.

What's the date on these quotes?

 

[Logophile]

What's the date on these quotes?

I gave you a link. It's 2022, right on the money in terms of relevance

 

[Rogue Valley]

Zelensky cannot surrender what is not [currently] in his possession. Crimea is Russia's possession, that makes Russia the only party to keep or surrender it

[fixed that] for you