None.
There's no Peace Deal.
Americans, Nato don't even recognise the Crimea as a Russian territory. The reason for this is because the Crimea represents almost 2/3s of the Ukrainian coastline, and the surrounding claim it has to territorial waters. With the Oblasts of Dontesk and Luhansk, separatist regions, the majority of the coastline has virtually evaporated. After addressing the above, the Crimea requires fresh water, and it largely gains it from the rivers and Oblast directly above it. For the Crimea to be secure, not having Ukrainian build up in the form of a Ukrainian Navy or troops near to it, Russia has targeted the reamaning coastline, without Odesa failing yet.
What deal will secure peace? Any deal was rejected at the beginning stages of the war. It was a better offer than it can be bartered for today. Another two oblasts are separatist as well as the original two, since. Ukraine will never deal for a insignificant fraction of its coastline now almost fully under Russia control with critical coastal islands fully under Russian control.
The only peace an unpopular president can make, is a Russian victory of more separation territory. No president committed to Ukrainian armament could ever make that deal. It would be political suicide. Congress currently wouldn't even agree to it. They granted arms to the Ukraine. Nato unlike the USA president wouldn't agree to it either, currently all of its members are also funding Ukrainian armament
This war could drag on for much longer, it has the potential to drag, indefinitely. Many conflicts last for years and years. Syria is still in conflict. Libya. Etc etc. However as this conflict does, it escalates, if it gets bigger, it risks more much more than peace.
No, Barry is not the president to deliver it. And when there's another agenda of change, and in particular energy independence, it is serving a geopolitical agenda where it seeks to isolate Russia from those oil and gas markets, and it means no permament peace.
Somebody upholds there vowels. They believe it. It's all that matters.
God's love protects them all the way until the volcano. Then it was still God's love that saved them. The volcano didn't. I don't know how? But that belief is foolproof. God's love they died but buy it.
No, historically Russia haven't lost at home in war.
They withdrew from the Cold War, it wasn't that kind of warfare. They lost to Japan at sea, over disputed Islands, they now possess. Afghanistan wasn't at home. Neither was the Cold War on that battlefront.
But at home they haven't lost historically. In centuries. But there is perhaps Finland. It was a completely different dispute and conflict. Hardly the same comparison. Wasn't it easier to create a larger buffer there. While Finland remained neutral?
Today you're drunk on a conclusion they will. Without realising they haven't. But importantly without asking the question how does a nuclear power lose?
The only deal that can be made Russia will have gained territory. Any mobilisation can historically fight for years, a nation committing to its war machine, supply, conscript, production, with the increasing risk this conflict goes nuclear.
I am emphatically not a Russian. Just somebody concerned. I am asking what is the result? Stating this conflict can drag for years. Look at them recently. Or it can go nuclear sooner. Or peace can be made, but at what costs? Look at those costs adding up. As that cost prompts more risk on what course. Who knows? Except you seem to think something else.
Yawn. You missed the point. It won't be defeated at home. It hasn't been historically.
Only somehow you fucking think today you're gonna beat a nuclear power. It hasn't been defeated at home. Napoleon, WW1, WW2. Ottomans before napoleon. But today you're gonna beat a nuclear power at home.
You're batshit crazy. Literally insane.
Somehow you thought it wasn't Russia. It was this other proxy, we will haha convince it, it isn't Russia. Until if he nuked, simple win, what would you even do? You'd blow up the entire planet? Literally crazy.
No game plan, here. Wait until it nukes then what? No, what. Provoke Russia to nuke because you aren't endangering far more far more. Your stupid games. No what.
If it wasn't armed would people get killed. But it must be funny Russians killing Russians. Until what?
Yes, the activists did. Funny how it's a peace prize, but in America it's treason. WTF happened there? Activists? Their anti government protest? Election rigging? I am genuinely confused. Aw Belarus did. It's a peace prize to cause revolt and revolution, but only when it's the enemy.
Like these Iran protests, but in the west they can wear a burqa and removing it is racism. But in Iran you better remove it and cut your hair.
Completely bullshit hypocrisy. Because all it was is a narrative. A narrative built on war and profit and agenda.
When you get old you get cynical. It's a fucking cookie, it means something to somebody eating it. But does anybody else care?
Hahaha, Fuck off. There are literal idiots everywhere today. Can't say it's racism but Omg it's the next best thing. What to call it, it's not racism, so it must be, ummm ummm. Think think think, as some slavating spineless 4 eyed Troon yells, I've got it, it's anti Jewish. There you fucking have it Tediously. No other point.
That's what happened to Russia. Ukraine told it to fuck off from the Crimea. Russia was sanctioned for having a military base in the Crimea. Except it has been there for centuries. It also went to war in several separatist oblast refusing them to be Russian despite the majority of their population being Russian.
See how that works. No you're a dumbass. It has nothing to do with the conundrum of how does this war conclude.
How does it conclude?
But instead you're trolling and talking about my stuff. It has no bearing on this topic or the debate.
BTW it technically isn't Ukraine's stuff either. Look it's fighting for it. I mean how does that work? Dumbass. It concludes how. Try to imagine it. Instead reading another headline off CNN. It convinced you to care. Even if it meant Ukraine makes your economy, you're paying all those taxes to the Ukraine, and now look at that price? Everything costs twice as much. God damn it. No it isn't because I care. I want the price back. And some how, I don't think fighting Russia will help it at all.
How to stop unclear power. Give them the freedom. It might force them to do something else.
The protests aren't quite about this. It's primarily anger at the soaring inflation. Of course it needs a narrative. So when it's this, it makes it so significant. Because when it was something else like the water shortages, food prices, massive inflation on services. It just didn't make anybody else blink. They were shot dead repeatedly throughout the year. But as we have the same problems, we cannot provoke ourselves. Quick cut hair instead. Omg poor Daisy. They shot her in the water riots, and the food riots, and in Kurdistan earlier this year. Probably shot her before her first football match. Now she needs a face. A face for everybody else to sanction.
Because they're not dealing, and that weapon is completing.
Or you tell me? Because it wasn't really about George Floyd. 5 minutes later, I mean there's the COVID, and there they were. But it could be really significant. It just needs some more freedom. I meant vaccination.
It doesn't make that territory any less Russian. You don't recognise it. But Russia are a veto power with those nukes again.
No, the war ends on a conundrum with nukes becoming a very big oxymoron you simply haven't thought through.
Again
-
Peace deal
-
Ukraine conceeds territory, or is defeated.
-
Russian nukes. It means Russia is substantially defeated, withdrawing, or does not protect the territory under its protection. Big if. Nukes from a nuclear power are often easier before then. There are very few variables there. Like internal collapse. But it is under emergency warfare powers.
So the conundrum. Any peace deal cannot be made because Ukraine is being armed to not accept it. It is a loss to its sovereignty. Crimea and other separation territories. It means Ukraine must be defeated. Because Russia won't be if it has nukes. It will use them tactically prior to being defeated.
So what is the response? Armaggedon. Ukraine makes everything, all of our global economies are indebted to the Ukraine, and therefore it must nuke the World first, before Russia claims it? Seriously. It won't win otherwise. Or are you gonna figure out that knot? Quick slice the funding.
Or some other kind of Peace, presumably. It still means somebody conceeding something. Those odds don't favour Ukrainian sovereignty.
Not a Russian at all. I question causality. Far easier to just ignore it with Russia will lose, because we're paying Ukraine to win. Except that's not the conclusion. It's Santa's, wishlist, Ukraine has been really good this year and Russia very naughty. Santa give Ukraine back, it wants Russia for Xmas. Not in the real World.
The real World the Xmas lights are out. Because they cost too much electricity. Somehow it's Ukraine's fault.
You dumbass. You don't get it.
There is history, they speak same language, they had sane culture for a very long time.
Besides they voted Russian, didn't you? You're a rapist. No. They voted for peace so Ukraine would stop shooting them. See how that works, it hasn't. But they voted for Russia to protect them. It has the nukes.
Who cares what Ukraine calls it. It didn't make all of our stuff like our economy. That was the president and he is very bad it. There he is calling for Armaggedon. Because the economy has been completely destroyed by Russia? I don't know why Ukraine did this.
Did you want to tell me why Ukraine makes our economy? How it's armageddon if we don't stop Russia?
How are you stopping Russia if it has nukes? By completely destroying the economy obviously? There seems to be no other way. It will just have to get nuked. Everything will get vaporised, because Ukraine made it, and that stops Russia taking it.
It must be very simple like this. It's what you're suggesting. It's easier just to vaporise everything. Arm Ukraine to destroy it, because it can't be Russian either.
Or Buddy it's that conundrum. Again obviously.
Simple course of debate.
-
Peace Deal
-
Ukraine is defeated
-
Russian nukes
There is no peace deal because Ukraine has to get defeated first, and Ukraine cannot conceded to Russia, when it's being armed to defeat Russia. Russia tactically won't be defeated if it has nukes.
An Oxymoron. But call it what you want. Until somebody else makes a peace deal. In the meantime the economy tanks.
Yawn, have you been dropped on your head?
Why should Russia, stop, and in its own sovereign territory?
Not happening. Could the West do the same? But you're a fucking SJW. Go picket outside Guam. Go on. Grab your placard and tell America to get lost. Tell it to fuck off Guam and everywhere else American like the Ukraine. Perhaps you should ask it instead, why all of our stuff will get vaporised? Why does Ukraine make all of our stuff on the entire Planet, things of real value like our economies, Ukraine made them. America hasn't, but Ukraine has, would you look at that. Because all of our stuff is getting vaporised if Ukraine loses. I mean all of it. You Zelenskyyy lover.
So what makes you think Russia will give up the Crimea, or anywhere else Russian? It's what you're suggesting. Russia can just go home. Because America can't, and that's because Ukraine makes everything. Everything is made in the Ukraine, or it will just have to get vaporised, if it loses any of our stuff, like the economy to Russia. God damn it. Vaporise it.
You missed the conclusion.
Yes the odds Russia uses nukes are absolute. Pause. On the eventuality it is forced to retreat. Almost 100% inevitable on that conclusion. There is a margin of if it collapses internally prior. But that is almost counter intuitive. It would eat bugs historically first.
Ukraine cannot lose either on the forgone conclusion it is forcing Russian withdrawal. It is being armed and increasingly to beat Russia.
Making the use of nukes in the highest probability.
There is only peace if Ukraine ceeds territory. It however is 100% not prepared to do to so, not even marginally. Not even the Crimea.
Therefore it must be defeated first. Pushing the odds of nukes into a certainty.
Or what are you going to pull out of that hat? A peace deal presumably. Much further off. In the meantime there is only escalation. It is becoming blundered into.
That is the conundrum.
-
Peace
-
Ukraine is defeated
-
Russia uses nukes
There is no peace without Ukraine being defeated. Russia cannot lose if it has nukes. An oxymoron.
Making the odds of nukes almost a certainity, because the West is calling on Russia to lose.
What indeed with such hindsight is the Western response to any nukes. Has anybody thought that through?
No. If we listen to some people it's the Armageddon. Hang on. Ukraine isn't my president. I know everybody thinks they are. Because It makes all of our stuff, all of it, food, electricity, housing, currency, you name it and the Ukraine makes it. It's why it's the Armageddon? I mean we can't let Russia win that stuff, and we can't let Ukraine get nuked, because all of our stuff gets vaporised, all of it. So we must stop nukes by using even more nukes. It's the only way to Armaggedon. We have too, despite nobody voting for it, I guess we wouldn't be informed. We'd just go and launch all of the nukes, to stop all of our stuff getting destroyed. And we can't let that happen. There's no way, we'd let our stuff get destroyed. Ukraine makes all of it.
It's not a rant. I was repeating the News. They've had a number of former military heads suggesting a tactical nuke could be deployed, and it could be deployed if Ukraine forces a major Russian retreat in the territories that had a referendum. Where Ukraine has made massive advances recently. Currently what caused this coverage is the Ukrainian counter offensive potentially surrounding a force of about 15,000 Russians near Kherson. Meanwhile didn't the general just promoted call for nukes as Lyman changed hands. It of course is a major hub and on the main highway going south in the territory of Russian referendum.
The same propaganda as it has from the start of this war's coverage, stated, Russia is losing. Etc. Ukraine must force every Russian out of their country. The West stating it doesn't recognise sham referendums, and it is supporting Ukraine to that conclusion of forcing Russian retreat. The same news through multiple stations is also through various former military personnel, stating, a nuke could otherwise occur.
No, Russia won't lose, I never said it would, and not if it has nukes. It's not planning to lose if it has partially mobilised. It is stll at war and more committed to it, through those referendums.
No, Russia isn't in full control of the battlefield, and if it has mobilised. Yes, war often goes back and forth, and Russa is still technically superior on the battle field.
This war will drag, and as it does, it escalates.
But the point is it remains probable, and if Ukraine forces a major Russian retreat in the territory under referendums. The likelihood of Russia deploying a tactical nuke to defend its sovereignty, defending areas under Russian referendum remains an escalating outcome.
This obviously causes a concern. The West is supporting the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine. It doesn't even recognise the Crimea. But at the same time the risk of nukes becoming deployed remain high if Ukraine causes Russian retreat.
A) Ukraine will be defeated
B) A nuke is deployed because Russia cannot defend its territory.
C) Peace is made.
Take your pick. In either event no wonder he, the topic, wants to pre-empt. Peace means Ukraine has been defeated. Otherwise it has lost more territory. Seriously what?
It is everywhere. I don't know what you're watching.
Watching the news recently almost every military advisor has suggested it's almost a certainty. If Ukraine advance at the rate they are. It isn't much currently but they have an advancing advantage where gains are being made into territory named by Russia, while some withdrawal occurs. It's being suggested as quite likely. However it hasn't accounted for much more than any arms funding is working, Russia is losing, that narrative has been repeated from the start of this war. Tactics often play out different on an active battlefield especially as winter sets in. However if what is being suggested, Ukraine retakes all of its territory including the Crimea. Then its highly probable, and much sooner. But they're not certain of that response, most disagree on it, if it happened, what would happen. There is no certainly there. But that's also because speculating on it is pointless. If they suggested involvement by the West, it would provoke the public against it. If Biden said he'd nuke Russia because it nuked Ukraine, and if Nato said they'd nuke Russia, because Russia nuked Ukraine, nobody sane would want that involvement.
In short it is certain if Ukraine retakes most of the present territory under Russian referendum. But it's quite likely it will happen more urgently to that, then tactical nukes could be deployed. But this opinion hasn't accounted for the fact it is absolutely unlikely Ukraine will retake all of its terrority. Even if it takes a part of it, then it won't necessarily draw that kind of strike. It's a possibility. But as mobilisation brings far more into this war, it will potentially continue for longer, before nukes could occur.. Although if a counter offensive blitzed, well who knows.
Ukraine is also fully aware of this danger. Especially if upon surrounding and isolating as example Kherson, or potentially other key ground in the North East. Obviously that clip wants to prompt everything, so his counter offensive will succeed where it in fact could only get nuked. I know I know nuke zee Russia first. Yea nope. Not there yet or likewise.
Speculating on the probability of it, the odds are almost certain nukes will be deployed on the provision Ukraine force a complete Russian withdrawal. The odds Ukraine forces Russian withdrawal are far less.
What's more concerning in this conflict is any risk increases. Not only that risk, but any response to it, hasn't been public. It simply shrugs it off with, it could occur. While emphatically claiming Ukraine will force Russian withdrawal.
The only conspiracy was did she hire those activists, just to make her look so tough on policy? Who knows. But in any event it's all we can expect to come. Protest. Huge Protest.
The worst PM in the history of PM's, but trust Dizzy Lizzy and the economy will prevail. Nope, Tories make absolutely everything, worse, and the only lightbulb they have got is making it all much worse. After the 4th failure they have proved it, all of a few days later. How can you fail so badly and turn the entire nation Anti Tory. Trust her, because she did that. Until there isn't a brit left who'd vote for them. A donkey would get a bigger vote than this government. Prove me wrong?
It has gone up the shitter since Libya. Before then it was bad in areas. Unlike anything like what it is now.
My point was if that happened in Egypt. What would happen? Depending on who, it could even be a death sentence.
Egypt would execute him. Dumb America might try to extradite him. As they do when their citizens are arrested. But given it was in the Vatican, they won't, he's going to jail, Italy full of blacks.
Egypt a little less Muslim but absolutely Muslim. It has quite strict laws. Execution. Etc.
I understand all of this. Hence the hair cutting, it is a pathetic gesture, but in Iran it's the stuff of riots. How do stop unclear weapon.
But they need to show those weapons doing something. All that funding is causing look they're winning. They are killing people.
I know of a Russian tactic is to fein withdrawal and they didn't even care if Moscow burnt, that winter was brutal, because it trapped their enemy, and it was replayed on a host of other cities in the WWs, since Napoleon. Because when they regroup it's from advantage. When they regrouped those other armies lost. It has been consecutively replayed even more presently in Syria. So omg omg lol gaining what a few burnt out villages, is almost laughable and seemingly naive. But this war is no where near to the horrors it can still inflict. All it does is escalate.
I don't care much for propaganda only causality. What becomes of it.
Haha who cares. It is what it is. What it was going to be. But I ain't buying it. Twitter is still a shitter. A dystopian gimmick, used for nothing else except for an excuse of we don't want them saying it. No, it. It's whatever they ban you from saying. For whatever bullshit advert the GOV, and corp trends promote. Free speech nil. And never was from anybody marketing it.
Yep but I don't think it does much more.
Identifying target, smart dust, same spores, microbial. Only now it has painted an invisible target that once activated can be triggered.
Let's suggest it worked, as a healer those nanos that go in and repair, the vax didn't. The white blood cells? Causing clots, immune deficiency, possibly even triggering immuno reaction to it, etc.
But yea we've all read the syfi, and even watched the films there have been a few. Is it there yet, or does he just click his pen, and instead it is actually quite lethal. About the only application mastered.
Little bit more aspects of smarter dust okay mercury you can buzz and it, you know that terminator, haha, no, nowhere near, but look at the sand when charged creates images and has some potential too.
But I am fundamentally not buying any healing, from it. Not yet in any event.
No, it's because you got sued and had too. Now it will be full of even more bots across Starlink you shill. Who cares about Twitter even after the bullshit attempt to give it more publicity. Oh look can still argue the nonsense on it. Nobody else can. Imagine that was anybody else. They'd be in jail and be deplatformed for simply challenging the narrative. You didn't it, either. You bought it, next.
Then you air it's part of the plan. It always was. More monitoring, not less. More bullshit. Nothing else. Ironically.
Broke you? How.
Peace is not that agenda. Not yet in any event. Change comes first.
Look outside, what are they selling. Isn't that obvious. It's all Russia's fault. How many times are they saying this. Electricity costs so much more. Food. Recession. Blame Russia.
Now why the fuck is that? I wonder. Peace, another solution, like more expensive electricity, or too incite? Hell knows, except we will pay more, for whatever it is. But it is costing.