Two Americans were captured by Russians in Ukraine

a reply to: everyone

It's their free choice. Putin wanted less NATO.

Thanks to his aggression, he's going to get more NATO.

That's down to his lunacy and megalomania.

a reply to: Freeborn

Have you ever wondered why so many people from those countries fear Russian aggression?

Ukraine has been bombing Russian populations in Ukraine for years. Stop spinning the facts.

a reply to: projectvxn

I kust watched both your vids. You're right. A lot of Call Off Duty experience and they are not getting weapons they are just used as cannon fodder. Its certainly also not like afghanistan where they had support from their own military. Support they are getting none from from the Ukraine.

Like and subbed.

originally posted by: RussianTroll

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: RussianTroll

More people to threaten with execution i imagine.

As to governments in catastrophic positions, Putin's regime springs to mind.

That is, Britain and the United States send their citizens to kill Russians, but is Putin to blame for this?)))
Your logic is inhuman.

Ya.....he is....that's what happens when you invade

a reply to: Freeborn

Ukraine felt threatened and intimidated by Russia - given their history and current events who can blame them? - and asked to join NATO.
As an independent country Ukraine has the right to seek membership of any organisation it wishes, that sort of goes with being independent.
Russia wanted to dictate Ukrainian policy and also chose to break agreements made in The Budapest Memorandum.

1962:

Cuba, as an independent country, chose to ally with Russia, as is their right to seek membership in any organization it wished. That sort of goes with being independent.

Russia deployed defensive weapons (their definition) to Cuba. The United States immediately invaded Cuba and demanded that Russia withdraw all forces. The United States' reasoning was that USSR military weaponry that close to its border was unacceptable to national security.



2022:

Ukraine, as an independent country, chose to ally with NATO, as is their right to seek membership in any organization it wished. That sort of goes with being independent.

NATO deployed defensive weapons (their definition) to Ukraine. Russia immediately invaded Ukraine and demanded that NATO withdraw all forces. Russia's reasoning was that NATO military weaponry that close to its border was unacceptable to national security.



Apparently 60 years is longer than I thought.

TheRedneck

a reply to: everyone

What gives Putin the right to decide who can or can not join NATO?

And again; why do you think so many of those former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries fear Russian expansionism and are actively seeking membership of NATO?

Have you ever actually been to any of these countries and/or spoken to anyone from them and asked them why?

a reply to: everyone

Ukraine has been bombing Russian populations in Ukraine for years. Stop spinning the facts.

Moscow funded Neo-Nazi Militia's have been carrying out acts of terrorism in both Luhansk and Donetsk for years.
Non-Orthodox Christians and Jews have been specifically targeted by these Militia's as well as official Ukrainian government installations and personnel.

Yes, the Ukrainian response has been somewhat aggressive....but its certainly not as black and white as you are trying to portray.

How does that justify Putin ordering the invasion and all the subsequent death, destruction and human misery?

a reply to: TheRedneck

1962:

Cuba, as an independent country, chose to ally with Russia, as is their right to seek membership in any organization it wished. That sort of goes with being independent.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

It was 60 years ago, 3 years before I was born so I couldn't really express that opinion back then.

Russia deployed defensive weapons (their definition) to Cuba.

They deployed first strike nuclear weapons to Cuba.
They weren't 'defensive' weapons at all....quite the contrary.

Has NATO or any NATO aligned countries supplied similar to Ukraine either before or even during this invasion?
What missiles of any kind were deployed to Ukraine prior to the invasion?

The United States immediately invaded Cuba.....

No, they did not.
Please give details of this 'invasion'?

.... and demanded that Russia withdraw all forces. The United States' reasoning was that USSR military weaponry that close to its border was unacceptable to national security.

The US demanded that all 'offensive weapons' were removed.
After negotiations Khrushchev agreed to their removal and secretly Kennedy agreed to remove similar missiles that had been situated in Turkey.

No invasion.
No senseless killing.

2022:

Ukraine, as an independent country, chose to ally with NATO, as is their right to seek membership in any organization it wished. That sort of goes with being independent.

Yes.

Have you ever wondered why so many former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries choose to seek closer ties with NATO etc rather than maintain links with Russia?

NATO deployed defensive weapons (their definition) to Ukraine.

Where?
When?
Which 'defensive weapons'?

Russia immediately invaded Ukraine and demanded that NATO withdraw all forces.

Which NATO forces?
Are you saying that the only reason Russia invaded was because of the presence of 'NATO forces' and/or weaponry?

Russia's reasoning was that NATO military weaponry that close to its border was unacceptable to national security.

So, it wasn't to protect Russian's in Donbas who were being 'persecuted'?
It wasn't to remove the corrupt Ukraine government?
It wasn't to 'deNazify' Ukraine.
It wasn't to bring Ukraine back into Russia?
It wasn't because of US and NATO secret ChemLabs in Ukraine?

All have been given as reasons for Russia's invasion.....and all have been thoroughly debunked and discredited.

a reply to: Freeborn

So, it wasn't to protect Russian's in Donbas who were being 'persecuted'?
It wasn't to remove the corrupt Ukraine government?
It wasn't to 'deNazify' Ukraine.
It wasn't to bring Ukraine back into Russia?
It wasn't because of US and NATO secret ChemLabs in Ukraine?

All have been given as reasons for Russia's invasion.....and all have been thoroughly debunked and discredited.

The three reasons that were given. Those reasons have not been amended.

To end the aggression against Donbas and the repression against ethnic Russians.
Denazify Ukraine.
Demilitarize Ukraine.

There are certainly more reasons but those were the ones given. It doesn't have to be one thing and I am surprised that you seem to believe it needs to be.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Ha ha, I didn't say I believed the reasons given to try and justify the invasion.
In fact I think they have been more or less complete bollocks.

I think the closest Putin has come to being honest was when he admitted that he doesn't recognise Ukraine's right to exist and when he likened himself to Peter The Great.
Of course its not ALL about Putin's desire to restore Russia to its 'former glory' or his desire to create a lasting legacy for himself.....there are also tactical and financial reasonings as well.
I'm also certain that somehow in the middle of all this Putin will be adding to his personal fortune of between 400 and 600 Billion dollars.

a reply to: Freeborn

I'm also certain that somehow in the middle of all this Putin will be adding to his personal fortune of between 400 and 600 Billion dollars.

And, what is the president that many of those like you call a ruler of Russia going to do with all those billions that he can't already do. He is 70 right? You think he might buy a small nation to rule over in retirement.

The sad thing is you might actually believe everything you wrote.

originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: Freeborn

Ukraine isn't a member of NATO.

NATO went into talks with Ukraine about joining NATO. Russia send warnings out about this. They continued the talks. Russia reacts.

If Ukraine wants to join NATO, it can. Military aggression isn't appropriate and Ukraine doesn't belong to Russia.

F Russia.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: TheRedneck

1962:

Cuba, as an independent country, chose to ally with Russia, as is their right to seek membership in any organization it wished. That sort of goes with being independent.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

It was 60 years ago, 3 years before I was born so I couldn't really express that opinion back then.

Russia deployed defensive weapons (their definition) to Cuba.

They deployed first strike nuclear weapons to Cuba.
They weren't 'defensive' weapons at all....quite the contrary.

Has NATO or any NATO aligned countries supplied similar to Ukraine either before or even during this invasion?
What missiles of any kind were deployed to Ukraine prior to the invasion?

The United States immediately invaded Cuba.....

No, they did not.
Please give details of this 'invasion'?

.... and demanded that Russia withdraw all forces. The United States' reasoning was that USSR military weaponry that close to its border was unacceptable to national security.

The US demanded that all 'offensive weapons' were removed.
After negotiations Khrushchev agreed to their removal and secretly Kennedy agreed to remove similar missiles that had been situated in Turkey.

No invasion.
No senseless killing.

2022:

Ukraine, as an independent country, chose to ally with NATO, as is their right to seek membership in any organization it wished. That sort of goes with being independent.

Yes.

Have you ever wondered why so many former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries choose to seek closer ties with NATO etc rather than maintain links with Russia?

NATO deployed defensive weapons (their definition) to Ukraine.

Where?
When?
Which 'defensive weapons'?

Russia immediately invaded Ukraine and demanded that NATO withdraw all forces.

Which NATO forces?
Are you saying that the only reason Russia invaded was because of the presence of 'NATO forces' and/or weaponry?

Russia's reasoning was that NATO military weaponry that close to its border was unacceptable to national security.

So, it wasn't to protect Russian's in Donbas who were being 'persecuted'?
It wasn't to remove the corrupt Ukraine government?
It wasn't to 'deNazify' Ukraine.
It wasn't to bring Ukraine back into Russia?
It wasn't because of US and NATO secret ChemLabs in Ukraine?

All have been given as reasons for Russia's invasion.....and all have been thoroughly debunked and discredited.

Yep, 60 year ago technology, it's not quite the same, you can reach out and touch someone from thousands of miles away..and I don't recall, the U.S. invading Cuba either..maybe it could of happened, but I didn't.

a reply to: Grimpachi

The sad thing is you might actually believe everything you wrote.

The irony is so palpable and stunning!!..good job, pot meet kettle!

a reply to: 38181

Are you kidding? 10 years in jail for possibky having hash oil (if it wasnt a plant)?

You havent learned anytging from the war on drugs have you?

Look all good locking up black people for drugs has done!

Or are you just another russian troll here to defend russia?

a reply to: Freeborn

It was 60 years ago, 3 years before I was born so I couldn't really express that opinion back then.

And I was still pooping in my diaper. What is relevant about either of those? The Cuban Missile Crisis happened. Surely you're not trying to claim that because you and I didn't give an opinion at the time, it negates the fact that it happened?

They deployed first strike nuclear weapons to Cuba.
They weren't 'defensive' weapons at all....quite the contrary.

According to you today. According to the USSR at the time, they were defensive. Surely you've heard of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)? It was the primary defensive posture during the Cold War, using nuclear warheads on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) already locked on target and capable of being launched at a moment's notice. I consider those nuclear ICBMs offensive weapons, but they were used in a defensive posture.

My point is that the USSR claimed at the time they were there for defensive purposes.

No invasion.
No senseless killing.

No widespread invasion, true. We did have operatives infiltrating Cuba at the time, and military forces on high alert ready to go in en masse.

No senseless killing... only because the USSR backed down and removed the weapons as per our demand. Had they not, there would have been a widespread invasion and plenty of "senseless killing."

Have you ever wondered why so many former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries choose to seek closer ties with NATO etc rather than maintain links with Russia?

My crystal ball is in the shop. Seems it needs a Chinese part and China has slowed exports on those. I'll get back to you on that when it gets fixed.

Which 'defensive weapons'?

Have you been under a rock? Are you really trying to say the USA and other NATO countries are not sending weapons to Ukraine to help repel Russia?

Surely you are also aware that the very purpose of NATO was to oppose the USSR? That's why it was created, and every NATO country near the Russian border has "defensive" weapons pointed at Russia. Ukraine had asked to join NATO, and that would have placed "defensive" weapons directly on the Russian border... closer than Cuba is to the USA.

Are you saying that the only reason Russia invaded was because of the presence of 'NATO forces' and/or weaponry?

I'm saying that, if Ukraine joins NATO, Russia will be forced to either accept NATO weapons on its border or to launch an offensive at all NATO countries. Once Ukraine joins NATO, any attack upon them is by treaty considered an attack on all NATO countries, and standard NATO practice is to place weapons along the borders closest to Russia. It would be a lose-lose proposition for Russia.

So, it wasn't to protect Russian's in Donbas who were being 'persecuted'?

Possibly.

It wasn't to remove the corrupt Ukraine government?

I doubt it.

It wasn't to 'deNazify' Ukraine.

Not going to entertain emotionally-charged semantics. Define "Nazi" as you use it.

It wasn't to bring Ukraine back into Russia?

Highly doubtful. if it was, Russia is doing a terrible job.

It wasn't because of US and NATO secret ChemLabs in Ukraine?

Possibly. If those exist, they could be considered weapons facilities.

All have been given as reasons for Russia's invasion.....and all have been thoroughly debunked and discredited.

No, not all have been "debunked and discredited." Some have been ignored, others are ridiculous on their face.

I am simply repeating the main reason Vladimir Putin himself gave over and over before and just after the invasion. I am still somewhat amazed that everyone has "theories" about why Russia invaded, but no one seems to care what the person in charge of the invasion said about why he did it.

I think that's one definition of "cognitive dissonance."

Anyway, my point stands. The only difference between what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Ukraine Invasion is what the aggressor did when confronted. In 1962, the USSR backed down. In 2022, the USA and NATO refused to back down and started a proxy war using Ukraine.

I should say here that I do not support Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I have precious little trust in Vladimir Putin, only slightly more than I have in Joe Biden. I am simply not naive enough to not realize that previous tensions combined with instigations just prior to the invasion and the threat of Ukraine joining NATO are important aspects of why the invasion occurred. There are two ways and only two ways to end hostilities once they have begun: one side completely and utterly destroys the other, or the two sides try to talk out the issue diplomatically. The latter is hard to do when one side refuses to listen to the concerns of the other.

So what does that leave us with?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Grimpachi

I have no idea why Putin - or anyone for that matter - would want a personal fortune of between 400 and 600 Billion Dollars, but even some of his most ardent supporters agree that he has amassed an obscene amount of personal wealth.
You don't think he allowed all those oligarchs get away with their dodgy dealing without getting a cut himself do you?

I guess the only person who really knows for sure is Putin himself, he hasn't ever answered questions on his own wealth - not that many journalists have dared to ask him - and I personally doubt his sincerity on anything.
But hey, some people seem happy to believe absolutely everything he has to say....that's entirely up to them.

a reply to: Freeborn

"Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden are on a plane.

Merkel finds $100 on the floor of the aircraft and says "I will throw the money out of the aircraft and make 1 person happy".

Putin interrupts her, stating that if they split the $100 bill into 2 $50 bills they can make 2 people happy.

Biden insists that they should throw 4 $25 bills and make 4 people happy.

The pilot of the plane, overhearing their conversation, turns to his co-pilot and tells him "Should I throw this plane in the sea and make 7 billion people happy?"

a reply to: TheRedneck

The Cuban Missile Crisis happened. Surely you're not trying to claim that because you and I didn't give an opinion at the time, it negates the fact that it happened?

Of course it happened, I'm just saying I couldn't express an opinion on it so as to be consistent....or not.

According to you today. According to the USSR at the time, they were defensive.

But they weren't, just because people claim something doesn't make it so.

Surely you've heard of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)?

Of course, and every leader of a 'superpower' has known, acknowledged and respected that....until Putin:
"Without Russia there is no world".
No previous leader ever threatened the use of first strike nuclear weapons, not Nixon, Brezhnev, Andropov, Regan....not even Mao etc...until Putin.
But I digress slightly, sorry.

No widespread invasion, true.

So a massive difference then?

We did have operatives infiltrating Cuba at the time, and military forces on high alert ready to go in en masse.

That's always been the case, throughout history.
Nothing exceptional there.

No senseless killing... only because the USSR backed down and removed the weapons as per our demand.

But then US also had to give something in return....they dismantled their ICBM's that were stationed in Turkey and aimed directly at Russia.
No-one has ever discovered if they also agreed to remove the one's situated in Italy as well....but there are some rumours to suggest they did.

Had they not, there would have been a widespread invasion and plenty of "senseless killing."

But the MASSIVE difference between the Cuban crisis and the Russian invasion is just that, there was NO invasion.

There were no ICBM's missiles in Ukraine...but still Putin CHOSE to invade and instigate this senseless war and all the subsequent human suffering.
Putin - no-one else.

So you've never, ever wondered why so many of these former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries actively seek closer ties with NATO, the EU etc rather than maintaining links to Russia?
You're a clever man, I'm sure you know the answer to that.

I've been to Poland a few times, been to Romania, The Czech Republic a couple of times and Slovakia, I've been to Bulgaria and was briefly in Croatia once. I've been to Montenegro and what is now North Macedonia.
In addition I've known lots of Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians - my grandsons best friend is Lithuanian and I've got to know his parents quite well - and people from various other Eastern European countries.
They all have one thing in common; fear of being subjected to Russian rule again.

Have you been under a rock? Are you really trying to say the USA and other NATO countries are not sending weapons to Ukraine to help repel Russia?

Of course they are now....but I meant prior to this invasion.
Were NATO supplying anything like ICBM's etc into Ukraine prior to Putin's invasion?

Surely you are also aware that the very purpose of NATO was to oppose the USSR? That's why it was created, and every NATO country near the Russian border has "defensive" weapons pointed at Russia.

With justification it would seem.
Russia has 'defensive weapons' aimed directly at every single NATO country as well, including the UK...as you said; M.A.D.

Ukraine had asked to join NATO, and that would have placed "defensive" weapons directly on the Russian border... closer than Cuba is to the USA.

And was refused....twice.
Ukraine was NOT a NATO country.

The one thing the invasion has absolutely guaranteed is that Ukraine will now join NATO, as will countries like Sweden and Finland.
Putin's invasion has just strengthened resolve against Russia, has created friction and tension where there wasn't any and has succeeded in uniting Europe to a level that the EU and NATO would never, ever have been able to by themselves.

I'm saying that, if Ukraine joins NATO,....

They had been refused membership, twice!

It wasn't to 'deNazify' Ukraine.
Not going to entertain emotionally-charged semantics. Define "Nazi" as you use it.

Its not really my definition of 'Nazi' that is important here but Putin's.
He's the one who has used it as some sort of justification for the invasion, not me.

It wasn't to bring Ukraine back into Russia?
Highly doubtful. if it was, Russia is doing a terrible job.

That was a stated aim at the start of the invasion but they have since backtracked on that, probably because as you say they are doing 'a terrible job' of it.
But Putin has also said on numerous occasions that he doesn't recognise Ukraine and its right to exist.

It wasn't because of US and NATO secret ChemLabs in Ukraine?
Possibly. If those exist, they could be considered weapons facilities.

Yet no evidence of such facilities have ever been presented......

Anyway, my point stands. The only difference between what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Ukraine Invasion is what the aggressor did when confronted. In 1962, the USSR backed down. In 2022, the USA and NATO refused to back down and started a proxy war using Ukraine.

But there's a MASSIVE difference; there were no comparable weapons in Ukraine.
Poland yes, but not in Ukraine.
AND the US did not invade, it blockaded and negotiated.

I should say here that I do not support Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Good.👍

I have precious little trust in Vladimir Putin, only slightly more than I have in Joe Biden.

I have zero trust in either.
But Biden hasn't invaded anywhere....yet.

I am simply not naive enough to not realize that previous tensions combined with instigations just prior to the invasion and the threat of Ukraine joining NATO are important aspects of why the invasion occurred.

Of course there have been policy failings in NATO/EU/UK/US etc dealings and approach to Putin's Russia by successive administrations and leaders etc.
Very, very little in this world is black and white.
But none of those failings can justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the continued needless and senseless killing and suffering.

There are two ways and only two ways to end hostilities once they have begun: one side completely and utterly destroys the other, or the two sides try to talk out the issue diplomatically. The latter is hard to do when one side refuses to listen to the concerns of the other.

Putin will not give in, he see's this as his chance to create a legacy for himself - Vladimir The Great.
And he has turned this into a matter of national honour, something that Russian's take very, very seriously.
Ukraine refuse to give an inch of their country - if someone invaded my country I know I would see it exactly the same.

So what does that leave us with?

I have no idea.
I'm not arrogant enough to believe I know what the solution is, I just know this invasion is WRONG.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
One of the captured Americans is Alexander John-Robert Druke, an Iraqi veteran from Alabama. An important detail. The emblem on the jacket (like the abbreviation 74D) is the Chemical Corps, a division of the US Army that is responsible for protection against biological, radiological, nuclear and chemical weapons.

What did this specialist do in Ukraine? We'll find out soon.

Chemical Puke, he's basically a carwasher.
74Ds purpose is determine type and yield of chem, bio or nuclear munition. Identify wind patterns and set up hot, cold zones and decon sites.

Nothing about a 74D implies "special training" involving some sort of chemical tactical team.

We decon vehicles and people.

I was a 74D. Most people end up as 74D and attached to Combat or support units, usually thrown in the S shops