Russia Ukraine Update Thread

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u



ATGMS are considered defensive weapons.

Exactly, operative word WEAPONS.

And what is the definition of ARMING? To equip with WEAPONS.

Now when we put all that together.

UK EQUIPPED UKRAINE WITH WEAPONS.

UK ARMED UKRAINE WITH WEAPONS.

Yes.

Defensive weapons that posed zero threat to russians on russian soil.

And did so AFTER russia started deploying troops for that invasion.

17 seconds kinda funny

originally posted by: just4fun
Journalist shot by Russia More fake news

Check out the shelves on the right at the very beginning then pause at 17 seconds And look how it changes

More Russian propaganda?

Or more fake ass news for you guys to spread as real?

Clearly a green screen and more lies

Watch it b4 they delete it.

Mar 13, 2022 • National security adviser Jake Sullivan says the U.S. will impose "appropriate consequences" against Russia for the death of American journalist Brent Renaud.

#News #RussiaUkraineCrisis #BrentRenaud

"Face the Nation" is America's premier Sunday morning public affairs program. The broadcast is one of the longest-running news programs in the history of television, having debuted November 7, 1954, on CBS. Every Sunday, "Face the Nation" moderator and CBS News senior foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan welcomes leaders, newsmakers, and experts to a lively round table discussion of current events and the latest news.

More examples of beating the war drums and making way for a possible escalation of this conflict, or could just be click/view bait.

Then Iran launched missiles into Iraq with "harsher consequences" to follow... Wars and rumors of wars. Lots of consequences to be dolled out.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You made the claim that U.K. was arming Ukraine.

Up to you to back up your absurdity.

Easy

coffeeordie.com...

Anti tank DEFENSIVE weapons.

Because russia was threatening to invade.



NOT even remotely comparable to putting nuke missiles in cuba.

Or the definition of 'arming ukraine'.

You got the answer you just didnt like it. UK ARMED ukraine before RUSSIA did anything. Russia are WELL WITHIN their rights to have been conducting military exercises in their own territory.

“When did UK arm Ukraine”

January 2022.

And again, cuban missile crises was in response to USA deploying NUCLEAR MISSILES in TUrkey first.

You got proved wrong, again.

How?

Russia was preparing to invade in jan 2022.

And I never claimed we didn't put weapons in Turkey.

I said that the cuban missile crisis was over nukes, while the Ukrainian invasion is not.

Both are completely accurate.

No Russia were performing military exercises in their own territory. Even if thats a few miles from Ukraine border.

At the time.

So I see you havent commented on the words from the former secretary of defence for USA, why is it that this person sees an issue with expanding so close into Russias back yard.

And you disregard it as nonsense and no reason to for tension? Is it maybe because you aren’t fit to be a secretary of defense, but he is?

Thats my opinion.

In his 2014 memoir, Duty, Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense in both Bush's administration and Barack Obama's, conceded that "trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching." That initiative, he concluded, was a case of "recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests."

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u



ATGMS are considered defensive weapons.

Exactly, operative word WEAPONS.

And what is the definition of ARMING? To equip with WEAPONS.

Now when we put all that together.

UK EQUIPPED UKRAINE WITH WEAPONS.

UK ARMED UKRAINE WITH WEAPONS.

Yes.

Defensive weapons that posed zero threat to russians on russian soil.

And did so AFTER russia started deploying troops for that invasion.

That wasn’t your original question.

Your question was “when did UK arm Ukraine”. Stop goal post moving

It’s getting old.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You made the claim that U.K. was arming Ukraine.

Up to you to back up your absurdity.

Easy

coffeeordie.com...

Anti tank DEFENSIVE weapons.

Because russia was threatening to invade.



NOT even remotely comparable to putting nuke missiles in cuba.

Or the definition of 'arming ukraine'.

You got the answer you just didnt like it. UK ARMED ukraine before RUSSIA did anything. Russia are WELL WITHIN their rights to have been conducting military exercises in their own territory.

“When did UK arm Ukraine”

January 2022.

And again, cuban missile crises was in response to USA deploying NUCLEAR MISSILES in TUrkey first.

You got proved wrong, again.

How?

Russia was preparing to invade in jan 2022.

And I never claimed we didn't put weapons in Turkey.

I said that the cuban missile crisis was over nukes, while the Ukrainian invasion is not.

Both are completely accurate.

No Russia were performing military exercises in their own territory. Even if thats a few miles from Ukraine border.

At the time.

So I see you havent commented on the words from the former secretary of defence for USA, why is it that this person sees an issue with expanding so close into Russias back yard.

And you disregard it as nonsense and no reason to for tension? Is it maybe because you aren’t fit to be a secretary of defense, but he is?

Thats my opinion.

In his 2014 memoir, Duty, Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense in both Bush's administration and Barack Obama's, conceded that "trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching." That initiative, he concluded, was a case of "recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests."

Sure, and we are now witnessing 'military peacekeeping operations' in Ukraine.

Nobody's that dumb.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You made the claim that U.K. was arming Ukraine.

Up to you to back up your absurdity.

Easy

coffeeordie.com...

Anti tank DEFENSIVE weapons.

Because russia was threatening to invade.



NOT even remotely comparable to putting nuke missiles in cuba.

Or the definition of 'arming ukraine'.

So I you give me a gun that's not arming me ?

Not when he's using it to justify a crazy whataboutism with nukes on the other side.

Not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine any kind of offensive weapons.

And not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine even that much before russia started preparing to invade.

So my country sending stingers and panzerfausts to ukraine is not arming ukraine according to you? Do I understand you correctly?

No.

Not 'arming' as used in this discussion about Ukraine posing any kind of threat to russia.

Ukraine posed zero threat to russia.

AND

Nobody sent even these defensive weapons until russia started prepping for invading ukraine.

Ok. You are calling my government liars. They tell me they are arming ukraine with said weapons.

Could it be your definition of arming is a bit flexible ?

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

'No Russia were performing military exercises in their own territory. Even if thats a few miles from Ukraine border.

At the time."

Nobody believed that. At the time.

And they were proven right.

originally posted by: all2human
But Putin is Hitler.

correct

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You made the claim that U.K. was arming Ukraine.

Up to you to back up your absurdity.

Easy

coffeeordie.com...

Anti tank DEFENSIVE weapons.

Because russia was threatening to invade.



NOT even remotely comparable to putting nuke missiles in cuba.

Or the definition of 'arming ukraine'.

So I you give me a gun that's not arming me ?

Not when he's using it to justify a crazy whataboutism with nukes on the other side.

Not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine any kind of offensive weapons.

And not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine even that much before russia started preparing to invade.

So my country sending stingers and panzerfausts to ukraine is not arming ukraine according to you? Do I understand you correctly?

No.

Not 'arming' as used in this discussion about Ukraine posing any kind of threat to russia.

Ukraine posed zero threat to russia.

AND

Nobody sent even these defensive weapons until russia started prepping for invading ukraine.

Ok. You are calling my government liars. They tell me they are arming ukraine with said weapons.

Could it be your definition of arming is a bit flexible ?

No.

The other poster made a comparison to nukes in cuba, called THAT 'arming'.

Then made a false comparison to short range anti tank weapons that were sent to Ukraine AFTER russian troops began assembling for the invasion.

AND

ATGMs are considered defensive weapons.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u



ATGMS are considered defensive weapons.

Exactly, operative word WEAPONS.

And what is the definition of ARMING? To equip with WEAPONS.

Now when we put all that together.

UK EQUIPPED UKRAINE WITH WEAPONS.

UK ARMED UKRAINE WITH WEAPONS.

Yes.

Defensive weapons that posed zero threat to russians on russian soil.

And did so AFTER russia started deploying troops for that invasion.

That wasn’t your original question.

Your question was “when did UK arm Ukraine”. Stop goal post moving

It’s getting old.

To a claim about NATO putting missiles in Ukraine causing russia to invade.

These are not offensive missiles, and they were not given to Ukraine until after russia had already began preparing to invade.

originally posted by: just4fun
Or more fake ass news for you guys to spread as real?

Clearly a green screen and more lies

I think that’s a privacy screen because they were doing something to his butt.
Here’s a related story:
edition.cnn.com...

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

You are one of a small group on this thread who understand there are many kinds of missiles.

But now, the Ukrainians, per some here, should never have been armed at all.

'Cause their resistance is making Putin look bad.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Perhaps they should be limited to using harsh language?

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: meiosismb

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You made the claim that U.K. was arming Ukraine.

Up to you to back up your absurdity.

Easy

coffeeordie.com...

Anti tank DEFENSIVE weapons.

Because russia was threatening to invade.



NOT even remotely comparable to putting nuke missiles in cuba.

Or the definition of 'arming ukraine'.

So I you give me a gun that's not arming me ?

Not when he's using it to justify a crazy whataboutism with nukes on the other side.

Not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine any kind of offensive weapons.

And not when claiming that anyone sent Ukraine even that much before russia started preparing to invade.

So my country sending stingers and panzerfausts to ukraine is not arming ukraine according to you? Do I understand you correctly?

No.

Not 'arming' as used in this discussion about Ukraine posing any kind of threat to russia.

Ukraine posed zero threat to russia.

AND

Nobody sent even these defensive weapons until russia started prepping for invading ukraine.

Ok. You are calling my government liars. They tell me they are arming ukraine with said weapons.

Could it be your definition of arming is a bit flexible ?

No.

The other poster made a comparison to nukes in cuba, called THAT 'arming'.

Then made a false comparison to short range anti tank weapons that were sent to Ukraine AFTER russian troops began assembling for the invasion.

AND

ATGMs are considered defensive weapons.

I believe I asked you a question. I told you my government sees giving stingers as arming ukraine.

Are you saying that giving defensive weapons is not arming ?

a reply to: meiosismb

You are just splitting hairs.

Would you prefer Ukraine to be defenceless in this war of invasion?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

'No Russia were performing military exercises in their own territory. Even if thats a few miles from Ukraine border.

At the time."

Nobody believed that. At the time.

And they were proven right.

I think many people believed that because it was confirmed on satellite that the troops were within Russian territory.

As to what their intentions were at the time, absolute conjecture. I for one believe had NATO agreed to Russian security demands prior to 24th February, Russian would not have been embroiled in a conflict with Ukraine.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

'No Russia were performing military exercises in their own territory. Even if thats a few miles from Ukraine border.

At the time."

Nobody believed that. At the time.

And they were proven right.

I think many people believed that because it was confirmed on satellite that the troops were within Russian territory.

As to what their intentions were at the time, absolute conjecture. I for one believe had NATO agreed to Russian security demands prior to 24th February, Russian would not have been embroiled in a conflict with Ukraine.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u



ATGMS are considered defensive weapons.

Exactly, operative word WEAPONS.

And what is the definition of ARMING? To equip with WEAPONS.

Now when we put all that together.

UK EQUIPPED UKRAINE WITH WEAPONS.

UK ARMED UKRAINE WITH WEAPONS.

Yes.

Defensive weapons that posed zero threat to russians on russian soil.

And did so AFTER russia started deploying troops for that invasion.

That wasn’t your original question.

Your question was “when did UK arm Ukraine”. Stop goal post moving

It’s getting old.

To a claim about NATO putting missiles in Ukraine causing russia to invade.

These are not offensive missiles, and they were not given to Ukraine until after russia had already began preparing to invade.

Who made the claim that NATO missiles in Ukraine caused Russia to invade?

Not me.

Heh heh. Reports that Ukraine is now offering one million dollars to any Russian pilot who defects and surrenders his aircraft to the Ukrainians in working order.

Guess that's one way to increase one's aircraft fleet.

Cheers