Forwarded from Tim Kirby Russia Hardcore
Guys if I every just make blanket bold declarations as a form of political argument, please point it out because that is when senility has set in.
🤯5
Forwarded from DONBASS NEWS
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤9
Forwarded from Stas Was There...In English (Станислав)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥3🤣3
Forwarded from Xoaquin Flores - New Resistance
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
💢 Zelensky wants to dictate 'RED LINES' to Russia
'Territories and the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant'
Brazenly states he’ll REFUSE to 'legally recognize anything under any circumstances' - [RT]
[ ❗️Zelensky is cornered and the fake news campaign is in collapse, as we approach tomorrow's media hyped Mar a Lago meeting with Trump - XF]
Subscribe @NewResistance
'Territories and the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant'
Brazenly states he’ll REFUSE to 'legally recognize anything under any circumstances' - [RT]
[ ❗️Zelensky is cornered and the fake news campaign is in collapse, as we approach tomorrow's media hyped Mar a Lago meeting with Trump - XF]
Subscribe @NewResistance
🙈5💊1
Forwarded from TRN
📚 A font designed for people with ADHD has gone viral online — it allows readers to get through books several times faster.
The trick is that the first letters and syllables are highlighted, helping the brain predict the word without reading it in full. As a result, books can be devoured almost effortlessly, without losing the meaning of the text 🧠⚡️
It works on PCs and computer-based e-readers — definitely worth trying.
Original Post
Join @TranslatedRussianNews
The trick is that the first letters and syllables are highlighted, helping the brain predict the word without reading it in full. As a result, books can be devoured almost effortlessly, without losing the meaning of the text 🧠⚡️
It works on PCs and computer-based e-readers — definitely worth trying.
Original Post
Join @TranslatedRussianNews
❤4
Forwarded from Slavyangrad (Andrei)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Putin:
The liberation of Dimitrov and Gulyaypole are important results of combat operations. As for Dimitrov, this is a significant step towards the full liberation of the DPR. Gulyaypole, the second-largest city in the Zaporozhye region, and after its liberation, good prospects for the development of the offensive in the Zaporozhye region are opening up. I congratulate all of you on these results.
@Slavyangrad
The liberation of Dimitrov and Gulyaypole are important results of combat operations. As for Dimitrov, this is a significant step towards the full liberation of the DPR. Gulyaypole, the second-largest city in the Zaporozhye region, and after its liberation, good prospects for the development of the offensive in the Zaporozhye region are opening up. I congratulate all of you on these results.
@Slavyangrad
❤10
Forwarded from East Calling (Zinderneuf)
The Washington Post writes,
On Wednesday, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that Washington has offered to “provide Ukraine with ‘Article 5-like’ guarantees” as part of a deal to end the war. “If Russia invades Ukraine, a coordinated military response will be launched,” he said. Though some of the details remain vague, the invocation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, NATO’s founding document, suggests that the United States would treat a future Russian attack on Ukraine as an attack on itself and respond accordingly, including possibly with the direct deployment of U.S. military forces. According to the terms under discussion, this guarantee would be ratified by the Senate and made legally binding.
But those celebrating this turn of events should hold off on the champagne toasts. There’s a problem with the emerging plan: It promises too much.
...
First is the complicated question of credibility. If putting U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine was necessary to protect vital U.S. interests, they would have been there years ago. Instead, three successive presidents — Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump — have declined to send American soldiers to defend Ukraine, a clear indication that they assess the U.S. stakes to be too low to warrant the costs and risks of war with the possessor of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
Advocates of extending an Article 5-style security guarantee to Ukraine claim that it is the lack of a treaty commitment that has kept U.S. forces at home. Historical evidence suggests otherwise: The U.S. has never hesitated to deploy its military abroad when it perceives a direct threat to U.S. interests. The U.S. did not have a formal security treaty with Kuwait when it intervened to liberate the country from Iraqi invaders, nor did it have an obligation to defend South Korea when it sent troops there in 1950.
Any commitment made to Ukraine that obligates the U.S. to act differently in the future than it has in the past would be a promise of questionable value for deterring future Russian aggression. Proponents point out that Russia has thus far refrained from testing NATO. But prior U.S. unwillingness to fight for Ukraine colors any future commitments to do so. If Russian President Vladimir Putin perceives strategic gains from calling what he may see as a U.S. bluff, he just might do it.
Second, if the U.S. made an Article 5-type commitment to Ukraine and did not honor it, that would raise questions about the reliability of all similar U.S. guarantees, undermining the security and confidence of key allies in Europe and Asia. Even if Russia did not test the U.S. by invading Ukrainian territory for a third time, U.S. credibility would be badly damaged. If Washington extends one guarantee that it appears unlikely to uphold, allies and adversaries alike would have legitimate doubts about the strength and dependability of other U.S. commitments.
It is therefore counterintuitive that some NATO members are pushing hard for Ukraine to receive expansive security guarantees from the U.S.; their security would be undermined if Washington ultimately agrees to provide them. Still dependent on the U.S. military for their defense, European allies should fear anything that would weaken the credibility of NATO’s own Article 5 guarantee and its ability to deter potential Russian aggression.
The third and perhaps most important reason that Washington should refrain from offering Kyiv an Article 5-type commitment is the core reality of what that obligation implies: a readiness to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. While no U.S. security guarantee absolutely requires the deployment of U.S. military forces, if the U.S. were to make a similar commitment to Ukraine and deterrence were to fail, Washington would face significant political pressure to follow through by sending U.S. soldiers to the front line. At that point, the U.S. would be at war with Russia, an outcome that would include the potential for nuclear escalation.
🌒 @EastCalling
On Wednesday, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that Washington has offered to “provide Ukraine with ‘Article 5-like’ guarantees” as part of a deal to end the war. “If Russia invades Ukraine, a coordinated military response will be launched,” he said. Though some of the details remain vague, the invocation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, NATO’s founding document, suggests that the United States would treat a future Russian attack on Ukraine as an attack on itself and respond accordingly, including possibly with the direct deployment of U.S. military forces. According to the terms under discussion, this guarantee would be ratified by the Senate and made legally binding.
But those celebrating this turn of events should hold off on the champagne toasts. There’s a problem with the emerging plan: It promises too much.
...
First is the complicated question of credibility. If putting U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine was necessary to protect vital U.S. interests, they would have been there years ago. Instead, three successive presidents — Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump — have declined to send American soldiers to defend Ukraine, a clear indication that they assess the U.S. stakes to be too low to warrant the costs and risks of war with the possessor of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
Advocates of extending an Article 5-style security guarantee to Ukraine claim that it is the lack of a treaty commitment that has kept U.S. forces at home. Historical evidence suggests otherwise: The U.S. has never hesitated to deploy its military abroad when it perceives a direct threat to U.S. interests. The U.S. did not have a formal security treaty with Kuwait when it intervened to liberate the country from Iraqi invaders, nor did it have an obligation to defend South Korea when it sent troops there in 1950.
Any commitment made to Ukraine that obligates the U.S. to act differently in the future than it has in the past would be a promise of questionable value for deterring future Russian aggression. Proponents point out that Russia has thus far refrained from testing NATO. But prior U.S. unwillingness to fight for Ukraine colors any future commitments to do so. If Russian President Vladimir Putin perceives strategic gains from calling what he may see as a U.S. bluff, he just might do it.
Second, if the U.S. made an Article 5-type commitment to Ukraine and did not honor it, that would raise questions about the reliability of all similar U.S. guarantees, undermining the security and confidence of key allies in Europe and Asia. Even if Russia did not test the U.S. by invading Ukrainian territory for a third time, U.S. credibility would be badly damaged. If Washington extends one guarantee that it appears unlikely to uphold, allies and adversaries alike would have legitimate doubts about the strength and dependability of other U.S. commitments.
It is therefore counterintuitive that some NATO members are pushing hard for Ukraine to receive expansive security guarantees from the U.S.; their security would be undermined if Washington ultimately agrees to provide them. Still dependent on the U.S. military for their defense, European allies should fear anything that would weaken the credibility of NATO’s own Article 5 guarantee and its ability to deter potential Russian aggression.
The third and perhaps most important reason that Washington should refrain from offering Kyiv an Article 5-type commitment is the core reality of what that obligation implies: a readiness to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. While no U.S. security guarantee absolutely requires the deployment of U.S. military forces, if the U.S. were to make a similar commitment to Ukraine and deterrence were to fail, Washington would face significant political pressure to follow through by sending U.S. soldiers to the front line. At that point, the U.S. would be at war with Russia, an outcome that would include the potential for nuclear escalation.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
💯7❤2👍1👎1
🎙️Stan Filin shows the entire Forum and My Speech.🇺🇸🌎🇷🇺
https://youtu.be/-HXOTqo6XKE?si=zhvfOlaxD306ugEr
https://youtu.be/-HXOTqo6XKE?si=zhvfOlaxD306ugEr
YouTube
РОССИЯ ЗОВЁТ ИММИГРАНТОВ с ЗАПАДА? 2й Екатерининский Форум - @sfilinom #иммиграция
Россия говорит…. Мы новая мечта! Переезжайте к нам. 2й Екатерининский форум собрал самых интересных экспертов по переселению и переезду в Россию из США, Канады, Германии, Англии, Италии, Франции и много других стран. Но все ли так легко и просто? Нет конечно.…
❤8
EXPAT American pinned «🎙️Stan Filin shows the entire Forum and My Speech.🇺🇸🌎🇷🇺 https://youtu.be/-HXOTqo6XKE?si=zhvfOlaxD306ugEr»
Forwarded from 🇦🇺AussieCossack🇷🇺
❗️Lavrov declares that any EU soldiers in Ukraine will become legitimate targets of the Russian military. 🇪🇺 🎯
@AussieCossack
@AussieCossack
👏18❤2
Forwarded from Slavyangrad (J Asbery)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
When it comes to negotiators, the Americans will do anything to achieve their goals, says Ukrainian Intel Chief Kirill Budanov
'Americans think about America, Russians must think about Russia'
But does Europe think about its own?
@Slavyangrad
'Americans think about America, Russians must think about Russia'
But does Europe think about its own?
@Slavyangrad
❤3
Forwarded from 🇮🇪 Chay Bowes, The Irishman in Russia 🇷🇺
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Zelenskys kidnappers met their match in Kiev.
This young man won't be dying for Von Der Liar or the Golden toilet brigade any time soon.
Follow me Irish Man In Russia and Bowes Chay on X, Chay Bowes
This young man won't be dying for Von Der Liar or the Golden toilet brigade any time soon.
Follow me Irish Man In Russia and Bowes Chay on X, Chay Bowes
👏10❤5
Forwarded from Intel Slava
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤2
Forwarded from The Islander
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
‘Elite Ukrainian forces’ such as the 95th and 82nd brigades taking heavy losses and ‘FAILING in their efforts’ — Russian general tells President Putin
🎙Subscribe @TheIslanderNews
Donate - Support Our Work
🎙Subscribe @TheIslanderNews
Donate - Support Our Work
❤5👏3