Comments by "Emir" (@irongron) on "Силиконовый занавес"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
@dickderuiter5892 He gets it right most of the time, his wide sweeping predictions that he talked about months ago, have eventuated (iparaphrasing "by the end of september/october the Ukrainians will start to reverse the Russian gains on the battlefield & see some victories) - these battlefield specifics are more tricky to predict. yes, but they were supposedly well established in Kharkivska Oblast and they ran like dogs and left us a bunch of T-80's, 72's + ammunition and artillery! He is definitely on point more than disgraced & convicted quasi-pedo Scott Ritter, who is pretty mich now a Kremlin mouthpiece of the Ruzzian MoD, he has said some things that are barking mad nonsense (like the failed Kyiv operation was a "feint" to draw Ukraine army away from the real objectives, turns out he forgot that on ria-novosti they published an article too soon stating that Moscow had won and pulled it down! haha also what kind of feint involves losing thousands of men and equipment, Ruzzia lost half it tucks in that supposed "feint", the reason is it was a real attempt to take Kyiv, a real feint involves going in and out without losing men and equipemnt.
1
-
1
-
@war-painter Yeap and actually now you mention these staged events, at the start of this re-invasion, there was a clip put out of supposedly two Ukrainian soldiers stopping a woman in a car with a small kid and abused her for speaking Russian, they fired their guns in the air and "scared" the crap out of her, the background scenery was identified as being in the DNR, and that helped to geolocate it, so there was no way it was UAF in that area, it was in fact some DNR militia staging that to make Ukraine look bad, as usual. Indeed its bad in teh USA, you have vatniks like Jimmy Dore peddling Kremlin BS, and Greyzone "news", it's "news" in the sense that it is the newest Kremlin propaganda, Blumenthal and Mate are vile anti-Ukrainianites, defending dictators like Putin and Assad. Ditto for Galloway in the UK.
1
-
1
-
Yes, but the point is, all the innovation is from Europe or the USA. Russia and China only steal ideas and IP. Manufacturing can be returned to the USA and Europe. Apple's markups are off the scale, Why is it that you can buy 2 (or even 3) top of the line "windows" PC's or laptops for the price of one Mac or Macbook ? Apple have always been a rip off. Here in Ukraine a Macbook is like 100,000 UAH but a decent windows laptop is like 30 - 40,000 UAH!!! (my wife bought a really good ASuS laptop for 15,000 UAH new). Apple make nice stuff but is it worth the preposterous shake down ? The lithographic machines that make high end chips all come from one country too - The Netherlands. Do you consider that a hole we have dug for ourselves too ? ( I don't, the Dutch are decent members of the world community). Lastly, trust me, if the price of iPhones goes up to $5,000, the Apple fan boys will still pay it!!! 🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
V L A D I S L A V,!!!!! Everyone's favourite ex-Soviet refusenik!! Always very good vslue. OCHEN HOROSHO!!! Ok seriously, with the reasoning taking into context the absurd time frame of having it all over with in a 3 days or week as you mentioned - hat's it more or less, as in the end all the other reasons preferred whether, religious, historical, political relating to maidan or the CIA, and esp the the clownish "poor Russia victim of NATO" grifters, become superfluous, Tsar Putin did this because he though he could get away with it, previous experience demonstrated he could, what was Merkel in Germany or Macron in France going to do ? "engage" (i.e appease) more ? More sanctions, that seemed to be no deference ? I heard someone say recently he did it for thgat aforementioned reason, might have been you John and my reaction was to say out loud and clap my hand "BINGO"! thast's the one when you distill it all down.
1
-
When you asked Mr Kutelia why did the ruZZian's stop and not go all the way to Tblisi, I knew abut their crap logistics which played a part, but there had to be more to it and, even with crap logistics the ruZZian's keep going. It was when Mr Kutelia pointed out that the Bush Administration sent some logistics for the Georgians and made a "significant" intervention that sent a message, that things became clear to me. Fast forward to 2014 and then we have "do nothing" Obama and "do nothing" Cameron in charge in the USA and the UK. Now this brings to mind VP Cheney, who back in the 90's. vehemently opposed the removal of nuclear weapons from Ukraine,, but he was over ridden by Bush Senior (Clinton went on to finalise that folly, but credit to him, after the 2022 re-invasion, he was so shocked, he apologised publicly for making a huge mistake). From the article - Deceit, Dread, and Disbelief: The Story of How Ukraine Lost Its Nuclear Arsenal - "In his memoirs and later interviews, Brent Scowcroft noted that then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney vigorously opposed the removal of nuclear weapons from the newly independent states at Russia’s periphery. Though most of their personal papers on the subject remain classified, a memo to the National Security Advisor from March 1992 demonstrated that these disputes did not disappear. National Security Council staffer David Gompert titled it “Why We Must be Adamant about De-nuclearizing Ukraine.” He noted three major counterarguments: Ukrainian nuclear weapons will not threaten the U.S. as Russian nuclear weapons do, for the simple reason that Ukraine, unlike Russia, is not a serious potential adversary. It might even prove advantageous to us to see Russian power checked—and Russian nuclear weapons deterred—by a Ukraine with a minimal deterrent. In any case, we hurt ourselves with the Ukrainians by insisting that they be stripped of nuclear weapons while we legitimize those of their powerful neighbor."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timthetiny7538 We've got nuclear reactors here and nothing has been "sold" on the "black market" all these decades. It had nothing to do with the "black market", that's what clueless journalists and fools like you thought. It was about abiding by the START treaty - As the Soviet Union began to collapse, the George H.W. Bush Administration sought to preserve the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which promised to decrease the world’s strategic nuclear weapons stockpiles by 80 percent. After nearly a decade of negotiations, it was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1991. But with the USSR about to shatter into five sovereign countries, how would this two-party deal endure?
Later that month, America’s first ambassador to the Russian Federation, Robert Strauss, wrote to Washington about the hysteria caused by reports of Yeltsin considering a nuclear strike on Ukraine. The situation was “made worse,” the emissary wrote, by the new president “acknowledging he had discussed the possibility with military experts.”
In his memoirs and later interviews, Brent Scowcroft noted that then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney vigorously opposed the removal of nuclear weapons from the newly independent states at Russia’s periphery. Though most of their personal papers on the subject remain classified, a memo to the National Security Advisor from March 1992 demonstrated that these disputes did not disappear. National Security Council staffer David Gompert titled it “Why We Must be Adamant about De-nuclearizing Ukraine.” He noted three major counterarguments: Ukrainian nuclear weapons will not threaten the U.S. as Russian nuclear weapons do, for the simple reason that Ukraine, unlike Russia, is not a serious potential adversary. It might even prove advantageous to us to see Russian power checked—and Russian nuclear weapons deterred—by a Ukraine with a minimal deterrent. In any case, we hurt ourselves with the Ukrainians by insisting that they be stripped of nuclear weapons while we legitimize those of their powerful neighbor. Gompert dismissed these objections, and the Bush administration continued on its path. The document, however, bears witness to the persistent debate that unfolded within the administration. - no mention whatsoever of your "black market" nonsense.
1
-
1
-
On Mr Horsfall's opint about BOJO, I agree 100%, - it's why he has pubs here named after him - the scandals and malarkey back in the UK rally were not relevant here, he was out on the front foot, at least a month before the Americans got on board with their Javelins, organising MANPADS from wherever he could source them with allies in Europe. - interestingly, we already had Stingers here, that got shipped, ironically, on Trumps watch - contrast with Obama who refused any "lethal aid" when we asked in 2014, he screwed us bad. Robin mentioned that and it's totally on the money - I would go so far as to say President Obama is guilty of criminal neglect. Why, people may ask ? He was just as responsible for making the Budapest memorandum "toilet paper" as much as Tsar Putin did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FUN FACT - the usual nickname for Aleksander is "Sasha", but this is not enough for cult of personality of the man who has been in power longer than Stalin. He calls himself "Batska" i.e. "father"!! ...from Wikitionary....
ба́тька • (bátʹka) m anim (genitive ба́тьки, nominative plural ба́тьки, genitive plural ба́тек)
(colloquial) father, dad
(colloquial) "father", boss, master, lord, kingpin, number one, pro
(colloquial) a nickname for president of Belarus Alyaksandr Lukashenka, also the Belarusian term ба́цька (bácʹka) is used in this sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think Tsar Putin definitely decided to invade after he couldn't get the DNR & LNR into some kind of Federated Ukraine as Trojan horse wreckers via the bogus Minsk Agreements. Putin has said publicly he decided to enact the plan to retake Crimea after Euromaidan, but his decision to eventually take Crimea goes all the way back to 1999 when NATO bombed Serbia and helped Kosovo's independence. I remember seeing an interview years ago (I can't find it, it's buried by recent events) were he got angry with a bunch of journalists asking him if US meddling in Syria to topple Assad was the reason he decided to take Crimea and he got really annoyed with them and told them all to shut up and then said something like "none of you have any idea, it was not Syria it was Yugoslavia, it was what NATO did to Yugoslavia, that's when I decided Crimea would have to be taken in the future".(something like that, was a long time ago) He also mentioned it to Sholz when he visited Moscow in Feb 2022 just before the invasion.
from "EXPLAINER: Putin’s Balkan narrative argument for Ukraine war" by The Associated Press
"“But all of us were witnesses to the war in Europe that NATO unleashed against Yugoslavia,” Putin said. He recalled that it was a major military operation involving bombing strikes against a European capital, Belgrade. “It did happen. Without any sanctions by the U.N. Security Council. It is a very sad example, but it is a hard fact,” Putin said. He has argued that by intervening in Kosovo, the West created a precedent with longstanding consequences."
1
-
1
-
1