@divegeester saidThen I'm not sure what exactly is your point.
How do you translate that into me saying that both sides currently want to negotiate?
If you're now conceding that in their present positions neither wants to negotiate, what is your objection to Biden trying to strengthen the position of Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia?
@no1marauder saidAs someone who has claimed to be a lawyer I am continually struck by how hopeless you are at not being able to understand written text, how you misinterpret electoral data and generally conflate issues.
Then I'm not sure what exactly is your point.
If you're now conceding that in their present positions neither wants to negotiate, what is your objection to Biden trying to strengthen the position of Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia?
If you cannot understand what I’ve written in this thread, especially when there are multiple media opinions stating exactly the same thing, one of which I’ve actually posted a video link to, then I’m not going to waste time explaining it to you.
There is no way you are a lawyer, you simply lack the cognitive ability.
Misinformation coming out of Ukraine as Western official denies Ukraine claim that Russia fired ballistic missile at them.
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-latest-putin-zelenskyy-live-sky-news-12541713?postid=8652331#liveblog-body
Dnipro attack weapon not an intercontinental ballistic missile, official says
A Western official has now said the weapon used in the attack was not an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
That directly contradicts a statement from the Ukrainian air force, which claimed this morning that it was an ICBM that struck Dnipro, causing fires (read more on the Ukrainian claims here).
According to the Associated Press, that would have marked the first time an ICBM had been used in the Russia-Ukraine war, but the official's comments cast doubt on that being the case.
The Western official said the weapon was a ballistic missile, but declined to provide further details.
We're yet to have any official confirmation that the weapon used was, or was not, an ICBM.
@no1marauder said"what is your objection to Biden trying to strengthen the position of Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia?"
Then I'm not sure what exactly is your point.
If you're now conceding that in their present positions neither wants to negotiate, what is your objection to Biden trying to strengthen the position of Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia?
Russia might nuke Ukraine. Is that how Biden is going to strengthen the position of Ukraine?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-issues-warning-us-with-new-nuclear-doctrine-2024-11-19/
@divegeester saidBoy, you really don't even try, do you?
As someone who has claimed to be a lawyer I am continually struck by how hopeless you are at not being able to understand written text, how you misinterpret electoral data and generally conflate issues.
If you cannot understand what I’ve written in this thread, especially when there are multiple media opinions stating exactly the same thing, one of which I’ve actually ...[text shortened]... e explaining it to you.
There is no way you are a lawyer, you simply lack the cognitive ability.
Personal attacks as part of this pathetic one sided vendetta you've created are not an answer to the incoherence you've displayed here.
@Metal-Brain saidNo, they won't just because Ukraine is hitting military targets close to the border and has gotten some land mines.
"what is your objection to Biden trying to strengthen the position of Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia?"
Russia might nuke Ukraine. Is that how Biden is going to strengthen the position of Ukraine?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-issues-warning-us-with-new-nuclear-doctrine-2024-11-19/
@Metal-Brain saidGiving up those nukes in 1994 is looking pretty stupid, ain't it? 😆
Russia might nuke Ukraine.
The lesson from Ukraine to the rest of the world is extraordinarily clear:
"Get nukes as fast as you can and by any means necessary or you will not survive. NO ONE WILL HELP YOU!"
Iran has heard the message. So has every other nation on the planet.
Now, go on. Tell me about how nuclear war is made LESS likely through appeasement! 😆
@spruce112358 saidOnly assuming Ukraine would not have used them. But even if they kept them Russia has far more nukes than Ukraine had.
Giving up those nukes in 1994 is looking pretty stupid, ain't it? 😆
@Metal-Brain saidThe ability to succeed in a nuclear strike on the opposing capital keeps any nation safe. Don't need a lotta nukes. Just a few well-aimed ones. 😀
Only assuming Ukraine would not have used them. But even if they kept them Russia has far more nukes than Ukraine had.
@no1marauder saidAre you going to start throwing insults again as part of your own “pathetic vendetta”?
Boy, you really don't even try, do you?
Personal attacks as part of this pathetic one sided vendetta you've created are not an answer to the incoherence you've displayed here.
“Vendetta” lol you think I care about you or your partisan opinions that much 😂
@spruce112358 saidIn truth, the weapons were under operational control of Moscow anyway and it's doubtful Ukraine could have used them anyway.
Giving up those nukes in 1994 is looking pretty stupid, ain't it? 😆
And Ukraine had already signed the Lisbon Protocol to START I in 1992 which committed it to becoming a non-nuclear weapon state under the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum