Politics Ukraine / Russia (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
SlyPokerDog said:
Hey now, saying anything against Putin means you want to send American troops to Ukraine. WHY DO YOU WANT TO GET US IN A WAR?!?
Click to expand...
How about we find where he is for sure and turn him to green glass. He has to be stopped. Al Sharpton is todays Ali so lets send him there on a peace mission. He can take his buddies Bernie & Tucker. He's traveled to war torn countries with them before.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I'm leaning towards sending our guys in. Russia is only going to get more desperate and dangerous as their economy collapses and their military suffers massive losses.
Click to expand...

If Russia doesn't care about women and children or about his own troops, he's not going to think twice about launching tactical nukes.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So nothing then.

Got it.
Click to expand...

shutterstock_408704311.jpg
 
SlyPokerDog said:
If Russia doesn't care about women and children or about his own troops, he's not going to think twice about launching tactical nukes.
Click to expand...
The only thing stopping Putin from using nukes is if he cares about himself and his family (his descendants). That's our only hope.

We can't let him take what he wants.
 
Here is a pretty good article explaining Hunter/Joe/Trump's dealings in Ukraine. There are things in the article that should make everyone happy. Enjoy!

What is Burisma? A Ukrainian energy firm tied to Trump and Biden
The company was a focal point of President Donald Trump's impeachment trial over its connections to Democrat Joe Biden - and as the US election draws closer, it is in the spotlight once again


Biden and Trump have locked horns on the election campaign trail (Credit: Flickr/Adam Schultz/Biden for President)

The once little-known Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings found itself thrust into the centre of a presidential impeachment storm earlier this year, over its ties to the son of former US vice-president Joe Biden.

The company’s name surfaced repeatedly throughout investigations into President Donald Trump’s conduct in office, amid allegations he attempted to coerce leaders in Ukraine into digging dirt on a potential rival in the upcoming US election.

Trump was ultimately acquitted of his impeachment charges, which comprised allegations of an abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress.

But with former vice-president Biden now battling Trump in the upcoming election, and a bitter campaign trail entering its final weeks, Burisma is once again in the spotlight.



Why is Burisma significant?
Biden’s son Hunter joined Burisma in 2014 as a board member — around the same time his father was serving under President Obama — holding the position for five years.

Trump argues for a conflict of interests — and even alleges corruption — between Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma and his father’s political activity in the country during the Obama administration.

Biden had been tasked by Obama with overseeing US political activities in Ukraine, primarily advocating for anti-corruption reforms in the country’s energy industry.

In a now-infamous July 2019 phone call, Trump allegedly asked Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate both Bidens in return for political favours.

Critics called this an attempt to strongarm the country into discrediting a political opponent ahead of the 2020 election, with Biden considered by many at that time as the Democratic candidate most likely to challenge Trump.

Despite the impeachment acquittal, the discourse surrounding Trump, Biden and Burisma has not gone away – and amid all this furore, the energy company has skyrocketed into the public consciousness on both sides of the Atlantic.



What is Burisma Holdings?
Founded in 2002, Burisma Holdings is an oil and natural gas company owned by Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky.

He is a businessman who previously served in public office in the country, and one who has been the subject of fraud investigations — although never convicted.

The business — which is based in Kyiv (Kiev) but registered in Cyprus — is a holding company for several subsidiaries in the energy industry, including Esko-Pivnich, Pari, Persha Ukrainska Naftogazova Kompaniya, Naftogaz Garant, KUB-Gas and Astroinvest Ukraine.

It is one of the largest natural gas operators in Ukraine, as well as having further interests in Germany, Mexico, Italy and Kazakhstan.

According to the company, it produced 1.3 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas in 2018, and while it does not disclose its financial results, estimates by news agency Reuters suggest this level of production could have generated revenues upwards of $400m.



The Biden connection
In 2014, Hunter Biden — who was at a loose end having been discharged from the US Navy for a positive cocaine drug test — joined the board of Burisma, earning a reported monthly salary of $50,000.

At the time, Reuters cited a statement from Hunter Biden which appeared on the Burisma website, in which he said his role would be to help the company with “transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion” along with other issues.


Joe Biden met with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2015 (Credit: Flickr/US State Department)
His appointment raised a few eyebrows in political and industry circles, given his father’s position as Obama’s right-hand man, as well as Burisma’s chequered history and accusations of fraud against its owner.

Burisma had previously been the subject of anti-corruption probes by domestic lawmakers, while its owner Zlochevsky had been investigated by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office as part of a wider inquiry into claims of money laundering in the Ukraine — although this ended in 2018 due to “insufficient evidence”.

Many commentators have suggested Burisma’s hiring of Hunter Biden — along with other high-profile board members including former Polish president Aleksander Kwaśniewski and former CIA official Cofer Black — were an attempt to deflect attention from corruption investigations and restore some reputational value to its name.

Corporate fraud in Ukraine had become a key issue for vice-president Biden towards the end of the Obama era, and he actively campaigned for reforms in the country — singling out Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in particular as an obstacle in the fight against corruption.

Pressure from Biden, alongside other international figureheads, eventually led to Shokin’s dismissal in March 2016 for, among other things, his failure to adequately investigate Burisma over claims of money laundering and tax evasion between 2010 and 2012.



The impeachment inquiry
All these factors constellated in the July 2019 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, which became the focal point of the impeachment investigation and subsequent Senate trial.

A whistleblower complaint led US Democrats to launch their impeachment inquiry in September 2019, after it was alleged Trump pressured the Ukrainian leader to investigate both Joe and Hunter Biden to secure damaging information on them.

This was described during the impeachment hearings as a “quid pro quo” in return for the US providing a $400m military-aid package to support Ukraine in its conflict with neighbouring Russia.


In December 2019, the US House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump (Credit: Wikimedia Commons/US House of Representatives)
It was argued that Trump was seeking to boost his chances against a political rival in the upcoming 2020 presidential elections — something that it is illegal to solicit foreign entities to do.

President Trump has himself argued the Bidens had a nefarious influence and conflict of interests in Ukraine, particularly in regards to the removal of Shokin from office.



The 2020 presidential election
Since the impeachment trial was concluded in February, former vice president Biden has become the Democratic challenger to Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election – due to be held on 3 November.

It has been a bitterly contested campaign, defined largely by the two candidates’ differing approaches to the coronavirus pandemic – which has killed more than 200,000 Americans – as well as race relations and climate change.

Yet Burisma continues to feature in political discussions.

The president has not abandoned his claim that the Bidens’ exerted improper influence in Ukraine, while a months-long inquiry has been conducted by Senate Republicans seeking to prove illicit behaviour.

In an update to their investigation, published in September, Republican senators claimed “Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board cast a shadow over the work of those advancing anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine”.

The report – dramatically titled “Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption” – has been criticised, however, for a lack of compelling new evidence to support allegations of wrongdoing against the former vice president.

Democrats have described the probe as a “politically-motivated investigation” designed to “damage [Biden’s] prospects as a challenger to President Trump“.

Burisma’s time under the spotlight of US politics does not appear to be over just yet.

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/burisma-impeachment-trump/
 
Phatguysrule said:
The only thing stopping Putin from using nukes is if he cares about himself and his family (his descendants). That's our only hope.

We can't let him take what he wants.
Click to expand...

If Putin has to withdraw from Ukraine I think there is a very high probability that he will launch a tactical nuke just inside Russia's border. While it will be a relatively low yield compared to a standard nuclear weapon it's still a nuke, it will destroy the pursuing Ukrainian forces while establishing a dead zone between the two countries and destroying Ukraine's energy output and economy for decades.

Putin will claim it was Ukraine who used the nuke since it will be detonated just inside Russian territory.

Also since it is inside Russian territory there will be no retaliation from other nuclear powers.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
If Putin has to withdraw from Ukraine I think there is a very high probability that he will launch a tactical nuke just inside Russia's border. While it will be a relatively low yield compared to a standard nuclear weapon it's still a nuke, it will destroy the pursuing Ukrainian forces while establishing a dead zone between the two countries and destroying Ukraine's energy output and economy for decades.

Putin will claim it was Ukraine who used the nuke since it will be detonated just inside Russian territory.

Also since it is inside Russian territory there will be no retaliation from other nuclear powers.
Click to expand...
Interesting... How would it destroy Ukrainian energy output?
 
Phatguysrule said:
Interesting... How would it destroy Ukrainian energy output?
Click to expand...

The irradiation of the gas and oil lines and facilities near the border and the EMP pulse could be enough to shut down the control and cooling of Ukraine's nuclear power plants.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
If Russia doesn't care about women and children or about his own troops, he's not going to think twice about launching tactical nukes.
Click to expand...

Do you think he has reached the point where he doesn't care if he dies, because launching nukes would mean his death as well, and Putin strikes me as the ultimate narcissist.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
The irradiation of the gas and oil lines and facilities near the border and the EMP pulse could be enough to shut down the control and cooling of Ukraine's nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...
Hmm. It's possible. But I don't think the EMP pulse would travel further than the effects of the nuclear blast.

We've tried to shut down cars with EMPs in the past and it is not very successful, to say the least. Like 1 in 100 cars was disabled. 97 were not impacted at all. 2 had blinkers malfunction...

Basically, anything that isn't within the blast radius isn't going to be hurt by an EMP.

Is enough of Ukraine infrastructure within blast radius of a tactical nuke on Russian land to significantly impact them? It seems like the Ukraine would be big enough to avoid that...
 
Natebishop3 said:
I get it. You don't want to get involved.... and there were a ton of people just like you 80 years ago. Some of them are probably still alive. Want me to put you in touch?
Click to expand...
Some people need to brush up on their history.
There was a time when it was very very close to "Too Late".
By the time we got in the Japanese had almost complete control of the Pacific. Germany had taken France and Russia.
https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941

Over 416,000 American soldiers were killed in that war because we allowed it to go too far.
 
Phatguysrule said:
What do you see as the difference? When does it end? When does Putin stop attacking his neighbors? Once he reaches the Atlantic Ocean?
Click to expand...
At some time we have to take Putin at his word. He has said he will invade Crimea. He did in 2014. He also said he would invade Ukraine in 2014. He Did.
He said he was going to invade Ukraine again this time. He Did.
He has said he will invade Finland and Poland. He will!
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
And the suckers who fall for anti-russia propganda to start calling for war; the ones convinced that Putin still has a Trump golden shower video.

Same shit, different day.
Click to expand...
lol what. Anti Russian propaganda? I’m pretty sure if you have eyeballs you can see what’s happening without any justification
 
Natebishop3 said:
Do you think he has reached the point where he doesn't care if he dies, because launching nukes would mean his death as well, and Putin strikes me as the ultimate narcissist.
Click to expand...

He's a narcissist but he's worked hard to make sure he gets paid by all the oligarchs. He loves himself and money so I don't think he wants to die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top