Bugsy McGurk
President
Pee Wee Herman stops in.If only the idiot Bugsy was useful in any way…
;-)
Pee Wee Herman stops in.If only the idiot Bugsy was useful in any way…
Just pointing out the obvious - that you’re an un-useful idiot. Enjoy your daily hackery!Pee Wee Herman stops in.
;-)
As always, you whined about me instead of addressing the substance. Challenge yourself - address the substance of what was said…Just pointing out the obvious - that you’re an un-useful idiot. Enjoy your daily hackery!
1. NATO/BIDEN are not party to the fighting. It isn't up to anyone but the Kyiv government to agree to an armistice.MY Prediction:
1. NATO/Hunter's dad will agree to an Armistice in the next 30 days or less and here's why.
2. NATO's miracle 50 heavy tanks will take at least 6 months to be deployed unless manned and supplied by existing NATO forces themselves.
3. NATO is already running short on supplies. Even with Hunter's dad promising to increase artillery/anti-tank missile production by 500% will take two years at the earliest.
4. If Putin launches a three-pronged offensive with forces from Crimea in the South, second prong from the East, and the third from Belorussia, Ukraine will collapse rapidly.
5. Ukraine forces are taking a pounding in the east and are hemorrhaging manpower and supplies from the Crimea/Northern sector. Last intel from Non Corp-CIA media sources showed the Belorussia border being defended by a token force 70-year-old conscripts who had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
Um..not where there is fighting. I believe I said as a deterrent..Of course I am. Do you want our “peacekeeping” troops where there is currently ground fighting, or where there is no current ground fighting but there is frequent shelling and missiles?
REF: Why would NATO agree to an armistice they're not who's fighting?Why would NATO agree to an armistice they're not who's fighting?
Your number four is the most likely scenario, I would say within two weeks
How about in the areas shelled by Russia? Should we put our “peacekeeping” troops there?Um..not where there is fighting. I believe I said as a deterrent..
Cool. Meanwhile back on earth..REF: Why would NATO agree to an armistice they're not who's fighting?
C'mon man. You really think Zelinsky would risk losing $200 billion a year without doing what their told?
Armistice has to come from NATO first.
I see NATO doing an armistice very soon to prevent Putin from launching his offensive.
This will buy NATO time to replenish the depleted Ukranian forces and NATO stockpiles.
Then NATO can do what NATO does best which is destabilize regimes with NGOs and bribing key government officials and faction groups.
Yes .. what are you not grasping. I feel like I need to type slower for you to keep up and not get lost in your routine...How about in the areas shelled by Russia? Should we put our “peacekeeping” troops there?
Wow. You’re actually proposing to use US troops as human shields. That’s hard to believe, but you confirm it.Yes .. what are you not grasping. I feel like I need to type slower for you to keep up and not get lost in your routine...
No.Wow. You’re actually proposing to use US troops as human shields. That’s hard to believe, but you confirm it.
Bullshit. The Russians have to be the first to propose a ceasefire. It is their war.REF: Why would NATO agree to an armistice they're not who's fighting?
C'mon man. You really think Zelinsky would risk losing $200 billion a year without doing what their told?
Armistice has to come from NATO first.
I see NATO doing an armistice very soon to prevent Putin from launching his offensive.
This will buy NATO time to replenish the depleted Ukranian forces and NATO stockpiles.
Then NATO can do what NATO does best which is destabilize regimes with NGOs and bribing key government officials and faction groups.
1. Your delusional if you think Zelinsky is going to sign anything his $200B a year donors tell him not to sign.1. NATO/BIDEN are not party to the fighting. It isn't up to anyone but the Kyiv government to agree to an armistice.
2. Canadian Leopard Tanks are en-route now. The first ones are now in Poland.
First Canadian Leopard 2 tank sent to Ukraine arrives in Poland
The first Leopard 2 main battle tank that Canada has donated to Ukraine has arrived in Poland. — Ukrinform.www.ukrinform.net
Germany is also sending 88 Leopard I tanks. That is in addition to the Leopard II tanks it is sending as well.
The UK is sending 14 Challenger tanks.
Poland is sending 18 Leopard II tanks as well as a Polish version of the T-72.
3. Numerous sources are ramping up production.
4. Ukraine's imminent collapse was supposed to have happened a year ago.
5. Russia's casualties are at least as costly as Ukrainian losses. Russian draftees are running away...hundreds of thousands of Russians have left the country.
If Putin wasn't censoring the news, do you really think the Russian people would continue to support him?
Ukrainian membership in Nato was not imminent. That was simply Putin's excuse for his attempt to expand Imperial Russia. Now his invasion has motivated Finland and Sweden to join Nato. Good job, Putie.War could have easily been avoided in 2022 if NATO and Hutner's dad had backed off on NATO expansion to Russia's doorstep. They didn't care because they wanted this war.
That's one hell of a peace plan. LOL!Bullshit. The Russians have to be the first to propose a ceasefire. It is their war.
Better to suggest Ukraine surrenders, eh?That's one hell of a peace plan. LOL!
Didn’t you say above that you want to put US troops there to deter bombings?
Many of the tanks are either Russian made or they are versions of the T72. Those will be immediately put to use. The total is not 50 tanks as you suggested.1. Your delusional if you think Zelinsky is going to sign anything his $200B a year donors tell him not to sign.
2. All those heavy tanks will not make its way to the battlefield until well after Putin's offensive. When has rushing inexperienced crews with unfamiliar high-tech/maintenance hardware, into battle ever turned out good?
3.Numerous sources ramping up production and if lucky, can make its way to Ukraine by late 2024 or early 2025.
4. Russia's economic collapse and the ruble being rubble has turned into a fantasy as well.
5. Russia can absorb a war of attrition, Ukraine can't. I can also show you videos of Ukrainian women throwing rocks at NATO contractors who are forcibly abducting +70-year-old men who refuse to be conscripted in the Ukraine Army and how NATO contractors are acting as border guards to turn back any male trying to leave the country.
6. Big Tech monopolies are on record being CIA propaganda mouth pieces that promotes their corrupted version of the "truth" and anything contrary to the official narrative gets shadow banned, delisted or accused of being a Putin Puppet.
Sucks for NATO/Ukraine that they did not negotiate with Putin that Ukraine joining NATO was off the table or not imminent which would have prevented the war in the first place.Ukrainian membership in Nato was not imminent. That was simply Putin's excuse for his attempt to expand Imperial Russia. Now his invasion has motivated Finland and Sweden to join Nato. Good job, Putie.
In any case, Putin did not have the right to tell another country what relationships it can have with other nations.
Yes.Didn’t you say above that you want to put US troops there to deter bombings?