› Foros › Off-Topic › Miscelánea
gojesusga escribió: si si el que dice que Estados Unidos en defensa propia lanzó 2 bombas atómicas a Japón.
Soul Assassin escribió:@Swm84 El hecho de que haya gente no podría confirmarlo ni desmentirlo con un solo video bastante pixelado, yo no lo veo claramente que sean personas. Podrían ser banderas por atrás o algo, ya que a la hora de explotar no las veo agachándose ni haciendo movimientos bruscos.
Escorpio_28 escribió:Soul Assassin escribió:@Swm84 El hecho de que haya gente no podría confirmarlo ni desmentirlo con un solo video bastante pixelado, yo no lo veo claramente que sean personas. Podrían ser banderas por atrás o algo, ya que a la hora de explotar no las veo agachándose ni haciendo movimientos bruscos.
En este zoom claramente se ven que son personas
Pararegistros escribió:Claro que sí, campeón. Tu argumentario se basa en "yo he ido de niño a RuZia, perdón, la URSS, mi mujer e hijos son rusos, occidente es muy malo" y tras eso, unas extrapolaciones de una entrevista que, en ningún momento se especifica. A eso se reducen tus "argumentos".
- 2:33:07 I knew the trust I had formed with Putin was a rare commodity. America didn’t know how to communicate at that time neither does it know today. I don’t think there was anyone else who had the trust of both sides, maybe Erdogan to a degree. That’s one thing, the second thing: I set a rule, a lot of humanitarian aid but no supply of weapons. I informed Putin of whatever I did. I told Putin: “I’m setting up a field hospital in Lvov”, in a phone call?. Yes. I just want to let you know. So he said: if you give me your word that it won’t be a hiding place for weapons or soldiers, that it won’t be used for military purposes then no problem, just tell me where it is. I’ll ensure it’s not bombed.
- This was before the meeting
- I think so
- How do you experience him in phone calls?
- Very matter of fact. There are two very different narratives. He has a narrative and perception, Zelensky and the West have another. The West see Putin as an imperialist who wants to take over more places. Once it’s Georgia, once here, once there.
- Don’t reward the thug
- And If we don’t stop him in Ukraine he’ll go to Poland and the Baltics. Putin’s perception was, as early as that meeting in Sochi, even more so here. Wait, when the wall came down we reached an agreement with NATO that they wouldn’t expand NATO and would not touch the belt countries that envelop Russia. “Don’t bring me NATO to my enemy or rival and why are you introducing Ukraine in NATO.”
- Yes
- The story goes much deeper. You know, the Americans, o a sidenote the Americans have a centuries old doctrine called the Monroe Doctrine whereby the hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, North and South America belongs to the USA. As early as 200 years ago they didn’t want France and Britain there. “Don’t come here”. And to a degree, that’s Putin’s perception. “Don’t come here, this is my backyard”. I don’t presume to judge the perceptions, what I care about is Israel’s national interests and I wanted, I knew that if I don’t take some other action, I’ll be forced to supply weapons and I’m endangering the Jews and…so I called the Americans Blinken, Biden and Sullivan, the National Security Advisor and I said “I have Putin’s ear, I can be a pipeline, Zelensky initiated the request to contact Putin, Zelensky called me and asked me to contact Putin. I have the protocol.
- What for?
- To help. As the war is ongoing.
- Yes, and he was in distress.
- Keep in mind he knows that his days are numbered that he’ll be killed.
- It wasn’t hard to kill him.
- The Russians had demands, one was denazification meaning replacement of the leader and I assume the world understood that this means killing him. There was a disarmament emptying Ukraine out of weapons and army. There were 5-6 demands at first.
- Yes. So Zelensky calls you.
- “Can you help me?” At the time I was meeting with Scholz, the new cancellor of Germany who replaced Angela Merkel. They’re both excellent and very different. Scholz is a man of few words. Not that Angela was a big talker but he..
- You’re meeting him in Germany?
- No, in Jerusalem.
- Oh right.
- So we have the first meeting and he’s very distressed because there’s the gas issue, he fears for Germany’s energy and the ramifications. I tell him about my discussions with Putin and Putin says “we can reach a ceasefire”. So I start talks back and forth: Putin-Zelensky, Zelensky-Putin.
- On the phone.
- Yes.
- What happens in these phone calls? What’s your suggestion?
- What happens is this, drafts are exchanged, not only through us, directly as well. They’re in Belarus in a city called Gomel. There are two negotiation teams, Russia and Ukraine that the world looked down on but I considered it a good thing that they were talking, exchanging and trying to find solutions. I’m very skilled at negotiations from my corporate life and politics and I can procure deals. Moreover, I realize we’re on borrowed time. I said that we’re on the verge of another Kafr Kanna. I’ll explain what I mean to the listeners.
- An unplanned security escalation.
- Am extreme situation will occur whereby many civilians will be killed and then it will be very hard to reach a ceasefire. It was very hard as it is.
- Yes
- So I called it the “Kafr Kanna” affair. I explained It to the Americans. Everything I did was fully coordinated with Biden, with Macron, with Boris Johnson, with Scholz and obviously with Zelensky. But I want to…
- Did they think you could succeed?
- I have a debate about that with the Americans. I just.. I think there was a chance and I’ll explain, they said there was no chance. But there are two questions: Was there a chance and was it justifiable?
- Maybe they didn’t want you to succeed. Talk about the compromise you thought you could achieve before talking about the meeting itself.
- There were a few issues, the major issues. When I met with Putin, he made two big concessions that are obvious now they weren’t at that time.
- During the first meeting.
- No, at the meeting.
- On Saturday.
- On Saturday. I’ll go into that, but first, he renounced denazification i.e. taking out Zelensky.
- Yes.
- He said in those words?
- That’s why it’s so…a leader’s life is invaluable and I knew that Zelensky was under threat. He was in a secret bunker so 3-4 hours into the meeting, I’m getting to the meeting now, I asked “what’s with are you going to kill Zelensky?” He said “I won’t kill Zelensky”. Then I said, “I have to understand that you’re giving your word that you won’t kill Zelensky”, “I won’t kill Zelensky”. After the meeting in the car from the Kremlin to the airport, I contacted Zelensky by Whatsapp or Telegram.
- Didn’t you fear the Russians would see?
- No. He has no problem because I was. No the premise is…
- They can see. So you call him.
- I call Zelensky and say “I came out of a meeting, he’s not going to kill you”. He asks “are you sure?”, “100% he won’t kill you”. Two hours later Zelensky went to his office and filmed himself there on his phone. “I am not afraid…”. Anyway, that was one concession. The other was that he renounced the disarmament of Ukraine. Zelensky made a big concession that Saturday too. I think this was the second Saturday after the war broke out. The war broke out on Thursday, the next Saturday I was in Moscow, Zelensky relinquished joining NATO. He said “I’m renouncing that”. These are huge steps on each side. Huge concessions. The war broke out because of the demand to join NATO and Zelensky said “I’m renouncing that”. Then was left..a lot. There was the most complex issue is the territorial issue: Donbas, the Crimean Peninsula, Crimea and the corridor that was forming between the two. In Mariupol. And the second issue was how will Ukraine protect itself and guarantees. Ukraine demanded of Russia that it be able to get security guarantees from America, France, all the big ones. And there was an argument because to Russia a guarantee is a pact, it’s no different than NATO. This is where I brought my experience, I gave it a lot of thought and said “the negotiation is unreasonable because they’re negotiating over something they don’t have”. There’s a joke about a guy trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to passerby, this guy did exist, 100 years ago he sold…they didn’t have the Brooklyn Bridge, I said that because...America will give you guarantees? It will commit that in seven years if Russia violates something it will send soldiers after leaving Afghanistan and all that? I said “Volodymir, it won’t happen, you won’t get guarantees, why are you negotiating”. Then I suggested what I called the “Israeli model”, we don’t have guarantees, I said “I am the prime minister of Israel, we don’t have guarantees from anyone, if someone invades us tomorrow, nobody has assured us and no one will come to save us. What we do have is a strong independent army that can protect itself so let’s forget about these guarantees and discuss the parameters for building military force: what kind of weapons, what planes, how many officers, soldiers…Because Russia doesn’t want Ukraine. So this was a cognitive breaktrough that they both accepted. Again, it took time. And there you’re discussing which missiles, these are assault missiles, what do you need that for…The territorial issue is and this is pre Kafr Kanna, pre Bucha.
- Yes
- The Bucha massacre, once that happened I said it’s over.
- Yes.
- I saw solutions in that regard too. I’d rather not go into that. They’re primarily related to postponing the argument by 99 years. All kind of solutions in the middle.
- Like David Avidan said “everything takes time”
- Yes . I knew from our rounds versus Gaza, versus Hizbollah, it’s very hard to reach a ceasefire. Why is that? As usual, because of the internal politics of each side. Neither side can seem to be giving up, to be losing, to be weak. So after Zelensky went to war…he didn’t go to war. After sustaining a blow.
- Sustaining this war.
- Now he’ll back down? Does Putin say anything to you that you deem pragmatic?
- He was very pragmatic so was Zelensky.
- He wasn’t messianic.
- No, no, no.
- Give me an example of pragmatism.
- A n example of pragmatism? I won’t disclose things I shouldn’t but he totally understood Zelensky’s political constraints. And Zelensky was pragmatic too. It doesn’t start at one, you have to peel the onion. In every negotiation each side is all bravado “I’ll rip ‘em apart, I’ll rip ‘em apart. I’’ do this and that” Fine, okay. It’s a phase you can’t skip. But once you say “I understand and you understand the perplexities then you can gradually get to the crux of the matter…
- Yes. Let’s try to resume a chronological description. You leave on Saturday. I must say this is very indicative of your personality striving to get there. I mean, it’s so fartetched, why do you even go there? That’s who you are…
- I understand at that point that there’s no one to mediate-
- Amazing.
- There isn’t.
- It positions you at a high level of global endeavoring. Suddenly you are a man that the world is talking about.
- Yes.
- With this historic role and you say to yourself later we’ll gauge if it’s true and why it didn’t work out, but you say, we have a window of opportunity, we are preventing what we see now, millions of refugees, casualties, a country being destroyed and I can do something about it.
- I’m cautious.
- What odds did you give it?
- 50%
- Was there 50%?
- I think so. And all this right after a call with Putin.
- Putting says to you “come”?
- Yes, he says “come”. It was scheduled for a Saturday, we tried to change that, but I didn’t hesitate. It was preserving life on a global scope and keep in mind all my endeavors are protecting Israel from pressure that can harm us.
- Instead of being on one side or another, you’re the mediator, so you are not part of.
- Right, the third path.
- Dit it cross your mind?
- Yes, yes. That’s thinking outside the box.
- Yes. I’m not on either side, I’m the mediator.
- Right. If I take sides, I can’t be a fair mediator.
- Why didn’t it work out?
- Hold on. Then we travel in complete secrecy on this decrepit plane from Israel through the Kazakh region, the Stans because we couldn’t fly over the Black Sea, a very long route. We pray and recite the Sabbath blessings. It was very moving. It was very cramped too because the plane wasn’t..it was a private plane that we leased.
- Did Mossad arrange the trip?
- Mossad and Hulata and poor things, all the my guys are sitting on, it wasn’t comfy, we were extremely cramped. We land at the Moscow airport, several officials welcome us and we go to the Kremlin. By the way, it was my first time in Russia. Besides Sochi, my first time in Moscow. It was a cold day, I think it was raining. I see the Kremlin. We get to this huge waiting area and I prepare my strategy in my mind. I forgot to say that meanwhile I studied everything in depth. The history: I read a book on the history of Ukraine and Russia to understand, I consulted with former leaders who dealt with this, I consulted a lot, I get Russian experts, negotiation experts, because when you get into something and I knew the name of each village, Donbas and the history. What happened in 2014, in 2009, what happened all those years because you can’t come in the middle of the story, it’s also important in terms of your reliability vis a vis the leaders, they have to understand that you understand them. You’re not agreeing with them you understand. Then we waited outside, there were bowls with chocolates and cakes…yes, I definitely enjoyed those cakes. I think it showed, huh?
- There was a time…
- Then I went in to see Putin. Remember, this is at the height of COVID.
- Yes.
- We sat at both ends of the table.
- He was scared of COVID, right?
- I don’t know. He stayed 20 meters away.
- There was a distance and there was a mic and speaker next to me.
- Elkin looked like he had COVID.
- There was the Russian interpreter and Elkin. They sat fairly far away from the table and translated, and we started talking. I understood the basic needs of each side, again, there were the initial phases at first and obviously I can’t go into detail. I’m just telling you what I can. By the way, I think this is the first time I’m telling all of this. And when you peel away…I was under the impression that both sides wanted a ceasefire very much. And as I said, at that meeting Putin made two big concessions after the original demands, he renounced disarment and denazification and I saiy to myself, wow, this is a huge shift.
- So he’s not gung hot to fight at all costs.
- No.
- He has goals to achieve.
- That’s the impression I got. You have to be cautious; someone can always put on an act. I’m describing how I saw it. I left very optimistic because he renounced joining NATO which was the reason for the invasion. Putin said, “tell me you’re not joining NATO, I won’t invade”. He renounced his demands. Then begins the, then I update everyone one after the other.
- You go to Germany, right?
- From there I go to Germany, my first time in Germany. I made a point of never setting foot in Germany because of the Holocaust. Obviously, I don’t blame today’s German people, I arrive at Scholz.
- Scholz’s office.
- I’m there with Shimrit, the political advisor. She did a great job through and through. I must say both she and Eyal Hulata were skeptical “What are you doing? Wait, take it slow.” They’re young people. Not that young, but they’re in their 40s.
- They’re not 70 with a political background, millions of conflicts.
- But they are very intelligent, polite, and they think I’m going too fast. And I disagree, I say we’re going for it.
- Why was it important? To go to Germany?
- Because Germany is the player. Germany and France are the major players in Europe. And in order to procure an agreement, everyone has to do something. There are so many things to do. So I had dinner with him, I got kosher food, we sat with his national security advisor. We were taken from the airport by helicopter, it was weird flying over Berlin in a helicopter but in all the trips I went over. I wrote down what happened because I couldn’t in real time. I wrote a protocol of what we discussed and what the next steps would be. What the disagreements are in the negotiations and what everyone has to do. From there, I think that together. I’m not sure we updated the Americans and Macron.
- The Americans? Biden himself or?
- No, usually it was Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor, sometimes Biden, sometimes Blinken. They’re very tight there. And Boris Johnson, you know each leader has their way. Boris was…we can divide the spectrum of leaders who’s tending more towards “now we have to fight Putin”.
- Because we mustn’t reward the bad guys.
- Right.
- And who says, “forget war, everyone loses”.
- Right. Boris Johnson adopted the aggressive line. Macron and Scholz were more pragmatic and Biden was both. And…that’s it. Then I return to Israel and a negotiations marathon of drafts begins. Now…
- Your office deals with this? Not the foreign ministry or…
- The NSC. And I do everything vis a vis…the NSC and…with Schimrit. I update.
- Do you hold the NSC in high regard?
- It’s what you make of it. Yes, the short answer in “yes”. To Netanyahu’s credit, he built the NSC in a very good way. It’s an excellent entity that supports the prime minister 2:58:05
- 2:59:15 By the way, I noticed that throughout the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Bibi didn’t attack me.
- Interesting.
- I think he realized we conducted a very intelligent policy. It went back and forth and then…I’ll say this in the broad sense…I think there was a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin and not…
- Strike Putin? Putin was striking Ukraine.
- Hold on, yes, but given I mean more aggressive approach. I’ll tell you something, I can’t say if they were wrong.
- Maybe other thugs in the world would see it.
- My position at the time in this regard it’s not a national Israeli interest. Unlike the consulate of Iran when I’m concerned about Israel, I stand firm.
- Yes. Here I don’t have a say, I’m just the mediator but I turn to America in this regard: I don’t do as I please. Anything I did was coordinated down to the last detail with the US, Germany and France.
- So they blocked it?
- Basically, yes. They blocked it and I thought they were wrong. In retrospect it’s too soon to know the advantages and disadvantages. The downside of the war going on is the casualties in Ukraine and Russia, it’s very harsh blow to Ukraine, the country. There will have to be a huge restoration of the infrastructures like the Marshall plan. The negative impact on the export of wheat and food to the Middle East although that was partially taken care of, the rise in energy costs which puts heavy pressure on the democracies. Then there’s
- Emigration too, no?
- If there’s hunger in Africa, we’ll see emigration to Europe which will threaten Europe. On the other hand, and I’m not being cynical there’s a statement here after very many years. President Biden created an alliance vis a vis an aggressor. In the general perception and this reflects on other arenas such as China, Taiwan and there are consequences. So, it’s too soon to know. I’m not saying I have one claim. I claim there was a good chance of reaching a ceasefire.
- Had they not curbed it?
- But I’m not sure. But I’m not claiming it was the right thing. In real time I thought the right thing was a ceasefire, now I can’t say.
- Maybe it was rewarding the thug too quickly.
- Maybe it would have conveyed the wrong message to other countries. Statesmanship is very complex and there are things I don’t want to go into why it was the right thing or not.
- In terms of Israel too.
- In many aspects but either way, I’m very proud. I was relentless about setting up a field hospital in Lvov. They didn’t get why I’m so gung-ho about it. Then the foreign ministry took it on. 3:03:00
Pararegistros escribió:Por cierto, ya que menosprecias Yahoo News, deberías saber que funciona como un AGREGADOR DE NOTICIAS
Pararegistros escribió:Y dijo JUNTO porque se puede ver la trayectoria... ¿Dónde está el informe del abuelete? ¿Dónde los que acusaban a quienes no eran?
O Dae_soo escribió:El plan sin fisuras era invadir un país europeo sin pensar que la UE, EEUU, los países de la OTAN y el mundo democrático en general iba a ayudar al país invadido
Negi escribió:¿Pero por qué tiene que ceder la víctima? La víctima solo quiere recuperar lo suyo. Suficiente cesión será que cuando derroten al invasor no recuperen ni los daños humanos (imposibles de recuperar) ni los económicos
Galicha escribió:O Dae_soo escribió:El plan sin fisuras era invadir un país europeo sin pensar que la UE, EEUU, los países de la OTAN y el mundo democrático en general iba a ayudar al país invadido
Esto está refutado. Putin sabía que, evidentemente, esto no era una guerra contra Ucrania sino indirectamente contra la OTAN. Pensar lo contrario es “pensamiento mágico”, es que necesitas pensar que tu enemigo, además de malo, también es tonto, craso error amigo.
.
O Dae_soo escribió:Galicha escribió:O Dae_soo escribió:El plan sin fisuras era invadir un país europeo sin pensar que la UE, EEUU, los países de la OTAN y el mundo democrático en general iba a ayudar al país invadido
Esto está refutado. Putin sabía que, evidentemente, esto no era una guerra contra Ucrania sino indirectamente contra la OTAN. Pensar lo contrario es “pensamiento mágico”, es que necesitas pensar que tu enemigo, además de malo, también es tonto, craso error amigo.
.
Ahhhhh.....ya no era una "operación especial", ni "desnazificar Ucrania"......ahora resulta que era una "guerra contra la OTAN"...
Pues para ser una guerra contra la OTAN de momento ha conseguido que la OTAN se amplíe y llegue hasta sus propias fronteras, y todo ello sin que la OTAN haya intervenido militarmente como organización.
Vamos, como estrategia es una jugada maestra.
ErisMorn escribió:Esparaos que ahora Rusia acusa a EEUU de estar detrás del "intento de asesinato de Putin"
Luego alguno dirá que si la OTAN escala o no el conflicto, aqui el único que está deseando una Tercera Guerra Mundial es Putin.
FEATHIL escribió:@Teklado bueno el otro día decía que Rusia tenía una economía mayor que la de Francia... Le pase datos y ya
gojesusga escribió:FEATHIL escribió:@Teklado bueno el otro día decía que Rusia tenía una economía mayor que la de Francia... Le pase datos y ya
Lo de Francia lo ponía en un video que pasó Pararegistros que duraba 4 horas y vi a cachos 1 minuto. No me molesté en mirar el linkedin dl creador del video ni comerme 4 horas hablando sobre la economía de Rusia, aunque ahora que lo pienso tampoco miré el perfil laboral de tu fuente... quizá se lo dejo a tu compi ahora que ya sabe como hay que hacerlo.
La jugada de Rusia puede ser que sea a la desesperada para o atacar (siempre en defensa propia como nuestro crack geoestrategico de EOL daría el visto bueno )con algo gordo o lo que habían dicho de no celeberar la fiesta esa. Es muy raro todo.
Rauwlyng escribió:@Teklado
El problema no es que haya seres "inteligentes" como Puton o Adolfito, el problema son los "inteligentes" "guiño guiño" que los ponen ahí, los mantienen, los siguen y los que no se atreven a quitarlos de en medio.
Porque parece que Puton es único cabron de esta historia pero hay que ser también muy hijo de puta para seguir a este mal nacido ya sea por convicción o por falta de huevos para plantarse.
Escorpio_28 escribió:Soul Assassin escribió:@Swm84 El hecho de que haya gente no podría confirmarlo ni desmentirlo con un solo video bastante pixelado, yo no lo veo claramente que sean personas. Podrían ser banderas por atrás o algo, ya que a la hora de explotar no las veo agachándose ni haciendo movimientos bruscos.
En este zoom claramente se ven que son personas
O Dae_soo escribió:Ahhhhh.....ya no era una "operación especial", ni "desnazificar Ucrania"......
O Dae_soo escribió:ahora resulta que era una "guerra contra la OTAN"...
O Dae_soo escribió:Pues para ser una guerra contra la OTAN de momento ha conseguido que la OTAN se amplíe y llegue hasta sus propias fronteras, y todo ello sin que la OTAN haya intervenido militarmente como organización.
Vamos, como estrategia es una jugada maestra.
smaz escribió:@gojesusga El gas esta cada vez mas barato me da igual quien lo venda argelia, eeuu o finlandia.
Si porque sea eeuu te da rabia haztelo mirar porque negocios hay por todo el globo y cuando una puerta se cierra otra se abre y con rusia cerrada se han abierto muchas puertas y yo prefiero que las perras se las lleve un socio que esta siendo importantisimo en los tiempos que corren a que se lo lleve el polisario y crearnos problemas con marruecos.
No suelo meterme con la gente pero lo tuyo es digno de estudio
gojesusga escribió:
Va piensa un poco en vez de buscar personas en linkedin...
Que Estados Unidos con la guerra de Ucrania es muy probable que corte el grifo en cuanto se hagan contratos de larga duración con Europa que es lo que les interesaba realmente o por lo menos es lo que yo interpreto. Ha quitado a Rusia del mapa en las relaciones con Europa y se han puestos ellos a precio mucho más caro y Europa ademas va a necesitar hacer unas megainversiones con la consecuente perdida de competitividad que también a Estados Unidos les interesa. Pero vaya, si sigue inyectando dinerico a Ucrania es un doble win sólo para ellos pero nose si será unos ansias o cortará por pena.
Galicha escribió:Por otra parte, esto no era nada nuevo, desde los 90 importantes líderes políticos y geoestrategas OCCIDENTALES ya vaticinaban que la expansión de la OTAN hacia el este traería conflictos con Rusia y ahí lo tenemos, te remito también a mi última intervención.
O Dae_soo escribió:Por puntualizar, "los míos" no son los más listos o los buenos, son los que más respetan la legislación internacional y los derechos humanos.
Galicha escribió:si Rusia hubiera aplicado esta estrategia más brutal que la que llevaron a cabo sobre Kiev, igual no estábamos hablando de guerra hace muchos meses.
SirAzraelGrotesque escribió:Galicha escribió:Por otra parte, esto no era nada nuevo, desde los 90 importantes líderes políticos y geoestrategas OCCIDENTALES ya vaticinaban que la expansión de la OTAN hacia el este traería conflictos con Rusia y ahí lo tenemos, te remito también a mi última intervención.
Es de sentido común. Una organización militar que dirige un poderoso ejército y que fue creada expresamente para combatir y hacer frente a un "enemigo" llamado СССР (ahora Rusia). Si esa organización, con su ejército y sus armas, cada vez va acercándose más al "enemigo", lo lógico es que las tensiones crezcan y que aumenten los conflictos.
Galicha escribió:O Dae_soo escribió:Por puntualizar, "los míos" no son los más listos o los buenos, son los que más respetan la legislación internacional y los derechos humanos.
Si es que te tienes que reir...sólo en las guerras de Irak y Afganistán ha habido entre 1,3 y 2 MILLONES de civiles muertos, depende de la fuente ¿qué me estás contando de legislación internacional? Pregúntale a los muchachos de Oriente Medio a qué saben nuestras democráticas bombas, que yo intuyo que saben igual que las demás.
Y ya que os gusta tanto por aquí las tontunas militares, miraos como ejemplo de INTERVENCIONES MILITARES BRUTALES, la de Bagdad por ejemplo, que no es el primer militar que escucho decir que, si Rusia hubiera aplicado esta estrategia más brutal que la que llevaron a cabo sobre Kiev, igual no estábamos hablando de guerra hace muchos meses.
También le puedes preguntar a los japoneses cómo es que te lancen 2 bombas nucleares encima, son los únicos que pueden contarnos la experiencia o el napalm en Vietnam, debe ser fascinante.
Me pregunto en qué artículos de la legislación internacional dice que se puede lanzar una bomba nuclear o napalm contra población civil (niños incluidos).
¿De verdad no te parece cursi y ridículo cuando estás escribiendo eso? Por favor...
Galicha escribió:O Dae_soo escribió:Por puntualizar, "los míos" no son los más listos o los buenos, son los que más respetan la legislación internacional y los derechos humanos.
Si es que te tienes que reir...sólo en las guerras de Irak y Afganistán ha habido entre 1,3 y 2 MILLONES de civiles muertos, depende de la fuente ¿qué me estás contando de legislación internacional? Pregúntale a los muchachos de Oriente Medio a qué saben nuestras democráticas bombas, que yo intuyo que saben igual que las demás.
Y ya que os gusta tanto por aquí las tontunas militares, miraos como ejemplo de INTERVENCIONES MILITARES BRUTALES, la de Bagdad por ejemplo, que no es el primer militar que escucho decir que, si Rusia hubiera aplicado esta estrategia más brutal que la que llevaron a cabo sobre Kiev, igual no estábamos hablando de guerra hace muchos meses.
También le puedes preguntar a los japoneses cómo es que te lancen 2 bombas nucleares encima, son los únicos que pueden contarnos la experiencia o el napalm en Vietnam, debe ser fascinante.
Me pregunto en qué artículos de la legislación internacional dice que se puede lanzar una bomba nuclear o napalm contra población civil (niños incluidos).
¿De verdad no te parece cursi y ridículo cuando estás escribiendo eso? Por favor...
Oystein Aarseth escribió:Que USA también haya cometido atrocidades para nada legitima la invasión y los crímenes de Rusia contra Ucrania, ambos casos son reprobables, es que es increíble que los pro-rusos pretendan justificar dicha agresión contra el pueblo Ucraniano solo porque USA ha hecho lo mismo en el pasado contra otro pueblos.
De manera hipócrita o por lo que sea pero es importante condenar lo que esta haciendo Rusia y Putin sobre todo, que por cierto yo creo que si el atentado de ayer hubiera tenido éxito, hoy el mundo seria un poquito mejor.
Wence-Kun escribió:Mi duda es si el ruso promedio es tan tonto como para tragarse una movilización o el uso de armas más potentes por parte de su gobierno con esos videos que hemos visto.
Y ojo, pregunto del ruso promedio, porque del defensor y blanqueador de rusia promedio del foro me queda claro.
Wence-Kun escribió:Mi duda es si el ruso promedio es tan tonto como para tragarse una movilización o el uso de armas más potentes por parte de su gobierno con esos videos que hemos visto.
Y ojo, pregunto del ruso promedio, porque del defensor y blanqueador de rusia promedio del foro me queda claro.
Soul Assassin escribió:
Es que hay tantas preguntas que uno no encuentras respuestas lógicas. Quizás pensamos que es un ataque de falsa bandera (es lo que yo creo), pero a lo mejor les han enviado estos drones con protección contra la guerra electrónica. Y como Ucrania esta empezando una contraofensiva, quizás les interesa que desvíen recursos antiaéreos hacia Moscú.
SirAzraelGrotesque escribió:Oystein Aarseth escribió:Que USA también haya cometido atrocidades para nada legitima la invasión y los crímenes de Rusia contra Ucrania, ambos casos son reprobables, es que es increíble que los pro-rusos pretendan justificar dicha agresión contra el pueblo Ucraniano solo porque USA ha hecho lo mismo en el pasado contra otro pueblos.
De manera hipócrita o por lo que sea pero es importante condenar lo que esta haciendo Rusia y Putin sobre todo, que por cierto yo creo que si el atentado de ayer hubiera tenido éxito, hoy el mundo seria un poquito mejor.
Dudo que (casi) nadie legitime, ni justifique nada.
He leído a varios de los considerados por algunos de vosotros como "pro-rusos" condenar y en más de una ocasión al gobierno de Rusia.
Pero todo esto es un bucle del que yo ya he decidido definitivamente mantenerme al margen.Wence-Kun escribió:Mi duda es si el ruso promedio es tan tonto como para tragarse una movilización o el uso de armas más potentes por parte de su gobierno con esos videos que hemos visto.
Y ojo, pregunto del ruso promedio, porque del defensor y blanqueador de rusia promedio del foro me queda claro.
Sin duda. Igual que el español promedio.
Wence-Kun escribió:Mi duda es si el ruso promedio es tan tonto como para tragarse una movilización o el uso de armas más potentes por parte de su gobierno con esos videos que hemos visto.
Y ojo, pregunto del ruso promedio, porque del defensor y blanqueador de rusia promedio del foro me queda claro.