Despite looking like she's dying inside, she loves the cuddles
2021.12.08 03:24 drewby108 Despite looking like she's dying inside, she loves the cuddles
2021.12.08 03:24 Left_Ad_160 Worrying Nightmare
So I had this dream today and I was having sex with a girl and as just I put my D in her V I ejaculated that very moment. I was feeling so embarrassed that I couldn’t hold it and have intercourse.
What kind of interpretation does this dream has 😭
submitted by Left_Ad_160 to erectiledysfunction [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 NiceGuyAbe Ignition Sit and Go vs Cash vs Zone
Seems to me like Cash and Zone games are pretty good damn hard to beat at any level stakes, but tourneys seem really soft. Is this the general consensus here?
submitted by NiceGuyAbe to poker [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 diamondzfriend Flareon is jumping
2021.12.08 03:24 puzzlehead989999 What is the most underrated thing in the world?
submitted by puzzlehead989999 to AskReddit [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 bigguga Quarashi Network platform
2021.12.08 03:24 PaulBLN1892 Add 6026 1329 5514 and stay online :)
2021.12.08 03:24 Sinfullyaya How do i look
2021.12.08 03:24 Schranes Difficult to find a romantic partner cause I have strange demands
First of all I'm definitely not intelligent and never considered myself to be. So it's not like I'm arrogant and think lowly of other people. But I find it so difficult to get attracted to men unless they're super intelligent. That's the only quality I desire. Even when I was a kid I'd only have crush on men with highest marks in mathematics ( seems funny now). Any relationship I ever had I always tried to not judge and keep away any ridiculous desires I have. But in the end I couldn't respect my partner and if you can't respect someone you can't really love them. I understand how bad this is specially when I don't possess that kind of intelligence myself. But after awhile I always lose interest cause I just can't compromise with it. How to deal with this situation?
submitted by Schranes to CasualConversation [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 Dmitrii_Shostakovich real?
2021.12.08 03:24 Sex-Addict_ 18[m4m] looking to get better at sucking dick and even try taking it
i will be house sitting from the 21st-the 24th and just want someone to let me give them head. maybe even give me pointers
submitted by Sex-Addict_ to LasVegasr4r [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 Iamstupid102 What should i play tg or goon
Its my first time playing ss13 and i want the most bs out of that experience i dont know server to chose so please help
submitted by Iamstupid102 to SS13 [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 UNI_ANIME_WORLD How old are you ??
Actually I'm quite 16 but according to reddit I'm only 1day old [I just born yesterday 😅]
submitted by UNI_ANIME_WORLD to UniXitijHarem [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 Larisstone So yeah.....I saw this last week.
2021.12.08 03:24 a_guy001 Does Leo wear thongs?
I think his sugarmomma likes to buy him thongs
submitted by a_guy001 to dannymullen [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 hamishandandys Their crypto portfolio or I just stole their name?
submitted by hamishandandys to hamishandandy [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 Round_Stay8227 Cut my own hair, how did I do?
2021.12.08 03:24 crytoloover floki in. price prediction long time 1000× soon next shiba inu
2021.12.08 03:24 Wonderful-Candle-919 Lf: shiny zeraora Ft: other shinies
I have many shinies. Let me know if you’re interested.
submitted by Wonderful-Candle-919 to PokemonSwordAndShield [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 crytoloover 💡📈NOVA FINANCE | GEMA EN SOLANIUM | COMO GANAR LA MONEDA ANTES QUE LOS DEMÁS
submitted by crytoloover to coinmarketbag [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 rugnix13 What is the book Ron reads in order to understand Hermione better ?
It’s been a long time since I read the books and I don’t own them all anymore just usually watch the movies.
I’m doing a rewatch right now. I cannot remember what book it’s in maybe 6 or 7. But Ron reads a sort of self help book on how to treat girls. It’s really cute and he starts being less insensitive.
Any ideas ?
submitted by rugnix13 to harrypotter [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 theoryofdoom Why Ukraine Matters
After the USSR's dissolution, the administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton undertook considerable diplomatic efforts to prevent the Soviet Union's collapse from increasing nuclear proliferation. At that time, Ukraine inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world: at least 1,900 strategic nuclear weapons. Then, the sole threat to Ukraine was the Russian Federation. Not NATO or the United States.
Ukraine's Nuclear Disarmament in Exchange for NATO-member's Assurances of Security In exchange for Ukraine's agreement to disarm, the United States brokered a deal between Ukraine and Russia known now as the Budapest Memorandum. Parties to the Budapest Memorandum were Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation and the United States. The obligations were for Russia and others to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as the borders were currently drawn. The teeth were NATO's, even if implicitly.
Though not a formal defense pact between NATO and Ukraine, the sole reason Ukraine agreed to disarm was based on the United States' and other NATO members' readiness to provide security assurances. So, if the agreement was ever violated, NATO (and particularly the United States, who brokered the deal) would have to enforce it --- because there was no one else. Then as now, Ukraine lacked any viable defense against the Russian military --- other than that nuclear arsenal, which it gave up in reliance on the word of the United States.
But at the time, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin were of the belief that a new era of friendship between the United States and Russia had materialized and would represent the future of US-Russian bilateral relations. Vladimir Putin has since falsely claimed that a component of those negotiations was something like an implied covenant that NATO would not expand. George H. W. Bush made no such concessions. Nor did Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright or anyone else.
Why Ukraine Matters
- If Russia invades Ukraine, Iran's nuclear hardliners will be emboldened and Iran will never dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
- If Russia further invades Ukraine, China will invade Taiwan.
Consider Libya. Recall that Libya voluntarily dismantled its nuclear program. Gaddafi stated repeatedly that the Administration of George W. Bush, the Blair government, etc. leaned on him to advise Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons programs too --- which he did, at their behest. Libya further revealed the extent of its WMD program, allowed Russian, American and British officials to visit 10 previously unknown nuclear sites and dozens of Libyan laboratories and military factories to search for evidence of nuclear fuel cycle-related activities and for chemical and missile programs --- which they found.
The Islamic world excoriated Gaddafi for doing so. Gaddafi disarmed in exchange for essentially nothing. Gaddafi, however, believed the George W. Bush Administration was negotiating in good faith --- which they were. But the problem wasn't the George W. Bush Administration.
But Gaddafi's mistake wasn't trusting Bush; it was assuming Bush held the same kind of power he held in Libya. The problem was Hillary Clinton, in her capacity as secretary of state during the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton she misread the Arab Spring and mislead the Obama administration as a result. Further, she failed to recognize the implications of what her myopic actions would have to the United States' broader accounts of concern on nuclear proliferation, namely Iran and North Korea.
In what may well prove to be one of the most stunning acts of diplomatic failure in the history of American foreign policy, Hillary Clinton orchestrated events that led to Gaddafi's eventual fall, and in so doing destroyed the United States's credibility before its adversaries when, years later, she proclaimed: We came. We saw. He died.
Iran obviously took note. Iran saw any nuclear talks with the Obama administration through the lens of what Hillary Clinton did to Gaddafi in Libya in and before 2011, despite Gaddafi's agreement with Bush on Libya's nuclear program.
By some act of providence, Iran nevertheless negotiated with the Obama team and a deal was reached in 2015. By all counts, the Obama team struck the best deal that could be had then. It was good while it lasted.
Iran now sees any nuclear talks with the Biden administration, through the lens of what Donald Trump did to the JCPOA after he was elected. Trump's political blunder was less worse than what happened in Libya, but what Putin is preparing to do in Ukraine would be far worse.
American credibility in nuclear negotiations with Iran is on the line. After all, what possible incentive does Iran have to negotiate with the United States over its nuclear program, when it is unwilling to even defend a country that detrimentally relied on the United States' prior assurances? Of what value is its word that it won't invade, should circumstances change in the future? Taiwan
Consider Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. The George W. Bush administration turned a blind eye when Russian forces advanced on Georgian territory in 2008, in violation of Georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty. Putin invaded Georgia was because Mikheil Saakashvili (former Georgian president) was actively pursuing Georgia's induction into NATO. And that event would have laid a pathway to Ukraine's eventual NATO membership.
At that time, Bush was forced to choose between the long-term and more abstract threat to American interests in the Caucuses and the imminent threat to American interests arising from his engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Georgia did not dismantle a nuclear program in detrimental reliance on American security promises, but like Ukraine had been in long-standing talks with Washington and other stakeholders for NATO ascension/membership since the end of the Cold War. Bush also needed access to Russian airspace in order to continue to prosecute those wars, which he would have lost if he questioned Putin's invasion of Georgia. Simply, Iraq and Afghanistan were more important than Georgia to Bush (which given the options on his plate, was probably the right call in the short-term). So Putin got away with it.
Putin further exploited the United States's military overextension in and around 2014, by sending ununiformed Spetsnaz troops into and throughout Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, following Viktor Yanukovych's (former Ukrainian president, disgraced Russian stool-pigeon) fleeing for Moscow in the wake of the Orange Revolution.
To the surprise of none, Putin denied everything until he was confronted with satellite photos of Russian military caravans entering Ukraine with BUK surface-to-air missiles. But that denial gave Obama the latitude ignore, and then do little if anything to defend Ukraine (in whole or part) from Russian aggression. Which is exactly what happened. By then, the "vote" to "join Russia" had already happened in Ukraine, and Putin replicated his adventurism in Georgia on a larger scale. And like Bush with Georgia, other problems were in the forefront of Obama's mind, and Obama needed Putin's ongoing cooperation in and over Syria and in dealing with ISIS. Putin got away with it again.
Now, China wonders what it might get away with. It is no coincidence that the Chinese Communist Party's rhetoric has escalated acutely over Taiwan since Biden was elected. Nor is it a coincidence that China is repeatedly engaging in acts of military aggression in and around Taiwan, its airspace and territorial waters. This is unsurprising, given the nearly complete lack of resistance from Washington and NATO over Ukraine (and Georgia). Further, China views this strategic opening in the context of Biden's disgraced withdrawal from Afghanistan.
In view of Putin's actions, China recognizes that the Biden administration lacks the political capital needed to credibly defend Taiwan. Note, of course, that the stakes for Ukraine and Taiwan are different, but both are compelling. For example, in Ukraine, the stakes are nuclear proliferation. But in Taiwan, the stakes are semiconductor strategic access. Yet from China's perspective, if the Biden administration is willing to let Russia take Crimea (or reduce it to a failed state, to prevent it from joining NATO) then there is no will whatsoever to defend Taiwan against a more powerful force where the United States has profoundly more to lose. Actions versus words over invading Ukraine
Several within the Republican party are arguing that Putin has no intention of invading Ukraine. They argue, among other things, that Putin is just trying to protect Russia's borders in response to Ukrainian troop activity. This is consistent with reports from, among others, Russian media who frame Putin's actions as purely defensive, in response to "Ukraine's creation of threats to the security of Russia." And Putin himself has made the same case, in this recent interview
, where he argues that Russia has "concerns" relating to Ukrainian military exercises which he characterizes as "unplanned."
As a threshold issue, the idea that Ukraine could or would invade Russia is absurd. And History counsels otherwise, including in view of what Saakashvili faced from Putin in Georgia during 2008.
Putin's response here is the military equivalent of a neighbor saying "I saw you lighting candles inside your house without letting me know, so because I am concerned you might light another, I have summoned a fleet of fire trucks and have jumbo jets
at the ready to drop fire retardant on everything around you, just in case you should decide to light another.
Moreover, Russian media continue to prime
the Russian people with ideas like "NATO will not stand up for Ukraine" and the only thing that stands between the Russian Military and Kiev is the unreliable words of Jens Stoltenberg (Alliance Secretary General for NATO) while the White House has done nothing than send Antony Blinken. After all, Canada has proven a more robust and reliable ally
than Washington, under Joe Biden. Meanwhile, Sergei Lavrov continues to make the case that Moscow rejects "transforming" Ukraine into a NATO military foothold, as reported by Kremlin-backed RT
In the next breath, Lavrov is making innuendo about Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgia in 2008 --- the last such "defensive measure" taken by Putin. The connection may not be obvious to some audiences, but what happened in 2008 foretold
the next decade and a half of Putin's military adventurism:
Long before its conventional assault on Georgia, Russia openly backed separatist militants, launched cyberattacks, and used disinformation to meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Initial intelligence reports of Russian forces entering Georgian territory didn’t even cause enough concern to order Georgian military officials back from their holidays. Though Moscow had long attempted to thwart Georgia’s turn to the West, Russia had not launched a conventional military attack on a neighboring country since it invaded Afghanistan in 1979.
But in August 2008, under the auspices of “securing” the separatist enclave, Russia invaded [Georgia]. To say the Kremlin uses disproportionate force is an understatement: Russia bombed Georgian positions with more than 200 aircraft, while the Georgian air force had fewer than a dozen combat aircraft in service. Some 80,000 Russian land troops deployed to Georgia; our entire army stood at less than 30,000.
Yet some in the West, like then-Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, faulted Georgia. Leaving aside the practical impossibility of Georgia attacking a nuclear power 100 times its size, the entirety of the conflict took place on internationally recognized Georgian territory. The Kremlin’s claim that its land forces mobilized overnight in response to an emergency was absurd. Such an onslaught required careful preparation, especially given the mountainous terrain of the Russian-Georgian border.
The reason Putin invaded Georgia in 2008 was because he recognized there was no will in the West to defend that region from the Russian army. Putin correctly recognized that Bush was over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why he recognized his narrow window of opportunity to act and did so before it closed. That was very much a "fortune favors the bold" type risk that paid off. Biden's most significant challenge yet
Putin's strategy here is one of iterative escalation. Based on his actions --- which speak much louder than his words --- Putin hasn't decided whether to invade fully yet or not. By mounting troops on Putin's border, Putin is trying to gain more information about the risks to his interests that are involved.
A credible response from the United States alone will keep the Russian army out of Ukraine. Anything less than that, and this will be a repeat of history --- just like with Georgia in 2008. Whether he will face such a response is what Putin is trying to figure out now. When I say "credible response," I don't mean just the threat of sanctions. I mean the threat of an overwhelming military response by the United States and allied powers. If Putin thinks he can take Crimea without bearing those costs, he will absolutely do so.
A credible response is not simply economic sanctions or other diplomatic maneuvering like the Obama administration undertook during and after 2014. Those sanctions had some impact, but they did not change policy.
After all, Obama had more political leverage then than Biden has now. The United Kingdom will follow Washington but will not act alone. Poland will come to the United States' aid but they simply lack the military capability to deliver. Germany is not going to cancel Nord Stream 2 or future gas supply contracts with Russia over Russia's having invading Ukraine, and will avoid substantive engagement in the conflict at all costs.
Condemnation alone will be the likely limit of Germany's responsive action. Note as well that however harsh Blinken's proposed sanctions may be, their impact will almost certainly be limited by German, in view of their their reliance on Russia for energy. France will bark (because it does not depend on Moscow for gas in the winter) but not bite, as Russia's actions do not implicate France's direct interests. Italy will be predictably silent, or side with Russia just as Berlusconi did when Putin seized Georgia in 2008.
In fact, the only European countries who will stand up for what is proper are those who could be next: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Outside of there, Biden will have to depend on Canada and Australia --- each, unlikely bets given their self-inflicted wounds over COVID. So the only way any attempt at peaceful negotiations can succeed is in the presence of the credible threat of military confrontation as the alternative. Otherwise, politics will be continued by other means. Blood in the water
The writing is on the wall, and the pattern mirrors what happened in 2008.
- Then, Bush was preoccupied with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia deployed 80,000 Russian land troops to fight an army that stood less than 30,000 in response to imagined provocation and Putin calculated NATO would not defend Georgia. And he was right, because Bush did nothing even though his hands then were not even remotely as tied as Biden's are now.
- Now, Biden is preoccupied with his catastrophic failure in Afghanistan, COVID and a rising China, Putin has deployed as many troops as comprise nearly the entire (and arguably less competent, less well supplied and less well trained) Ukrainian army and Putin has calculated that Joe Biden will not defend Ukraine. And he may well be right again for many of the same reasons he was right in 2008.
I don't want war and hope it can be avoided. But I have every expectation that if Russia invades Ukraine, pieces will be exchanged on the chess board. Without a credible military response, the United States may well be forced to contend with irreparable harm to its credibility --- both in terms of nuclear negotiations and its interests in Europe and Asia.
It's one thing to oppose so called "regime change wars" or other misguided military adventurism, like George W. Bush's war in Iraq. But it's another matter entirely to live with the consequences of America's withdrawal from global leadership. It is on that precipice we stand now.
submitted by theoryofdoom
to geopolitics [link] [comments]
2021.12.08 03:24 DanC520 Forum Stomper - day 94
2021.12.08 03:24 crytoloover AVAX VE SOLANA ETHEREUM
2021.12.08 03:24 tsemacow DB #1574 - Grin-nie