Ukraine War

[Smax 3,800]

 Putin going to have Prigozhin murdered here in the next week or two

[cactusflinthead 27,601]

 

[cactusflinthead 27,601]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

God damn, conservatives are fucking stupid.

[Catdaddyhorn 3,447]

18 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

Can someone explain to me why the American right suddenly became full throated supporters of Putin and Russia. Did it all just begin as a misguided attempt to cover for Trump and his obviously affiliation that went too far, or is there something more at play going on here?  I remember back during the 2012 election Romney warning of the rising Russian threat and the Dems downplaying it or not taking his comments very seriously. Now the tables have turned a complete 180 on this view. 

[RomaVicta 29,968]

3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Places Trump can flee to:

• Russia
• North Korea
• Phillipines 
• Hungary

He'll beg Putin to let him sleep on his couch in his Monaco Hideaway. Putin will surely put him up.

Oh, Donald. Sure, you can stay. I leave key under a rock in the garden. (Sets up camera to record futile search.)

 

Just ask the idiots who follow you, buttwad.

[cactusflinthead 27,601]

[hobbes2702 13,055]

Who is this person and why do I care what he thinks?

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

6 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

I'm looking forward to seeing what the orange one has to say about this.  I'm sure that Putin will send him some instructions soon.  It's also going to be interesting to see what the MTG/Boobert/other nut job wing puts out.  Like was said above, there's got to be a lot of concern about paychecks, I mean campaign contributions, in the Republican party right now.

They have to wait to see who comes out ahead then they’ll claim they were with them the whole time. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

36 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Can someone explain to me why the American right suddenly became full throated supporters of Putin and Russia. Did it all just begin as a misguided attempt to cover for Trump and his obviously affiliation that went too far, or is there something more at play going on here?  I remember back during the 2012 election Romney warning of the rising Russian threat and the Dems downplaying it or not taking his comments very seriously. Now the tables have turned a complete 180 on this view. 

The Republicans are for sale and Putin’s buying. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,522]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Who is this person and why do I care what he thinks?

Ma-Ma-Ma, Ma-Mannarino

[cactusflinthead 27,601]

Hey, @nbmishoid. FWIW I don't agree with him. He's an idiot. 

[nbmishoid 962]

Clearly, Cactus.  I was flipping off that guy.  Cheers!

[YGIFS 19,452]

11 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Who is this person and why do I care what he thinks?

I dunno but the first line on his instagram bio is "International Marketing" so you know he's legit.  Also claims to be a frequent political talk show guest but all his clips are of im talking in his car, which by the way I'll give him credit-he turns the F250/Oakley glasses cliche on its head by wearing 1980's Vuarnets for ladies.  

[Horn Dogg 3,939]

2 hours ago, Smax said:

 Putin going to have Prigozhin murdered here in the next week or two

That’s about as sure as the sun coming up tomorrow.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,211]

3 hours ago, C-Man said:

CNN chryon: "Prigozhin: 'We are turning our columns around' amid claims of deal brokered by Lukashenko"

What a pussy.

[Underdog 28,767]

Let me be the first to say that Prigozhin didn't kill himself. 

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Who is this person and why do I care what he thinks?

Someone who has gotten the new talking points.

[Woland 749]

I've wondered this too. Is all of Russia's military at its borders? Is the interior of the country completely unguarded? This definitely feels coordinated and intentional. I am curious to see how ole Putey wriggles his way out of this one

It has happened before. The SDs just didn’t take advantage before the Bolsheviks corrected their mistake.

[mdmost 43,030]

[C-Man 27,254]

Traded by Wagner to Belarus for a first round pick and future considerations

[Bullneck 19,201]

2 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Who is this person and why do I care what he thinks?

I was looking at his tweets earlier today.  He's obviously some kind of Russian troll/disinformation guy.  Posts here under the name "MulletFree."

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

39 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Traded by Wagner to Belarus for a first round pick and future considerations

A bag of balls and a player to be named later?

[C-Man 27,254]

A bag of balls and a player to be named later?

Fuck this fucking war. (long pause)

What time is muster?

[YGIFS 19,452]

So we're leaving Ukraine to take our own Rostov on the way to Moscow to turn around so some can go to Belarus and most to Mali and Sudan and still others back to Ukraine?

georgebluth/ I have the worst fucking travel agents

[Mo Horn 8,853]

Sounds like they gave him an offer he couldn't refuse.  Maybe they had his family, or something, but really strange 180 degree turn of events.  Maybe he just realized he was on a fool's errand and found a way out.  

[Fastbreak 3,990]

4 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Sounds like they gave him an offer he couldn't refuse.  Maybe they had his family, or something, but really strange 180 degree turn of events.  Maybe he just realized he was on a fool's errand and found a way out.  

This is out of the Stalin playbook.  You get the family, then you make the enemy sign a confession.  Then you kill the guy for his crimes (and then you kill the family anyway, so they won't seek revenge).  Classic Russian. 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Fastbreak

[chainsaw 9,873]

1 hour ago, Fastbreak said:

This is out of the Stalin playbook.  You get the family, then you make the enemy sign a confession.  Then you kill the guy for his crimes (and then you kill the family anyway, so they won't seek revenge).  Classic Russian. 

Fell victim to one of the classic blunders

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

1 hour ago, Fastbreak said:

This is out of the Stalin playbook.  You get the family, then you make the enemy sign a confession.  Then you kill the guy for his crimes (and then you kill the family anyway, so they won't seek revenge).  Classic Russian. 

Shades of Kaiser Soze

[Underdog 28,767]

14 hours ago, C-Man said:

Traded by Wagner to Belarus for a first round pick and future considerations

The look you have when you've signed your death sentence. 

[achooloco 1,076]

21 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

Even if he was right… we’d probably help them get rid of nukes and increase trade across the EU. How is any of that bad!!?

[SL Xpress 7,518]

21 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Can someone explain to me why the American right suddenly became full throated supporters of Putin and Russia. Did it all just begin as a misguided attempt to cover for Trump and his obviously affiliation that went too far, or is there something more at play going on here?  I remember back during the 2012 election Romney warning of the rising Russian threat and the Dems downplaying it or not taking his comments very seriously. Now the tables have turned a complete 180 on this view. 

I can give you my sincere view as someone who leans conservative and is horrified by the transition.

The first thing I'd say is that there is always a strong isolationist bent in the American public. REALLY strong. Both sides of the aisle, and independent, too. It's historical from the beginnings of the republic, first widely documented by Alexis de Toqueville in the early/mid 19th century in Democracy in America. The US is really a reluctant world power. We've mostly been driven there by necessity and by elites. The American public in general has no appetite for the kinds of activities the US has involved itself in post world war II to maintain world hegemony. We don't have a good understanding of the costs/benefits, or what kind of price we'd pay for isolation. I'm not saying the country would not be better off if we were more isolationist - I don't agree with it, and I think it would have been a world disaster, but it's not like we can go back and run some kind of real world re-creation to see how things would have worked out instead. 

Invariably pretty much every political town hall I've ever attended, whether a Democrat or Republican representative, if the budget is brought up, or a lack of funding for domestic services, someone points out all the money spent on foreign countries, and how if we just eliminated all of that, we'd have all the money we need. Which isn't even remotely true, but that's the narrative a large segment of Americans have always wanted to believe. 

Second, there's a bit of an isolationist bent in the Republican party historically. Eisenhower famously argued against robust military spending on conventional forces, choosing instead to focus on the relatively cheaper threat of nuclear annihilation as a defense of the country. He won the election in 1952 by a landslide in part because of the involvement in Korea started by the Democrats (although, let's face it - Eisenhower would have won regardless whatever ticket he chose). Richard Nixon won in 1968 in part on his promise to get the US out of Vietnam. In actuality Nixon and Kissinger further entangled the US in all kinds of foreign involvement, but the message to the electorate was less of confrontational engagement and more one of detente and political maneuverings. It was only with Reaganism, the massive expansion of US conventional forces under him, and then its use under Bush I and II, that the Republicans went full foreign adventurism, although the party has certainly been filled with plenty of war hawks, and its traditionally virulent anti communist views - to the point of abuse - are well documented. 

Third, I think Russian disinformation campaigns found early on a ripe audience for their tactics within the alt right. Russia depends on using armies of social media warriors who look to exacerbate any division in any culture. They'll espouse left or right wing positions. They don't care. The main purpose is to create wedges in the fabric of a society to then exploit those wedges for their purposes. They found their money and support went a long way by funding nascent white nationalists and helping them gather followers. As those leaders gained prominence, they often echoed themes aligned with the Kremlin. This isn't just in the US, by the way. Throughout Europe the arch conservative circles are often infused with pro Kremlin sentiment. Le Pen's movement in France. Orban in Hungary. I got in trouble on the Daily Texan Ukraine thread by saying that Putin has positioned himself as something of a white savior, as well as a traditionalist. But he also tries to build ties with autocrats where ever he can, repeating the message over and over again that they can't trust the US as a reliable ally, which is true to an extent. 

Fourth, you have the emergence of Trump. Now, I'll tell you as a conservative I see populist movements on both sides of the aisle. I don't think of Bernie Sanders as intrinsically dangerous for democracy as I do Trump, but he's certainly radically antithetical in my eyes to market economics. I understand that's seen as a feature, not a bug in the eyes of many of his followers. It's not my intent to dissuade anyone from that point of view, even if I could. Which I can't. To me this is an extension of the anger and polarization we'd already seen, often times of the same forces. Tea Party on one side. Occupy Wall Street on the other. Populist candidates are channeling that anger and outrage successfully in their campaigns. But when Trump won the election it galvanized the voices which are sympathetic to Putin and his supporters, and Trump has been feeding it directly and with dog whistles ever since. The fact that the Republican establishment has absolutely caved to him with notable exceptions has been a naked lust for power and a continued need for relevance at the expense of the future of our democracy, in my opinion. 

I will say there is still a great deal of bipartisan support for Ukraine. Texas Republican McCaul has been unabashed about it. Mitch McConnell is ready to pass a supplemental defense budget and authorize more spending on Ukraine right now. Lindsay Graham appeared on Al Franken's podcast a month ago where they jovially talked about their common ground regarding supporting Ukraine. But there's no doubt that the Trump wing of the party along with avowed isolationists like Rand Paul, are in favor of either shutting down support completely, getting some kind of agreement in place along current lines of control, or at the very least making it difficult for Ukraine to obtain further funding, "no blank check." This dovetails with the base, which, because of rabid gerrymandering begun in the 90s and accelerated with every census, is the only group important to reach and gain support from in the vast majority of the districts we've redrawn. 

This strain is always going to be present, in both Democrats and Republicans. Back in the 80s it was the Democrats who were the isolationists, but the Clinton presidency didn't end up reflecting that. I would argue Obama's presidency did, just not as successfully as the rank and file would have preferred. Just yesterday I saw an interview where Obama was defending his administration's inactions following Crimea and Donbas in 2014. I'm not trying to delegitimize his rationale. I'm merely saying that his administration won a mandate in part on the idea he was going to get us out of conflicts, not into new ones. Right now there's still a significant segment of Democrats who feel like we should be spending less on defense and less on Ukraine, and more on domestic needs and progressive agendas. But because their party is the one in the White House, they've circled the wagons to provide support for the president's agenda. For which I'm grateful. 

Anyway, I don't know if any of that is helpful or makes sense, but that's my view of it. 

Edited June 25, 2023 by SL Xpress

[Party_Taco 3,762]

Wasn’t expecting such a considered response in this thread… nice work!

As someone who leans very blue, I feel the investment we’re making in Ukraine has the cleanest cost-benefit of any conflict we’ve supported in my lifetime. The Cold War provided a similar outcome, but the costs were unfathomable and the result was fleeting (see where we are today). This feels altogether different, and if the outcome matches our desire, we could finally see a break from Soviet thinking/control.

You obviously can’t change the Russian psyche, but by removing their conventional military capabilities, their desires for a return to territorial prominence move from potentials to dreams.

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

49 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

I can give you my sincere view as someone who leans conservative and is horrified by the transition.

The first thing I'd say is that there is always a strong isolationist bent in the American public. REALLY strong. Both sides of the aisle, and independent, too. It's historical from the beginnings of the republic, first widely documented by Alexis de Toqueville in the early/mid 19th century in Democracy in America. The US is really a reluctant world power. We've mostly been driven there by necessity and by elites. The American public in general has no appetite for the kinds of activities the US has involved itself in post world war II to maintain world hegemony. We don't have a good understanding of the costs/benefits, or what kind of price we'd pay for isolation. I'm not saying the country would not be better off if we were more isolationist - I don't agree with it, and I think it would have been a world disaster, but it's not like we can go back and run some kind of real world re-creation to see how things would have worked out instead. 

Invariably pretty much every political town hall I've ever attended, whether a Democrat or Republican representative, if the budget is brought up, or a lack of funding for domestic services, someone points out all the money spent on foreign countries, and how if we just eliminated all of that, we'd have all the money we need. Which isn't even remotely true, but that's the narrative a large segment of Americans have always wanted to believe. 

Second, there's a bit of an isolationist bent in the Republican party historically. Eisenhower famously argued against robust military spending on conventional forces, choosing instead to focus on the relatively cheaper threat of nuclear annihilation as a defense of the country. He won the election in 1952 by a landslide in part because of the involvement in Korea started by the Democrats (although, let's face it - Eisenhower would have won regardless whatever ticket he chose). Richard Nixon won in 1968 in part on his promise to get the US out of Vietnam. In actuality Nixon and Kissinger further entangled the US in all kinds of foreign involvement, but the message to the electorate was less of confrontational engagement and more one of detente and political maneuverings. It was only with Reaganism, the massive expansion of US conventional forces under him, and then its use under Bush I and II, that the Republicans went full foreign adventurism, although the party has certainly been filled with plenty of war hawks, and its traditionally virulent anti communist views - to the point of abuse - are well documented. 

Third, I think Russian disinformation campaigns found early on a ripe audience for their tactics within the alt right. Russia depends on using armies of social media warriors who look to exacerbate any division in any culture. They'll espouse left or right wing positions. They don't care. The main purpose is to create wedges in the fabric of a society to then exploit those wedges for their purposes. They found their money and support went a long way by funding nascent white nationalists and helping them gather followers. As those leaders gained prominence, they often echoed themes aligned with the Kremlin. This isn't just in the US, by the way. Throughout Europe the arch conservative circles are often infused with pro Kremlin sentiment. Le Pen's movement in France. Orban in Hungary. I got in trouble on the Daily Texan Ukraine thread by saying that Putin has positioned himself as something of a white savior, as well as a traditionalist. But he also tries to build ties with autocrats where ever he can, repeating the message over and over again that they can't trust the US as a reliable ally, which is true to an extent. 

Fourth, you have the emergence of Trump. Now, I'll tell you as a conservative I see populist movements on both sides of the aisle. I don't think of Bernie Sanders as intrinsically dangerous for democracy as I do Trump, but he's certainly radically antithetical in my eyes to market economics. I understand that's seen as a feature, not a bug in the eyes of many of his followers. It's not my intent to dissuade anyone from that point of view, even if I could. Which I can't. To me this is an extension of the anger and polarization we'd already seen, often times of the same forces. Tea Party on one side. Occupy Wall Street on the other. Populist candidates are channeling that anger and outrage successfully in their campaigns. But when Trump won the election it galvanized the voices which are sympathetic to Putin and his supporters, and Trump has been feeding it directly and with dog whistles ever since. The fact that the Republican establishment has absolutely caved to him with notable exceptions has been a naked lust for power and a continued need for relevance at the expense of the future of our democracy, in my opinion. 

I will say there is still a great deal of bipartisan support for Ukraine. Texas Republican McCaul has been unabashed about it. Mitch McConnell is ready to pass a supplemental defense budget and authorize more spending on Ukraine right now. Lindsay Graham appeared on Al Franken's podcast a month ago where they jovially talked about their common ground regarding supporting Ukraine. But there's no doubt that the Trump wing of the party along with avowed isolationists like Rand Paul, are in favor of either shutting down support completely, getting some kind of agreement in place along current lines of control, or at the very least making it difficult for Ukraine to obtain further funding, "no blank check." This dovetails with the base, which, because of rabid gerrymandering begun in the 90s and accelerated with every census, is the only group important to reach and gain support from in the vast majority of the districts we've redrawn. 

This strain is always going to be present, in both Democrats and Republicans. Back in the 80s it was the Democrats who were the isolationists, but the Clinton presidency didn't end up reflecting that. I would argue Obama's presidency did, just not as successfully as the rank and file would have preferred. Just yesterday I saw an interview where Obama was defending his administration's inactions following Crimea and Donbas in 2014. I'm not trying to delegitimize his rationale. I'm merely saying that his administration won a mandate in part on the idea he was going to get us out of conflicts, not into new ones. Right now there's still a significant segment of Democrats who feel like we should be spending less on defense and less on Ukraine, and more on domestic needs and progressive agendas. But because their party is the one in the White House, they've circled the wagons to provide support for the president's agenda. For which I'm grateful. 

Anyway, I don't know if any of that is helpful or makes sense, but that's my view of it. 

Yep, isolationism, and resentment of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts, gives good cover for the Kremlin-curious (h/t to 936).

But we don't have boots on the ground, so that angle isn't covered, but money is.  As if this is a significant chunk of the budget and as if anyone on the right has ever been concerned about freeing defense spending for anything else.

And then there's just the current right-wing affinity/infatuation for strongmen, bolstered by Trump, both as a strongman poseur, and admirer of strongmen.

And then that leads us to flat out, Biden's for it, I'm agin it.

[wildcat09 29,376]

I have a bit of a different take on the right's isolationist bent. It's not that there isn't one, but it's half a lie. Except for an infinitesimally small minority, those same "isolationists" fully supported the Afghanistan and Iraq wars until it became clear how badly things were going. They would gladly send American troops all over the world to slaughter millions of people.

Many of those "isolationists" on the right would love for American troops to have behaved in Afghanistan and Iraq like Russian troops are behaving in Ukraine, and they would love to see us turn Iran into glass.  What they oppose is "nation building," using American troops to help build up and protect friendly governments overseas. They don't realize that the whole point of that is to benefit American businesses. There are extremely valid critiques of using US forces for this purpose, but right-wing isolationists don't share those critiques, they think it's either misguided liberal altruism or Jewish conspiracies to undermine the American volk.

They're not really isolationist, they just disagree with what they think is the purpose of most US foreign policy as enacted by whatever they see as the establishment (usually Jews). The only thing they would support more enthusiastically than some truly barbaric attacks on foreign countries is using American troops to commit barbaric attacks on their political opponents here at home.

 

[C-Man 27,254]

This get posted?

[Gil Bang 25,999]

 

[Tuco 5,077]

11 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

The fucker might not make July.  He hasn't been seen since Rostov and Russian state media announced "jk, he is still under investigation for armed revolt."  

On one hand, this weekend has been a major tease.  He had a shot at Moscow and Putin.  Shit, even if he had just camped in Rostov for a couple of days, choking out supply and diverting troops, you have to think the Southern front would have collapsed.  

But, that stupid shitstain is all but dead and his forces are scattered and pissed off.  That's a pretty good weekend. 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

 

[cactusflinthead 27,601]

 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

trump supporters loud - this never would've happened under trump!

trump supporters quiet - because he would've given putin everything he wanted well before the first soldier put their boots on.

[Gatorubet 30,290]

On 6/24/2023 at 1:22 PM, Biff Tannen said:

God damn, conservatives are fucking stupid.

Stupid. Mentally ill.  Gullible.  Religious Cultists.   Take your pick. 

Mind you, the Venn Diagram is pretty complicated. 

[atomheartbevo 89,778]

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

I've heard so many right-wing idiots say that on various social media platforms, and my Qanon in-law has said it plenty of times.

Yet they are the ones buying into the dumbest fucking conspiracy theories.

But we're supposed to wake up.

[Gatorubet 30,290]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

I've heard so many right-wing idiots say that on various social media platforms, and my Qanon in-law has said it plenty of times.

Yet they are the ones buying into the dumbest fucking conspiracy theories.

But we're supposed to wake up.

“ Do some research on your own…”

DRINK!

[YGIFS 19,452]

But if we snap out of it, if we WAKE UP...........won't that make us WOKE?  

And if the UA is wearing swaztikas that the media isn't show, but the media is showing American citizens marching/protesting wearing swaztikas...is that not a BLM/Antifa false-flag operation, but rather a UA/NATO false flag operation on our own soil in order to entrap fine people on both sides into being arrested for their political views...a tacit violation of posse comitatus.  Which makes the Russian Military unwilling victims in the FBI's efforts to usurp the real truth about Ukraine's interference in our 2020 election cycle and their energy dealings with Hunter Biden which lured the U.S. into aiding Europe by backfilling what weapons platforms they themselves were giving to Ukraine to bait innocent Russia into fighting under the guise of the Nazis wanting to once and for all finally conquer Euro-Russia.  It's all there on the laptop but you sheep won't wake up and see this is all part of the Deep State-Military-Industrial complex working with the Jewish Media and Ukrainian woke liberalism to prevent Putin from helping his people get out from under the thumb of Wagner Group and the Belarusian puppet regime that is being manipulated as we speak by Hunter Biden and a Mister Ronan Sinatra.  

It's all there people.  Read a fucking book.

[Gatorubet 30,290]

6 is the smallest positive integer that is neither a square number or a prime number. 

6 contrails arranged in accordance with the prophecy make a swastika. 

It is all there.   They don’t want you to watch YouTube.  Which is why the Illuminati put in all those commercials. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,887]

50 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

I've heard so many right-wing idiots say that on various social media platforms, and my Qanon in-law has said it plenty of times.

Yet they are the ones buying into the dumbest fucking conspiracy theories.

But we're supposed to wake up.

But don't you dare be woke. I'm fucking done trying. You can if you want but it's a losing battle. 

[AnTiM 1,669]

Never forget that the best thing about being stupid is not knowing that you are stupid and no one will ever be able to talk you out of it.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,472]

How many Russian soldiers have been killed in Ukraine so far?  The Economist estimates 40-55 thousand.  The Center for Strategic and International Studies puts the number at 60-70k in the first year of the invasion alone.  Analysts reckon that for each person killed there are at least three or more sufficiently wounded to be taken out of action. By that logic, 200,000 Russian soldiers would have been killed or wounded in Ukraine.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/07/10/how-many-russian-soldiers-have-been-killed-in-ukraine?itm_source=parsely-api

[cactusflinthead 27,601]

Cornel West can Fuck Off too