Ukraine War

[Huckleberry 32685]

4 minutes ago, bangkok said:

we are damn close to at war with russia, as the leading economic and military power strongly opposed to russia and supporting ukraine.

without our support, it would be over, and overwhelmingly so in russia's favor.

and fuck, yes, we get a vote, and fuck, yes we should support them.

just stop the violence right now.

in our position of power, can we broker a solution to let both sides move on? 

Well there's the part where you're creating a blueprint whereby aggressive nations get to invade neighbors, kill a lot of people, then keep their ill-gotten gains so the world can "stop the violence." They don't even need to plan on winning a war of invasion anymore, just start one. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Huckleberry

[wildcat09 29187]

2 minutes ago, bangkok said:

we are damn close to at war with russia, as the leading economic and military power strongly opposed to russia and supporting ukraine.

without our support, it would be over, and overwhelmingly so in russia's favor.

and fuck, yes, we get a vote, and fuck, yes we should support them.

just stop the violence right now.

in our position of power, can we broker a solution to let both sides move on? 

Has Joe Biden said or done a single thing to indicate that we're not willing to broker a solution? Literally every single piece of available information indicates that this war is continuing because Putin wants it to continue. He doesn't want peace, he wants to kill Zelensky and punish Ukrainians for not recognizing his right to rule them. 

[Foosters 17691]

3 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The choice is not between "part of Russia" and "sovereign state." It is Russian vassal vs western vassal.

come on man

[wildcat09 29187]

6 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Putin lacks the capability to be Hitler. False analogy.

The choice is not between "part of Russia" and "sovereign state." It is Russian vassal vs western vassal. Neutrality offers them a way to avoid either of those fates and ebnefit from their heretofore cursed position on the map. Again, like Belgium in the 1830s. 200 years later Belgium is the most boring and bougie country in Europe when once it was a bone to be chewed between the Protestant north and the Catholic west and the Germanic speakers and the Latinate speakers. Ukraine exists on a similar fracture zone where the differences are even more subtle. Neutralize and prosperize and if Putin can't deal with that, that's when we attack.

Lol, what the fuck? And you say we're the warmongers?

 

[Caponata 151]

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

One would think a good leftist foreign policy worldview would be generally supportive of peoples' right of self-determination and think that imperial aggression is bad and should be opposed.  

How would a neocon such as yourself know what "good leftist foreign policy" is??

[wildcat09 29187]

1 minute ago, Caponata said:

How would a neocon such as yourself know what "good leftist foreign policy" is??

Thanks for this, I needed something to laugh about today.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Well there's the part where you're creating a blueprint whereby aggressive nations get to invade neighbors, kill a lot of people, then keep their ill-gotten gains so the world can "stop the violence." They don't even need to plan on winning a war if invasion anymore, just start one. 

Our best chance at avoiding global food shortages and the accompanying global destabilization is this getting brought to a reasonable conclusion quickly. The rest of the world should want this wrapped up asap. 

 

What happened to this?

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-reports-15-point-peace-deal-being-seriously-discussed-as-putin-says-hes-ready-to-talk-12567460
 

Withdraw nato application. Military limits ensuring neutrality, recognize Crimea and maybe Donbas as Russian? Those seem like the big points.
 

What else does a peace deal look like that ends this without months and months of more death and destruction? Leave western sanctions in place to hamper Russian reinforcement of military and economy. In the meantime build up western resilience and lessen dependency on Russian energy. 

[bangkok 89]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Has Joe Biden said or done a single thing to indicate that we're not willing to broker a solution? Literally every single piece of available information indicates that this war is continuing because Putin wants it to continue. He doesn't want peace, he wants to kill Zelensky and punish Ukrainians for not recognizing his right to rule them. 

well, i think putin was in over his head here, and he'll very likely try to escalate, especially as he's faced with losses - of face, of troops, economically too.

give the man an out, where he can tuck his tail in and trot back home, and still claim victory.

let the west view it prima facia.

stopping the war should be our foreign policy goal here in the short term.

anything less is destructive.

any counter arguments are escalatory in nature, but i do understand them.

that said, our policy should be promoting peace. 

the alternative is dangerous.

give vlad a chance to tuck and run.

if he doesn't accept it, the game changes, but make the effort first.

[immamac 42492]

Lots of really desperate folks in here making nonsensical arguments. 

War is happening and one person can stop the war and there absolutely will be peace. That person is Putin and it requires him leaving the Ukraine the fuck alone as a sovereign nation. Anything else is stupid and absolutely cause for violence. Ukraine must as a sovereign nation defend their borders, otherwise it is not a sovereign state. 

Everyone wants this over except one person. Stop coming up with ways to placate that person.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Lol, what the fuck? And you say we're the warmongers?

 

well when a sovereign nations starts slaughtering the blue helmets that's when they've really gone off the reservation as far as I am concerned. 

[Hookah Horns 3058]

4 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Being among the last Strong loyalists is no more foolish than believing our CIA-led foreign policy has been right about anything, ever, and here it looks to me like we've goaded Ukraine into picking a fight they can't win. We will defend their country to the last Ukrainian.

Or maybe not. The other option is WW3. Some of y'all seem think it will be a breeze but I am not so sure. Russia sucks on the road but is salty at home. 

1. Putin is an autocratic thug who kills dissidents on occasion and runs a kleptocracy. That said, he is at reasonably popular in Russia.

2. Over the last 23 years, we (US-led NATO) have been backing him into a corner with two rounds of NATO expansion and worse, the promise of a third for Georgia and Ukraine. 

3. We have always known Ukraine is a red line for Russia. We have always claimed it is of no strategic value to us. Why then did we promise them NATO membership?

4. He has responded militarily twice before -- in Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. This invasion should not have surprised anybody (though it did everybody, including me) because this is what he has said he would do.

5. His plans go no further than breaking Ukraine. He does not plan to occupy it, much less go blazing off into NATO-land. Maybe he would like to but he just can't, and more, doesn't have even the potential to do so.

6. To understand global strategy you must have empathy. Not sympathy, but the ability to see things from the other perspective. You continually write off any argument along these lines as Whataboutism, but, fuck it -- well, what about if Mexico suddenly aligned with Russia and wanted to put a joint base in the port of Veracruz? Or had tank muzzles casting shadows in the Rio Grande? Or if Canada and China got cozy and the Chinese fleet steamed into their new base in Vancouver? This is what Ukraine in NATO looks like to Russia.

7. So what, you say. Fuck 'em. Well, here we are. And unless you are prepared to keep escalating this until we reach ww3, this is where we will always be. 

 

There is a solution. A neutral Ukraine. Let Putin keep Crimea and the eastern provinces, but he GTFO out of the rest of the nation and we send in the Blue Helmets. He doesn't get to install a puppet -- the Ukrainians get to choose their leaders. Wealthy nations pour money into the country to rebuild. We strive to make Kyiv an international banking hub. If it's a little shady, we look the other way.

There is a precedent -- albeit an imperfect one -- in the 1839 Treaty of London that assured Belgian neutrality. Belgium can be seen as a sort of western version of the Ukraine in that it lies on a linguistic (and in Belgium's case, also a religious) fault line and at the time was situated between great warring powers. The treaty was honored until 1914, and when the Germans violated it, the consequences were drastic indeed.

This is the only sensible endgame for Ukraine: true neutrality. Otherwise the country will remain a chew toy in a tug of war between east and west forever.

There's too much wrong here to deal with it all, but please explain how admitting more countries into a defensive alliance like NATO is backing Russia or Putin into a corner? Are you telling me that it's reasonable for Putin to worry about NATO invading a peaceful Russia? 

By the way, the first half of your first sentence is the dumbest possible collection of words in the English language. If you were going for that, I salute you. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Hookah Horns

[Foosters 17691]

Still waiting for someone to explain how we unilaterally force a peace deal upon Ukraine which contains provisions they have repeatedly said are non-starters. When the deal is signed by the US and Russia (bc Ukraine will obviously not sign it) how do we enforce it when Ukrainian soldiers and separatists continue to bomb, shoot at, and kill Russian soldiers? We going to send some troops into Ukraine to "remind" them to abide by the agreement they didn't sign?

[ConferenceRoom 6123]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Still waiting for someone to explain how we unilaterally force a peace deal upon Ukraine which contains provisions they have repeatedly said are non-starters. When the deal is signed by the US and Russia (bc Ukraine will obviously not sign it) how do we enforce it when Ukrainian soldiers and separatists continue to bomb, shoot at, and kill Russian soldiers? We going to send some troops into Ukraine to "remind" them to abide by the agreement they didn't sign?

We'll send in a Special Military Operation to prevent a war. 

[wildcat09 29187]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

well when a sovereign nations starts slaughtering the blue helmets that's when they've really gone off the reservation as far as I am concerned. 

So let me get this straight. Right now he's "negotiating" humanitarian corridors and immediately targeting them and shelling them, slaughtering countless innocent civilians including many children, and you think we shouldn't help arm Ukraine to fight him off. But if he kills UN soldiers we should invade Russia?

You're completely fucking incoherent, man. 

[TexArcher 37455]

4 minutes ago, bangkok said:

well, i think putin was in over his head here, and he'll very likely try to escalate, especially as he's faced with losses - of face, of troops, economically too.

give the man an out, where he can tuck his tail in and trot back home, and still claim victory.

let the west view it prima facia.

stopping the war should be our foreign policy goal here in the short term.

anything less is destructive.

any counter arguments are escalatory in nature, but i do understand them.

that said, our policy should be promoting peace. 

the alternative is dangerous.

give vlad a chance to tuck and run.

if he doesn't accept it, the game changes, but make the effort first.

 

[wildcat09 29187]

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Still waiting for someone to explain how we unilaterally force a peace deal upon Ukraine which contains provisions they have repeatedly said are non-starters. When the deal is signed by the US and Russia (bc Ukraine will obviously not sign it) how do we enforce it when Ukrainian soldiers and separatists continue to bomb, shoot at, and kill Russian soldiers? We going to send some troops into Ukraine to "remind" them to abide by the agreement they didn't sign?

The governments that are actually much closer to being our client states (Israel and Saudi Arabia) don't even listen to us. Ukraine sure as shit isn't going to surrender just because we tell them to.

[bangkok 89]

3 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

 

are you able to provide a cohesive reply?

my contention is peace should be the priority.

and yours is.. peace is retarded?

[PsychMike 1537]

4 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

 it looks to me like we've goaded Ukraine into picking a fight

 

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I had to stop here, my CEO heard me laughing and wanted to know what was so funny.

Aw, now c'mon Jimmy, you knew the Ukrainians built castles on their border with Russia and were doing this!

 

[Captainant 27311]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The governments that are actually much closer to being our client states (Israel and Saudi Arabia) don't even listen to us. Ukraine sure as shit isn't going to surrender just because we tell them to.

Yeah if anything, that would drive a wedge between the US and the EU. Not to mention putting the lie to the stated foreign policy goal of self-determination for a nation's people. Which is of course why GRUhorn is in favor of it. 

[Huckleberry 32685]

15 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Our best chance at avoiding global food shortages and the accompanying global destabilization is this getting brought to a reasonable conclusion quickly. The rest of the world should want this wrapped up asap. 

 

What happened to this?

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-reports-15-point-peace-deal-being-seriously-discussed-as-putin-says-hes-ready-to-talk-12567460
 

Withdraw nato application. Military limits ensuring neutrality, recognize Crimea and maybe Donbas as Russian? Those seem like the big points.
 

What else does a peace deal look like that ends this without months and months of more death and destruction? Leave western sanctions in place to hamper Russian reinforcement of military and economy. In the meantime build up western resilience and lessen dependency on Russian energy. 

Are you arguing in favor of the rest of the world dictating to Ukraine, a recognized sovereign nation, that they must cede their territory to an invading nation so we can have our carbs? 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

News flash:  the decision to engage in warfare is rarely clear-cut.  War sucks. 

The fever dreams of "giving Putin an out" are lunacy.  He's not looking for an out.  He'll escalate as much as he feels necessary.

I truly believe the end game is a bullet in his head.  I don't believe for a minute that we aren't working on that.

[The Royal We 3059]

12 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

well when a sovereign nations starts slaughtering the blue helmets that's when they've really gone off the reservation as far as I am concerned. 

What in the actual fuck man!?  Blue helmets are where you draw the line?  Not the slaughtering of women and children all over Ukraine that there is ample evidence of already?  I understand the overall argument you are trying to make here, but you're flailing wildly now.

[Hookah Horns 3058]

27 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Putin lacks the capability to be Hitler. False analogy.

The choice is not between "part of Russia" and "sovereign state." It is Russian vassal vs western vassal. Neutrality offers them a way to avoid either of those fates and ebnefit from their heretofore cursed position on the map. Again, like Belgium in the 1830s. 200 years later Belgium is the most boring and bougie country in Europe when once it was a bone to be chewed between the Protestant north and the Catholic west and the Germanic speakers and the Latinate speakers. Ukraine exists on a similar fracture zone where the differences are even more subtle. Neutralize and prosperize and if Putin can't deal with that, that's when we attack.

Good lord. The US and other NATO members hypothetically agreeing to apply their superior might in defense of a weaker country like Ukraine is damn near the exact opposite of them being our vassal. 

Why are you acting like we are trying to coerce Ukraine into something that really benefits only us? The reality is that Ukraine's been begging to be part of the West, not the other way around. And they'd gain a fuck load more from it than we would. 

Get your weak ass Russian propaganda out of here. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

4 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

What in the actual fuck man!?  Blue helmets are where you draw the line?  Not the slaughtering of women and children all over Ukraine that there is ample evidence of already?  I understand the overall argument you are trying to make here, but you're flailing wildly now.

Not to mention Russia would never agree to the UN running Ukraine, which is a pretty big deal when Russia *checks notes* has a fucking veto on the security council. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Dahobbs

[kevwun 15595]

MaybeTryLurking has a better ring to it.

[956 Worldwide 34314]

3 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Why is a UN-mandated neutral Ukraine a bad idea?

So Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and they have to vote yes to any UN peacekeeping.  And Russia invaded Ukraine and thinks that it is super fucking cool that they did, so I’m not sure where this UN force is coming from. 

[TexArcher 37455]

12 minutes ago, bangkok said:

are you able to provide a cohesive reply?

my contention is peace should be the priority.

and yours is.. peace is retarded?

Okay, snapperhead, let me ask you this: when you were bullied as a kid, was your response to let the bully pound on you until his arms got tired and he went away claiming victory, out of fear that any other response would make you guilty of escalating?

Because that's what you're advocating here on a much larger scale.  And, yeah, it's fucking retarded.

 

[Caponata 151]

43 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Thanks for this, I needed something to laugh about today.

Outside of maybe abortion what do you and likes of Bill Kristol.disagree on?

[Foosters 17691]

1 minute ago, Caponata said:

Outside of maybe abortion what do you and likes of Bill Kristol.disagree on?

 I get that you think you're being funny, but the fact that you think Neo-Cons like Kristol are the same as leftists and progressives reveals far more about you than the intended target. Hey, at least Kristol didn't abandon everything he stood for just because Donald Trump told him to.

[Neonmoon 38127]

This playbook seems familiar 

 

[Willfully Horn 7913]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

D is for doe, a female deer. 

Edward Gorey deserves the mention.

I couldn’t leave it at ‘ennui.’

[956 Worldwide 34314]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

This playbook seems familiar 

 

Fucking LULZ. Tag your selfies anywhere from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok, from Magnitogorsk to Vladikavkaz. Make sure that booty pops. 
 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

So many of you made such similar arguments 20-odd years ago when justifying our invasion of Iraq. You swore you learned your lesson. You clearly have not. This is not a world that operates the way the United States wishes it would. Once you accept the (false) premise that Putin is not a rational actor but instead a diabolical madman, and that the only solution to avoid a potential World War 3 is a Russian general capping his ass, there is no talking to you about facts on the ground. 

Why is it irrational for Putin to fear hundreds of miles of NATO on his western flank? We don't allow hostile powers in an entire hemisphere, much less on our border. We were ready to destroy the planet over nukes in Cuba, as some of you might recall. 

And already we've pretty much betrayed the Ukrainian people by emboldening them into taking this stand. Even with all the weapons we are giving them, we are giving every appearance of only being willing to defend their country to the last Ukrainian. And who is going to pick up the tab for the devastation once the Rooskies pull out? I know a bunch of y'all live in this fantasyland where they will be forced to pay reparations, but that's not how this shit works. Personally IDK who will pay for it; I do know it sure as shit won't be the Russians.

But y'all are transfixed by the idea that Putin is an evil madman and submersed in every horrific detail of the war the Ukrainian media puts out there. Which is their job in a time of war, but should also, for that very reason, be tinged with skepticism, i.e. why would the Russians invite civiliians to flee by a certain route, and then shell them; why would the Russians "kidnap" tens of thousands of Ukrainians (when it might be possible those are ethnic Russians needing protection from reprisals by Ukrainian partisans); or in short, not beleving what you read until it is reported by an accredited source from an at least ostensibly neutral nation.

Again, neutral Ukraine is best Ukraine. 

[bangkok 89]

8 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Okay, snapperhead, let me ask you this: when you were bullied as a kid, was your response to let the bully pound on you until his arms got tired and he went away claiming victory, out of fear that any other response would make you guilty of escalating?

Because that's what you're advocating here on a much larger scale.  And, yeah, it's fucking retarded.

 

false premise, non sequitur. so, no addressing that directly would be illogical.

clearly we're the worlds strongest military and economic power.

our interests rightfully lie in maintaining that. 

i'm advocating we best maintain that power by sending a weakened putin home where he can spout a moral victory (a la aggy beating bama), which his own people will eat up. rather than forcing him into submission directly, which would likely escalate things. we'd kick his ass, at a high cost though.. lets avoid that.

every other county, probably outside of his closest allies can see he was defeated, a victory for us. (again, like aggy)

ukraine pursues democracy hopefully, though it's in its infancy and conflict will continue.

the danger to the contrary (indefinitely sending weapons), lies in escalating this to a point where hundreds of thousands of innocents may be at risk, and it may further risk a full-scale nato response. yes we'd fuck them up, at a very high cost. avoid war.

so, in your bullied kid scenario which is not an appropriate analogy, russia actually would be the bullied kid - not us. we sanctioned them, we sent arms to their enemy, we got all of our friends/allies join with us, we seized their assets, we did everything we could to inflict damage without swinging fists directly. they felt threatened, and like they were looked down upon among the world at large, and aligned with other "bullied kids" - look at their allies.

now, is that legit? no fucking way.

russia instigated this and brought this on themselves, maybe not too different than a bullied kid might by acting like they were strong or one of the "cool kids", whatever the fuck, misconceptions.

and so we want them to go home and think about what they've done, perhaps find a new path, rather than bringing out the semi-autos and raging out the latest school shooting.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Seems like this needs posting every day now.

[kevwun 15595]

Use the ignore feature.  Goodbye MaybeI'mNevilleChamberlain.

[wildcat09 29187]

24 minutes ago, Caponata said:

Outside of maybe abortion what do you and likes of Bill Kristol.disagree on?

Well I opposed invading Iraq.

[Huckleberry 32685]

11 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

So many of you made such similar arguments 20-odd years ago when justifying our invasion of Iraq. You swore you learned your lesson.

Show your work.  (Hint: you're either lying or just wrong) 

[kevwun 15595]

Iraq works, but not in the way he wants it to.  Russia is fucking up here just like the US did in invading Iraq.  Except our military actually conquered the country and toppled Saddam before it descended in to a shitshow of sectarian violence.  The US and Russia can both have been wrong.  Letting Russia get away with it because we fucked up in the past is stupid.

Edited March 25, 2022 by kevwun

[Brisketexan 104465]

17 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This playbook seems familiar 

 

9 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

 

Again, neutral Ukraine is best Ukraine. 

Before the war, I suspect most around here would have agreed with you.  But wars -- as they often do, in ways both intended and unintended -- can seriously change shit.  "New shit has come to light."  Your fantasy of a neutral Ukraine that is accepted by all involved and remains neutral and not fucked with has less of a chance of happening than my fantasy of a lovely weekend at a hot tub-equipped cabin with Ms. Sela Ward.

Reality starts today.  The chess board is arranged the way it is today.  Not the way it was a month ago -- today.  You are proposing a perhaps viable strategy for how to play out a chess match on a board that existed a month ago.  That board is gone.  

Ukraine is in an existential fight.  They aren't going to just lay down their arms and give up.  Nor should anyone expect them to.  And even if we stopped equipping them today, they'd fight with fucking chainsaws and busted-up old AKs if they had to.  And they'd be insurgents going forward.  What has been set in motion can't be rolled back via time machine.  

We are playing this out correctly, generally speaking.  Let Russia further weaken itself.  Let Ukraine further assert its sovereignty.  Putin will find an offramp if he wants to.  If he doesn't, he'll get stuck in a quagmire where more Russians die every day, and Russia is further isolated and made a pariah state (as it should be).  You compare this to the Iraq war....but you missed a pretty big fucking difference.  In Iraq, the US had the support -- much of it lukewarm -- of only its real allies.  In this war.....all but the usual suspects are not just opposed to Russia's actions, but they are stridently opposed.  Shit, we're probably spending as much diplomatic effort on keeping Poland from going HAM on Russia as we are on dealing with Ukraine.

Sometimes, there's a bad guy doing bad things.  And sometime, the game reaches a point where that bad guy is engaged by everyone else.  He chose the time and place.  He chose poorly.

[TexasEd 8062]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Ask the people of Crimea where they would rather be. This is about popular demand, right?

Crimea was annexed because of Sevastopol military base leased to Russia and Oligarch villa vacation homes, not because of local sentiment.  You really have swallowed the fire hose of Russian disinformation.

[956 Worldwide 34314]

18 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

So many of you made such similar arguments 20-odd years ago when justifying our invasion of Iraq. You swore you learned your lesson. You clearly have not. This is not a world that operates the way the United States wishes it would. Once you accept the (false) premise that Putin is not a rational actor but instead a diabolical madman, and that the only solution to avoid a potential World War 3 is a Russian general capping his ass, there is no talking to you about facts on the ground. 

Why is it irrational for Putin to fear hundreds of miles of NATO on his western flank? We don't allow hostile powers in an entire hemisphere, much less on our border. We were ready to destroy the planet over nukes in Cuba, as some of you might recall. 

And already we've pretty much betrayed the Ukrainian people by emboldening them into taking this stand. Even with all the weapons we are giving them, we are giving every appearance of only being willing to defend their country to the last Ukrainian. And who is going to pick up the tab for the devastation once the Rooskies pull out? I know a bunch of y'all live in this fantasyland where they will be forced to pay reparations, but that's not how this shit works. Personally IDK who will pay for it; I do know it sure as shit won't be the Russians.

But y'all are transfixed by the idea that Putin is an evil madman and submersed in every horrific detail of the war the Ukrainian media puts out there. Which is their job in a time of war, but should also, for that very reason, be tinged with skepticism, i.e. why would the Russians invite civiliians to flee by a certain route, and then shell them; why would the Russians "kidnap" tens of thousands of Ukrainians (when it might be possible those are ethnic Russians needing protection from reprisals by Ukrainian partisans); or in short, not beleving what you read until it is reported by an accredited source from an at least ostensibly neutral nation.

Again, neutral Ukraine is best Ukraine. 

Fucking cope cage.  Another post as a cope cage. 
 

Putin isn’t a diabolical madman. He had bad assumptions driven by bad information because of his authoritarian system. Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of joining NATO and he knew that. He told you and the Russian nation why he invaded Ukraine- he thinks it’s not a real country, he wanted it, and he thought it would be easy and the West would fracture. He was wrong. 
 

GTFO out of here with your bullshit about Russia not really shelling corridors or taking hostages. Putin has done this shit for 20 fucking years in Grozny and Syria. It’s the playbook.  But you have said you watch RT for their perspective. Do you have barber shop floor sweepings inside your skull cavity? Cause that’s the only reason I can see to watch RT. 

[kevwun 15595]

And stop shitting all over this board with lies and stupidity.  You have proven time and again that you are a straight up fucking idiot.  Move to Russia or go post on TexAgs.  I don't care which, as long as you fuck right off.

Edited March 25, 2022 by kevwun

[wildcat09 29187]

32 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

So many of you made such similar arguments 20-odd years ago when justifying our invasion of Iraq. You swore you learned your lesson. You clearly have not. This is not a world that operates the way the United States wishes it would. Once you accept the (false) premise that Putin is not a rational actor but instead a diabolical madman, and that the only solution to avoid a potential World War 3 is a Russian general capping his ass, there is no talking to you about facts on the ground. 

Why is it irrational for Putin to fear hundreds of miles of NATO on his western flank? We don't allow hostile powers in an entire hemisphere, much less on our border. We were ready to destroy the planet over nukes in Cuba, as some of you might recall. 

And already we've pretty much betrayed the Ukrainian people by emboldening them into taking this stand. Even with all the weapons we are giving them, we are giving every appearance of only being willing to defend their country to the last Ukrainian. And who is going to pick up the tab for the devastation once the Rooskies pull out? I know a bunch of y'all live in this fantasyland where they will be forced to pay reparations, but that's not how this shit works. Personally IDK who will pay for it; I do know it sure as shit won't be the Russians.

But y'all are transfixed by the idea that Putin is an evil madman and submersed in every horrific detail of the war the Ukrainian media puts out there. Which is their job in a time of war, but should also, for that very reason, be tinged with skepticism, i.e. why would the Russians invite civiliians to flee by a certain route, and then shell them; why would the Russians "kidnap" tens of thousands of Ukrainians (when it might be possible those are ethnic Russians needing protection from reprisals by Ukrainian partisans); or in short, not beleving what you read until it is reported by an accredited source from an at least ostensibly neutral nation.

Again, neutral Ukraine is best Ukraine. 

Are you seriously disputing the fucking hundreds of reports of them targeting civilians?

Are you an Assad guy too?

[Dutchrudder 11103]

42 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This playbook seems familiar 

 

This is going to work out about as well as a pair of black leather pants. 

[Willfully Horn 7913]

35 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Why is it irrational for Putin to fear hundreds of miles of NATO on his western flank? We don't allow hostile powers in an entire hemisphere

Cuber.

 

Geez.

[Hefeweizen 5307]

13 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Crimea was annexed because of Sevastopol military base leased to Russia and Oligarch villa vacation homes, not because of local sentiment.  You really have swallowed the fire hose of Russian disinformation.

There has also been settlement by Russians and movement of people out.  Russian propaganda being repeated gets really old.  Little green men were sent in to set up annexation.

 

Or are we cool with countries redrawing boundaries by force  now?  Because you open that door and a lot of nations are stepping through it.

[Hookah Horns 3058]

39 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

So many of you made such similar arguments 20-odd years ago when justifying our invasion of Iraq. You swore you learned your lesson. You clearly have not. This is not a world that operates the way the United States wishes it would. Once you accept the (false) premise that Putin is not a rational actor but instead a diabolical madman, and that the only solution to avoid a potential World War 3 is a Russian general capping his ass, there is no talking to you about facts on the ground. 

Why is it irrational for Putin to fear hundreds of miles of NATO on his western flank? We don't allow hostile powers in an entire hemisphere, much less on our border. We were ready to destroy the planet over nukes in Cuba, as some of you might recall. 

And already we've pretty much betrayed the Ukrainian people by emboldening them into taking this stand. Even with all the weapons we are giving them, we are giving every appearance of only being willing to defend their country to the last Ukrainian. And who is going to pick up the tab for the devastation once the Rooskies pull out? I know a bunch of y'all live in this fantasyland where they will be forced to pay reparations, but that's not how this shit works. Personally IDK who will pay for it; I do know it sure as shit won't be the Russians.

But y'all are transfixed by the idea that Putin is an evil madman and submersed in every horrific detail of the war the Ukrainian media puts out there. Which is their job in a time of war, but should also, for that very reason, be tinged with skepticism, i.e. why would the Russians invite civiliians to flee by a certain route, and then shell them; why would the Russians "kidnap" tens of thousands of Ukrainians (when it might be possible those are ethnic Russians needing protection from reprisals by Ukrainian partisans); or in short, not beleving what you read until it is reported by an accredited source from an at least ostensibly neutral nation.

Again, neutral Ukraine is best Ukraine. 

Why won't you explain how a fucking defensive alliance threatens Russia unless they start rampaging through Europe? I asked nicely. 

I really want to hear this retarded reasoning.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

How the hell is the misguided invasion of Iraq, based on intelligence community fabrications that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the same as supporting a smaller independent nation on the verge of getting run over by a superpower?

I mean, could you get it more backwards?  With Iraq, WE were "Russia", or at least closer to it.

[RomaVicta 29756]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

So let me get this straight. Right now he's "negotiating" humanitarian corridors and immediately targeting them and shelling them, slaughtering countless innocent civilians including many children, and you think we shouldn't help arm Ukraine to fight him off. But if he kills UN soldiers we should invade Russia?

You're completely fucking incoherent, man. 

Thanks for saving me a post saying the same thing. 

As for a neutral, demilitarized Ukraine, where would we be today is that were the antebellum posture of Ukraine? 

Ukraine would be a captive state. We'd be likely doing weaker sanctions against Russia knowing that sooner or later we'll have to normalize again. 

Today we have strong sanctions, a free Ukraine, and a unified West willing to stay the course. We have a Russia discredited as a brother nation (Cain?) whose military has proven to be something way short of a big stick. This may be the most righteous conflict since WWII.

Longterm US interests are being served very well at the moment. I wouldn't have traded the lives of the Ukrainians for this position, but I wasn't given a choice. We all react to Putin's disastrous choice.