whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

There’s also a real possibility that things will spiral out of control. In fact, all this pressure will likely lead to some very negative unpredictable consequences. When those emerge as an emergency, those who pushed & pushed will act surprised & pretend they’re blameless. pic.twitter.com/L4MS2D7jwk

— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) January 26, 2023

---

So, what does Max suggest?

---

Negotiations

---

Which rewards Putin for invading another Nation and disregarding past agreements. (Obama already did that once, shrugging off Russia's actions as not a core US concern. So I guess Putin is not to blame to think he could do whatever he wanted with no concern.)

---

Oh the "we never negotiate" position.

Great.

So this ends how? Nuclear war in Eastern Europe?

---

Frankly, we don't want it to end too soon.

---

This is evil

---

This is good policy for the US citizen. This is the only way to destroy Russian war-making capability without escalating to scenarios that actually do risk the use of nuclear weapons.

A political settlement today partitions Ukraine. It' strengthens Russia with more people and more resources. It guarantees that in 3-5 years, there will be another round in either Ukraine or Transnistria. And after that, Russian troops will camp along the Nato borders, and Russia will step up efforts to politically destabilize 1 or more Nato countries for the purpose of causing them to withdraw from Nato. Those scenarios are far riskier than the one we have today. It would be quite naive to think Russian troops on the Hungarian border (for example) will not have greater influence on Hungarian foreign policy than if they were camped on the Ukrainian border 500 miles away.

As long as the Ukrainians want to fight, we supply them with the ordnance to blow the Russian war machine apart, bit by bit. Every round fired decreases the odds the kids we have in military uniform, of which I have two, will have to face Russian troops in the future.

We fight Russia where they are today to prevent us from having to fight them inside Nato a decade from now. And the Ukrainians are willing to do the fighting for us. All we have to do is supply them with the tools to do it.

---

Putin can end this at any time and negotiate. Just pull back to Russian soil.

If the Russians that live in Crimea and Donbas want to be Russian, negotiate letting them emigrate to Russia. Using the logic that the pro-Russia group states we should agree with Reconquista and turn over the SW US to Mexico. If they don't get their way, start a war. Then negotiate. We will only give them south Texas and Arizona, what a great diplomatic victory.

This isn't Ukraine vs Russia. It's NATO vs Russia.

Supposedly Ukraine was destroying Russia according to our media and now we're having to send in tanks. I'm tired of y'all biting the bait. Wake up!

You think elites actually care about Ukraine? Y'all all saw little kids get droned for the past 20 years. Y'all all saw legacy media lie about war for the past 20 years as well.

People are being far too flippant about killing people.

Doc Holliday said:

---

This isn't Ukraine vs Russia. It's NATO vs Russia.

Supposedly Ukraine was destroying Russia according to our media and now we're having to send in tanks. I'm tired of y'all biting the bait. Wake up!

You think elites actually care about Ukraine? Y'all all saw little kids get droned for the past 20 years. Y'all all saw legacy media lie about war for the past 20 years as well.

People are being far too flippant about killing people.

---

Once again, Russia and Putin can stop this today, leave the borders of the sovereign nation THEY invaded in 2014 & 2020. Let the Russians in Ukraine emigrate to Russia. Hell, giving them a payout is cheaper than this. Vlads move to stop it, he is the one that invaded. It is a positive that the rest of the world is not going to allow this to stand.

Doc Holliday said:

---

This isn't Ukraine vs Russia. It's NATO vs Russia.

Supposedly Ukraine was destroying Russia according to our media and now we're having to send in tanks. I'm tired of y'all biting the bait. Wake up!

You think elites actually care about Ukraine? Y'all all saw little kids get droned for the past 20 years. Y'all all saw legacy media lie about war for the past 20 years as well.

People are being far too flippant about killing people.

---

I swear it's like you get all your talking points directly from Russian propaganda.

You hit all the high notes:
Russia isn't losing to Ukraine, it's actually NATO. Check.

Russia isn't even actually losing, they're winning (contradicting previous propaganda, but who's keeping track). Check.

The scary "elites" don't care about Ukraine, they only wanna drone strike kids, with vague references to Iraq/Afghan that mean nothing to the current context. Check.

Then a closing of false concern for war deaths, somehow blaming the US for Russians killing Ukrianians. Check.

Bravo, it could have come directly from Russian late night cable news and nobody would be able to tell the difference. Putin certainly got his money's worth and then some when he started backing the far right. You think there would be some learned humility after all your pro-Russia "investigate the investigators" trash blew up in your faces repeatedly, but nope, just keep sucking on that Russian tit.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Negotiations

---

Which rewards Putin for invading another Nation and disregarding past agreements. (Obama already did that once, shrugging off Russia's actions as not a core US concern. So I guess Putin is not to blame to think he could do whatever he wanted with no concern.)

---

Oh the "we never negotiate" position.

Great.

So this ends how? Nuclear war in Eastern Europe?

---

Frankly, we don't want it to end too soon.

---

This is evil

---

This is good policy for the US citizen. This is the only way to destroy Russian war-making capability without escalating to scenarios that actually do risk the use of nuclear weapons.

A political settlement today partitions Ukraine. It' strengthens Russia with more people and more resources. It guarantees that in 3-5 years, there will be another round in either Ukraine or Transnistria. And after that, Russian troops will camp along the Nato borders, and Russia will step up efforts to politically destabilize 1 or more Nato countries for the purpose of causing them to withdraw from Nato. Those scenarios are far riskier than the one we have today. It would be quite naive to think Russian troops on the Hungarian border (for example) will not have greater influence on Hungarian foreign policy than if they were camped on the Ukrainian border 500 miles away.

As long as the Ukrainians want to fight, we supply them with the ordnance to blow the Russian war machine apart, bit by bit. Every round fired decreases the odds the kids we have in military uniform, of which I have two, will have to face Russian troops in the future.

We fight Russia where they are today to prevent us from having to fight them inside Nato a decade from now. And the Ukrainians are willing to do the fighting for us. All we have to do is supply them with the tools to do it.

---

You've acknowledged a couple of times that Russia invading a NATO country unprovoked is about as likely as Saddam Hussein dropping that mushroom cloud on New York. Your alternative scenario (i.e. the motte position) is more believable. It is of course possible that Russia will make some kind of unspecified mischief years or decades in the future. That doesn't justify the wanton destruction of a country today. Many factors have shaped the current situation, including our own choice to isolate Russia and expand NATO. Confrontation is not unavoidable, nor is Putin a madman. I don't trust hypothetical horror stories about the latest Hitler du jour. We've been lied into war too many times. This time the stakes are too high.

---

Tedious straw man argument.

Read my posts again and you will see I have talked about Russian efforts to "destabilize" the easternmost NATO nations What that means is (and I've mentioned/alluded to this in other posts as well) political agitation supporting anti-NATO positions, outright support from more pro-Russian foreign policies, construction of more sympathetic if not outright pro-Russian leaders/parties. The goal - to weaken Nato, to cause enough members to freeze, to balk, etc.....with the brass ring being to get one or more outright leave NATO. All such efforts are empowered by encampment of Russian armies on borders....a constant reminder of the threat intensifies fear and empowers the appeasement argument. Right now, only the Baltic states face that kind of gunboat diplomacy. If Ukraine falls, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania are added to the list. All it takes is one of them to falter, in a time of socio-political unrest....a dovish, pro-Slav, anti-European populist movement to break with the west. Today? Not much of a risk. 10-20 years down the road? impossible to dismiss. Issues never go away. They wax & wane. Read the history of the countries I mentioned. They have more in common looking east than west.

Why is that important to understand? There will be a time of far greater tension than today. Where exactly do we want Russian armies to be when that time arrives? What lessons do we want Russia to remember about western responses? What kinds and levels of equipment do we want Russian Armies to have at that time.

We think this way because we must. We are a NATO member. And for NATO members, the most likely scenarios for war involve the collapse of Nato. Eventually, it will. So where do we want Russian armies to be when that happens?

Ergo, what we do in Ukraine is hand the Ukrainians all the arms & ammo they want/need to defend their country, right down to the last Ukrainian if that is their desire. We do this destroy the Russian Army. To make them understand they cannot win. To deplete their stocks of materiel so severely that it will take them many, many decades to rebuild. We do that to push further out into the future the date when the would be able to again make a push westward. Hopefully, by that time, more moderate ideas will guide Russian policy.

Until then, we have to play hardball. And it's pretty easy hardball for us, right now. Battlefield is wildly tipped in Nato's favor. The next one might not be so much.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Negotiations

---

Which rewards Putin for invading another Nation and disregarding past agreements. (Obama already did that once, shrugging off Russia's actions as not a core US concern. So I guess Putin is not to blame to think he could do whatever he wanted with no concern.)

---

Oh the "we never negotiate" position.

Great.

So this ends how? Nuclear war in Eastern Europe?

---

Frankly, we don't want it to end too soon.

---

This is evil

---

This is good policy for the US citizen. This is the only way to destroy Russian war-making capability without escalating to scenarios that actually do risk the use of nuclear weapons.

A political settlement today partitions Ukraine. It' strengthens Russia with more people and more resources. It guarantees that in 3-5 years, there will be another round in either Ukraine or Transnistria. And after that, Russian troops will camp along the Nato borders, and Russia will step up efforts to politically destabilize 1 or more Nato countries for the purpose of causing them to withdraw from Nato. Those scenarios are far riskier than the one we have today. It would be quite naive to think Russian troops on the Hungarian border (for example) will not have greater influence on Hungarian foreign policy than if they were camped on the Ukrainian border 500 miles away.

As long as the Ukrainians want to fight, we supply them with the ordnance to blow the Russian war machine apart, bit by bit. Every round fired decreases the odds the kids we have in military uniform, of which I have two, will have to face Russian troops in the future.

We fight Russia where they are today to prevent us from having to fight them inside Nato a decade from now. And the Ukrainians are willing to do the fighting for us. All we have to do is supply them with the tools to do it.

---

You've acknowledged a couple of times that Russia invading a NATO country unprovoked is about as likely as Saddam Hussein dropping that mushroom cloud on New York. Your alternative scenario (i.e. the motte position) is more believable. It is of course possible that Russia will make some kind of unspecified mischief years or decades in the future. That doesn't justify the wanton destruction of a country today. Many factors have shaped the current situation, including our own choice to isolate Russia and expand NATO. Confrontation is not unavoidable, nor is Putin a madman. I don't trust hypothetical horror stories about the latest Hitler du jour. We've been lied into war too many times. This time the stakes are too high.

---

Tedious straw man argument.

Read my posts again and you will see I have talked about Russian efforts to "destabilize" the easternmost NATO nations What that means is (and I've mentioned/alluded to this in other posts as well) political agitation supporting anti-NATO positions, outright support from more pro-Russian foreign policies, construction of more sympathetic if not outright pro-Russian leaders/parties. The goal - to weaken Nato, to cause enough members to freeze, to balk, etc.....with the brass ring being to get one or more outright leave NATO. All such efforts are empowered by encampment of Russian armies on borders....a constant reminder of the threat intensifies fear and empowers the appeasement argument. Right now, only the Baltic states face that kind of gunboat diplomacy. If Ukraine falls, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania are added to the list. All it takes is one of them to falter, in a time of socio-political unrest....a dovish, pro-Slav, anti-European populist movement to break with the west. Today? Not much of a risk. 10-20 years down the road? impossible to dismiss. Issues never go away. They wax & wane. Read the history of the countries I mentioned. They have more in common looking east than west.

Why is that important to understand? There will be a time of far greater tension than today. Where exactly do we want Russian armies to be when that time arrives? What lessons do we want Russia to remember about western responses? What kinds and levels of equipment do we want Russian Armies to have at that time.

We think this way because we must. We are a NATO member. And for NATO members, the most likely scenarios for war involve the collapse of Nato. Eventually, it will. So where do we want Russian armies to be when that happens?

Ergo, what we do in Ukraine is hand the Ukrainians all the arms & ammo they want/need to defend their country, right down to the last Ukrainian if that is their desire. We do this destroy the Russian Army. To make them understand they cannot win. To deplete their stocks of materiel so severely that it will take them many, many decades to rebuild. We do that to push further out into the future the date when the would be able to again make a push westward. Hopefully, by that time, more moderate ideas will guide Russian policy.

Until then, we have to play hardball. And it's pretty easy hardball for us, right now. Battlefield is wildly tipped in Nato's favor. The next one might not be so much.

---

This is the Russian playbook. Infiltrate, start unrest, call for elections and move in to defend pro-Russian people. Geez, it is so common it is cliche and novels are written about it. This is not a new tactic by Russia we trained on it in the 80's.

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

This isn't Ukraine vs Russia. It's NATO vs Russia.

Supposedly Ukraine was destroying Russia according to our media and now we're having to send in tanks. I'm tired of y'all biting the bait. Wake up!

You think elites actually care about Ukraine? Y'all all saw little kids get droned for the past 20 years. Y'all all saw legacy media lie about war for the past 20 years as well.

People are being far too flippant about killing people.

---

I swear it's like you get all your talking points directly from Russian propaganda.

You hit all the high notes:
Russia isn't losing to Ukraine, it's actually NATO. Check.

Russia isn't even actually losing, they're winning (contradicting previous propaganda, but who's keeping track). Check.

The scary "elites" don't care about Ukraine, they only wanna drone strike kids, with vague references to Iraq/Afghan that mean nothing to the current context. Check.

Then a closing of false concern for war deaths, somehow blaming the US for Russians killing Ukrianians. Check.

Bravo, it could have come directly from Russian late night cable news and nobody would be able to tell the difference. Putin certainly got his money's worth and then some when he started backing the far right. You think there would be some learned humility after all your pro-Russia "investigate the investigators" trash blew up in your faces repeatedly, but nope, just keep sucking on that Russian tit.

---

You're flippant about young men killing other young men.

Of course you missed this news about the FBI trying to court Oleg Deripaska, as an informant…but instead, one of our own top FBI agents ended up working for him and is now being charged. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/28/nyregion/fb-indictment-mcgonigal-deripaska.html

Why are we rolling out tanks then? The ONLY answer is Ukraine is struggling. Pointing out that ABSOLUTELY TRUE FACT doesn't mean I like Putin.

Mere disagreement with US war policy doesn't mean loyalty to Putin. You're out of your ****ing mind for believing that.

You're on some real 1984 bull**** with your whole "the state can do no wrong" mantra. You boomers are weak men whose children created a society of blue haired leftists and gender benders. Shame on you.

That last line was a cheap shot on Boomers.

We ain't all like that, not by a long shot.

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

This isn't Ukraine vs Russia. It's NATO vs Russia.

Supposedly Ukraine was destroying Russia according to our media and now we're having to send in tanks. I'm tired of y'all biting the bait. Wake up!

You think elites actually care about Ukraine? Y'all all saw little kids get droned for the past 20 years. Y'all all saw legacy media lie about war for the past 20 years as well.

People are being far too flippant about killing people.

---

I swear it's like you get all your talking points directly from Russian propaganda.

You hit all the high notes:
Russia isn't losing to Ukraine, it's actually NATO. Check.

Russia isn't even actually losing, they're winning (contradicting previous propaganda, but who's keeping track). Check.

The scary "elites" don't care about Ukraine, they only wanna drone strike kids, with vague references to Iraq/Afghan that mean nothing to the current context. Check.

Then a closing of false concern for war deaths, somehow blaming the US for Russians killing Ukrianians. Check.

Bravo, it could have come directly from Russian late night cable news and nobody would be able to tell the difference. Putin certainly got his money's worth and then some when he started backing the far right. You think there would be some learned humility after all your pro-Russia "investigate the investigators" trash blew up in your faces repeatedly, but nope, just keep sucking on that Russian tit.

---

You're flippant about young men killing other young men.

Of course you missed this news about the FBI trying to court Oleg Deripaska, as an informant…but instead, one of our own top FBI agents ended up working for him and is now being charged. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/28/nyregion/fb-indictment-mcgonigal-deripaska.html

Why are we rolling out tanks then? The ONLY answer is Ukraine is struggling. Pointing out that ABSOLUTELY TRUE FACT doesn't mean I like Putin.

Mere disagreement with US war policy doesn't mean loyalty to Putin. You're out of your ****ing mind for believing that.

You're on some real 1984 bull**** with your whole "the state can do no wrong" mantra. You boomers are weak men whose children created a society of blue haired leftists and gender benders. Shame on you.

---

Well, Doc how old are you? I get the impression you are younger than the "Boomers" which means that is your generation, not ours. Don't blame us for your generation! We had Reagan, Bush Sr, even Nixon was more of a conservative than the current batch. Both Reagan and Bush knew how to get in, win and get out. Hell, even Clinton knew how to use the military and not be bogged down for a generation. This crap started with Bush 2, Obama and the Nation Building.

As for young men going to war, it is an all volunteer service. No one is forcing anyone to enlist or stay in the service, that is their choice. Many honorably got out after their service was complete. No shame in doing your 4 and living your life. So, don't act like any of this is forced on people. You join 11 or 19 series, going in combat is in the job description. Typically, the combat series come home first, it is the support guys that end up staying forever!

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

So, if Arizona San Diego wants to go to Mexico and can win a vote, it is good? Reconquista California? We are all good with it, because as least there is no fighting. Those areas belong to Ukraine, they can't up and leave. I think a war was fought over that here once.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

So, if Arizona San Diego wants to go to Mexico and can win a vote, it is good? Reconquista California? We are all good with it, because as least there is no fighting. Those areas belong to Ukraine, they can't up and leave. I think a war was fought over that here once.

---

This has nothing to do with your Mexico analogy. The people that live there have been Russians for centuries and the border only changed in the 90s. The people are still Russian and want to be under Russia which is why they voted that way. Maybe whoever drew the lines in the 90s was wrong. Ukraine are not the good guys here bc they have been murdering people in these regions for close to a decade.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

So, if Arizona San Diego wants to go to Mexico and can win a vote, it is good? Reconquista California? We are all good with it, because as least there is no fighting. Those areas belong to Ukraine, they can't up and leave. I think a war was fought over that here once.

---

To me we have had this same argument since Lincoln used forced to prevent independence of people who wanted out of a political Union.

I think this was answered by the American colonists in 1776 and the Texians in 1836.

Land belongs to the people who live on it.

If Mexican descended people eventually vote in San Diego or LA to break off...well it is what it is...maybe the US government should not have imported millions of people from a different country for cheap labor.

People everywhere....all over the world have the right to self determination.

People in Kyiv have a right to break off from Moscow...and people in Donbass have a right to break off from Kyiv.

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

So, if Arizona San Diego wants to go to Mexico and can win a vote, it is good? Reconquista California? We are all good with it, because as least there is no fighting. Those areas belong to Ukraine, they can't up and leave. I think a war was fought over that here once.

---

This has nothing to do with your Mexico analogy. The people that live there have been Russians for centuries and the border only changed in the 90s. The people are still Russian and want to be under Russia which is why they voted that way. Maybe whoever drew the lines in the 90s was wrong. Ukraine are not the good guys here bc they have been murdering people in these regions for close to a decade.

---

Sure it does. It is the exact same analogy. Crimea was part of Ukraine when the Soviets broke up their "empire". It is their sovereign land, voting to turn over a 1/3 of the Nation to Russia? Break off the Pacific NW they politically agree with Canada more than Texas, hold a vote. You are throwing all sorts of circumstantial situations to support your position, but the fact remains Russia invaded an independent Nation and took its property there is no rationale validating that. It is Ukrainian land whether from 1400 or 1990 is not relevant.

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

So, if Arizona San Diego wants to go to Mexico and can win a vote, it is good? Reconquista California? We are all good with it, because as least there is no fighting. Those areas belong to Ukraine, they can't up and leave. I think a war was fought over that here once.

---

This has nothing to do with your Mexico analogy. The people that live there have been Russians for centuries and the border only changed in the 90s. The people are still Russian and want to be under Russia which is why they voted that way. Maybe whoever drew the lines in the 90s was wrong. Ukraine are not the good guys here bc they have been murdering people in these regions for close to a decade.

---

Sure it does. It is the exact same analogy. Crimea was part of Ukraine when the Soviets broke up their "empire". It is their sovereign land, voting to turn over a 1/3 of the Nation to Russia? Break off the Pacific NW they politically agree with Canada more than Texas, hold a vote. You are throwing all sorts of circumstantial situations to support your position, but the fact remains Russia invaded an independent Nation and took its property there is no rationale validating that. It is Ukrainian land whether from 1400 or 1990 is not relevant.

---

Are you willing to kill people in the Pacific northwest to prevent them from joining Canada?

Are you willing to kill people in San Diego to prevent them joining Mexico?

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

So, if Arizona San Diego wants to go to Mexico and can win a vote, it is good? Reconquista California? We are all good with it, because as least there is no fighting. Those areas belong to Ukraine, they can't up and leave. I think a war was fought over that here once.

---

This has nothing to do with your Mexico analogy. The people that live there have been Russians for centuries and the border only changed in the 90s. The people are still Russian and want to be under Russia which is why they voted that way. Maybe whoever drew the lines in the 90s was wrong. Ukraine are not the good guys here bc they have been murdering people in these regions for close to a decade.

---

Wow, now that is some serious fiction.

Ukraine has been at odds with Russia for a very long time. Saying 'the people that live there have been Russian' overlooks unpleasant details like the Cossacks and the NKVD later KGB.

As a general rule, you don't need secret police and the occasional military occupation where you are respected and loved.

Now I am fine with recognizing that Ukraine is not a nation of saints, unless we're talking the East Europe version of 'The Many Saints of Newark'. I believe many billions of dollars sent to Ukraine have been rerouted to some personal bank accounts.

But with that said, let's not pretend this is not primarily Putin's fault, nor give him excuses to continue this string of atrocities.

We just need ChatGPT to negotiate peace in less than 90 seconds

Oldbear83 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

So, if Arizona San Diego wants to go to Mexico and can win a vote, it is good? Reconquista California? We are all good with it, because as least there is no fighting. Those areas belong to Ukraine, they can't up and leave. I think a war was fought over that here once.

---

This has nothing to do with your Mexico analogy. The people that live there have been Russians for centuries and the border only changed in the 90s. The people are still Russian and want to be under Russia which is why they voted that way. Maybe whoever drew the lines in the 90s was wrong. Ukraine are not the good guys here bc they have been murdering people in these regions for close to a decade.

---

Wow, now that is some serious fiction.

Ukraine has been at odds with Russia for a very long time. Saying 'the people that live there have been Russian' overlooks unpleasant details like the Cossacks and the NKVD later KGB.

As a general rule, you don't need secret police and the occasional military occupation where you are respected and loved.

Now I am fine with recognizing that Ukraine is not a nation of saints, unless we're talking the East Europe version of 'The Many Saints of Newark'. I believe many billions of dollars sent to Ukraine have been rerouted to some personal bank accounts.

But with that said, let's not pretend this is not primarily Putin's fault, nor give him excuses to continue this string of atrocities.

---

I think you are confusing Ukrainian hatred for Communism (and the evil Soviet Union) with dislike/hate of ethnic Russians or the modern post-communist Russian State.

These are two brother Slavic peoples we are talking about. Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Indeed the Ukrainians have been allies of the Russians since at least the great Cossack rebellion against the Poles in the 1650s.

Now much of this relationship was poisoned by the Soviets...but Ukrainians and Russians (up until this war) called each other "brother peoples".


[both nations trace their roots back to the first East Slavic state, Kievan Rus, which stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea from the 9th century to the mid-13th century. This medieval empire was founded, oddly enough, by Vikings "Rus" is the Slavic word given to the red-haired Scandinavians who swept down from the north in the 9th century, conquered the local Slavic tribes, and established their capital at Kiev. The kingdom converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity in 988, laying the foundation of the modern Russian church. A French bishop sent to Ukraine reported, "This land is more unified, happier, stronger, and more civilized than France herself." But in the 13th century Kiev was devastated by Mongol invaders, and power shifted north to a small Rus trading outpost called Moscow.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising

There have been around 8000 US deaths in active military/war theaters since 1980. About 20% of those were non combat related deaths. In the 40 years prior to that there were over 500,000 with about 25% being non combat deaths. I'd say we've gotten better at not being "flippant" about sending young men to die. The theory of fighting the small wars so you don't have to fight the big wars has so far held to point. If we could work on not wanting to nation build, we'll likely keep it even lower in the future.

Lol I'm 34, take your "boomer" nonsense elsewhere.

You can disclaim support for Russia all you want, but your rhetoric is an exact mirror for their narratives, and I'm not just talking about during this war either. Of course you throw in a token statement of condemnation every now and then...and then the rest of the time you argue that we should step aside and let Ukraine founder while also blaming us for initiating the conflict in the first place. Saying "Russia is wrong" loses some of its bite when you pair it with "but we should not help Ukraine", which is the tightrope you are attempting to stay on.

We are sending Ukraine tanks because stalemate favors Russia. Ukraine isn't losing, but they also can't win or make further gains without help. We should provide that help against our enemy for as long as Ukrainian soldiers are willing to use it. I don't want to hear any whining about money either, we are sending them second rate surplus equipment that was bought and paid for long ago. Not to mention this is is literally the enemy we designed and stockpiled all that stuff in order to counter. The time to counter is now, when they are invading their neighbors and openly meddling in our domestic politics (which you deny the very existence of, another gift from you to Russia), and we don't even have to deploy any of our own soldiers to do it.

Support for Ukraine is the most justifiable and effective use of our bloated defense budget since the second World War, and it has no relation whatsoever to errors of Iraq/Afghan and the war on terror. I get what you are saying about the WoT, it was stuoid should not ever be repeated, but this is not even close to being that.

ATL Bear said:

---

There have been around 8000 US deaths in active military/war theaters since 1980. About 20% of those were non combat related deaths. In the 40 years prior to that there were over 500,000 with about 25% being non combat deaths. I'd say we've gotten better at not being "flippant" about sending young men to die. The theory of fighting the small wars so you don't have to fight the big wars has so far held to point. If we could work on not wanting to nation build, we'll likely keep it even lower in the future.

---

What small wars over the past 25 years have prevented big wars?

I would honestly like to know.

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

---

You can also fight people and not actually hate them...in that war both sides felt they were fighting to uphold what they saw as important constitutional rights and less outright hate of the other.

"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country & for the welfare and progress of mankind." -Robert E. Lee, 1/23/61

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and I have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." -Robert E. Lee

Now in this war between Ukraine and Russia hatred might now become the norm...but before this conflict there was certainly no great hatred between average Ukrainians and average Russians.

"Ukrainian attitudes toward Russia were stable until 2013, with positive attitudes ranging from 65 percent in the west to 93 percent in the east. These figures belied allegations of a Russophobic western Ukraine; only twenty percent of the public there held negative views of Russians."

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/what-do-russians-think-of-ukrainians-and-vice-versa/

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

---

You can also fight people and not actually hate them...in that war both sides felt they were fighting to uphold what they saw as important constitutional rights and less outright hate of the other.

"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country & for the welfare and progress of mankind." -Robert E. Lee, 1/23/61

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and I have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." -Robert E. Lee

---

I seriously doubt there is a Russian version of General Lee in this conflict

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

---

You can also fight people and not actually hate them...in that war both sides felt they were fighting to uphold what they saw as important constitutional rights and less outright hate of the other.

"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country & for the welfare and progress of mankind." -Robert E. Lee, 1/23/61

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and I have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." -Robert E. Lee

---

I seriously doubt there is a Russian version of General Lee in this conflict

---

True

Oldbear83 said:

---

That last line was a cheap shot on Boomers.

We ain't all like that, not by a long shot.

---

Not all of you, but many of your generation kickstarted us into radical leftism.

ATL Bear said:

---

There have been around 8000 US deaths in active military/war theaters since 1980. About 20% of those were non combat related deaths. In the 40 years prior to that there were over 500,000 with about 25% being non combat deaths. I'd say we've gotten better at not being "flippant" about sending young men to die. The theory of fighting the small wars so you don't have to fight the big wars has so far held to point. If we could work on not wanting to nation build, we'll likely keep it even lower in the future.

---

The Ukrainian government estimates up to 41k have been killed.

7,068 killed, 11,415 wounded according to UN.

That's quite a bit.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That last line was a cheap shot on Boomers.

We ain't all like that, not by a long shot.

---

Not all of you, but many of your generation kickstarted us into radical leftism.

---

No more than any other generation, if you pay attention.

HuMcK said:

---

Lol I'm 34, take your "boomer" nonsense elsewhere.

You can disclaim support for Russia all you want, but your rhetoric is an exact mirror for their narratives, and I'm not just talking about during this war either. Of course you throw in a token statement of condemnation every now and then...and then the rest of the time you argue that we should step aside and let Ukraine founder while also blaming us for initiating the conflict in the first place. Saying "Russia is wrong" loses some of its bite when you pair it with "but we should not help Ukraine", which is the tightrope you are attempting to stay on.

We are sending Ukraine tanks because stalemate favors Russia. Ukraine isn't losing, but they also can't win or make further gains without help. We should provide that help against our enemy for as long as Ukrainian soldiers are willing to use it. I don't want to hear any whining about money either, we are sending them second rate surplus equipment that was bought and paid for long ago. Not to mention this is is literally the enemy we designed and stockpiled all that stuff in order to counter. The time to counter is now, when they are invading their neighbors and openly meddling in our domestic politics (which you deny the very existence of, another gift from you to Russia), and we don't even have to deploy any of our own soldiers to do it.

Support for Ukraine is the most justifiable and effective use of our bloated defense budget since the second World War, and it has no relation whatsoever to errors of Iraq/Afghan and the war on terror. I get what you are saying about the WoT, it was stuoid should not ever be repeated, but this is not even close to being that.

---

My rhetoric is not supportive of Russia. I'm just calling it how it is.

I want peace deals now, and if that means Ukraine and Russia both don't get exactly as they want, fine.

What I don't want is exactly what its become: a proxy war for the US/NATO to weaken Russia at great cost. We moving in tanks. Next we'll move in our own military and boots on the ground. This escalation of resources doesn't line up with the narrative we've been fed about Russia being an easy opponent.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That last line was a cheap shot on Boomers.

We ain't all like that, not by a long shot.

---

Not all of you, but many of your generation kickstarted us into radical leftism.

---

No more than any other generation, if you pay attention.

---

FDR's generation started US government leftism and boomers pushed it culturally into entertainment and academia.

Every generation since then has become more radical.