Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
HuMcK said:
Redbrickbear said:
HuMcK said:
Article is from April 2022, and it's predictions aged pretty poorly.
Remember that time I asked you to explicitly spell out your positions, but then you declined and kept sharing stale pro-Russian propaganda instead? Can't imagine why anyone would come to believe that you've sided with Russia interests in this conflict /s.
I have explained my position on this war probably 50 times.
It's a bad idea. Could escalate into a wider European war and even to a possible nuclear war. And is unlikely to lead to any outcome other than the long term impoverishment of Ukraine and possible mass depopulation of the country.
The DC political-media class is immoral and monstrous to root on this proxy war.
Actually, you haven't. In fact, you seem to have taken great care not to enunciate any firm positions beyond token expressions (when pressed) that Russia was wrong to invade...in between your many posts apologizing for Russia and explaining why it's really our fault. Even now your response is as vague and noncommittal as possible. "This war"..."it's a bad idea".
Ok, whose bad idea was it? Going off prior posts, you seem to believe it is NATO and Ukraine's fault that Russia invaded after being warned not to for years. The specific questions I asked you earlier were whether you supported military aid for Ukraine or not, or is it your belief that we should have stepped aside and let Russia take what it can from Ukraine (i.e. all of it) without our assistance?
You often whine about people's perception that you support Russia, but at the same time all of your criticisms and the sources that you share are almost exclusively all pro-Russian. Like, "state owned propaganda" style pro-Russian. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
Responding to your edit. Sharing an old pro-Russian article from March 2022 is absolutely propaganda, and advocating for peace on Russian terms (which is what you're doing) is as pro-Russia as it gets.
If you think NATO should get directly involved in a war in Eastern Europe then you should come out and say so.
If not then you are just advocating for us to spend billions of taxpayer money turning Ukraine into another Syria.
A bloody long term conflict with no resolution.
A meat grinder and open wound on the European continent.
Something that may eventually spiral out of control or just bleed on for years.
You also refuse to acknowledge or even accept the reality that the actions of the US intelligence agencies helped to bring about this situation by getting involved in this region going back to the Obama administration.
How is supplying a former Communist Nation that wants to align with the West and move to Capitalism a bad thing? Remember, Russia invaded. We are not sending troops. This is a long term investment, how Ukraine repays can be worked out later. Ukraine has the potential to be a very strategic allie and a great economic partner with the EU and North America. I fail to see the downside of helping them.
You think this is a battle between capitalism and communism?
And this is not a long term investment…it's an exercise in taxpayer cash burning and money laundering.
The money that does not end up in the hands of US politicians, military contractors, Ukrainian politicians, or just our right stolen…is not actually going to be enough to force Russia out.
It's enough to keep Ukraine from losing…not enough to help them win.
Negotiated Peace is the best course here…not turning this into a long term bloody mess.
Got news for you Chamberlain, it was a bloody mess in 2014. It was ordained when Biden won the election that Putin was invading based on 2014 and apologizing Barack. You are not getting out of a bloody mess, your way gives us a bloody mess, Putin getting half of Ukraine and strengthening to go for the rest. Appeasement does not work and never has. A negotiation AFTER Putin invades and he adds territory is appeasement and a victory for Russia.
Comparing every international situation to Hitler is the height of low IQ analysis.
It's also a convenient excuse for endless war mongering and military adventurism.
I forget who was the last Hitler we faced? Was it Saddam, or was it Castro, or Ho Chi Minh?
According to our overlords in DC we have faced so many Hitlers since 1945 it's hard to remember.
It is comparing capabilities relative to the opposing forces. Russia does not hold an advantage over NATO or China to escalate, they are playing the regional card, not a WW as some on here state. Which is the low IQ position, they do not have the capability to go world wide or based on their performance two front.
You keeping saying Russia is going to move on to attack Poland and threaten Europe after Ukraine.
Then in the next breath you say Russia is militarily weak and has no hand to play with NATO.
It can't be both.
False dilemma on several levels.
1) Russia is too militarily weak to defeat Ukraine, yet they invaded anyway. Look what lack of deterrence cost Ukraine. Then imagine what it would cost Europe if Russia made the same miscalculation in the Baltics. Or Finland. Or the Caucasus. etc....
2) A Russian invasion of Europe is not the only serious threat NATO faces from a Russian victory in Ukraine, just the less likely one. A Russian victory strengthens Russia - more oil/gas, more ports, more manufacturing, more minerals, greater control over distribution systems, more population...... Makes rearmament happen faster, makes the end result more potent, and more to the point - moves the threat closer to NATO, doubling the number of NATO countries along which Russian armies can encamp along borders.
3) Russian armies poised on borders greatly strengthens Russian efforts to undermine NATO. There will be cross-border black ops going on, Russian support for separatist movements. See Transnistria. Ukranian war ends today, June 1st, Moldova blows up and we start his whole thing over again. More to the point = gunboat diplomacy. The proximity of armies enhances diplomatic and indirect influence over internal politics. Russia wins in UKR, and we will see their influence over Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, etc....become more effective. Russia doesn't have to actually be a great army capable of seizing a country to be influential. they just have to be big enough and powerful enough to threaten to do a lot of damage (see War, Ukraine, 2022....). That will strengthen any or all of several factions: pacifists, anti-Euro, anti-US, pro-Russian, isolationist. Ensuing dynamics will tend to bog down Nato. Frustration. Increased internal Nato tensions. Possibly causing one ore more members to elect an "-xit" movement that might succeed.
Your argument has two gaping assumed conclusions: 1) that UKR victory is not possible, and 2) that allowing a Russian victory (which peace today would effectively be) benefits anyone other than Russia.
If engaging the Russian army in conflict poses an existential threat to Europe, what is the benefit to accepting conditions which move such conflict closer to Europe?-answer is: there is none. the battlefield we have now is preferable to the one you advocate.
Shatterzones serve a purpose. They keep great power conflict away from great power borders. To say your argument is strategically unwise is quite an understatement.
