Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ISW assessments are quite conservative. Other sources which have been correct on the Kozachi Loheri are reporting Uke has established a second bridgehead in the same area.

---

Wiped out yesterday, according to Rybar.

---

Yeah… saw nothing of the sort, even from Rybar

---

Rybar Live: Kherson Direction - August 15, 2023 pic.twitter.com/lIgcRnphCN

— Rybar Force (@rybar_force) August 15, 2023

---

LOL. The only way to credibly use Russian milblogger reporting in one's analysis is to confirm bad news for Russia. If RUS milbloggers are talking about something bad happening, it must be REALLY bad. Otherwise, it's like listening to cheerleaders for play by play reporting on the game.

---

Arguing about sources in this context is pointless for many reasons. There's no detailed, up-to-date coverage in mainstream media, so there's usually no "legitimate" standard by which to compare. We're all relying on bloggers to a great extent. Mistakes are inevitable in the fog of war. Facts change day by day and hour by hour. Even so, material contradictions between pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian sources are surprisingly rare. If you were to follow multiple sources, you'd find that they're often slower to report good news for their own side in order to avoid the appearance of bias. Finally, I would point out that the ISW blog, which you cite almost exclusively, is operated by the sister-in-law of Victoria Nuland, who was largely responsible for master-minding this debacle from the beginning. If you were tasked to find a source with the greatest likelihood of bias or personal interest, you probably couldn't do any better.

---

LOL. Degrading standards to get all the pigs muddly Nobody is disputing Uke crossed the river and established a foothold on the east bank. Only a few RusBloggers are saying the Ukes have been expelled.

ISW reports/assesses what can be visually confirmed.......

---

ISW posts unconfirmed reports from milbloggers all the time. They even posted the one we're talking about right now. I noted the source. Take it or leave it, but let's not pretend there isn't bias on both sides.

---

They note Russian milblog narratives for reasons beyond status of battle lines. They are an avatar for Russian support for the war, regime stability, etc…..

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ISW assessments are quite conservative. Other sources which have been correct on the Kozachi Loheri are reporting Uke has established a second bridgehead in the same area.

---

Wiped out yesterday, according to Rybar.

---

Yeah… saw nothing of the sort, even from Rybar

---

Rybar Live: Kherson Direction - August 15, 2023 pic.twitter.com/lIgcRnphCN

— Rybar Force (@rybar_force) August 15, 2023

---

LOL. The only way to credibly use Russian milblogger reporting in one's analysis is to confirm bad news for Russia. If RUS milbloggers are talking about something bad happening, it must be REALLY bad. Otherwise, it's like listening to cheerleaders for play by play reporting on the game.

---

Arguing about sources in this context is pointless for many reasons. There's no detailed, up-to-date coverage in mainstream media, so there's usually no "legitimate" standard by which to compare. We're all relying on bloggers to a great extent. Mistakes are inevitable in the fog of war. Facts change day by day and hour by hour. Even so, material contradictions between pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian sources are surprisingly rare. If you were to follow multiple sources, you'd find that they're often slower to report good news for their own side in order to avoid the appearance of bias. Finally, I would point out that the ISW blog, which you cite almost exclusively, is operated by the sister-in-law of Victoria Nuland, who was largely responsible for master-minding this debacle from the beginning. If you were tasked to find a source with the greatest likelihood of bias or personal interest, you probably couldn't do any better.

---

LOL. Degrading standards to get all the pigs muddly Nobody is disputing Uke crossed the river and established a foothold on the east bank. Only a few RusBloggers are saying the Ukes have been expelled.

ISW reports/assesses what can be visually confirmed.......

---

ISW posts unconfirmed reports from milbloggers all the time. They even posted the one we're talking about right now. I noted the source. Take it or leave it, but let's not pretend there isn't bias on both sides.

---

They note Russian milblog narratives for reasons beyond status of battle lines. They are an avatar for Russian support for the war, regime stability, etc…..

---

Sure.

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

I am really against the mixing of bills like this.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

I am really against the mixing of bills like this.

---

Yea I hate it so much….

Yet in their defense this is how the game is played and was being done even before the so-called civil war in the 1860s

It's been a long long time tradition in D.C.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

I am really against the mixing of bills like this.

---

Yea I hate it so much….

Yet in their defense this is how the game is played and was being done even before the so-called civil war in the 1860s

It's been a long long time tradition in D.C.

---

it's how sausage is made = people forming temporary coalitions to cut deals to get stuff done, with much compromise of principles occurring on both sides.

It's why the "character" issue, beyond the inherent subjectivity of the definition, is nigh-on irrelevant in politics. Even the boy scouts have to vote for stuff they believe is wrong just to get pieces of stuff they think their constituents need. Vote for the person that delivers on promises, because it's almost the only thing that matters.

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Totally and complete westernization of the Ukrainian state

Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a law that will move the country’s Christmas Day holiday from early January to Dec. 25 — another way to “abandon the Russian heritage” and put distance between the two countries currently embroiled in war. https://t.co/QCPVMLKgkC

— The Hill (@thehill) July 30, 2023

---

Ukraine does not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. You and others here seem to totally disregard what the Ukraine state wants and where it wants to align in favor of Russia.

Ukraine clearly wants to align with the west and the EU. Why are people supporting forcing them to stay in Russian control? This is not Georgia or Chechnya, Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine can have all the sovereignty it wants.

Some of us just don't want to invest US blood and treasure in that fight.

And Chechnya tried self determination, too. Just a little too Islamy to draw Western support.

---

What US blood? The only US people there are those that want to be there.

As for the other, yes. Ukraine is in a different geographical position, so yes it is in the US interests more than Chechnya was. Of course the US will support areas that benefit us more. Your point there???

---

"Blood and treasure" is always paired and I was speaking prospectively.

There is no direct American interest there. Not our fight.

---

Treasure is another matter. Hoping the investment pays off. The Germany, Japan, Korea models worked well and produced a sound investment. Iraq and Afghanistan didnt. I would rather invest more and set up a sustainable Allie than another Afghanistan

---

You left out Vietnam. Guatemala. Chile. Haiti. Etc.

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Totally and complete westernization of the Ukrainian state

Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a law that will move the country’s Christmas Day holiday from early January to Dec. 25 — another way to “abandon the Russian heritage” and put distance between the two countries currently embroiled in war. https://t.co/QCPVMLKgkC

— The Hill (@thehill) July 30, 2023

---

Ukraine does not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. You and others here seem to totally disregard what the Ukraine state wants and where it wants to align in favor of Russia.

Ukraine clearly wants to align with the west and the EU. Why are people supporting forcing them to stay in Russian control? This is not Georgia or Chechnya, Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine can have all the sovereignty it wants.

Some of us just don't want to invest US blood and treasure in that fight.

And Chechnya tried self determination, too. Just a little too Islamy to draw Western support.

---

What US blood? The only US people there are those that want to be there.

As for the other, yes. Ukraine is in a different geographical position, so yes it is in the US interests more than Chechnya was. Of course the US will support areas that benefit us more. Your point there???

---

"Blood and treasure" is always paired and I was speaking prospectively.

There is no direct American interest there. Not our fight.

---

Treasure is another matter. Hoping the investment pays off. The Germany, Japan, Korea models worked well and produced a sound investment. Iraq and Afghanistan didnt. I would rather invest more and set up a sustainable Allie than another Afghanistan

---

You left out Vietnam. Guatemala. Chile. Haiti. Etc.

---

I will give you Viet Nam, although it could be argued that their exposure to US capitalism allowed for the economy you see today in Viet Nam and ultimately the better conditions that are there now. Viet Nam is also a potential allie now, more China than US.

Domincan we went in and stabilized and left. Granada went in tossed Cubans out and left. As for the others, I don't remember having troops in Guatemala and Chile. Or are we just basically the blame for any coup that goes South... I guess we are the cause of Venezula. How about Greece's economy? We did that do, I imagine...

You should put you Che t-shirt on and beret while writing on this string...

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

No. We're not going to be in a hot war with Russia.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is if they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

Russia is not taking on NATO

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Totally and complete westernization of the Ukrainian state

Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a law that will move the country’s Christmas Day holiday from early January to Dec. 25 — another way to “abandon the Russian heritage” and put distance between the two countries currently embroiled in war. https://t.co/QCPVMLKgkC

— The Hill (@thehill) July 30, 2023

---

Ukraine does not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. You and others here seem to totally disregard what the Ukraine state wants and where it wants to align in favor of Russia.

Ukraine clearly wants to align with the west and the EU. Why are people supporting forcing them to stay in Russian control? This is not Georgia or Chechnya, Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine can have all the sovereignty it wants.

Some of us just don't want to invest US blood and treasure in that fight.

And Chechnya tried self determination, too. Just a little too Islamy to draw Western support.

---

What US blood? The only US people there are those that want to be there.

As for the other, yes. Ukraine is in a different geographical position, so yes it is in the US interests more than Chechnya was. Of course the US will support areas that benefit us more. Your point there???

---

"Blood and treasure" is always paired and I was speaking prospectively.

There is no direct American interest there. Not our fight.

---

Treasure is another matter. Hoping the investment pays off. The Germany, Japan, Korea models worked well and produced a sound investment. Iraq and Afghanistan didnt. I would rather invest more and set up a sustainable Allie than another Afghanistan

---

You left out Vietnam. Guatemala. Chile. Haiti. Etc.

---

I will give you Viet Nam, although it could be argued that their exposure to US capitalism allowed for the economy you see today in Viet Nam and ultimately the better conditions that are there now. Viet Nam is also a potential allie now, more China than US.

Domincan we went in and stabilized and left. Granada went in tossed Cubans out and left. As for the others, I don't remember having troops in Guatemala and Chile. Or are we just basically the blame for any coup that goes South... I guess we are the cause of Venezula. How about Greece's economy? We did that do, I imagine...

You should put you Che t-shirt on and beret while writing on this string...

---

Pointing out our (longer) history of involvement in ears, coups, etc. Post WWII none have had direct American interests in play.

I was at a Cuban place in Dallas last Thursday, had already ordered when I realized I was wearing my Viva La Evolution T-shirt, with a monkey posed like Che, beret and all.

The certain way to a hot war is that the Ukrainians start winning. Fortunately the chances of that are roughly zero. But those who cheer for Ukraine should be aware that's what they're supporting. What's much more likely is that Biden or some other idiot makes a mistake and things get out of control. Evidently that's a risk that the Russophobes are either oblivious to or are willing to accept.

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

This is why. Tucker is spot on here:

TUCKER: “There will be a hot war between the United States and Russia within the next year”

pic.twitter.com/AGv6Iifg5U

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 30, 2023

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Totally and complete westernization of the Ukrainian state

Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a law that will move the country’s Christmas Day holiday from early January to Dec. 25 — another way to “abandon the Russian heritage” and put distance between the two countries currently embroiled in war. https://t.co/QCPVMLKgkC

— The Hill (@thehill) July 30, 2023

---

Ukraine does not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. You and others here seem to totally disregard what the Ukraine state wants and where it wants to align in favor of Russia.

Ukraine clearly wants to align with the west and the EU. Why are people supporting forcing them to stay in Russian control? This is not Georgia or Chechnya, Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine can have all the sovereignty it wants.

Some of us just don't want to invest US blood and treasure in that fight.

And Chechnya tried self determination, too. Just a little too Islamy to draw Western support.

---

What US blood? The only US people there are those that want to be there.

As for the other, yes. Ukraine is in a different geographical position, so yes it is in the US interests more than Chechnya was. Of course the US will support areas that benefit us more. Your point there???

---

"Blood and treasure" is always paired and I was speaking prospectively.

There is no direct American interest there. Not our fight.

---

Treasure is another matter. Hoping the investment pays off. The Germany, Japan, Korea models worked well and produced a sound investment. Iraq and Afghanistan didnt. I would rather invest more and set up a sustainable Allie than another Afghanistan

---

You left out Vietnam. Guatemala. Chile. Haiti. Etc.

---

I will give you Viet Nam, although it could be argued that their exposure to US capitalism allowed for the economy you see today in Viet Nam and ultimately the better conditions that are there now. Viet Nam is also a potential allie now, more China than US.

Domincan we went in and stabilized and left. Granada went in tossed Cubans out and left. As for the others, I don't remember having troops in Guatemala and Chile. Or are we just basically the blame for any coup that goes South... I guess we are the cause of Venezula. How about Greece's economy? We did that do, I imagine...

You should put you Che t-shirt on and beret while writing on this string...

---

Pointing out our (longer) history of involvement in ears, coups, etc. Post WWII none have had direct American interests in play.

I was at a Cuban place in Dallas last Thursday, had already ordered when I realized I was wearing my Viva La Evolution T-shirt, with a monkey posed like Che, beret and all.

---

You the man. Consistent to a fault!

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

This is why. Tucker is spot on here:

TUCKER: “There will be a hot war between the United States and Russia within the next year”

pic.twitter.com/AGv6Iifg5U

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 30, 2023

---

Oh, well I take it all back if Tucker Carlson is your source...

---

Tell me why you think he's wrong.

His logic is sound.

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

No. If Russia takes all of Ukraine (highly unlikely) then it has the buffer it wanted.

Unless you're talking about neocons convincing a US president to start a hot war. Highly unlikely.

I don't see a hot war with Russia.

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

This is why. Tucker is spot on here:

TUCKER: “There will be a hot war between the United States and Russia within the next year”

pic.twitter.com/AGv6Iifg5U

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 30, 2023

---

Oh, well I take it all back if Tucker Carlson is your source...

---

Tell me why you think he's wrong.

His logic is sound.

---

Because he reports whatever will get the biggest reaction. If he thought there was an upside he would report that Britney Spears will be Trump's running mate to counter Giggles.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The certain way to a hot war is that the Ukrainians start winning. Fortunately the chances of that are roughly zero. But those who cheer for Ukraine should be aware that's what they're supporting. What's much more likely is that Biden or some other idiot makes a mistake and things get out of control. Evidently that's a risk that the Russophobes are either oblivious to or are willing to accept.

---

If Russia's a big enough bltch to get their ass kicked by Ukraine, and then start a hot war with NATO...then they absolutely deserve to be eviscerated from the face of the earth.

---

Neither of those things will happen. What could happen in theory is that Russia resorts to tactical nukes in Ukraine and NATO feels compelled to retaliate. But again, Russia would actually have to be in danger of losing, so we're talking parallel universes here.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The certain way to a hot war is that the Ukrainians start winning. Fortunately the chances of that are roughly zero. But those who cheer for Ukraine should be aware that's what they're supporting. What's much more likely is that Biden or some other idiot makes a mistake and things get out of control. Evidently that's a risk that the Russophobes are either oblivious to or are willing to accept.

---

If Russia's a big enough bltch to get their ass kicked by Ukraine, and then start a hot war with NATO...then they absolutely deserve to be eviscerated from the face of the earth.

ANd the chances of that are far greater than zero, and you know it (even though your sad, confused little brain is cheering on Russia like RuPaul at a Boy George concert)

---

100% correct.

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

This is why. Tucker is spot on here:

TUCKER: “There will be a hot war between the United States and Russia within the next year”

pic.twitter.com/AGv6Iifg5U

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 30, 2023

---

Oh, well I take it all back if Tucker Carlson is your source...

---

Tell me why you think he's wrong.

His logic is sound.

---

His logic is horrible. It's premised on a wag the tail proposition without evidence.

His logic is, ironically, dead on about lies being caught out. His were. And that's why he has limited credibility.
See the Britney post above, that is accurate.

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

Russia is not taking on NATO

---

If we truly believed this, Ukraine a) wouldn't have been disarmed and b) would have been admitted as a member of NATO years ago.

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

Russia is not taking on NATO

---

If we truly believed this, Ukraine a) wouldn't have been disarmed and b) would have been admitted as a member of NATO years ago.

---

Yeah, well Glastnost turned out to have its bad or stupid sides for everyone. The Budapest Memorandum gave everyone somthing to ***** about!

bear2be2 said:

---

quash said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

No. If Russia takes all of Ukraine (highly unlikely) then it has the buffer it wanted.

Unless you're talking about neocons convincing a US president to start a hot war. Highly unlikely.

I don't see a hot war with Russia.

---

I'm frankly tired of being told by Western politicians, media and partisans what Putin does/doesn't want and what his motives are. At this point, I'll take him at his word. The guy has told and shown us exactly who is. It's well past time to believe him.

---

Amen to that.

bear2be2 said:

---

quash said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

No. If Russia takes all of Ukraine (highly unlikely) then it has the buffer it wanted.

Unless you're talking about neocons convincing a US president to start a hot war. Highly unlikely.

I don't see a hot war with Russia.

---

You'll have to forgive me for having a healthy of amount of skepticism when those who were adamant that Putin wouldn't invade Ukraine try to convince me now he'll be satisfied with his "buffer."

The West has underestimated and appeased Putin for decades. That's precisely what's put us in this mess to begin with. We tried to sand his rough edges through the media and normalize his insanity for years instead of treating him like the KGB thug he is.

I'm frankly tired of being told by Western politicians, media and partisans what Putin does/doesn't want and what his motives are. At this point, I'll take him at his word. The guy has told and showed us who is. It's well past time to believe him.

---

1. I don't remember quash out there saying that. Heck I only remember the genius Biden saying how he doubted that Putin would fully invade. Remember his quote about "it depends if its a minor incursion or a big one"

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074466148/biden-russia-ukraine-minor-incursion

2. Everyone should be under no illusions that for as long as Moscow as been a major regional power (500 years?) it has been serious about its interests in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and it will invade to defend them.

3. This is no different than the United States policy. If anyone doubts that we would not invade Canada or Mexico to defend our national interests.....they are incredibly wrong and fools to boot. Washington has done it before and will do it again if necessary.

4. If by "buffer" you mean Russia's traditional sphere of influence...then yes. There is very little reason to think that Russia will try to extent that into Western Europe. And of course even if they did (which they can't) that is the reason we have NATO. The CIA and the corporate media have somehow convinced half the American public that NATO exists to defend Ukraine and fight proxy wars on Russia's doorstep...when of course Ukraine has never been a member or enrolled ally and we have never had vital interests in Eastern Europe.

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The certain way to a hot war is that the Ukrainians start winning. Fortunately the chances of that are roughly zero. But those who cheer for Ukraine should be aware that's what they're supporting. What's much more likely is that Biden or some other idiot makes a mistake and things get out of control. Evidently that's a risk that the Russophobes are either oblivious to or are willing to accept.

---

If Russia's a big enough bltch to get their ass kicked by Ukraine, and then start a hot war with NATO...then they absolutely deserve to be eviscerated from the face of the earth.

---

Neither of those things will happen. What could happen in theory is that Russia resorts to tactical nukes in Ukraine and NATO feels compelled to retaliate. But again, Russia would actually have to be in danger of losing, so we're talking parallel universes here.

---

Russian can wipe Ukraine off the face of the earth and NATO has no treaty obligation to do anything about it.

Just like China can wipe Mongolia off the map and the United States has no treaty obligation to interfere.

Luckily the people who rule in Moscow and Beijing are not insane...what they want is for Ukraine and Mongolia to be inside their respective economic-cultural-military spheres of influence.

Just like we want and demand that Canada and Mexico be in ours.....

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

quash said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How many of you guys would support a US hot war with Russia?

---

No one wants war with Russia. NATO has appeased Russia for decades trying to avoid it. Unfortunately, Russia has proven both in Crimea and the Donbas that appeasement is wholly infective as a war deterrent.

---

We're going to be in a hot war with Russia. Its going to happen.

Do you not understand how insane DC is?

---

That will be Russia's decision. The only way we end up in a war with Russia is they attack a member of NATO. And ceding Ukraine to Russia only makes that more likely.

---

No. If Russia takes all of Ukraine (highly unlikely) then it has the buffer it wanted.

Unless you're talking about neocons convincing a US president to start a hot war. Highly unlikely.

I don't see a hot war with Russia.

---

I'm frankly tired of being told by Western politicians, media and partisans what Putin does/doesn't want and what his motives are. At this point, I'll take him at his word. The guy has told and shown us exactly who is. It's well past time to believe him.

---

Amen to that.

---

That you're aware he's a paranoid, murderous dictator with imperial aspirations and still choose to support him isn't the flex you think it is, Sam.

---

Have you seen the old folks home of certified dementia patients running the USA?

Pelosi, Biden, Mitch, Feinstein, Schumer ....how many of these geriatric imperialists are barely functioning mentally...and how evil are they behind closed doors?






Not to mention Washington's disastrous wars over the past 25 years have killed millions....

[Last week, researchers working with Brown University's Costs of War project released a substantial report detailing the number of indirect deaths caused by the various wars in which the United States has been involved under the auspices of counterterrorism since September 11, 2001. The report estimates that indirect deaths those resulting not from combat operations but from the various types of devastation they leave behind from wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen have already reached 3.6-3.7 million, and continue to grow by the day. This appalling toll comes on top of the nearly one million lives lost to combat in these and other conflicts (including in Libya and Somalia) during the same period. And it serves as a stark reminder of the simple truth that war only serves to destroy lives and livelihoods.]


Lets not pretend Washington is a paragon of virtue compared to Moscow and Beijing


https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_Vine%20et%20al_Displacement%20Update%20August%202021.pdf

"The U.S. post-9/11 wars have forcibly displaced at least 38 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria. This exceeds those displaced by every war since 1900, except World War II"