Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.....

---

When we invade Canada or Mexico to force them into our "sphere of influence," a hell of a euphemism for annexation, we can talk about the similarities here. Until then, this is not just a false equivalency, it's actively spreading Russian propaganda.

The facts here are simple and indisputable. There is a war in Ukraine currently for one reason and one reason only. Russia invaded. And they did so to the shock of all those who are now defending them.

This is quite literally a geopolitical case of "Don't start no ****, won't be no *****"

---

I was in no way shocked. I would have been, if the US had allowed Ukraine to chart its own course and Putin still felt the need to invade.

---

This is bull****, Sam. And I believe you're too intelligent and well-read not to know that. It's not the West's fault that most formerly authoritarian/colonized lands choose self-rule once they're given a taste of freedom/democracy.

Blaming the US for the Ukrainians' desire to be free of Russia is absurd. It takes all agency away from a population that has quite literally fought very hard to every advancement of freedom it has gotten in the past 35-40 years.

The Ukrainians didn't need to be convinced by the West that they didn't want to be ruled by Russia or a Russian puppet government. They learned that the hard way as part of the Soviet Union, and they earned/value their freedom every bit as much as the United States or any Western European nation.

---

I believe you're also intelligent and well-read, but you're not listening to what Russia or even large parts of Ukraine are saying. Perhaps more important, you're not looking at what the US has done and continues to do. No one in possession of the facts could imagine that we've left Ukraine with any meaningful agency.

---

I keep inviting you and the few others on your side to provide the specific ways that we're more to blame than Russia for the war taking place on Ukrainian soil currently, and I've heard nothing but crickets.

The US, by way of NATO, has largely honored every Russian threat in regards to Ukraine. Enough that we brokered its disarmament and refused its entry into NATO. That didn't keep Russia from invading ... twice. Appeasing Russia doesn't work.

---

I'll skip our history of covert involvement in dozens of countries since WWII. Likewise our overt policy of regime change since the Cold War. You know or should know all about this. We've supported Ukrainian right-wing extremists for generations, and they're deeply embedded in Ukrainian politics despite what anyone may tell you. When Ukraine was on the verge of an economic agreement with Russia, we orchestrated a regime change, purged the bureaucracy, and effectively took control of the government from top to bottom.

Meanwhile, as Russia was closing down bases in Europe, Cuba, and Vietnam, we lied about our intentions and expanded NATO at every opportunity. We dismantled the nuclear security framework in Eastern Europe by withdrawing from the ABM, INF, and other treaties. We deceived Russia to gain support for NATO intervention in Libya by expressly promising not to use the no-fly zone as cover for regime change, then doing just that. We supported Islamic terrorists' effort to overthrow the government of Syria. We sabotaged the Minsk Agreement, using it as cover to build a Ukrainian army and prosecute a civil war against ethnic Russians in the Donbas in which 15,000 people died--a war precipitated, you will recall, by the US-supported coup in 2014.

Now consider Putin's position. American politicians are comparing him to Hitler. We're putting nuclear-capable missiles within a stone's throw from Moscow, which could trigger war at any time. A hostile government in Ukraine wants to take back Crimea, depriving Russia of the only port for its Black Sea fleet. In the space of a few years, Ukraine has gone from having basically no army to having the most formidable army in Europe. Without the Donbas, Russia will lose its last and only buffer against that army.

Someone here said they'd never support invading Mexico. I don't believe it. If Russia acted in Mexico the way we're acting in Ukraine, we would never tolerate it. If you can honestly say you wouldn't have a problem with it, hats off for consistency. Otherwise you have no business supporting this hypocrisy.

---

All vatnik BS. Par for the course.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.....

---

When we invade Canada or Mexico to force them into our "sphere of influence," a hell of a euphemism for annexation, we can talk about the similarities here. Until then, this is not just a false equivalency, it's actively spreading Russian propaganda.

The facts here are simple and indisputable. There is a war in Ukraine currently for one reason and one reason only. Russia invaded. And they did so to the shock of all those who are now defending them.

This is quite literally a geopolitical case of "Don't start no ****, won't be no *****"

---

I was in no way shocked. I would have been, if the US had allowed Ukraine to chart its own course and Putin still felt the need to invade.

---

This is bull****, Sam. And I believe you're too intelligent and well-read not to know that. It's not the West's fault that most formerly authoritarian/colonized lands choose self-rule once they're given a taste of freedom/democracy.

Blaming the US for the Ukrainians' desire to be free of Russia is absurd. It takes all agency away from a population that has quite literally fought very hard to every advancement of freedom it has gotten in the past 35-40 years.

The Ukrainians didn't need to be convinced by the West that they didn't want to be ruled by Russia or a Russian puppet government. They learned that the hard way as part of the Soviet Union, and they earned/value their freedom every bit as much as the United States or any Western European nation.

---

I believe you're also intelligent and well-read, but you're not listening to what Russia or even large parts of Ukraine are saying. Perhaps more important, you're not looking at what the US has done and continues to do. No one in possession of the facts could imagine that we've left Ukraine with any meaningful agency.

---

They could run up the white flag, but they don't. Because +90% of Ukrainians want ALL their territory back.

Note the projection here: it is Sam who removes all meaningful agency from Ukrainians.

---

As usual you forget that there's another side. Ukraine can't end a war the US started, and Russia knows it.

---

As usual you continue to show your vatnik stupidity.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

step 1: Washington elites work with liberal NGO's and neo-Nazi Militia groups inside Ukraine to stage a violent coup and oust the previous pro-Moscow government.

Step 2: get Ukraine into a bloody conflict with Russia.

Step 3: import in massive numbers of cheap African pseudo-slaves

Step 4: profit?

---

LOL no.

---

Ruskies out! Muslims in!







And honestly….planned or not…the leadership in Kyiv does not have much choice but to import in 3rd world labor from Africa and the MENA region.

Since most real Ukrainians are not going to come home from the EU ever…

---

Tucker Carlson calls out Washington Elites & the media for lying to the American people about the war in Ukraine.

Ever wonder why the ruling party despises Tucker & roots for his failure?

Because he is the only member of the “media” willing to call them out

“Everybody believes… pic.twitter.com/zHuXzNCrU1

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 1, 2023

---

Think about that. You say it to show that Ukraine is in trouble. I see is that Ukrainians want to be in the EU, period. Zelensky is reading his people correctly, they believe they are more European than Russian and that their future is in the West. Yet, because Putin doesn't like it, he is allowed to invade. How the world can let Putin do this is remarkable.

Poland has the right idea, they are arming to the teeth, creating Fortress Poland. They are adopting NATO tactics and a combined arms approach. Poland sees what is happening and the reaction of the appeasers. I applaud their vision, Putin understands one thing. They know they are next.

The next step with psychopaths like Putin is that they were scared to stop me in Ukraine, will they really go to war over Latvia or Poland?

---

Why are you convinced Russia would go after other countries instead of just Ukraine? They've believed it's their territory for quite some time.

It's downright evil for them to do this, but Putin isn't Dr. Evil planning world domination.

---

Putin believes all the territory up to Berlin after WW2 is Russian territory won by the Russian Army!

They will go after the Baltics, Poland and the other former Warsaw Pact Nations because that is their nature. The fact that the now believe that Ukraine is theirs, after agreeing to their own sovereignty shows it. They agreed less than 50 years ago and here we are.

---

With what military power?!

It is illogical to believe Ukraine can defend and kick Russia's teeth in,...but Russia is somehow a huge threat to those countries THat makes your premise complete Bull sh it, I'm sorry, it makes absolutely no f uc king sense.

---

Respectfully . . . the argument that Russia's failure (so far) in Ukraine means he is not a threat to attack others is the worst possible argument. He has attacked is attacking others! He already has proven he's willing to do. Ukraine (3 times), Georgia, Chechnya, Moldova. And he sent troops to Kazakhstan and elsewhere.

---

Its almost like you are making the argument that Russia is very interesting in protecting its traditional sphere of influence and giving us examples of how they are staying inside of that traditional regional sphere. (Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan)

I mean you use Chechnya as an example....My God man....Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation! That is like criticizing the UK for using troops in Belfast.

What you have not proved is that Russia is interested in expanding its sphere of influence or in world domination.

While leaving out why the USA had troops in 100+ countries and is now waging a proxy war on Russia's borders in Ukraine.

Get back to me when Russia has troops in Canada or is funding Mexico in a war against us.

Right now they look like a declining regional power desperately trying to hang on to their borderlands....while we look like a massive military-economic-cultural Hegemon that is not happy with anything less than surrounding the Russian state with hostile forces.

---

Well, neither of us can "prove" what Putin will do. My point is that he's shown he's willing to invade, attack, and try to take over other countries and territories. And I tend to believe what leaders like Putin say regarding their world views and intentions. He and his cronies have made it clear they want to reconstitute the old empire.

And I limited my response to actual invasions. Russia tries to have every bit as much international influence as we do. They just are not as good at it. We fight Russia in some kind of proxy battle every day all over the world - military, economic, political, strategic. And Russia' closest friends are our biggest enemies.

I agree they are a declining power. I also believe they know it to, and that is Putin at his most dangerous.

"Traditional regional sphere," in my view, is just an excuse to defend Russia. And I'd obviously strongly oppose us invading and taking over Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, or Bolivia.

---

The USA won the Cold War so Washington does not have to use hard power invasions to keep local countries in line and on its team. Mexico and Canada have no where else to turn than the American empire.

But of course Washington does invade countries outside its traditional sphere all the time (Iraq, Afghanistan, ect)

Russia is a remnant state of the old USSR empire and it is desperately trying to keep a near abroad of allied states surround its borders.

Every ruling class in Moscow would and will act the same regardless of who they are (Czars, Bolsheviks, Puntinists, etc)

The real question is not why is Moscow using force to keep Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan in its orbit…. the question is why does Washington care? These poor ex-Soviet States mean nothing to us, offer us little, and can't be effectively defend from such a far distance away.

Washington power elites will eventually become bored with the Donbas and turn their attention to other areas….Moscow never will.

---

Listen to what you are saying. They lost their European near abroad at the end of the Cold War. Now they want it back. (Be sure to tell Sam that). None of the "near abroad" save Belarus wants any part of that. All of their near abroad except Belarus and Ukraine and Moldova are actually in NATO because they want no part of being in the Russian sphere of influence. And that's why we care. Russian efforts to restore the former Warsaw Pact is zero sum with Nato membership, and thus remains the greatest risk of direct conflict between Russia and Nato.

Real life example: My daughter was C/OPS at Spandahlem where it was her job to keep CAP aircraft in the air 24/7 to include aerial-refueling operations, a 600% jump in activity metrics, sustained 24/7. She's now at the C&GS school in AL, penciled for Aviano, to command a logistics unit dedicated to forward deployments in Eastern Europe. Her job is to be ready to go to war against Russia in Eastern Europe, so if there is conflict between Russia and NATO, she will be "innit." What is the best thing that could happen, today, to keep her out of that conflict? Ukrainian victory. Total expulsion of Russian forces from Ukraine. The further away are the Russian air bases, the further away is the threat is to my daughter. Same for Russian warcraft and ordnance of all types. The more that are destroyed in Ukraine, the fewer that can be brought to bear against my daughter.

It literally is that simple. Just amazing that war opponents refuse to see, to even address the obvious strategic dumbassery of the argument that we have no interest in the outcome of the war in Ukraine. The budget argument is valid. The readiness argument is valid. But the "no interest" argument above is beyond silly. I mean, the Ukraine War is the first thing in my adult life that NATO has ever agreed upon nearly unanimously. How could that be if support for Ukraine was nothing but US hornswoggling everyone to feed the military industrial complex? Hornswoggling of such a caliber as to jolt Sweden and Finland, the international avatars of studious neutrality, into joining NATO at warp speed in response to overwhelming public support?

Could it be that what we're see in policy toward Ukraine is a rare evidence of a case so strong that it actually has effectively unanimous consent of nations who've rarely agreed on anything, to include paying their dues to the organization they now are following?

---

Total Ukrainian victory implies conflict with Russia. The Russians won't have it any other way.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.....

---

When we invade Canada or Mexico to force them into our "sphere of influence," a hell of a euphemism for annexation, we can talk about the similarities here. Until then, this is not just a false equivalency, it's actively spreading Russian propaganda.

The facts here are simple and indisputable. There is a war in Ukraine currently for one reason and one reason only. Russia invaded. And they did so to the shock of all those who are now defending them.

This is quite literally a geopolitical case of "Don't start no ****, won't be no *****"

---

I was in no way shocked. I would have been, if the US had allowed Ukraine to chart its own course and Putin still felt the need to invade.

---

This is bull****, Sam. And I believe you're too intelligent and well-read not to know that. It's not the West's fault that most formerly authoritarian/colonized lands choose self-rule once they're given a taste of freedom/democracy.

Blaming the US for the Ukrainians' desire to be free of Russia is absurd. It takes all agency away from a population that has quite literally fought very hard to every advancement of freedom it has gotten in the past 35-40 years.

The Ukrainians didn't need to be convinced by the West that they didn't want to be ruled by Russia or a Russian puppet government. They learned that the hard way as part of the Soviet Union, and they earned/value their freedom every bit as much as the United States or any Western European nation.

---

I believe you're also intelligent and well-read, but you're not listening to what Russia or even large parts of Ukraine are saying. Perhaps more important, you're not looking at what the US has done and continues to do. No one in possession of the facts could imagine that we've left Ukraine with any meaningful agency.

---

They could run up the white flag, but they don't. Because +90% of Ukrainians want ALL their territory back.

Note the projection here: it is Sam who removes all meaningful agency from Ukrainians.

---

As usual you forget that there's another side. Ukraine can't end a war the US started, and Russia knows it.

---

As usual you continue to show your vatnik stupidity.

---

Is everyone a Russian agent?

Or just anyone who opposes neo-con psychopaths and war mongers like you?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.....

---

When we invade Canada or Mexico to force them into our "sphere of influence," a hell of a euphemism for annexation, we can talk about the similarities here. Until then, this is not just a false equivalency, it's actively spreading Russian propaganda.

The facts here are simple and indisputable. There is a war in Ukraine currently for one reason and one reason only. Russia invaded. And they did so to the shock of all those who are now defending them.

This is quite literally a geopolitical case of "Don't start no ****, won't be no *****"

---

I was in no way shocked. I would have been, if the US had allowed Ukraine to chart its own course and Putin still felt the need to invade.

---

This is bull****, Sam. And I believe you're too intelligent and well-read not to know that. It's not the West's fault that most formerly authoritarian/colonized lands choose self-rule once they're given a taste of freedom/democracy.

Blaming the US for the Ukrainians' desire to be free of Russia is absurd. It takes all agency away from a population that has quite literally fought very hard to every advancement of freedom it has gotten in the past 35-40 years.

The Ukrainians didn't need to be convinced by the West that they didn't want to be ruled by Russia or a Russian puppet government. They learned that the hard way as part of the Soviet Union, and they earned/value their freedom every bit as much as the United States or any Western European nation.

---

I believe you're also intelligent and well-read, but you're not listening to what Russia or even large parts of Ukraine are saying. Perhaps more important, you're not looking at what the US has done and continues to do. No one in possession of the facts could imagine that we've left Ukraine with any meaningful agency.

---

They could run up the white flag, but they don't. Because +90% of Ukrainians want ALL their territory back.

Note the projection here: it is Sam who removes all meaningful agency from Ukrainians.

---

As usual you forget that there's another side. Ukraine can't end a war the US started, and Russia knows it.

---

As usual you continue to show your vatnik stupidity.

---

Is everyone a Russian agent?

Or just anyone who opposes neo-con psychopaths and war mongers like you?

---

Only the ones actually pushing RU-propaganda like you, vatnik.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Well said. I'm guessing some on the other side don't support NATO itself.

---

I don't know of anyone who has said they don't support the current make up of NATO or its existence as a military alliance.

What some have opposed is the reckless expansion of this military alliance right up to the borders of a nuclear armed state. One that has said many times that it will view such expansion as a serious provocation.

Plus, some have asked what benefits to NATO are provided by trying to bring in poor, corrupt, ex-Soviet states?

Moldova is not exactly helping any military alliance become stronger….so why should NATO want it?

---

Do you support NATO? It's become fashionable among many on the "right" to oppose it. And many of those happen to oppose Ukraine support.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Well said. I'm guessing some on the other side don't support NATO itself.

---

I don't know of anyone who has said they don't support the current make up of NATO or its existence as a military alliance.

What some have opposed is the reckless expansion of this military alliance right up to the borders of a nuclear armed state. One that has said many times that it will view such expansion as a serious provocation.

Plus, some have asked what benefits to NATO are provided by trying to bring in poor, corrupt, ex-Soviet states?

Moldova is not exactly helping any military alliance become stronger….so why should NATO want it?

---

Do you support NATO? It's become fashionable among many on the "right" to oppose it. And many of those happen to oppose Ukraine support.

---

It's become almost exhausting on this site to continually explain that yes….I support the existence of NATO.

And have said for a long time that I think a Pacific style military alliance would be called for…let's call it the "pacific alliance treaty organization" (PATO).

But in both cases (NATO and PATO) we would have to be more clear who would be offered membership and who would never be offered membership.

I do NOT support endlessly expansive military alliances that have no logical end point, mission, or rational territorial limit.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Well said. I'm guessing some on the other side don't support NATO itself.

---

I don't know of anyone who has said they don't support the current make up of NATO or its existence as a military alliance.

What some have opposed is the reckless expansion of this military alliance right up to the borders of a nuclear armed state. One that has said many times that it will view such expansion as a serious provocation.

Plus, some have asked what benefits to NATO are provided by trying to bring in poor, corrupt, ex-Soviet states?

Moldova is not exactly helping any military alliance become stronger….so why should NATO want it?

---

Do you support NATO? It's become fashionable among many on the "right" to oppose it. And many of those happen to oppose Ukraine support.

---

It's become almost exhausting on this site to continually explain that yes….I support the existence of NATO.

And have said for a long time that I think a Pacific style military alliance would be called for…let's call it the "pacific alliance treaty organization" (PATO).

But in both cases (NATO and PATO) we would have to be more clear who would be offered membership and who would never be offered membership.

I do NOT support endlessly expansive military alliances that have no logical end point, mission, or rational territorial limit.

---

Good response

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

step 1: Washington elites work with liberal NGO's and neo-Nazi Militia groups inside Ukraine to stage a violent coup and oust the previous pro-Moscow government.

Step 2: get Ukraine into a bloody conflict with Russia.

Step 3: import in massive numbers of cheap African pseudo-slaves

Step 4: profit?

---

LOL no.

---

Ruskies out! Muslims in!







And honestly….planned or not…the leadership in Kyiv does not have much choice but to import in 3rd world labor from Africa and the MENA region.

Since most real Ukrainians are not going to come home from the EU ever…

---

Tucker Carlson calls out Washington Elites & the media for lying to the American people about the war in Ukraine.

Ever wonder why the ruling party despises Tucker & roots for his failure?

Because he is the only member of the “media” willing to call them out

“Everybody believes… pic.twitter.com/zHuXzNCrU1

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 1, 2023

---

Think about that. You say it to show that Ukraine is in trouble. I see is that Ukrainians want to be in the EU, period. Zelensky is reading his people correctly, they believe they are more European than Russian and that their future is in the West. Yet, because Putin doesn't like it, he is allowed to invade. How the world can let Putin do this is remarkable.

Poland has the right idea, they are arming to the teeth, creating Fortress Poland. They are adopting NATO tactics and a combined arms approach. Poland sees what is happening and the reaction of the appeasers. I applaud their vision, Putin understands one thing. They know they are next.

The next step with psychopaths like Putin is that they were scared to stop me in Ukraine, will they really go to war over Latvia or Poland?

---

Why are you convinced Russia would go after other countries instead of just Ukraine? They've believed it's their territory for quite some time.

It's downright evil for them to do this, but Putin isn't Dr. Evil planning world domination.

---

Putin believes all the territory up to Berlin after WW2 is Russian territory won by the Russian Army!

They will go after the Baltics, Poland and the other former Warsaw Pact Nations because that is their nature. The fact that the now believe that Ukraine is theirs, after agreeing to their own sovereignty shows it. They agreed less than 50 years ago and here we are.

---

With what military power?!

It is illogical to believe Ukraine can defend and kick Russia's teeth in,...but Russia is somehow a huge threat to those countries THat makes your premise complete Bull sh it, I'm sorry, it makes absolutely no f uc king sense.

---

Respectfully . . . the argument that Russia's failure (so far) in Ukraine means he is not a threat to attack others is the worst possible argument. He has attacked is attacking others! He already has proven he's willing to do. Ukraine (3 times), Georgia, Chechnya, Moldova. And he sent troops to Kazakhstan and elsewhere.

---

Its almost like you are making the argument that Russia is very interesting in protecting its traditional sphere of influence and giving us examples of how they are staying inside of that traditional regional sphere. (Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan)

I mean you use Chechnya as an example....My God man....Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation! That is like criticizing the UK for using troops in Belfast.

What you have not proved is that Russia is interested in expanding its sphere of influence or in world domination.

While leaving out why the USA had troops in 100+ countries and is now waging a proxy war on Russia's borders in Ukraine.

Get back to me when Russia has troops in Canada or is funding Mexico in a war against us.

Right now they look like a declining regional power desperately trying to hang on to their borderlands....while we look like a massive military-economic-cultural Hegemon that is not happy with anything less than surrounding the Russian state with hostile forces.

---

Well, there is their invasion of Ukraine.....

---

There have been Russian troops in the lands of Ukraine since the time of the old Czardom of Russia during the great Cossack uprisings against the Poles in the 1600s.

It's well within their traditional sphere of influence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising#:~:text=The%20Khmelnytsky%20Uprising%2C%20also%20known,a%20Cossack%20Hetmanate%20in%20Ukraine.

Let's not act like for 1 second like Moscow has not had serious strategic interests in the Ukraine for at least 400 years.

They have been involved in the Ukraine longer than the United States has even existed.

---

Well, there is their invasion of Ukraine...... LOL

You know, before Moscow, there was Novgorod. And before Novgorod, there was Kiev. And for more centuries than you cite, Kiev was the dominant power in the region (400yrs). There are maps showing Ukraine stretching as far south as Georgia. And the Ottomans owning/controlling Crimea. And for a good long while, Moscow and Kiev each paid tribute to Mongolian Khans. So if we are going to levy historical arguments, which era of history do we choose as instructive? And if dynamics indicate that one center of power is rising while another is fading, must we sit by and watch helplessly? If it is clear that we have more benefit from one outcome than the other, why should we not support the side that will win?

Here's a short thumbnail of what I suspect history will write about modern Russia by the end of this century:
"In 1917, a backward Russia emerged from Czarist control badly in need of reform, and adopted communism. World dynamics in the mid-20th century afforded Russia a pathway to achieve the zenith of its historical geo-political power at the end of WWII. But communism proved to be a destructive force. Instead of reforming Russia into a position of world dominance, it hollowed Russia out in 70 years as thoroughly as it had taken the Czarist regimes 7 centuries to do. With the fall of the cold war, all of Eastern Europe save tiny Belarus had chosen to adopt Western European political and economic systems. To stave off further isolation, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. But the same traditional Russian weaknesses - stifling autocracy fortified by kleptocracy - became apparent. Russia failed and had to withdraw in ignominy, executing a peace far worse than the Treaty of Paris in 1856. Russia had to do more than de-militarize the Black Sea. It actually had to cede control over Crimea and formally recognize that a resurgent Ukraine would drift out of the Russian orbit. The disastrous outcome forced regime change in Moscow, which led to ....."

Putin will have a legacy worse than Nicholas I. Unlike Nicholas I, Putin added nothing to mother Russia. History seems poised to say about him that he staunchly defended the Russian tradition of socio-political backwardness relative to Europe and therefore presided over continuous decline, punctuated by one foreign policy debacle after another. Lest you think that is pie in the sky, just look what is happening. EVERY European country is contributing to the Ukrainian cause. They are PLAINLY trying to achieve the course I have laid out = total isolation of Russia, right down to Finland and Sweden joining Nato.

The most powerful nation on earth is under no moral, legal, or logical encumbrance to sit idly by while events of such import unfold and allow others to influence the course of affairs to their benefit. This is not Burma or Rwanda we're talking about. This is a part of the world which impacts in some way almost everything that matters to us, to include an obligation of mutual defense that would commit our sons & daughters, to include mine. The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

step 1: Washington elites work with liberal NGO's and neo-Nazi Militia groups inside Ukraine to stage a violent coup and oust the previous pro-Moscow government.

Step 2: get Ukraine into a bloody conflict with Russia.

Step 3: import in massive numbers of cheap African pseudo-slaves

Step 4: profit?

---

LOL no.

---

Ruskies out! Muslims in!







And honestly….planned or not…the leadership in Kyiv does not have much choice but to import in 3rd world labor from Africa and the MENA region.

Since most real Ukrainians are not going to come home from the EU ever…

---

Tucker Carlson calls out Washington Elites & the media for lying to the American people about the war in Ukraine.

Ever wonder why the ruling party despises Tucker & roots for his failure?

Because he is the only member of the “media” willing to call them out

“Everybody believes… pic.twitter.com/zHuXzNCrU1

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 1, 2023

---

Think about that. You say it to show that Ukraine is in trouble. I see is that Ukrainians want to be in the EU, period. Zelensky is reading his people correctly, they believe they are more European than Russian and that their future is in the West. Yet, because Putin doesn't like it, he is allowed to invade. How the world can let Putin do this is remarkable.

Poland has the right idea, they are arming to the teeth, creating Fortress Poland. They are adopting NATO tactics and a combined arms approach. Poland sees what is happening and the reaction of the appeasers. I applaud their vision, Putin understands one thing. They know they are next.

The next step with psychopaths like Putin is that they were scared to stop me in Ukraine, will they really go to war over Latvia or Poland?

---

Why are you convinced Russia would go after other countries instead of just Ukraine? They've believed it's their territory for quite some time.

It's downright evil for them to do this, but Putin isn't Dr. Evil planning world domination.

---

Putin believes all the territory up to Berlin after WW2 is Russian territory won by the Russian Army!

They will go after the Baltics, Poland and the other former Warsaw Pact Nations because that is their nature. The fact that the now believe that Ukraine is theirs, after agreeing to their own sovereignty shows it. They agreed less than 50 years ago and here we are.

---

Putin can believe that Russia owns Mars....does not mean he can get it.

This idea that the Russian army is so incompetent that is can not take land right on its border and filled with ethnic Russians (eastern Ukraine)....yet somehow the Russians are going to march into Poland, the Baltics, and Central Europe is somewhere between hilarious fan-fiction and insanity.

Russia does not have the money, man power, equipment, or competency to do that.

If if they magically did....that is why we have NATO.

If a single Russian tank crosses the border with Estonia then a massive 30+ nation alliance will declare war on Russia and wipe out the Russian Federation.

That NATO alliance also has a population close to 1 Billion people and some of the largest military and biggest economic powers on earth inside of it (USA, Canada, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Netherlands, etc)

While Russia has 144 million people and a economy more on the level of Mexico.

---

Yeah, so give him Ukraine. That makes sense.

As for our border, Ukraine has nothing to do with the border. The border is exactly how Biden wants it. You thinb that money will go to the border? No way, it will go to China for EV batteries. I would rather use it for Ukraine, they will use it.

---

Washington elites will get bored with this conflict eventually…just like they got bored playing in the bloody Arab-Afghan stand traps in Iraq/Afghanistan…Moscow elites will not get bored.

---

100% dead on.

Realitybites said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

---

Crimea is Russian as much as Cancun is American

Realitybites said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

---

Nope.

Bear8084 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

---

Nope.

---

Exactly what did he post is wrong ?

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

---

Nope.

---

Exactly what did he post is wrong ?

---

It's been explained before, Canada.

Bear8084 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

---

Nope.

---

Exactly what did he post is wrong ?

---

It's been explained before, Canada.

---

Perfect


He's just wrong.


Who could possibly doubt it ?

Bear8084 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

---

Nope.

---

Exactly what did he post is wrong ?

---

It's been explained before, Canada.

---

Typing "lol vatnik" 20 times a day doesn't explain much.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

---

Nope.

---

Exactly what did he post is wrong ?

---

It's been explained before, Canada.

---

Typing "lol vatnik" 20 times a day doesn't explain much.

---

Neither does posting pro-RU propaganda that you love to share. Vatnik.

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

---

Nope.

---

Exactly what did he post is wrong ?

---

Crimea is so Russian and pro-Russia that Putin finds it necessary to bomb residential buildings . . . .

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

---

Nope.

---

Exactly what did he post is wrong ?

---

It's been explained before, Canada.

---

Typing "lol vatnik" 20 times a day doesn't explain much.

---

No but it does make him feel better…

trey3216 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"

---

---

The idea that any nation is "indispensable" shows a profound ignorance of history...and having someone who would something like this as your chief diplomat...

Quote:

---

The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

...and any serious effort to do this will result in a strategic nuclear war. What you're advocating here is invading and capturing the territory of a sovereign nuclear armed power. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is populated by Russians. What you're proposing is basically something like giving Arizona back to Mexico.

---

Crimea is Russian as much as Cancun is American

---

I have been to Cancun…and while I did see some retired American Anglos they did not seem to be anything like a majority.

That's accurate, but doesn't come close to telling the story. The story is about what % of those truly identify as Russian and support Russia.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

step 1: Washington elites work with liberal NGO's and neo-Nazi Militia groups inside Ukraine to stage a violent coup and oust the previous pro-Moscow government.

Step 2: get Ukraine into a bloody conflict with Russia.

Step 3: import in massive numbers of cheap African pseudo-slaves

Step 4: profit?

---

LOL no.

---

Ruskies out! Muslims in!







And honestly….planned or not…the leadership in Kyiv does not have much choice but to import in 3rd world labor from Africa and the MENA region.

Since most real Ukrainians are not going to come home from the EU ever…

---

Tucker Carlson calls out Washington Elites & the media for lying to the American people about the war in Ukraine.

Ever wonder why the ruling party despises Tucker & roots for his failure?

Because he is the only member of the “media” willing to call them out

“Everybody believes… pic.twitter.com/zHuXzNCrU1

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 1, 2023

---

Think about that. You say it to show that Ukraine is in trouble. I see is that Ukrainians want to be in the EU, period. Zelensky is reading his people correctly, they believe they are more European than Russian and that their future is in the West. Yet, because Putin doesn't like it, he is allowed to invade. How the world can let Putin do this is remarkable.

Poland has the right idea, they are arming to the teeth, creating Fortress Poland. They are adopting NATO tactics and a combined arms approach. Poland sees what is happening and the reaction of the appeasers. I applaud their vision, Putin understands one thing. They know they are next.

The next step with psychopaths like Putin is that they were scared to stop me in Ukraine, will they really go to war over Latvia or Poland?

---

Why are you convinced Russia would go after other countries instead of just Ukraine? They've believed it's their territory for quite some time.

It's downright evil for them to do this, but Putin isn't Dr. Evil planning world domination.

---

Putin believes all the territory up to Berlin after WW2 is Russian territory won by the Russian Army!

They will go after the Baltics, Poland and the other former Warsaw Pact Nations because that is their nature. The fact that the now believe that Ukraine is theirs, after agreeing to their own sovereignty shows it. They agreed less than 50 years ago and here we are.

---

With what military power?!

It is illogical to believe Ukraine can defend and kick Russia's teeth in,...but Russia is somehow a huge threat to those countries THat makes your premise complete Bull sh it, I'm sorry, it makes absolutely no f uc king sense.

---

Respectfully . . . the argument that Russia's failure (so far) in Ukraine means he is not a threat to attack others is the worst possible argument. He has attacked is attacking others! He already has proven he's willing to do. Ukraine (3 times), Georgia, Chechnya, Moldova. And he sent troops to Kazakhstan and elsewhere.

---

Its almost like you are making the argument that Russia is very interesting in protecting its traditional sphere of influence and giving us examples of how they are staying inside of that traditional regional sphere. (Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan)

I mean you use Chechnya as an example....My God man....Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation! That is like criticizing the UK for using troops in Belfast.

What you have not proved is that Russia is interested in expanding its sphere of influence or in world domination.

While leaving out why the USA had troops in 100+ countries and is now waging a proxy war on Russia's borders in Ukraine.

Get back to me when Russia has troops in Canada or is funding Mexico in a war against us.

Right now they look like a declining regional power desperately trying to hang on to their borderlands....while we look like a massive military-economic-cultural Hegemon that is not happy with anything less than surrounding the Russian state with hostile forces.

---

Well, there is their invasion of Ukraine.....

---

There have been Russian troops in the lands of Ukraine since the time of the old Czardom of Russia during the great Cossack uprisings against the Poles in the 1600s.

It's well within their traditional sphere of influence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising#:~:text=The%20Khmelnytsky%20Uprising%2C%20also%20known,a%20Cossack%20Hetmanate%20in%20Ukraine.

Let's not act like for 1 second like Moscow has not had serious strategic interests in the Ukraine for at least 400 years.

They have been involved in the Ukraine longer than the United States has even existed.

---

Well, there is their invasion of Ukraine...... LOL

You know, before Moscow, there was Novgorod. And before Novgorod, there was Kiev. And for more centuries than you cite, Kiev was the dominant power in the region (400yrs). There are maps showing Ukraine stretching as far south as Georgia. And the Ottomans owning/controlling Crimea. And for a good long while, Moscow and Kiev each paid tribute to Mongolian Khans. So if we are going to levy historical arguments, which era of history do we choose as instructive? And if dynamics indicate that one center of power is rising while another is fading, must we sit by and watch helplessly? If it is clear that we have more benefit from one outcome than the other, why should we not support the side that will win?

Here's a short thumbnail of what I suspect history will write about modern Russia by the end of this century:
"In 1917, a backward Russia emerged from Czarist control badly in need of reform, and adopted communism. World dynamics in the mid-20th century afforded Russia a pathway to achieve the zenith of its historical geo-political power at the end of WWII. But communism proved to be a destructive force. Instead of reforming Russia into a position of world dominance, it hollowed Russia out in 70 years as thoroughly as it had taken the Czarist regimes 7 centuries to do. With the fall of the cold war, all of Eastern Europe save tiny Belarus had chosen to adopt Western European political and economic systems. To stave off further isolation, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. But the same traditional Russian weaknesses - stifling autocracy fortified by kleptocracy - became apparent. Russia failed and had to withdraw in ignominy, executing a peace far worse than the Treaty of Paris in 1856. Russia had to do more than de-militarize the Black Sea. It actually had to cede control over Crimea and formally recognize that a resurgent Ukraine would drift out of the Russian orbit. The disastrous outcome forced regime change in Moscow, which led to ....."

Putin will have a legacy worse than Nicholas I. Unlike Nicholas I, Putin added nothing to mother Russia. History seems poised to say about him that he staunchly defended the Russian tradition of socio-political backwardness relative to Europe and therefore presided over continuous decline, punctuated by one foreign policy debacle after another. Lest you think that is pie in the sky, just look what is happening. EVERY European country is contributing to the Ukrainian cause. They are PLAINLY trying to achieve the course I have laid out = total isolation of Russia, right down to Finland and Sweden joining Nato.

The most powerful nation on earth is under no moral, legal, or logical encumbrance to sit idly by while events of such import unfold and allow others to influence the course of affairs to their benefit. This is not Burma or Rwanda we're talking about. This is a part of the world which impacts in some way almost everything that matters to us, to include an obligation of mutual defense that would commit our sons & daughters, to include mine. The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

The leaders of Russia and the US are an interesting study in contrasts. On one side you have a Cold War relic, a bloodthirsty, paranoid mediocrity in charge of a declining power, who hides his fear behind empty threats and petty aggression in a desperate bid to keep his country relevant. On the other side, of course, you have Vladimir Putin.

History will not be kind to Sleepy Joe.

sombear said:

---

That's accurate, but doesn't come close to telling the story. The story is about what % of those truly identify as Russian and support Russia.

---

They took a vote, but we can't trust that since Putin is literally the devil and no legitimate vote could ever be pro-Russian. The only way to know for sure would be to confirm the vote through independent polling. Which we did. But the only way to really know would be through multiple surveys conducted by multiple mainstream media organizations in the West. Which we also did. The only mystery at this point is how we can still pretend not to know what Crimea wants.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

step 1: Washington elites work with liberal NGO's and neo-Nazi Militia groups inside Ukraine to stage a violent coup and oust the previous pro-Moscow government.

Step 2: get Ukraine into a bloody conflict with Russia.

Step 3: import in massive numbers of cheap African pseudo-slaves

Step 4: profit?

---

LOL no.

---

Ruskies out! Muslims in!







And honestly….planned or not…the leadership in Kyiv does not have much choice but to import in 3rd world labor from Africa and the MENA region.

Since most real Ukrainians are not going to come home from the EU ever…

---

Tucker Carlson calls out Washington Elites & the media for lying to the American people about the war in Ukraine.

Ever wonder why the ruling party despises Tucker & roots for his failure?

Because he is the only member of the “media” willing to call them out

“Everybody believes… pic.twitter.com/zHuXzNCrU1

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 1, 2023

---

Think about that. You say it to show that Ukraine is in trouble. I see is that Ukrainians want to be in the EU, period. Zelensky is reading his people correctly, they believe they are more European than Russian and that their future is in the West. Yet, because Putin doesn't like it, he is allowed to invade. How the world can let Putin do this is remarkable.

Poland has the right idea, they are arming to the teeth, creating Fortress Poland. They are adopting NATO tactics and a combined arms approach. Poland sees what is happening and the reaction of the appeasers. I applaud their vision, Putin understands one thing. They know they are next.

The next step with psychopaths like Putin is that they were scared to stop me in Ukraine, will they really go to war over Latvia or Poland?

---

Why are you convinced Russia would go after other countries instead of just Ukraine? They've believed it's their territory for quite some time.

It's downright evil for them to do this, but Putin isn't Dr. Evil planning world domination.

---

Putin believes all the territory up to Berlin after WW2 is Russian territory won by the Russian Army!

They will go after the Baltics, Poland and the other former Warsaw Pact Nations because that is their nature. The fact that the now believe that Ukraine is theirs, after agreeing to their own sovereignty shows it. They agreed less than 50 years ago and here we are.

---

With what military power?!

It is illogical to believe Ukraine can defend and kick Russia's teeth in,...but Russia is somehow a huge threat to those countries THat makes your premise complete Bull sh it, I'm sorry, it makes absolutely no f uc king sense.

---

Respectfully . . . the argument that Russia's failure (so far) in Ukraine means he is not a threat to attack others is the worst possible argument. He has attacked is attacking others! He already has proven he's willing to do. Ukraine (3 times), Georgia, Chechnya, Moldova. And he sent troops to Kazakhstan and elsewhere.

---

Its almost like you are making the argument that Russia is very interesting in protecting its traditional sphere of influence and giving us examples of how they are staying inside of that traditional regional sphere. (Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan)

I mean you use Chechnya as an example....My God man....Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation! That is like criticizing the UK for using troops in Belfast.

What you have not proved is that Russia is interested in expanding its sphere of influence or in world domination.

While leaving out why the USA had troops in 100+ countries and is now waging a proxy war on Russia's borders in Ukraine.

Get back to me when Russia has troops in Canada or is funding Mexico in a war against us.

Right now they look like a declining regional power desperately trying to hang on to their borderlands....while we look like a massive military-economic-cultural Hegemon that is not happy with anything less than surrounding the Russian state with hostile forces.

---

Well, there is their invasion of Ukraine.....

---

There have been Russian troops in the lands of Ukraine since the time of the old Czardom of Russia during the great Cossack uprisings against the Poles in the 1600s.

It's well within their traditional sphere of influence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising#:~:text=The%20Khmelnytsky%20Uprising%2C%20also%20known,a%20Cossack%20Hetmanate%20in%20Ukraine.

Let's not act like for 1 second like Moscow has not had serious strategic interests in the Ukraine for at least 400 years.

They have been involved in the Ukraine longer than the United States has even existed.

---

Well, there is their invasion of Ukraine...... LOL

You know, before Moscow, there was Novgorod. And before Novgorod, there was Kiev. And for more centuries than you cite, Kiev was the dominant power in the region (400yrs). There are maps showing Ukraine stretching as far south as Georgia. And the Ottomans owning/controlling Crimea. And for a good long while, Moscow and Kiev each paid tribute to Mongolian Khans. So if we are going to levy historical arguments, which era of history do we choose as instructive? And if dynamics indicate that one center of power is rising while another is fading, must we sit by and watch helplessly? If it is clear that we have more benefit from one outcome than the other, why should we not support the side that will win?

Here's a short thumbnail of what I suspect history will write about modern Russia by the end of this century:
"In 1917, a backward Russia emerged from Czarist control badly in need of reform, and adopted communism. World dynamics in the mid-20th century afforded Russia a pathway to achieve the zenith of its historical geo-political power at the end of WWII. But communism proved to be a destructive force. Instead of reforming Russia into a position of world dominance, it hollowed Russia out in 70 years as thoroughly as it had taken the Czarist regimes 7 centuries to do. With the fall of the cold war, all of Eastern Europe save tiny Belarus had chosen to adopt Western European political and economic systems. To stave off further isolation, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. But the same traditional Russian weaknesses - stifling autocracy fortified by kleptocracy - became apparent. Russia failed and had to withdraw in ignominy, executing a peace far worse than the Treaty of Paris in 1856. Russia had to do more than de-militarize the Black Sea. It actually had to cede control over Crimea and formally recognize that a resurgent Ukraine would drift out of the Russian orbit. The disastrous outcome forced regime change in Moscow, which led to ....."

Putin will have a legacy worse than Nicholas I. Unlike Nicholas I, Putin added nothing to mother Russia. History seems poised to say about him that he staunchly defended the Russian tradition of socio-political backwardness relative to Europe and therefore presided over continuous decline, punctuated by one foreign policy debacle after another. Lest you think that is pie in the sky, just look what is happening. EVERY European country is contributing to the Ukrainian cause. They are PLAINLY trying to achieve the course I have laid out = total isolation of Russia, right down to Finland and Sweden joining Nato.

The most powerful nation on earth is under no moral, legal, or logical encumbrance to sit idly by while events of such import unfold and allow others to influence the course of affairs to their benefit. This is not Burma or Rwanda we're talking about. This is a part of the world which impacts in some way almost everything that matters to us, to include an obligation of mutual defense that would commit our sons & daughters, to include mine. The path to peace involves a Ukrainian victory in Crimea.......

---

The leaders of Russia and the US are an interesting study in contrasts. On one side you have a Cold War relic, a bloodthirsty, paranoid mediocrity in charge of a declining power, who hides his fear behind empty threats and petty aggression in a desperate bid to keep his country relevant. On the other side, of course, you have Vladimir Putin.

History will not be kind to Sleepy Joe.

---

sombear said:

---

That's accurate, but doesn't come close to telling the story. The story is about what % of those truly identify as Russian and support Russia.

---

"In Sevastopol large numbers support Russia"

Minute 0:59

"NBC newsman: is Crimea Russian or Ukrainian?

Women on the streets: Russian, of course!"

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

That's accurate, but doesn't come close to telling the story. The story is about what % of those truly identify as Russian and support Russia.

---

They took a vote, but we can't trust that since Putin is literally the devil and no legitimate vote could ever be pro-Russian. The only way to know for sure would be to confirm the vote through independent polling. Which we did. But the only way to really know would be through multiple surveys conducted by multiple mainstream media organizations in the West. Which we also did. The only mystery at this point is how we can still pretend not to know what Crimea wants.

---

Wait, you subscribe to the 88% turnout and 97% vote favoring annexation story?

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

That's accurate, but doesn't come close to telling the story. The story is about what % of those truly identify as Russian and support Russia.

---

"In Sevastopol large numbers support Russia"

Minute 0:59

"NBC newsman: is Crimea Russian or Ukrainian?

Women on the streets: Russian, of course!"

---

https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/society/were-crimeans-really-pro-russian-before-annexation

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

That's accurate, but doesn't come close to telling the story. The story is about what % of those truly identify as Russian and support Russia.

---

They took a vote, but we can't trust that since Putin is literally the devil and no legitimate vote could ever be pro-Russian. The only way to know for sure would be to confirm the vote through independent polling. Which we did. But the only way to really know would be through multiple surveys conducted by multiple mainstream media organizations in the West. Which we also did. The only mystery at this point is how we can still pretend not to know what Crimea wants.

---

Wait, you subscribe to the 88% turnout and 97% vote favoring annexation story?

---

More or less. Why shouldn't I?

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

That's accurate, but doesn't come close to telling the story. The story is about what % of those truly identify as Russian and support Russia.

---

They took a vote, but we can't trust that since Putin is literally the devil and no legitimate vote could ever be pro-Russian. The only way to know for sure would be to confirm the vote through independent polling. Which we did. But the only way to really know would be through multiple surveys conducted by multiple mainstream media organizations in the West. Which we also did. The only mystery at this point is how we can still pretend not to know what Crimea wants.

---

Wait, you subscribe to the 88% turnout and 97% vote favoring annexation story?

---

More or less. Why shouldn't I?

---

First, it's comical and mathematically impossible on its face. Those turnout numbers in Eastern Europe don't come close to happening, and when do 97% agree on anything?

Two, why wouldn't pro-Russia politicians have done better there? There were numerous elections leading up to that to serve as benchmarks.

Three, there were very public and open protests of folks vowing not to vote and encouraging others no to. Yet 97% turnout?

Fourth, high turnout when Russian troops manned metro polling stations?

Fifth, independent studies estimated about 30% turnout and a slight majority voting in favor. In fact, pre-election, estimates were about 1/3 turnout.

Finally, those numbers sound much like North Korea, Iran, and Russia's own election "numbers" . . . .

Other than that . . . .

---

Just a reminder vatnik Sam wants Russia to win, so facts and reality are foreign to him.