trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Poland could be in Moscow in a month If they wanted to.

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Poland could be in Moscow in a month If they wanted to.

And you're whining about using multiple launch rockets into Russian military bases when Russia is launching hypersonic missiles into apartment buildings and shopping malls.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Poland could be in Moscow in a month If they wanted to.

---

Absolutely true


So why are people still acting like Russia is some great threat to the massive NATO military alliance?

The relatively poor Polaks could whip them…imagine what USA, UK, French, and German divisions would do

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Poland could be in Moscow in a month If they wanted to.

---

Absolutely true


So why are people still acting like Russia is some great threat to the massive NATO military alliance?

The relatively poor Polaks could whip them…imagine what USA, UK, French, and German divisions would do

---

You see no value in acting as a coalition. Showing that even though we don't need all of NATO, you mess in our backyard you get all of NATO. Ukraine is NATOs backyard since Ukraine asked for help and to join the West. Unity sends a message.

Picking and choosing promotes attacks and emboldens thugs.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

No, it's certainly not a reason for Ukraine not to attack Russia. The question is whether the US should attack Russia by way of Ukraine.

I suppose Russia is using whatever it finds effective. The point is that they're not using it against us.

And yes, they are using our systems, but not against Russia proper.

---

This is not a US proxy war…

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

No, it's certainly not a reason for Ukraine not to attack Russia. The question is whether the US should attack Russia by way of Ukraine.

I suppose Russia is using whatever it finds effective. The point is that they're not using it against us.

And yes, they are using our systems, but not against Russia proper.

---

Huh? Russia invaded Ukraine. This is not a US proxy war. Russia leaves the sovereign nation of Ukraine there are no attacks. How is that a proxy war? I am sick of people acting like the US is controlling this war and the US is somehow to blame because Putin invaded another Nation, again.

---

Buried in this NYT story on the despicable nitwit Anthony Blinken meeting with the president of Moldova (a Very Important Ally of ours, apparently)
is the news that we are giving them $135 million in free money (bribes) to pay for, among other nothings:
--renewable energy… pic.twitter.com/RUdroLzrpE

— Peachy Keenan (@KeenanPeachy) May 29, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

No, it's certainly not a reason for Ukraine not to attack Russia. The question is whether the US should attack Russia by way of Ukraine.

I suppose Russia is using whatever it finds effective. The point is that they're not using it against us.

And yes, they are using our systems, but not against Russia proper.

---

Huh? Russia invaded Ukraine. This is not a US proxy war. Russia leaves the sovereign nation of Ukraine there are no attacks. How is that a proxy war? I am sick of people acting like the US is controlling this war and the US is somehow to blame because Putin invaded another Nation, again.

---

It is a textbook proxy war.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

No, it's certainly not a reason for Ukraine not to attack Russia. The question is whether the US should attack Russia by way of Ukraine.

I suppose Russia is using whatever it finds effective. The point is that they're not using it against us.

And yes, they are using our systems, but not against Russia proper.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

No, it's certainly not a reason for Ukraine not to attack Russia. The question is whether the US should attack Russia by way of Ukraine.

I suppose Russia is using whatever it finds effective. The point is that they're not using it against us.

And yes, they are using our systems, but not against Russia proper.

---

The semantics of whose weapon is firing at who and where became moot when Russia sat back behind their border launching long range attacks and attempted a new ground invasion front from their border town fortifications. They strategically use their cheaper drones (long range Iranian Shaheds), and artillery positions in Russia, so I don't think anyone should be appalled that Ukraine would and should use all means available to disrupt supply lines and counter cross border offensive efforts.

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kyiv. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kyiv unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

No, it's certainly not a reason for Ukraine not to attack Russia. The question is whether the US should attack Russia by way of Ukraine.

I suppose Russia is using whatever it finds effective. The point is that they're not using it against us.

And yes, they are using our systems, but not against Russia proper.

---

The semantics of whose weapon is firing at who and where became moot when Russia sat back behind their border launching long range attacks and attempted a new ground invasion front from their border town fortifications. They strategically use their cheaper drones (long range Iranian Shaheds), and artillery positions in Russia, so I don't think anyone should be appalled that Ukraine would and should use all means available to disrupt supply lines and counter cross border offensive efforts.

---

You are completely missing the point. Russia and Ukraine are attacking each other because they're at war with each other. This is to be expected. But we're not Ukraine. If we get involved in our own right, it's no mere matter of semantics.

It's a false perception that escalation is somehow not escalation as long as we think it's justified. Another example of the danger in listening to too much of our own moralizing. The reality is that escalation is escalation, period. If we choose to get in the game, we really are in the game, believe it or not.

---

So if India and China were fighting a war, and India was firing American made rockets at China's Russian made radar platforms, then the USA is attacking Russia?? Is that what you're saying?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

China and Iran aren't sending cruise missiles into Ukraine. If they were, they would risk retaliation from Ukraine. If we do the same to Russia, we risk retaliation from Russia. Ukraine…Russia. Please tell me you at least see the difference. It's not about what you think is fair. It's about the fact of escalation, regardless of what word games you play in order to get around it.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

No, it's certainly not a reason for Ukraine not to attack Russia. The question is whether the US should attack Russia by way of Ukraine.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

No, it's certainly not a reason for Ukraine not to attack Russia. The question is whether the US should attack Russia by way of Ukraine.

I suppose Russia is using whatever it finds effective. The point is that they're not using it against us.

And yes, they are using our systems, but not against Russia proper.

---

The semantics of whose weapon is firing at who and where became moot when Russia sat back behind their border launching long range attacks and attempted a new ground invasion front from their border town fortifications. They strategically use their cheaper drones (long range Iranian Shaheds), and artillery positions in Russia, so I don't think anyone should be appalled that Ukraine would and should use all means available to disrupt supply lines and counter cross border offensive efforts.

---

Another example of the danger in listening to too much of our own moralizing.

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

No, it's certainly not a reason for Ukraine not to attack Russia. The question is whether the US should attack Russia by way of Ukraine.

I suppose Russia is using whatever it finds effective. The point is that they're not using it against us.

And yes, they are using our systems, but not against Russia proper.

---

The semantics of whose weapon is firing at who and where became moot when Russia sat back behind their border launching long range attacks and attempted a new ground invasion front from their border town fortifications. They strategically use their cheaper drones (long range Iranian Shaheds), and artillery positions in Russia, so I don't think anyone should be appalled that Ukraine would and should use all means available to disrupt supply lines and counter cross border offensive efforts.

---

You are completely missing the point. Russia and Ukraine are attacking each other because they're at war with each other. This is to be expected. But we're not Ukraine. If we get involved in our own right, it's no mere matter of semantics.

It's a false perception that escalation is somehow not escalation as long as we think it's justified. Another example of the danger in listening to too much of our own moralizing. The reality is that escalation is escalation, period. If we choose to get in the game, we really are in the game, believe it or not.

---

Because if so, you're an absolute idiot.

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

China and Iran aren't sending cruise missiles into Ukraine. If they were, they would risk retaliation from Ukraine. If we do the same to Russia, we risk retaliation from Russia. Ukraine…Russia. Please tell me you at least see the difference. It's not about what you think is fair. It's about the fact of escalation, regardless of what word games you play in order to get around it.

---

What? No they are sending Iranian Drones. Welcome to the new era in war - Drone warfare. Drones don't count? Semantics, right? China! China is doing worse than sending some missiles, they are supporting Russias whole defense industry! China is providing machine tools, drone, turbojet engines,technology for cruise missiles, microelectronics, and nitrocellulose. China supercharged Russia's defense/weapons manufacturing. Not to mention allowed them to pull troops from the East to the West. But, that is not escalating.

Look into Chinese support of Russia, please tell me you can see the difference between sending 30 outdated tanks or 50 1990 technology Cruise missiles with modernizing the whole weapons manufacturing industry.

As throughout Putin's reign, Russia is the one escalating. They escalated invading Crimea. They escalated invading Dombas. If Putin is not stopped here, this gets worse. This is the Spanish Civil War for modern times, Russia, China and Iran are testing weapon systems, tactics, and new tech. They have enough success, the dominoe will fall. This is about way more than Ukraine.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

China and Iran aren't sending cruise missiles into Ukraine. If they were, they would risk retaliation from Ukraine. If we do the same to Russia, we risk retaliation from Russia. Ukraine…Russia. Please tell me you at least see the difference. It's not about what you think is fair. It's about the fact of escalation, regardless of what word games you play in order to get around it.

---

What? No they are sending Iranian Drones. Welcome to the new era in war - Drone warfare. Drones don't count? Semantics, right? China! China is doing worse than sending some missiles, they are supporting Russias whole defense industry! China is providing machine tools, drone, turbojet engines,technology for cruise missiles, microelectronics, and nitrocellulose. China supercharged Russia's defense/weapons manufacturing. Not to mention allowed them to pull troops from the East to the West. But, that is not escalating.

Look into Chinese support of Russia, please tell me you can see the difference between sending 30 outdated tanks or 50 1990 technology Cruise missiles with modernizing the whole weapons manufacturing industry.

As throughout Putin's reign, Russia is the one escalating. They escalated invading Crimea. They escalated invading Dombas. If Putin is not stopped here, this gets worse. This is the Spanish Civil War for modern times, Russia, China and Iran are testing weapon systems, tactics, and new tech. They have enough success, the dominoe will fall. This is about way more than Ukraine.

---

I didn't say sending weapons to Russia. I said sending them into Ukraine, as in helping to launch them. I'm sorry, but we are talking about something that has traditionally been considered a major escalation and a red line. You can accept that or not, but it's a fact.

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/georgian-parliament-overrides-presidents-veto-on-foreign-agents-law/

[The parliament of Georgia has overridden the earlier veto of a law that would require NGOs in Georgia to disclose themselves as "agents of foreign influence" if they receive 20 percent or more of their funding from abroad.

Currently, there are over 25,000 NGOs active in Georgia, 90 percent of which are believed to be foreign-funded, creating a ratio of one NGO to every 148 citizens. Prior to this new law, NGOs did not even have to disclose whether they were funded from abroad.

Georgia's French-born President Salome Zourabichvili, who was the French ambassador to Georgia before moving into Georgian politics after 2004 Rose Revolution in Georgia, had initially vetoed the law. The Presidential veto was subsequently overridden by a Parliamentary vote of 660, followed by an 844 vote on the law itself.

According to Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze of Georgia, ahead of the vote to override, various foreign politicians had tried to blackmail him into opposing the law. Kobakhidze has even claimed that during a phone call, an EU Commissioner listed the recent assassination attempt against Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico while discussing Western responses to the law, though this claim has been denied by the EU. ]

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---