FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

These guys get it.

Polish President Duda speaking at Zelensky’s peace summit in 🇨🇭:

“Russia, called the ‘prison of nations,’ is home to 200+ ethnic groups, most acquired through colonial methods.

Unlike European powers, Russia never decolonized and remains the world's largest colonial empire” pic.twitter.com/tJEHTYC4dW

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 15, 2024

---

---

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...

---

They want the US to be more like Russia.

---

What puzzles me is that I see Russia literally forcing Nations to do what they want, with tanks, and that is fine. I see China literally occupying Tibet, Hong Kong, and trying to get Taiwan with force.

I don't see NATO or the US forcing anyone to apply, you have to apply and be accepted into NATO. Yet, according to some on this Board, the US is the bad guy... Poor Putin is being forced to invade Ukraine.

If the US WAS like Putin's Russia, the US would invade and hold Ukraine, invade and hold Cuba, and not allow navigation around the US. But, poor Putin. He is the real victim in this.

Just don't get it. Only thing that makes sense is that they are Attorneys and are trying to see if they can defend the indefensible. Some legal training exercise.

---

I think they just equate the West/NATO with leftist progressives and see Russia as a force against that.

I think they would rather live in a dictatorship of their party than a democracy involving opposing views.

---

I'd rather live, period. I don't need to dictate how Russians and Ukrainians live if it means WW3.

How many American cities are you willing to trade for Kharkiv?

---

WW3 is probably inevitable no matter what we do. Why let our enemies get stronger beforehand?

America shouldn't let Russia bully the world under a threat they have no interest in following up on.

---

WWIII has already started.......

---

After WW2, has both sides learned that total destruction doesn't really accomplish goals? I believe the NATO and China believe that. But, Russia, N Korea and Iran? I think they are the real issues, as they have leaders that will go total destruction, as we have seen with the enlightened, only acting in defense Putin as he totally destroys Cities...

---

How many pages on this very thread were devoted to justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Putin shells some buildings containing enemy troops, as happens in war, and he is become the Destroyer of Worlds. You guys crack me up sometimes.

---

How many nuclear bombs were dropped? 2. Were they ever used before? No. Have they been since? No. How long ago were they used? 80 years. 80 years and we have not used them again. They have become a deterrent.

You see no difference between using something the first time and saying, we will not do that again after seeing the results. And, the systematic destruction of a Nation over time?? We are not talking a few months here like the US actions, we are talking years. Putin is a thug, plain and simple. Keep defending him.

---

You said we had learned that total destruction doesn't accomplish goals. My point is that most of us seem to have learned the opposite.

---

Russia invaded Ukraine, an Ukraine Russia helped create. NATO and the US didn't destroy anything. You seem to be misplacing the blame in this destruction. Your solution appears to just walk away and give Putin what he wants so he doesn't destroy Ukraine.

---

I'm not even talking about blame. I'm just saying that total destruction is very much on the table from the Western point of view, and it would be dangerous to think otherwise.

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:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

But Putin is a 1960's Soviet Premier. He is not a 21st century leader. That is your problem, you think you are dealing with an enlightened Obams globalist. He is not, he is a 20th Century KGB thug.

---

No one thinks Putin is an Obama globalist. The baffling question is why anyone would expect him to be.

Even during the Cold War, no one said WW3 was inevitable. Much less that it had already started. We did our best to avoid it. We dealt with the Russians whether we liked them or not. We made agreements. We respected certain boundaries.

We're now told that Russia is relentlessly hostile by nature and can never be redeemed. If that's true, why did we ever try to make peace with them? Were we lying and intending to fight them all along?

My question to all the Russophobes is, what changed?

I've explained what I think it was. America got caught up in the idea of a unipolar world, full spectrum dominance, the end of history, etc. There's a ton of literature and conversation about it, but you don't believe it.

Something must have happened to Russia to make it even more of a threat than it was during the height of Cold War tensions, when Khrushchev was putting missiles in Cuba and ranting about burying the capitalist states. So much of a threat that we can no longer negotiate or cooperate with them in any way, lest the world be plunged into tyranny and suffering.

So, what happened? I think that's your burden to explain.

---

The 2012 re-establishment of Putin back into power is likely the seminal moment. He spent his Prime Ministerial period consolidating power and rolled back much of the progress Medvedev had established. Medvedev was willing to entertain the U.S. as the unipolar global power. Putin was not, and his actions showed. It regressed even faster since their Crimean invasion.

---

I can't believe you said that, but I knew you were going to say that. I almost said, "Don't just tell me it's Putin." The lord of all demons and source of ultimate evil.

So you're telling me that of all the blustering fanatics we've dealt since WW2, Putin is the worst one and the only one we can't trust or reason with. I just want to get you on the record with that.

---

You asked what happened with Russia. I told you the likely seminal moment. I'm not comparing and contrasting anyone. But you can track the expansion of tyranny, political, economic, and social inter Russia from that point forward, and also coincides with the chilling of relations with the US.

Of course you bring up an interesting consideration. After Vietnam, the USSR never threatened us and the West as boldly and directly as in Ukraine.

---

The problem is that your explanation tracks with mine. I agree that relations chilled because Putin's government wouldn't accept the US as a unipolar power. No previous government would have either, nor would we ever have expected them to. So it was the US that changed, not Russia.

Welcome to cuck status, Russian shill.

---

Aside from China, most of the world did/does accept it. At least a bipolar world now. It isn't some diplomatic platitude. It's a practical reality of the global economic, political and military situation. I embrace and am not ashamed of it like some of you other guys.

---

The 21st century says "hi."

---

Yes, hello! Speaking of 21st Century, your boy is hanging out with Kim Jong-un. The future is now!!!

---

Shouldn't that be Kim Jong Il? I thought he was still ruling in Nineties Fantasy Land. Speaking of which, I'm a little surprised to see you on the "world wide web." Check out the early adopter, everyone!

---

From your perspective, it's Catherine the Great and King Yeongjo.

---

A literate, realist Russian leader who sought peace and friendship with the West? I can see why you don't like her.

---

I was feeding your delusion.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1908768/ukraine-terrorist-activity-russia-vladimir-putin

"But Nicholas Drummond, a defence and security analyst, tells the Daily Express that Ukraine is planning much more damaging attacks.

He says Ukrainians could launch terrorist activity in Russia, including the bombing of schools.

Ukraine will want to conduct terrorist activity in Russia... if Russia wins in Ukraine or is given any kind of victory, I think Ukraine will conduct a counterinsurgency campaign inside Russia, and that would be much more devastating than anything we have seen on the frontlines.

"It will be really unpleasant.

"The terrorist activity would include bombing schools, bombing infrastructure... that would begin in earnest if any peace deal was imposed on Zelensky."

As the old saying goes, when you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas. The only answer to this may be the Russians capturing Kiev and destroying the existing fascist government.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A governing majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU.

---

So did Yanukovych. Just not on the predatory terms that we the Ukrainian parliament tried to dictate.

---

FIFY

---

It was the Ukrainian parliament that had failed to pass the necessary legislation on the day Yanukovych suspended the deal.

---

LOL your historical revisionism has achieved full inversion of truth.

It was not just Yanukovych's refusal to sign the bill already passed by Parliament that caused his fall. It was his rejection of it in favor of a similar pact with Russia.

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

Ukraine rejects Tymoshenko bills
Hopes of trade and political agreements with the EU are evaporating.
NOVEMBER 21, 2013 5:10 AM CET

The Ukrainian parliament has rejected a set of laws that would enable the jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to receive medical treatment in Germany.

The vote -- the second time that the Verkhovna Rada has turned down the bills -- substantially reduces the prospects of Ukraine signing political and trade deals with the European Union next week.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-rejects-tymoshenko-bills/#:~:text=Hopes%20of%20trade%20and%20political%20agreements%20with%20the%20EU%20are%20evaporating.&text=The%20Ukrainian%20parliament%20has%20rejected,receive%20medical%20treatment%20in%20Germany.

---

---

Good grief, man. If you'd bothered to read the link, you'd seek the elementary cause/effect problem with your point.

---

The point is that VY was entirely within his rights. It was the mob that acted lawlessly, with our help.

---

The mob was an organic response to VYs violation of his years-long promise to sign the EU agreement and instead make a last-minute U-turn to Russia.

that is not to insist VY was the bad guy in this story. More likely it was simply lack of fortitude and judgment on his part. Russia told him that they'd invade if he signed the EU document and he caved to the pressure (unlike his successors). But it does illustrate that in any conceivable scenario, RUSSIA is responsible for the mess in Ukraine. They meddled against the clear will of the Ukrainian people, then when that didn't work out, they invaded, which then galvanized Ukrainian nationalism against Russia.

---

What a bizarre distortion of history. Putin never threatened to invade Ukraine over the trade agreement.

---

LOL. So you're saying he went to war without an ultimatum, despite constant provocation from NATO?

Your reasoning makes less sense than progressive pronoun regimes.

---

What on earth are you talking about? Russia didn't go to war until 2022. Their demands had nothing to do with the trade deal, which was signed in 2014. As Putin said time and again, they wanted security guarantees and an agreement to keep Ukraine out of NATO.

---

Lol! They were already in Ukraine in 2014.

---

Go easy on him. He's playing a really bad hand, the proverbial toddler finger painting with the contents of his diaper.

“Russia’s military cooperation with Iran, North Korea and China has expanded into the sharing of sensitive technologies that could threaten the U.S. and its allies long after the Ukraine war ends,” ⁦@wstrobel⁩ ⁦@mgordonwsj⁩ report https://t.co/AyUOw0qS2V

— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) June 20, 2024

ATL Bear 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:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

But Putin is a 1960's Soviet Premier. He is not a 21st century leader. That is your problem, you think you are dealing with an enlightened Obams globalist. He is not, he is a 20th Century KGB thug.

---

No one thinks Putin is an Obama globalist. The baffling question is why anyone would expect him to be.

Even during the Cold War, no one said WW3 was inevitable. Much less that it had already started. We did our best to avoid it. We dealt with the Russians whether we liked them or not. We made agreements. We respected certain boundaries.

We're now told that Russia is relentlessly hostile by nature and can never be redeemed. If that's true, why did we ever try to make peace with them? Were we lying and intending to fight them all along?

My question to all the Russophobes is, what changed?

I've explained what I think it was. America got caught up in the idea of a unipolar world, full spectrum dominance, the end of history, etc. There's a ton of literature and conversation about it, but you don't believe it.

Something must have happened to Russia to make it even more of a threat than it was during the height of Cold War tensions, when Khrushchev was putting missiles in Cuba and ranting about burying the capitalist states. So much of a threat that we can no longer negotiate or cooperate with them in any way, lest the world be plunged into tyranny and suffering.

So, what happened? I think that's your burden to explain.

---

The 2012 re-establishment of Putin back into power is likely the seminal moment. He spent his Prime Ministerial period consolidating power and rolled back much of the progress Medvedev had established. Medvedev was willing to entertain the U.S. as the unipolar global power. Putin was not, and his actions showed. It regressed even faster since their Crimean invasion.

---

I can't believe you said that, but I knew you were going to say that. I almost said, "Don't just tell me it's Putin." The lord of all demons and source of ultimate evil.

So you're telling me that of all the blustering fanatics we've dealt since WW2, Putin is the worst one and the only one we can't trust or reason with. I just want to get you on the record with that.

---

You asked what happened with Russia. I told you the likely seminal moment. I'm not comparing and contrasting anyone. But you can track the expansion of tyranny, political, economic, and social inter Russia from that point forward, and also coincides with the chilling of relations with the US.

Of course you bring up an interesting consideration. After Vietnam, the USSR never threatened us and the West as boldly and directly as in Ukraine.

---

The problem is that your explanation tracks with mine. I agree that relations chilled because Putin's government wouldn't accept the US as a unipolar power. No previous government would have either, nor would we ever have expected them to. So it was the US that changed, not Russia.

Welcome to cuck status, Russian shill.

---

Aside from China, most of the world did/does accept it. At least a bipolar world now. It isn't some diplomatic platitude. It's a practical reality of the global economic, political and military situation. I embrace and am not ashamed of it like some of you other guys.

---

The 21st century says "hi."

---

Yes, hello! Speaking of 21st Century, your boy is hanging out with Kim Jong-un. The future is now!!!

---

Shouldn't that be Kim Jong Il? I thought he was still ruling in Nineties Fantasy Land. Speaking of which, I'm a little surprised to see you on the "world wide web." Check out the early adopter, everyone!

---

From your perspective, it's Catherine the Great and King Yeongjo.

---

A literate, realist Russian leader who sought peace and friendship with the West? I can see why you don't like her.

---

I was feeding your delusion.

---

Speaking of delusions, did you follow that so-called peace conference last week? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. Half the invitees either didn't show up or refused to sign the meaningless document that was produced. That's what global support for the unipolar power looks like these days.

Anyway, we seem to agree that the West hates Russia because Russia stands in the way of Western dominance. I was hoping someone would have another explanation.

Anyone?

Bear8084 can't help you. Russia was not at war with Ukraine in 2014, nor did Russia threaten to invade over the EU deal, as you absurdly claimed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 can't help you. Russia was not at war with Ukraine in 2014, nor did Russia threaten to invade over the EU deal, as you absurdly claimed.

---

LOL! Speaking of delusions.

Ukraine didn't necessarily want to "align" with the East or the West. They wanted to act independently and have good relationships with both. This was a wise policy and consistent with their agreements. Russia was fine with it. The West wasn't. That's the source of the problem.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ukraine didn't necessarily want to "align" with the East or the West. They wanted to act independently and have good relationships with both. This was a wise policy and consistent with their agreements. Russia was fine with it. The West wasn't. That's the source of the problem.

---

You are way too into conspiracy theories. Ukraine wanted to align with the West because it allowed their citizens a higher quality of life than aligning with Russia. NATO also provided more security; Ukraine saw how Russia reacted to Georgia and Chechnya. Actually, they feared what Putin ended up doing. It is as simple as that.

As Friedman said, everyone acts in their own best self-interest. If their best self-interest was neutral or with Russia, Ukraine would have done that. Their best interest is to align with NATO and the EU, which is their right as much as you want to take that right away.

---

Western polling showed that Ukrainians wanted closer ties with both the EU and Russia. The EU's austerity demands were harsh and unpopular, so much so that they were widely criticized even in the West. Russia offered a deal with more carrots as well as some sticks. Ukraine wanted further negotiations, but the EU refused.

These aren't theories. These are facts.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ukraine didn't necessarily want to "align" with the East or the West. They wanted to act independently and have good relationships with both. This was a wise policy and consistent with their agreements. Russia was fine with it. The West wasn't. That's the source of the problem.

---

You are way too into conspiracy theories. Ukraine wanted to align with the West because it allowed their citizens a higher quality of life than aligning with Russia. NATO also provided more security; Ukraine saw how Russia reacted to Georgia and Chechnya. Actually, they feared what Putin ended up doing. It is as simple as that.

As Friedman said, everyone acts in their own best self-interest. If their best self-interest was neutral or with Russia, Ukraine would have done that. Their best interest is to align with NATO and the EU, which is their right as much as you want to take that right away.

---

Western polling showed that Ukrainians wanted closer ties with both the EU and Russia. The EU's austerity demands were harsh and unpopular, so much so that they were widely criticized even in the West. Russia offered a deal with more carrots as well as some sticks. Ukraine wanted further negotiations, but the EU refused.

These aren't theories. These are facts.

---

Since when does polling set policy? You can find polls saying anything.

The EU required they meet their standards. Ukraine had a partnership with the EU in the 90's and asked about joining the EU, 2002 they were told 10 to 20 years or now... Ukraine made changes to meet them and was working on it when Trump was in office.

Ukraine saw their future with the West and asked for a NATO action plan in 2008.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ukraine didn't necessarily want to "align" with the East or the West. They wanted to act independently and have good relationships with both. This was a wise policy and consistent with their agreements. Russia was fine with it. The West wasn't. That's the source of the problem.

---

You are way too into conspiracy theories. Ukraine wanted to align with the West because it allowed their citizens a higher quality of life than aligning with Russia. NATO also provided more security; Ukraine saw how Russia reacted to Georgia and Chechnya. Actually, they feared what Putin ended up doing. It is as simple as that.

As Friedman said, everyone acts in their own best self-interest. If their best self-interest was neutral or with Russia, Ukraine would have done that. Their best interest is to align with NATO and the EU, which is their right as much as you want to take that right away.

---

Western polling showed that Ukrainians wanted closer ties with both the EU and Russia. The EU's austerity demands were harsh and unpopular, so much so that they were widely criticized even in the West. Russia offered a deal with more carrots as well as some sticks. Ukraine wanted further negotiations, but the EU refused.

These aren't theories. These are facts.

---

Since when does polling set policy? You can find polls saying anything.

The EU required they meet their standards. Ukraine had a partnership with the EU in the 90's and asked about joining the EU, 2002 they were told 10 to 20 years or now... Ukraine made changes to meet them and was working on it when Trump was in office.

Ukraine saw their future with the West and asked for a NATO action plan in 2008.

---

What I said applies equally to the Ukrainian government at the time. They did set the policy, until they were overthrown.

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 can't help you. Russia was not at war with Ukraine in 2014, nor did Russia threaten to invade over the EU deal, as you absurdly claimed.

---

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Twice. At least, by your own standard on the use of power as defacty empire.


The EU deal was indeed the proximate cause of the fall of the Yanukovitch government.

Look, buddy. History is what it is. You cannot rewrite it to suit your own purposes. Only Russians can do that.

---

The fall of the Yanukovych government was the proximate cause of Russia's taking Crimea...if that's what you mean by "going to war." At no time did Russia threaten war over the EU deal. You're the one trying to rewrite history, or else you just don't know what you're talking about.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

“Russia’s military cooperation with Iran, North Korea and China has expanded into the sharing of sensitive technologies that could threaten the U.S. and its allies long after the Ukraine war ends,” ⁦@wstrobel⁩ ⁦@mgordonwsj⁩ report https://t.co/AyUOw0qS2V

— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) June 20, 2024

---

Oh yeah lets get all pissed off.


But just keep in mind.........



The US is openly supplying missiles, drones and aircraft with which Ukraine is currently attacking military bases IN RUSSIA.

Openly supplying masive amounts of guns and ammunition with which to kill Russian troops.

Can ANYONE comprehend what we would think if Russia was supplying such missiles to a hostile Mexico and they were killing US military personel IN THE UNITED STATES ? Would we not consider it an act of WAR ?

Putin has repeatedly stated that his patience of the current situation is wearing thin.

But we blissfully ignore the realities of the situation while our Commander In Chief, the oldest in American history can barely function at any serious level of mental capacity.




Insanity

---

The USA is not going to declare war on Russia for selling Mexico batteries of S300s. What's the right word for that?....insanity. That would invite direct conflict with a nuclear armed power. We would simply go defeat Mexico, destroy all the Russian equipment, and make the Mexican leadership who allied with Russia go away. Adding Russian troops to the mix would only make that harder. Russia is facing that exact same dynamic in reverse. Its only pathway to victory involves defeating Ukraine and sending the Zelensky govt off to the gulag. But it does not have the power to do that. And escalating in a way that would draw in direct Nato involvement would be guarantee Russian defeat.

Russia has had an opportunity to make good on its threats that it would escalate in response to Ukrainian use of western weapons to strike inside Russa. And what we have seen is, that red line was not in fact a red line. It did not declare war on Nato or any of its members. Neither has Russia used nuclear weapons as a response. (as such would be insane.....) And the same will be true when the F-16s arrive. There will be no Russian escalation. It cannot, at this time, escalate in any helpful way. It's already 100% committed to what it is capable of doing. And it isn't enough.

Russia is being fought to a stalemate by a country 1/3rd its size. It cannot hope to win by escalating. Such would be insanity. Russia's only pathway to victory is that arguments like yours win the day and the West just throws in the towel.

---

Russia has a big problem with the Ukraine war, but the problem isn't how to win it. The problem is when to win it.

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

---

There's a latent false dilemma in your premise. It will not take Western involvement to defeat Russia. Ukraine can defeat Russia by simply outlasting them (thanks to Western support for Ukraine).

Russia has collapsed with armies in the field before......

---

Utterly clueless.

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

---

There's a latent false dilemma in your premise. It will not take Western involvement to defeat Russia. Ukraine can defeat Russia by simply outlasting them (thanks to Western support for Ukraine).

Russia has collapsed with armies in the field before......

---

Im talking about destruction of all of Russia. Meaning attacking every major area of their country and seizing total control.

Ukraine can't do that.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

---

There's a latent false dilemma in your premise. It will not take Western involvement to defeat Russia. Ukraine can defeat Russia by simply outlasting them (thanks to Western support for Ukraine).

Russia has collapsed with armies in the field before......

---

Im talking about destruction of all of Russia. Meaning attacking every major area of their country and seizing total control.

Ukraine can't do that.

---

No one is talking the destruction of all Russia. Just staying within their borders would be a start. Allowing other Nations to decide what they want to do would be another. Two VERY EASY, cheap things.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

---

There's a latent false dilemma in your premise. It will not take Western involvement to defeat Russia. Ukraine can defeat Russia by simply outlasting them (thanks to Western support for Ukraine).

Russia has collapsed with armies in the field before......

---

Im talking about destruction of all of Russia. Meaning attacking every major area of their country and seizing total control.

Ukraine can't do that.

---

agreed. fortunately, they don't have to. Russia has collapsed before with its armies in the field. That is the model we are pursuing here with the "as long as it takes" approach. Just logistically outlast them. It is far more viable than the war policy opponents are willing to admit.

And then there are the Russophiles like Sam for whom such notions are like crosses and holy water to a vampire.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

---

There's a latent false dilemma in your premise. It will not take Western involvement to defeat Russia. Ukraine can defeat Russia by simply outlasting them (thanks to Western support for Ukraine).

Russia has collapsed with armies in the field before......

---

Im talking about destruction of all of Russia. Meaning attacking every major area of their country and seizing total control.

Ukraine can't do that.

---

No one is talking the destruction of all Russia.

---

If Russia is an existential threat then why not?

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

---

There's a latent false dilemma in your premise. It will not take Western involvement to defeat Russia. Ukraine can defeat Russia by simply outlasting them (thanks to Western support for Ukraine).

Russia has collapsed with armies in the field before......

---

Im talking about destruction of all of Russia. Meaning attacking every major area of their country and seizing total control.

Ukraine can't do that.

---

agreed. fortunately, they don't have to. Russia has collapsed before with its armies in the field. That is the model we are pursuing here with the "as long as it takes" approach. Just logistically outlast them. It is far more viable than the war policy opponents are willing to admit.

And then there are the Russophiles like Sam for whom such notions are like crosses and holy water to a vampire.

---

I personally seek peace over war, unless absolutely necessary.

My issues with this war is decision making is on behalf of absolute morons and psychopaths in DC, I'm sure you agree that's what they are, and I don't know that they actually share your opinions or desire to crush Russia. I really think they want to put Ukrainians through the meat grinder as much as possible before Russia gives up, because it's financially advantageous to their donors who plan to capitalize heavily in Ukraine. The waving of flags in Congress, the western propaganda about Ukraine using shovels etc. it looks to me like another one of their grifting operations.

I think this war could end quickly with less deaths, but they don't want that to be the case.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

---

There's a latent false dilemma in your premise. It will not take Western involvement to defeat Russia. Ukraine can defeat Russia by simply outlasting them (thanks to Western support for Ukraine).

Russia has collapsed with armies in the field before......

---

Im talking about destruction of all of Russia. Meaning attacking every major area of their country and seizing total control.

Ukraine can't do that.

---

agreed. fortunately, they don't have to. Russia has collapsed before with its armies in the field. That is the model we are pursuing here with the "as long as it takes" approach. Just logistically outlast them. It is far more viable than the war policy opponents are willing to admit.

And then there are the Russophiles like Sam for whom such notions are like crosses and holy water to a vampire.

---

I personally seek peace over war, unless absolutely necessary.

My issues with this war is decision making is on behalf of absolute morons and psychopaths in DC, I'm sure you agree that's what they are, and I don't know that they actually share your opinions or desire to crush Russia. I really think they want to put Ukrainians through the meat grinder as much as possible before Russia gives up, because it's financially advantageous to their donors who plan to capitalize heavily in Ukraine.

The waving of flags in Congress, the western propaganda about Ukraine using shovels etc. it looks to me like another one of their grifting operations.
There is a lot of virtue posturing in politics, for sure, in no small part because it attracts supporters to your cause.

I think this war could end quickly with less deaths, but they don't want that to be the case.

---

War is financially devastating to most, and lucrative to some. Has always been so. It's a good thing to own an ammo factory or a brass smelting factory or a lead mine when war breaks out. But guess what gets bombed in a war? Ammo factories, brass smelting factories, lead mines, railways carrying them (with cars full of goods....) Russia is somewhere between indifferent and mildly disposed towards the destruction of the Ukrainian populace, as it drains the swamp of potential insurgents and makes long-term Russification much easier (so many examples of that throughout Russian history....they are relentless and remorseless about their Russification programs). Western donors not so much. Every Ukrainian that dies is one less potential customer..... So I think you're being overly cynical here.

Of course Ukraine will husband their manpower carefully. They are not mobilizing anyone under age 25. Their plan going forward will be to sit & shoot at attacking Russians and try to exhaust Russian supply lines. How is that going? Russia is retrofitting T54s and sending them into battle. That's what "scraping the bottom of the barrel" looks like. Russia is doing even worse on artillery tubes. And anti-air systems. Wars of attrition are never short. We might not be halfway thru that process yet.

Russia does not fight short wars. For Russia, war is always about dragging a smaller adversary into a wrestling match and smothering them into submission, just wearing them out. Western support is denying that kind of victory to Russa this go around....

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.

---

I want Russia beaten because they don't know diplomacy, don't respect anyone showing weakness, and will never ally or adapt with the West unless and until they are truly humbled on the world stage.

---

Russia will fall back, build themselves back up and go right back to doing the same things perpetually.

Those things warrant a direct hot war where the west destroys Russia to the extent that they can never recover. How ya'll have these opinions of Russia but won't outright call for a hot war seems like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You're aligned with a forever war attitude.

Seems to me your actual solution is WW3 so this isn't a persistent problem.

How do you know for a fact that Ukraine will defeat Russia?

---

There's a latent false dilemma in your premise. It will not take Western involvement to defeat Russia. Ukraine can defeat Russia by simply outlasting them (thanks to Western support for Ukraine).

Russia has collapsed with armies in the field before......

---

Utterly clueless.

---

The internet is a cheap haven for the clueless.

Unfortunately congress has become an expensive haven for the clueless and they are leading our people into still another war.

A war few, if any, Rambo's on this free message board will have any inclination to fight.

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I

---

---

---

---

---

No one is talking the destruction of all Russia.

---

If Russia is an existential threat then why not?

---

To who? Ukraine? NATO? US?

Russia is an existential threat to Ukraine, the Baltics and anywhere Russia, under Putin, considers it historic provinces. Same as Xi. If a Nation falls in that lens, than yes Russia is an existential threat.

To NATO and the US? Hell, no. Russia isn't coming for NATO, as Russia sees it based on 1990 borders. NATO isn't a threat to Russia proper, no one is going to Moscow.

What Sam and others don't discuss is this whole buffer idea is a Stalin land grab guise using what Hitler did as the logic to why the world should accept it. There are no Napoleonic Armies going to St Petersburg or German Panzers invading. It is just what Russia uses to justify their own land grab.

Hell, the US tried to help Russia integrate into a Western capitalistic system in the 90's. Clinton had a lot of faults, but I do not believe he had nefarious intentions in Foreign Policy. If you do, go to Belfast and talk to the Irish about Clinton. Black Taxi tour well worth it. Clinton, I believe, had good intentions. I am sure that will go over well here!