sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Trump slams Zelensky for saying the end of Russia's war on Ukraine 'is still very, very far away'

---

A more accurate headline would be "Trump slams Zelensky for stating the obvious."

---

Assassin said:

---

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Trump slams Zelensky for saying the end of Russia's war on Ukraine 'is still very, very far away'

---

A more accurate headline would be "Trump slams Zelensky for stating the obvious."

---

Actually it's more like "Trump Slams Zelensky for Trying to Milk Europe for The Forseeable Future"

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

There is no "we" and I will remind you, you are free to take a stand right now.

Join the Brave | International Legionnaires of Ukraine

---

I agree. I'm nothing like you, and thank God you're an oddball and not the norm. Mr. "Juden sind unser Ungluck".

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

Then you should demand NATO and US troops on the ground because Ukraine can't stop Russia without that.

They're not going to win with western financial/weapon backing which is exactly what the Trump administration stated in the meeting with Zelensky.

You have to choose between a hot war or peace. If you want to continue to support Ukraine, then realize they're not going to hold up forever or make Russia give up. Russia giving up is not happening and is delusional thinking.

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

There is no "we" and I will remind you, you are free to take a stand right now.

Join the Brave | International Legionnaires of Ukraine

---

I agree. I'm nothing like you, and thank God you're an oddball and not the norm. Mr. "Juden sind unser Ungluck".

---

Well they were certainly the misfortune of all those little girls who were raped by Epstein & used as sex slaves.

---

Now add the number abused and raped by worthless incels. Paints the picture that the world is a messed up place.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

Then they should change their Constitution and join NATO

If a country is not going to join our security-treaty alliance then what do you want Americans to do?

I certainly would be worried of Moscow and its intentions to expand its influence if I were Moldavian

[Moldova is not a member of NATO, but it is a partner country. Moldova's constitution enshrines its neutrality, so there are no official plans to join NATO.]

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

There is no "we" and I will remind you, you are free to take a stand right now.

Join the Brave | International Legionnaires of Ukraine

---

I agree. I'm nothing like you, and thank God you're an oddball and not the norm. Mr. "Juden sind unser Ungluck".

---

Well they were certainly the misfortune of all those little girls who were raped by Epstein & used as sex slaves.

---

Blaming his Jewishness for that is exactly why you're a warped human.

---

These UK soldiers will fight against the Russians on the ground in Ukraine pic.twitter.com/PlEP4Cqjtj

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 3, 2025

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

PM Keir Starmer now wants to put UK boots on the ground in Ukraine. Good luck… pic.twitter.com/qyIgT1IKEY

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 2, 2025

---

Multi-ethnic and multi cultural States have a hard time uniting and mobilizing for war and shared struggle?

I'm shocked

Did anyone tell this to the Austrian-Hungarian empire or Yugoslavia?

---

LOL

Doubt even 2% of Americans have the slightest clue regarding the Austria- Hungarian Empire or Yugoslavia.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was one of the weaker of the various European dynasties for a number of reasons, among them that it was so diverse that only raw power could keep it together. That's why attempts to resurrect it have never even flickered. Russia, by contrast, keeps springing back from its geopolitical disasters precisely because it has a dominant Russian core.

In any case there is zero chance Western Europe goes to war with Russia over Ukraine.
Just like there is zero chance Russia will go to war with Nato over Ukraine.

As ( with the exception of Poland ) the people of Europe would never support such a war.
Wrong. Europeans have shown more support for Ukraine, knowing the risks, than Americans have (in no small part because Americans (and particularly American critics) do not well understand what the risks/returns actually are.)
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-europe-support-74-percent-polls/

---

---

Bull****

Europeans are not remotely interested in dying for Ukraine or for the entertainment of internet Rambo's here in the US.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

thales said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

we have played the aggressor for the majority of the past 90 years so who are we to talk?

that and nato has slowly expanded since is creation and the ussr and then russia has been specifically excluded from it

they feel like they are being encroached upon - and they are

it is no different than communism spreading to cuba and our government throwing a fit when it did

---

lol Russia is being encroached upon only on the sense the number of countries they can invade goes down when NATO expands.


Zero chance Nato ever invades Russia, and Russia full well knows that

---

Had the USA lost the Cold War in 1991 and broken up leaving a rump American Federation that was 33% smaller in territory and with half the population….not to mention having to watch NATO collapse and the Warsaw pact expand to include all of Western Europe (our old sphere of influence )

DC leaders would probably be pretty upset

And they would get downright vicious if Russia then tied to expand its military alliance into Canada or Mexico and put military bases right on our borders

---

Again, we see the war policy opponents making stuff up to fit their template.

1) The USSR expanded alliances with states in Central America and we didn't invade them.

2) No one. Not one leader, advocated putting military bases in Ukraine.

3) For that matter, Nato had not put a single permanent base in any of the former Warsaw Pact states, specifically to avoid alarming Russia, to signal that admittance of those states was a "Russia shall not invade here" sign, not a springboard for and invasion of Russia. (And Russia knows that.)

4) on the day the war started in 2014, Ukraine was a Nato partner, JUST LIKE SWEDEN AND FINLAND.

5) Ukraine did not actually apply for membership until after Russia outright invaded in 2022.

The whole "Nato started it" is preposterously disingenuous bs, even more easily disprovable than the "Maidan was a USG sponsored coup" nonsense. Refusing to promise not to do something is not grounds for war. Prudent powers should never say what they will or will not do just to keep others happy. It's called "strategic ambiguity." Keep your opponent guessing. Make them prepare for every scenario, which forces them to disperse resources away from the more likely ones.

The premise of your argument is that we must coddle every Russian concern. How about we start demanding Russia coddle some of ours, like promising not to invade ANYT of their neighbors? Will you advocate going to war with them if they refuse to do so?

---

Just to expand on #4 and further demonstrate how ridiculous the NATO argument it, nobody in Ukraine even wanted NATO in 2014. Politicians were uniform in openly running against it. Russia turned Ukraine to NATO by invading it. It's just that simple.

---

Not sure why you keep repeating that "no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO in 2014" or before

Pretty easy to prove that almost half the country did want that.

It was a long time debate in the country....a fault line between the pro-western and pro-eastern parties

Yushchenko was saying in 2009 that Ukraine should join NATO

[Yuschenko stressed that the talks held in the frames of his two-day
official visit to Belgium have shown that Ukraine has all the grounds
to be optimistic about its chances for joining the European Union and
NATO.]

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10159

[President Viktor Yushchenko hoped to change that. He had been swept to power during the 2004-2005 Orange Revolution, protests that were prompted by reports of electoral fraud. Yushchenko promised the protesters a future that did away with Ukraine's corrupt, Kremlin-dominated past. Much like Georgia, another former Soviet state seeking to shake off Russian influence, Ukraine saw NATO membership as one route to independence and sought membership in 2008.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/09/04/that-time-ukraine-tried-to-join-nato-and-nato-said-no/

Plus here is a BBC article from June of 2010

[Since his February inauguration, Mr Yanukovych has wasted no time in re-shaping Ukraine's foreign policy in a more Moscow-friendly way, the BBC's David Stern in Kiev says.
In April, he agreed to extend the lease allowing Russia's Black Sea fleet to be stationed in the southern port of Sevastopol by 25 years in return for cheaper gas.
An extension of the lease, due to expire in 2017, had been opposed by Mr Yushchenko.
Moscow had made known its opposition to Ukraine's plans to join Nato,]

https://www.bbc.com/news/10229626

---

sombear said:

---

What part of 2014 do you not understand?

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

thales said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

we have played the aggressor for the majority of the past 90 years so who are we to talk?

that and nato has slowly expanded since is creation and the ussr and then russia has been specifically excluded from it

they feel like they are being encroached upon - and they are

it is no different than communism spreading to cuba and our government throwing a fit when it did

---

lol Russia is being encroached upon only on the sense the number of countries they can invade goes down when NATO expands.


Zero chance Nato ever invades Russia, and Russia full well knows that

---

Had the USA lost the Cold War in 1991 and broken up leaving a rump American Federation that was 33% smaller in territory and with half the population….not to mention having to watch NATO collapse and the Warsaw pact expand to include all of Western Europe (our old sphere of influence )

DC leaders would probably be pretty upset

And they would get downright vicious if Russia then tied to expand its military alliance into Canada or Mexico and put military bases right on our borders

---

Again, we see the war policy opponents making stuff up to fit their template.

1) The USSR expanded alliances with states in Central America and we didn't invade them.

2) No one. Not one leader, advocated putting military bases in Ukraine.

3) For that matter, Nato had not put a single permanent base in any of the former Warsaw Pact states, specifically to avoid alarming Russia, to signal that admittance of those states was a "Russia shall not invade here" sign, not a springboard for and invasion of Russia. (And Russia knows that.)

4) on the day the war started in 2014, Ukraine was a Nato partner, JUST LIKE SWEDEN AND FINLAND.

5) Ukraine did not actually apply for membership until after Russia outright invaded in 2022.

The whole "Nato started it" is preposterously disingenuous bs, even more easily disprovable than the "Maidan was a USG sponsored coup" nonsense. Refusing to promise not to do something is not grounds for war. Prudent powers should never say what they will or will not do just to keep others happy. It's called "strategic ambiguity." Keep your opponent guessing. Make them prepare for every scenario, which forces them to disperse resources away from the more likely ones.

The premise of your argument is that we must coddle every Russian concern. How about we start demanding Russia coddle some of ours, like promising not to invade ANYT of their neighbors? Will you advocate going to war with them if they refuse to do so?

---

Just to expand on #4 and further demonstrate how ridiculous the NATO argument it, nobody in Ukraine even wanted NATO in 2014. Politicians were uniform in openly running against it. Russia turned Ukraine to NATO by invading it. It's just that simple.

---

Not sure why you keep repeating that "no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO in 2014" or before

Pretty easy to prove that almost half the country did want that.

It was a long time debate in the country....a fault line between the pro-western and pro-eastern parties

Yushchenko was saying in 2009 that Ukraine should join NATO

[Yuschenko stressed that the talks held in the frames of his two-day
official visit to Belgium have shown that Ukraine has all the grounds
to be optimistic about its chances for joining the European Union and
NATO.]

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10159

[President Viktor Yushchenko hoped to change that. He had been swept to power during the 2004-2005 Orange Revolution, protests that were prompted by reports of electoral fraud. Yushchenko promised the protesters a future that did away with Ukraine's corrupt, Kremlin-dominated past. Much like Georgia, another former Soviet state seeking to shake off Russian influence, Ukraine saw NATO membership as one route to independence and sought membership in 2008.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/09/04/that-time-ukraine-tried-to-join-nato-and-nato-said-no/

Plus here is a BBC article from June of 2010

[Since his February inauguration, Mr Yanukovych has wasted no time in re-shaping Ukraine's foreign policy in a more Moscow-friendly way, the BBC's David Stern in Kiev says.
In April, he agreed to extend the lease allowing Russia's Black Sea fleet to be stationed in the southern port of Sevastopol by 25 years in return for cheaper gas.
An extension of the lease, due to expire in 2017, had been opposed by Mr Yushchenko.
Moscow had made known its opposition to Ukraine's plans to join Nato,]

https://www.bbc.com/news/10229626

---

the error in your entire argument here is that talking about Nato is synonymous with joining Nato. But that's not the only factually incorrect statement.

-Nato has never invited Ukraine to join. ]
-Ukraine did not formally apply for Nato membership until AFTER the 2022 Russian invasion.
-Ukraine has never had anywhere close to the required unanimous support required to join Nato.
-Russia knows that.
-Russia also knows that its 2014 move on Crimea makes Ukrainian accession to Nato constitutionally impossible.

and on and on and on....

Nato has, however, had an "open door" policy since 1989 - anyone is welcome to apply.
The essence of your argument is that the open door policy itself is a declaration of war against Russia.

I mean, your facts are wrong, your analysis is wrong, etc...... Nato did not cause the Russo-Ukrainian War. RUSSIA DID.

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

thales said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

we have played the aggressor for the majority of the past 90 years so who are we to talk?

that and nato has slowly expanded since is creation and the ussr and then russia has been specifically excluded from it

they feel like they are being encroached upon - and they are

it is no different than communism spreading to cuba and our government throwing a fit when it did

---

lol Russia is being encroached upon only on the sense the number of countries they can invade goes down when NATO expands.


Zero chance Nato ever invades Russia, and Russia full well knows that

---

Had the USA lost the Cold War in 1991 and broken up leaving a rump American Federation that was 33% smaller in territory and with half the population….not to mention having to watch NATO collapse and the Warsaw pact expand to include all of Western Europe (our old sphere of influence )

DC leaders would probably be pretty upset

And they would get downright vicious if Russia then tied to expand its military alliance into Canada or Mexico and put military bases right on our borders

---

Again, we see the war policy opponents making stuff up to fit their template.

1) The USSR expanded alliances with states in Central America and we didn't invade them.

2) No one. Not one leader, advocated putting military bases in Ukraine.

3) For that matter, Nato had not put a single permanent base in any of the former Warsaw Pact states, specifically to avoid alarming Russia, to signal that admittance of those states was a "Russia shall not invade here" sign, not a springboard for and invasion of Russia. (And Russia knows that.)

4) on the day the war started in 2014, Ukraine was a Nato partner, JUST LIKE SWEDEN AND FINLAND.

5) Ukraine did not actually apply for membership until after Russia outright invaded in 2022.

The whole "Nato started it" is preposterously disingenuous bs, even more easily disprovable than the "Maidan was a USG sponsored coup" nonsense. Refusing to promise not to do something is not grounds for war. Prudent powers should never say what they will or will not do just to keep others happy. It's called "strategic ambiguity." Keep your opponent guessing. Make them prepare for every scenario, which forces them to disperse resources away from the more likely ones.

The premise of your argument is that we must coddle every Russian concern. How about we start demanding Russia coddle some of ours, like promising not to invade ANYT of their neighbors? Will you advocate going to war with them if they refuse to do so?

---

Just to expand on #4 and further demonstrate how ridiculous the NATO argument it, nobody in Ukraine even wanted NATO in 2014. Politicians were uniform in openly running against it. Russia turned Ukraine to NATO by invading it. It's just that simple.

---

Not sure why you keep repeating that "no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO in 2014" or before

Pretty easy to prove that almost half the country did want that.

It was a long time debate in the country....a fault line between the pro-western and pro-eastern parties

Yushchenko was saying in 2009 that Ukraine should join NATO

[Yuschenko stressed that the talks held in the frames of his two-day
official visit to Belgium have shown that Ukraine has all the grounds
to be optimistic about its chances for joining the European Union and
NATO.]

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10159

[President Viktor Yushchenko hoped to change that. He had been swept to power during the 2004-2005 Orange Revolution, protests that were prompted by reports of electoral fraud. Yushchenko promised the protesters a future that did away with Ukraine's corrupt, Kremlin-dominated past. Much like Georgia, another former Soviet state seeking to shake off Russian influence, Ukraine saw NATO membership as one route to independence and sought membership in 2008.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/09/04/that-time-ukraine-tried-to-join-nato-and-nato-said-no/

Plus here is a BBC article from June of 2010

[Since his February inauguration, Mr Yanukovych has wasted no time in re-shaping Ukraine's foreign policy in a more Moscow-friendly way, the BBC's David Stern in Kiev says.
In April, he agreed to extend the lease allowing Russia's Black Sea fleet to be stationed in the southern port of Sevastopol by 25 years in return for cheaper gas.
An extension of the lease, due to expire in 2017, had been opposed by Mr Yushchenko.
Moscow had made known its opposition to Ukraine's plans to join Nato,]

https://www.bbc.com/news/10229626

---

the error in your entire argument here is that talking about Nato is synonymous with joining Nato..

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

Then they should change their Constitution and join NATO

If a country is not going to join our security-treaty alliance then what do you want Americans to do?

I certainly would be worried of Moscow and its intentions to expand its influence if I were Moldavian

[Moldova is not a member of NATO, but it is a partner country. Moldova's constitution enshrines its neutrality, so there are no official plans to join NATO.]

---

Maybe now you'll acknowledge the NATO boogeyman is a ruse for Russia to meddle. You guys are focused on the micro. Some of us are worried about the macro.

---

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Trump just paused all military aid to Ukraine

---

Wow, didn't think he'd do it.

Another broken American promise, all because Trump got his feelings hurt. What a teenage drama queen.

---

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Trump just paused all military aid to Ukraine

---

Wow, didn't think he'd do it.

Another broken American promise, all because Trump got his feelings hurt. What a teenage drama queen.

---

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Trump just paused all military aid to Ukraine

---

Wow, didn't think he'd do it.

Another broken American promise, all because Trump got his feelings hurt. What a teenage drama queen.

---

Trump just saved us another few million dollars that we never would have gotten a return on. Why does that bother you?

---

We broke a 30-year promise. Our word now is meaningless to the free world.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Sorry to play gotcha, but I just read the wiki you linked, and it says 12.5% supported NATO, so I actually understated the opposition . . . .




(1) NATO itself (mainly France and Germany) basically took it off the table in 2008-2009

---

I have a hard time believing it was that low of support

and I still don't understand why France nixed the deal for Ukraine to join NATO

---

It's very interesting reading. I've read a fair amount about Bucharest 2008. There are multiple theories. But I think the most accurate is that they simply did not feel Ukraine met the criteria at that time - economic, political, or judicial - and they were concerned that more than 2/3 of Ukrainians opposed NATO.

---

Which is very different from saying it's off the table.

---

NATO is never totally off the table, not even for Russia. Countries apply, and NATO decides based on established criteria.

The point is that by ridiculously large margins, government and public opposition had stabilized, and NATO itself had rejected.

If some remote future NATO possibility was Russia's concern, then I don't know how anyone can justify the years of coercion and then the 2014 invasion.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Trump just paused all military aid to Ukraine

---

Wow, didn't think he'd do it.

Another broken American promise, all because Trump got his feelings hurt. What a teenage drama queen.

---

Trump just saved us another few million dollars that we never would have gotten a return on. Why does that bother you?

---

We broke a 30-year promise. Our word now is meaningless to the free world.

Do you know many Ukrainians? They are some of the greatest people you'll ever meet. They love America. They love freedom. And they've proven they'll fight like mad to defend what they love. We just quit on them and sided with the epitome of evil.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

---

That's a question for Russia. Given the jackpot territorial gains and zero consequences being proposed for ending this, we can sit back and watch the same playbook being used in Moldova. We're at the gas dispute (hybrid warfare) territorial loyalties fight (Transnistria) phase there, similar to Ukraine circa 2008/9.

At some point we'll be forced to take a stand against their expansion. Or just stand by and let it happen at our own risk.

---

Then you should demand NATO and US troops on the ground because Ukraine can't stop Russia without that.

They're not going to win with western financial/weapon backing which is exactly what the Trump administration stated in the meeting with Zelensky.

You have to choose between a hot war or peace. If you want to continue to support Ukraine, then realize they're not going to hold up forever or make Russia give up. Russia giving up is not happening and is delusional thinking.

This is the exactly what I've discussed all along: WW3 or peace? Which one do you want?

---

I don't want US troops on the ground any more than you, probably more. But Russia has to decide it's not worth the wars, not us.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

thales said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

we have played the aggressor for the majority of the past 90 years so who are we to talk?

that and nato has slowly expanded since is creation and the ussr and then russia has been specifically excluded from it

they feel like they are being encroached upon - and they are

it is no different than communism spreading to cuba and our government throwing a fit when it did

---

lol Russia is being encroached upon only on the sense the number of countries they can invade goes down when NATO expands.


Zero chance Nato ever invades Russia, and Russia full well knows that

---

Had the USA lost the Cold War in 1991 and broken up leaving a rump American Federation that was 33% smaller in territory and with half the population….not to mention having to watch NATO collapse and the Warsaw pact expand to include all of Western Europe (our old sphere of influence )

DC leaders would probably be pretty upset

And they would get downright vicious if Russia then tied to expand its military alliance into Canada or Mexico and put military bases right on our borders

---

Again, we see the war policy opponents making stuff up to fit their template.

1) The USSR expanded alliances with states in Central America and we didn't invade them.

2) No one. Not one leader, advocated putting military bases in Ukraine.

3) For that matter, Nato had not put a single permanent base in any of the former Warsaw Pact states, specifically to avoid alarming Russia, to signal that admittance of those states was a "Russia shall not invade here" sign, not a springboard for and invasion of Russia. (And Russia knows that.)

4) on the day the war started in 2014, Ukraine was a Nato partner, JUST LIKE SWEDEN AND FINLAND.

5) Ukraine did not actually apply for membership until after Russia outright invaded in 2022.

The whole "Nato started it" is preposterously disingenuous bs, even more easily disprovable than the "Maidan was a USG sponsored coup" nonsense. Refusing to promise not to do something is not grounds for war. Prudent powers should never say what they will or will not do just to keep others happy. It's called "strategic ambiguity." Keep your opponent guessing. Make them prepare for every scenario, which forces them to disperse resources away from the more likely ones.

The premise of your argument is that we must coddle every Russian concern. How about we start demanding Russia coddle some of ours, like promising not to invade ANYT of their neighbors? Will you advocate going to war with them if they refuse to do so?

---

Just to expand on #4 and further demonstrate how ridiculous the NATO argument it, nobody in Ukraine even wanted NATO in 2014. Politicians were uniform in openly running against it. Russia turned Ukraine to NATO by invading it. It's just that simple.

---

Ukrainians didn't want a lot of things. They didn't want IMF "reforms." They didn't want the Maidan coup. They didn't want the Donbas war. What's ridiculous is pretending their wishes ever mattered.

It was widely predicted that NATO's ambitions in Ukraine would provoke Russia, and the simple fact is that's exactly what happened. Even Jens Stoltenberg himself admitted it. To claim otherwise is to rewrite history.

---

LOL again just completely counterfactual. Ukrainian public opinion was slightly opposed to Nato membership until 2014, at which point it flipped into support (thanks to the Russian invasion of Crimea). It has climbed steadily from there. Support has remained above 3-1 since the summer of 2022.

Russia caused that. Not Nato.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UkraineNATO_relations

---