Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower.

---

That was Iran far more than Russia

Russia had basically an Air Wing stationed there to bomb the rebels and sent in special forces to do operations.

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

But it was Iran who went all in....the Baathists could not have held out long without Iranian support.

Iran recruited and paid for Shiite fighters from Iraq and Afghanistan to go fight (tens of thousands)

Iran had Hezbollah send fighters (probably 20,000 at one time)

Iran had basically all their Revolutionary Guard officers do rotations in the Syrian war....and also regular army troops. (5,000 at least)

Not to mention sent in billions in weapons and equipment

It was Iran doing the heavy lifting of supporting the Baathists in Syria

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower.

---

That was Iran far more than Russia

Russia had basically an Air Wing stationed there to bomb the rebels and sent in special forces to do operations.

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

But it was Iran who went all in....the Baathists could not have held out long without Iranian support.

Iran recruited and paid for Shiite fighters from Iraq and Afghanistan to go fight (tens of thousands)

Iran had Hezbollah send fighters (probably 20,000 at one time)

Iran had basically all their Revolutionary Guard officers do rotations in the Syrian war....and also regular army troops. (5,000 at least)

Not to mention sent in billions in weapons and equipment

It was Iran doing the heavy lifting of supporting the Baathists in Syria

---

You have no idea how wrong this is.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower.

---

That was Iran far more than Russia

Russia had basically an Air Wing stationed there to bomb the rebels and sent in special forces to do operations.

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

But it was Iran who went all in....the Baathists could not have held out long without Iranian support.

Iran recruited and paid for Shiite fighters from Iraq and Afghanistan to go fight (tens of thousands)

Iran had Hezbollah send fighters (probably 20,000 at one time)

Iran had basically all their Revolutionary Guard officers do rotations in the Syrian war....and also regular army troops. (5,000 at least)

Not to mention sent in billions in weapons and equipment

It was Iran doing the heavy lifting of supporting the Baathists in Syria

---

You have no idea how wrong this is.

---

That Iran did the heavy lifting in that civil war for the regime?

Come on....Russia never made a commitment in men and matrial as strong as Iran did

[Over the past thirteen years, Iran has invested an estimated $30-50 billion in Syria, underscoring its unwavering commitment to ensuring the survival of Bashar al-Assad's regime. Iranian advisors, particularly those from the Quds Force, played a decisive role in safeguarding Assad's government during the Syrian civil war.....among the "defenders of the shrine" Iran's euphemistic term for its forces in Syria. Most of these casualties are believed to be Afghan nationals recruited as part of the Fatemiyoun Brigades, though Iran did lose considerable numbers of IRGC personnel as well, notably during the battle of Khan Touman in 2016.

Iran embedded itself within key military and paramilitary structures in Syria. One such example is the National Defense Forces (NDF), a pro-regime militia network that Iran helped organize, arm, and train. Formed in 2013 under IRGC supervision, the NDF became a critical auxiliary force, integrating local fighters into Assad's military strategy and supplementing the overstretched Syrian army. Iran also cultivated close ties with certain divisions of the Syrian military, particularly the 4th Armored Division and the Republican Guard. The 4th Armored Division, commanded by Maher al-Assad, Bashar's brother, was a favored recipient of Iranian training, weaponry, and financial aid due to its reliability and effectiveness in major offensives.

Similarly, the Republican Guard, tasked with protecting the regime's inner circle and key infrastructure, benefited from Iranian logistical and operational support, ensuring its continued loyalty to Assad.]

https://carnegieendowment.org/middle-east/diwan/2024/12/why-did-iran-allow-assads-downfall?lang=en&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3EKjbQEQBi6ZhZO6Tb4Mipuy2f-Q3qdEXutO5cDs27QVz8OIgb1qdz1Dw_aem_nAHe3q5PXh5uOVKsUtNH9Q


[Iran chose to double down, deploying about 7,000 of its own troops, calling on Hezbollah to reinforce its contingent in Syria to almost 5,000, and dispatching roughly 10,000 of its allied Shi'a militiamen from Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran largely took control of the Syrian military and intelligence apparatus to try to make it run more efficiently. The Iranians also convinced the Russians to intervene to save Assad. President Putin contributed Russian warplanes and artillery to support the ground forces that Iran had mustered. Together, this Iranian-led coalition halted and then began to push back the opposition forces in western Syria.]

https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/middle-east/pushing-back-on-iran-part-3-the-syrian-civil-war/

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower.

---

That was Iran far more than Russia

Russia had basically an Air Wing stationed there to bomb the rebels and sent in special forces to do operations.

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

But it was Iran who went all in....the Baathists could not have held out long without Iranian support.

Iran recruited and paid for Shiite fighters from Iraq and Afghanistan to go fight (tens of thousands)

Iran had Hezbollah send fighters (probably 20,000 at one time)

Iran had basically all their Revolutionary Guard officers do rotations in the Syrian war....and also regular army troops. (5,000 at least)

Not to mention sent in billions in weapons and equipment

It was Iran doing the heavy lifting of supporting the Baathists in Syria

---

You have no idea how wrong this is.

---

That Iran did the heavy lifting in that civil war for the regime?

Come on....Russia never made a commitment in men and matrial as strong as Iran did

[Over the past thirteen years, Iran has invested an estimated $30-50 billion in Syria, underscoring its unwavering commitment to ensuring the survival of Bashar al-Assad's regime. Iranian advisors, particularly those from the Quds Force, played a decisive role in safeguarding Assad's government during the Syrian civil war.....among the "defenders of the shrine" Iran's euphemistic term for its forces in Syria. Most of these casualties are believed to be Afghan nationals recruited as part of the Fatemiyoun Brigades, though Iran did lose considerable numbers of IRGC personnel as well, notably during the battle of Khan Touman in 2016.

Iran embedded itself within key military and paramilitary structures in Syria. One such example is the National Defense Forces (NDF), a pro-regime militia network that Iran helped organize, arm, and train. Formed in 2013 under IRGC supervision, the NDF became a critical auxiliary force, integrating local fighters into Assad's military strategy and supplementing the overstretched Syrian army. Iran also cultivated close ties with certain divisions of the Syrian military, particularly the 4th Armored Division and the Republican Guard. The 4th Armored Division, commanded by Maher al-Assad, Bashar's brother, was a favored recipient of Iranian training, weaponry, and financial aid due to its reliability and effectiveness in major offensives.

Similarly, the Republican Guard, tasked with protecting the regime's inner circle and key infrastructure, benefited from Iranian logistical and operational support, ensuring its continued loyalty to Assad.]

https://carnegieendowment.org/middle-east/diwan/2024/12/why-did-iran-allow-assads-downfall?lang=en&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3EKjbQEQBi6ZhZO6Tb4Mipuy2f-Q3qdEXutO5cDs27QVz8OIgb1qdz1Dw_aem_nAHe3q5PXh5uOVKsUtNH9Q


[Iran chose to double down, deploying about 7,000 of its own troops, calling on Hezbollah to reinforce its contingent in Syria to almost 5,000, and dispatching roughly 10,000 of its allied Shi'a militiamen from Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran largely took control of the Syrian military and intelligence apparatus to try to make it run more efficiently. The Iranians also convinced the Russians to intervene to save Assad. President Putin contributed Russian warplanes and artillery to support the ground forces that Iran had mustered. Together, this Iranian-led coalition halted and then began to push back the opposition forces in western Syria.]

https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/middle-east/pushing-back-on-iran-part-3-the-syrian-civil-war/

---

I thought your original answer was just about Russia involvement generally in Syria.

I don't know enough about comparative civil war involvement, but obviously, for decades, Russia has trained Syrian military and provided money, weapons, equipment, and intel.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower.

---

That was Iran far more than Russia

Russia had basically an Air Wing stationed there to bomb the rebels and sent in special forces to do operations.

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

But it was Iran who went all in....the Baathists could not have held out long without Iranian support.

Iran recruited and paid for Shiite fighters from Iraq and Afghanistan to go fight (tens of thousands)

Iran had Hezbollah send fighters (probably 20,000 at one time)

Iran had basically all their Revolutionary Guard officers do rotations in the Syrian war....and also regular army troops. (5,000 at least)

Not to mention sent in billions in weapons and equipment

It was Iran doing the heavy lifting of supporting the Baathists in Syria

---

You have no idea how wrong this is.

---

That Iran did the heavy lifting in that civil war for the regime?

Come on....Russia never made a commitment in men and matrial as strong as Iran did

[Over the past thirteen years, Iran has invested an estimated $30-50 billion in Syria, underscoring its unwavering commitment to ensuring the survival of Bashar al-Assad's regime. Iranian advisors, particularly those from the Quds Force, played a decisive role in safeguarding Assad's government during the Syrian civil war.....among the "defenders of the shrine" Iran's euphemistic term for its forces in Syria. Most of these casualties are believed to be Afghan nationals recruited as part of the Fatemiyoun Brigades, though Iran did lose considerable numbers of IRGC personnel as well, notably during the battle of Khan Touman in 2016.

Iran embedded itself within key military and paramilitary structures in Syria. One such example is the National Defense Forces (NDF), a pro-regime militia network that Iran helped organize, arm, and train. Formed in 2013 under IRGC supervision, the NDF became a critical auxiliary force, integrating local fighters into Assad's military strategy and supplementing the overstretched Syrian army. Iran also cultivated close ties with certain divisions of the Syrian military, particularly the 4th Armored Division and the Republican Guard. The 4th Armored Division, commanded by Maher al-Assad, Bashar's brother, was a favored recipient of Iranian training, weaponry, and financial aid due to its reliability and effectiveness in major offensives.

Similarly, the Republican Guard, tasked with protecting the regime's inner circle and key infrastructure, benefited from Iranian logistical and operational support, ensuring its continued loyalty to Assad.]

https://carnegieendowment.org/middle-east/diwan/2024/12/why-did-iran-allow-assads-downfall?lang=en&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3EKjbQEQBi6ZhZO6Tb4Mipuy2f-Q3qdEXutO5cDs27QVz8OIgb1qdz1Dw_aem_nAHe3q5PXh5uOVKsUtNH9Q


[Iran chose to double down, deploying about 7,000 of its own troops, calling on Hezbollah to reinforce its contingent in Syria to almost 5,000, and dispatching roughly 10,000 of its allied Shi'a militiamen from Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran largely took control of the Syrian military and intelligence apparatus to try to make it run more efficiently. The Iranians also convinced the Russians to intervene to save Assad. President Putin contributed Russian warplanes and artillery to support the ground forces that Iran had mustered. Together, this Iranian-led coalition halted and then began to push back the opposition forces in western Syria.]

https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/middle-east/pushing-back-on-iran-part-3-the-syrian-civil-war/

---

I thought your original answer was just about Russia involvement generally in Syria.

---

No, I agreed with Mothra that Russia was involved with propping up Syria....just pointed out they were the Jr. partner in that war....Iran was the shot caller and the main ally of Syria in trying to crush the Sunni Islamist rebels

BREAKING:

Ukraine’s 2nd-largest city Kharkiv is under an intense Russian attack by suicide drone swarms.

At least 14 suicide drone shave struck the city in the past hour pic.twitter.com/9qMbx9BXJI

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 2, 2025

The Ukrainian Air Force has struck a Russian underground command post in Oleshky in the Kherson regione.

2 GBU-62 precision-guided bombs dropped by a MiG-29 fighter jet hit the bullseye and destroyed the command post during a meeting of commanders’pic.twitter.com/I5JRCrskvo

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 3, 2025

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

---

Do you think the Russians should agree to ceasefire and land grab like you described, or should they continue to try and take more ground? Should toppling Ukraine be the goal? Or perhaps more appropriately, is continuing the conflict justified?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

---

Do you think the Russians should agree to ceasefire and land grab like you described, or should they continue to try and take more ground? Should toppling Ukraine be the goal? Or perhaps more appropriately, is continuing the conflict justified?

---

They should only agree to a ceasefire if their immediate conditions are met and there's a reliable process in place to resolve the underlying issues (and frankly I'm not sure that's possible, given the lack of trust).

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

---

So you're cool with it, then?

Let's put aside the WMD's for a moment. Do you believe all totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans have a "right" to be supplied with ballistic missile technology, and advanced weaponry? I mean, is that only "fair" in your book?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

---

Do you think the Russians should agree to ceasefire and land grab like you described, or should they continue to try and take more ground? Should toppling Ukraine be the goal? Or perhaps more appropriately, is continuing the conflict justified?

---

They should only agree to a ceasefire if their immediate conditions are met and there's a reliable process in place to resolve the underlying issues (and frankly I'm not sure that's possible, given the lack of trust).

---

So, they are justified in continuing to fight until the govt. is overthrown and a dummy govt. favorable to Russia has been installed, as the Russians have suggested?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

---

So you're cool with it, then?

Let's put aside the WMD's for a moment. Do you believe all totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans have a "right" to be supplied with ballistic missile technology, and advanced weaponry? I mean, is that only "fair" in your book?

---

As opposed to what? Disarming every country in the world that's ever killed an American? Your question suggests a completely unrealistic view of foreign policy.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

---

Do you think the Russians should agree to ceasefire and land grab like you described, or should they continue to try and take more ground? Should toppling Ukraine be the goal? Or perhaps more appropriately, is continuing the conflict justified?

---

They should only agree to a ceasefire if their immediate conditions are met and there's a reliable process in place to resolve the underlying issues (and frankly I'm not sure that's possible, given the lack of trust).

---

So, they are justified in continuing to fight until the govt. is overthrown and a dummy govt. favorable to Russia has been installed, as the Russians have suggested?

---

I don't know what kind of government the Russians have suggested, but they would certainly be justified in overthrowing Zelensky. I'm not sure it would be wise at this point, since he's probably the best military strategist the Russians have.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

---

Do you think the Russians should agree to ceasefire and land grab like you described, or should they continue to try and take more ground? Should toppling Ukraine be the goal? Or perhaps more appropriately, is continuing the conflict justified?

---

They should only agree to a ceasefire if their immediate conditions are met and there's a reliable process in place to resolve the underlying issues (and frankly I'm not sure that's possible, given the lack of trust).

---

So, they are justified in continuing to fight until the govt. is overthrown and a dummy govt. favorable to Russia has been installed, as the Russians have suggested?

---

I don't know what kind of government the Russians have suggested, but they would certainly be justified in overthrowing Zelensky. I'm not sure it would be wise at this point, since he's probably the best military strategist the Russians have.

---

More lies from the two-bit Russian.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

---

So you're cool with it, then?

Let's put aside the WMD's for a moment. Do you believe all totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans have a "right" to be supplied with ballistic missile technology, and advanced weaponry? I mean, is that only "fair" in your book?

---

As opposed to what? Disarming every country in the world that's ever killed an American? Your question suggests a completely unrealistic view of foreign policy.

---

As opposed to the Russians not arming totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans (among others). Do you think it's only fair that such regimes should be supplied with ballistic missile technology and advanced weaponry?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

---

So you're cool with it, then?

Let's put aside the WMD's for a moment. Do you believe all totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans have a "right" to be supplied with ballistic missile technology, and advanced weaponry? I mean, is that only "fair" in your book?

---

As opposed to what? Disarming every country in the world that's ever killed an American? Your question suggests a completely unrealistic view of foreign policy.

---

As opposed to the Russians not arming totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans (among others). Do you think it's only fair that such regimes should be supplied with ballistic missile technology and advanced weaponry?

---

The question is meaningless. It's neither fair nor unfair.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

---

Do you think the Russians should agree to ceasefire and land grab like you described, or should they continue to try and take more ground? Should toppling Ukraine be the goal? Or perhaps more appropriately, is continuing the conflict justified?

---

They should only agree to a ceasefire if their immediate conditions are met and there's a reliable process in place to resolve the underlying issues (and frankly I'm not sure that's possible, given the lack of trust).

---

So, they are justified in continuing to fight until the govt. is overthrown and a dummy govt. favorable to Russia has been installed, as the Russians have suggested?

---

I don't know what kind of government the Russians have suggested, but they would certainly be justified in overthrowing Zelensky. I'm not sure it would be wise at this point, since he's probably the best military strategist the Russians have.

---

Well, I don't know what kind of military strategist Zelensky is, but given the fact that he has been able to rally most of the free world to his cause, and Russian military deaths range from 146,194 to 211,169, according to the BBC, and Russians have failed to capture the vast majority of Ukrainian territory in the past 3 years, despite the Ukrainians being badly outgunned and outnumbered, I'd say at the very least he's been effective. The Russians have fared pretty poorly by any objective measure when you consider the odds.

So you believe Russia is justified in continuing this war until the Ukrainian govt. is toppled. Correct?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

---

So you're cool with it, then?

Let's put aside the WMD's for a moment. Do you believe all totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans have a "right" to be supplied with ballistic missile technology, and advanced weaponry? I mean, is that only "fair" in your book?

---

As opposed to what? Disarming every country in the world that's ever killed an American? Your question suggests a completely unrealistic view of foreign policy.

---

As opposed to the Russians not arming totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans (among others). Do you think it's only fair that such regimes should be supplied with ballistic missile technology and advanced weaponry?

---

The question is meaningless. It's neither fair nor unfair.

---

Well, to be fair, you brought up the idea that terroristic and totalitarian regimes responsible for killing Americans have the same rights to the technology as everyone else.

If you don't like the word "fair," your comments at the very least suggest you take no issue whatsoever with Russian supplying terroristic and totalitarian regimes who've killed numerous Americans with ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry, and "civilian" nuclear technology (which we all know can and has been used to advanced a nuclear weapons program). Does this accurately describe your position or no?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

---

Do you think the Russians should agree to ceasefire and land grab like you described, or should they continue to try and take more ground? Should toppling Ukraine be the goal? Or perhaps more appropriately, is continuing the conflict justified?

---

They should only agree to a ceasefire if their immediate conditions are met and there's a reliable process in place to resolve the underlying issues (and frankly I'm not sure that's possible, given the lack of trust).

---

So, they are justified in continuing to fight until the govt. is overthrown and a dummy govt. favorable to Russia has been installed, as the Russians have suggested?

---

I don't know what kind of government the Russians have suggested, but they would certainly be justified in overthrowing Zelensky. I'm not sure it would be wise at this point, since he's probably the best military strategist the Russians have.

---

Well, I don't know what kind of military strategist Zelensky is, but given the fact that he has been able to rally most of the free world to his cause, and Russian military deaths range from 146,194 to 211,169, according to the BBC, and Russians have failed to capture the vast majority of Ukrainian territory in the past 3 years, despite the Ukrainians being badly outgunned and outnumbered, I'd say at the very least he's been effective. The Russians have fared pretty poorly by any objective measure when you consider the odds.

So you believe Russia is justified in continuing this war until the Ukrainian govt. is toppled. Correct?

---

Asked and answered.

Capturing the vast majority of Ukrainian territory in the past three years wasn't the strategy. Destroying the Ukrainian army was.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

---

Do you think the Russians should agree to ceasefire and land grab like you described, or should they continue to try and take more ground? Should toppling Ukraine be the goal? Or perhaps more appropriately, is continuing the conflict justified?

---

They should only agree to a ceasefire if their immediate conditions are met and there's a reliable process in place to resolve the underlying issues (and frankly I'm not sure that's possible, given the lack of trust).

---

So, they are justified in continuing to fight until the govt. is overthrown and a dummy govt. favorable to Russia has been installed, as the Russians have suggested?

---

I don't know what kind of government the Russians have suggested, but they would certainly be justified in overthrowing Zelensky. I'm not sure it would be wise at this point, since he's probably the best military strategist the Russians have.

---

Well, I don't know what kind of military strategist Zelensky is, but given the fact that he has been able to rally most of the free world to his cause, and Russian military deaths range from 146,194 to 211,169, according to the BBC, and Russians have failed to capture the vast majority of Ukrainian territory in the past 3 years, despite the Ukrainians being badly outgunned and outnumbered, I'd say at the very least he's been effective. The Russians have fared pretty poorly by any objective measure when you consider the odds.

So you believe Russia is justified in continuing this war until the Ukrainian govt. is toppled. Correct?

---

Asked and answered.

Capturing the vast majority of Ukrainian territory in the past three years wasn't the strategy. Destroying the Ukrainian army was.

---

Actually, Putin's stated goal, which you used to parrot, was to "protect the people" of the Russian-controlled breakaway republics, protect them from "genocide" and to rid it of Neo-Nazis. He also said the goal was to topple the Ukrainian govt., which he branded illegitimate. I suppose trying to destroy the military was a part of that goal, but we know for a fact that Russia thought it could march quickly to Kyiv, topple Zelensky, and then ultimately gain control over Ukraine.

Perhaps you'd be cool with Russian parking a nuke over Kyiv. That would seem to solve the stated goal.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

---

So you're cool with it, then?

Let's put aside the WMD's for a moment. Do you believe all totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans have a "right" to be supplied with ballistic missile technology, and advanced weaponry? I mean, is that only "fair" in your book?

---

As opposed to what? Disarming every country in the world that's ever killed an American? Your question suggests a completely unrealistic view of foreign policy.

---

As opposed to the Russians not arming totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans (among others). Do you think it's only fair that such regimes should be supplied with ballistic missile technology and advanced weaponry?

---

The question is meaningless. It's neither fair nor unfair.

---

Well, to be fair, you brought up the idea that terroristic and totalitarian regimes responsible for killing Americans have the same rights to the technology as everyone else.

If you don't like the word "fair," your comments at the very least suggest you take no issue whatsoever with Russian supplying terroristic and totalitarian regimes who've killed numerous Americans with ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry, and "civilian" nuclear technology (which we all know can and has been used to advanced a nuclear weapons program). Does this accurately describe your position or no?

---

Saudi Arabia is closer to a totalitarian regime than Iran is. All we really know about Iran's nuclear weapons program is that we succeeded in curtailing it and the neocons have been lying and obstructing agreements ever since.

Iran doesn't have a strong air force and relies heavily on missiles for deterrence and defense. I'm not aware of any ballistic missile treaties to which Iran is a party. If they were receiving assistance from Russia in violation of any such treaties, I would take issue with it. But it would have no relevance to my point. It wouldn't come close to waging war against the United States.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

---

Do you think the Russians should agree to ceasefire and land grab like you described, or should they continue to try and take more ground? Should toppling Ukraine be the goal? Or perhaps more appropriately, is continuing the conflict justified?

---

They should only agree to a ceasefire if their immediate conditions are met and there's a reliable process in place to resolve the underlying issues (and frankly I'm not sure that's possible, given the lack of trust).

---

So, they are justified in continuing to fight until the govt. is overthrown and a dummy govt. favorable to Russia has been installed, as the Russians have suggested?

---

I don't know what kind of government the Russians have suggested, but they would certainly be justified in overthrowing Zelensky. I'm not sure it would be wise at this point, since he's probably the best military strategist the Russians have.

---

Well, I don't know what kind of military strategist Zelensky is, but given the fact that he has been able to rally most of the free world to his cause, and Russian military deaths range from 146,194 to 211,169, according to the BBC, and Russians have failed to capture the vast majority of Ukrainian territory in the past 3 years, despite the Ukrainians being badly outgunned and outnumbered, I'd say at the very least he's been effective. The Russians have fared pretty poorly by any objective measure when you consider the odds.

So you believe Russia is justified in continuing this war until the Ukrainian govt. is toppled. Correct?

---

Asked and answered.

Capturing the vast majority of Ukrainian territory in the past three years wasn't the strategy. Destroying the Ukrainian army was.

---

Actually, Putin's stated goal, which you used to parrot, was to "protect the people" of the Russian-controlled breakaway republics, protect them from "genocide" and to rid it of Neo-Nazis. He also said the goal was to topple the Ukrainian govt., which he branded illegitimate. I suppose trying to destroy the military was a part of that goal, but we know for a fact that Russia thought it could march quickly to Kyiv, topple Zelensky, and then ultimately gain control over Ukraine.

Perhaps you'd be cool with Russian parking a nuke over Kyiv. That would seem to solve the stated goal.

---

What Putin said and thought was somewhat different from the above, but that's been well covered.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

---

So you're cool with it, then?

Let's put aside the WMD's for a moment. Do you believe all totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans have a "right" to be supplied with ballistic missile technology, and advanced weaponry? I mean, is that only "fair" in your book?

---

As opposed to what? Disarming every country in the world that's ever killed an American? Your question suggests a completely unrealistic view of foreign policy.

---

As opposed to the Russians not arming totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans (among others). Do you think it's only fair that such regimes should be supplied with ballistic missile technology and advanced weaponry?

---

The question is meaningless. It's neither fair nor unfair.

---

Well, to be fair, you brought up the idea that terroristic and totalitarian regimes responsible for killing Americans have the same rights to the technology as everyone else.

If you don't like the word "fair," your comments at the very least suggest you take no issue whatsoever with Russian supplying terroristic and totalitarian regimes who've killed numerous Americans with ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry, and "civilian" nuclear technology (which we all know can and has been used to advanced a nuclear weapons program). Does this accurately describe your position or no?

---

Saudi Arabia is closer to a totalitarian regime than Iran is. All we really know about Iran's nuclear weapons program is that we succeeded in curtailing it and the neocons have been lying and obstructing agreements ever since.

Iran doesn't have a strong air force and relies heavily on missiles for deterrence and defense. I'm not aware of any ballistic missile treaties to which Iran is a party. If they were receiving assistance from Russia in violation of any such treaties, I would take issue with it. But it would have no relevance to my point. It wouldn't come close to waging war against the United States.

---

So, the answer is you take no issue with Russia supplying a terrorist regime responsible for killing numerous Americans with ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry, and "civilian" nuclear technology, correct? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Iran has not yet aggressively and illegally invaded any democratic republics with the stated intention of toppling them. So in that sense, you are right it's an apples to oranges comparison. If it did so, I suspect it could count on most of the free and democratic world pushing back on such conduct.