Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

This ends one of two ways: escalation to US forces getting involved, or peace talks and the Russians and people of Ukraine redrawing the map.

---

And why is it our job to dictate terms to the Ukrainians? Where do we get off telling other countries how much of their country is acceptable for them to cede to an outside aggressor? They don't get to (at least attempt to) decide that on their own?

We don't have to arm or support them, but we also don't have to mandate their surrender.

And the US is not going to send troops to Ukraine, period. If we were going to, it would have happened already when the conventional wisdom was that Ukraine had no chance against the Russian invasion.

The point of supporting Ukraine indirectly with arms is so that hopefully we don't have to support Latvia, Lithuania and/or Estonia directly with US troops. And FYI, those countries have sizable ethnic Russian minorities that I am sure Moscow feels would be safer under the wing of mother Russia. And they are access points into the heart of Russia. And they are NATO members and thus (in the paranoid Russian mind) direct threats to Russia's very existence.

---

It wasn't but now that we are involved we need to push for peace talks. If we don't we fight a stagnant war burning through billions.

---

Quote:

---

while defending brandon's idiotic foreign policy.

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

while defending brandon's idiotic foreign policy.

---

Would it still be idiotic if it was Trump's foreign policy?

---

GAC06 said:

---

When Russia attacked Ukraine, we were providing arms and had no troops or troops of a country we are bound by treaty to protect in combat. A year later, that's still the case. But omg the eScaLaTiOn.

Neat debate strategy there btw. Repeat Russian talking point. When someone finally counters, call them a liar. Good stuff.

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

while defending brandon's idiotic foreign policy.

---

Would it still be idiotic if it was Trump's foreign policy?

---

In your fairy tale hypothetical ? If trump did exactly what biden has done? Yes.

---

LMCane said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

while defending brandon's idiotic foreign policy.

---

Would it still be idiotic if it was Trump's foreign policy?

---

In your fairy tale hypothetical ? If trump did exactly what biden has done? Yes.

---

Trump sent military weaponry to Ukraine when he was President

after condemning Obama for not doing so.

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

When Russia attacked Ukraine, we were providing arms and had no troops or troops of a country we are bound by treaty to protect in combat. A year later, that's still the case. But omg the eScaLaTiOn.

Neat debate strategy there btw. Repeat Russian talking point. When someone finally counters, call them a liar. Good stuff.

---

Is sending more equipment and billions more than what was originally promised escalation or not?

You are trying to redefine an operative word (escalation) here to make your original position not look foolish. You are in over your skis.

---

Rossticus said:

---

Any war that isn't won by one side in short order will, by definition, "escalate". The most significant difference of opinion between the respective "sides" appears to be whether a rapid overtaking and absorption of Ukraine by Russia has less severe long term negative implications than the attempt to prevent Russia from achieving their objective.

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

When Russia attacked Ukraine, we were providing arms and had no troops or troops of a country we are bound by treaty to protect in combat. A year later, that's still the case. But omg the eScaLaTiOn.

Neat debate strategy there btw. Repeat Russian talking point. When someone finally counters, call them a liar. Good stuff.

---

Is sending more equipment and billions more than what was originally promised escalation or not?

You are trying to redefine an operative word (escalation) here to make your original position not look foolish. You are in over your skis.

---

What are you claiming has escalated? The war in general, US contributions to Ukraine?

In order to answer your question to your satisfaction there needs to be a definition of "escalation" that is agreed upon.

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

Shot:

jwoodmd said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

How old are you pro-Russia MAGA guys? Old enough to be alive while Ronald Reagan was president?

---

Shiftyandslow, have you ever considered trying to use some honesty during your "arguments"?

---

You didn't answer his question, comrade Russian bot

---

jwood, I always get a good chuckle when you try and engage on f16. It's usually pretty entertaining to watch until you inevitably disappear again. What question are you referring to?

---

Weird and evasive response coming from a ten day old account. Answer shinty's question!

---

Chaser:

jwoodmd said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

How old are you pro-Russia MAGA guys? Old enough to be alive while Ronald Reagan was president?

---

Shiftyandslow, have you ever considered trying to use some honesty during your "arguments"?

---

You didn't answer his question, comrade Russian bot

---

Care to answer my question on escalation you ingord three times yesterday?

---

Watch your mouth

---

---

Did it fly over your head, English is not your native language, or did you just "ingord" the sarcasm?

---

GAC06 said:

---

Our position hasn't changed. Counter Russian aggression for a fraction of our annual defense budget, unify NATO, and position ourselves as a major source of Europe's energy. We're still doing exactly that. Russia (and their apologists and fanboys) like to cry about escalation but they know they don't want to see real escalation, which is a war with NATO.

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

while defending brandon's idiotic foreign policy.

---

Would it still be idiotic if it was Trump's foreign policy?

---

In your fairy tale hypothetical ? If trump did exactly what biden has done? Yes.

---

Trump sent military weaponry to Ukraine when he was President

after condemning Obama for not doing so.

---

Shocking black-and-white explanation again.

One tactical move doesn't make their foreign policy the same. Hope that helps.

Trump prevented Russia from ever making a move on Ukraine.

---

GAC06 said:

---

It can be over whenever Russia wants it to be over. They're still attacking though so it looks like they still need more convincing and dying.

---

GAC06 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

You've repeated the same stupid question like five times. People aren't avoiding it because it's some kind of tough question, they're avoiding it because it's silly. Russia invaded. Our position is to respect and ensure Ukraine's territorial integrity. Providing arms to counter Russia's invasion isn't escalation, it's consistency. Russia likes to talk about all the escalation and provocations they've faced since their invasion began so I guess I see where you're getting that talking point.

---

Why aren't we going to free Tibet then, about which I've seen bumper stickers for 30+ years? Or Hong Kong? Or Gambia, or Somalia, or Ethiopia? When do we re-take South Vietnam for the good people there? And the Kurds? Free Cyprus/Constantinople? A bunch of Okinawans are still sick of Japanese oppression.

---

Perhaps we care more about Europe than Africa or ancient events.

Oh and of course this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

It can be over whenever Russia wants it to be over. They're still attacking though so it looks like they still need more convincing and dying.

---

Totally agree. Why isn't brandon and his party of stooges suing for peace talks?

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Any war that isn't won by one side in short order will, by definition, "escalate". The most significant difference of opinion between the respective "sides" appears to be whether a rapid overtaking and absorption of Ukraine by Russia has less severe long term negative implications than the attempt to prevent Russia from achieving their objective.

---

In the early onsets of this conflict, this is exactly what the anti-involvement people said and we were met with scorn and called Ivans.

You are making my point here.

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

Shot:

jwoodmd said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

How old are you pro-Russia MAGA guys? Old enough to be alive while Ronald Reagan was president?

---

Shiftyandslow, have you ever considered trying to use some honesty during your "arguments"?

---

You didn't answer his question, comrade Russian bot

---

jwood, I always get a good chuckle when you try and engage on f16. It's usually pretty entertaining to watch until you inevitably disappear again. What question are you referring to?

---

Weird and evasive response coming from a ten day old account. Answer shinty's question!

---

Chaser:

jwoodmd said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

How old are you pro-Russia MAGA guys? Old enough to be alive while Ronald Reagan was president?

---

Shiftyandslow, have you ever considered trying to use some honesty during your "arguments"?

---

You didn't answer his question, comrade Russian bot

---

Care to answer my question on escalation you ingord three times yesterday?

---

Watch your mouth

---

---

Did it fly over your head, English is not your native language, or did you just "ingord" the sarcasm?

---

I noticed you used sarcasm regarding an obvious thumb slip typo while typing in order to avoid his question. Keep up.

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Our position hasn't changed. Counter Russian aggression for a fraction of our annual defense budget, unify NATO, and position ourselves as a major source of Europe's energy. We're still doing exactly that. Russia (and their apologists and fanboys) like to cry about escalation but they know they don't want to see real escalation, which is a war with NATO.

---

No ***** That was a big reason for us to say this needs to be over right away. Not piling on more equipment and money to keep this going longer.

I think we all want to avoid the US troops in-country escalation.

Edit: I know your position hasn't changed despite the geopolitical environment, cost, death toll, strategic position, Russian economy, and our economy all dynamically changing in the past year. It is why many people are coming around to think your position is completely ****ed in the head.

---

GAC06 said:

---

Our position hasn't changed. Counter Russian aggression for a fraction of our annual defense budget, unify NATO, and position ourselves as a major source of Europe's energy. We're still doing exactly that. Russia (and their apologists and fanboys) like to cry about escalation but they know they don't want to see real escalation, which is a war with NATO.

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

It can be over whenever Russia wants it to be over. They're still attacking though so it looks like they still need more convincing and dying.

---

Totally agree. Why isn't brandon and his party of stooges suing for peace talks?

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

It can be over whenever Russia wants it to be over. They're still attacking though so it looks like they still need more convincing and dying.

---

Totally agree. Why isn't brandon and his party of stooges suing for peace talks?

---

Do you think that Russia would accept less than the total territory that they've officially recognized as annexed in their constitution in order to end the conflict and escape with a sliver of eastern Ukraine?

---

Quote:

---

What do you think would be a reasonable compromise for Ukraine that wouldn't appreciably impact their economic autonomy, and wouldn't give Russia a sufficient strategic advantage such that they'd be tempted to try and take another chunk at some future date?

---

Street Fighter said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

NOBODY wants to send forces to Ukraine. It's not happening, as long as Russia doesn't go full stupid and they stay in their lane and don't attack a NATO member.

---

I have money down on a NATO member attacking Russia.

---

GAC06 said:

---

Let's be honest, if we cut Ukraine loose tomorrow most of the "not another dime" folks would be spiking the football about how weak and fickle Brandon is.

---