I was a CPT in the Air Force Reserve 2004-14 and served in the DC and NJ area so have no combat experience.

But even I could smell the BS from these guys in Ukraine all the way back here in Maryland. Complete frauds and stolen valor phonies stealing money from good hearted but gullibe and naive Americans!

Vazquez and Others Pretending to be Heroes in Ukraine

We will agree to disagree-

and OF COURSE the German Generals who survived the war blamed Hitler!!

why wouldn't they?!?

and yet SOMEHOW, Hitler marched into the Rhineland illegally in 1936,
marched into Austria Anschluss in 1938,
conquered Sudetenland and Czechoslavakia in 1939
conqured Holland, Belgium and France in 6 weeks.
conquered Greece, Crete
had military alliances with Italy, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria
nearly conquered all of North Africa in 1942
marched his army further into Russia than Napoleon
arrived to the gates of Moscow in 1941, and Stalingrad and the Caucasus in 1942

led Germany for nearly 6 years of the most brutal war in history-

but sure, you are right- he was a "moron"

LMCane said:

---

We will agree to disagree-

and OF COURSE the German Generals who survived the war blamed Hitler!!

why wouldn't they?!?

and yet SOMEHOW, Hitler marched into the Rhineland illegally in 1936,
marched into Austria Anschluss in 1938,
conquered Sudetenland and Czechoslavakia in 1939
conqured Holland, Belgium and France in 6 weeks.
conquered Greece, Crete
had military alliances with Italy, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria
nearly conquered all of North Africa in 1942
marched his army further into Russia than Napoleon
arrived to the gates of Moscow in 1941, and Stalingrad and the Caucasus in 1942

led Germany for nearly 6 years of the most brutal war in history-

but sure, you are right- he was a "moron"

---

Hitler certainly was not a moron in many ways, but he did make some incredibly bad decisions. His early successes inflated his ego and led to many of these bad choices. Drug use and failing health led to just as many.

From your list, the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudentenland were all victories not of military strategy but of the ability to read people, particularly the leaders of Britain and France. Interestingly, you left Poland off of your list which was also a victory of political strategy, not military. The military alliances also go back to political strategy and even there, he couldn't get Spain to enter the war.

As for "nearly conquered" and "further into Russia", I'm not sure that almost count and some of the distance into Russia is accounted for by the speed of motor vehicles vs horses.

Some of the total distance into Russia is actually accounted for by changing Russian tactics; encouraging the German armor to run deeper to lengthen supply lines.

But anyway, back to the topic at hand; some perspective on the Ukrainian war:



Realistically, I think a lot of that is just…Russian propaganda (they even brought in socialized medicine as a criticism of the USA, LOL), but I do think some of it has a kernel of truth, as well. The Russians are continuing to build/throw masses of bodies/munitions at this (though it remains a partial mobilization, net). A war of attrition is unsustainable long term for Ukraine, and mid-term it's doubtful, depending on how one defines it.

I do think the cost:benefit analysis is correct, and even reflected in my…detractors on this very thread; Washington evaluates the cost benefit analysis while the other side is evaluating things from more of a manpower one. Some do want to castigate me as the virtual/Texags (site) face of the inevitable pull-back of American support for 'brave' Ukrainian defenders, but it seems like such a change/shift in materiel support is inevitable, and already reflected in public opinion.

BAKHMUT: Ukrainian soldiers hiding in a basement get hit by a Russian strike, causing heavy rubble to fall down and almost collapsing the basement ceiling. pic.twitter.com/bn5qqjWQbq

— LogKa (@LogKa11) March 25, 2023

The place of combat in Bakhmut that Volodymyr Shpara, callsign "Humanist", sent me.

Ukraine is defended not only by professional military but by civilians of all professions and ages who never held weapons before.

Glory to our Heroes!https://t.co/BhU71iPNVA pic.twitter.com/z36x41SQqA

— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) March 26, 2023

PRO TIP: If you’re tapped to replace the Ukraine Central Bank Chief after he has looted American aid don’t go out and buy yourself a new Rolls Royce. Lay low and wait until AFTER the war to spend its spoils. https://t.co/Srmw2DCa0Z pic.twitter.com/LStvhNN6Hk

— @amuse (@amuse) March 26, 2023

Clown world.

This is Andriy Pyshnyi and his $400,000+ Rolls Royce, courtesy of the US taxpayer.

He is the head of the Ukrainian central bank. Ukraine is broke and needs billions per month to replace lost taxes and to fight a war.

All US money to Ukraine goes via this man (& company car). pic.twitter.com/08bEqTHYki

— Make Peace Now; alternative news (@AlternatNews) March 26, 2023

It's not hard to see why/how the Biden clan (and similarly GCF) was drawn to support/work as 'special envoy' and energy experts (oil company board members) in Ukraine. What's amazing to me is that more Americans don't appreciate this history/sequence of events.

InfantryAg said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

I am not proRussia or proPutin but how with this knowledge can you be in favor of continuously cutting checks and support continuing a war with a nuclear power when this war is being fought because 1) dirty American politicans want another ****hole to launder money through 2) we helped instigate this war 3) negotiations would end it quickly and help Ukraine citizens who want to join Russia do that. 4) knowing the events that set off this whole thing were directly orchestrated by George soros.

---

I haven't heard anyone supporting giving unlimited, unchecked money to the ukrainians.
I haven't heard anyone supporting biden escalating this by the dumbs**t way he's handling this.

This isn't an either/or choice, there are other options or combinations thereof.

I support giving very limited money. (also sending IRS agents over there to conduct audits there, instead of on Americans).

I support givng all the munitions ukrain can expend on killing russians, hopefully over the next ten years or until putin is offed or russia goes bankrupt again.

I also support biden + family being investigated and jailed.

The only good communists are dead communists. And a crippled russia allows us to concentrate on defeating (or at least countering) china.

---

FYI, the Communist Soviet Union no longer exist. More American Gen Z's support Communism than Russians. You are fighting the wrong people halfway across the world. They literally are no threat while Communists and Marxists are multiplying here in the U.S.

Clear as day who you want to win, comrade.

Well put.

TH36 said:

---

Clear as day who you want to win, comrade.

---

Some of us who actually served to fight Communists want the United States to win and recognize when the biggest threats are already within our borders. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are threats to the U.S. despite the war-porn propaganda.

The government that just did this last year, cannot be trusted to prosecute a war against Russia from afar via military aid or anything else:

🇦🇫⚡😱 Taliban-affiliated TG channels have released visual showing massive numbers of concealed US stored weapons, ammunition, small arms, and ocean of US currency. pic.twitter.com/Q0SvWBPUV3

— OsintTV📺 (@OsintTV) March 24, 2023

Quote:

---

The secretary of Russia's Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, has said Nato countries are party to the conflict in Ukraine, according to excerpts from an interview with the Russian government newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta on Monday.

Reuters reports Rossiyskaya Gazeta quoted Patrushev as saying: "In fact, Nato countries are a party to the conflict. They made Ukraine one big military camp. They send weapons and ammunition to the Ukrainian troops, provide them with intelligence".

---

More:

Quote:

---

At the same time as Xi was visiting Russia, the IMF declared it was going to give Ukraine a further 15.6 billion-dollar loan, the EU gave Ukraine two billion Euros for artillery shells, and the Japanese PM was visiting Kyiv in a symbolic gesture that was meant to cast Japan as a potential victim of Chinese aggression, just as Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression. If the West's message was not clear, the Nato General Secretary re-enforced it, declaring that the West has to be prepared for the long haul.

Danger

All this was happening against the immediate backdrop of Russia downing a US spy drone in international waters, a nuclear-capable B-52 flying near Russian airspace, and British and German fighters intercepting a Russian plane in international waters over the Baltic Sea. The proxy war continues to teeter on the brink.

To make matters worse, the West is intensifying its proxy war in Ukraine against a backdrop of significant economic problems. How significant remains to be seen, but on top of a gathering recession, we are witnessing the beginnings of a new banking crisis. Just how serious it is may not yet be clear, though it is certainly likely to be more than merely a 'market correction'.

So, on what is the West's confidence in Ukraine based, and why is it prepared to risk further war against a backdrop of deep problems on its own side? There is a lot of talk of Ukraine being able to mount a decisive military operation backed by Western arms at some point this spring or summer. While the Ukrainians appeared to want to start earlier and mount an offensive sooner, Western officials appear to have been arguing for a more cautious, later start, a counteroffensive, after the culmination of a Russian offensive effort.
….
From stalemate to negotiations

With casualties on both sides now in the hundreds of thousands, what's to be gained by further bloodshed? From the Western standpoint, even if it's not Western soldiers dying, there are mounting costs to keep Ukraine going, which will have to be paid by the Western and global public.

And any hope of defeating Russia outright will probably require further escalation including jets and other heavy weaponry. The risks, of course, would be Russian escalation, plausibly leading to nuclear Armageddon. Talk of Britain sending depleted uranium shells to Ukraine can only increase such risks further.

There is also the considerable strain on Russia. While its economy has weathered sanctions better than many in the West predicted, the longer the war lasts, and the more the casualties mount on the front, the greater the political risks could be for Putin.

So, while hawks still prevail in the imperialist capitals, anti-war activists in East and West can point to the mounting human suffering that accompanies the war and therefore mount pressure for a negotiated peace.

---

Quote:

---

So, while hawks still prevail in the imperialist capitals, anti-war activists in East and West can point to the mounting human suffering that accompanies the war and therefore mount pressure for a negotiated peace.

---

Haha ok. Opposing unprovoked invasions is imperialism now apparently.

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

So, while hawks still prevail in the imperialist capitals, anti-war activists in East and West can point to the mounting human suffering that accompanies the war and therefore mount pressure for a negotiated peace.

---

Haha ok. Opposing unprovoked invasions is imperialism now apparently.

---

Lmao "unprovoked." Surely you don't actually believe that.

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

So, while hawks still prevail in the imperialist capitals, anti-war activists in East and West can point to the mounting human suffering that accompanies the war and therefore mount pressure for a negotiated peace.

---

Haha ok. Opposing unprovoked invasions is imperialism now apparently.

---

Opposing? I oppose lot's of things in the world, quietly and without risking escalation/sending weapons/money to fight it out.

Just for clarification/my own edification, what invasions are ok for the US to stay out of? We didn't do anything during this one, which was absolutely horrific: but then we stoked the conflict to just simmer on for decades…

The atrocities were corroborated by many and included the American consulate in Dacca (E. Pakistan) that sent daily telegrams to Nixon and Kissinger about the brutality being carried out using American weapons that had been supplied to Pakistan.

— Anish Koka, MD (@anish_koka) March 26, 2023

The systemic rape of Bangladeshi women was without precedent in the modern era.

Australian doctor, Geoffrey Davis, was brought to Dhaka by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the United Nations.

Davis was tasked with performing late-term abortions, and… pic.twitter.com/ppDMQ4Tw4H

— Anish Koka, MD (@anish_koka) March 26, 2023

Arthur Blood was the American diplomat stationed in Dacca (E.Pakistan , now Bangladesh) and was horrified. His daily cables to DC became more urgent.. but were steadfastly ignored by Nixon and Kissinger pic.twitter.com/Ou4ryO58B8

— Anish Koka, MD (@anish_koka) March 26, 2023

Blood was particularly moved by the killing of a Hindu Bengali professor he knew.. and early on his team recognized the Pakistani army’s actions as a genocidal campaign against Hindu’s

“Early in the crackdown, Dev was dragged out of his home, hauled to a field in front of the… pic.twitter.com/ceJfwYOQCq

— Anish Koka, MD (@anish_koka) March 26, 2023

Supplying arms to Pakistan without going through Congress was illegal… because … Congress had suspended all future arms transfers to Pakistan

It didn’t matter to Nixon.. or Kissinger pic.twitter.com/LiDKNWI8uZ

— Anish Koka, MD (@anish_koka) March 26, 2023

Reprint of Pakistani journalist Anthony Mascarenas' seminal report "Genocide," published in The Times of London, June 13, 1971, which finally brought world attention to the mass murder Pakistan's Army had wrought in Bangladesh ("East Pakistan")  https://t.co/aSluzsd30F pic.twitter.com/9g7bkdPDAT

— Andrew Bostom, MD, MS (@andrewbostom) March 27, 2023

So, that forever war was ignored/kicked off and then supported by our policy team in a bipartisan way.

Now, that was many years ago, but I don't recall this 'unprovoked invasions' must be opposed/destroyed by the US at all costs in previous wars, but for JFK/LBJ's escalations in Vietnam (Domino theory predates even the Pakistan-India conflict in question).

Our military forays into Beirut, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Grenada, etc. were often 'unprovoked' by locals and sometimes opposed by Democrats/Potus-poopy-pants lovers/leftists, but again I don't comprehend the patriotic implication to arm Ukraine to the teeth long term/escalate this now.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

So, while hawks still prevail in the imperialist capitals, anti-war activists in East and West can point to the mounting human suffering that accompanies the war and therefore mount pressure for a negotiated peace.

---

Haha ok. Opposing unprovoked invasions is imperialism now apparently.

---

Lmao "unprovoked." Surely you don't actually believe that.

---

Yes. Everyone without ideological blinkers on knows this was an unprovoked invasion. You are bleeding credibility out of every orifice in your body when you contend otherwise.

One can reasonably argue the US interest in this affair, the trustworthiness of the Ukraine government, or any number of other issues, but if you think that Ukraine somehow provoked this invasion, you've jumped the shark.

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

So, while hawks still prevail in the imperialist capitals, anti-war activists in East and West can point to the mounting human suffering that accompanies the war and therefore mount pressure for a negotiated peace.

---

Haha ok. Opposing unprovoked invasions is imperialism now apparently.

---

Lmao "unprovoked." Surely you don't actually believe that.

---

Yes. Everyone without ideological blinkers on knows this was an unprovoked invasion. You are bleeding credibility out of every orifice in your body when you contend otherwise.

One can reasonably argue the US interest in this affair, the trustworthiness of the Ukraine government, or any number of other issues, but if you think that Ukraine somehow provoked this invasion, you've jumped the shark.

---

Obama-Biden in 2014 and 2022 provoked the invasion, the latter time making Ukraine a defense client/advancing nato membership for them, despite clear warnings from Moscow. The clumsy old commie even said it might just be a 'minor incursion.'

ANY reasonable diplomatic effort to prevent this sequence could have succeeded. The swamp got the war it wanted.

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

So, while hawks still prevail in the imperialist capitals, anti-war activists in East and West can point to the mounting human suffering that accompanies the war and therefore mount pressure for a negotiated peace.

---

Haha ok. Opposing unprovoked invasions is imperialism now apparently.

---

Lmao "unprovoked." Surely you don't actually believe that.

---

Yes. Everyone without ideological blinkers on knows this was an unprovoked invasion. You are bleeding credibility out of every orifice in your body when you contend otherwise.

One can reasonably argue the US interest in this affair, the trustworthiness of the Ukraine government, or any number of other issues, but if you think that Ukraine somehow provoked this invasion, you've jumped the shark.

---

Obama-Biden in 2014 and 2022 provoked the invasion, the latter time making Ukraine a defense client/advancing nato membership for them, despite clear warnings from Moscow. The clumsy old commie even said it might just be a 'minor incursion.'

ANY reasonable diplomatic effort to prevent this sequence could have succeeded. The swamp got the war it wanted.

---

You don't have to tell me that Obama and Biden made a lot of stupid moves over the years, but none of that justifies a Russian invasion, or even directly caused it, which is what you are saying when you say that the invasion was "provoked." Words have meaning, and to claim that Ukraine or the US provoked the 2022 invasion of Ukraine is like blaming a rape victim for dressing immodestly. If you want to say that the US and Ukraine could have taken steps that would have lessened the chance of a Russian invasion, fine, we can have that discussion, but none of that qualifies as "provocation."

Quote:

---

ANY reasonable diplomatic effort to prevent this sequence could have succeeded. The swamp got the war it wanted.

---

This comment deserves some special attention. Pray tell just what diplomatic enticement could have been offered to Russia that would have forestalled this invasion?

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

So, while hawks still prevail in the imperialist capitals, anti-war activists in East and West can point to the mounting human suffering that accompanies the war and therefore mount pressure for a negotiated peace.

---

Haha ok. Opposing unprovoked invasions is imperialism now apparently.

---

Lmao "unprovoked." Surely you don't actually believe that.

---

Yes. Everyone without ideological blinkers on knows this was an unprovoked invasion. You are bleeding credibility out of every orifice in your body when you contend otherwise.

One can reasonably argue the US interest in this affair, the trustworthiness of the Ukraine government, or any number of other issues, but if you think that Ukraine somehow provoked this invasion, you've jumped the shark.

---

Obama-Biden in 2014 and 2022 provoked the invasion, the latter time making Ukraine a defense client/advancing nato membership for them, despite clear warnings from Moscow. The clumsy old commie even said it might just be a 'minor incursion.'

ANY reasonable diplomatic effort to prevent this sequence could have succeeded. The swamp got the war it wanted.

---

You don't have to tell me that Obama and Biden made a lot of stupid moves over the years, but none of that justifies a Russian invasion, or even directly caused it, which is what you are saying when you say that the invasion was "provoked." Words have meaning, and to claim that Ukraine or the US provoked the 2022 invasion of Ukraine is like blaming a rape victim for dressing immodestly. If you want to say that the US and Ukraine could have taken steps that would have lessened the chance of a Russian invasion, fine, we can have that discussion, but none of that qualifies as "provocation."

---

Do you consider Ukraine's refusal to abide by the Minsk accords a provocation? From the Russian perspective, pretty much all of Ukraine's actions since the Maidan coup have been provocative in one way or another.

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

ANY reasonable diplomatic effort to prevent this sequence could have succeeded. The swamp got the war it wanted.

---

This comment deserves some special attention. Pray tell just what diplomatic enticement could have been offered to Russia that would have forestalled this invasion?

---

Oh, you know, maybe not explicitly publicly promising Zelensky in December of 2021 that Nato membership was in his hands? This was 100 percent 'poking the bear.'

Before the CIA-Nuland revolution in 2014, most Ukrainians didn't want to join nato, and in fact they had passed a law banning joining any military alliances.

Quote:

---

In 2010, the country's parliament passed a law banning Ukraine from joining any military bloc, effectively banning it from entering NATO though maintaining opportunities for cooperation. According to a poll conducted by Pew Research Center the fall before, just over half of Ukrainians disapproved of NATO and the idea Ukraine might try to join, while just 28% approved.

A few years later in 2014, the mood had shifted drastically after protests deposed Ukraine's then-president and Russia annexed Crimea. A Ukrainian pollster found in July of that year that 44% of Ukrainians supported becoming a part of the alliance, representing the first time a plurality of Ukrainians were in favor. Just 19% of people had felt the same way in a similar question the group asked in 2012.

In one of the most recent snapshots of public opinion, conducted by Ukraine's Rating Group think tank prior to the invasion in mid-February, 62% of adults supported Ukraine's entry to NATO, with just 30% opposed.

---

Basically, kept our noses out of other folks business; or just not provoke them.

Quote:

---

From the Russian perspective

---

You said it all right there.

So, Russia is entitled to dictate whether it's neighbors join a defensive alliance. Got it.

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

From the Russian perspective

---

You said it all right there.

---

Your childlike understanding of geopolitics notwithstanding, it should be taken for granted that the perspective of each party to a conflict be taken into account. Do you disagree?

twk said:

---

So, Russia is entitled to dictate whether it's neighbors join a defensive alliance. Got it.

---

That's kind of how geopolitics works. Do you really believe that we would allow Mexico to join a hostile military alliance?

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

So, Russia is entitled to dictate whether it's neighbors join a defensive alliance. Got it.

---

That's kind of how geopolitics works. Do you really believe that we would allow Mexico to join a hostile military alliance?

---

Calling NATO a hostile military alliance is only something that the Russians do. No one else considers it a problem.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

So, Russia is entitled to dictate whether it's neighbors join a defensive alliance. Got it.

---

That's kind of how geopolitics works. Do you really believe that we would allow Mexico to join a hostile military alliance?

---

Define allow. Would there be sanctions from us? Yes. Would we invade? No

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

From the Russian perspective

---

You said it all right there.

---

Your childlike understanding of geopolitics notwithstanding, it should be taken for granted that the perspective of each party to a conflict be taken into account. Do you disagree?

---

There is a difference between trying to understand the worldview of other countries, and treating it as legitimate, just as one can understand the wants and desires of a child without treating them as equal to rational thought.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

So, Russia is entitled to dictate whether it's neighbors join a defensive alliance. Got it.

---

That's kind of how geopolitics works. Do you really believe that we would allow Mexico to join a hostile military alliance?

---

Define allow. Would there be sanctions from us? Yes. Would we invade? No

---

I agree that we probably would not invade. But we would absolutely use soft power channeled through NGOs and other such organizations to subvert and overthrow the government. The newly installed regime would just so happen to be more US friendly and abandon any plans contrary to our foreign policy goals.

For reference, see: Ukraine 2014

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

From the Russian perspective

---

You said it all right there.

---

Your childlike understanding of geopolitics notwithstanding, it should be taken for granted that the perspective of each party to a conflict be taken into account. Do you disagree?

---

There is a difference between trying to understand the worldview of other countries, and treating it as legitimate, just as one can understand the wants and desires of a child without treating them as equal to rational thought.

---

There is just a bit of difference between parenting children and competing power interests between nuclear armed states, no?

Or do you really see the US as the global mommy and no other countries' worldview or interests are legitimate (unless they agree with us, how convenient)?

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

From the Russian perspective

---

You said it all right there.

---

Your childlike understanding of geopolitics notwithstanding, it should be taken for granted that the perspective of each party to a conflict be taken into account. Do you disagree?

---

There is a difference between trying to understand the worldview of other countries, and treating it as legitimate, just as one can understand the wants and desires of a child without treating them as equal to rational thought.

---

There is just a bit of difference between parenting children and competing power interests between nuclear armed states, no?

Or do you really see the US as the global mommy and no other countries' worldview or interests are legitimate (unless they agree with us, how convenient)?

---

I see Vladimir Putin's fantasy of restoring Imperial Russia as being rather childlike. It's a shame that Russia has such awful leadership.

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

From the Russian perspective

---

You said it all right there.

---

Your childlike understanding of geopolitics notwithstanding, it should be taken for granted that the perspective of each party to a conflict be taken into account. Do you disagree?

---

There is a difference between trying to understand the worldview of other countries, and treating it as legitimate, just as one can understand the wants and desires of a child without treating them as equal to rational thought.

---

There is just a bit of difference between parenting children and competing power interests between nuclear armed states, no?

Or do you really see the US as the global mommy and no other countries' worldview or interests are legitimate (unless they agree with us, how convenient)?

---

I see Vladimir Putin's fantasy of restoring Imperial Russia as being rather childlike. It's a shame that Russia has such awful leadership.

---

Desiring to restore your civilization to its heights of power and glory is childlike?

chickencoupe16 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

So, Russia is entitled to dictate whether it's neighbors join a defensive alliance. Got it.

---

That's kind of how geopolitics works. Do you really believe that we would allow Mexico to join a hostile military alliance?

---

Define allow. Would there be sanctions from us? Yes. Would we invade? No

---

Have you ever heard of Manuel Noriega?



How about Augusto Sandino? Bay of Pigs? Grenada? Pablo Escobar?

I suspect the "poor Russia" rhetoric will continue to ramp up as more and more videos of large scale Ukrainian exercises in western equipment emerge and the the potential counter offensive nears.

What's apparent during this whole conversation, NorTex…Is you posting videos of Ukrainians fighting with emojis that clearly show you either don't believe what's going on or you're annoyed that they're making propaganda showing their men/women fighting. They were a sovereign nation, you act as if everyone right down to the plumbers, accountants, mechanics, brick masons, etc etc etc…. are crooked. They're fighting for their country against an aggressor who had no right to invade no matter how you slice this pie in that twisted up head of yours. Why not just come out and say what you really think? I'm 99% sure you probably think the Hungarian prime minister is an example of a great leader, don't you? If so, everything makes sense then.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

So, Russia is entitled to dictate whether it's neighbors join a defensive alliance. Got it.

---

That's kind of how geopolitics works. Do you really believe that we would allow Mexico to join a hostile military alliance?

---

Define allow. Would there be sanctions from us? Yes. Would we invade? No

---

I agree that we probably would not invade. But we would absolutely use soft power channeled through NGOs and other such organizations to subvert and overthrow the government. The newly installed regime would just so happen to be more US friendly and abandon any plans contrary to our foreign policy goals.

For reference, see: Ukraine 2014

---

And that's the point. Russia didn't use soft power. That would have been fine. They literally invaded a sovereign nation, shelled residential areas, and committed war crimes against its people.