texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

In Kiev, Major General Volodymyr Oleinik, who commanded the territorial defense units, was shot dead near his home."

---

Rumors this was about forcing those Ukrainians conscripted into military service to go to Bakhmut to the meat grinder. who knows though…Ukrainian media wouldn't be allowed to report on that.

---

Conscription. Because nothing says I want to die for my cause then being told you have to die for our cause. Doesn't that fly in the face of the this is just what the Ukrainians want argument?

---

Doesn't that work the other way with the Russians?

---

No. Because im not trying to justify supporting the Russian side. All the Ukraine war hawks have said this is what the people want. If they don't want to die today for the cause it will be prudent to work on a peace that allows them to have the best opportunity of freedom in the future. That is the other side to this.

---

Do you think maybe that Russia have 3 times the population might mean they have more warm bodies than just pure recruitment by Ukraine can counter?

---

Again this is not relevant to anything I have said.

Yes Russia has advantages in the war. That doesn't mean it is right to support the war against them.

---

They invaded another country. Does THAT count?

If Mexico invaded the US (not the way they're doing it - but using the military) would the US have to acquiesce because Mexico has a lot of Mexicans in Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/California and so they have the right to try to get it back? Or at least those areas in the southwest (aka brown Donbas)?

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

In Kiev, Major General Volodymyr Oleinik, who commanded the territorial defense units, was shot dead near his home."

---

Rumors this was about forcing those Ukrainians conscripted into military service to go to Bakhmut to the meat grinder. who knows though…Ukrainian media wouldn't be allowed to report on that.

---

Conscription. Because nothing says I want to die for my cause then being told you have to die for our cause. Doesn't that fly in the face of the this is just what the Ukrainians want argument?

---

Doesn't that work the other way with the Russians?

---

No. Because im not trying to justify supporting the Russian side. All the Ukraine war hawks have said this is what the people want. If they don't want to die today for the cause it will be prudent to work on a peace that allows them to have the best opportunity of freedom in the future. That is the other side to this.

---

Do you think maybe that Russia have 3 times the population might mean they have more warm bodies than just pure recruitment by Ukraine can counter?

---

Again this is not relevant to anything I have said.

Yes Russia has advantages in the war. That doesn't mean it is right to support the war against them.

---

They invaded another country. Does THAT count?

If Mexico invaded the US (not the way they're doing it - but using the military) would the US have to acquiesce because Mexico has a lot of Mexicans in Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/California and so they have the right to try to get it back? Or at least those areas in the southwest (aka brown Donbas)?

---

No because America could decisively win that war. Ukraine, at least to this point, has shown no ability to decisively win the war. The MEANS is far more important than any feelings. You can want an outcome but not allowing reality of the actual ability to get that outcome to factor into your decision making is wrong.

I can want to be a professional football player. Since I lack all the physical aspects necessary I should put 0 effort in pursuing that outcome.

Rossticus said:

---

Interesting insight into one of the men closest to Putin and one of the primary advocates for taking Ukraine, over the years. Seems more appropriate here than the other thread since it attests to the perspective of one of Putin's most influential confidants and likely one of the men vying to "assume the throne" should Putin falter or expire. Patrushev is a true believer, and makes Putin appear moderate in some respects.

The Twitter thread is a summation of the Russian language interview, which it links for reference.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1653838609651228674.html

Patrushev's interview begins with a discussion of post-Cold War geopolitics

In familiar fashion, he accuses the US and Britain of trying to create a unipolar order and claims that "Anglo-Saxons" are trying to finish the job now by kicking Russia off the UN Security Council /2

— Samuel Ramani (@SamRamani2) May 3, 2023

---

Um if the second tweet is an apt translation, I think I side more with Russia on this issue. A coalition of socialist (technically managerial) western europe and USA is bad news. It is Biden administration on steriods and cocaine.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

In Kiev, Major General Volodymyr Oleinik, who commanded the territorial defense units, was shot dead near his home."

---

Rumors this was about forcing those Ukrainians conscripted into military service to go to Bakhmut to the meat grinder. who knows though…Ukrainian media wouldn't be allowed to report on that.

---

Conscription. Because nothing says I want to die for my cause then being told you have to die for our cause. Doesn't that fly in the face of the this is just what the Ukrainians want argument?

---

Doesn't that work the other way with the Russians?

---

No. Because im not trying to justify supporting the Russian side. All the Ukraine war hawks have said this is what the people want. If they don't want to die today for the cause it will be prudent to work on a peace that allows them to have the best opportunity of freedom in the future. That is the other side to this.

---

Do you think maybe that Russia have 3 times the population might mean they have more warm bodies than just pure recruitment by Ukraine can counter?

---

Again this is not relevant to anything I have said.

Yes Russia has advantages in the war. That doesn't mean it is right to support the war against them.

---

They invaded another country. Does THAT count?

If Mexico invaded the US (not the way they're doing it - but using the military) would the US have to acquiesce because Mexico has a lot of Mexicans in Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/California and so they have the right to try to get it back? Or at least those areas in the southwest (aka brown Donbas)?

---

No because America could decisively win that war. Ukraine, at least to this point, has shown no ability to decisively win the war. The MEANS is far more important than any feelings. You can want an outcome but not allowing reality of the actual ability to get that outcome to factor into your decision making is wrong.

I can want to be a professional football player. Since I lack all the physical aspects necessary I should put 0 effort in pursuing that outcome.

---

Oh ok. So since Russia has nukes, they could decisively win war against pretty much every single former SSR. And using your logic, those SSRs, should just, in the (un)wise words of Claytie Williams, "lie back and take it"...

Cool to know that it's only right to support a war against someone if you know they'll lose...

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

In Kiev, Major General Volodymyr Oleinik, who commanded the territorial defense units, was shot dead near his home."

---

Rumors this was about forcing those Ukrainians conscripted into military service to go to Bakhmut to the meat grinder. who knows though…Ukrainian media wouldn't be allowed to report on that.

---

Conscription. Because nothing says I want to die for my cause then being told you have to die for our cause. Doesn't that fly in the face of the this is just what the Ukrainians want argument?

---

Doesn't that work the other way with the Russians?

---

No. Because im not trying to justify supporting the Russian side. All the Ukraine war hawks have said this is what the people want. If they don't want to die today for the cause it will be prudent to work on a peace that allows them to have the best opportunity of freedom in the future. That is the other side to this.

---

Do you think maybe that Russia have 3 times the population might mean they have more warm bodies than just pure recruitment by Ukraine can counter?

---

Again this is not relevant to anything I have said.

Yes Russia has advantages in the war. That doesn't mean it is right to support the war against them.

---

They invaded another country. Does THAT count?

If Mexico invaded the US (not the way they're doing it - but using the military) would the US have to acquiesce because Mexico has a lot of Mexicans in Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/California and so they have the right to try to get it back? Or at least those areas in the southwest (aka brown Donbas)?

---

No because America could decisively win that war. Ukraine, at least to this point, has shown no ability to decisively win the war. The MEANS is far more important than any feelings. You can want an outcome but not allowing reality of the actual ability to get that outcome to factor into your decision making is wrong.

I can want to be a professional football player. Since I lack all the physical aspects necessary I should put 0 effort in pursuing that outcome.

---

Oh ok. So since Russia has nukes, they could decisively win war against pretty much every single former SSR. And using your logic, those SSRs, should just, in the (un)wise words of Claytie Williams, "lie back and take it"...

Cool to know that it's only right to support a war against someone if you know they'll lose...

---

No because using nukes would escalate the issue globally and lead to international intervention beyond money laundering, sorry financial support.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

In Kiev, Major General Volodymyr Oleinik, who commanded the territorial defense units, was shot dead near his home."

---

Rumors this was about forcing those Ukrainians conscripted into military service to go to Bakhmut to the meat grinder. who knows though…Ukrainian media wouldn't be allowed to report on that.

---

Conscription. Because nothing says I want to die for my cause then being told you have to die for our cause. Doesn't that fly in the face of the this is just what the Ukrainians want argument?

---

Doesn't that work the other way with the Russians?

---

No. Because im not trying to justify supporting the Russian side. All the Ukraine war hawks have said this is what the people want. If they don't want to die today for the cause it will be prudent to work on a peace that allows them to have the best opportunity of freedom in the future. That is the other side to this.

---

Do you think maybe that Russia have 3 times the population might mean they have more warm bodies than just pure recruitment by Ukraine can counter?

---

Again this is not relevant to anything I have said.

Yes Russia has advantages in the war. That doesn't mean it is right to support the war against them.

---

They invaded another country. Does THAT count?

If Mexico invaded the US (not the way they're doing it - but using the military) would the US have to acquiesce because Mexico has a lot of Mexicans in Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/California and so they have the right to try to get it back? Or at least those areas in the southwest (aka brown Donbas)?

---

No because America could decisively win that war. Ukraine, at least to this point, has shown no ability to decisively win the war. The MEANS is far more important than any feelings. You can want an outcome but not allowing reality of the actual ability to get that outcome to factor into your decision making is wrong.

I can want to be a professional football player. Since I lack all the physical aspects necessary I should put 0 effort in pursuing that outcome.

---

Oh ok. So since Russia has nukes, they could decisively win war against pretty much every single former SSR. And using your logic, those SSRs, should just, in the (un)wise words of Claytie Williams, "lie back and take it"...

Cool to know that it's only right to support a war against someone if you know they'll lose...

---

No because using nukes would escalate the issue globally and lead to international intervention beyond money laundering, sorry financial support.

---

Ok...even without nukes, Russia could win against those SSRs...so, all the SSRs would need to suck it up and be assimilated by the Russian Borg...

I know you think attacking a small part of my argument negates everything, but you're wrong there...

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

In Kiev, Major General Volodymyr Oleinik, who commanded the territorial defense units, was shot dead near his home."

---

Rumors this was about forcing those Ukrainians conscripted into military service to go to Bakhmut to the meat grinder. who knows though…Ukrainian media wouldn't be allowed to report on that.

---

Conscription. Because nothing says I want to die for my cause then being told you have to die for our cause. Doesn't that fly in the face of the this is just what the Ukrainians want argument?

---

Doesn't that work the other way with the Russians?

---

No. Because im not trying to justify supporting the Russian side. All the Ukraine war hawks have said this is what the people want. If they don't want to die today for the cause it will be prudent to work on a peace that allows them to have the best opportunity of freedom in the future. That is the other side to this.

---

Do you think maybe that Russia have 3 times the population might mean they have more warm bodies than just pure recruitment by Ukraine can counter?

---

Again this is not relevant to anything I have said.

Yes Russia has advantages in the war. That doesn't mean it is right to support the war against them.

---

They invaded another country. Does THAT count?

If Mexico invaded the US (not the way they're doing it - but using the military) would the US have to acquiesce because Mexico has a lot of Mexicans in Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/California and so they have the right to try to get it back? Or at least those areas in the southwest (aka brown Donbas)?

---

No because America could decisively win that war. Ukraine, at least to this point, has shown no ability to decisively win the war. The MEANS is far more important than any feelings. You can want an outcome but not allowing reality of the actual ability to get that outcome to factor into your decision making is wrong.

I can want to be a professional football player. Since I lack all the physical aspects necessary I should put 0 effort in pursuing that outcome.

---

Oh ok. So since Russia has nukes, they could decisively win war against pretty much every single former SSR. And using your logic, those SSRs, should just, in the (un)wise words of Claytie Williams, "lie back and take it"...

Cool to know that it's only right to support a war against someone if you know they'll lose...

---

No because using nukes would escalate the issue globally and lead to international intervention beyond money laundering, sorry financial support.

---

Ok...even without nukes, Russia could win against those SSRs...so, all the SSRs would need to suck it up and be assimilated by the Russian Borg...

I know you think attacking a small part of my argument negates everything, but you're wrong there...

---

Well if Russia has the means then yes they can take them over. I dont want them to but if they can that is reality. If America and western Europe wasnt in such a shambolic state Russia could try this because we would have the means to prevent it. But that doesn't appear to be the case presently.

If a UFC guy can beat you up, you wanting to beat him up won't stop him. But knowing you have a powerful force (law) behind you can protect you. But if that law is weak and corrupt you are no longer protected. That is Ukraine, Russia, and USA/West at the moment.

Nordstream, now this.

What color lapel ribbon will folks wear when Russia decides to retaliate?

Against themselves? First Nordstream now this pathetic drone stunt.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65461401

Pretty good article.

In a huge shocker, Xiden warms to China as mediator.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

In Kiev, Major General Volodymyr Oleinik, who commanded the territorial defense units, was shot dead near his home."

---

Rumors this was about forcing those Ukrainians conscripted into military service to go to Bakhmut to the meat grinder. who knows though…Ukrainian media wouldn't be allowed to report on that.

---

Conscription. Because nothing says I want to die for my cause then being told you have to die for our cause. Doesn't that fly in the face of the this is just what the Ukrainians want argument?

---

Doesn't that work the other way with the Russians?

---

No. Because im not trying to justify supporting the Russian side. All the Ukraine war hawks have said this is what the people want. If they don't want to die today for the cause it will be prudent to work on a peace that allows them to have the best opportunity of freedom in the future. That is the other side to this.

---

Do you think maybe that Russia have 3 times the population might mean they have more warm bodies than just pure recruitment by Ukraine can counter?

---

Again this is not relevant to anything I have said.

Yes Russia has advantages in the war. That doesn't mean it is right to support the war against them.

---

They invaded another country. Does THAT count?

If Mexico invaded the US (not the way they're doing it - but using the military) would the US have to acquiesce because Mexico has a lot of Mexicans in Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/California and so they have the right to try to get it back? Or at least those areas in the southwest (aka brown Donbas)?

---

No because America could decisively win that war. Ukraine, at least to this point, has shown no ability to decisively win the war. The MEANS is far more important than any feelings. You can want an outcome but not allowing reality of the actual ability to get that outcome to factor into your decision making is wrong.

I can want to be a professional football player. Since I lack all the physical aspects necessary I should put 0 effort in pursuing that outcome.

---

Oh ok. So since Russia has nukes, they could decisively win war against pretty much every single former SSR. And using your logic, those SSRs, should just, in the (un)wise words of Claytie Williams, "lie back and take it"...

Cool to know that it's only right to support a war against someone if you know they'll lose...

---

No because using nukes would escalate the issue globally and lead to international intervention beyond money laundering, sorry financial support.

---

Ok...even without nukes, Russia could win against those SSRs...so, all the SSRs would need to suck it up and be assimilated by the Russian Borg...

I know you think attacking a small part of my argument negates everything, but you're wrong there...

---

Well if Russia has the means then yes they can take them over. I dont want them to but if they can that is reality. If America and western Europe wasnt in such a shambolic state Russia could try this because we would have the means to prevent it. But that doesn't appear to be the case presently.

If a UFC guy can beat you up, you wanting to beat him up won't stop him. But knowing you have a powerful force (law) behind you can protect you. But if that law is weak and corrupt you are no longer protected. That is Ukraine, Russia, and USA/West at the moment.

---

So...if a 300 pound guy starts beating the **** out of a 120 pound chick, everyone should just accept it and not support the chick, since it's obvious the 300 pound guy can easily win?

Also, what does the outcome have to do with whether or not you support someone?

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

In Kiev, Major General Volodymyr Oleinik, who commanded the territorial defense units, was shot dead near his home."

---

Rumors this was about forcing those Ukrainians conscripted into military service to go to Bakhmut to the meat grinder. who knows though…Ukrainian media wouldn't be allowed to report on that.

---

Conscription. Because nothing says I want to die for my cause then being told you have to die for our cause. Doesn't that fly in the face of the this is just what the Ukrainians want argument?

---

Doesn't that work the other way with the Russians?

---

No. Because im not trying to justify supporting the Russian side. All the Ukraine war hawks have said this is what the people want. If they don't want to die today for the cause it will be prudent to work on a peace that allows them to have the best opportunity of freedom in the future. That is the other side to this.

---

Do you think maybe that Russia have 3 times the population might mean they have more warm bodies than just pure recruitment by Ukraine can counter?

---

Again this is not relevant to anything I have said.

Yes Russia has advantages in the war. That doesn't mean it is right to support the war against them.

---

They invaded another country. Does THAT count?

If Mexico invaded the US (not the way they're doing it - but using the military) would the US have to acquiesce because Mexico has a lot of Mexicans in Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/California and so they have the right to try to get it back? Or at least those areas in the southwest (aka brown Donbas)?

---

No because America could decisively win that war. Ukraine, at least to this point, has shown no ability to decisively win the war. The MEANS is far more important than any feelings. You can want an outcome but not allowing reality of the actual ability to get that outcome to factor into your decision making is wrong.

I can want to be a professional football player. Since I lack all the physical aspects necessary I should put 0 effort in pursuing that outcome.

---

Oh ok. So since Russia has nukes, they could decisively win war against pretty much every single former SSR. And using your logic, those SSRs, should just, in the (un)wise words of Claytie Williams, "lie back and take it"...

Cool to know that it's only right to support a war against someone if you know they'll lose...

---

No because using nukes would escalate the issue globally and lead to international intervention beyond money laundering, sorry financial support.

---

Ok...even without nukes, Russia could win against those SSRs...so, all the SSRs would need to suck it up and be assimilated by the Russian Borg...

I know you think attacking a small part of my argument negates everything, but you're wrong there...

---

Well if Russia has the means then yes they can take them over. I dont want them to but if they can that is reality. If America and western Europe wasnt in such a shambolic state Russia could try this because we would have the means to prevent it. But that doesn't appear to be the case presently.

If a UFC guy can beat you up, you wanting to beat him up won't stop him. But knowing you have a powerful force (law) behind you can protect you. But if that law is weak and corrupt you are no longer protected. That is Ukraine, Russia, and USA/West at the moment.

---

So...if a 300 pound guy starts beating the **** out of a 120 pound chick, everyone should just accept it and not support the chick, since it's obvious the 300 pound guy can easily win?

Also, what does the outcome have to do with whether or not you support someone?

---

The more apt comparison would be you handing the woman a couple of knives that someone else paid for. The USA is not physically intervening. We are saying "you go girl you can do this" as she gets pummeled. But the posters here get to feel self righteous that they "did their part". In typical liberal fashion doing their part means demanding other people pay to do what they "feel" is right while someone else takes the brunt of the damage.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Nordstream, now this.

What color lapel ribbon will folks wear when Russia decides to retaliate?

---

Putin's faux outrage over his flagpole is comical as he continues to pound all of Ukraine for over a year now.

The world needs to see and know this.

A railway station and a crossing, a house, a hardware store, a grocery supermarket, a gas station - do you know what unites these places? The bloody trail that 🇷🇺 leaves with its shells, killing civilians in Kherson and Kherson region.

As… pic.twitter.com/oZqyxlLiBo

— Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) May 3, 2023

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

In Kiev, Major General Volodymyr Oleinik, who commanded the territorial defense units, was shot dead near his home."

---

Rumors this was about forcing those Ukrainians conscripted into military service to go to Bakhmut to the meat grinder. who knows though…Ukrainian media wouldn't be allowed to report on that.

---

Conscription. Because nothing says I want to die for my cause then being told you have to die for our cause. Doesn't that fly in the face of the this is just what the Ukrainians want argument?

---

Doesn't that work the other way with the Russians?

---

No. Because im not trying to justify supporting the Russian side. All the Ukraine war hawks have said this is what the people want. If they don't want to die today for the cause it will be prudent to work on a peace that allows them to have the best opportunity of freedom in the future. That is the other side to this.

---

Do you think maybe that Russia have 3 times the population might mean they have more warm bodies than just pure recruitment by Ukraine can counter?

---

Again this is not relevant to anything I have said.

Yes Russia has advantages in the war. That doesn't mean it is right to support the war against them.

---

They invaded another country. Does THAT count?

If Mexico invaded the US (not the way they're doing it - but using the military) would the US have to acquiesce because Mexico has a lot of Mexicans in Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/California and so they have the right to try to get it back? Or at least those areas in the southwest (aka brown Donbas)?

---

No because America could decisively win that war. Ukraine, at least to this point, has shown no ability to decisively win the war. The MEANS is far more important than any feelings. You can want an outcome but not allowing reality of the actual ability to get that outcome to factor into your decision making is wrong.

I can want to be a professional football player. Since I lack all the physical aspects necessary I should put 0 effort in pursuing that outcome.

---

Oh ok. So since Russia has nukes, they could decisively win war against pretty much every single former SSR. And using your logic, those SSRs, should just, in the (un)wise words of Claytie Williams, "lie back and take it"...

Cool to know that it's only right to support a war against someone if you know they'll lose...

---

No because using nukes would escalate the issue globally and lead to international intervention beyond money laundering, sorry financial support.

---

Ok...even without nukes, Russia could win against those SSRs...so, all the SSRs would need to suck it up and be assimilated by the Russian Borg...

I know you think attacking a small part of my argument negates everything, but you're wrong there...

---

Well if Russia has the means then yes they can take them over. I dont want them to but if they can that is reality. If America and western Europe wasnt in such a shambolic state Russia could try this because we would have the means to prevent it. But that doesn't appear to be the case presently.

If a UFC guy can beat you up, you wanting to beat him up won't stop him. But knowing you have a powerful force (law) behind you can protect you. But if that law is weak and corrupt you are no longer protected. That is Ukraine, Russia, and USA/West at the moment.

---

So...if a 300 pound guy starts beating the **** out of a 120 pound chick, everyone should just accept it and not support the chick, since it's obvious the 300 pound guy can easily win?

Also, what does the outcome have to do with whether or not you support someone?

---

The more apt comparison would be you handing the woman a couple of knives that someone else paid for. The USA is not physically intervening. We are saying "you go girl you can do this" as she gets pummeled. But the posters here get to feel self righteous that they "did their part". In typical liberal fashion doing their part means demanding other people pay to do what they "feel" is right while someone else takes the brunt of the damage.

---

But it's actually much worse than that.

The war has guaranteed there will be no Ukraine within 10-20 years. Zero chance now, due to demographics/depopulation. Younger women with any ability had already left largely, and had been doing so for over 10 years. Now it is just the elderly/desperate poor or very rich remaining.

It's not a free country by any metric. Forced conscription of the non-elite to go die in Bakhmut etc. is not helping the people of Ukraine, nor are billions to their government/military. It's an absurdity.

Finally, huge amounts of people have faced starvation/death and massive economic disruption/inflation due to the war in Ukraine, once the breadbasket of Europe. Energy and food inflation are directly related to this war.

It's helped China, unquestionably.

Weird to see some of the folks who like to say things as I saw yesterday posted on this site/forum/thread 'Yay, another $300 million approved today for Ukraine defense aide. More dead Russians." That nymph-like sentiment to feel good about money to go kill people of an ethnicity/country one may hate is pathetic. Maybe it got deleted, I dunno, but no one should get 'credit' for thinking they are just 'helping the little guy' somehow by championing Zelensky et al. The 'little guy' may be Ukrainians, but they have been doomed as a demographic by this. There's nothing to cheerlead here, it's not a video game.

Would laying down to the Russians have helped their demographics? No. So it's a silly argument against helping Ukraine resist Russia's aggression.

GAC06 said:

---

Would laying down to the Russians have helped their demographics? No. So it's a silly argument against helping Ukraine resist Russia's aggression.

---

Yes. Being dead or having no means of economic livelihood means the able body people will leave. If Russia came in, establish a Zelenski who gifted from Russia instead of America the day to day life impact would have been minimal. Russia isn't going to March half the Ukrainians to the gulags. It only was positioned as life and death because the elites in power see this as a threat to their power.

texagbeliever said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Would laying down to the Russians have helped their demographics? No. So it's a silly argument against helping Ukraine resist Russia's aggression.

---

Yes. Being dead or having no means of economic livelihood means the able body people will leave. If Russia came in, establish a Zelenski who gifted from Russia instead of America the day to day life impact would have been minimal. Russia isn't going to March half the Ukrainians to the gulags. It only was positioned as life and death because the elites in power see this as a threat to their power.

---

Your faith in the benevolent nature of Vladimir Putin is touching.

twk said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Would laying down to the Russians have helped their demographics? No. So it's a silly argument against helping Ukraine resist Russia's aggression.

---

Yes. Being dead or having no means of economic livelihood means the able body people will leave. If Russia came in, establish a Zelenski who gifted from Russia instead of America the day to day life impact would have been minimal. Russia isn't going to March half the Ukrainians to the gulags. It only was positioned as life and death because the elites in power see this as a threat to their power.

---

Your faith in the benevolent nature of Vladimir Putin is touching.

---

Oh no you got me. Im a putin fan boy. Well not really but when your feelings get hurt by logic that is a great fall back.

Quote:

---

The war has guaranteed there will be no Ukraine within 10-20 years. Zero chance now, due to demographics/depopulation. Younger women with any ability had already left largely, and had been doing so for over 10 years. Now it is just the elderly/desperate poor or very rich remaining.

---

Yep. 100%. That's the harsh reality. It may take a decade to fix the destroyed infrastructure. Nobody with any sense is gonna go back and live in that mess when they've already repopulated to somewhere else in the EU. Ain't gonna unring that bell. This Ukraine deal ain't about winning or losing any more it's already lost.

It aint about winning or losing, or any moral argument over rights and sovereignty. Bottomline is that somebody has got to force resolution of this issue.

But that wont happen. It's crystal clear that tptb want WW3 to escalate. Got their foot on the gas with no sign of slowing down. End of 23 and 24 is gonna be rough. I think we are way up **** creek and not many people realize that fact.

GAC06 said:

---

Would laying down to the Russians have helped their demographics? No. So it's a silly argument against helping Ukraine resist Russia's aggression.

---

Would increasing NASA's budget have mattered to Ukraine's demographic problems? No, but it's similarly irrelevant and off topic as a ludicrous question/retort.

You've been saying we're in WWIII for about a year, right? And it's still just Russia and Ukraine fighting?

Dickdelaware said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Would laying down to the Russians have helped their demographics? No. So it's a silly argument against helping Ukraine resist Russia's aggression.

---

Would increasing NASA's budget have mattered to Ukraine's demographic problems? No, but it's similarly irrelevant and off topic as a ludicrous question/retort.

---

I'm glad we can both agree that your post about demographics was both ludicrous and off topic.

GAC06 said:

---

You've been saying we're in WWIII for about a year, right? And it's still just Russia and Ukraine fighting?

---

Yep. That's right.

WW3 kicked off in Summer 2019.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

You've been saying we're in WWIII for about a year, right? And it's still just Russia and Ukraine fighting?

---

Yep. That's right.

WW3 kicked off in Summer 2019.

---

You know World Wars usually involve more than troops from two countries fighting eachother right? That's the "World" part.

Seems like a strange world war where the world isn't at war

❗️Explicit content warning!

Prizohin films himself in front of a large number of corpses, and in an unusually aggressive manner puts forward demands to Russian military leadership to provide more ammunition. pic.twitter.com/ZjikU2EnZM

— Dmitri (@wartranslated) May 4, 2023

From a Wagner perspective… things are getting spicy

You hate to see it

In another huge victory, Ukraine shot down a drone over Kiev last night.

Quote:

---

"After almost three years in office, it is clear what the problem is: Mr. Zelensky's tendency to treat everything as a show. For him, gestures are more important than consequences. The words you use don't matter, as long as they are entertaining." the New York Times, published on 21 February 2022, 3 days before Russia invaded.

---

Is he running, why he isn't in Ukraine... country without president in time of war ...? strange and suspicious activity!

— Exempli gratia - EG 🐣 (@Fitny4) May 4, 2023

GAC06 said:

---

Seems like a strange world war where the world isn't at war

---

It's a really strange posting style. He does these weird "WW3 is happening/the world is ending any day now" type posts, gets called out, and then just ignores whatever thread he's on for a few days before posting similar stuff in other threads. Not really sure what the point is.

"Ukraine Narrative Update" from another perspective. Good listen from the Zman.

Quote:

---

The drone attack on the Kremlin is another one of those times where you get a glimpse into the psyche of the people running the war for the regime. They greenlight a caper and then claim that the victim of the caper did it to himself. We saw this with the Nord Stream pipeline attack. At first, they cheered, then they made up a story about how the Russians blew up their own pipelines to make Washington look bad.

In this case, the story is the Russians attacked their own buildings so they can have an excuse to kill Zelensky. Poor Zelensky is traveling around Europe right now thinking he is about to get a polonium cocktail from room service. In his last public appearance, he looked like he was about to cry. There is now talk that he may not return to Ukraine at all and just do his job by zoom.

The thing is this caper is a good example of how easily things can get out of hand when you let private actors conduct foreign policy. The attack was no doubt cooked up by the neocons running foreign policy.
They have friends at private military and security firms that help the Ukrainians with planning and materials. Maybe British intelligence helps out, off the books naturally.

Unlike the Nord Stream bombing, which was signed off on by Joe Biden, it appears this stunt was done with the admin being told. This is why they sounded even more ridiculous than usual when asked about it.

They did not have their cover stories prepared, so they were forced to wing it. That only made things worse, as their instinct is always to lie, which made them look even guiltier.

What this all points to is that the Kagan cult thinks they have one last shot to start a nuclear war with Russia, so they will be pulling out all the stops. That means Ukraine is about to get interesting this summer. Not only will we get the long promised Ukrainian offensive, but we will get lots of random terrorist attacks, along with some efforts to make the big dramatic splash like we saw this week.

---

Skip to the last 10 minutes on the podcast and he talks about the Russians using little wooden drones to get the Ukrainians to launch S300's to shoot them down. Pretty darn funny, if true.

Quote:

---

if true

---

I guess he could switch things up and throw some truth in there but I'm guessing it's likely bs like the rest.

Good piece about the (lack of) utility western combat aircraft would provide in the near term to Ukraine. From a Rand Corp. guy.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/05/17/why_does_ukraine_want_western_jets_897174.html

Quote:

---

Ukraine would need well-trained people to fly and maintain Western jets. While some observers focus on pilots, training maintainers to safely fix jets can take years. Shortages of experienced maintainers could be offset by Western contractor personnel, but this could be costly. It could also be risky; Russian precision-guided missiles or drones might target maintenance facilities.

Some Western fighters, such as widely available F-16s, do best on long, pristine runways. They could face difficulties on the rougher, former Soviet ones dispersed across in Ukraine. As the Royal United Services Institute has noted, Ukraine lacks infrastructure to safely operate these types of jets.

To bring in Western aircraft, Ukraine might need to repave and potentially extend a number of runways, a process which Russia would likely detect. If only a few airfields were suitable and in known locations, focused Russian attacks could impede Ukrainian F-16s from flying.

Western fighters are also expensive to buy and maintain, and new ones could take years to manufacture. In 2021 Ukraine spent about $1.1 billion on its air force. A Western jet could cost as much as $100 million to buy and at least another $5 million per year to operate. And this does not include the cost of missile and bomb armaments. Based on past budgets, Ukraine might fall into a trap akin to Iraq's struggle to find funding.

---

Why aren’t the guys in this video fighting on the front?
Guess they need more US $

— Joe Regan (@JGRegan807) May 5, 2023

The marketing department in Kiev is…losing the message.

Looked like a pretty good ratio to me

There are many funny responses. Tough to pick one. I laughed, sorry you two missed the humor from another perspective.