RFK is a Roger Stone creation.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

There are many ways to get a victory and choosing the absolute dumbest route which happens to be the most costly for Ukrainian lives and their economy, should be called out.

---

Agreed. Which is why we are blaming the country for the invasion. They don't invade, then none of these deaths occur.

---

Let me try again.

Russia invaded.

There are ways to respond to said invasion. Some stupid some smart. By choosing the dumb ones you are making mistakes. And in retrospect deserve blame for the failures caused by those mistakes.

If a gunmen comes into a store and starts shooting. You pull out your gun and then go on and accidentally shoot 4 innocent bystanders you don't get to say "well actually officers, the original gunmen is 100% to blame for me killing those 4 innocent people due to my incompetence. Because he started the problem"

And you thought Teslag's analogy was bad? Holy crap.

Whats bad about it?

We aren't killing anyone. Russia invaded. Russia can stop the war whenever they want. Ukraine can also stop whenever they want. (Probably now that Russia is somewhat exhausted)

GAC06 said:

---

We aren't killing anyone. Russia invaded. Russia can stop the war whenever they want. Ukraine can also stop whenever they want. (Probably now that Russia is somewhat exhausted)

---

GAC06 said:

---

We aren't killing anyone. Russia invaded. Russia can stop the war whenever they want. Ukraine can also stop whenever they want. (Probably now that Russia is somewhat exhausted)

---

Ukranians dont have that power.
Tell the conscripted soldiers they can stop whenever they want.
Tell the Ukrainians who can't elect new leaders because only 1 party is allowed they can stop whenever they want.

99.9% of the Ukrainians are just pawns for the .1% elites who are largely insulated from all danger. They are also becoming very wealthy. Dont act like they have this great choice in it.

Russians walked away from WWI. How could they do that when the Czar was in charge?

Ukraine is fighting because they don't like being invaded and murdered by Russians. Your analogy was hilarious though, even if unintentional.

texagbeliever said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

We aren't killing anyone. Russia invaded. Russia can stop the war whenever they want. Ukraine can also stop whenever they want. (Probably now that Russia is somewhat exhausted)

---

Ukranians dont have that power.
Tell the conscripted soldiers they can stop whenever they want.
Tell the Ukrainians who can't elect new leaders because only 1 party is allowed they can stop whenever they want.

99.9% of the Ukrainians are just pawns for the .1% elites who are largely insulated from all danger. They are also becoming very wealthy. Dont act like they have this great choice in it.

---

Ukraine fights awfully hard for a nation full of conscripts...

Russia faced a complete society collapse and revolution in WW1. In many ways id bet US aide is helping prevent that reality from happening in the Ukraine.

Our current leadership O&G policies are making sure that doesn't happen again by propping up the Russia economy.

Giving weapons to a country is aid. An assistant is an aide.

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

CIA Director William Burns warned in a 2008 memo to Condoleezza Rice that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's "redlines" and could "split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."

safelightKL said:

---

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

CIA Director William Burns warned in a 2008 memo to Condoleezza Rice that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's "redlines" and could "split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."

---

Which would still be 100% the fault of Russia. Ukraine is free to associate with whomever the wish. They are a sovereign nation.

Teslag said:

---

safelightKL said:

---

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

CIA Director William Burns warned in a 2008 memo to Condoleezza Rice that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's "redlines" and could "split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."

---

Which would still be 100% the fault of Russia. Ukraine is free to associate with whomever the wish. They are a sovereign nation.

---

Is cuba free to associate with whoever they wish? Mexico? Yeah didn't think so.

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

safelightKL said:

---

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

CIA Director William Burns warned in a 2008 memo to Condoleezza Rice that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's "redlines" and could "split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."

---

Which would still be 100% the fault of Russia. Ukraine is free to associate with whomever the wish. They are a sovereign nation.

---

Is cuba free to associate with whoever they wish? Mexico? Yeah didn't think so.

---

Yes, both are and should be able to.

safelightKL said:

---

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

CIA Director William Burns warned in a 2008 memo to Condoleezza Rice that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's "redlines" and could "split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."

---

I missed the part where there was a civil war that preceded the Russian invasion. Must have slept through that.

Teslag said:

---

safelightKL said:

---

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

CIA Director William Burns warned in a 2008 memo to Condoleezza Rice that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's "redlines" and could "split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."

---

Which would still be 100% the fault of Russia. Ukraine is free to associate with whomever the wish. They are a sovereign nation.

---

The list of people within the government, within the natural security apparatus, who completely opposed NATO expansion is very impressive and long.

Robert McNamara (Sec. of Defense)
Robert Gates (Sec. of Defense)
William Perry (Sec. of Defense)
George Kennan (American diplomat)
William Burns (CIA Director)

They all opposed NATO expansion in the strongest possible language and all explicitly because this will provoke a conflict with Russia. There's this great interview that George Kennan gave with Thomas Friedman from the New York Times in the 90s when they were doing the first round of NATO expansion, and he is furious... What are you guys doing? We won the Cold War. Now, you are picking a fight with Russia?

The U.S. would completely freak out if Russia signed a mutual pact with Mexico and started joint Military exercises on the Texas border and placed Russian missiles in Mexico - and rightfully so.

This.

Another example of when the USA does it, it's okay. But when other countries trues do it, we consider it a threat to national security.

Very similar to the Cuban missile crisis.

Russia's play there was a direct response to the installation of nukes in Turkey. (Which are still there) but when Russia did the exact same thing in Cuba, we almost went to war over it.

When one country refuses to play by the rules yet holds other countries accountable for the very rules it breaks, a crisis gets created because the hypocrisy inevitably will provoke responses.

twk said:

---

safelightKL said:

---

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

CIA Director William Burns warned in a 2008 memo to Condoleezza Rice that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's "redlines" and could "split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."

---

I missed the part where there was a civil war that preceded the Russian invasion. Must have slept through that.

---

Crimea? 2014?

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

safelightKL said:

---

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

CIA Director William Burns warned in a 2008 memo to Condoleezza Rice that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's "redlines" and could "split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."

---

Which would still be 100% the fault of Russia. Ukraine is free to associate with whomever the wish. They are a sovereign nation.

---

Is cuba free to associate with whoever they wish? Mexico? Yeah didn't think so.

---

Yes, both are and should be able to.

---

Bhahaha. This is great. Russia can cede Mexico and Cuba and that would be no reason for war.

GAC06 said:

---

Russians walked away from WWI. How could they do that when the Czar was in charge?

Ukraine is fighting because they don't like being invaded and murdered by Russians. Your analogy was hilarious though, even if unintentional.

---

Ummm, then why did Zelensky have to ban males 18-60 from leaving the country?

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-24-22-intl/h_4309a4916d57670f85519210a07fb2c9

safelightKL said:

---

CIA Director William Burns warned in a 2008 memo to Condoleezza Rice that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's "redlines" and could "split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."

---

Here's another dated quote that almost applies to 2023 ... but doesn't.

Quote:

---

"Their supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof - that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you." General George S. Patton 1945.

---

Quote:

---

The U.S. would completely freak out if Russia signed a mutual pact with Mexico and started joint Military exercises on the Texas border and placed Russian missiles in Mexico - and rightfully so.

---

And we would still have no right to invade Mexico, a sovereign nation, and then rape their populace and purposefully target civilians in Mexico City with long range cruise missiles.

safelightKL said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Russians walked away from WWI. How could they do that when the Czar was in charge?

Ukraine is fighting because they don't like being invaded and murdered by Russians. Your analogy was hilarious though, even if unintentional.

---

Ummm, then why did Zelensky have to ban males 18-60 from leaving the country?

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-24-22-intl/h_4309a4916d57670f85519210a07fb2c9

---

I didn't say they aren't using conscription. I said they are fighting enthusiastically to counter Russian aggression which really isn't debatable.

GAC06 said:

---

safelightKL said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Russians walked away from WWI. How could they do that when the Czar was in charge?

Ukraine is fighting because they don't like being invaded and murdered by Russians. Your analogy was hilarious though, even if unintentional.

---

Ummm, then why did Zelensky have to ban males 18-60 from leaving the country?

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-24-22-intl/h_4309a4916d57670f85519210a07fb2c9

---

I didn't say they aren't using conscription. I said they are fighting enthusiastically to counter Russian aggression which really isn't debatable.

---

They are super enthusiastic you can't debate it. Yes they aren't allowed to leave the country (voting with feet). Yes they aren't able to choose whether they serve or not. But by golly mister they are really happy going to the meat grinder.

The mental disconnect here is sickening. Clearly it is debatable. Is it absolute one side or the other, no. But it is certainly not all signs pointing to wanting to die in bakhmut for the motherland.

The mental disconnect is thinking Ukrainian conscription is some kind of gotcha when Russia is doing the same thing plus using mercenaries and convicts.

The difference is that Russia is the unprovoked aggressor.

GAC06 said:

---

The mental disconnect is thinking Ukrainian conscription is some kind of gotcha when Russia is doing the same thing plus using mercenaries and convicts.

The difference is that Russia is the unprovoked aggressor.

---

Quick straw man. Unfortunately I have never said Russian soldiers are fighting enthusiastically nor are they fighting for their own good. Just because one side is doing something bad, doesn't green light the other side to do something bad.

texagbeliever said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

safelightKL said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Russians walked away from WWI. How could they do that when the Czar was in charge?

Ukraine is fighting because they don't like being invaded and murdered by Russians. Your analogy was hilarious though, even if unintentional.

---

Ummm, then why did Zelensky have to ban males 18-60 from leaving the country?

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-24-22-intl/h_4309a4916d57670f85519210a07fb2c9

---

I didn't say they aren't using conscription. I said they are fighting enthusiastically to counter Russian aggression which really isn't debatable.

---

They are super enthusiastic you can't debate it. Yes they aren't allowed to leave the country (voting with feet). Yes they aren't able to choose whether they serve or not. But by golly mister they are really happy going to the meat grinder.

The mental disconnect here is sickening. Clearly it is debatable. Is it absolute one side or the other, no. But it is certainly not all signs pointing to wanting to die in bakhmut for the motherland.

---

They fight awfully hard people being forced to fight in a meat grinder. Definitely don't want to be there.

Just because Russia is invading and brutalizing Ukraine with conscripts, it doesn't give Ukraine the right to defend against it? Strange.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

The U.S. would completely freak out if Russia signed a mutual pact with Mexico and started joint Military exercises on the Texas border and placed Russian missiles in Mexico - and rightfully so.

---

And we would still have no right to invade Mexico, a sovereign nation, and then rape their populace and purposefully target civilians in Mexico City with long range cruise missiles.

---

But we have a right to invade Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, etc...?

What gives us the right to intervene now and provide missiles, technology, and know how to prosecute a war against Russia? If we have that right, why shouldn't we send troops and invade Russia? If you don't think we should invade Russia ourselves to help Ukraine, does that make you a Putin stooge?

Quote:

---

But we have a right to invade Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, etc...?

---

The first two, no. Afghanistan, yes. Had Ukraine harbored a terrorist group that directly attacked Moscow civillians and killed 3,000 people I might see an immediate invasion by Russia in a different light.


But thats not what happened.

GAC06 said:

---

Just because Russia is invading and brutalizing Ukraine with conscripts, it doesn't give Ukraine the right to defend against it? Strange.

---

They can defend it. Claiming that it is 100% supported effort by soldiers with words like enthusiasm is intellectually dishonest. You sure are moving goal posts fast here.

Conscription is often necessary in times of war. The south practiced it in the Civil. As did the US during the Revolution an WW2. All justified. Your attempt to claim that since some Ukes are conscripted therefor all fighting by them is forced labor is laughable.

texagbeliever said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Just because Russia is invading and brutalizing Ukraine with conscripts, it doesn't give Ukraine the right to defend against it? Strange.

---

They can defend it. Claiming that it is 100% supported effort by soldiers with words like enthusiasm is intellectually dishonest. You sure are moving goal posts fast here.

---

And who has said the support is 100%?

texagbeliever said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Just because Russia is invading and brutalizing Ukraine with conscripts, it doesn't give Ukraine the right to defend against it? Strange.

---

They can defend it. Claiming that it is 100% supported effort by soldiers with words like enthusiasm is intellectually dishonest. You sure are moving goal posts fast here.

---

Straw man alert. Try again.