Teslag said:

---

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.

---

So you get to draw the line? Putin could claim he felt as threatened by a neighboring country as we did about a country halfway around the world. You can't be the school yard nerd who pokes and antagonizes and then when you get punched in the nose you cry for everyone to come save you. The U.S. created much of the antagonism.

When George Kennan gave the interview with Thomas Friedman in the 90s he stressed that NATO was designed to defend against the Soviets. These aren't the Soviets. These aren't the communists. These are the heroes (his words in the 90's, not mine) who overthrew them. Why are we picking a fight with them? He's said, and this is a crazy prediction, really ominous - The people who are expanding NATO will keep expanding it and expanding it, and then there will be a Russian reaction, and then when there is the Russian reaction, they are going to say, see, that's proof that we have to keep on expanding it.

Those poor Russian heroes

safelightKL said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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.

---

So you get to draw the line? Putin could claim he felt as threatened by a neighboring country as we did about a country halfway around the world. You can't be the school yard nerd who pokes and antagonizes and then when you get punched in the nose you cry for everyone to come save you. The U.S. created much of the antagonism.

When George Kennan gave the interview with Thomas Friedman in the 90s he stressed that NATO was designed to defend against the Soviets. These aren't the Soviets. These aren't the communists. These are the heroes who overthrew them. Why are we picking a fight with them? He's said, and this is a crazy prediction, really ominous - The people who are expanding NATO will keep expanding it and expanding it, and then there will be a Russian reaction, and then when theirs the Russian reaction, they are going to say, see, that's proof that we have to keep on expanding it.

---

Tesla would be cool with Cuba having Chinese nukes aimed at Florida. He is not worth any further intellectual discussion of military strategy and get political situations.

Quote:

---

So you get to draw the line? Putin could claim he felt as threatened by a neighboring country as we did about a country halfway around the world.

---

We didn't feel threatened by Afghanistan. We were attacked by a terrorist group they harbored resulting in 3,000 dead citizens.

texagbeliever said:

---

safelightKL said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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.

---

So you get to draw the line? Putin could claim he felt as threatened by a neighboring country as we did about a country halfway around the world. You can't be the school yard nerd who pokes and antagonizes and then when you get punched in the nose you cry for everyone to come save you. The U.S. created much of the antagonism.

When George Kennan gave the interview with Thomas Friedman in the 90s he stressed that NATO was designed to defend against the Soviets. These aren't the Soviets. These aren't the communists. These are the heroes who overthrew them. Why are we picking a fight with them? He's said, and this is a crazy prediction, really ominous - The people who are expanding NATO will keep expanding it and expanding it, and then there will be a Russian reaction, and then when theirs the Russian reaction, they are going to say, see, that's proof that we have to keep on expanding it.

---

Tesla would be cool with Cuba having Chinese nukes aimed at Florida. He is not worth any further intellectual discussion of military strategy and get political situations.

---

Cool with it? No. Wanting to invade? No as well.

texagbeliever said:

---

safelightKL said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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.

---

So you get to draw the line? Putin could claim he felt as threatened by a neighboring country as we did about a country halfway around the world. You can't be the school yard nerd who pokes and antagonizes and then when you get punched in the nose you cry for everyone to come save you. The U.S. created much of the antagonism.

When George Kennan gave the interview with Thomas Friedman in the 90s he stressed that NATO was designed to defend against the Soviets. These aren't the Soviets. These aren't the communists. These are the heroes who overthrew them. Why are we picking a fight with them? He's said, and this is a crazy prediction, really ominous - The people who are expanding NATO will keep expanding it and expanding it, and then there will be a Russian reaction, and then when theirs the Russian reaction, they are going to say, see, that's proof that we have to keep on expanding it.

---

Tesla would be cool with Cuba having Chinese nukes aimed at Florida. He is not worth any further intellectual discussion of military strategy and get political situations.

---

At what time have nukes every been deployed to any NATO country?

JFC...

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

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

So you get to draw the line? Putin could claim he felt as threatened by a neighboring country as we did about a country halfway around the world.

---

We didn't feel threatened by Afghanistan. We were attacked by a terrorist group they harbored resulting in 3,000 dead citizens.

---

Nope. Afghanistan was not retributive, it was sold as a means to eliminate a future threat - we felt threatened. Russia felt threatened. They may have perceived wrongly, but like us, they felt threatened.

safelightKL said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

So you get to draw the line? Putin could claim he felt as threatened by a neighboring country as we did about a country halfway around the world.

---

We didn't feel threatened by Afghanistan. We were attacked by a terrorist group they harbored resulting in 3,000 dead citizens.

---

Nope. Afghanistan was not retributive, it was sold as a means to eliminate a future threat - we felt threatened. Russia felt threatened. They may have perceived wrongly, but like us, they felt threatened.

---

So we just up and invaded Afghanistan out of the blue because we were threatened? 9/11 had nothing to do with it? We simply "felt" threatened? Nothing had actually happened?


Jesus Christ.

We invaded Afghanistan in response to an existing threat that had already attacked us repeatedly. Ukraine didn't attack Russia.

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.

---

Unprovoked?




This is longer bit explains it well.

You can skip to 4:30 and 9:30 if you don't want to watch the whole thing.


At the 9:30 mark it explains that Soros funded alot of the NGO's that created the discord that led to the coup in 2014 amd helped hand pick the new regime.

I am amazed so many on here think anything tied to Soros or that he helped instigate is good and in America's best interests.

GAC06 said:

---

We invaded Afghanistan in response to an existing threat that had already attacked us repeatedly. Ukraine didn't attack Russia.

---

Ummm do we attack Mexico every time a rogue cartel member kills a US citizen?

The Taliban was like the cartel until we abandoned Afghanistan and let them take over completely, a rogue group that was not officially part of the government.

Yes, unprovoked. And a cartel killing an American is totally the same as bombing embassies and destroying the World Trade Center. You totally got me.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

We invaded Afghanistan in response to an existing threat that had already attacked us repeatedly. Ukraine didn't attack Russia.

---

Ummm do we attack Mexico every time a rogue cartel member kills a US citizen?

The Taliban was like the cartel until we abandoned Afghanistan and let them take over completely, a rogue group that was not officially part of the government.

---

If a Mexican cartel, with the blessing and support of the Mexican government, killed 3,000 American citizens in a terrorist attack we would 100% invade Mexico and be justified in doing so.

Teslag said:

---

safelightKL said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

So you get to draw the line? Putin could claim he felt as threatened by a neighboring country as we did about a country halfway around the world.

---

We didn't feel threatened by Afghanistan. We were attacked by a terrorist group they harbored resulting in 3,000 dead citizens.

---

Nope. Afghanistan was not retributive, it was sold as a means to eliminate a future threat - we felt threatened. Russia felt threatened. They may have perceived wrongly, but like us, they felt threatened.

---

So we just up and invaded Afghanistan out of the blue because we were threatened? 9/11 had nothing to do with it? We simply "felt" threatened? Nothing had actually happened?


Jesus Christ.

---

You don't read well. Why did we perceive a future terrorist threat? Because of 911. Show me where we ever claimed we were invading Middle East countries as retribution. We wanted to kill Al Queda terrorists to prevent future attacks - because we felt threatened. I remember "we must fight them there so we don't have to fight them here".

And the Taliban wasn't like a "cartel" in Afghanistan in 2001. They were the defacto government of Afghanistan.

We "felt" threatened because we actually were attacked and they killed 3,000 people. I supposed we also fought Japan in WW2 because we "felt" threatened after Pearl Harbor.


Ukraine hasn't attacked Russia. Joining NATO wouldn't be an attack on Russia. Actually killing 3,000 Russians in a Russian city would be an attack. That didn't happen.

I didn't think this thread could get dumber but today is really something

Teslag said:

---

We "felt" threatened because we actually were attacked and they killed 3,000 people. I supposed we also fought Japan in WW2 because we "felt" threatened after Pearl Harbor.


Ukraine hasn't attacked Russia. Joining NATO wouldn't be an attack on Russia. Actually killing 3,000 Russians in a Russian city would be an attack. That didn't happen.

---

The strategic mind is really shining bright. Wait until after someone gains a key strategic position and launches a successful attack on you before you try to intervene. Brillant stuff.

Maybe I'm dense. It wouldn't be the first time. But I don't understand the following statement that I have repeatedly seen thrown around as some kind of debate armor:

Quote:

---

Russia can stop the war whenever they want.

---

What does this mean? There is never any context with it. When someone attempts to debate this whole mess, seeing this automatic reply is almost a given.

Teslag said:

---

We "felt" threatened because we actually were attacked and they killed 3,000 people. I supposed we also fought Japan in WW2 because we "felt" threatened after Pearl Harbor.


Ukraine hasn't attacked Russia. Joining NATO wouldn't be an attack on Russia. Actually killing 3,000 Russians in a Russian city would be an attack. That didn't happen.

---

So, should we invade Russia? They have killed far more than 3,000 Ukranians. If not, why not?

YouBet said:

---

Maybe I'm dense. It wouldn't be the first time. But I don't understand the following statement that I have repeatedly seen thrown around as some kind of debate armor:

Quote:

---

Russia can stop the war whenever they want.

---

What does this mean? There is never any context with it. When someone attempts to debate this whole mess, seeing this automatic reply is almost a given.

---

Russia can leave Ukraine and the war will be over

GAC06 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Maybe I'm dense. It wouldn't be the first time. But I don't understand the following statement that I have repeatedly seen thrown around as some kind of debate armor:

Quote:

---

Russia can stop the war whenever they want.

---

What does this mean? There is never any context with it. When someone attempts to debate this whole mess, seeing this automatic reply is almost a given.

---

Russia can leave Ukraine and the war will be over

---

Yes, and that's irrelevant which is why I'm perplexed by it being stated so very often. It's nonsensical in context of this debate.

It's usually brought up when Russian apologists bring up the meat grinder Russia is feeding its people into.

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.

---

Unless this is some extreme sarcasm that I somehow missed then yes, you have apparently been asleep since 2014.

GAC06 said:

---

We invaded Afghanistan in response to an existing threat that had already attacked us repeatedly. Ukraine didn't attack Russia.

---

We invaded Afghanistan. Afghanistan did not attack us.

That said, I have no problem with Ukraine defending itself from Russian attack even if Russia sincerely believes it was threatened or provoked. I actually hope Ukraine wins. The U.S. however, is in no position financially or militarily, to intervene. We aren't the U.S. of the 1940s-2000. We are circling the drain economically and collapsing socially. I wish we could intervene in every conflict in the world and use brute force to bend other countries to our will. We can't.

GAC06 said:

---

It's usually brought up when Russian apologists bring up the meat grinder Russia is feeding its people into.

---

Also brought up when the anti-Ukraine folks say Russia is looking for peace. They can have peace whenever they want (by going home).

RebelE Infantry said:

---

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.

---

Unless this is some extreme sarcasm that I somehow missed then yes, you have apparently been asleep since 2014.

---

An invasion is not a civil war.

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

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.

---

Unless this is some extreme sarcasm that I somehow missed then yes, you have apparently been asleep since 2014.

---

An invasion is not a civil war.

---

The Donbass republics declared independence from Ukraine in 2014, sparking a civil war.

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

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.

---

Unless this is some extreme sarcasm that I somehow missed then yes, you have apparently been asleep since 2014.

---

An invasion is not a civil war.

---

The Donbass republics declared independence from Ukraine in 2014, sparking a civil war.

---

Yeah, the Russian infiltration and arming of separatists had absolutely nothing to do with it. Sure.

And, of course, that 2014 conflict was total justification for Russia commencing a further invasion in 2022.

---

In 2014 the Nuland-CIA-backed Ukrainian government massacred separatists/police/protesters.

Trump promises to have the war over in 'a day' if re-elected. Great news.

Quote:

---

A student from Saint Anselm's College asked the 45th president if he supports the Biden administration's posture to continue sending military equipment to Ukraine.
Trump responded:

Quote:

---

Here's the thing have to say it to start off, no longer matters if I were president, this would have never happened, and even the Democrats admit that. Putin knew it would have never happened, and his pipeline would have never happened. A lot of things would never have happened … and all those dead people, both Russian and Ukrainian, they wouldn't be dead today. And all those cities that are blown up and disintegrated right to the ground, that wouldn't have happened.

Now, here's the problem, we've given so far $171 billion. They've given they meaning [the] European Union, which is approximately the same size altogether as our economy they've given about $20 [billion]. So we're at $170 and they're at $20, you don't have to know too much about history … or geography to realize they're a little bit more affected than we are … so they've got to put up a lot more money because they're taking advantage of us just like every other country did.

---

When CNN moderator Kaitlan Collins pressed Trump, asking if he would continue the Biden administration's practice of supporting Ukraine with money and weapons if elected, Trump said he would meet with Russian President Vladamir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky and "have that war settled in one day 24 hours."

---

INCOMPETENCE? Is it just me or does Ukraine seem utterly incompetent in the prosecution of the war? Now Zelensky is claiming Ukraine needs more time before it can start its offensive against Russia. Seriously? Perhaps he's crazy like a fox? https://t.co/GJ6j7rGKNX pic.twitter.com/NjZN0ONiwC

— @amuse (@amuse) May 11, 2023

"Give us more."

To be fair, the fastest way Ukraine loses the war is if they attack and it fails completely. So they screw this up it is done.

Sometimes a good plan executed today beats a perfect plan executed too late.

Everyone knows the CIA is doing a fair amount of string pulling in this war. As of right now this seems to be we will see how it turned out and study it 20 years from now. The optimistic side of me says this war will harm Russia whether they win or lose since they are messing up their economy so much and losing a generation of working age males. But the CIA and US politicians has successfully failed strategically in almost every conflict the past 60 years, including the proxy wars like Russia vs Afghanistan. Heck we supplied weapons/intelligence to Iran and Iraq during that conflict which bit us in the butt 20 years later