Teslag said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

From my perspective, "its all Russias fault and there is no nuance" is becoming a less and less popular position because people are starting to see the corruption in our own government.

---

It is Russia's fault, but there is also nuance. A Putin puppet fiefdom was overturned in a color revolution which was aided by the West. Russia never cared about "nazis" or any real threat of NATO invasion. What they wanted in Ukraine was to secure the farmlands, the natural resources, and the majority of the Black Sea coast. They had that without fighting when their guy was running the show (similar to Belarus). The nationalist ideals of a return to the historical lands of the Russian Empire also played a huge part.

---

Spot on

---

I think we all agree on the reasoning. The part where we disagree is that any nation with a bigger army can do whatever they want.

That's pretty much what America has been doing since WW2.

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

My statement was intended to convey a meaning less about the actual popularity of the position or the fault of the war, it was written more about how/what/why I see the reason for the shift.

You may say what you will about Nortex, but it is undeniable how well he has documented the shift in western media coverage with his hyperlinks these last few weeks when compared to last year.

---

I've yet to see any shift in mainstream media blaming anyone but Russia and rightfully so.

---

If you did, would it change your opinion?

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

From my perspective, "its all Russias fault and there is no nuance" is becoming a less and less popular position because people are starting to see the corruption in our own government.

---

It is Russia's fault, but there is also nuance. A Putin puppet fiefdom was overturned in a color revolution which was aided by the West. Russia never cared about "nazis" or any real threat of NATO invasion. What they wanted in Ukraine was to secure the farmlands, the natural resources, and the majority of the Black Sea coast. They had that without fighting when their guy was running the show (similar to Belarus). The nationalist ideals of a return to the historical lands of the Russian Empire also played a huge part.

---

Spot on

---

I think we all agree on the reasoning. The part where we disagree is that any nation with a bigger army can do whatever they want.

That's pretty much what America has been doing since WW2.

---

And Ukraine with NATO's assistance is better than Russia's army. That's why nations have formed alliances for over 2 thousand years

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

My statement was intended to convey a meaning less about the actual popularity of the position or the fault of the war, it was written more about how/what/why I see the reason for the shift.

You may say what you will about Nortex, but it is undeniable how well he has documented the shift in western media coverage with his hyperlinks these last few weeks when compared to last year.

---

I've yet to see any shift in mainstream media blaming anyone but Russia and rightfully so.

---

If you did, would it change your opinion?

---

Of course not. I'm able to come to my own conclusions based on fact. And the facts here are simple. If Russia doesn't invade Ukraine then there's not war. It's that simple.

And boiling your reasoning down to might makes right is rather simplistic. We could roll both Canada and Mexico but we don't. And we wouldn't be justified in doing so simply because "we have a bigger army".

Teslag said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

From my perspective, "its all Russias fault and there is no nuance" is becoming a less and less popular position because people are starting to see the corruption in our own government.

---

It is Russia's fault, but there is also nuance. A Putin puppet fiefdom was overturned in a color revolution which was aided by the West. Russia never cared about "nazis" or any real threat of NATO invasion. What they wanted in Ukraine was to secure the farmlands, the natural resources, and the majority of the Black Sea coast. They had that without fighting when their guy was running the show (similar to Belarus). The nationalist ideals of a return to the historical lands of the Russian Empire also played a huge part.

---

Spot on

---

I think we all agree on the reasoning. The part where we disagree is that any nation with a bigger army can do whatever they want.

That's pretty much what America has been doing since WW2.

---

And Ukraine with NATO's assistance is better than Russia's army. That's why nations have formed alliances for over 2 thousand years

---

Only if they have the manpower to operate the equipment.

Teslag said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

My statement was intended to convey a meaning less about the actual popularity of the position or the fault of the war, it was written more about how/what/why I see the reason for the shift.

You may say what you will about Nortex, but it is undeniable how well he has documented the shift in western media coverage with his hyperlinks these last few weeks when compared to last year.

---

I've yet to see any shift in mainstream media blaming anyone but Russia and rightfully so.

---

If you did, would it change your opinion?

---

Of course not. I'm able to come to my own conclusions based on fact. And the facts here are simple. If Russia doesn't invade Ukraine then there's not war. It's that simple.

---

So what was the purpose of your comment? If the evidence changes and it still won't affect your view, why does that fact have any importance on the post?

Teslag said:

---

And boiling your reasoning down to might makes right is rather simplistic. We could roll both Canada and Mexico but we don't. And we wouldn't be justified in doing so simply because "we have a bigger army".

---

"Justified" indicates that there is some power that exists that determines right and wrong. What is that entity?

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

From my perspective, "its all Russias fault and there is no nuance" is becoming a less and less popular position because people are starting to see the corruption in our own government.

---

It is Russia's fault, but there is also nuance. A Putin puppet fiefdom was overturned in a color revolution which was aided by the West. Russia never cared about "nazis" or any real threat of NATO invasion. What they wanted in Ukraine was to secure the farmlands, the natural resources, and the majority of the Black Sea coast. They had that without fighting when their guy was running the show (similar to Belarus). The nationalist ideals of a return to the historical lands of the Russian Empire also played a huge part.

---

Spot on

---

I think we all agree on the reasoning. The part where we disagree is that any nation with a bigger army can do whatever they want.

That's pretty much what America has been doing since WW2.

---

And Ukraine with NATO's assistance is better than Russia's army. That's why nations have formed alliances for over 2 thousand years

---

Only if they have the manpower to operate the equipment.

---

They do. And if they can negotiate a peace then join NATO then their survival is assured with a permanent NATO presence in their country

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

My statement was intended to convey a meaning less about the actual popularity of the position or the fault of the war, it was written more about how/what/why I see the reason for the shift.

You may say what you will about Nortex, but it is undeniable how well he has documented the shift in western media coverage with his hyperlinks these last few weeks when compared to last year.

---

I've yet to see any shift in mainstream media blaming anyone but Russia and rightfully so.

---

If you did, would it change your opinion?

---

Of course not. I'm able to come to my own conclusions based on fact. And the facts here are simple. If Russia doesn't invade Ukraine then there's not war. It's that simple.

---

So what was the purpose of your comment? If the evidence changes and it still won't affect your view, why does that fact have any importance on the post?

---

The purpose was to counter his assertion.

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

My statement was intended to convey a meaning less about the actual popularity of the position or the fault of the war, it was written more about how/what/why I see the reason for the shift.

You may say what you will about Nortex, but it is undeniable how well he has documented the shift in western media coverage with his hyperlinks these last few weeks when compared to last year.

---

I've yet to see any shift in mainstream media blaming anyone but Russia and rightfully so.

---

If you did, would it change your opinion?

---

Of course not. I'm able to come to my own conclusions based on fact. And the facts here are simple. If Russia doesn't invade Ukraine then there's not war. It's that simple.

---

So what was the purpose of your comment? If the evidence changes and it still won't affect your view, why does that fact have any importance on the post?

---

Well...maybe he was responding the the post?

PlaneCrash says:

Quote:

---

You may say what you will about Nortex, but it is undeniable how well he has documented the shift in western media coverage with his hyperlinks these last few weeks when compared to last year.

---

Tesla responded:

Quote:

---

I've yet to see any shift in mainstream media blaming anyone but Russia and rightfully so.

---

One can just look around the MSM propaganda coverage of the war and see the shift as I stated in the link:

Quote:

---

Sources of reporting that have turned: The Hill, the Washington Post and CNN now agree that the Ukrainian army will never achieve its aims.

---

But anyway….

The currency stuff I am intrigued by, as it is a real weakness for so many countries right now, and finance is how all wars are ultimately waged and paid for beyond the battlefield. The UK finished their last lend-lease payments just a couple decades back for WW2. Again I think VW returning to Russia for business is significant though.

War is ultimately a racket:

Quote:

---

Western weapons manufacturers are popping champagne corks over record sales with total revenues hitting $400 billion for last year. According to media reports, this coming year-end will see that record figure exceeded by another salivating $50 billion.

Ukraine may be resembling a bloodbath, as we noted in last week's editorial. But apparently, Western military corporations are swimming in a bonanza of profits and stock market investments.

Most of this lucrative new business stems from NATO's proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, which is heading toward its second year. There is no sign of a diplomatic effort from the West or the Kiev regime it sponsors to end the bloodshed.

The main corporate beneficiaries making a financial killing from Ukraine are by far the American firms. They include such behemoths as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and RTX (formerly Raytheon). But also enjoying soaring profits are arms makers in other NATO countries: BAE in the United Kingdom, Airbus in France, Netherlands and Spain, Leonardo in Italy, and Germany's Rheinmetall.

…

What we are seeing is an audacious racket whereby the American and European public are subsidizing the funneling of their own taxpayers' money into the coffers of weapons firms. And there is no democratic choice in the matter. It's a fait accompli. Or, put another way, extortion.

Of course, too, part of this huge scam is the hefty financial cuts for the inner circle of the Kiev regime, including its puppet president, Vladimir Zelensky, and the brazenly sleazy defense chief Aleksy Reznikov. It is reckoned that at least $400 million has been grafted by the top members of the regime from the arms bazaar flowing into Ukraine. Reznikov has even boasted that his country serves as a testing ground for NATO weaponry.

---

It's going to be interesting to see how well NATO equipment will be able to move outside of summer time in Ukraine.

Maybe Ukraine will only able to use NATO armor and vehicles for 4-5 months out of 12. https://t.co/ZZllRr9H2L

— Global Thinker (@talkrealopinion) August 11, 2023

The question now isn't whether Washington will settle for a ceasefire in place in Ukraine, but whether it can get one from Putin, who is under pressure from his nationalist wing to go on the offensive. This could get very nasty.

— David P. Goldman (@davidpgoldman) August 11, 2023

"There is increasing evidence that Ukraine's inability to penetrate Russian defenses along the southern line, and challenges in the directions of Kupyansk, Lyman and Bakhmut suggests the entire war could be reaching a decisive conclusion." https://t.co/UkzKaEJeFR

— David P. Goldman (@davidpgoldman) August 11, 2023

I've always respected 'Spengler's' analyses.

If you haven't seen the shift in coverage, you're either blind or not paying attention. Its undeniably obvious.

Then post them. Show us the msm articles that now shift blame for this war away from Russia. Because all 3 of Nortex links didn't. Not a single one.

It was an interesting combination of blaming Ukraine and the west for not pushing for peace talks while pointing out Russia may not be interested in peace.

Teslag said:

---

. Show us the msm articles that now shift blame for this war away from Russia.

---

Now you're inventing strawmen again.

The media used to cheerlead the war. Now it doesn't nearly as much. That is my claim because it is fact. Why do you think they changed their tuns?

Wait I thought UKE was taking miles of land back each day ? Wha happen ?

LarryElder said:

---

Wait I thought UKE was taking miles of land back each day ? Wha happen ?

---

No one has made this claim

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

. Show us the msm articles that now shift blame for this war away from Russia.

---

Now you're inventing strawmen again.

The media used to cheerlead the war. Now it doesn't nearly as much. That is my claim because it is fact. Why do you think they changed their tuns?

---

But none have shifted blame. Which was the context of our discussion yesterday. And there have been plenty of msm articles, especially from fox and WSJ, criticizing our involvement.

Teslag said:

---

LarryElder said:

---

Wait I thought UKE was taking miles of land back each day ? Wha happen ?

---

No one has made this claim

---

False you have said UKE had been making gains everyday not gonna go back and find the posts

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

NATO leadership has already said they would likely relax the normal entrance requirements for Ukraine. Whether or not that statement is supported by all member countries is another matter. Biden has indicated, so far, he's not willing to admit them yet.

When I last read up on this, I believe there are 7 overall requirements that must be met and Ukraine had met only 2 of them. This was a pre-invasion article I read.

---

The whole point of the war is to cover up Biden's long running family corruption in Ukraine for the remainder of his political career, which looks to be less than a year to go right now, and secondarily to help his other foreign benefactors, the Chinese.

So to that extent it's been a great success. Sorry to those 300K who had to die.

---

So Putin and Biden are working together now?

---

I mean, the Biden business partners are literally suppliers of the equipment used in the invasion.

https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1690359171902771200

Everything is not simply 'black and white.'

Edit, not sure if 'x dot com' inserts are gonna work now on TA.

Its interesting to me some folks want to figure out who to blame for the current situation in order to determine what is the best course of action forward.

Unless we are going to actually hold Russia accountable (and liable for the costs) of this conflict, then blaming Putin, blaming the weather, blaming Biden... none of it should determine the action we take.

Russia did what it thought was in its best interest. It is patently irrelevant whether one agrees with their rationale. They believed they were right and commenced action.

Our calculus must focus on what is in the best interest of the United States of America. Those options should be a complete open slate of options from "give the Ukes anything and everything they want", to "send them old weapons and some money. to "hey buds, we sitting this one out", and even the option of "Russia may be a stabilizing force in the region against China and thus we will support them.

Determining that reaction to Russia based on your feelz about Putin, Russia, and wanting to stack bodies of dead russians is not strategy - its something someone does when they have no concept of repercussions, unintended consequences, and a longer term geopolitical strategy that puts America first.

LarryElder said:

---

Teslag said:

---

LarryElder said:

---

Wait I thought UKE was taking miles of land back each day ? Wha happen ?

---

No one has made this claim

---

False you have said UKE had been making gains everyday not gonna go back and find the posts

---

They have. But you added "miles each day" for embellishment.

fka ftc said:

---

Its interesting to me some folks want to figure out who to blame for the current situation in order to determine what is the best course of action forward.

Unless we are going to actually hold Russia accountable (and liable for the costs) of this conflict, then blaming Putin, blaming the weather, blaming Biden... none of it should determine the action we take.

Russia did what it thought was in its best interest. It is patently irrelevant whether one agrees with their rationale. They believed they were right and commenced action.

Our calculus must focus on what is in the best interest of the United States of America. Those options should be a complete open slate of options from "give the Ukes anything and everything they want", to "send them old weapons and some money. to "hey buds, we sitting this one out", and even the option of "Russia may be a stabilizing force in the region against China and thus we will support them.

Determining that reaction to Russia based on your feelz about Putin, Russia, and wanting to stack bodies of dead russians is not strategy - its something someone does when they have no concept of repercussions, unintended consequences, and a longer term geopolitical strategy that puts America first.

---

This is actually a really fair and excellent post, and we don't always agree to put it lightly. It is apparent there is some disconnect however, mainly chicken and egg so to speak. I believe we should maximize Russian military destruction as a consequence of both their actions and the benefit to us. Once war starts, especially near peer conflict, it's best to go all in. And that involves causing the most casualties you can for Russia, especially if their strategy is a mass of overwhelming numbers.

No reasonable policy decisions on the part of the US (in favor of American interests) can be anticipated until Biden is removed from/resigns from office. We can speculate what is 'best' all we want on a message board for US possible actions, but it's sort of just idle chatter.

To analogize, when Kasparov was playing vs. "Big Blue" if he were actually on the take from IBM to lose/make moves to advantage the computer, one wouldn't hope he had a brilliant/elaborate plan to win.

My point is that the charade is just that, right now, for all but the young men/women being killed.

Zelensky just fired every single 'recruiting office' director for graft/corruption/taking bribes. Not a few, or many, but every single one. Not because they did take those bribes, but because it became too widely known and was sabotaging the morale of the forces/populace to dangerous levels, despite having state control of the media. It remains a simple truth that there are no 'good' sides to cheer for in this conflict.

Teslag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Its interesting to me some folks want to figure out who to blame for the current situation in order to determine what is the best course of action forward.

Unless we are going to actually hold Russia accountable (and liable for the costs) of this conflict, then blaming Putin, blaming the weather, blaming Biden... none of it should determine the action we take.

Russia did what it thought was in its best interest. It is patently irrelevant whether one agrees with their rationale. They believed they were right and commenced action.

Our calculus must focus on what is in the best interest of the United States of America. Those options should be a complete open slate of options from "give the Ukes anything and everything they want", to "send them old weapons and some money. to "hey buds, we sitting this one out", and even the option of "Russia may be a stabilizing force in the region against China and thus we will support them.

Determining that reaction to Russia based on your feelz about Putin, Russia, and wanting to stack bodies of dead russians is not strategy - its something someone does when they have no concept of repercussions, unintended consequences, and a longer term geopolitical strategy that puts America first.

---

This is actually a really fair and excellent post, and we don't always agree to put it lightly. It is apparent there is some disconnect however, mainly chicken and egg so to speak. I believe we should maximize Russian military destruction as a consequence of both their actions and the benefit to us. Once war starts, especially near peer conflict, it's best to go all in. And that involves causing the most casualties you can for Russia, especially if their strategy is a mass of overwhelming numbers.

---

And to see it through to a successful conclusion. How successful, from restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity on one end of the spectrum to simply preventing Russian seizure of the rest of Ukraine on the other, remains to be determined.

Either way, the long game favors NATO and Ukraine as long as "another perspective" doesn't take hold here or in Ukraine.

Teslag said:

---

LarryElder said:

---

Teslag said:

---

LarryElder said:

---

Wait I thought UKE was taking miles of land back each day ? Wha happen ?

---

No one has made this claim

---

False you have said UKE had been making gains everyday not gonna go back and find the posts

---

They have. But you added "miles each day" for embellishment.

---

Where are the gains ?

GAC06 said:

---

And to see it through to a successful conclusion. How successful, from restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity on one end of the spectrum to simply preventing Russian seizure of the rest of Ukraine on the other, remains to be determined.

Either way, the long game favors NATO and Ukraine as long as "another perspective" doesn't take hold here or in Ukraine.

---

Why is "another perspective" not considered as a preferable alternative?

I bunch of Eastern Bloc countries constantly measuring their peens internally, with other former Soviet states and with other volatile neighbors in the region does not seem to be a positive to the global community, particularly if it constantly involves us sending money, , equipment, ammo and many times our soldiers to play one side against the other.

It's not preferable because this thread is largely calling for capitulation even while in the same breath acknowledging that Russia may not be satisfied with their current land grab. The West is better suited to outlast Russia as long as Russian messaging doesn't win out. Seeing the conflict to a successful conclusion further neuters Russia, and further deters future aggression by Russia and others, at a fraction of what we spend in one year on defense, and with no Americans sent in harms way.

GAC06 said:

---

It's not preferable because this thread is largely calling for capitulation even while in the same breath acknowledging that Russia may not be satisfied with their current land grab. The West is better suited to outlast Russia as long as Russian messaging doesn't win out. Seeing the conflict to a successful conclusion further neuters Russia, and further deters future aggression by Russia and others, at a fraction of what we spend in one year on defense, and with no Americans sent in harms way.

---

Disagree. We have strengthened Russia and spurred them to refresh their military equipment whilst claiming that's what we are doing.

Russia is not an immediate threat to the US and has not been for years. China and a destabilized Africa + Middle East presents are far greater and much closer threat to the US.

How is Russia refreshing their military? Their most modern stuff like Su-34's, Ka-52's and most modern tanks have suffered heavy losses. Their vaunted Kinzhal missile has proven ineffective against our our air defense. They are largely resorting to pulling obsolete equipment out of storage.

I'd argue that failing to counter their aggression would only embolden them for future land grabs, boost their prestige and influence in Africa and elsewhere, and signal to China that we don't have the resolve to counter them either. Doing it for a small fraction of our yearly defense budget is quite a bargain.

LarryElder said:

---

Teslag said:

---

LarryElder said:

---

Teslag said:

---

LarryElder said:

---

Wait I thought UKE was taking miles of land back each day ? Wha happen ?

---

No one has made this claim

---

False you have said UKE had been making gains everyday not gonna go back and find the posts

---

They have. But you added "miles each day" for embellishment.

---

Where are the gains ?

---

In the south where Russians lines are thinner. LiveUA has a great map to track it.

GAC06 said:

---

How is Russia refreshing their military? Their most modern stuff like Su-34's, Ka-52's and most modern tanks have suffered heavy losses. Their vaunted Kinzhal missile has proven ineffective against our our air defense. They are largely resorting to pulling obsolete equipment out of storage.

I'd argue that failing to counter their aggression would only embolden them for future land grabs, boost their prestige and influence in Africa and elsewhere, and signal to China that we don't have the resolve to counter them either. Doing it for a small fraction of our yearly defense budget is quite a bargain.

---

All points correct. Whenever the topic of a Russia offensive comes up, or a claim that Russia is stronger i always ask for specifics. Namely, "with what"? The Russians finally got optics back online with haphazard parts to clear a tank bottleneck. And then the ukes struck an optics plant near Moscow. Not sure it's the same one admittedly but it shows the current frailty in regards to Russian arms production.

And we are doing all of this without the loss of American lives. We basically flex our military muscles with no worry.

GAC06 said:

---

How is Russia refreshing their military? Their most modern stuff like Su-34's, Ka-52's and most modern tanks have suffered heavy losses. Their vaunted Kinzhal missile has proven ineffective against our our air defense. They are largely resorting to pulling obsolete equipment out of storage.

I'd argue that failing to counter their aggression would only embolden them for future land grabs, boost their prestige and influence in Africa and elsewhere, and signal to China that we don't have the resolve to counter them either. Doing it for a small fraction of our yearly defense budget is quite a bargain.

---

All of this is inaccurate.

There's zero reason to think the CCP leadership is upset with our actions in Ukraine, or anyone else's.

African countries care even less about who controls Ukraine than I do, imho, to boot.

All of it?

Russia has suffered heavy losses in equipment, including the specific types I mentioned. Those are facts.

Russia's highly touted Kinzhal has failed against our Patriots. That's a fact.

Russia is pulling thousands of old vehicles out of long term storage, and sending T-62's, T-55's, and other ancient and improvised weapons into combat. That's a fact.

Russia being emboldened by failure of the west to confront them is obviously more nuanced but it's also common sense.

Nice hand wave though, with absolutely nothing to support your claim. Very "another perspective" of you.