Russian don't gonna do **** op.

When was the last time we unilaterally invaded a sovereign nation in an effort to make them a part of the United States with it also being completely unprovoked?

Why is this even needed? I was told it's a stalemate.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Why is this even needed? I was told it's a stalemate.

---

Most commentary says it's a response to Russia's escalation by importing 10,000 North Korean mercenaries.

Because Russia keeps purposely targeting Ukrainian infrastructure and civilians.

Turnabout is fair play.

Teslag said:

---

Escalate how? Putin can't do **** and he's not launching nukes over this.

---

Desperate people do irrational things. We are fixing to park NATO on their doorstep. I wonder how we would react if Russia started building military bases in Mexico

NATO has been on their doorstep for 20 years. And it just expanded when Finland joined this year.

And if we had been invading and trying to make Mexico the 51st state WHILE lobbing cruise missiles into Mexico City residential areas and civilian infrastructure then we wouldn't have a leg to stand on being upset at anyone for arming them.

JB99 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Escalate how? Putin can't do **** and he's not launching nukes over this.

---

Desperate people do irrational things. We are fixing to park NATO on their doorstep. I wonder how we would react if Russia started building military bases in Mexico

---

NATO has been on their doorstep for many years. Who, between NATO countries and Russia, has engaged in more aggressive military action in Russia's neck of the woods since the 90s? And let's be clear, NATO countries are only a threat to Russia if Russia either previously harbored or has future plans for engaging militarily with countries who have joined or would wish to join NATO.

All NATO does is prevent Russia from screwing with its neighbors. That's the thing that pisses off Russia. It's not that they feel threatened by NATO, it's that NATO prevents them from trying to do the things they've historically done to their neighbors (ie try to own and control them).

Why are Germany and France against Ukraine joining NATO?

The answer to that question tells you all you need to know about escalation risks.

A defensive pact that started a war.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

A defensive pact that started a war.

---

This war started because Putin invaded a country for the purpose of a pure land grab.

BlueTaze said:

---

Why are Germany and France against Ukraine joining NATO?

The answer to that question tells you all you need to know about escalation risks.

---

Because Ukraine is currently at war with Russia. NATO bylaws prevent membership to a country engaged in hostilities. Germany has said they are open to NATO membership once that changes.

Still a ton of corruption issues to address before even entertaining the idea.

Teslag said:

---

When was the last time we unilaterally invaded a sovereign nation in an effort to make them a part of the United States with it also being completely unprovoked?

---

How many nations have we destabilized in the idea of "more democracy" while being completely unprovoked?

Jock 07 said:

---

Still a ton of corruption issues to address before even entertaining the idea.

---

🇺🇸🇺🇦 Matt Gaetz “I think that the reason we are as involved in Ukraine as we are is because Afghanistan wound down. If we still had Afghanistan to launder money through, there probably wouldn't be the need for this type of excessive involvement in Ukraine”pic.twitter.com/GTlv87Bmhz

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) November 18, 2024

Their corruption is a feature, not a glitch, in many quarters.

The whole Biden escalation is more or less a joke, as with the Nork troops in Russia, and the idiotic invasion of Kursk.

😂 https://t.co/DUvTOkREo2

— SIMPLICIUS Ѱ (@simpatico771) November 18, 2024

Meanwhile, Odessa and other major cities are entirely without power now after decapitating strikes on their energy grid:

⚡️🇷🇺🇺🇦‼️🚨NEW REPORT: https://t.co/OxGT6SjmIx#war #russia #ukraine #nato #geopolitics #politics pic.twitter.com/LmrCe53VNX

— SIMPLICIUS Ѱ (@simpatico771) November 18, 2024

Burisma energy consultant Hunter Biden could not be reached for comment.

.@Nigel_Farage in 2014, on the dangers of:

• EU rushing ascension of Ukrainian membership
• EU encouraging the toppling of then-Ukrainian President
• NATO troops engaging in war games in Ukraine

“Have we taken leave of our senses”

He is SPOT ON. The EU did provoke Russia,… pic.twitter.com/FvMmcK8VCO

— Alex Armstrong (@alexharmstrong) June 22, 2024

Prominent economist and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs explains how the United States and NATO provoked Russia into war with Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/pbxzJJwWUR

— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) November 12, 2024

He's trying to create a situation where there's too much momentum and Trump won't be able to get out of the war or make it much more difficult to do so.

He's trying, sure, but it's not going to work. ATACMS haven't been effective, at all, for well over a year, and nothing can help the pocket of Ukrainians around Kursk at this point. This won't have any impact on the conflict at all (just as the Nork troops haven't), despite all the cheerleading hopes in the war press.

When the vehicles that launch these things move around/out from cover, they are promptly wiped out, and GPS guidance systems don't work at all over Russia at this point. Now, there is some risk that Putin will be annoyed enough to really cause infrastructure harm on Kiev over it, but hopefully not (so far limited to essentially power stations/substations).

Putin's comment on NATO long-range weapons. Main points:

- It is incorrect to say that NATO can allow or ban Kiev regime from striking Russian territory. Kiev is already doing this using drones and other means.

- The main issue is that the long-range precision weapon systems… pic.twitter.com/lmrHXgsmKH

— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) November 17, 2024

But harm to Ukrainians is something that the war hawks clearly have zero concerns about. This is more or less the intelligence community swamp (which run the White House/State Department) throwing a middle finger at Trump, which is pretty predictable.

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

When was the last time we unilaterally invaded a sovereign nation in an effort to make them a part of the United States with it also being completely unprovoked?

---

How many nations have we destabilized in the idea of "more democracy" while being completely unprovoked?

---

It's telling that you can't answer the question directly.

nortex97 said:

---

He's trying, sure, but it's not going to work. ATACMS haven't been effective, at all, for well over a year, and nothing can help the pocket of Ukrainians around Kursk at this point. This won't have any impact on the conflict at all (just as the Nork troops haven't), despite all the cheerleading hopes in the war press.

When the vehicles that launch these things move around/out from cover, they are promptly wiped out, and GPS guidance systems don't work at all over Russia at this point. Now, there is some risk that Putin will be annoyed enough to really cause infrastructure harm on Kiev over it, but hopefully not (so far limited to essentially power stations/substations).

Putin's comment on NATO long-range weapons. Main points:

- It is incorrect to say that NATO can allow or ban Kiev regime from striking Russian territory. Kiev is already doing this using drones and other means.

- The main issue is that the long-range precision weapon systems… pic.twitter.com/lmrHXgsmKH

— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) November 17, 2024

But harm to Ukrainians is something that the war hawks clearly have zero concerns about. This is more or less the intelligence community swamp (which run the White House/State Department) throwing a middle finger at Trump, which is pretty predictable.

---

You guys need to choose. Is this a weapon that will cause WW3 and is russias red line or is it completely ineffective and Russia doesn't care.

Quote:

---

You guys need to choose. Is this a weapon that will cause WW3 and is russias red line or is it completely ineffective and Russia doesn't care.

---

Said the guy who claims Russia can't mount an offensive but is an existential threat to invade Europe. I'll take my requirements from a more serious source.

Russian state media and their twitter puppets?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Well, to be fair, Russia has now repeatedly used Iranian and North Korean missiles to strike Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure so Russia is apparently just fine with that being part of the rules of this war. It seems fair that Ukraine be allowed to retaliate in kind with its own foreign obtained long range weapons. I'm not sure why we have restrained them for months after Russia escalated to doing this.

---

because it just continues to escalate the USA role in smashing Russia

what happens when Russia decides to ratchet up their measures against the USA in retaliation while Biden is still "potus" the next 7 weeks?!

F Ukraine.

Quote:

---

what happens when Russia decides to ratchet up their measures against the USA in retaliation

---

With what?

How would they do this? Odds are extremely low they try to provoke us directly. They did Jack squat when we directly mowed down 200 of their mercenaries in Syria. And that was our forces directly doing the fighting.

Why is the Biden admin hamstringing Ukraine with restrictions on where they can missle strike in Russia?

You keep claiming Putin's threats are empty, that there are no major retaliation concerns, and that WW3 is just alarmism from Putin sympathizers. If that's the case, let Ukraine maximize pain to take back their land and sovereignty, right?

There are obvious risks that far outweigh any benefits to the US in keeping funding/weaponry flowing to Ukraine. This will soon become apparent once the war hawks are removed from the WH.

Biden saying that Ukraine can make out with Russia but someone got to keep their underwear on at all times.

He don't want them going all the way.

Nuclear War would stop the transition of power. Something to think about.....

...if the left is willing to unleash disease X on the population and sacrifice many to win elections and impose their socialist will...... why would unleashing nuclear war to preserve their power, at the cost of millions, not be on the table?

Putin is an oligarch and corrupt. But he has shown incredible restraint given the US unofficial involvement in this conflict.

Imagine if the Russians were aiding the Taliban directly in their fight with the US immediately post 9/11. We would not have put up with it.

Quote:

---

Nuclear War would stop the transition of power. Something to think about.....

---

Scenario certainly been predicted on here.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Nuclear War would stop the transition of power. Something to think about.....

---

Scenario certainly been predicted on here.

---

...it would be another epic fail by the deep state if they went with this "nuclear" option....... it would be metropolitan areas bearing the brunt of fatalities..... would erode the core of their voter base even more. What remained of America would NOT accept the continuation of the current regime.

However.... I suspect cooler heads will prevail.

I'm sure his handlers are simply trying to escalate things so trump will have a harder time ending the war. If I were trump, I'd simply blame Biden and the dems the day I take office. Leave it at that.