It is pretty darn funny to see it side by side:

How it started⬇️ How it's going⬇️ pic.twitter.com/S5b2mwoEPJ

— Olga Bazova (@OlgaBazova) November 21, 2024

Putin says that a successful test of Oreshnik hypersonic MRBM was conducted on a target in Ukraine’s Dnipro region.

— ayden (@squatsons) November 21, 2024

Now I have read that Kiev is begging for THAAD. I don't think there's enough time for Biden to hand those over, even with contractors 'supporting' it.

The video shows the THAAD. A complex designed for high-altitude interception intercontinental ballistic rockets 🥺
This complex could shoot down a missile RS-26 "Rubizh", what is Russian today attacked the Dnipro. The cost of one complex is $3 billion 😞#UkrainianRussianWar… pic.twitter.com/EwfUbpoMKt

— Anastasia (@Nastushichek) November 21, 2024

But this isn't as simple as 'your 'loan' is forgiven.' Poopy pants needed to send this before triggering the ICBM nuke threat, or just avoided it entirely. So much for strategy.

Teslag said:

---

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.

---

Not entirely. Western meddling pre 2014 played a role. That keeps getting forgotten. If someone messes around with Mexico, we might invade too. Its more complicated than that.

One thing fairly sure of -- the Biden admin never wanted peace.

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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.

---

Not entirely. Western meddling pre 2014 played a role. That keeps getting forgotten. If someone messes around with Mexico, we might invade too. Its more complicated than that.

One thing fairly sure of -- the Biden admin never wanted peace.

---

The reality of what lead up to the invasion will fall on deaf ears. You are wasting your time trying to reason with the warmongers.

China could build a navy base in Acapulco and we still wouldn't invade Mexico, annex it as the 51st state, purposely and deliberately rain cruise missiles into Mexico City's residential areas and infrastructure to cause maximum pain to civilians, while using artillery to completely level Monterey and other cities before "liberating" them.

Of that I am 100% certain.

Teslag said:

---

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.

---

Would it be more palatable if Russia had invaded on the basis of searching for weapons of mass destruction or to eradicate a group of people declared to be a presumptive threat to Russia's national security?

Teslag said:

---

China could build a navy base in Acapulco and we still wouldn't invade Mexico, annex it as the 51st state, purposely and deliberately rain cruise missiles into Mexico City's residential areas and infrastructure to cause maximum pain to civilians, while using artillery to completely level Monterey and other cities before "liberating" them.

Of that I am 100% certain.

---

Oh the style of war would be different, but that is just how Russia and Ukriane fight. They have always been rough and more brutal. But fairly sure we just might invade if they were becoming a proxy for China and military outreach.

We were pretty touchy about Cuba with even some intervening water. The comparison with Russia is Mexico and Cuba. That's what our pundits keep forgetting. This has nothing to do with "shoulds" or "rights" but how things stand and where they lead. That is what you deal with.

This has no easy solutions because that it got where it was, is the 46's fault, with a good bit going to 44 admin too. But you have to deal with what at hand now.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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.

---

Would it be more palatable if Russia had invaded on the basis of searching for weapons of mass destruction or to eradicate a group of people declared to be a presumptive threat to Russia's national security?

---

Hmm.
By the italics, is that the biolabs of Fauci's team claim? (Its always ridiculed but no less than Cruz seems to have vouched for it and that's enough) Or do you mean something else? If so, yes. But is there?

On the bold, you mean like Hamas or Hezbollah's threat to Israel? That would certainly rate destruction, but even in the becoming proxies of D.C. scenario not seeing that either.

You can hand wave away the annexation part all you want, but it's THE central driver in Russia's invasion and Putin said as much in his manifesto essay. That would not be a goal of ours in some Mexico scenario.

That talking point was tried

Remember the nazis?

Remember the bio labs?

There is not a single valid reason for Russia to have invaded Ukraine. Nothing you've posted is legitimate. Ukraine choosing the west over Russia is not an acceotable reason. Nato, the defensive pact, doesn't threaten Russia or her sovereignty in any way, unless of course, Russia were to fire the first shot at a nato country.

Teslag said:

---

You can hand wave away the annexation part all you want, but it's THE central driver in Russia's invasion and Putin said as much in his manifesto essay. That would not be a goal of ours in some Mexico scenario.

---

You keep missing the point by pressing the analogy too literally. The THREAT sense from a hostile Mexico is what we would not tolerate, the whole tension with Cuba is an example and would be very different if on the border. We have different tools than the Russians have for solving problems. What wouldn't continue is the proxy being permitted.

When you deal with something, you have to deal with it as they are. Elaborate TED style talks fall on deaf ears in the Mideast. You have to speak more in terms of their land. Same with Russian paranoia and theivery shenanigans. Russia is behaving like the paranoid (with some reason at times) bully they are and Tsarist Russia was much the same in the Balkans.

The annexation happened because it was not deterred enough. Those who say it wouldn't have happened under Trump have almost no doubts they are correct.

Nothing good was going to come from become a border threat to Russia. This is elementary.

There is no escaping we blew it by not deterring it enough --by double-speak. But now, our task is to try to right a situation as best as possible without getting into a grand conflict over a long-standing conflict.

Biolabs and being a money laundering playground for the west, and who knows what else we don't even know about.

This 'invaded a sovereign nation' argument is rich though considering the US invaded and occupied two sovereign nations for 20-years on far less basis.

Saddam's oil and Taliban poppy fields used to "fund terror" ... what about billions of dollars and Euros being sent to Ukraine by private banks and coming back clean and untraceable. Ukraine was the US and EU's Hamsterdam for decades.

Folks hammer this 'invaded a sovereign nation' point but turn a blind eye to the totality of the circumstances.

We had every justification for invading Afghanistan. If ukraine trained terrorists to fly planes into Moscow and killed thousands of people in one day I'd be fine with them invading Ukraine.

Iraq was a multi country coalition and we did not invade as a pure land grab for the sole purpose of making them a part of the United States.

For those that keep saying NATO is a defensive pact. Anyone aware of military thought knows that no sensible government and its military command takes the word or even expectation of what a declared adversary will do, but rather their capability.

[This works both ways --- some are discounted because the capability is so slender; for the same reason, even an ally like Britain was war-gamed and planned as enemy by us right through between the World Wars. ]

To Russia, NATO is simply an expanding military alliance capable of destroying them, and one apparently having that on mind from later W's admin onwards. The Cheney tone was not outreach.

The waving away that is happening is the expansion eastwards was expressly forecast to cause trouble after the cool down so hard won by Reagan and Gorbachev. That expansion makes the deterrence harder, because it only fuels the hardliner take.

Maybe Russia should ask themselves why all these counties beg nato for membership.

Then again, even rapists don't wonder why women run the to police. Russia doesn't even have that much sense.

That certainly applies to the most recent applicants, no question. That is why it is also true that Russia has created a self-fulfilling nightmare. But the expansion earlier was not wise.

Imagine in an alt-history scenario that the roles were reversed.

The US lost the Cold War and was economically crushed. Russia is the dominant world power for 30-years.

Now replace all events that happened in the past 20-years in Ukraine but instead of Ukraine it's Mexico.

Now try and take the position that the US would not preemptively invade Mexico.

Teslag said:

---

We had every justification for invading Afghanistan. If ukraine trained terrorists to fly planes into Moscow and killed thousands of people in one day I'd be fine with them invading Ukraine.

Iraq was a multi country coalition and we did not invade as a pure land grab for the sole purpose of making them a part of the United States.

---

Believe it or not you sound like me, but 20-years ago.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Imagine in an alt-history scenario that the roles were reversed.

The US lost the Cold War and was economically crushed. Russia is the dominant world power for 30-years.

Now replace all events that happened in the past 20-years in Ukraine but instead of Ukraine it's Mexico.

Now try and take the position that the US would not preemptively invade Mexico.

---

We would not invade Mexico in that universe out of a pure land grab.

We also wouldn't have invaded Canada. Or any other peaceful neighbor as Russia did Georgia and Chechnya.

Russia is a belligerent and unruly neighbor. We are not. And we are literally being invaded and harmed at this moment by Mexico and their cartels. And we won't even do anything militarily about that.

Quote:

---

Iraq was a multi country coalition and we did not invade as a pure land grab for the sole purpose of making them a part of the United States.

---

Whoah. Wait a second here. Invasion by us doesn't become "okay" just because we have stopped grabbing land in the Manifest Destiny style since the early 20th C. It doesn't become okay just because took that off the table -- the people of an invaded land only see the destruction of their society upheaval. Whether the motive is fiscal policy or a land grab doesn't make the invasion okay.

Hegemons launching invasions for other reasons than self defense if you are going to set such standards are not any better than doing it to stay there, colonial style.

Its important to get your ethical stance straight if going to try to enforce something like non-proliferation (something both Obama and Bush admins this century botched)

That's Russia's point of view for sure. But, what impetus does one have to believe nato would exercise it's power in an offensive capacity?

We all knew, the euros, the Russians, the Americans, that nato, prior to this invasion especially, was a paper tiger heavily dependent on an engaged and power usa. The other countries didn't, and many still don't, have the military capacity to contribute much.

Nato exists because of those very things you (I think it was you anyway) said: russias paranoia leading to preemptive attacks on less powerful nations and their history and desire of "putting the band back together."

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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.

---

Not entirely. Western meddling pre 2014 played a role. That keeps getting forgotten. If someone messes around with Mexico, we might invade too. Its more complicated than that.

One thing fairly sure of -- the Biden admin never wanted peace.

---

This is true. No one grew up hating the Soviet Union more than me and I'm extremely aware of all of Russia's historical characteristics and negative attributes. History is a passion of mine and I've even toured Russia. And in spite of that, by any objective measure, the west absolutely did everything to provoke and inflame this whole thing and has continued to do so. You know those last scenes in Patton where he is just raving about how bad Russia is and said we beat the wrong people? That might as well be me over my life and even I can see the degree to which we've gone out of our way to instigate this. It's so painfully obvious. And it's bi-partisan for the most part.

And what's really galling is that the left in particular which always mocked and dismissed any mention of communist threat during the Cold War and was usually flat-out an apologist for the USSR when it was a true worldwide threat now acts far to the right of Reagan when dealing with modern Russia. It's bizarre.

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

Iraq was a multi country coalition and we did not invade as a pure land grab for the sole purpose of making them a part of the United States.

---

Whoah. Wait a second here. Invasion by us doesn't become "okay" just because we have stopped grabbing land in the Manifest Destiny style since the early 20th C. It doesn't become okay just because took that off the table -- the people of an invaded land only see the destruction of their society upheaval. Whether the motive is fiscal policy or a land grab doesn't make the invasion okay.

Hegemons launching invasions for other reasons than self defense if you are going to set such standards are not any better than doing it to stay there, colonial style.

Its important to get your ethical stance straight if going to try to enforce something like non-proliferation (something both Obama and Bush admins this century botched)

---

That's true if looked at in a vacuum. The 2nd invasion of Iraq doesn't happen without the first. And the first was more than justified since it was to liberate a sovereign independent nation being invaded.

Quote:

---

Ukraine choosing the west over Russia is not an acceptable reason.

---

Ukraine 'choosing the west over Russia' does not outweigh the interests of billions of people affected by the outbreak of WW3 and further destruction of the global economy.

This ain't a my country my choice kinda deal. It's more along the like of a don't let your teenager buy a Camaro SS.

This 'Ukraine chose the west' dog don't hunt.

Quote:

---

the west absolutely did everything to provoke and inflame this whole thing

---

The only thing that provoked Russia was Ukraine daring to exist.

We would not try and invade Mexico. There's little to suggest in your scenario that we would.

Heres another one- if putin wasn't the leader of russia, would ukriane have face an invasion?

Joes said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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.

---

Not entirely. Western meddling pre 2014 played a role. That keeps getting forgotten. If someone messes around with Mexico, we might invade too. Its more complicated than that.

One thing fairly sure of -- the Biden admin never wanted peace.

---

This is true. No one grew up hating the Soviet Union more than me and I'm extremely aware of all of Russia's historical characteristics and negative attributes. History is a passion of mine and I've even toured Russia. And in spite of that, by any objective measure, the west absolutely did everything to provoke and inflame this whole thing and has continued to do so. You know those last scenes in Patton where he is just raving about how bad Russia is and said we beat the wrong people? That might as well be me over my life and even I can see the degree to which we've gone out of our way to instigate this. It's so painfully obvious. And it's bi-partisan for the most part.

And what's really galling is that the left in particular which always mocked and dismissed any mention of communist threat during the Cold War and was usually flat-out an apologist for the USSR when it was a true worldwide threat now acts far to the right of Reagan when dealing with modern Russia. It's bizarre.

---

Joes,

This is so true. Grew up the same way, and have watched and at times part of the very real change and opportunities that presented. The italics I agree with and it seems mostly done initially for dominance establishing with a mix of war profiteering. When Obama came in, it seems to have also become about money laundering and other such graft. (Less sure W was doing that kind of thing)

But where this most manifests goes back to the first, to make it clear--- no real desire to use power to promote peace or deterrence. Notice how casually the DC-MSM Party discarded Trump's Mideast achievemnt and reinflamed things. Similarly, we haven't used our leverage to prevent things over there in Europe --- just to gain from it.

I don't know why people can't separate two distinct arguments.

1. Should the US aid Ukraine?
2. Was Russia justified in invading?

You can easily be opposed to 1. while saying "no" to 2. But for some reason a significant number of people against 1. have to automatically take Russia's side. That isn't neccessary.

So, ukrianians must sacrifice their country on the behest of everyone else because of a tyrannical neighbor?

I have absolutely far more respect for the person that says "**** Ukraine, I don't want my money going there because I literally don't care at all for them or what happens to them" then the person that laps up Russian propaganda and talking points to demonize their own country while completely laying no blame at all at Russia's feet.

Teslag said:

---

I don't know why people can't separate two distinct arguments.

1. Should the US aid Ukraine?
2. Was Russia justified in invading?

You can easily be opposed to 1. while saying "no" to 2. But for some reason a significant number of people against 1. have to automatically take Russia's side. That isn't neccessary.

---

I'm with you.

I can totally understand and see the points of not aiding ukraine, limiting aid to ukraine, or fully aiding ukriane and why people might be pro or con any of those.

It is a mind bend to suggest Russia has no fault or little fault for the act of invading ukraine and the usa/west is the foundational cause and justifies such action.

Quote:

---

Russia has threatened to attack a new US defense base in Poland with "advanced weapons" just hours after reportedly launching an intercontinental ballistic missile at Ukraine on Thursday.

Moscow leveled the warning after saying the opening of the ballistic missile defense base, located in the town of Redzikowo near the Baltic coast, would lead to an increase in overall nuclear danger.

"Given the nature and level of threats posed by such Western military facilities, the missile defense base in Poland has long been added to the list of priority targets for potential destruction, which, if necessary, can be executed with a wide range of advanced weapons," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said.

---

LINK

Not good.

Teslag said:

---

I don't know why people can't separate two distinct arguments.

1. Should the US aid Ukraine?
2. Was Russia justified in invading?

You can easily be opposed to 1. while saying "no" to 2. But for some reason a significant number of people against 1. have to automatically take Russia's side. That isn't neccessary.

---

There is another option. Not assuming they have to be linked or fall a certain way.

Quote:

---

1. Should the US aid Ukraine? = Yes. In fact, the best moment was already wasted.


2. Was Russia justified in invading? =

First a person has to answer: -- Is invasion ever justified? We are going to assume Yes, but if your answer is an absolutist No, then all stops.

If the answer is Yes, WHEN is it justified -- not to a neutral observer who has nothing at stake, but to the one launching it. When do you think it is justified?


You can easily be opposed to 1. while saying "no" to 2. But for some reason a significant number of people against 1. have to automatically take Russia's side. That isn't necessary.

Correct: But what we have to beware of is taking the word of an admin who lied about even far greater fundamentals to the American people for four years. Why are they taken at face value about their actions here?

By international law, Russia is unquestionably in the wrong and the aggressor by invading (or as Biden put it initially incursion into- Ukraine) But is that the same as unprovoked? That's the rub here.

---

Russia threatening former Soviet satellites? Must be a Thursday.

Teslag said:

---

Russia threatening former Soviet satellites? Must be a Thursday.

---

NATO members. Article Five.