https://bsky.app/profile/polenz.bsky.social/post/3ljk7unkygk2s

🇬🇧 UK CANT HELP UKRAINE!

The British Army had “shrunk to its smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars.”

After years of “relentless budget cutbacks,” the British Army has been “left with just 73,000 active-duty soldiers.” Compare that to 1.3 million in the Russian Army.

In… pic.twitter.com/rbGTsYEZuL

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) March 4, 2025

"Breaking it down: Trump has made at least five Moscow-friendly moves in the past two weeks.

1. The White House asked the Treasury and State Departments to identify sanctions on Russia that could be loosened as part of the process of improving relations, Reuters reports. Trump didn't deny that yesterday, telling reporters: "We want to make deals with everybody."

2. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly ordered U.S. Cyber Command to suspend offensive cyber and information operations against Russia.*

3. Trump has called for elections in Ukraine, and he and his allies suggested after the Oval Office spat that Zelensky might need to go. Regime change in Kyiv was one of Putin's original objectives for invading.

4. The U.S. voted with Russia and 16 other mostly authoritarian countries to oppose a UN resolution last week that condemned Russia's "aggression" in Ukraine.

5. Suspending weapons shipments, which the Trump administration had already dramatically slowed, is the latest dramatic step.
-Axios

* "A pause in offensive operations even briefly could take months to recover from, Jake Williams, a former NSA hacker and faculty member at IANS Research, told Axios.

Planning a cyber offense requires months of lurking and learning about a target's networks to understand their weak points."
-Axios

The idea that Putin wants to march into Western Europe is either deliberate fear-mongering or sheer stupidity. There’s nothing there for him—no vital resources, no strategic necessity, nothing but economic decline and political dysfunction.

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) March 4, 2025

movielover said:

---

The idea that Putin wants to march into Western Europe is either deliberate fear-mongering or sheer stupidity. There’s nothing there for him—no vital resources, no strategic necessity, nothing but economic decline and political dysfunction.

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) March 4, 2025

---

Seriously, who the hell is this guy and why do I need to know his every thought?

There's this unquestioned dogma that all Ukrainian want what Zelensky wants. No debate, no dissent—it’s simply assumed. But the moment you challenge it, the entire facade crumbles. Do Ukrainians really want endless war? Do they actually care that much about Russian-speaking…

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) March 4, 2025

What do other people in Ukraine think? Do we know?

Within minutes of President Trump cutting off the money, Zelensky flip flops.

I don't trust him.

I would like to reiterate Ukraine’s commitment to peace.

None of us wants an endless war. Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than Ukrainians. My team and I stand ready to work under…

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) March 4, 2025

Swiftboat guy who is an opportunistic agit prop guy in the right

So I would love to have movie guy and Hawaii bear chime in...

So let's give the vp the benefit of the doubt. Mineral deal gets signed. Us companies there maybe with several hundred civilian engineers. Us getting both acesss to the minerals and a deal on doscounted/related mineral rights royalties


Putin invades. Do you support us troops on the ground? Your likely "no!!" Is Really that is why zelensky is skeptical

Quote:

---

Seriously, who the hell is this guy and why do I need to know his every thought?

---

He wants to pump (clap) you up.

There will be a more comprehensive agreement with triggers, checkpoints, benchmarks, etc.

You seem to argue on the one hand Putin can't beat little Ukraine, but on the next fear he'll march across Europe.

You also don't acknowledge that we purposefully broke Minsk I and II peace agreements, and then stopped the Istanbul peace accords. Further, Putin repeatedly asked for serious talks re Ukraine, and we blew him off. He gave us a list of written requests, and we never replied - oh, that's up to NATO, we can't respond.

NATO countries purposefully pped us fir years, and now the UK may only have 70,000 trained military and maybe 20 functioning tanks? Norway spends money teaching their military to dance!

Russia never held to the Minsk agreement.

The PMs of Germany and France PUBLICLY admitted it was all a ruse.

movielover said:

---

Within minutes of President Trump cutting off the money, Zelensky flip flops.

I don't trust him.

---

“Don’t ever tell us what we’re gonna feel” https://t.co/fpMV0kC94v pic.twitter.com/GJuafNlnBv

— Mostly Peaceful Memes (@MostlyPeacefull) March 4, 2025

https://bsky.app/profile/pattonoswalt.bsky.social/post/3ljlasgpauc2e

movielover said:

---

The PMs of Germany and France PUBLICLY admitted it was all a ruse.

---

As did Ukrainian president Poroshenko.

Cal88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

The PMs of Germany and France PUBLICLY admitted it was all a ruse.

---

As did Ukrainian president Poroshenko.

---

Ukraine is really, culturally, a sick, evil country. Probably mainly the men.

Klitschko is world famous, a millionaire, and goes back and is allegedly involved in the underworld and sex trafficking? Is his IQ that low, no morals?

Yet nearby Poland seems pious and strong, the people I met there were great and genuine. Devoutly religious, in St. Marys Church at Krakow Square, a young man was praying, sobbing. It was moving. Did hard years make great people?

movielover said:

---

There will be a more comprehensive agreement with triggers, checkpoints, benchmarks, etc.

You seem to argue on the one hand Putin can't beat little Ukraine, but on the next fear he'll march across Europe.

You also don't acknowledge that we purposefully broke Minsk I and II peace agreements, and then stopped the Istanbul peace accords. Further, Putin repeatedly asked for serious talks re Ukraine, and we blew him off. He gave us a list of written requests, and we never replied - oh, that's up to NATO, we can't respond.

NATO countries purposefully pped us fir years, and now the UK may only have 70,000 trained military and maybe 20 functioning tanks? Norway spends money teaching their military to dance!

---

First, just so you are not putting words in my mouth...... to your second paragraph

A) I believe the likely result of continued conflict is a war of attrition. While Russia has manpower advantages unlike I think you I understand and appreciate the challenging situation that economy faces - not the least of which as a petro state the difficulties of oil at $70 and a serious demographic challenge. Inflation is clearly a problem and growing worse because of the war footing Putin had to put the economy on. Soon will be rationing and we will see how that flies at home. Unlike the American Russian supporters, I do not see a Ukrainian collapse likely anytime soon and they have the opportunity to defend in depth. Their army is NOT the Afghans.

In part this is because the most surprising outcome of this war is the extent to which the current battle space favors the defender. Cheap drones and C4I2 assets have really made it hard to concentrate forces in a way that creates breakthrough opportunities and the ability to exploit tactical victories. Russia is gaining ground measured in feet and yards, not in leagues and Ukraine is a large country (with several rivers on the north south axis that limit movement and break through opportunities for reasons above.

We would (I think) agree that it is unlikely they succeed in rolling Russia back - much more likely is a Korean style cease fire on the current line of engagement.

B) My concern has on this board has consistently been that _US_ interests are served by having a credible deterrent protective umbrella over Europe and that requires that we stand with UKraine (or, if abandoning it, redouble our support to Article 5 countries).

Why

Because Germany, Baltics, Turkey, & Poland _ALL_ could become nuclear states but the pathway for them to do so is fraught with high danger. All of them have varying degrees of inability to create first strike survivable assets. Each would likely have to operate on a hair trigger stance and not accept a first strike. That world is EXCEEDINGLY dangerous. The dangers (and consequences) of an accidental launch are apocalyptic.

And so too the pathway to achieving first strike capabilities. Consider the Baltics. Article 5 signatories,. On the Russian Border (indeed, surrounded on three sides by it. Would Putin accept a nuclear force that close to St. Pete and Moscow? Likely not. But they are going to want to preserve their sovereignty. Poland the same (now on the border with a client Ukraine). Ditto Turkey (which brings the added strains of being now an Islamist state near Isreal.

The only thing I can assume from your posting is that you are young. You didn't grow up either in the era of hair trigger nuclear stances when we lacked a second strike traid AND/OR the challenges of the 1980s over mid range nuclear forces in Europe and how much it was a problem for Russia (but vital for showing commitment to Germany).

That is a way of better understanding American commitment to sovereignty as a norm among industrialized states. It is in AMERICA FIRST INTERESTS not to have a huge amount of proliferation if you believe (as I think history and archives show) that until you have second strike capability proliferation is dangerous. As you may know, there are at least THREE incidents in the archives of forces being less than 5 minutes from a first strike due to bird flights, computer glitchs and in the most scary case a break down of a soviet missile commander. ONce both sides were able to move toward a situation where they had MAD second strike capability the world, as game theorists predicted, became paradoxically safer.

That, in the end, is my most major problem with the Right on this issue. Europe is not the middle east and while we probably share concern over neo-con bumbling in forever wars Nuclear conflict and diplomacy is not hopscotch or card games.

Finally, I don't really give a **** who broke whose agreement at Minsk or anything else. It really is beside the point. WHat matters is TODAY....and what foreign policies are in the US's best interests. That is why I think the new isolationists are deeply wrong.

smh said:

---

https://bsky.app/profile/pattonoswalt.bsky.social/post/3ljlasgpauc2e

---

This hat....I think it would be more triggering to the left than your typical MAGA hat. Don't you think?

The US opening direct economic ties w Russia is the opposite of isolationist.

Recall Russia's key role in WWII.

Lol. You clearly do not understand the term . When you say stupid **** your monthly review at the Moscow server farm takes a hit. Google better.

movielover said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

The PMs of Germany and France PUBLICLY admitted it was all a ruse.

---

As did Ukrainian president Poroshenko.

---

Ukraine is really, culturally, a sick, evil country. Probably mainly the men.

Klitschko is world famous, a millionaire, and goes back and is allegedly involved in the underworld and sex trafficking? Is his IQ that low, no morals?

Yet nearby Poland seems pious and strong, the people I met there were great and genuine. Devoutly religious, in St. Marys Church at Krakow Square, a young man was praying, sobbing. It was moving. Did hard years make great people?

---

Ukraine never really got over the post-Soviet dystopian oligarchy phase, unlike its neighbors. Good people trapped in a bad system.

As well it is a huge country by European standards, one that is fragmented along ethno-linguistic lines, and this has been one of the main issues in this war. The western/Galician side has had a strain of anti-Russian nationalism rooted in part in the trauma of the Holodomor, while the eastern side carries the trauma from a very brutal WW2 legacy having borne the brunt of the Nazi invasion.

These two legacies are incompatible, and this ideological fracture was reinforced by the post-Maidan regime which marginalized ethnic Russians in the east and south. The Donbas is a mining and heavy industrial region with a hardnosed blue collar population, that's how the Donbas rebellion was able to push back the Kiev army for 7 years.

Poland is one of the most pious countries in Europe, without their Catholic faith, the country, wedged between Orthodox Russia and Protestant Prussia would have long been absorbed.

Finally, I don't really give a **** who broke whose agreement at Minsk or anything else. It really is beside the point. WHat matters is TODAY....and what foreign policies are in the US's best interests. That is why I think the new isolationists are deeply wrong.

So it doesn't matter how we got here? I'll bet it does to the Russians. And since the neocons have made it their primary objective to isolate and weaken Russia regardless of the costs, is it surprising that Russia has sought alliances with precisely the countries that represent the greatest threat to US interests, namely Iran and China?

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/278074046/us-and-russia-agreed-to-iran-talks-top-putin-aide

bearister said:

---

Putin Laments Soviet Breakup As Demise Of 'Historical Russia,' Amid Ukraine Fears


https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-historical-russia-soviet-breakup-ukraine/31606186.html

"Russian President Vladimir Putin has described the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 as the demise of "historical Russia," a comment that could fuel speculation about his foreign policy intentions amid a buildup of tens of thousands of Russian troops in regions bordering Ukraine.

"It was the disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union," Putin said of the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union while speaking in a documentary film called Russia. Recent History….

Putin, a former agent of the Soviet KGB security service, has previously lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union, calling it the "the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century."

Article by Vladimir Putin "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" President of Russia


http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

Putin's history lecture reveals his dreams of a new Russian Empire - Atlantic Council


https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-history-lecture-reveals-his-dreams-of-a-new-russian-empire/

"How far could Putin go? Throughout his reign, he has consistently lamented the fall of the USSR, which he has referred to as the demise of "historical Russia." After the events of the past two years, it should be painfully apparent that anywhere Putin regards as "historical Russia" is potentially at risk.

In theory, at least, the same bogus historical arguments that have been used to justify the invasion of Ukraine could easily be applied to other parts of the former Soviet Union, or to the Russian Empire of the Czarist era. This would create an array of possible targets for Russian aggression including Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Alaska, and the whole of Central Asia. A maximalist interpretation could even see all of Central Europe's former Soviet satellite states besides Poland added to the list."

---

This part, the notion that the Russians want to roll their tanks into eastern Europe and recreate the Russian Empire is plain fearmongering. The Ukraine war resulted from a series of special circumstances and crossed red lines.

One good point to illustrate how unlikely the Russians are to move on eastern Europe is Finland, which really was there for the taking through much of the post-war era. Neutral country, not in NATO, long border- the Soviets could have been in Helsinki in a few days, their war machine being quite formidable through much of the Cold War, 50,000 tanks with a large modern air force and army, unlike in the early 1940s where Stalin's army got a bloody nose from the Finns. Well, the Soviets never did move on on Finland.

I just had a lengthy and productive one-on-one conversation with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Chief-of-Staff, Andrii Yermak. We are 100% getting this train back on the tracks. This mineral deal will be signed in short order, which will lead to a strong long-term economic…

— Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick 🇺🇸 (@RepBrianFitz) March 3, 2025

"Zelensky says he regrets the confrontation in the Oval ... sign the minerals agreement with the US at 'any time and in any convenient format'."

I've never seen that kind of notation, which I take to mean POTUS may have a signed agreement tonight.

Return of the King said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

So the Russians are supposed to pretend that the US is not at war with Russia? I don't think the Russians are as stupid as the people who think we can do all these things and not see a dangerous escalation.

---

There is a pretty easy way for Russia to not be at war with anyone right now.

---

And yet here we are. Diplomacy is about dealing what is rather than what should be.

But since we're talking about what should be, should the NATO (US) have declared its intention to add Ukraine to NATO given its historical significance and proximity to Russia? Should the US have orchestrated the overthrow of the Ukraine government? Should the US have looked the other way and aggressively armed the Ukraine government while it was killing Russian civilians in the eastern oblasts? Should the US have built bioweapons labs in Ukraine? Should the US have destroyed a Russian gas pipeline into Germany? Should the US provide and guide missiles that hit targets inside Russia? Many such questions could be asked.

---

I have highlighted at least three things that aren't true.

---

You have nothing to back up that position other than being a complete sycophant, whereas I have another excuse to dunk on you yet again and which I will continue to do for all time until you finally bow out of these denials backed by nothing but your own stupidity.

---

Yogi, I know about all of this junk you posted here and as always the "proof" is taking something someone actually said and pretending they said something else. For example: "bio research labs" are not "bioweapons labs." I'm tired of going round and round debunking the same shaky "evidence."

I wish you luck until your posts are deleted again.

Very entertaining debate with Piers Morgan featuring nearly all sides of the debate, it's almost like a capsule of this thread:



The cast is similar to what you find on this thread, you could almost substitute our dearly departed U2Sucks for bleeding heart neoliberal Jake Broe, Minot or 003 for podcaster Dave Smith, ML or Zipper for Andrew Wilson, Sy for Fu.kuyama, Socaltownie for Ben Hodges and maybe Bearister and his British tabloid afflictions for Piers Morgan

Because if we go back in history the Ukrainians are owed from stalin's famines. Just pointless god you are am apologist for a really evil regime

Putin has flat out said that the break of of the soviet union and Warsaw pact was illegitimate!!!

Because Finland has/had a strategy akin to Switzerland which would have made its occupation make Afghanistan look like a preschool class

Or maybe, just maybe, George Kennan was right...

George Kennan in 1998 previewed the Ukraine War narrative

“What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe” pic.twitter.com/2Rgy4rMvxI

— David Procino (@APBIOonly) March 4, 2025

socaltownie said:

---

Because Finland has/had a strategy akin to Switzerland which would have made its occupation make Afghanistan look like a preschool class

---

Switzerland has 500 years of neutrality and geography on its side, mountain pass after mountain pass. Switzerland also fulfilled its role as a piggybank and an arms supplier. Finland on the other hand is flat as a pancake.

The Soviets liked having neutral Finland as a border state, they also sold them oil and gas and cheap vodka.

"Well, the Soviets never did move on on Finland."

Is that because they feared American reaction to that as opposed to now having a POTUS that advocates policies that "coincides with their vision," as Kremlin spokesperson Dimitri Peskov said on Monday?

bearister said:

---

"Well, the Soviets never did move on on Finland."

Is that because they feared American reaction to that as opposed to now having a POTUS that advocates policies that "coincides with their vision," as Kremlin spokesperson Dimitri Peskov said on Monday?

---

What does that say about Obama II and Obama III, the regimes that failed to prevent the Russians from taking territory?

How about the Winter War? The Soviets had superior numbers but originally took heavy loses in temperatures at -30 and below. They finally regrouped, and Finland lost 9% of its territory in the cease fire.