Unit2Sucks said:

---

Russia is taking advantage of the GOP's blockade on Ukraine aid to destroy as much Ukrainian civilian infrastructure as possible including power plants and natural gas fields and facilities (eg state-sponsored terror).

Unfortunately, Putin has been able to continue to receive support from Iran, China and NK and leverage his high ROI spend controlling the GOP here to tie our hands. Gotta give him credit - he was right to target the GOP and Trump.

They are doing so in hopes that it will cause Ukraine to surrender so that they can erase its existence permanently. They aren't just looking for Crimea or the Donbas, they want it all as was obviously the goal from the start when they thought they could take Kyiv in 3 days.

Some of you may recall not long ago when the Putin shills used to pretend that Russia was operating a "special military operation" in order to defend itself against make believe Ukrainian aggression, which had never occurred and was not going to occur. Now those same people have to square those lies with the fact that they now support regime change and Russia's proposed annexation of Ukraine into Russia. And of course they will do the same for the next territory that Putin targets.

As I have said and demonstrated, Putin doesn't believe Ukrainian are a people or that Ukraine is entitled to sovereignty. All of the other fairy tales like denazification and protection of russiaphones he used to justify this stupid war were pretext and lies.

Maybe Mike Johnson will be ousted or the GOP will change direction to enable Ukraine aid when they realize the consequences of their inaction on our international standing but no one should hold their breath.

---

That's not terrorism. That's war. There is a difference.

- Russia has avoided Ukrainian infrastructure in many regards
- UKR is allegedly out of Patriot missiles
- Ukraine hit Russian oil fields & Russia pinned the terrorist attack on them, so this is payback

Politico: Ukraine is at great risk of its front lines collapsing

According to high-ranking Ukrainian officers, the military picture is grim and Russian generals could find success wherever they decide to focus their upcoming offensive.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-great-risk-front-line-collapse-war-russia/#:~:text=According%20to%20high%2Dranking%20Ukrainian,to%20focus%20their%20upcoming%20offensive.&text=Jamie%20Dettmer%20is%20opinion%20editor%20at%20POLITICO%20Europe.

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Russia is taking advantage of the GOP's blockade on Ukraine aid to destroy as much Ukrainian civilian infrastructure as possible including power plants and natural gas fields and facilities (eg state-sponsored terror).

Unfortunately, Putin has been able to continue to receive support from Iran, China and NK and leverage his high ROI spend controlling the GOP here to tie our hands. Gotta give him credit - he was right to target the GOP and Trump.

They are doing so in hopes that it will cause Ukraine to surrender so that they can erase its existence permanently. They aren't just looking for Crimea or the Donbas, they want it all as was obviously the goal from the start when they thought they could take Kyiv in 3 days.

Some of you may recall not long ago when the Putin shills used to pretend that Russia was operating a "special military operation" in order to defend itself against make believe Ukrainian aggression, which had never occurred and was not going to occur. Now those same people have to square those lies with the fact that they now support regime change and Russia's proposed annexation of Ukraine into Russia. And of course they will do the same for the next territory that Putin targets.

As I have said and demonstrated, Putin doesn't believe Ukrainian are a people or that Ukraine is entitled to sovereignty. All of the other fairy tales like denazification and protection of russiaphones he used to justify this stupid war were pretext and lies.

Maybe Mike Johnson will be ousted or the GOP will change direction to enable Ukraine aid when they realize the consequences of their inaction on our international standing but no one should hold their breath.

---

That's not terrorism. That's war. There is a difference.

---

Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. I guess 9/11 wasn't terrorism, it was war. There is a difference.

---

Seriously, do you consider the bombing of Hiroshima a terrorist act? How far are you willing to go to win an argument? You have an incredibly expansive definition of what constitutes terrorism.

dajo9 said:

---

Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. I guess 9/11 wasn't terrorism, it was war. There is a difference.

---

I suppose some of this is semantics. I don't really care whether we call Russia's bombing of the train station in Kramatorsk or hospital in Mariupol or massacre in Bucha a war crime or state-sponsored terrorism. Russia is the aggressor in this unprovoked war and every single death caused is on them.

Does it make it okay that they claim civilian casualties are collateral damage vs terrorism because they declared war? Oops, they never declared war either and still pretend this is a special military operation, but let's pretend they declared war, would it be okay that after they declared their criminal invasion to be a war that it somehow absolves Putin and Russia from the destruction of Ukraine?

And as always, I would expect Putin's bootlickers to share tweets by Russian state media actors or other misinformation claiming that every war crime committed by Russia either (a) didn't happen, or (b) if it happened it was a Ukrainian false flag, or (c) if it wasn't a Ukrainian false flag it was from a Ukrainian defensive missile misfiring, or (d) some other fake defense of Russia.

What we know is but for Russia's criminal invasion in 2022, Ukraine would still be a peaceable country struggling to overcome the decades of Russian interference, corruption and legacy of puppet government installations like Yanukovych. Instead, they've faced a devastating brutal war which Putin's cheerleaders claim has killed 1 million or more Ukrainians and resulted in the mass depopulation of Ukraine.

Would that somehow magically be okay if Russia declared war but not if Russia didn't?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Russia is taking advantage of the GOP's blockade on Ukraine aid to destroy as much Ukrainian civilian infrastructure as possible including power plants and natural gas fields and facilities (eg state-sponsored terror).

Unfortunately, Putin has been able to continue to receive support from Iran, China and NK and leverage his high ROI spend controlling the GOP here to tie our hands. Gotta give him credit - he was right to target the GOP and Trump.

They are doing so in hopes that it will cause Ukraine to surrender so that they can erase its existence permanently. They aren't just looking for Crimea or the Donbas, they want it all as was obviously the goal from the start when they thought they could take Kyiv in 3 days.

Some of you may recall not long ago when the Putin shills used to pretend that Russia was operating a "special military operation" in order to defend itself against make believe Ukrainian aggression, which had never occurred and was not going to occur. Now those same people have to square those lies with the fact that they now support regime change and Russia's proposed annexation of Ukraine into Russia. And of course they will do the same for the next territory that Putin targets.

As I have said and demonstrated, Putin doesn't believe Ukrainian are a people or that Ukraine is entitled to sovereignty. All of the other fairy tales like denazification and protection of russiaphones he used to justify this stupid war were pretext and lies.

Maybe Mike Johnson will be ousted or the GOP will change direction to enable Ukraine aid when they realize the consequences of their inaction on our international standing but no one should hold their breath.

---

The basic reality you and all the Slava Ukraini people just can't process is that about 40% of Ukraine is ethnic Russian/russophone. That is the part that Russia is going to annex in the coming year or two, after they grind down the Ukrainian army to the last Ukrainian.





The rest of the country will be regime changed with the Azov types removed and will stay neutral and out of NATO following the Austrian or pre-war Finnish model.

Fact is, the main NATO goal in this whole operation, towards which they have been working since the early 2000s, is to have regime change in Russia, and some "friendly" puppet like Yeltsin at the helm of a mini-Russia, with its immense wealth pilfered by foreigners, and the bulk of the country divided and balkanized. Turns out the Russians didn't play along...

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Russia is taking advantage of the GOP's blockade on Ukraine aid to destroy as much Ukrainian civilian infrastructure as possible including power plants and natural gas fields and facilities (eg state-sponsored terror).

Unfortunately, Putin has been able to continue to receive support from Iran, China and NK and leverage his high ROI spend controlling the GOP here to tie our hands. Gotta give him credit - he was right to target the GOP and Trump.

They are doing so in hopes that it will cause Ukraine to surrender so that they can erase its existence permanently. They aren't just looking for Crimea or the Donbas, they want it all as was obviously the goal from the start when they thought they could take Kyiv in 3 days.

Some of you may recall not long ago when the Putin shills used to pretend that Russia was operating a "special military operation" in order to defend itself against make believe Ukrainian aggression, which had never occurred and was not going to occur. Now those same people have to square those lies with the fact that they now support regime change and Russia's proposed annexation of Ukraine into Russia. And of course they will do the same for the next territory that Putin targets.

As I have said and demonstrated, Putin doesn't believe Ukrainian are a people or that Ukraine is entitled to sovereignty. All of the other fairy tales like denazification and protection of russiaphones he used to justify this stupid war were pretext and lies.

Maybe Mike Johnson will be ousted or the GOP will change direction to enable Ukraine aid when they realize the consequences of their inaction on our international standing but no one should hold their breath.

---

That's not terrorism. That's war. There is a difference.

---

Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. I guess 9/11 wasn't terrorism, it was war. There is a difference.

---

Seriously, do you consider the bombing of Hiroshima a terrorist act? How far are you willing to go to win an argument? You have an incredibly expansive definition of what constitutes terrorism.

---

What unit2 said. All we are doing is pointing out the absurdity of the semantics you guys are playing with. War? Terrorism? Same thing.
Terrorism is a word meant to delegitimize an opponent.

Were our patriotic minutemen terrorists?
- No formal declaration of war
- Not a formal military
- Unconventional fighting tactics

The minutemen are definitely terrorists if they are your bad guys.

Cal88 said:

---

The rest of the country will be regime changed with the Azov types removed and will stay neutral and out of NATO following the Austrian or pre-war Finnish model.

Fact is, the main NATO goal in this whole operation, towards which they have been working since the early 2000s, is to have regime change in Russia, and some "friendly" puppet like Yeltsin at the helm of a mini-Russia, with its immense wealth pilfered by foreigners, and the bulk of the country divided and balkanized. Turns out the Russians didn't play along...

---

And there it is.

Russian regime change in Ukraine = good.

NATO regime change in Russia = bad.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The rest of the country will be regime changed with the Azov types removed and will stay neutral and out of NATO following the Austrian or pre-war Finnish model.

Fact is, the main NATO goal in this whole operation, towards which they have been working since the early 2000s, is to have regime change in Russia, and some "friendly" puppet like Yeltsin at the helm of a mini-Russia, with its immense wealth pilfered by foreigners, and the bulk of the country divided and balkanized. Turns out the Russians didn't play along...

---

And there it is.

Russian regime change in Ukraine = good.

NATO regime change in Russia = bad.

---

You missed the main point here, that Ukraine was wrecked as a blowback to a NATO policy to use it in an attempt regime change on Russia, the same way Afghanistan was used to contribute to the dissolution of the USSR in the 1980s. Same analysis and conclusion that many experts like Mearsheimer and Sachs affirmed and predicted.

Had NATO not actively intervened in Ukraine, its borders would be intact, and they would even have included Crimea.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The rest of the country will be regime changed with the Azov types removed and will stay neutral and out of NATO following the Austrian or pre-war Finnish model.

Fact is, the main NATO goal in this whole operation, towards which they have been working since the early 2000s, is to have regime change in Russia, and some "friendly" puppet like Yeltsin at the helm of a mini-Russia, with its immense wealth pilfered by foreigners, and the bulk of the country divided and balkanized. Turns out the Russians didn't play along...

---

And there it is.

Russian regime change in Ukraine = good.

NATO regime change in Russia = bad.

---

You missed the main point here, that Ukraine was wrecked as a blowback to a NATO policy to use it in an attempt regime change on Russia, the same way Afghanistan was used to contribute to the dissolution of the USSR in the 1980s. Same analysis and conclusion that many experts like Mearsheimer and Sachs affirmed and predicted.

Had NATO not actively intervened in Ukraine, its borders would be intact, and they would even have included Crimea.

---

Yes, I know that your argument is:

NATO countries tried to influence politics in Ukraine/Russia, therefore Russia is justified in starting a war and killing a bunch of Ukrainians.

Thanks for confirming. Whatever Russia wants, Russia gets.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The rest of the country will be regime changed with the Azov types removed and will stay neutral and out of NATO following the Austrian or pre-war Finnish model.

Fact is, the main NATO goal in this whole operation, towards which they have been working since the early 2000s, is to have regime change in Russia, and some "friendly" puppet like Yeltsin at the helm of a mini-Russia, with its immense wealth pilfered by foreigners, and the bulk of the country divided and balkanized. Turns out the Russians didn't play along...

---

And there it is.

Russian regime change in Ukraine = good.

NATO regime change in Russia = bad.

---

You missed the main point here, that Ukraine was wrecked as a blowback to a NATO policy to use it in an attempt regime change on Russia, the same way Afghanistan was used to contribute to the dissolution of the USSR in the 1980s. Same analysis and conclusion that many experts like Mearsheimer and Sachs affirmed and predicted.

Had NATO not actively intervened in Ukraine, its borders would be intact, and they would even have included Crimea.

---

Yes, I know that your argument is:

NATO countries tried to influence politics in Ukraine/Russia, therefore Russia is justified in starting a war and killing a bunch of Ukrainians.

Thanks for confirming. Whatever Russia wants, Russia gets.

---

It's not just my argument, it's the argument of experts like the current head of US intelligence, who stated unequivocally that implementing regime change and pushing NATO into Ukraine would start a civil war there and be a red line for Russia that would compel Russia to intervene in Ukraine, reluctantly so.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The rest of the country will be regime changed with the Azov types removed and will stay neutral and out of NATO following the Austrian or pre-war Finnish model.

Fact is, the main NATO goal in this whole operation, towards which they have been working since the early 2000s, is to have regime change in Russia, and some "friendly" puppet like Yeltsin at the helm of a mini-Russia, with its immense wealth pilfered by foreigners, and the bulk of the country divided and balkanized. Turns out the Russians didn't play along...

---

And there it is.

Russian regime change in Ukraine = good.

NATO regime change in Russia = bad.

---

You missed the main point here, that Ukraine was wrecked as a blowback to a NATO policy to use it in an attempt regime change on Russia, the same way Afghanistan was used to contribute to the dissolution of the USSR in the 1980s. Same analysis and conclusion that many experts like Mearsheimer and Sachs affirmed and predicted.

Had NATO not actively intervened in Ukraine, its borders would be intact, and they would even have included Crimea.

---

Yes, I know that your argument is:

NATO countries tried to influence politics in Ukraine/Russia, therefore Russia is justified in starting a war and killing a bunch of Ukrainians.

Thanks for confirming. Whatever Russia wants, Russia gets.

---

It's not just my argument, it's the argument of experts like the current head of US intelligence, who stated unequivocally that implementing regime change and pushing NATO into Ukraine would start a civil war there and be a red line for Russia that would compel Russia to intervene in Ukraine, reluctantly so.

---

Believe me, I'm well aware that there is a small coterie of "experts" who argue that Russia is not to blame for any of this. You guys have posted their material often enough. We get it.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The rest of the country will be regime changed with the Azov types removed and will stay neutral and out of NATO following the Austrian or pre-war Finnish model.

Fact is, the main NATO goal in this whole operation, towards which they have been working since the early 2000s, is to have regime change in Russia, and some "friendly" puppet like Yeltsin at the helm of a mini-Russia, with its immense wealth pilfered by foreigners, and the bulk of the country divided and balkanized. Turns out the Russians didn't play along...

---

And there it is.

Russian regime change in Ukraine = good.

NATO regime change in Russia = bad.

---

You missed the main point here, that Ukraine was wrecked as a blowback to a NATO policy to use it in an attempt regime change on Russia, the same way Afghanistan was used to contribute to the dissolution of the USSR in the 1980s. Same analysis and conclusion that many experts like Mearsheimer and Sachs affirmed and predicted.

Had NATO not actively intervened in Ukraine, its borders would be intact, and they would even have included Crimea.

---

Yes, I know that your argument is:

NATO countries tried to influence politics in Ukraine/Russia, therefore Russia is justified in starting a war and killing a bunch of Ukrainians.

Thanks for confirming. Whatever Russia wants, Russia gets.

---

It's not just my argument, it's the argument of experts like the current head of US intelligence, who stated unequivocally that implementing regime change and pushing NATO into Ukraine would start a civil war there and be a red line for Russia that would compel Russia to intervene in Ukraine, reluctantly so.

---

Believe me, I'm well aware that there is a small coterie of "experts" who argue that Russia is not to blame for any of this. You guys have posted their material often enough. We get it.

---

"Small coterie " that includes the current head of the ctrl intel. agency?

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The rest of the country will be regime changed with the Azov types removed and will stay neutral and out of NATO following the Austrian or pre-war Finnish model.

Fact is, the main NATO goal in this whole operation, towards which they have been working since the early 2000s, is to have regime change in Russia, and some "friendly" puppet like Yeltsin at the helm of a mini-Russia, with its immense wealth pilfered by foreigners, and the bulk of the country divided and balkanized. Turns out the Russians didn't play along...

---

And there it is.

Russian regime change in Ukraine = good.

NATO regime change in Russia = bad.

---

You missed the main point here, that Ukraine was wrecked as a blowback to a NATO policy to use it in an attempt regime change on Russia, the same way Afghanistan was used to contribute to the dissolution of the USSR in the 1980s. Same analysis and conclusion that many experts like Mearsheimer and Sachs affirmed and predicted.

Had NATO not actively intervened in Ukraine, its borders would be intact, and they would even have included Crimea.

---

Yes, I know that your argument is:

NATO countries tried to influence politics in Ukraine/Russia, therefore Russia is justified in starting a war and killing a bunch of Ukrainians.

Thanks for confirming. Whatever Russia wants, Russia gets.

---

It's not just my argument, it's the argument of experts like the current head of US intelligence, who stated unequivocally that implementing regime change and pushing NATO into Ukraine would start a civil war there and be a red line for Russia that would compel Russia to intervene in Ukraine, reluctantly so.

---

Believe me, I'm well aware that there is a small coterie of "experts" who argue that Russia is not to blame for any of this. You guys have posted their material often enough. We get it.

---

"Small coterie " that includes the current head of the ctrl intel. agency?

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The rest of the country will be regime changed with the Azov types removed and will stay neutral and out of NATO following the Austrian or pre-war Finnish model.

Fact is, the main NATO goal in this whole operation, towards which they have been working since the early 2000s, is to have regime change in Russia, and some "friendly" puppet like Yeltsin at the helm of a mini-Russia, with its immense wealth pilfered by foreigners, and the bulk of the country divided and balkanized. Turns out the Russians didn't play along...

---

And there it is.

Russian regime change in Ukraine = good.

NATO regime change in Russia = bad.

---

You missed the main point here, that Ukraine was wrecked as a blowback to a NATO policy to use it in an attempt regime change on Russia, the same way Afghanistan was used to contribute to the dissolution of the USSR in the 1980s. Same analysis and conclusion that many experts like Mearsheimer and Sachs affirmed and predicted.

Had NATO not actively intervened in Ukraine, its borders would be intact, and they would even have included Crimea.

---

Yes, I know that your argument is:

NATO countries tried to influence politics in Ukraine/Russia, therefore Russia is justified in starting a war and killing a bunch of Ukrainians.

Thanks for confirming. Whatever Russia wants, Russia gets.

---

It's not just my argument, it's the argument of experts like the current head of US intelligence, who stated unequivocally that implementing regime change and pushing NATO into Ukraine would start a civil war there and be a red line for Russia that would compel Russia to intervene in Ukraine, reluctantly so.

---

Believe me, I'm well aware that there is a small coterie of "experts" who argue that Russia is not to blame for any of this. You guys have posted their material often enough. We get it.

---

Please stop exaggerating and exercising complete black and white all or nothing thinking. Nobody, including these top U.S. experts, said Russia is not to blame for any of this. It is completely reasonable for multiple parties to share blame.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The rest of the country will be regime changed with the Azov types removed and will stay neutral and out of NATO following the Austrian or pre-war Finnish model.

Fact is, the main NATO goal in this whole operation, towards which they have been working since the early 2000s, is to have regime change in Russia, and some "friendly" puppet like Yeltsin at the helm of a mini-Russia, with its immense wealth pilfered by foreigners, and the bulk of the country divided and balkanized. Turns out the Russians didn't play along...

---

And there it is.

Russian regime change in Ukraine = good.

NATO regime change in Russia = bad.

---

You missed the main point here, that Ukraine was wrecked as a blowback to a NATO policy to use it in an attempt regime change on Russia, the same way Afghanistan was used to contribute to the dissolution of the USSR in the 1980s. Same analysis and conclusion that many experts like Mearsheimer and Sachs affirmed and predicted.

Had NATO not actively intervened in Ukraine, its borders would be intact, and they would even have included Crimea.

---

Yes, I know that your argument is:

NATO countries tried to influence politics in Ukraine/Russia, therefore Russia is justified in starting a war and killing a bunch of Ukrainians.

Thanks for confirming. Whatever Russia wants, Russia gets.

---

It's not just my argument, it's the argument of experts like the current head of US intelligence, who stated unequivocally that implementing regime change and pushing NATO into Ukraine would start a civil war there and be a red line for Russia that would compel Russia to intervene in Ukraine, reluctantly so.

---

Believe me, I'm well aware that there is a small coterie of "experts" who argue that Russia is not to blame for any of this. You guys have posted their material often enough. We get it.

---

Please stop exaggerating and exercising complete black and white all or nothing thinking. Nobody, including these top U.S. experts, said Russia is not to blame for any of this. It is completely reasonable for multiple parties to share blame.

---

Are you not getting Cal88's posts on your screen?

Believe me, I'm well aware that there is a small coterie of "experts" who argue that Russia is not to blame for any of this. You guys have posted their material often enough. We get it.

No, you don't get it. We don't control Russian policy. We do control our own policies. We wanted this war. If we had listened to the experts and chosen sensible policies, Ukraine's borders would still be intact and untold human misery would have been avoided.

Zippergate said:

---

Believe me, I'm well aware that there is a small coterie of "experts" who argue that Russia is not to blame for any of this. You guys have posted their material often enough. We get it.

No, you don't get it. We don't control Russian policy. We do control our own policies. We wanted this war. If we had listened to the experts and chosen sensible policies, Ukraine's borders would still be intact and untold human misery would have been avoided.

---

It's amazing how those who have probably been hawkish and jingoistic in every other American conflict are now suddenly timid and isolationist exactly when the Republican party and Trump began soft-peddling Russian propaganda and glad handling Putin.

All because a lying corrupt man wanted a hotel in Moscow that he and all of you have to deny and pretend that this did not happen and was not step one in an ongoing orchestration or mutually beneficial relationship (see no use of collusion) between MAGA and Putin. Republicans all of a sudden welcome authoritarianism and oligarchy and it is just total coincidence that it is the narrative bullhorned by right wing media, MAGA outlets, Trump, and Russian propagandists over the last 10 years or so. You all just suddenly developed out of nowhere this sensitivity to Russia and NATO enemies and those who Trump approves, right? No one tells you what to think!

It's clear no one tells you what to think. I mean, it's hard to imagine a public person putting their name to something like that. Are Mearsheimer, Sachs, Burns, Keenan etc all MAGA? Btw, on whose watch did Russia's two incursions into Ukraine occur?

“People should not be deceived. No matter how much we give them, Ukraine does not have the combat power of its own accord without any other military getting involved directly in the fight on the ground to extract the Russians from Ukraine.” -@WarrenDavidson pic.twitter.com/UEyR5VA7vm

— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) April 12, 2024

Zippergate said:

---

Believe me, I'm well aware that there is a small coterie of "experts" who argue that Russia is not to blame for any of this. You guys have posted their material often enough. We get it.

No, you don't get it. We don't control Russian policy. We do control our own policies. We wanted this war. If we had listened to the experts and chosen sensible policies, Ukraine's borders would still be intact and untold human misery would have been avoided.

---

No, I've seen what happens when we actually want a war. It's called Iraq. We make up a reason and send our troops in.

You know, kind of like what Russia did in Ukraine.

Russia owns the blame for this war... and... it was unwise for the US/NATO to ever talk about including Ukraine.

Not sure why this is so hard. If you rent a car and park it near Fisherman's Warf with your new iPad plainly visible on the passenger's seat... and it gets stolen, it is still the thief's fault, but you made a major blunder.

Big C said:

---

Russia owns the blame for this war... and... it was unwise for the US/NATO to ever talk about including Ukraine.

Not sure why this is so hard. If you rent a car and park it near Fisherman's Warf with your new iPad plainly visible on the passenger's seat... and it gets stolen, it is still the thief's fault, but you made a major blunder.

---

I also think the degree to which the US actually tried to bring Ukraine into NATO is highly exaggerated by the Russian partisans. Yes, we talked about it. Some officials expressed their desire to do so. But it was never close to actually happening. Certainly not close enough to warrant invasion and war from Russia as a means of stopping it.

If anything, Russia's war in Ukraine has done more than anything to drive more countries towards NATO.

Big C said:

---

Russia owns the blame for this war... and... it was unwise for the US/NATO to ever talk about including Ukraine.

Not sure why this is so hard. If you rent a car and park it near Fisherman's Warf with your new iPad plainly visible on the passenger's seat... and it gets stolen, it is still the thief's fault, but you made a major blunder.

---

Even if you only talked about leaving your new iPad plainly visible?

The problem with this argument is that it ignores decades of manipulation and corruption by Russia in the affairs of Ukraine.

They interfered in Ukraine's sovereignty to elect a puppet government under Yanukovych. They conned Ukraine into giving up their nukes and then breached every bilateral agreement they had. They armed separatists and attempted to foment a civil war. And then in 2022, Putin just decided to start a war outright because none of their earlier corrupt interventions were producing the effect Putin wanted.

Now I know the tankies will say "but but but Putin told me otherwise" and share a bunch of misinformation but what is clear is that they are criticizing the US for influencing Ukraine while ignoring (or praising) Putin and Russia who have violated Ukraine's sovereignty for decades.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

They interfered in Ukraine's sovereignty to elect a puppet government under Yanukovych. They conned Ukraine into giving up their nukes and then breached every bilateral agreement they had. They armed separatists and attempted to foment a civil war. And then in 2022, Putin just decided to start a war outright because none of their earlier corrupt interventions were producing the effect Putin wanted.

---

You left out the part where they just went ahead and seized Crimea.

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

They interfered in Ukraine's sovereignty to elect a puppet government under Yanukovych. They conned Ukraine into giving up their nukes and then breached every bilateral agreement they had. They armed separatists and attempted to foment a civil war. And then in 2022, Putin just decided to start a war outright because none of their earlier corrupt interventions were producing the effect Putin wanted.

---

You left out the part where they just went ahead and seized Crimea.

---

You left out the part where the US talked about stuff.

"Without new military supplies, Ukrainian troops will soon have to retreat to the Dnieper," - Lieutenant Colonel Pavel Kurylenko in The Telegraph. pic.twitter.com/33zkPsTioc

— Trollstoy (@Trollstoy88) April 12, 2024

Big C said:

---

A better solution, if possible, would have been an agreement in which Ukraine remained militarily neutral and sovereign, acknowledging close economic and cultural ties with Russia... and agreed to never be a part of NATO.

---

Of course, this would also require that Putin and Russia hold true to their agreements, which they don't.

Aren't Russian missiles in Cuba a better comparison?

Along with the US reportedly having biolabs in Ukraine, and 12 secret CIA bases on the border of Russia.

And reportedly our overthrowing a democratically elected president, along with alleged CIA activities in the region.

Big C said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Big C said:

---

Russia owns the blame for this war... and... it was unwise for the US/NATO to ever talk about including Ukraine.

Not sure why this is so hard. If you rent a car and park it near Fisherman's Warf with your new iPad plainly visible on the passenger's seat... and it gets stolen, it is still the thief's fault, but you made a major blunder.

---

Even if you only talked about leaving your new iPad plainly visible?

---

The analogy there would be if the bad guys (and yes, I will readily admit that Putin is a bad guy) overheard you at Pier 39 talking about that new iPad that is under the passenger seat of your X rental car parked on the corner of Y and Z streets... and then they broke into your car to look for it.

So, yes.

---

I know we're pretty far removed from reality but I'm enjoying this.

Wouldn't the analogy be that the bad guys overheard me talking at Pier 39 about my friend at the Apple store who's offering me a discount for an ipad a few years from now, but only after my probation is over and I get my financial house in order? And then the bad guys decide to blow up my car because they are android fans and hate the thought of me enjoying an ipad?

Of course this is all preposterous. Putin has no right to destroy Ukraine's sovereignty. Full stop. Regardless of whether he's doing it because of jealousy or his dumb bigoted beliefs or because he wants to prevent US influence in the region is interesting but in no way a justification.

Putin is wrong, full stop. All of this other nonsense is an attempt to distract people from that fact. The truth is we have no idea what Putin would have done to Ukraine had the US never gotten involved and had NATO never even "talked" about eventually admitting Ukraine. Putin has written about his disdain for Ukraine and the fact that he considers them all to be Russian people. Obviously he thinks he has dominion over all Russian people. He's also claimed he wanted to denazify Ukraine (which has nothing to do with NATO or the US) and that he doesn't consider Ukraine to be a real country. He's said similar things about other countries and his official paid propagandists in Russian media have named other countries that they think Putin should go after next.

Maybe the more correct analogy is that some bad guys overheard me talking at Pier 39 and decided to murder my whole neighborhood.

I am going to assume that a discord server somewhere just fired up a bunch of misinformation that will be appearing here shortly. If anyone wants to spend the time to factcheck it, you will likely find what I used to find before I put the useful idiots on ignore - it's some combination of cherrypicking, spin and outright lies.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

A better solution, if possible, would have been an agreement in which Ukraine remained militarily neutral and sovereign, acknowledging close economic and cultural ties with Russia... and agreed to never be a part of NATO.

---

Of course, this would also require that Putin and Russia hold true to their agreements, which they don't.

---

Bill Clinton vouched for Vladimir Putin. Said he's smart and trustworthy and kept his own part of every deal they made. Now you know who to trust on what's going on in Ukraine. #VladimirPutin #BillClinton pic.twitter.com/l2EwTLWGXj

— The Question Mark (@QuestMark01) June 18, 2023

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

A better solution, if possible, would have been an agreement in which Ukraine remained militarily neutral and sovereign, acknowledging close economic and cultural ties with Russia... and agreed to never be a part of NATO.

---

Of course, this would also require that Putin and Russia hold true to their agreements, which they don't.

---

Bill Clinton vouched for Vladimir Putin. Said he's smart and trustworthy and kept his own part of every deal they made. Now you know who to trust on what's going on in Ukraine. #VladimirPutin #BillClinton pic.twitter.com/l2EwTLWGXj

— The Question Mark (@QuestMark01) June 18, 2023

---

Didn't know you guys were such big Bill Clinton fans now.

It's worth pointing out those rare moments where he tells the truth.