The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

1,922,966 Views | 13370 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by Aunburdened
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aunburdened • 9:20a, 12/10/25
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:


Quote:
So what happened? Washington backed a coup, ousted him, and installed a new puppet regime. The new government bent the knee to the IMF, signed off on austerity program and opened the door to privatization. Now, massive chunks of Ukrainian land,about a third,are in the hands of foreign giants like BlackRock.



Read it and weep, you war apologist turd.
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/default/files/files-archive/takeover-ukraine-agricultural-land.pdf

The logical leaps here are truly absurd. I'm a "war apologist?" I'm not the one trying to come up with justifications for Russia launching a regime-change war in Ukraine. That's all you, buddy.

What have you proven here? That some Western capitalists wanted to buy land in Ukraine? That they ran campaigns or shaped policy trying to convince the Ukrainians that this was a good idea? Okay. Maybe they did. Maybe that was a bad idea. None of it means that Russia had to attack Ukraine. That wasn't some inevitability, it was a choice by Putin.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:25a, 12/10/25
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:


Quote:
So what happened? Washington backed a coup, ousted him, and installed a new puppet regime. The new government bent the knee to the IMF, signed off on austerity program and opened the door to privatization. Now, massive chunks of Ukrainian land,about a third,are in the hands of foreign giants like BlackRock.



Read it and weep, you war apologist turd.
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/default/files/files-archive/takeover-ukraine-agricultural-land.pdf

The logical leaps here are truly absurd. I'm a "war apologist?" I'm not the one trying to come up with justifications for Russia launching a regime-change war in Ukraine. That's all you, buddy.

What have you proven here? That some Western capitalists wanted to buy land in Ukraine? That they ran campaigns or shaped policy trying to convince the Ukrainians that this was a good idea? Okay. Maybe they did. Maybe that was a bad idea. None of it means that Russia had to attack Ukraine. That wasn't some inevitability, it was a choice by Putin.


According to serious analysts, like William Burns, who was Ambassador to Russia and Secretary of State, it only became inevitable because NATO pushed into Ukraine.




Many other high level US officials and analysts had the same view on NATO getting into Ukraine being a stone cold red line for Russia, not just Putin but across the entire Russian political spectrum.



I've made the same argument a half dozen times on this thread, yet it never registered.

Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 10:33a, 12/10/25
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:


Quote:
So what happened? Washington backed a coup, ousted him, and installed a new puppet regime. The new government bent the knee to the IMF, signed off on austerity program and opened the door to privatization. Now, massive chunks of Ukrainian land,about a third,are in the hands of foreign giants like BlackRock.



Read it and weep, you war apologist turd.
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/default/files/files-archive/takeover-ukraine-agricultural-land.pdf

The logical leaps here are truly absurd. I'm a "war apologist?" I'm not the one trying to come up with justifications for Russia launching a regime-change war in Ukraine. That's all you, buddy.

What have you proven here? That some Western capitalists wanted to buy land in Ukraine? That they ran campaigns or shaped policy trying to convince the Ukrainians that this was a good idea? Okay. Maybe they did. Maybe that was a bad idea. None of it means that Russia had to attack Ukraine. That wasn't some inevitability, it was a choice by Putin.


According to serious analysts, like William Burns, who was Ambassador to Russia and Secretary of State, it only became inevitable because NATO pushed into Ukraine.

...

I've made the same argument a half dozen times on this thread, yet it never registered.

Yes, I've gotten this over and over from you. I simply don't agree. Even if NATO made bad choices, none of that forces Putin to start a war for regime change and/or territory conquest. That was still his choice. Russia was under no real military threat and could have taken other measures.

If the United States had invaded a neighbor under the exact same justification, you would never have apologized for it.
Reply Quote
1 edit
monol96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:01p, 12/10/25
lots of freaks to block in this thread... good to know
Reply Quote
Aunburdened
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to monol96 • 8:12p, 12/10/25
monol96 said:
lots of freaks to block in this thread... good to know

Well, even if I'm one of the freaks you want to block, at least your posting record on the Insider board shows you don't just follow cults like most of the folks on that board do which suggests you're capable of being an independent thinker and that's gotta count for something
Reply Quote
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 6:20a, 12/11/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:


Quote:
So what happened? Washington backed a coup, ousted him, and installed a new puppet regime. The new government bent the knee to the IMF, signed off on austerity program and opened the door to privatization. Now, massive chunks of Ukrainian land,about a third,are in the hands of foreign giants like BlackRock.



Read it and weep, you war apologist turd.
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/default/files/files-archive/takeover-ukraine-agricultural-land.pdf

The logical leaps here are truly absurd. I'm a "war apologist?" I'm not the one trying to come up with justifications for Russia launching a regime-change war in Ukraine. That's all you, buddy.

What have you proven here? That some Western capitalists wanted to buy land in Ukraine? That they ran campaigns or shaped policy trying to convince the Ukrainians that this was a good idea? Okay. Maybe they did. Maybe that was a bad idea. None of it means that Russia had to attack Ukraine. That wasn't some inevitability, it was a choice by Putin.


According to serious analysts, like William Burns, who was Ambassador to Russia and Secretary of State, it only became inevitable because NATO pushed into Ukraine.

...

I've made the same argument a half dozen times on this thread, yet it never registered.

Yes, I've gotten this over and over from you. I simply don't agree. Even if NATO made bad choices, none of that forces Putin to start a war for regime change and/or territory conquest. That was still his choice. Russia was under no real military threat and could have taken other measures.

If the United States had invaded a neighbor under the exact same justification, you would never have apologized for it.



When you're being reduced to accusing me of hypothetical reactions to hypothetical scenarios, you know it's time to quit arguing...

In the post-Cuba Crisis Cold War era, you had professional diplomats and responsible politicians that have kept an open communication line and reduced the chances of a conflict like in Ukraine. That was thrown out of the window in the late 90s and 1.75 million Ukrainian men have paid the ultimate price for that.






Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 6:52a, 12/11/25
Do you think that the arguments Russia puts forth to justify its "special military operation" in the Ukraine are applicable to any other country in Eastern Europe?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 7:07a, 12/11/25
Ukraine and Belarus are unique in that sense, because they are adjacent to Russia both geographically and culturally, so Belarus would be the only other country along with Ukraine where Russia would not tolerate NATO expansion.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 9:35a, 12/11/25
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:


Quote:
So what happened? Washington backed a coup, ousted him, and installed a new puppet regime. The new government bent the knee to the IMF, signed off on austerity program and opened the door to privatization. Now, massive chunks of Ukrainian land,about a third,are in the hands of foreign giants like BlackRock.



Read it and weep, you war apologist turd.
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/default/files/files-archive/takeover-ukraine-agricultural-land.pdf

The logical leaps here are truly absurd. I'm a "war apologist?" I'm not the one trying to come up with justifications for Russia launching a regime-change war in Ukraine. That's all you, buddy.

What have you proven here? That some Western capitalists wanted to buy land in Ukraine? That they ran campaigns or shaped policy trying to convince the Ukrainians that this was a good idea? Okay. Maybe they did. Maybe that was a bad idea. None of it means that Russia had to attack Ukraine. That wasn't some inevitability, it was a choice by Putin.


According to serious analysts, like William Burns, who was Ambassador to Russia and Secretary of State, it only became inevitable because NATO pushed into Ukraine.

...

I've made the same argument a half dozen times on this thread, yet it never registered.

Yes, I've gotten this over and over from you. I simply don't agree. Even if NATO made bad choices, none of that forces Putin to start a war for regime change and/or territory conquest. That was still his choice. Russia was under no real military threat and could have taken other measures.

If the United States had invaded a neighbor under the exact same justification, you would never have apologized for it.



When you're being reduced to accusing me of hypothetical reactions to hypothetical scenarios, you know it's time to quit arguing...

What's hypothetical? You talk about American foreign-policy misadventures all the time: Iraq, Vietnam, everything in Latin America, etc. You point this out as bad/unjustifiable actions and I agree.

I just ask that the same standard be applied to Putin/Russia now.

NOTE that this is different from whether or not we should continue pressing the war effort in Ukraine. At this point I agree that there probably isn't much to be gained from that and all parties should seek a peace agreement. I'm skeptical of how possible this is with Putin, but I don't object to the attempt. I am only arguing against this idea that the West is only to blame for the war when we have clear evidence of who fired the first shot.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Aunburdened
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:33p, 12/11/25
Reply Quote
Aunburdened
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 2:01p, 12/11/25
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aunburdened • 2:32p, 12/11/25
Aunburdened said:

It's possible that Ukraine promising not to join NATO would have headed off the war, though this guy is hyping up her guesstimations as more certain than the actual clip would suggest.

This guy is also basically an envoy from Putin's government, by the way, so this also has to be viewed as propaganda from his end of things. Doesn't automatically make him wrong, but I wouldn't take his arguments at face value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirill_Dmitriev
Reply Quote
MinotStateBeav
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 2:54p, 12/11/25
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:

It's possible that Ukraine promising not to join NATO would have headed off the war, though this guy is hyping up her guesstimations as more certain than the actual clip would suggest.

This guy is also basically an envoy from Putin's government, by the way, so this also has to be viewed as propaganda from his end of things. Doesn't automatically make him wrong, but I wouldn't take his arguments at face value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirill_Dmitriev

OK I'm looking forward to her clarifying her message hahah
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MinotStateBeav • 3:04p, 12/11/25
MinotStateBeav said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:

It's possible that Ukraine promising not to join NATO would have headed off the war, though this guy is hyping up her guesstimations as more certain than the actual clip would suggest.

This guy is also basically an envoy from Putin's government, by the way, so this also has to be viewed as propaganda from his end of things. Doesn't automatically make him wrong, but I wouldn't take his arguments at face value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirill_Dmitriev

OK I'm looking forward to her clarifying her message hahah

Her actual statements are more like, "Yeah, maybe in an alternate history it could have gone like this . . ." It's not definitive like the Russian dude makes it sound.
Reply Quote
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aunburdened • 6:48p, 12/11/25
Aunburdened said:
There's a Massive spelling error in that tweet.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:10p, 12/11/25
Reply Quote
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 7:46a, 12/12/25
^This kind of reinforces the post above about multinational business interests coveting Ukraine's land resources.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 8:07a, 12/12/25
Cal88 said:
^This kind of reinforces the post above about multinational business interests coveting Ukraine's land resources.

Yes, and it appears that Ukrainians still considered this preferable to being under Russia's control. I wonder why?
Reply Quote
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 8:20a, 12/12/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
^This kind of reinforces the post above about multinational business interests coveting Ukraine's land resources.

Yes, and it appears that Ukrainians still considered this preferable to being under Russia's control. I wonder why?


That opinion will vary depending on which part of Ukraine you look at.



But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 9:05a, 12/12/25
Cal88 said:
But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.

Maybe, but they still seem to prefer it to Putin.
Reply Quote
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:11a, 12/12/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.

Maybe, but they still seem to prefer it to Putin.


Those preferences in Ukraine will depend on geography, see NBC video above. But even in anti-Russian western Ukraine, I don't think the locals want to see their lands bought out by foreign interests.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 10:13a, 12/12/25
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.

Maybe, but they still seem to prefer it to Putin.


Those preferences in Ukraine will depend on geography, see NBC video above. But even in anti-Russian western Ukraine, I don't think the locals want to see their lands bought out by foreign interests.

Yes, but they also wouldn't want to see their lands taken by a foreign interest named Russia.
Reply Quote
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:46a, 12/12/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.

Maybe, but they still seem to prefer it to Putin.


Those preferences in Ukraine will depend on geography, see NBC video above. But even in anti-Russian western Ukraine, I don't think the locals want to see their lands bought out by foreign interests.

Yes, but they also wouldn't want to see their lands taken by a foreign interest named Russia.


The Russians wouldn't want to annex Ukrainian territories that are hostile to them. But the parts were Russian speakers are prevented from speaking their native language will be a lot more receptive.

Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 10:50a, 12/12/25
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.

Maybe, but they still seem to prefer it to Putin.


Those preferences in Ukraine will depend on geography, see NBC video above. But even in anti-Russian western Ukraine, I don't think the locals want to see their lands bought out by foreign interests.

Yes, but they also wouldn't want to see their lands taken by a foreign interest named Russia.


The Russians wouldn't want to annex Ukrainian territories that are hostile to them. But the parts were Russian speakers are prevented from speaking their native language will be a lot more receptive.

Might not want to annex them, but have them under a compliant government that will do what they want? Definitely.
Reply Quote
smh
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 11:31a, 12/12/25
sycasey said:

tnx. clueless, i looked him up..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Fink
> In 2018, Fink was ranked No. 28 on the Forbes list of the World's Most Powerful People [25]
> In 2022, Fink was named one of the top US "climate villains" by The Guardian due to BlackRock's profiting from deforestation.
Reply Quote
2 edits
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 12:07p, 12/12/25
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Politics at home will be tough.


It's pretty easy actually, stopping the war will be very popular at home.

IMO this polling indicates that it will depend on how it's viewed. If it looks like Trump just capitulated to Putin, it won't be popular.


The reality is that this war has cost Ukraine 1.75 million men and counting, and the US taxpayer well over $100 billion and counting. You can't keep obscuring these facts with the cult of personality of Putin.


All the EU sources I ocassionally skim NEVER mention the fatalities.
Reply Quote
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to smh • 12:08p, 12/12/25
smh said:
sycasey said:

tnx. clueless, i looked him up..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Fink
> In 2018, Fink was ranked No. 28 on the Forbes list of the World's Most Powerful People [25]
> In 2022, Fink was named one of the top US "climate villains" by The Guardian due to BlackRock's profiting from deforestation.


BlackRock ran and staffed the Biden White House, major players w Obama, too.
Reply Quote
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:09p, 12/12/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.

Maybe, but they still seem to prefer it to Putin.


Those preferences in Ukraine will depend on geography, see NBC video above. But even in anti-Russian western Ukraine, I don't think the locals want to see their lands bought out by foreign interests.

Yes, but they also wouldn't want to see their lands taken by a foreign interest named Russia.


The Russians wouldn't want to annex Ukrainian territories that are hostile to them. But the parts were Russian speakers are prevented from speaking their native language will be a lot more receptive.

Might not want to annex them, but have them under a compliant government that will do what they want? Definitely.


Sure, makes sense. Why have to re-fight this war every ten years?
Reply Quote
smh
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 12:11p, 12/12/25
movielover said:
> BlackRock ran and staffed the Biden White House, major players w Obama, too.

nox nix, he's still a dangerous villain
Reply Quote
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 12:12p, 12/12/25
Cal88 said:
^This kind of reinforces the post above about multinational business interests coveting Ukraine's land resources.


Colonel Douglass MacGregor pointed this out two years ago.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 12:43p, 12/12/25
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.

Maybe, but they still seem to prefer it to Putin.


Those preferences in Ukraine will depend on geography, see NBC video above. But even in anti-Russian western Ukraine, I don't think the locals want to see their lands bought out by foreign interests.

Yes, but they also wouldn't want to see their lands taken by a foreign interest named Russia.


The Russians wouldn't want to annex Ukrainian territories that are hostile to them. But the parts were Russian speakers are prevented from speaking their native language will be a lot more receptive.

Might not want to annex them, but have them under a compliant government that will do what they want? Definitely.


Sure, makes sense. Why have to re-fight this war every ten years?

Problem is the Ukrainians don't want that.
Reply Quote
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:50p, 12/12/25
sycasey said:
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.

Maybe, but they still seem to prefer it to Putin.


Those preferences in Ukraine will depend on geography, see NBC video above. But even in anti-Russian western Ukraine, I don't think the locals want to see their lands bought out by foreign interests.

Yes, but they also wouldn't want to see their lands taken by a foreign interest named Russia.


The Russians wouldn't want to annex Ukrainian territories that are hostile to them. But the parts were Russian speakers are prevented from speaking their native language will be a lot more receptive.

Might not want to annex them, but have them under a compliant government that will do what they want? Definitely.


Sure, makes sense. Why have to re-fight this war every ten years?

Problem is the Ukrainians don't want that.


Ukrainians want a permanent settlement with Russia. That was actually the reason they voted for Zelensky in the first place, he run on a moderate, pro-peace platform then pulled a 180.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 1:17p, 12/12/25
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.

Maybe, but they still seem to prefer it to Putin.


Those preferences in Ukraine will depend on geography, see NBC video above. But even in anti-Russian western Ukraine, I don't think the locals want to see their lands bought out by foreign interests.

Yes, but they also wouldn't want to see their lands taken by a foreign interest named Russia.


The Russians wouldn't want to annex Ukrainian territories that are hostile to them. But the parts were Russian speakers are prevented from speaking their native language will be a lot more receptive.

Might not want to annex them, but have them under a compliant government that will do what they want? Definitely.


Sure, makes sense. Why have to re-fight this war every ten years?

Problem is the Ukrainians don't want that.


Ukrainians want a permanent settlement with Russia. That was actually the reason they voted for Zelensky in the first place, he run on a moderate, pro-peace platform then pulled a 180.

They don't want a settlement that allows Putin to run their government.
Reply Quote
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 1:44p, 12/12/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
But even in western Ukraine, I don't think locals are pleased with Zelensky selling out to Blackrock, ADM, Monsanto etc.

Maybe, but they still seem to prefer it to Putin.


Those preferences in Ukraine will depend on geography, see NBC video above. But even in anti-Russian western Ukraine, I don't think the locals want to see their lands bought out by foreign interests.

Yes, but they also wouldn't want to see their lands taken by a foreign interest named Russia.


The Russians wouldn't want to annex Ukrainian territories that are hostile to them. But the parts were Russian speakers are prevented from speaking their native language will be a lot more receptive.

Might not want to annex them, but have them under a compliant government that will do what they want? Definitely.


Sure, makes sense. Why have to re-fight this war every ten years?

Problem is the Ukrainians don't want that.


Ukrainians want a permanent settlement with Russia. That was actually the reason they voted for Zelensky in the first place, he run on a moderate, pro-peace platform then pulled a 180.

They don't want a settlement that allows Putin to run their government.


For the south/eastern third of Ukraine, they do want to join Russia if the choice is between a government that bans their language and Russia. For the rest, at some point (it might even be now) most will be pragmatic enough to adopt an Istanbul Plus type of settlement with Russia (demilitarization, neutrality, etc) in order to end the war and start rebuilding.
Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 1:54p, 12/12/25
At a minimum, several hundred thousand South Vietnamese ceased breathing air on this planet commencing when the NVA tanks rolled into the country at the end of the war.

What is the over/under regarding how many Ukrainians vacate earth when the Russian Invasion ends?

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
1 edit
First Page Last Page
Page 368 of 383 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.