mrPixel

Should we still be backing Ukraine?

223 posts in this topic

My father is Russian.

With this, knowing "all" about good Russians in Estonia, I would generalize that for a Russian, it's very hard to live in some capitalist countries - they are naturally more communistic, and they tend to treat the poor better and see many solutions in how people share food, houses or common things. Even when they have a capitalist philosophy, they want to do all this. I have both capitalist and communist genes, but I always find problems, where I want to help the company I work in just by good will - there is no "magic" to make this money come back to me, which I invest into simply helping the society, rather they want to take it a run away. It took long to find out that I have to find people, who think similarly and use this philosophy rather in those circles; I cannot be so bluffing and ready to protect myself and surviving capitalist would be.

For some russians, this problem is extreme - I think the philosophies about how such communist genes survive in capitalist countries, and how both "sides" help each other and not make the russian dying out with distinct power, this is a point, where a lot of work should be done, considering that this is actually a good part of a Russian and not so easy to change - capitalism solves a lot of people, who naturally want to attract money only to themselves, but for people, who want to help others, those problems are not there and they can do it more safely. When this psychology finds solutions, also the wars between Russia and capitalist countries are improbable, and they can feel good even if many people live in other countries with non-Russian governments; otherwise, they would often need that they have to go there and save people, their own people and the local prisoners of capitalism, which can become a slave labor or bunch of people left to low class despite they can think, solve problems, and are naturally motivated. In future, capitalism and communism must somehow grow together like yin and yang, so that different people can find most efficient solutions based on their character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2024 at 2:46 PM, BlueOak said:

Baltics are because they will be on the front line if Putin isn't stopped here

I do not see Russia attacking NATO. Why would they do it? They cannot take on all of NATO, also NATO has nuclear weapons. They attacked Ukraine because Ukraine is far weaker and has no nuclear weapons. Also it is not in NATO and therefore NATO is not obliged to help it.

On 4/15/2024 at 2:46 PM, BlueOak said:

As for the Americans, neutrality is not one-half of the country repeating Russia's narrative and lies, and then campaigning for them.

Americans are tired of war and will use Russian lies and propaganda to rationalize it. I think that propaganda is used cleverly by Republicans to earn votes on a war tired general American public. "America first, fuck random countries" gets you votes. Politics is firstly about votes.

On 4/15/2024 at 2:46 PM, BlueOak said:

Trump gets in America becomes a Russian ally, not a neutral party.

Trump definitely is somewhat pro Putin because as Leo has said, they operate on the same level on the spiral and maybe they have some shady deals together. However, I cannot say the same about all politicians there.

On 4/15/2024 at 2:46 PM, BlueOak said:

BRICS is backing Russia to a lesser or greater extent. Many of those civilian and military casualties are a direct result of Iran's drones, or China's electronics, and their partner's economic support. So Europe vs BRICS that's a much tougher fight headed our way.

Just like the West is backing up Israel genocide in Gaza that is as bad if not worse than anything Russia has done in Ukraine. Countries tolerate illegal stuff when it comes to their economic interests. Iran and China gain from Russia, hence they tolerate their bs. So does the USA for tolerating Israel's atrocities. The West is just as corrupt and fucked up as BRICS when it comes to supporting and tolerating terrorist barbaric countries.

On 4/15/2024 at 2:46 PM, BlueOak said:

Yes, defending is much easier than attacking, it's not as bad in Ukraine because of the wide open spaces, but it's still a significant advantage to defend. For the majority of the war, Ukraine has been on the defensive, which is one major reason why they've taken fewer losses than Russia.

Agreed.

On 4/15/2024 at 2:46 PM, BlueOak said:

Ukraine never had that much in the way of armor from NATO, or airpower. They had a scattering of tanks, second-hand APCs, lots of artillery, and good small arms, plus good training. Now they have little ammunition left. If we had geared Europe's factories to produce what we use ourselves for Ukraine, Russia would have been a smoking ruin on the map. The volume of missiles being used would mean a frontline shot was barely fired. So I don't agree with you at all here. Not when I've seen 60-year-old tanks being barely fixed up with larger sheet metal coverings to try and deflect modern drones, or WW1-WW2 machine guns being brought out of storage.

Like 50 billion worth of military aids seems a lot to me...

Not to mention aid from other countries.

On 4/15/2024 at 2:46 PM, BlueOak said:

Russia is not richer than Ukraine. It has regressed, while Ukraine has tried to modernize. Outside of the two main cities, it shows off to the world, Russia has decaying infrastructure all over the country.

Countless stuff I have seen shows otherwise. If you have personally been to every Russian city then ok. Economic growth wise both countries were quite similar in the last 20 years. Russian GDP per capita is like 5 times larger. You cannot discount this.

On 4/15/2024 at 2:46 PM, BlueOak said:

Russia's greed for territory is one of the reasons it's in a difficult position, and compared to its neighbors is not going to retain as much soft power or sovereignty as we go forward, the war just sped this up.

Lets see. So far they seem to do fine but who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Karmadhi
The likelihood of Russia, Iran, and China going to war with NATO rises by the day.
It's never been as close as this in my 40 years of life. That's why countries in NATO have been stepping out of their arms treaties, so they can scale up their militaries without their neighbors knowing the details of their troop deployments. Traditionally, this is used when getting ready for war. That's why you see all the ballistic missile testing, and people talking about conscription to their populations.

Putin keeps saying he wants to take former USSR land back for Russia. He is Russia, and if the opportunity presents itself, he will. His base like that idea and is sold on an imperialist greater Russia concept. That has been the pattern of Russia's foreign policy for decades. You say how can he? This is exactly the point: if he's held up in Ukraine, he cannot, because he can't fight a war in Ukraine and at the same time fight a war in the Baltics behind a frontline he's already engaged in. Even if they had the equipment, Russian logistics are garbage, because their infrastructure is terrible.

You repeat that we have nukes. They are not the deterrents they were, the fear associated with their mention has diminished. Until they are used again. Putin's overuse of their nuclear threat is like the boy who cried wolf. I seriously doubt they would be used to fight a conflict along the border either, not when other options are available. Nobody wants to end the planet.

So let's talk about conventional forces. It's been simulated in war games that if Russia pushed tanks to Kaliningrad, NATO even with America's help couldn't stop the tanks from getting there to cut off the Baltics, without America's help, there is no way. Thankfully, with Finland and Sweden's assistance, the Baltic Sea would probably remain accessible and provide a lifeline now. Both of these things I've heard those in the Baltics fear and praise, respectively.

The conclusion is: that people don't trust Putin in Europe; he's created a lot of fear and uncertainty. So holding him in Ukraine removes all doubt or uncertainty about what he will do next. People in Eastern Europe never trusted Russia due to their long history of conflict, and Russia's meddling in their domestic politics, this now extends to most of Europe. Nothing he or you say will remove that uncertainty due to his actions and choices. I don't just mean the war, I mean the threats, the blackmail, the espionage, the assassinations, the constant cyberwarfare, and how his troops have acted like monsters during their war in Ukraine.

GDP per Capita

GPD per capita doesn't take into account the vast land-use it's put over. In Russia's case, it is extreme to maintain its infrastructure, which is why that infrastructure is in such poor condition. Show me a few places outside of St. Petersburg or Moscow that are places you are calling modern? (or whatever term you prefer) Even in those cities outside of the financial districts, they are not pretty. Ukraine only had a few decades apart from the USSR, but it prospered in that time because its level of corruption was constantly going down, and they are continuing to weed out corruption out of necessity.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/14/2024 at 11:44 AM, BlueOak said:

@Ajay0The Russian military is badly equipped, badly trained, has bad supply lines, daily partisan activity within its borders, has no officer core, increasingly less control over its industries (china buying them up), and little discipline.

But it still keeps winning the last time I checked the western news reports.

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-ukraine-losing-russia-war/


 

Quote

The Russian economy is Chinese. Nobody fights an expensive large war on its doorstep and increases the power of its economy. China is slowly buying Russia up. Again, this is not a terrible result for the West, because Russia has become China's proxy between NATO and China. Do you honestly think Europe, with an economy ten times the size of Russia, is suffering more than Russia domestically? They can't even maintain their dams or infrastructure, outside of the two cities Moscow and St Petersburg that they show off to the world


Here you keep under-assessing Russian economy.

Russia is the largest country on earth and obviously it is bound to have extensive mineral resources that can make it wealthy on its own. Just their oil and gas ensure self-reliance and sales  to the rest of the world is enough to keep it going for a long, long time . 

 Their human resources with ingenuity in science and technology is also bound to bring productivity and wealth to the country.

Without the Russian bad boys and jets, American movies like Top gun series and Rambo would have to close shop and run out of business due to lack of formidable villains. 
 

Quote

 Again, this is not a terrible result for the West, because Russia has become China's proxy between NATO and China.

How is this not a terrible result. China can adopt the latest Russian technologies to get in par with western technologies. China already has the third largest number of nuclear warheads and is expected to attain parity with the US and Russia in a few years at its current rates of expansion.

https://time.com/6323059/us-china-russia-nuclear-threat/

Also China seeks a weaker US , so providing Russia with military and economic resources to continue the war is a strategic objective on its part and that is what it is doing at the moment.

This can ensure Taiwan slipping to its hands comfortably in the future with the US looking elsewhere and stating that it does not consider Taiwan to be independent from China as usual. 

 

Edited by Ajay0

Self-awareness is yoga. - Nisargadatta

Awareness is the great non-conceptual perfection. - Dzogchen

Evil is an extreme manifestation of human unconsciousness. - Eckhart Tole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BlueOak said:

he conclusion is: that people don't trust Putin in Europe; he's created a lot of fear and uncertainty. So holding him in Ukraine removes all doubt or uncertainty about what he will do next. People in Eastern Europe never trusted Russia due to their long history of conflict, and Russia's meddling in their domestic politics, this now extends to most of Europe. Nothing he or you say will remove that uncertainty due to his actions and choices. I don't just mean the war, I mean the threats, the blackmail, the espionage, the assassinations, the constant cyberwarfare

Putin has challenged the monopoly that the West had. When a monopoly becomes an oligopoly than of course things will be roughed up to some extent. I cannot say whether a monopoly of the West is better off for the world but looking at the Middle East and how the West destroyed it (firstly with colonialism, then a criminal split of the land and later with countless invasions) to me I cannot call them a force of good in the world. Maybe for Europe, but not globally. And to be fair  threats, blackmail, espionage etc is done by everyone. It is not a Russian thing. 

18 hours ago, BlueOak said:

They are not the deterrents they were,

Why so?

18 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Putin keeps saying he wants to take former USSR land back for Russia.

I have read that he said that cannot be done back. "It was a shame USSR fell but wanting it to be became is crazy". They just take the first part and create a false narrative. Putin does not want USSR. He wants to be a second US. An oligopoly not a monopoly. It is not about land. It is about power and influence. Ukraine is getting invaded because they choose the West. Interesting how there was no invasion until 2013 when they had a pro Russian government. It saddest me to say it but if that government had stayed, this would have all been avoided. If you are next to Russia, you are forced to be its bitch. If you are next to the US, you are forced to be its bitch too.

That is how the world works.

19 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Show me a few places outside of St. Petersburg or Moscow that are places you are calling modern?

Sochi for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, BlueOak said:

acted like monsters during their war in Ukraine.

Knowing Russia it was to be expected but considering it is mostly ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine where there is war, it is baffling to me.

I would have expected them to treat them as brothers.

Russia lost a ton of points in my eyes with this. 

I do not get why they do it, it just makes Ukranians fight harder.

Stupid both strategically and also morally.

 

Edited by Karmadhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Karmadhi

3 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Knowing Russia it was to be expected but considering it is mostly ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine where there is war, it is baffling to me.

I would have expected them to treat them as brothers.

Russia lost a ton of points in my eyes with this. 

I do not get why they do it, it just makes Ukranians fight harder.

Stupid both strategically and also morally.

 

If we lean more into the Russian perspective, some consider it a civil war. You might understand it better through that lens. Yes, it does make Ukraine fight harder. In life, we often create what we don't want. They have created a much stronger national identity in Ukraine. Russia are also used to violent suppression working domestically (civil war thinking), and this explains why police units were among the invading force, they expected to be suppressing a civilian minority. They'd underestimated how much Ukraine has changed, and still do. Just like people underestimated Putin's will to use force. Because both sides have pulled apart from each other to the point they didn't understand one another.
 

3 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Putin has challenged the monopoly that the West had. When a monopoly becomes an oligopoly than of course things will be roughed up to some extent. I cannot say whether a monopoly of the West is better off for the world but looking at the Middle East and how the West destroyed it (firstly with colonialism, then a criminal split of the land and later with countless invasions) to me I cannot call them a force of good in the world. Maybe for Europe, but not globally. And to be fair  threats, blackmail, espionage etc is done by everyone. It is not a Russian thing. 

Yes.
However, because I am directly being threatened by Russian state TV each month. The UK received a Russian threat every month for most of the war. You can understand why I am not fond of Russia gaining more power than they have. Flip this to the European view, especially those states closer to Russia, and then consider they have a history of being invaded by Russia or having their governments meddled in. You can then understand why they would not react positively to this development.
 

3 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Why so?

If you threaten to use something many times and then don't use it, the threats become less potent.

The power of nukes used to be the fear associated with them, this was much more effective when it was unspoken. Unspoken and unknown threats are much scarier than something that is out in the open to be studied and talked about. As I say, Russian diplomats and top officials, or their state TV threaten to nuke the UK every month or so. It just became expected that they would threaten again.
 

3 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

I have read that he said that cannot be done back. "It was a shame USSR fell but wanting it to be became is crazy". They just take the first part and create a false narrative. Putin does not want USSR. He wants to be a second US. An oligopoly not a monopoly. It is not about land. It is about power and influence. Ukraine is getting invaded because they choose the West. Interesting how there was no invasion until 2013 when they had a pro Russian government.

Call it whatever you like as a title, let's not get hung up on semantics, he wants a greater Russia. He's convinced his population and his ego to gain more land and influence as a means to achieving this. Another imperialist power is not good for the world. China is another one doing the same thing. I never liked America doing it because you saw all the wars that happened, do we want a repeat? Because that's what we are getting.
 

3 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

It saddest me to say it but if that government had stayed, this would have all been avoided. If you are next to Russia, you are forced to be its bitch. If you are next to the US, you are forced to be its bitch too.

That is how the world works.

Sochi for example.

This is the first time you've not considered Europe properly in your post. Europe, if it wants to, can take Russia in a straight fight, it has ten times the economic output and considerably more population. What we both understand, I think, is that Europe has many voices, not one. The appetite for violence is not as great as it is in Russia. Which is something Putin banked on in this strategy.


The EU = 448.7 Million people
Turkey = 85.3 Million People
UK = 67.6 Million people
Total = 601.6 Million people

Russia = 147.2 Million people *Before the war exodus

EU's GDP = $19.35 Trillion
UK's GDP = $3.495 Trillion
Turkey's GDP = $1.114 trillion

Total GDP = $23.9 Trillion

Russian GDP = $1.862 trillion


There is no contest here; if NATO went to war even without America, Russia would not win it.
If Russia and China were together, that would be a different scenario.

All that said:
 

 

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 hours ago, BlueOak said:

They'd underestimated how much Ukraine has changed, and still do. Just like people underestimated Putin's will to use force. Because both sides have pulled apart from each other to the point they didn't understand one another.

To be honest that is how Russia always fights. They did similar stuff to Syria and Chechnya.

I was just expecting them to go softer on Ukraine since most in the East are Russians.

17 hours ago, BlueOak said:

However, because I am directly being threatened by Russian state TV each month. The UK received a Russian threat every month for most of the war. You can understand why I am not fond of Russia gaining more power than they have. Flip this to the European view, especially those states closer to Russia, and then consider they have a history of being invaded by Russia or having their governments meddled in. You can then understand why they would not react positively to this development

From a European pov you speak facts.

But Europe is not the world.

I am talking from a global POV.

As an European Russia is definitely a threat.

I wish they would become friends but both the US and Russia have massive toxic egos which do not allow it.

I read that Russia applied to go in NATO in the 2000s or something and it was not done. Accepting them would have made them friends which could have even helped against a growing China. Turning Russia down was a massive mistake.

17 hours ago, BlueOak said:

he wants a greater Russia. He's convinced his population and his ego to gain more land and influence as a means to achieving this. Another imperialist power is not good for the world. China is another one doing the same thing. I never liked America doing it because you saw all the wars that happened, do we want a repeat? Because that's what we are getting.

I do not think he wants more land, he wants INFLUENCE. This war in my opinion is because he was forced due to Ukraine slipping out of Russia's influence. Why is Belarus not being invaded? Why was Georgia briefly attacked in 2008 and once the government changed, they have not been invaded again. Invasion is a way to force influence when negotiations fail. I fear though that Moldova will be next since they are small, not in NATO and they want to join the EU.

17 hours ago, BlueOak said:

This is the first time you've not considered Europe properly in your post. Europe, if it wants to, can take Russia in a straight fight, it has ten times the economic output and considerably more population. What we both understand, I think, is that Europe has many voices, not one. The appetite for violence is not as great as it is in Russia. Which is something Putin banked on in this strategy.

 

What?? I was the one saying Russia will NOT invade Poland because they cannot take on NATO and then you said "even with NATO they can take all baltics etc". Now you tell me, that I underestimate Europe? I never claimed Russia can take on Europe.

Edited by Karmadhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2024 at 11:49 PM, BlueOak said:

NATO went to war even without America

There is no NATO without America.

With that said, even NATO with America would get a solid beating with the current Russia.

But Russia Iran alliance is not interested in war at all.

If Iran were interested in war they would go full force at Israel. Instead they choose restraint instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

There is no NATO without America.

With that said, even NATO with America would get a solid beating with the current Russia.

This is nonsense Bobby, I've just quoted why above. What other numbers do you want to see?

Do you want America's and Europe's numbers added together? The size of their economies, populations, and militaries combined makes Russia look like a spec on the map.

This part of the reason this war happened, because Russia doesn't understand it.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/18/2024 at 0:33 PM, Karmadhi said:

I wish they would become friends but both the US and Russia have massive toxic egos which do not allow it.

I read that Russia applied to go in NATO in the 2000s or something and it was not done. Accepting them would have made them friends which could have even helped against a growing China. Turning Russia down was a massive mistake.

I do not think he wants more land, he wants INFLUENCE. This war in my opinion is because he was forced due to Ukraine slipping out of Russia's influence. Why is Belarus not being invaded? Why was Georgia briefly attacked in 2008 and once the government changed, they have not been invaded again. Invasion is a way to force influence when negotiations fail. I fear though that Moldova will be next since they are small, not in NATO and they want to join the EU.

What?? I was the one saying Russia will NOT invade Poland because they cannot take on NATO and then you said "even with NATO they can take all baltics etc". Now you tell me, that I underestimate Europe? I never claimed Russia can take on Europe.

Belarus is Russia from our perspective here. Ukraine would be Russia under their influence. Putin says jump, they jump. So with Ukraine under Putin's thumb, the border with Russia would start at Ukraine from our perspective. 

You said any country next to Russia is its bitch, and any country next to America is the same. What about Europe? Is their influence not there? That was why I brought up not considering Europe when you wrote it. Is Ukraine not Europe's bitch too in this analogy?

Power, influence, population, land, old USSR countries back, a shorter border, gas resources, black sea ports, and gas connections. As long as he can sell it as a greater Russia, he stays in power, and as long as he can pump his ego up, he feels like he's done a good job. Putin is not a hard man to understand. Though the population crisis there is a factor to consider in places like Russia and Germany in what they will do in the future.

More European countries are talking about sending troops to Ukraine, Estonia, France, the UK, etc, which is why I am happy to talk about Europe here, as it lets us understand and focus on what's going on. So again, thanks for that and the discussion. Its not the Americans who will suffer the consequences of the war, or ultimately choose to fight a European war if it happens. So it is important to focus on where it's occurring. 

*I should add that you are right, Russia joining NATO and/or the EU would have completely changed the course of the world, and, it was sad people could not come together when the opportunity was there.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Do you want America's and Europe's numbers added together? The size of their economies, populations, and militaries combined makes Russia look like a spec on the map.

Numbers don't mean shit when you don't have experience.

Russia is the only country in the world that has experience. That will make all the difference.

And don't think that Russia will be alone in a fight. No singe country in the west would sustain a war with Russia on its own, except for maybe the US. 

EU doesn't have a capable military on its own independent of the US. That's why Russia would pummel them in case of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Numbers don't mean shit when you don't have experience.

Russia is the only country in the world that has experience. That will make all the difference.

And don't think that Russia will be alone in a fight. No singe country in the west would sustain a war with Russia on its own, except for maybe the US. 

EU doesn't have a capable military on its own independent of the US. That's why Russia would pummel them in case of war.

This is why we are in this mess. So all the times people have told me Ukraine is smaller than Russia is that meaningless? Ukraine have got more experience than anyone in Europe in modern times. Russia's experienced officer core is long dead.

Are you telling me America doesn't have experience fighting wars? What were all those wars you and others complained about then? America has fought more wars than anyone else in modern times. European countries have often been part of those wars. Most European armies are geared for fighting in Africa or small-scale wars, where they can overwhelm their opponents with expensive aircraft and long-range munitions. The British SAS have tons of experience all around the globe. 

A better point is Europe doesn't have a large infantry and a large tank core, and yes, you'd be right.  BRICS keeps pushing Europe and NATO allies, so now we are rearming a larger land force in many countries, France, Poland, the Baltics, Turkey, and Japan. Let me ask you: I suppose we'll be the bad guys in your mind when we push back right? You'll jump through hoops to somehow support Russia/China and criticize an offensive European posture. But it's just fine when Russia or China does it.

Only Putin may use ground troops, you'll say, and you'll justify it 100 different ways so your opponents are the bad guys.

This is what the thinking of constantly putting down Europe, pretending they are unimportant, and only Russia or America's views matter is going to lead to. It already is happening, more nations keep calling for sending troops to Ukraine, and tbh I am starting to support it. When we have the military we might as we use it to defend ourselves if America is stepping back from that role.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Ukraine have got more experience than anyone in Europe in modern times.

True. After Russia, Ukraine army is the best due to combat experience at the moment. But they are losing.

30 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Russia's experienced officer core is long dead.

Because they were using cold war era tactics on the field. They learned to not repeat those dumb mistakes. They current panel of officers are the best at the job anywhere in the world.

31 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Are you telling me America doesn't have experience fighting wars? What were all those wars you and others complained about then? America has fought more wars than anyone else in modern times.

Invading malnourished shitholes in the middleast and bombing civilians and teenagers do not qualify as relevant combat experience.

They were doing it then and they are doing it now.

Even then they got a solid beating from the Taliban. All those "wars" ended up making them stronger. They failed at those wars.

33 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Most European armies are geared for fighting in Africa or small-scale wars, where they can overwhelm their opponents with expensive aircraft and long-range munitions

Russia is different. America has no experience up against a formidable enemy. They cowardly went after small guy and still managed to get smoked.

Unlike Russia who is winning the war in Ukraine. Check the status.

35 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

A better point is Europe doesn't have a large infantry and a large tank core, and yes, you'd be right. 

Not even that but their current military isn't even motivated like the Russians or the Chinese. 

36 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

BRICS keeps pushing Europe and NATO allie

Lmao. Whatever the NATO is doing, jist blame it on BRICS. 

NATO pushed, ignored the negotiations, Russia reacted.

38 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Let me ask you: I suppose we'll be the bad guys in your mind when we push back right?

Except that Russia is the one pushing back, against NATO expansion.

39 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

But it's just fine when Russia or China does it.

Every nation is entitled to security.

40 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Only Putin may use ground troops, you'll say, and you'll justify it 100 different ways so your opponents are the bad guys.

There is no 100 ways. There is only one way: NATO expansion.

We already cleared this part earlier.

NATO expansion is the reason why Putin Invaded Russia. NATO was a security threat.

https://youtu.be/kfdR3zA8KME?si=OZUORsSomMqz8QSC

 

41 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

This is what the thinking of constantly putting down Europe, pretending they are unimportant, and only Russia or America's views matter is going to lead to

Lmao this is projection 101. 

You are blaming whatever the America is doing on Russia so that no one will blame it on you.

Just think about this.

Will you be comfortable if your neighbour hoards a bunch of 2000 pound bombs in his house? 

The problem is you discount Russia's security threat. NATO is the security threat of Russia. Plain and simple.

44 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

It already is happening, more nations keep calling for sending troops to Ukraine, and tbh I am starting to support it. When we have the military we might as we use it to defend ourselves if America is stepping back from that role.

Lmao as if it's going to change anything.

NATO will crumble from the inside if this happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BlueOak Let's not pretend like I didn't prove with all the relevant sources to you that Nato encroachment was indeed the reason for the invasion. With a little more digging I now have even more sources to confirm the same.

There is no point in discussion if you can't agree to this simple fact. It's so dead obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

True. After Russia, Ukraine army is the best due to combat experience at the moment. But they are losing.

Because they were using cold war era tactics on the field. They learned to not repeat those dumb mistakes. They current panel of officers are the best at the job anywhere in the world.

Invading malnourished shitholes in the middleast and bombing civilians and teenagers do not qualify as relevant combat experience.

They were doing it then and they are doing it now.

Even then they got a solid beating from the Taliban. All those "wars" ended up making them stronger. They failed at those wars.

Russia is different. America has no experience up against a formidable enemy. They cowardly went after small guy and still managed to get smoked.

Unlike Russia who is winning the war in Ukraine. Check the status.

Not even that but their current military isn't even motivated like the Russians or the Chinese. 

Lmao. Whatever the NATO is doing, jist blame it on BRICS. 

NATO pushed, ignored the negotiations, Russia reacted.

Except that Russia is the one pushing back, against NATO expansion.

Every nation is entitled to security.

There is no 100 ways. There is only one way: NATO expansion.

We already cleared this part earlier.

NATO expansion is the reason why Putin Invaded Russia. NATO was a security threat.

https://youtu.be/kfdR3zA8KME?si=OZUORsSomMqz8QSC

 

Lmao this is projection 101. 

You are blaming whatever the America is doing on Russia so that no one will blame it on you.

Just think about this.

Will you be comfortable if your neighbour hoards a bunch of 2000 pound bombs in his house? 

The problem is you discount Russia's security threat. NATO is the security threat of Russia. Plain and simple.

Lmao as if it's going to change anything.

NATO will crumble from the inside if this happens. 

I can't get to see your bias even in a direct reflection. People ignored and put down Russia. As you ignore and put down Europe, Russia is IN EUROPE. So that all fits. Before this, it was all America and China that anyone talked about. I guess, people need to go to war to be taken seriously in this era. I understand a more nuanced context of why Putin went to war and why European countries may go to war to be taken seriously.

It's amazing you think this unifies Russia but somehow will break apart Europe. As if Europe can somehow exist in a vacuum untouched by world events. The entire world has gone to the right. Greece and Turkey may go to war, the Balkans region will likely go to war as it contains a Russia-aligned power, but the rest of Europe will be focused entirely on defeating Russia if BRICS keep pushing.

It's also incredible; you can't see that Russia, China, Iran and BRICS are pushing their influence outward. Because that would force you to acknowledge that everyone does it. So instead, you have to have your enemy to make all your hatred toward them justified. Unless i say there is only one bad actor,  NATO (America in your mind), and all Russia does is justified, you make excuses or evade realising there isn't one side, it's a dynamic most of the world engages in. Russia has for CENTURIES meddled and invaded Eastern Europe, but oh that didn't matter did it? Just like they were helpless in the current round of slaughter. This is so much hypocrisy.

Oh but now Europe is using this as an excuse to rearm? But Russia didn't use it as an excuse?  Putin hasn't milked this for all it's worth? Total hypocrisy on your part again.

These events are cyclic so yes, all of this aggression creates the next cycle of aggression. Maybe you need to witness that more to understand it. Ex: As much as I criticize Israel's response to Iran, it was Iran who kicked off that round of violence. A few thousand teenagers didn't suddenly wake up one day out of the blue and invade Israel in an organized form. They were supplied, organized, and rallied by their leadership, and if someone tells me thousands of people pulled something like this off without their leadership getting any word at all, I'm going to burst out laughing.

NATO will crumble? No Europe is rearming now. Right now. There are talks of sending troops right now. Finally, I can get you to focus on Europe, as this is a European war. It's only taken 500 posts. 

17 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

@BlueOak Let's not pretend like I didn't prove with all the relevant sources to you that Nato encroachment was indeed the reason for the invasion. With a little more digging I now have even more sources to confirm the same.

There is no point in discussion if you can't agree to this simple fact. It's so dead obvious.

Let's not pretend I didn't give 20 other reasons.

There is no point in this discussion if you can't agree with me, because my way of seeing this is obviously the correct one.

That's not a discussion, Bobby, that's you talking to a mirror.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Let's not pretend I didn't give 20 other reasons.

That doesn't invalidate the claim that NATO expansion was the reason for the invasion.

Sure there could be irrelevant reason like "denazifying Ukraine" like Putin said. But countries don't go to war for the sake of denazifying.

You need one good direct reason for wars. The rest is fluff. You don't even need 20 reasons for launching a full scale war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That doesn't invalidate the claim that NATO expansion was the reason for the invasion.

Sure there could be irrelevant reason like "denazifying Ukraine" like Putin said. But countries don't go to war for the sake of denazifying.

You need one good direct reason for wars. The rest is fluff. You don't even need 20 reasons for launching a full scale war.

From Russia's perspective, NATO being closer to their borders was one reason they went to war yes. One out of 20. From NATO's perspective, individual countries join a treaty, for NATO it's not a direct conquering of territory or even one unified territory, like how it is framed in Russia.

I cannot recall a war that was over one thing. If you give me an example, I'll do a few hours of research (when I have time) and post 20 reasons why that particular war was fought. Just don't give me an obscure, small regional conflict from 300 years ago with sparse data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another aid package passed.

They admit that this is not winning the war, but winning more time.

The average age in the Ukraine army is 43. No man wants to be send to the border to fight. The morale is down. They are even surrendering in mass numbers.

It is always people who do not want to fight that wants to drag on the war that you are going to lose anyway.

I do not  get the point.  Do they want to spill more Ukrainian blood and give away even more negotiating power to Putin?

Do they really want to give away even more land to Putin?

What are they accomplishing with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now