Ukraine / Russia

[asher2789]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkayla ... 773192dd87

You didn't read this article, did you? If you did, I don't think you understood it, because it pretty much supports what I said above.

its actually really sad watching in real time how all of my liberal friends' and family's brains have turned into propagandized mush over ukraine. what's happening there is terrible and unfortunate, however, it is not worth ending most or all life on earth (and forget humans, think of all the animals who will needlessly suffer) over via nuclear armageddon.

So what's your solution, just allow Putin to take whatever he wants in Europe just because he has nukes? Where does that end? Because it seems to me, sooner or later, it ends with WWIII.

well since we dont have a time machine to go back to 1991 and dissolve the useless NATO "defensive" agreement, yes. you do realize that nuclear war will likely kill you if you are lucky, or you will suffer until you die in the post apocalyptic world? putin likely has cancer, and has nothing to lose in taking the world out with him (though supposedly he has a daughter, so maybe he will behave rationally and not end the world.) LOL at putin being the "bad guy" when we regime change anyone who tries to stand up to american imperialism. 90% of drone strike casualties in afghanistan were civilians. oh and the guy who leaked that information got sent to prison. so much for freedom of the press... so long as you dont criticize the empire (see assange, snowden and winner for more examples). but poooootin bad!

lets also just casually forget the past ~decade of the "liberal" press stating that neonazis were running rampant in ukraine. lets totally forget that azov and others are totally not nazis, and that they havent been idolizing and celebrating nazis for some time. that being said, i really feel for ALL of the civilians suffering through war right now. including places like yemen, where we fund the saudi's slaughter of yemenis. those same saudis who were 17 of the 19 9/11 hijackers!

also, it is SO CONVENIENT for the military industrial complex to get a new forever war, right after the longest war in american history came to an end. a war we lost, no less. man those contractors must be so thrilled to renovate the bathrooms and kitchens in their vacation homes.

f*** liberals. "antiwar" until its the democrats waging it. this is why i am a leftist, because i am antiwar, all the time. i can only imagine the conniption democrats would be having if trump were the one in office doing the exact same thing biden is doing. f*** hypocrites.

So, being anti war all the time, you would’ve been anti war during WWII?

anti-war does not mean anti-self defense. being against war is not the same as being completely pacifist. so far, god willing, russia has yet to bomb us. but if they were to, not like id ever have any say in the matter, i would wish they would not retaliate so the world is not totally destroyed (why should man's ego end most life on earth?) and instead we have our own hiroshima/nagasaki. it would be terrible but at least the innocent people and animals in the rest of the world would be spared. of course, there is no say in the manner, if we are attacked systems are automated to retaliate which would send off a chain reaction so that WW4, should enough humans manage to survive, will be fighting with sticks and stones. at the time of our entrance into WW2 nobody had nukes that could end the world as we know it. it is apples to oranges now, WW2 and WW3.

what sets the post-WW2 world apart from the pre-WW2 world is mutually assured destruction. its the only part of the neoliberal foreign policy that i actually agree with - mutually assured destruction has kept the world at relative peace for decades now compared to the time before. why chance it now? we should work out a peace agreement and improve all relations, rather than risk ending most or all life on earth. things are so heated now over a patch of fertile soil with a gas line running through it that even an accident involving nukes has the potential to end all life.

wild that in 2022 this is considered controversial.

[asher2789]

Adam Schiff: : All of the freedom loving world has an interest in the outcome of this war and ensuring that Ukraine is victorious and we are determined to do everything in our power to make it so. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and will until victory is won.

Hmmm... What does Putin think of that while he sits on the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons?

We should be leading peace talks and nothing else.

Yeah because appeasement worked so well in the lead up to WWII.

Regan stood at the Berlin War and told Russia to tear it down. He also sent stinger missiles to the Afghans while they fought a similar Soviet invasion. The Soviets had nukes then, too, but we had a leader willing to stand up to them in spite of it.

I hope Putin hears what Schiff said. Putin's despotism needs to be opposed or he will go right on conquering his neighbors until we have WWIII on our hands. If he, and others like him, see the world is willing to stand up to them, they will think twice before invading another country like Ukraine. This is what strong leadership looks like.

and some of those fighters led a movement resulting in 9/11 and other terror attacks. great argument as we arm literal nazis on the ukraine side. (and in case you think im corrupted by putin, im aware of the nazbols on russias side, nazis by another name)

the start of WW2 didnt have nukes. the start of WW3 involves nukes, a totally different calculus. peace is the only option to avoid ending the world as we know it, potentially ending most life on earth.

[easyrider16]

But Putin broke the peace. If he's willing to do it in Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea, and now Ukraine proper, why would he ever stop until somebody stands up to him?

Right now, Russia is fighting a conventional war with an enemy that does not have nuclear weapons. Why doesn't mutually assured destruction prevent him from using nuclear weapons against the countries supplying Ukraine in the current conflict?

[Bubba]

f*** liberals. "antiwar" until its the democrats waging it. this is why i am a leftist, because i am antiwar, all the time. i can only imagine the conniption democrats would be having if trump were the one in office doing the exact same thing biden is doing. f*** hypocrites.

So, being anti war all the time, you would’ve been anti war during WWII?

anti-war does not mean anti-self defense. being against war is not the same as being completely pacifist.

So I gather then that you would've been against giving Britain all the help we did before the US became a direct combatant in WW II? No Lend Lease, no convoys of supplies to Britain? And, given that we were attacked by Japan and not Germany, you would've gone to war with Japan but not Germany? Keep in mind, Germany declared war on the US only after the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor and we declared war on Japan as a result. According to your only go to war in self-defense doctrine, that is what would have transpired in the years leading up to December 7 - 9, 1941.

[asher2789]

f*** liberals. "antiwar" until its the democrats waging it. this is why i am a leftist, because i am antiwar, all the time. i can only imagine the conniption democrats would be having if trump were the one in office doing the exact same thing biden is doing. f*** hypocrites.

So, being anti war all the time, you would’ve been anti war during WWII?

anti-war does not mean anti-self defense. being against war is not the same as being completely pacifist.

So I gather then that you would've been against giving Britain all the help we did before the US became a direct combatant in WW II? No Lend Lease, no convoys of supplies to Britain? And, given that we were attacked by Japan and not Germany, you would've gone to war with Japan but not Germany? Keep in mind, Germany declared war on the US only after the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor and we declared war on Japan as a result. According to your only go to war in self-defense doctrine, that is what would have transpired in the years leading up to December 7 - 9, 1941.

as i said before, comparing WW2 to WW3 is useless. WW2 did not start with nuclear powers. WW3 will lead to WW4 being fought with sticks and stones. also, after serving no purpose post 1991 dissolving of the soviet union, NATO continues to push eastward towards russias borders for no f*** reason other than to enrich defense contractors (while telling my generation theres no money for loan forgiveness or universal healthcare or any kind of social safety net at all that doesnt require "means testing" aka jumping through flaming hoops while juggling chainsaws to prove youre poor enough to need help). f*** the US. when will liberals wake up? when will they wake up and learn how imperialism is going to get them turned into radioactive dust? of their own doing? and PS, US state dept helped overthrow ukraine's government in 2014 to install fascist sympathizers. shocking. not. and for the record, russias got its own nazbols to contend with, so dont think that i support putin or his regime. no gods, no masters.

liberals minds are propagandized mush.

[asher2789]

But Putin broke the peace. If he's willing to do it in Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea, and now Ukraine proper, why would he ever stop until somebody stands up to him?

Right now, Russia is fighting a conventional war with an enemy that does not have nuclear weapons. Why doesn't mutually assured destruction prevent him from using nuclear weapons against the countries supplying Ukraine in the current conflict?

so far he has yet to challenge mutually assured destruction. but he hints at it, like the abuser he is. he wants to reestablish the russian empire. why is that america's problem? why are we the worlds policeman? did you forget theres no money for universal healthcare or higher education or loan forgiveness? theres no money for that quit whining for a handout! oh but billions to another country? just fine! f*** that sh*t. f*** this f*** country. if these other countries dont want russia running their show then they can fight their own wars. im tired of my tax dollars going to billionaires and war. so f*** fed up. and the liberals cheer it on! slava ukraini!!!!

as long as the defense contractors can get their bathrooms renovated on their multiple vacation homes all is well. war in afganistan ends? time for a new forever war!

[easyrider16]

I think if you don't see why an aggressive Russia moving to take parts of Europe and reestablish its empire is not our problem, you should study history. Giving Ukraine weapons and letting them spend their lives to oppose this aggression is a pretty good deal for us right now.

[Heywood jablowmee]

Beat me to it...FYI Rehasher....Ukraine IS ...a sovereign State....likely...where your (and MINE)...Grandparents came from...YOUR financial woes( endless , seems)...are NOT related to this humanitarian crisis...and to stand idly by...silently.....would incur a wrath ...worldwide.....

[Fancypants]

f*** liberals. "antiwar" until its the democrats waging it. this is why i am a leftist, because i am antiwar, all the time. i can only imagine the conniption democrats would be having if trump were the one in office doing the exact same thing biden is doing. f*** hypocrites.

So, being anti war all the time, you would’ve been anti war during WWII?

anti-war does not mean anti-self defense. being against war is not the same as being completely pacifist.

So I gather then that you would've been against giving Britain all the help we did before the US became a direct combatant in WW II? No Lend Lease, no convoys of supplies to Britain? And, given that we were attacked by Japan and not Germany, you would've gone to war with Japan but not Germany? Keep in mind, Germany declared war on the US only after the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor and we declared war on Japan as a result. According to your only go to war in self-defense doctrine, that is what would have transpired in the years leading up to December 7 - 9, 1941.

as i said before, comparing WW2 to WW3 is useless. WW2 did not start with nuclear powers. WW3 will lead to WW4 being fought with sticks and stones. also, after serving no purpose post 1991 dissolving of the soviet union, NATO continues to push eastward towards russias borders for no f*** reason other than to enrich defense contractors (while telling my generation theres no money for loan forgiveness or universal healthcare or any kind of social safety net at all that doesnt require "means testing" aka jumping through flaming hoops while juggling chainsaws to prove youre poor enough to need help). f*** the US. when will liberals wake up? when will they wake up and learn how imperialism is going to get them turned into radioactive dust? of their own doing? and PS, US state dept helped overthrow ukraine's government in 2014 to install fascist sympathizers. shocking. not. and for the record, russias got its own nazbols to contend with, so dont think that i support putin or his regime. no gods, no masters.

liberals minds are propagandized mush.

Still trying to wrap my hands around this lunacy..... I guess if your not happy here, move!

[asher2789]

I think if you don't see why an aggressive Russia moving to take parts of Europe and reestablish its empire is not our problem, you should study history. Giving Ukraine weapons and letting them spend their lives to oppose this aggression is a pretty good deal for us right now.

you seem to not understand the concept of nuclear war ending most if not all life on earth. including yours. all to... show some asshole likely dying of cancer who's boss over a stretch of land on the other side of the world? man, if you think inflation is bad now just wait for next years food prices! ukraine is europes breadbasket, russia is the world's fertilizer supplier. oh, and then there's climate change to add to the chaos.

so f*** stupid. and there's literally nazis fighting in the ukraine military but saying that is russian propaganda. even though the NYT published articles about it as recently as a couple years ago.

gotta love it when a democrat war hawk decides hes going to all but join a war against a nuclear power without even bothering with congress. liberals never cease to amaze me with their stupidity. defund the police, but lets police the whole world!

[asher2789]

So, being anti war all the time, you would’ve been anti war during WWII?

anti-war does not mean anti-self defense. being against war is not the same as being completely pacifist.

So I gather then that you would've been against giving Britain all the help we did before the US became a direct combatant in WW II? No Lend Lease, no convoys of supplies to Britain? And, given that we were attacked by Japan and not Germany, you would've gone to war with Japan but not Germany? Keep in mind, Germany declared war on the US only after the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor and we declared war on Japan as a result. According to your only go to war in self-defense doctrine, that is what would have transpired in the years leading up to December 7 - 9, 1941.

as i said before, comparing WW2 to WW3 is useless. WW2 did not start with nuclear powers. WW3 will lead to WW4 being fought with sticks and stones. also, after serving no purpose post 1991 dissolving of the soviet union, NATO continues to push eastward towards russias borders for no f*** reason other than to enrich defense contractors (while telling my generation theres no money for loan forgiveness or universal healthcare or any kind of social safety net at all that doesnt require "means testing" aka jumping through flaming hoops while juggling chainsaws to prove youre poor enough to need help). f*** the US. when will liberals wake up? when will they wake up and learn how imperialism is going to get them turned into radioactive dust? of their own doing? and PS, US state dept helped overthrow ukraine's government in 2014 to install fascist sympathizers. shocking. not. and for the record, russias got its own nazbols to contend with, so dont think that i support putin or his regime. no gods, no masters.

liberals minds are propagandized mush.

Still trying to wrap my hands around this lunacy..... I guess if your not happy here, move!

where do you suggest i go? where am i getting a passport to, and the ability to emigrate to?

i hate this country because of responses like yours. if you dont like it, leave. how f*** childish. we dont have money to feed the poor, we dont have universal healthcare, we dont have universal higher ed, we dont have housing, we dont have any of these sOcIaLiSt!!! things because spending money on its own people is anti-american and threatens the death grip of capitalism, no no but we've got trillions for forever wars! when one forever war ends, start another! the defense contractors want their bonuses!

[easyrider16]

you seem to not understand the concept of nuclear war ending most if not all life on earth. including yours. all to... show some asshole likely dying of cancer who's boss over a stretch of land on the other side of the world?

And you don't seem to understand the lessons of history. When Hitler seized Czechoslovakia it was just some asshole taking a stretch of land on the other side of the world. But appeasement didn't work then and it won't work now. Guys like Putin don't stop after taking a single stretch of land.

I agree, we should be trying to avoid nuclear war. I just happen to think that supporting Ukraine now is the best way to do that. Russia is engaged in a war with a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons. MAD prevents him from attacking those countries that are supplying weapons to Ukraine. If Putin is willing to fire nuclear weapons at us despite MAD over this war, he'll be willing to do it any time afterward. Only his position then will be stronger than it is now. I'd rather confront him now than rely on some naive hope that he will stop at Ukraine, especially after he didn't stop at Georgia, Chechnya, etc.

Besides that, if we let any country with nuclear weapons invade anywhere they want unchallenged just to avoid a nuclear war, where does that leave the world when N. Korea takes S. Korea, China takes Taiwan, etc.? What if Iran finishes developing nuclear weapons and decides to take large sections of the middle east? What if other rogue nations decide that once you get nukes, you can do whatever you want, so they push to develop them, then start conquering neighbors?

so f*** stupid. and there's literally nazis fighting in the ukraine military but saying that is russian propaganda. even though the NYT published articles about it as recently as a couple years ago.

Did you know that Zelenski is Jewish? He got 73% of the vote in the last election. Sure, there are fringe elements in Ukranian politics, as there are in every democracy in the world. That does not mean we are supporting Nazis by giving Ukraine weapons.

[Bubba]

From Time Magazine's daily e-mail

Ukraine Shows the Strength of a Free People

https://time.com/6174713/ukraine-war-fr ... =207309822

*******************************************************************

"The Morning" from the NY Times

By David Leonhardt

Good morning. It’s Victory Day in Europe — a holiday honoring World War II that has long been important to Putin.

Appease or confront

For much of the past two decades, the U.S. and its European allies have chosen not to confront Vladimir Putin.

Even as Russia invaded Georgia, annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, shot down a passenger jet and interfered in a U.S. presidential election, the West did relatively little to stop him. It imposed sanctions too porous to have much effect on the oligarchs around Putin and stayed far away from any military confrontation with Russia.

When Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February, the strategy of non-confrontation seemed as if it would continue. Western leaders again imposed only modest sanctions and did not send any troops to Ukraine. The leaders feared sparking a larger war with Russia and — although they didn’t say so publicly — had decided that trying to save Ukraine was not worth the risk.

But then the Western leaders changed their minds.

Over the past two months, the U.S., the E.U. and their allies have shown an entirely new level of assertiveness toward Russia. As recent news stories have documented, the U.S. has gone so far as to provide Ukraine’s military with information that helped it kill Russian generals on the battlefield and sink the Moskva, a 200-yard-long warship that was the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. The West also continues to send weapons to Ukraine and enforce harsh economic sanctions on Russia.

What explains the turnabout? I posed that question to my colleague Helene Cooper — one of the reporters who has broken stories about the collaboration between the American and Ukrainian militaries — and our conversation helped me understand the main reasons. Today’s newsletter focuses on this rapid and consequential change in American foreign policy.

‘Scarred’ no more

Over the past two decades, American officials have had a lot of experience collaborating with another country’s military during a war being fought on its soil. Much of that experience was in Afghanistan, and it was deeply frustrating for the U.S. Although many Afghan soldiers bravely fought the Taliban, the Afghan government was riddled with corruption and did not seem committed to victory.

The defeat there has haunted members of the Biden administration and the U.S. military. “They were scarred from Afghanistan,” Helene says.

On the surface, Ukraine initially looked like another lost cause. Its military was far smaller and less well armed than Russia’s, and Western experts expected Ukraine’s government to fall within days.

From the first days of Russia’s invasion, however, Ukraine surprised the world. Its civilians demonstrated a patriotism that belied Putin’s claim that Ukraine was not a real country, and its military stopped Russia’s army from advancing in many places.

“Not only did Ukraine fight,” Helene said, “but they were winning.” This early success showed Western officials that trying to stop Putin might not be a hopeless cause.

‘We’re not afraid’

The start of fighting changed the West’s calculations in another way, too. Europe’s largest war in more than 75 years — since Nazi Germany surrendered — was underway. Russia was bombing cities and killing civilians, and millions of Ukrainians were fleeing their homes.

Putin’s earlier aggressions had been on a smaller scale. His previous attacks on Ukraine and Georgia were not full-scale wars. His interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was certainly aggressive, but it was also amorphous: Nobody could be sure exactly how much it mattered, and the Trump administration had an obvious incentive to downplay it.

The images coming from Ukraine were much more salient. They were sufficiently shocking as to change the way many Western leaders thought about their approach to Putin. Before, those leaders were willing to tolerate his aggressions, partly out of a fear of how much worse things could get. After the Ukraine invasion, these same leaders effectively came to believe that they had only two choices: appeasement or confrontation.

The change in the West’s policy has been remarkable. In the early weeks of the war, Helene points out, American officials were not willing to admit that they were sending shoulder-fired missile systems known as Stingers to Ukraine. “They were afraid to use the word ‘Stingers,’” she said.

Today, U.S. officials acknowledge helping Ukraine get access not only to Stingers but to other missiles, tanks and more. The American involvement in attacks on Russian generals and the Moskva ship, although not officially acknowledged, is even more aggressive.

As Evelyn Farkas, a former Pentagon official, said, describing the new U.S. policy: “We will give them everything they need to win, and we’re not afraid of Vladimir Putin’s reaction to that. We won’t be self-deterred.”

Too far?

The U.S. and its allies still have tough decisions to make.

Some officials and experts worry that the West continues to err on the side of caution and is not giving Ukraine what its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, says he needs to win. “We have been deterred out of an exaggerated fear of what possibly could happen,” retired Lt. Gen. Frederick Hodges, the former top U.S. Army commander in Europe, has said.

Other experts think the U.S. may be overcompensating for its initial weakness toward Putin and is now risking a wider confrontation. Thomas Friedman, the Times columnist, captured this worry in his most recent column. The sinking of the Moskva and targeting of Russian generals, he wrote, “suggest we are no longer in an indirect war with Russia but rather edging toward a direct war — and no one has prepared the American people or Congress for that.”

There are no easy answers here. The old strategy — appeasement without calling it so — encouraged Putin to become more aggressive, believing the West was too frightened to respond. The new strategy — confrontation without fully acknowledging it — risks a fight with a nuclear power that many Americans and Europeans do not want. Putin knows that, which is part of the reason he has been willing to take such enormous risks.

[asher2789]

you seem to not understand the concept of nuclear war ending most if not all life on earth. including yours. all to... show some asshole likely dying of cancer who's boss over a stretch of land on the other side of the world?

And you don't seem to understand the lessons of history. When Hitler seized Czechoslovakia it was just some asshole taking a stretch of land on the other side of the world. But appeasement didn't work then and it won't work now. Guys like Putin don't stop after taking a single stretch of land.

I agree, we should be trying to avoid nuclear war. I just happen to think that supporting Ukraine now is the best way to do that. Russia is engaged in a war with a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons. MAD prevents him from attacking those countries that are supplying weapons to Ukraine. If Putin is willing to fire nuclear weapons at us despite MAD over this war, he'll be willing to do it any time afterward. Only his position then will be stronger than it is now. I'd rather confront him now than rely on some naive hope that he will stop at Ukraine, especially after he didn't stop at Georgia, Chechnya, etc.

Besides that, if we let any country with nuclear weapons invade anywhere they want unchallenged just to avoid a nuclear war, where does that leave the world when N. Korea takes S. Korea, China takes Taiwan, etc.? What if Iran finishes developing nuclear weapons and decides to take large sections of the middle east? What if other rogue nations decide that once you get nukes, you can do whatever you want, so they push to develop them, then start conquering neighbors?

so f*** stupid. and there's literally nazis fighting in the ukraine military but saying that is russian propaganda. even though the NYT published articles about it as recently as a couple years ago.

Did you know that Zelenski is Jewish? He got 73% of the vote in the last election. Sure, there are fringe elements in Ukranian politics, as there are in every democracy in the world. That does not mean we are supporting Nazis by giving Ukraine weapons.

the lessons of history that you bring up don't apply when it comes to two nuclear armed powers in a proxy war. again, all the comparisons to WW2 are a complete waste of time, because the start of WW2 did not involve nuclear armed powers that could destroy all life on earth. russia might be at war with ukraine, but really its at war with NATO and ukraine is the proxy. putin will stop where the russian empire's historic borders stopped. that doesnt mean i agree with this - i dont, i am against all war especially this russian imperialist sh*t.

again, we are not the worlds policeman, and im tired as f*** of being told we cant have f*** healthcare because sticking our noses where they dont belong is more important. anything for the defense contractor profits. do you realize that you are being sacrificed for them? i dont care if china takes taiwan. when china tries to take hawaii, then ill care. hawaii is part of the US, taiwan is not.

why cant iran have nukes? everybody else has them, why cant they? again, who the f*** are we to tell them what to do? i dont see iran telling the US what to do with itself. meanwhile, israel can wipe iran off the map if it wants. so let them have nukes. f*** if i care.

the only "rogue" nation is the f*** US, full stop. we have military bases in nearly every f*** country on earth, why?! to protect "US interests" aka corporate profits, of course!

do you know that i am jewish? who the f*** cares about zelenskyy? did you know there were jewish nazis, besides hitler? 20% of german jews supported the nazi party.

[easyrider16]

First off, I think you need to recognize that this isn't a U.S. thing. The major powers of Europe are all supporting Ukraine. If the U.S. stopped all arms shipments today, Germany, France, the U.K., etc. would keep sending weapons to Ukraine. Second, you seem very afraid that Putin may be willing to risk using nuclear weapons in this conflict. If he is, why wouldn't he would be willing to use them anywhere, any time? How would appeasement take that threat off the table?

You don't care if China takes Taiwan, okay. But you care if China takes Hawaii. Why? What's the difference? You don't live there. In fact you live a thousand miles from there. So why not just let China have it? Is it really worth risking a nuclear war? The same logic applies. So, where does it stop?