A Quick and Clear Summation of the Situation in Ukraine.

[rightwinger]

Read what I said.

Trump talks as if he has let Putin off the hook. But has he? This will take more time to figure out.

Just stop it
Stop pretending Trump is not a Putin puppet

He has NEVER condemned Putin in the last 10 years

 

[Robert W]

Just stop it
Stop pretending Trump is not a Putin puppet

He has NEVER condemned Putin in the last 10 years

Biden was. But you liked it when he was.

 

[JoeB131]

We have one from Chicago and one from China.

We do?

Another attack on family reported, but to the point, my wife doesn't give a crap about politics.

 

[Robert W]

We do?

Another attack on family reported, but to the point, my wife doesn't give a crap about politics.

Was no attack on family.

 

[rightwinger]

Biden was. But you liked it when he was.

Example

 

[Zavulon]

I keep answering you keep not understanding.

So long as Putin has hope to control Ukraine no peace will ever happen. America can whole heartedly support Ukraine's millitary effort and shorten the war, or we can do what Trump is doing now and prolong the war.

No. America "wholeheartedly supporting" Kievan regime means escalation. Like sending F-35, F-22, commiting tactical nuclear strikes and so on.... But if Russia is determined to not allow Ukraine in NATO (or NATO in Ukraine), Russia won't surrender. Russia will escalate either - first with deniable acts of aggression against the undisputed territories of the USA, then - with counter-force strike against US nuclear forces. Possibly, it will cause all-out nuclear war. Russians do prefer all-out nuclear war (which they likely will win) to leaving Ukraine under NATO control. Do Americans prefer be defeated (almost without losses) in a conventional proxy-conflict somewhere in Eurasia or fight a nuclear war with almost non-existing chances to win (and even victory will cost them millions of humans lifes)?

 

[AntonToo]

No. America "wholeheartedly supporting" Kievan regime means escalation. Like sending F-35, F-22, commiting tactical nuclear strikes and so on....

You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Tactical nukes have little actual use beyond straight up helping Ukraine's cause. Once you use nukes you become a reckless, dangerous periah state for even China and India. They will cut you off.

Russia is already using whatever is actually useful.

 

[Zavulon]

You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Tactical nukes have little actual use boyond straight up helping Ukraine's cause. Once you use nukes China and India tell you to go fuck yourselves.

Actually, I said that you should be ready to use tactical (and then strategical) nukes if you really are ready to escalate.

And, talking about Russian tactical nukes usage, there are targets good enough to be destroyed by nukes, like, say, Beskid tunnel, but basically, its of course, suppose to eliminate nuclear weapons of Britain and France.

 

[AntonToo]

But if Russia is determined to not allow Ukraine in NATO (or NATO in Ukraine), Russia won't surrender. Russia will escalate either - first with deniable acts of aggression against the undisputed territories of the USA, then - with counter-force strike against US nuclear forces. Possibly, it will cause all-out nuclear war. Russians do prefer all-out nuclear war (which they likely will win) to leaving Ukraine under NATO control. Do Americans prefer be defeated (almost without losses) in a conventional proxy-conflict somewhere in Eurasia or fight a nuclear war with almost non-existing chances to win (and even victory will cost them millions of humans lifes)?

Aaaaand it's straight to silly fantasy land.

 

[AntonToo]

Actually, I said that you should be ready to use tactical (and then strategical) nukes if you really are ready to escalate.

And, talking about Russian tactical nukes usage, there are targets good enough to be destroyed by nukes, like, say, Beskid tunnel, but basically, its of course, suppose to eliminate nuclear weapons of Britain and France.

What makes you think that Putin is interested in turning Moscow into nuclear wasteland over something in Ukraine?

Yes yes, you have your stupid fantasies about how Russia can escape the consequences of using nuclear weapons, but thankfully Putin is not quite so stupid as to start playing with that existential fire.

 

[Zavulon]

Aaaaand it's straight to silly fantasy land.

Good fantasy is much more realistic than your stupid fake-news Universe. At least, there is no "unreasonable evil" in really good fantasy.

 

[AntonToo]

Good fantasy is much more realistic

Are you 12?

You don't sound like an adult.

 

[Zavulon]

What makes you think that Putin is interested in turning Moscow into nuclear wasteland over something in Ukraine?

Moscow is important, but expendable. Napoleon burnt it down, but lost the war. Trump may try to burn down Moscow, but he will lose the war either.

Yes yes, you have your stupid fantasies about how Russia can escape the consequences of using nuclear weapons, but thankfully Putin is not quite so stupid as to start playing with that existential fire.

Both NATO forces in Ukraine and nuclear war are existential threats for Russia. But latter is better because "NATO forces in Ukraine" scenario includes further nuclear war, but on the worse (for Russia) terms. So, from Russian point of view its much better to start it now, on Russian terms, than allow NATO to start it a few years later on the NATO terms.

 

[AntonToo]

Both NATO forces in Ukraine and nuclear war are existential threats for Russia.

NATO membership for Litva - not existential threat to Russia.
NATO membership for Estonia - not existential threat.
NATO membership for Finland, 100 miles from st.Petersburg - not existential threat.

But NATO membership for Ukraine??? Lets start a nuclear war!

 

[Zavulon]

NATO membership for Litva - not existential threat to Russia.
NATO membership for Estonia - not existential threat.
NATO membership for Finland, 100 miles from st.Petersburg - not existential threat.

Yes (especially if NATO were following earlier signed treaties and didn't militatrise them). Those all are significant threats, and Russia will try to neutralise them, of course (one way, or another), but not really vital at the current level of their militarisation (its more or less disputable for Finland with its new bases, but firsts things first).

But NATO membership for Ukraine??? Lets start a nuclear war!

Lets try to stop it without a nuclear war, but if necessary - nuclear war may be the lesser evil. Appeasement of evil doesn't work, you know.

 

[JoeB131]

Both NATO forces in Ukraine and nuclear war are existential threats for Russia. But latter is better because "NATO forces in Ukraine" scenario includes further nuclear war, but on the worse (for Russia) terms. So, from Russian point of view its much better to start it now, on Russian terms, than allow NATO to start it a few years later on the NATO terms.

Sounds like a lot of chest beating to me.

You guys did fine without the Donbas for 30 years... don't pretend it's important to you now.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Zavulon]

Sounds like a lot of chest beating to me.

You guys did fine without the Donbas for 30 years... don't pretend it's important to you now.

When the people of Donbass were safe - it was OK. When there were no NATO forces in Ukraine - it was ok. Neutral Ukraine, in which Russian people have equal rights - its pretty OK.
Americans are mostly OK with the independence of Canada, exactly until they take their money or kill Americans by selling them poisons.
But, they are not ok with fentanyl trading from Canada, and they will be even lesser OK about, say, deployment even allied British nuclear weapons there.

And, highly likely, they will prefer immediate nuclear war to Canada's membership in Shanghai Pact with deployment of Chinese missiles (and further "decolonisation" of North America).

 

[AntonToo]

Lets try to stop it without a nuclear war, but if necessary - nuclear war may be the lesser evil. Appeasement of evil doesn't work, you know.

Lesser evil of Ukraine finally having security from their fucked in the head neighbors like you?

Thats the lesser evil that will make Putin want to turn Moscow into a nuclear wasteland?

 

[AntonToo]

When the people of Donbass were safe - it was OK.

Dumbass, people in Donbas were safe untill you Russians invaded and started putting your flags on their government buildings at a barrel of a gun.

Sloviansk people were safe untill Girkin and his goons rode in and started taking over the city in the spring of 2014, then the shooting began and people dying.

You know what happened once these invaders were knocked out of Sloviansk? Peace and safety for civilians.