Dangerous Dilemma about Ukraine. Two main risky alternatives.

[XponentialChaos]

Frank is referring to the Khazarian Mafia.

Look at you still trying to defend Putin’s actions, comrade.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thank you, Comrade!

You should have second thoughts about being on the same side as Soros, Klaus Schwab "You Will Own nothing and be happy" and the Globalists

Are you not the least concerned that the same people who believe pandemics are good for population and behavior control and compliance are running 26 biological "research", er, um, labs in Ukraine? I mean, what's the worst that could happen?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

3) Have Zelensky deal with it.

You want ChiCom nukes deployed in Mexico?

Or Wuhan in Tijuana?

 

[gipper]

Then it is a good thing you are not POTUS.

The United States of America and Russia have lived in relative peace since 1963, the Cold War notwithstanding. That's fifty-nine years of the world's two biggest kids on the block not throwing fists at each other, not exchanging intercontinental thermonuclear ballistic missiles, and not reducing earth's surface to smoldering, radioactive embers.

In 2001 the United States invaded Afghanistan. Russia did not flinch. All well and good said most of the leaders of the First World, as New York city had just suffered the worst terrorist attack in American history. In 2003 however, United States armed forces invaded Iraq under pretenses not directly related to 9/11/01 and in doing so killed many Iraqi citizens who were just trying to survive Saddam and go about their daily lives.

Key question: did Russia and the rest of the "civilized" world impose sanctions on the US for invading Iraq and causing high numbers of civilian casualties? Was the internet in a non-stop uproar over US/Coalition bombs falling on Iraqi infrastructure?

No.

Suddenly however, Russia invades the Ukraine and Putin is Hitler? Putin's gonna roll across Europe? Wait a minute . . . according to every major news outlet the Russian army can't even take down poor little old Kiev, and yet is somehow a threat to all of Europe? Well, which is it? Are the Russians the new Nazis running blitzkrieg across Ukraine or are they a shoddy, has-been spare parts army?

Lastly, YOU might be okay with mass exchanges of city incinerating ICBMs (if so, that makes you a full send idiot) but most of the rest of the free world is not.

He is a full blown idiot and proves it with every post. He likens Putin to a school yard bully who must be confronted or else.

I’m guessing he’s around 15 years old and suffering from government school indoctrination. I’m hopeful he hasn’t yet attained an adult level of intelligence. His balls haven’t dropped yet.

 

[BackAgain]

Okay. Keep going with that dialog. It's an entertaining read for a non american.

Irrelevant.

 

[BackAgain]

Here's the problem...you're not just dealing with Putin. China is tacitly in approval and so are Iran and North Korea. This aggression in Ukraine is much, much deeper than Russia versus Ukraine....it is the communist bloc Nations versus NATO and the west. No one from the Western block is going to risk triggering Armageddon....
So they will attempt to regain control using other means. Zelensky is either an egotistical ass or a retarded dupe. The "new situation" is absolutely here and is not going away. Instead of using his nation's geography as a pissing contest
Battle ground he could have made a few harmless and temporary agreements that would most likely die with Putin.

The war in Ukraine is just the lead dance in the new global conflict that will dominate the next two decades. Russia could probably be backed out ...but not the communist bloc...it's too big and too dedicated to it's mission.

Jo

I agree that others, like China, have a big interest in all of this. It does complicate every step of the analysis. And again, the two main alternatives aren’t the only possible ways to proceed….. Therefore, this goes beyond anything simple and suggests that there may not even exist any good line of strategy to pursue.

 

[BackAgain]

Propaganda cuts both ways. Cutting through propaganda is difficult sometimes. With that in mind, I think I need to reconsider some of my own positions to some degree.

Some folks here (on a few threads) have offered me a couple of bits of advice (sometimes in an attack mode fashion which doesn’t foster a whole lot of attention on their point). They “suggested” that the history of the long running dispute informs the discussion. I argued that historical claims notwithstanding, Putin’s aggression and his war crimes made the historical background fairly insignificantAnyway, putting aside the arrogance of how they offer such “advice,” I started to wonder if there might be a kernel of truth and validity in their more substantive contentions.

USMB member Meister has approached much of this Russia-Ukraine war discussion in a more calm, reflective and even scholarly fashion in several posts. His efforts include a few history lessons.

I am not in a position to form a completed conclusion. And even if I were, I still recognize that the entire analysis is so complicated, it’s like trying to describe a three dimensional chess game in one sentence.

But so far, I am starting to appreciate even the snotty trolling advice of a few Board members: they seem to have a point insofar as arguing that the history of the dispute has to be considered. It does. That said, it still strikes me as pretty important to make sure that we don’t allow Putin to get away with his behavior.

And finally, some message board discussion of the history of Ukraine-Russia hostilities — and the need to “stop Putin” — fails to properly weigh the horrendous infliction of death, pain, suffering in the civilians of Ukraine.

 

[gipper]

Poor Ensign Butthurt. You lash out at others for typos or misspellings, but then when when your own rather numerous misspellings and typos are thrown back in your face, you snivel and make excuses.

Psst. Nobody cares. Grow a pair of balls and then gulp down a huge scalding-hot mug of stfu

Your petty deflection shit aside, I wonder if you have the ability to simply address the actual topic in an adult fashion?

If only you could learn. This might help you.

Putin must think he's G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney. He figures they got away with a criminal war of aggression blowing apart a non-threatening Iraq causing millions of casualties and millions of refugees. So he thought he could too. -Ralph Nader

 

[westwall]

3) Have Zelensky deal with it.

You want ChiCom nukes deployed in Mexico?

I think they are going to be regardless.

 

[BackAgain]

If only you could learn. This might help you.

Putin must think he's G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney. He figures they got away with a criminal war of aggression blowing apart a non-threatening Iraq causing millions of casualties and millions of refugees. So he thought he could too. -Ralph Nader

Lol. Yeah. You’re convincing. Find some publicly noted liberal jerkoff to say what you feel and pretend that’s an argument.

 

[BackAgain]

3) Have Zelensky deal with it.

You want ChiCom nukes deployed in Mexico?

The trouble there starts with the fact that Zelnsky almost certainly can’t deal with it.

And no. If our good pal, Xi, or his boys put tried to put nukes in Mexico, I presume we’d prevent the attempt via a blockade, etc as JFK did when the Soviet Union tried that shit in Cuba.

But I don’t think your analogy is a good analogy. For one thing, the west has no nukes in the Ukraine.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Poor Ensign Butthurt. You lash out at others for typos or misspellings, but then when when your own rather numerous misspellings and typos are thrown back in your face, you snivel and make excuses.

Psst. Nobody cares. Grow a pair of balls and then gulp down a huge scalding-hot mug of stfu

Your petty deflection shit aside, I wonder if you have the ability to simply address the actual topic in an adult fashion?

I point out usually multiple errors that makes posts nonsensical. Now back to the topic. I reported yu numerous times for getting off topic. Now git!

 

[BackAgain]

I point out usually multiple errors that makes posts nonsensical. Now back to the topic. I reported yu numerous times for getting off topic. Now git!

I don’t accept directions from pussies like you. You have my personal invitation to gfy.

I figured you were the pussy running to the hall monitor.

Just as your arrogance allows you to criticize typos while making them, lass, so too your imbecility allows you to worry about off topic posts while not quite grasping that you haven’t even touched on the topic.

And once again, you haven’t said anything about the topic. What was your “thinking” on that? I can’t recall you saying anything coherent that was actually ON topic.

Go ahead and give it a spin. I won’t even pay attention to your usual typos and spelling errors. I’ve already indicated that I’m leaning toward option 1. (See? It isn’t very hard to post on topic. Give it a try!)

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The trouble there starts with the fact that Zelnsky almost certainly can’t deal with it.

And no. If our good pal, Xi, or his boys put tried to put nukes in Mexico, I presume we’d prevent the attempt via a blockade, etc as JFK did when the Soviet Union tried that shit in Cuba.

But I don’t think your analogy is a good analogy. For one thing, the west has no nukes in the Ukraine.

Your analogy is worthless. Who is putting nukes in Ukraine, or even eastern Europe for that matter? That is where your analogy breaks apart into hundreds of pieces.

Your option 1 fails also because you still cannot provide specifics actions that you advocate for option 1. I never saw anything in your posts that I would call specifics.

Got any more information on your advocacy for option 1?

 

[BackAgain]

Your analogy is worthless. Who is putting nukes in Ukraine, or even eastern Europe for that matter? That is where your analogy breaks apart into hundreds of pieces.

Your option 1 fails also because you still cannot provide specifics actions that you advocate for option 1. I never saw anything in your posts that I would call specifics.

Got any more information on your advocacy for option 1?

As far as I am aware, nobody is putting nukes in Ukraine. I don’t recall saying that anyone had or was going to.

I don’t recall suggesting that Option 1 listed any specifics. In fact, I believe I have only provided a “for instance.”

Up for discussion are ideas about how to implement option 1. Those options might include (but not necessarily be limited to) providing many more stingers; providing more arms and ammo, imposing a no fly zone, providing fighter jets exactly as has been suggested (and politely asking Poland to do so). Some or all. Maybe more.

Oh, and I also imagine that any of this would enrage old Vlad Putin and the risk involved is whether he would resort to any of the threats he has made. So, while I am leaning toward option 1, I can’t claim to have yet made any firm determination that this is how I would advise the President.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As far as I am aware, nobody is putting nukes in Ukraine. I don’t recall saying that anyone had or was going to.

I don’t recall suggesting that Option 1 listed any specifics. In fact, I believe I have only provided a “for instance.”

Up for discussion are ideas about how to implement option 1. Those options might include (but not necessarily be limited to) providing many more stingers; providing more arms and ammo, imposing a no fly zone, providing fighter jets exactly as has been suggested (and politely asking Poland to do so). Some or all. Maybe more.

Oh, and I also imagine that any of this would enrage old Vlad Putin and the risk involved is whether he would resort to any of the threats he has made. So, while I am leaning toward option 1, I can’t claim to have yet made any firm determination that this is how I would advise the President.

Only idiots support no-fly zones! That guarantees. WWIII. On that point even Zelensky is wrong.

The biggest problem with providing fighters is it should have been kept a secret.

We and our allies are already providing the Stingers, Javelins, and ammo.

What else you got?

 

[BackAgain]

Only idiots support no-fly zones! That guarantees. WWIII. On that point even Zelensky is wrong.

The biggest problem with providing fighters is it should have been kept a secret.

We and our allies are already providing the Stingers, Javelins, and ammo.

What else you got?

Apparently you are completely unable to even pretend to have an adult conversation.

In any event, you’re wrong. There is no “guarantee” of WWIII.

 

[gipper]

Lol. Yeah. You’re convincing. Find some publicly noted liberal jerkoff to say what you feel and pretend that’s an argument.

Ralph Nader is much more intelligent than you, but than nearly everyone over the age of 12 is.

 

[RussianWithAttitude]

Ukraine has 2 options.

1: Surrender, demilitarize and get the neo nazis out of their law enforcement and government. Declare Neutrality and the recognition of the DPR and LPR.

2: Made to demilitarize and de-nazify by force. Ukraine may loose her statehood. Either becomes part of Russia or Novorussia. Always can use more brother nations.

The choice is up to Zelensky. He better not make the same mistake that idiot Sakaashvili did who ended up loosing Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The US is not gonna help him and will abandon him, just ask the Kurds.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Apparently you are completely unable to even pretend to have an adult conversation.

In any event, you’re wrong. There is no “guarantee” of WWIII.

Tell us again when you served in the military?

A no-fly zone is an act of war. Either side shooting down the aircraft of the other would lead to a massive escalations on either side.

Have a nice day!