Dangerous Dilemma about Ukraine. Two main risky alternatives.

[BackAgain]

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

You define “intelligence” by reference to your liberal feelings. So, you’re wrong again. He has some intelligence. You don’t.

 

[BackAgain]

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!

Invading another nation and numbing its people is also an act of war. In case you can’t quite wrap your head around that fact, Russia is at war already. And imposing a no fly zone to try to prevent war crimes by that evil fucker is a perfectly appropriate limited response.

One does not have to have served in the military to grasp these obvious facts. And assuming you have served, Ensign, that doesn’t make you any greater of an expert on this discussion.

Finally, you’re wrong. You ASSume it would inevitably result in escalation. It is true that it could. It is untrue to declare that it unquestionably would. This is why it is a risk analysis. Again: there is no guarantee.

Have a great day, a nice evening, a pleasant night and a happy, healthy and holistic tomorrow.

 

[gipper]

Invading another nation and numbing its people is also an act of war. In case you can’t quite wrap your head around that fact, Russia is at war already. And imposing a no fly zone to try to prevent war crimes by that evil fucker is a perfectly appropriate limited response.

One does not have to have served in the military to grasp these obvious facts. And assuming you have served, Ensign, that doesn’t make you any greater of an expert on this discussion.

Finally, you’re wrong. You ASSume it would inevitably result in escalation. It is true that it could. It is untrue to declare that it unquestionably would. This is why it is a risk analysis. Again: there is no guarantee.

Have a great day, a nice evening, a pleasant night and a happy, healthy and holistic tomorrow.

So dumb.

 

[Rogue AI]

Invading another nation and numbing its people is also an act of war. In case you can’t quite wrap your head around that fact, Russia is at war already. And imposing a no fly zone to try to prevent war crimes by that evil fucker is a perfectly appropriate limited response.

One does not have to have served in the military to grasp these obvious facts. And assuming you have served, Ensign, that doesn’t make you any greater of an expert on this discussion.

Finally, you’re wrong. You ASSume it would inevitably result in escalation. It is true that it could. It is untrue to declare that it unquestionably would. This is why it is a risk analysis. Again: there is no guarantee.

Have a great day, a nice evening, a pleasant night and a happy, healthy and holistic tomorrow.

There is no such thing as 'appropriate limited response', you are all in or all out.

 

[BackAgain]

So dumb.

Yes. You are. And it’s refreshing to see you finally acknowledge it.

 

[gipper]

Yes. You are. And it’s refreshing to see you finally acknowledge it.

Here is a good column that might alleviate you of your ignorance. I’m trying to help you. Now you need to help yourself. Man up son!

The West’s Hands in Ukraine Are as Bloody as Putin’s
Russian troops are in Ukraine not because Putin is “Hitler,” “mad,” or a “megalomaniac” – though, again, the invasion makes him a war criminal in the same mold as Tony Blair and George W. Bush. Russian troops are there because he and his officials judged the West to be acting malevolently and in bad faith in their dealings with Ukraine.

The Putin as “madman” or “Hitler” script deflects attention away from the very obvious fact that Western leaders wilfully played fast and loose with the security of Ukraine and the safety of its population.
https://twitter.com/Conn18149866?re...sts-hands-in-ukraine-are-as-bloody-as-putins/

@Conn18149866
@ggreenwald @aaronjmate @Jonathan_K_Cook @CraigMurrayOrg Biden in 1997 saying that the only thing that could provoke a "vigorous and hostile" Russian response would be if NATO expanded as far as the Baltic states

The West’s hands in Ukraine are as bloody as Putin’s

 

[BackAgain]

There is no such thing as 'appropriate limited response', you are all in or all out.

I disagree. Right now, for example, we are partially in by way of sanctions. We have also provided munitions to one side. We could impose a no fly zone (with the acknowledged additional risks). Plus, we could do so without taking any additional steps, such as “boots on the ground.” There is a whole spectrum of possibilities between the two extremes of absolute non-involvement and waging a full-on war.

 

[BackAgain]

Here is a good column that might alleviate you of your ignorance. I’m trying to help you. Now you need to help yourself. Man up son!

The West’s Hands in Ukraine Are as Bloody as Putin’s
Russian troops are in Ukraine not because Putin is “Hitler,” “mad,” or a “megalomaniac” – though, again, the invasion makes him a war criminal in the same mold as Tony Blair and George W. Bush. Russian troops are there because he and his officials judged the West to be acting malevolently and in bad faith in their dealings with Ukraine.

The Putin as “madman” or “Hitler” script deflects attention away from the very obvious fact that Western leaders wilfully played fast and loose with the security of Ukraine and the safety of its population.
https://twitter.com/Conn18149866?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1501327105556107266|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.unz.com/jcook/the-wests-hands-in-ukraine-are-as-bloody-as-putins/
@Conn18149866
@ggreenwald @aaronjmate @Jonathan_K_Cook @CraigMurrayOrg Biden in 1997 saying that the only thing that could provoke a "vigorous and hostile" Russian response would be if NATO expanded as far as the Baltic states
View attachment 615108

The West’s hands in Ukraine are as bloody as Putin’s

You remain quite plodding and there is nothing in the universe that can remedy your willful ignorance. You choose to be overtly hostile to any point of view other than your own. It results in your citation to opinion pieces which merely say the very thing you happen to believe. Not even remotely persuasive.

You wanna know for a certainty that your opinion is invalid and that your claim is false? Ok: The WEST didn’t invade Ukraine. Russia did. The blood is all on their hands.

Oh, and one other obvious flaw in that opinion piece you offered: Ukraine has never been permitted NATO membership. So much for that Putin casus belli talking point.

 

[gipper]

You remain quite plodding and there is nothing in the universe that can remedy your willful ignorance. You choose to be overtly hostile to any point of view other than your own. It results in your citation to opinion pieces which merely say the very thing you happen to believe. Not even remotely persuasive.

You wanna know for a certainty that your opinion is invalid and that your claim is false? Ok: The WEST didn’t invade Ukraine. Russia did. The blood is all on their hands.

Oh, and one other obvious flaw in that opinion piece you offered: Ukraine has never been permitted NATO membership. So much for that Putin casus belli talking point.

Don’t you think it rather hypocritical how the west and fools like you are condemning Putin, but never said a word about the multiple invasions and war crimes by western leaders?

 

[Rogue AI]

I disagree. Right now, for example, we are partially in by way of sanctions. We have also provided munitions to one side. We could impose a no fly zone (with the acknowledged additional risks). Plus, we could do so without taking any additional steps, such as “boots on the ground.” There is a whole spectrum of possibilities between the two extremes of absolute non-involvement and waging a full-on war.

That's not how it works. Fighting by proxy is one thing, once direct involvement has started there is no middle ground. A no fly-zone is direct involvement, no way around it. Flying NATO jets into Ukraine is direct involvement. The Russians won't let that happen without expanding the war, they can't.

 

[BackAgain]

Don’t you think it rather hypocritical how the west and fools like you are condemning Putin, but never said a word about the multiple invasions and war crimes by western leaders?

It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It is fools like you who insist that there is a need for comparisons of the past over which nobody has any control with the present over which there is still some hope of change.

Also, you moron, you have no idea what I’ve said about other matters. You like to make baseless assumptions and hope nobody will notice what you’re up to. Try to focus, ya numbnuts.

Putin’s military is committing savage criminality TODAY.

 

[BackAgain]

That's not how it works. Fighting by proxy is one thing, once direct involvement has started there is no middle ground. A no fly-zone is direct involvement, no way around it. Flying NATO jets into Ukraine is direct involvement. The Russians won't let that happen without expanding the war, they can't.

Wrong. As I already correctly noted, with obvious examples, there is a spectrum of possible involvement. You’re free to deny it, but your denial is just a statement of opinion lacking any factual support. So, what I said is indeed how it is working.

It is a prediction as to how Russia will/would respond to a no fly zone. Maybe you’re right. It is probable that they would choose to engage. But they engage in risk analysis too. And as evil as Putin is, there is also a chance that, when punched back, he will back down.

 

[Rogue AI]

Wrong. As I already correctly noted, with obvious examples, there is a spectrum of possible involvement. You’re free to deny it, but your denial is just a statement of opinion lacking any factual support. So, what I said is indeed how it is working.

It is a prediction as to how Russia will/would respond to a no fly zone. Maybe you’re right. It is probable that they would choose to engage. But they engage in risk analysis too. And as evil as Putin is, there is also a chance that, when punched back, he will back down.

Your 'spectrum' is pure nonsense. Proxy actions are ok, direct actions are not. You pretend we are the only ones with a say in the matter. That's lunacy. NATO aggression would be seen very negatively around the world. The ramifications of that would be far reaching.

Putin already said what a no fly-zone would be. There is no probable about it.

 

[BackAgain]

Your 'spectrum' is pure nonsense. Proxy actions are ok, direct actions are not. You pretend we are the only ones with a say in the matter. That's lunacy. NATO aggression would be seen very negatively around the world. The ramifications of that would be far reaching.

Putin already said what a no fly-zone would be. There is no probable about it.

Wrong. The “spectrum” is the valid way of looking at it. It is obviously not an all in or all out thing. Your analysis simply conveys a false dichotomy.

I’m also not about to agree with your claim that this is a proxy war. Russia unilaterally acted itself. No proxy. Ukraine is defending itself. No proxy. Does the “west” have an interest in this? Obviously; but that doesn’t make this a proxy war.

Finally, you are also wrong about my position. I have never said or even suggested that only we have a say in this. What you appear to be trying to say is that we shouldn’t have any say in this. Not sure why we “shouldn’t.”

 

[Rogue AI]

Wrong. The “spectrum” is the valid way of looking at it. It is obviously not an all in or all out thing. Your analysis simply conveys a false dichotomy.

I’m also not about to agree with your claim that this is a proxy war. Russia unilaterally acted itself. No proxy. Ukraine is defending itself. No proxy. Does the “west” have an interest in this? Obviously; but that doesn’t make this a proxy war.

Finally, you are also wrong about my position. I have never said or even suggested that only we have a say in this. What you appear to be trying to say is that we shouldn’t have any say in this. Not sure why we “shouldn’t.”

No you just don't get it, there is no part time war. We can't just say we this is 'limited', we aren't the only party, and we already have their answer on any escalation.

You don't understand what a proxy war is. Not my problem.

 

[BackAgain]

No you just don't get it, there is no part time war. We can't just say we this is 'limited', we aren't the only party, and we already have their answer on any escalation.

You don't understand what a proxy war is. Not my problem.

You fail to grasp it. Nobody said anything about a part time war (except you). And the extent of our involvement (if any) is our decision.

You misuse the term proxy war. That’s all on you.

 

[bodecea]

All we ever needed to do was ensure Russia that Ukraine would not become NATO, and that Donbas and that other province be declared independent, and recognize Crimea is Russia.

Simple as that.

You honestly believed that would have stopped Putin? Well, you ARE a trump sucker.

 

[bodecea]

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?

(((SOROS)))

 

[bodecea]

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.

Another Russian Troll.....

 

[Rogue AI]

You fail to grasp it. Nobody said anything about a part time war (except you). And the extent of our involvement (if any) is our decision.

You misuse the term proxy war. That’s all on you.

Any involvement beyond our proxy efforts is all or none. Nor is it just the US, any action includes all of NATO, whether those countries do anything or not. They will pay the full initial price.