The crux of Ukrainian issue

[Correll]

Its not always about who side might win or lose. What does this country and it's people stand for? Ukrain and it's people want to live independent from Russia, do they have that right? Do we as a nation stand with those who seek self government or do we side with those who have the largest military? I wonder how many americans today would have sided with the british when the American colonies fought for independence.

If we have a choice between a fight that they cannot win and a deal that allows them to survive, we are not good freinds for encouraging them to fight and die and end up with a worse deal later.

imo, that is the crux of the matter.


Are you suggesting that you think that they cannot win, yet you want to support them in their fight, even though the only thing that will accomplish is to get more of them killed and you can virtue signal because we "stood with them"?

 

[White 6]

Ok then. Lack of support, then is NOT the problem. Great.





And that is the standard lefty pivot away from discussing their reasons for their policy.

So far, EVERY pro-war person I have spoken to on this issue, refuses to discuss their reasons for supporting the war.


We are not fighting the war, thet ukrainians are. We are, or were, supporting their fight.

The question is WHY.

Asking that question, is legitmate. It is nearly the ultimate policy question, ie why do the policy.

That you don't want to discuss that, is a huge red flag.

Personally, I just don't like the Russian. Never have, spending a lot of years traing and planning defense against those Bolshevik bastards. And, of course, the US has always been against foreign countries (particularly despotic, dictatorial, or communist countries), invading to annex neighboring countries, against recognized international law and treaty.
When did the right wing, start supporting and aligning with despots, dictators, and communists?

 

[Correll]

Personally, I just don't like the Russian. Never have, spending a lot of years traing and planning defense against those Bolshevik bastards.

Anti-russian bias left over from cold war. Understandable, but not really a good reason to let people die in large numbers to no good end.

And, of course, the US has always been against foreign countries (particularly despotic, dictatorial, or communist countries), invading to annex neighboring countries, against recognized international law and treaty.

True. But being against, and waging a proxy war, is two different things. We don't need to get involved in every fight.

When did the right wing, start supporting and aligning with despots, dictators, and communists?

Wanting a deal that ends a bloody stalemate is not aligning with Putin.

It is one thing to disagree with us on whether or not ukraine can win, but that is no reason to exaggerate the situation.

 

[scruffy]

.
When did the right wing, start supporting and aligning with despots, dictators, and communists?

Never. It's fake news and bullshit Democrap talking points.

The truth is: it is the left that most recently knelt for communists.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yes, they can win against the Russian invasion if they want to, and have the right support. Russian invaders have been kicked out, before, with the proper support.


Full Movie Charlie Wilson's War

Minus a significant escalation of the conflict which would include non Ukrainian troops they cant win they war.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The idea that Russias plan was to carpet bomb it’s way through Donbas in 2 weeks was ridiculous misinformation from the start

Harris went to Ukraine to invite them into NATO.

Biden Greelighted Russias incursion in Feb 22.

In April 22, Russia sits down with Ukraine and said, “just sign here that you’ll never join NATO and this ends” The MIC and Globalists grab the pen from Zelenskyys hand and tell Vlad, “Fuck you! We will fight you to the last Ukrainian!”

 

[scruffy]

Minus a significant escalation of the conflict which would include non Ukrainian troops they cant win they war.

I don't think it's about Ukraine "winning".

The country has deep internal political divisions. Which seem to indicate that Ukraine is two countries instead of one.

Read this, about how Russia "entered the war".

Revolution of Dignity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ukraine should divorce itself from the eastern provinces that already declared their independence, and use them as a buffer zone against Russia.

The idea of a "united Ukraine" seems to be a pipe dream.

Ukraine's choice is to have Russia on their border or have two pro-Russian but independent nation-states on their border. Which would you choose?

 

[scruffy]

 

[Correll]

Minus a significant escalation of the conflict which would include non Ukrainian troops they cant win they war.

That does seem to be the obvious... conclusion based on what we have seen so far.

 

[Curried Goats]

If we have a choice between a fight that they cannot win and a deal that allows them to survive, we are not good freinds for encouraging them to fight and die and end up with a worse deal later.

imo, that is the crux of the matter.


Are you suggesting that you think that they cannot win, yet you want to support them in their fight, even though the only thing that will accomplish is to get more of them killed and you can virtue signal because we "stood with them"?

It's not really your choice if they keep fighting. All you can tell is how you'd surrender to Russian aggression in their stead.

 

[Correll]

It's not really your choice if they keep fighting. All you can tell is how you'd surrender to Russian aggression in their stead.

I explained my reasoning. YOu simply asserted your disagreement without addressing my point.

Thanks for contributing.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, they can win against the Russian invasion if they want to, and have the right support. Russian invaders have been kicked out, before, with the proper support.

Its not always about who side might win or lose. What does this country and it's people stand for? Ukrain and it's people want to live independent from Russia, do they have that right? Do we as a nation stand with those who seek self government or do we side with those who have the largest military? I wonder how many americans today would have sided with the british when the American colonies fought for independence.

Another issue -- and I don't think MAGA is told about this, and it may be that they're told the opposite -- is that Russia's military has been terribly damaged, its economy is in tatters, and Putin's power is on thinner and thinner ice every day.

Ukraine doesn't have to "win" in the traditional sense. If they can hold on and keep the lines where they are now, they can wait it out. That terribly difficult decision is up to them, and up to their people. But Russia is in bad shape and needs change.

 

[Curried Goats]

I explained my reasoning. YOu simply asserted your disagreement without addressing my point.

Thanks for contributing.

No. I asked you how quickly you'd surrender to Russian aggression. It's related to your point. Are you not urging Ukrainian surrender?

 

[alang1216]

Ok, I've been discussing the issue of the war in Ukraine and our American policy on it, with libs on this site, quite a bit. It has been very difficult as the pro-war supporters have been very resistant to engaging honestly on the issue and sharing with us their reasons and goals on the war.

But, after several weeks of this and with extensive grilling of them, I think I have found the crux of the difference between the pro-war and the pro-peace factions.

The fundemental question is, do we believe that Ukraine has the ability to win.

Trump, from his words, clearly does not think so. I have to agree, ukraine just looks too small next to Russia to have the ability to win. IMO, the best they can hope for is to bog the war down enough to survive.


The lefties, are constantly pushing a hardline on their ukraine policy, wanting all russian forces out of ukraine, before even beginning negotiations, and often dropping bits about reparations or removing putin from power, which are evne more unlikely.

This seems to be based on an assumption that ukraine has the ability to do that.


If this is the crux of the matter, if this is the real difference, then all the shit talk of "nazis" and "putin lovers" is revealed to be insanely stupid, and the real issue is a valid and understandable difference of opinion on the capabilities of the ukrainian military.


On the other hand, I have gotten a lot of.... focus on the BLEEDING OF RUSSIA, aspect of the current stalemate, and I do worry that for at least some of the supporters of the war, that they might not think that ukraine can win, but they are happy to see them try, just for the damage they can inflict on Russia in the process, even if in the end, it leads to nothing of value, such as a free and independent ukraine.

It occurrs to me that once the basis of the difference of policy is found like this, that we now can measure who is right and who is wrong, moving forward,


If by the midterms, the situation the conflict, shows that Trump was WRONG, and that Ukraine is doing fine without us support, and russia is losing ground and looking to lose more as time goes on, that will be a policy failure for Trump and maga. And we should admit that, and try to learn from it.

On the other hand, if the situation is not that, but ukaine is still losing ground and many people had died and nothing was won, and there is not indication that anything will be won in the foreseeable future, then that would be a policy failure for the dems and leftieas and they should admit that and try to learn from it.



Link dems hopefully of ukrainian ability.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/biden-ukraine-russia-war-aid-00154143

edit: WIN, is defined as inflicting enough causualties and economic cost that Russia is forced to withdraw their forces.

If the West remains united and keeps economic sanctions in place, plus supplies military aid to Ukraine, I believe Russia will exhaust itself and honestly sue for peace. I can see internationally sanctioned referendums in Crimea and Donbas as part of the deal.

 

[22lcidw]

Personally, I just don't like the Russian. Never have, spending a lot of years traing and planning defense against those Bolshevik bastards. And, of course, the US has always been against foreign countries (particularly despotic, dictatorial, or communist countries), invading to annex neighboring countries, against recognized international law and treaty.
When did the right wing, start supporting and aligning with despots, dictators, and communists?

Russia is going to exist whatever happens. The people unlike Americans in huge numbers, die for their nation. Eastern Europe including Russia have had some nasty skirmishes. The real argument is if the Western World with the globalists and the agendas they have infected the Western nations with, are worse than Putin and Russia. At some point in the future, a world government that is benign will happen. We are not ready for it.

 

[Couchpotato]

That does seem to be the obvious... conclusion based on what we have seen so far.

Yeah the lines haven't moved much in over a year and what movement has happened hasn't been in Ukraine's favor. The last admin gambled with Ukraine's future and Ukraine is going to get stuck with the bill for losing that bet.

 

[JWBooth]

Its not always about who side might win or lose. What does this country and it's people stand for? Ukrain and it's people want to live independent from Russia, do they have that right? Do we as a nation stand with those who seek self government or do we side with those who have the largest military? I wonder how many americans today would have sided with the british when the American colonies fought for independence.

Oh goody, pissing away other people’s hard earned money and sending other people’s children to their deaths or mutilation for feelz. Unicorns and rainbows everywhere.

 

[White 6]

Anti-russian bias left over from cold war. Understandable, but not really a good reason to let people die in large numbers to no good end.





True. But being against, and waging a proxy war, is two different things. We don't need to get involved in every fight.




Wanting a deal that ends a bloody stalemate is not aligning with Putin.

It is one thing to disagree with us on whether or not ukraine can win, but that is no reason to exaggerate the situation.

Putin could have followed international law and treaty, and simply not invaded. I am aware Russia is suffering much greater loss of life than Ukraine, but he could stop it by pulling out.

Anti-russian bias left over from cold war. Understandable, but not really a good reason to let people die in large numbers to no good end.





True. But being against, and waging a proxy war, is two different things. We don't need to get involved in every fight.




Wanting a deal that ends a bloody stalemate is not aligning with Putin.

It is one thing to disagree with us on whether or not ukraine can win, but that is no reason to exaggerate the situation.

What? You would really prefer an active war, including US Troops, rather than just supplying Ukraine with the tools to defend itself and kill the invading Russians?
Don't be ridiculous!

You either support the illegal takeover of Ukraine's territory by Russia, or you do not. I do not. If you want Ukraine to give up it's territory, you support Puttin

 

[White 6]

Minus a significant escalation of the conflict which would include non Ukrainian troops they cant win they war.

Neither could Afghanistan against the USSR at the height of USSR power, yet they did.

 

[Couchpotato]

Neither could Afghanistan against the USSR at the height of USSR power, yet they did.

Insurgency in Afghanistan. Conventional war in Ukraine. 2 totally different animals. The Russians aren’t dealing with a population that doesn’t want them in the areas they occupy.