US Needs to Get Out of Ukraine and NATO

[GLASNOST]

Both boxers suck. No style, no technique, neither would stand a chance against an American.

Think again, Bonzo. Just look at these American ***** boys:

 

[kyzr]

So why have they not worked so far? sanctions have damaged Europe more.

True. We'll both find out Monday what the next step is.

 

[kyzr]

Think again, Bonzo. Just look at these American ***** boys:

That was military boxing, amateurs. I'm saying US professionals are the best in the world.

 

[GLASNOST]

So why have they not worked so far? sanctions have damaged Europe more.

True. We'll both find out Monday what the next step is.

How many Mondays have you had so far with more damage to Europe? BTW: after Monday comes Tuesday ..... Wednesday ... Thursday .... Friday ..... You are not very bright.

 

[GLASNOST]

Both boxers ...... neither would stand a chance against an American.

Think again, Bonzo. Just look at these American ***** boys:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4LGuiaNATM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_AZQBZOzpo

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEFglh6jXkw&t=9s ​

That was military boxing, amateurs. I'm saying US professionals are the best in the world.

What the **** are you talking about? Put American troops in Ukraine and you'll get demolished just as you did in Afghanisan, Lebanon, Iran, Vietnam, etc. Bonzo Boy.

 

[Deadstick]

Think again, Bonzo. Just look at these American ***** boys:

 

[AlexanderPK]

True. We'll both find out Monday what the next step is.

He's been reciprocating on almost everything that he said so far that I stopped paying attention to anything he's saying. There'll be nothing serious happening on Monday, maybe some bullshit about 500% tariffs on someone, he'll reneg on come Tuesday. He's a big beautiful blowhard, turns out, who doesn't have a handle on the country he's supposed to govern.

 

[Seth]

The US has no more business getting involved in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine than it would in the conflict between India and Pakistan, and NATO has even less reason to be involved.

Isolation sounds clean until you run the tape forward. Letting Russia seize land by force rewards invasion, strengthens authoritarianism, and dares others to try the same. We’re not just defending Ukraine’s borders—we’re defending the post-WWII rulebook that kept Europe from tearing itself apart for 80 years. If we ignore that, we invite a future where might makes right and alliances mean nothing. Yes, we must avoid overreach. But pretending we can stay untouched while autocrats redraw the map is how overreach begins.

 

[Deadstick]

Isolation sounds clean until you run the tape forward. Letting Russia seize land by force rewards invasion, strengthens authoritarianism, and dares others to try the same. We’re not just defending Ukraine’s borders—we’re defending the post-WWII rulebook that kept Europe from tearing itself apart for 80 years. If we ignore that, we invite a future where might makes right and alliances mean nothing. Yes, we must avoid overreach. But pretending we can stay untouched while autocrats redraw the map is how overreach begins.

The rule book that you clowns have ripped up, and you tore Europe up when you bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days, you are talking total Bollocks.

 

[Cassandro]

Isolation sounds clean until you run the tape forward. Letting Russia seize land by force rewards invasion, strengthens authoritarianism, and dares others to try the same. We’re not just defending Ukraine’s borders—we’re defending the post-WWII rulebook that kept Europe from tearing itself apart for 80 years. If we ignore that, we invite a future where might makes right and alliances mean nothing. Yes, we must avoid overreach. But pretending we can stay untouched while autocrats redraw the map is how overreach begins.

Worshiping at the altar of treaties and borders is a false religion. Should the US renounce its westward expansion?

 

[Seth]

The rule book that you clowns have ripped up, and you tore Europe up when you bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days, you are talking total Bollocks.

Worshiping at the altar of treaties and borders is a false religion. Should the US renounce its westward expansion?

When you can’t defend a land grab, deflect with ancient history or false equivalency. NATO’s strikes on Yugoslavia were launched to stop ethnic cleansing—not to annex territory or redraw borders. Russia’s invasion is textbook authoritarian expansionism, not humanitarian intervention.

And jwoodie, calling borders a “false religion” while defending Russia’s breach of them is rich. If lines on a map mean nothing, then why do you care so much when NATO honors its alliances? We either uphold the standards that kept Europe relatively stable for 80 years, or we hand the reins to the strongmen and hope they’re feeling merciful.

 

[Deadstick]

When you can’t defend a land grab, deflect with ancient history or false equivalency. NATO’s strikes on Yugoslavia were launched to stop ethnic cleansing—not to annex territory or redraw borders. Russia’s invasion is textbook authoritarian expansionism, not humanitarian intervention.

And jwoodie, calling borders a “false religion” while defending Russia’s breach of them is rich. If lines on a map mean nothing, then why do you care so much when NATO honors its alliances? We either uphold the standards that kept Europe relatively stable for 80 years, or we hand the reins to the strongmen and hope they’re feeling merciful.

Just who authorized NATO to attack Yugoslavia and bomb the Country for 78 days? and they did redraw borders, ever hear of Kosovo the Serbian province that was stolen by the US? you talk about NATO honoring alliances, such as what? Yugoslavia never attacked NATO Country, you are talking nonsense.

 

[Seth]

Just who authorized NATO to attack Yugoslavia and bomb the Country for 78 days? and they did redraw borders, ever hear of Kosovo the Serbian province that was stolen by the US? you talk about NATO honoring alliances, such as what? Yugoslavia never attacked NATO Country, you are talking nonsense.

You’re not wrong to bring up Kosovo—but you’re missing the key distinction. NATO’s action in Yugoslavia was in response to mass ethnic cleansing, not a power grab. It was ugly, yes. But the intent wasn’t annexation or conquest, and NATO didn’t carve out new empires for itself. Russia, on the other hand, is trying to redraw borders by force to reassemble an old empire. That’s not comparablle; it’s historical cosplay with artillery.

 

[Deadstick]

You’re not wrong to bring up Kosovo—but you’re missing the key distinction. NATO’s action in Yugoslavia was in response to mass ethnic cleansing, not a power grab. It was ugly, yes. But the intent wasn’t annexation or conquest, and NATO didn’t carve out new empires for itself. Russia, on the other hand, is trying to redraw borders by force to reassemble an old empire. That’s not comparablle; it’s historical cosplay with artillery.

I asked who authorized NATO to attack Yugoslavia? what gets me is some people have bought the bullshit Serbia started the Balkan wars, it ws not the Serbs who decided to break up the Country it was the fascist Croats and Bosnian Muslims, the Serbs were the largest ethnic group who were ethnically cleansed if they were lucky, many were massacred by Croat Ustashi and Muslim head chopping Jihadis backed by the West.

 

[defcon4]

When you can’t defend a land grab, deflect with ancient history or false equivalency. NATO’s strikes on Yugoslavia were launched to stop ethnic cleansing—not to annex territory or redraw borders. Russia’s invasion is textbook authoritarian expansionism, not humanitarian intervention.

Isn't it the same thing what Hohol thugs were doing against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region and Russia HAD to stop it? You cannot have it both ways justifying NATO intervention and denying the same justification to Russia without being a liar.

 

[Cassandro]

And jwoodie, calling borders a “false religion” while defending Russia’s breach of them is rich.

I referred to a "false religion" as a metaphor for selecting a particular set of historical circumstances (e.g., borders) and elevating them to inviolable moral imperatives. How far back do you want to go?

If lines on a map mean nothing, then why do you care so much when NATO honors its alliances?

What NATO alliances are you referring to? Does NATO have an alliance with Ukraine?

We either uphold the standards that kept Europe relatively stable for 80 years

Europe is constantly changing (e.g., EU, USSR, UK, Yugoslavia, etc.). The only thing that hasn't changed is the US footing the bill for NATO.

, or we hand the reins to the strongmen and hope they’re feeling merciful.

Strongmen are an antidote to weak and feckless societies.

 

[Seth]

I asked who authorized NATO to attack Yugoslavia?

NATO authorized itself. That’s how it works — NATO is a military alliance, not a UN subsidiary. Its highest body, the North Atlantic Council, approved the Kosovo operation by consensus of all member states in March 1999. You can read it directly from NATO’s own site:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49602.htm

The operation — Operation Allied Force — was not authorized by the UN Security Council. Russia and China made sure of that with their veto power. So NATO acted independently, citing a need to prevent mass atrocities against ethnic Albanians. Whether that justification holds up under international law is still debated, but the chain of command within NATO was fully intact. No one acted outside orders.

The United States played the lead role, both in pushing for the intervention and carrying out the majority of airstrikes. But it wasn’t a solo act. Every NATO country involved signed off and contributed under official orders. Pilots didn’t freelance into Yugoslav airspace — they were following a NATO-approved mission, coordinated through formal military channels.

So while the operation lacked UN approval, it wasn’t unauthorized chaos. It was a deliberate, organized NATO action — one that’s still controversial, but not lawless.

 

[Seth]

I referred to a "false religion" as a metaphor for selecting a particular set of historical circumstances (e.g., borders) and elevating them to inviolable moral imperatives. How far back do you want to go?

What NATO alliances are you referring to? Does NATO have an alliance with Ukraine?

Europe is constantly changing (e.g., EU, USSR, UK, Yugoslavia, etc.). The only thing that hasn't changed is the US footing the bill for NATO.

Strongmen are an antidote to weak and feckless societies.

You’re right — Ukraine is not a NATO member. NATO has no treaty obligation to defend it the way it would for a member under Article 5. But NATO’s interest isn’t based on a formal alliance, it’s based on maintaining European stability and deterring expansionist aggression from spreading further.

And yes, Europe changes — empires rise and fall. That’s why rules matter. If we let strongmen redraw maps by force, we don’t just "go back in time," we unravel the very system that’s prevented another world war.

So no, Ukraine isn’t in NATO. But the principle at stake isn’t membership — it’s whether borders are something you negotiate… or something you take.

 

[Deadstick]

NATO authorized itself. That’s how it works — NATO is a military alliance, not a UN subsidiary. Its highest body, the North Atlantic Council, approved the Kosovo operation by consensus of all member states in March 1999. You can read it directly from NATO’s own site:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49602.htm

The operation — Operation Allied Force — was not authorized by the UN Security Council. Russia and China made sure of that with their veto power. So NATO acted independently, citing a need to prevent mass atrocities against ethnic Albanians. Whether that justification holds up under international law is still debated, but the chain of command within NATO was fully intact. No one acted outside orders.

The United States played the lead role, both in pushing for the intervention and carrying out the majority of airstrikes. But it wasn’t a solo act. Every NATO country involved signed off and contributed under official orders. Pilots didn’t freelance into Yugoslav airspace — they were following a NATO-approved mission, coordinated through formal military channels.

So while the operation lacked UN approval, it wasn’t unauthorized chaos. It was a deliberate, organized NATO action — one that’s still controversial, but not lawless.

Authorized itself, who the hell are NATO to authorize an attack on a Sovereign state? Hitler authorized his army to attack Europe, NATO is just a tool for US Imperialism, and i know it was a deliberate NATO action an illegal one and that's the problem, with the attack on Yugoslavia international law and rules since the end of WW2 ended right there.

 

[Deadstick]

Isn't it the same thing what Hohol thugs were doing against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region and Russia HAD to stop it? You cannot have it both ways justifying NATO intervention and denying the same justification to Russia without being a liar.

That was the start of the war in 2014 after the coup when the Kiev Regime attacked it's own citizens in Donbass, so they decided they wanted out.