War in Ukraine

[volinbham]

I definitely think Putin was expecting the west to simply shake our fists and watch him devour Ukraine.

my point is we've learned he could not have devoured Ukraine.

To me ND's answer to why we are so involved is the best - we made a pledge. Drumming up fear of Russia marching across E. Europe was propaganda. It's clear to me (from our actions and statements) that we see this as a chance to take it to Russia without technically being at war with them. The domino theory was for public consumption or at least exposed as unrealistic after a month in.

 

[Hunerwadel]

As I have said, the vast majority of Ukrainian families are going to one day regret their fathers/sons were killed so their kids/grandkids could be exposed to the Western LGBTQ agenda.

Actually they are fighting to repel foreign invaders from their country. They probably not a bit concerned about US policy regarding queers.

 

[NorthDallas40]

my point is we've learned he could not have devoured Ukraine.

To me ND's answer to why we are so involved is the best - we made a pledge. Drumming up fear of Russia marching across E. Europe was propaganda. It's clear to me (from our actions and statements) that we see this as a chance to take it to Russia without technically being at war with them. The domino theory was for public consumption or at least exposed as unrealistic after a month in.

For the record (again) that is really my only platform. I absolutely think this is a European problem and they absolutely should be taking the lead on defending and more importantly rebuilding Ukraine but I do think we should participate.

And frankly we made a really stupid open ended commitment on a badly defined response to an event we never thought would occur. But that doesn’t give us an excuse to shirk away from our word. Consider it karma for being so manipulative and nosy when we shouldn’t have been.

I don’t think we should be sending one single dollar that’s Europe’s problem. We should stick to what we have that is most valuable. Intel, training, and weapons

 

[USF grad in TN]

For the record (again) that is really my only platform. I absolutely think this is a European problem and they absolutely should be taking the lead on defending and more importantly rebuilding Ukraine but I do think we should participate.

And frankly we made a really stupid open ended commitment on a badly defined response to an event we never thought would occur. But that doesn’t give us an excuse to shirk away from our word. Consider it karma for being so manipulative and nosy when we shouldn’t have been.

I don’t think we should be sending one single dollar that’s Europe’s problem. We should stick to what we have that is most valuable. Intel, training, and weapons

At the time the agreement was made, there was a lot of concern about nukes in the wrong hands.

 

[NorthDallas40]

At the time the agreement was made, there was a lot of concern about nukes in the wrong hands.

I understand that. However it doesn’t warrant that abysmal document. Go read it if you haven’t the translations don’t even line up. The English version says assurances and the Ukraine and Russian translations use the word more closely aligned with guarantees. It’s a horrible diplomatic result.

 

[USF grad in TN]

I understand that. However it doesn’t warrant that abysmal document. Go read it if you haven’t the translations don’t even line up. The English version says assurances and the Ukraine and Russian translations use the word more closely aligned with guarantees. It’s a horrible diplomatic result.

I read your posts on that. It was useful information.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I read your posts on that. It was useful information.

I really want it to not be true but I can’t find anything refuting it. It isn’t a good look for an above board diplomatic effort on both teams. I don’t believe the translators used didn’t know the wording differences and those are some pretty significant differences

 

[KB5252]

Russia doesnt target civilians. That is ridiculous. I agree, you dont invade a Country then blame them for escalation, but that isnt what is happening. This is why I say many of you live in the upside down. Your view of this conflict is warped and likely warped due to you viewing it through the filter of western propaganda.

They have targeted civilians time and time again. Theyve killed them fleeing many cities.

They've bombed residential building after residential building in western Ukraine. You can't possibly have your head that far up your arse.

They absolutely did invade Ukraine....... Maybe you do have your head that far up your arse.

Since you've proven you don't even have the slightest shred of intellectual honesty there isn't a point in having any discussion with you on the matter.

I disagree with many on this board but I'm not sure I've ever seen someone so absolutely disconnected from reality. I can't explain in any other way short of mental illness. I pity you.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I disagree - the first month of this war pretty clearly demonstrated the limitations of Russia's expansion wet dream. Taking Ukraine and holding it are two different things.

In the first month, they never seriously threatened to "take" Ukraine. They wanted to do two things:
1. Scare the hell of Zelensky enough to get a deal cut about Ukraine in NATO, autonomy for people that identified as Russians etc
2. Keep the Ukrainians so concerned about defending Kyiv that they are not able to send as many forces to Donbas

You are smarter than this. If you really think the Russians are paper tigers based on them using kid gloves for the first 9-10 months of this conflict, you are misreading it badly. They didn't bring in nearly enough people to occupy Kyiv ( a city of 2.5 million), much less the entire country. Also, Russia didn't go in with "shock and awe" bombing campaigns to level Ukraine and send them to the stone age in the same manner that the US did in Iraq. Part of that is due to Ukraine's air defense early on, but the main reason is that they had no intention of destroying Ukraine infrastructure or citizens to only have to rebuild afterwards at a higher cost and losing more lives.

 

[Velo Vol]

Some tweets make this sound suspicious, but on further examination he was with some friends, a couple of whom also died.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

As I have said, the vast majority of Ukrainian families are going to one day regret their fathers/sons were killed so their kids/grandkids could be exposed to the Western LGBTQ agenda.

Meanwhile... in the rest of the world...

Ugandan President Blasts Western Countries For Promoting LGBT In Africa | ZeroHedge

“Europeans and other groups marry cousins and near relatives. Here, marrying in one’s clan is taboo. Should we impose sanctions on them for marrying relatives? This is not our job,” he stated.

“Western countries should stop wasting the time of humanity by trying to impose their practices on other people,” he added.

 

[tvolsfan]

In the first month, they never seriously threatened to "take" Ukraine. They wanted to do two things:
1. Scare the hell of Zelensky enough to get a deal cut about Ukraine in NATO, autonomy for people that identified as Russians etc
2. Keep the Ukrainians so concerned about defending Kyiv that they are not able to send as many forces to Donbas

You are smarter than this. If you really think the Russians are paper tigers based on them using kid gloves for the first 9-10 months of this conflict, you are misreading it badly. They didn't bring in nearly enough people to occupy Kyiv ( a city of 2.5 million), much less the entire country. Also, Russia didn't go in with "shock and awe" bombing campaigns to level Ukraine and send them to the stone age in the same manner that the US did in Iraq. Part of that is due to Ukraine's air defense early on, but the main reason is that they had no intention of destroying Ukraine infrastructure or citizens to only have to rebuild afterwards at a higher cost and losing more lives.

 

[Paper_Towel]

 

[norrislakevol]

Well, I'm not really applying that statement to cover Russia's entire history, more specifically referencing the current Ukraine conflict. No, Russia hasn't targeted civilians.

How do you know? History shows that they love to do that. Hell, they have even burned their own cities to hamper an enemy force. They have starved people on purpose before. Why would it be any different this time around?

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[Volsdeep4]

In the first month, they never seriously threatened to "take" Ukraine. They wanted to do two things:
1. Scare the hell of Zelensky enough to get a deal cut about Ukraine in NATO, autonomy for people that identified as Russians etc
2. Keep the Ukrainians so concerned about defending Kyiv that they are not able to send as many forces to Donbas

You are smarter than this. If you really think the Russians are paper tigers based on them using kid gloves for the first 9-10 months of this conflict, you are misreading it badly. They didn't bring in nearly enough people to occupy Kyiv ( a city of 2.5 million), much less the entire country. Also, Russia didn't go in with "shock and awe" bombing campaigns to level Ukraine and send them to the stone age in the same manner that the US did in Iraq. Part of that is due to Ukraine's air defense early on, but the main reason is that they had no intention of destroying Ukraine infrastructure or citizens to only have to rebuild afterwards at a higher cost and losing more lives.

Sooo, if Mexico invaded the US and want say New Mexico. Since most of that population is Mexican. We should just give it to them. Am I catching on?

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[evillawyer]

Sooo, if Mexico invaded the US and want say New Mexico. Since most of that population is Mexican. We should just give it to them. Am I catching on?

And the British should be able to take us back on @Rasputin_Vol's mother tongue protectorate theory.

 

[norrislakevol]

Meanwhile... in the rest of the world...

Ugandan President Blasts Western Countries For Promoting LGBT In Africa | ZeroHedge

The left should actually hate Africans. A lot of them are very traditional people.

 

[Volsdeep4]

And the British should be able to take us back on @Rasputin_Vol's mother tongue protectorate theory.

Lmao he’s weird. He idolizes a drunken man who was one of the most corrupt people of that time.

 

[LouderVol]

I thought it was supposed to be Russia resorting to nukes or dirty bombs. But it is the UK. And where is the Green/environmentalist outrage with regards to depleted uranium in the soil?

Yet another case of you clearly not caring about the truth, on only wanting to hate on the west. Russia uses depleted uranium ammunition, here are their 125mm rounds, closest equivalent to what the brits are sending, that do.

3VBM10/3BM29/30
3VBM13/3BM32/33 (3BM32 "Vant")
3VBM20/3BM46 (3BM48 "Svinets")
3VBM22/3BM59 (3BM59 "Svinets-2")
3VBM?/3BM69 "Vacuum-1"

All of those are uranium based/incorporated ammunition used by Russian tanks starting with the T-64 and going through to the T-14s.

take your false anger elsewhere.

 

[Burhead]

I was waiting for the day they started breaking out T-55s from deep storage.

 

[LouderVol]

In the first month, they never seriously threatened to "take" Ukraine. They wanted to do two things:
1. Scare the hell of Zelensky enough to get a deal cut about Ukraine in NATO, autonomy for people that identified as Russians etc
2. Keep the Ukrainians so concerned about defending Kyiv that they are not able to send as many forces to Donbas

You are smarter than this. If you really think the Russians are paper tigers based on them using kid gloves for the first 9-10 months of this conflict, you are misreading it badly. They didn't bring in nearly enough people to occupy Kyiv ( a city of 2.5 million), much less the entire country. Also, Russia didn't go in with "shock and awe" bombing campaigns to level Ukraine and send them to the stone age in the same manner that the US did in Iraq. Part of that is due to Ukraine's air defense early on, but the main reason is that they had no intention of destroying Ukraine infrastructure or citizens to only have to rebuild afterwards at a higher cost and losing more lives.

the only reason they spared the civilians early on was because they assumed they had an easy war, and it wasn't necessary. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. Once they figured out they had a fight they did turn to the shock and awe and directly went after Ukraine's power infrastructure.

 

[LouderVol]

Russia doesnt target civilians. That is ridiculous. I agree, you dont invade a Country then blame them for escalation, but that isnt what is happening. This is why I say many of you live in the upside down. Your view of this conflict is warped and likely warped due to you viewing it through the filter of western propaganda.

Go look at your beloved attack on Mauripol. The Russians targeted the humanitarian corridors established to get civilians out. And it wasn't just stray strikes at the edges. The areas were targeted and the fleeing population suffered heavier losses fleeing than they did under the bombardment of the city. and before you get reactionary these were corridors established and maintained by the Russian's themselves.

 

[volgr]

Right...right...sure...yeah...context....yeah...
Ukrainian dad holds hand of son killed in Russian airstrike

Ukraine: New Light on Russia’s Rail Station Attack

See, that is better. Why didnt you lead with that? Although, unfortunately we have seen instances where western media says Russia bombed a mall but forgot to mention the mall was being used for a military purpose. Same for stories saying Russia bombed a school then leaving out the fact the school was being used as barracks.

Now, maybe this was a stray missile, or the area being used for military purpose or maybe the Russians were actually targeting civilians but that is the least likely option here.