US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

They've only been in Ukraine for a couple weeks. We've been in Iraq for a couple of decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Yes, we did that. To our shame.

That doesn't' mean we should not react when other countries act wrongly. We are still the (other? only?) superpower. And whether we want to be isolationist or should be, for decades we've played a large part in dictating what countries should or should not do, around the world. We can't sit this one out, we aren't sitting this one out.

As far as Zelensky is concerned, we are.

We trained their army and supplied/are continuing to supply their weapons. We have heavily sanctioned Russia. How is that sitting this one out?

Zelensky has repeatedly asked for fighter jets and a no-fly zone.

He can't have them. Flat out no. We are not defending the Ukraine against Russia. NATO countries yes. If Russia attacks Poland then the no-fly zone will be over the entire Russian country. Their air forces cannot prevent US air superiority -- at least in the West. But not Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Yes, we did that. To our shame.

That doesn't' mean we should not react when other countries act wrongly. We are still the (other? only?) superpower. And whether we want to be isolationist or should be, for decades we've played a large part in dictating what countries should or should not do, around the world. We can't sit this one out, we aren't sitting this one out.

As far as Zelensky is concerned, we are.

We trained their army and supplied/are continuing to supply their weapons. We have heavily sanctioned Russia. How is that sitting this one out?

Zelensky has repeatedly asked for fighter jets and a no-fly zone.

He can't have them. Flat out no. We are not defending the Ukraine against Russia. NATO countries yes. If Russia attacks Poland then the no-fly zone will be over the entire Russian country. Their air forces cannot prevent US air superiority -- at least in the West. But not Ukraine.

I understand that. But you need to recognize that Zelensky sees that as the West not doing enough, and essentially sitting this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

What we did in Iraq was go after a bad guy and a bad country because we thought they had WMDs. No doubt that we thought that. Even beyond that Iraq violated UN orders by not letting inspectors inspect. Should have have not gone in. Sure. But so what. Even if you are right -- two wrongs do not make a right. Even if we are the bad guys in Iraq, they are the bad guys here.

We are the good guys though. Do we get it wrong. Of course. But that does not change what is going on now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Yes, we did that. To our shame.

That doesn't' mean we should not react when other countries act wrongly. We are still the (other? only?) superpower. And whether we want to be isolationist or should be, for decades we've played a large part in dictating what countries should or should not do, around the world. We can't sit this one out, we aren't sitting this one out.

As far as Zelensky is concerned, we are.

We trained their army and supplied/are continuing to supply their weapons. We have heavily sanctioned Russia. How is that sitting this one out?

Zelensky has repeatedly asked for fighter jets and a no-fly zone.

He can't have them. Flat out no. We are not defending the Ukraine against Russia. NATO countries yes. If Russia attacks Poland then the no-fly zone will be over the entire Russian country. Their air forces cannot prevent US air superiority -- at least in the West. But not Ukraine.

I understand that. But you need to recognize that Zelensky sees that as the West not doing enough, and essentially sitting this out.

I guess -- so what? We can't do more. Billions of lives are at stake. Sorry you live where you live. Would love to do more. You are not a vital US interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

Then you are a fool and a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Yes, we did that. To our shame.

That doesn't' mean we should not react when other countries act wrongly. We are still the (other? only?) superpower. And whether we want to be isolationist or should be, for decades we've played a large part in dictating what countries should or should not do, around the world. We can't sit this one out, we aren't sitting this one out.

As far as Zelensky is concerned, we are.

We trained their army and supplied/are continuing to supply their weapons. We have heavily sanctioned Russia. How is that sitting this one out?

Zelensky has repeatedly asked for fighter jets and a no-fly zone.

He can’t get them and is asking based on the presumption that he survives and has a country to run for re-election in in a year and a half. While the invasion is cruel, unlawful, and all else, I want him to go screw with every disingenuous plea for a no-fly zone. No, it is not humane to nakedly want millions of other civilians at risk by war. F him. Nope. No no fly zone. Sorry, not at all sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

In no scenario do I see us repeatedly bombing mexican hospitals and apartment buildings and shooting journalists.

You might want to review what US drone attacks did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again: so what? Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

In no scenario do I see us repeatedly bombing mexican hospitals and apartment buildings and shooting journalists.

You might want to review what US drone attacks did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again: so what? Two wrongs do not make a right.

That was not my point. But it’s nice that you respond to drone strikes with “so what”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

Is the US correct to be morally superior? Depends. Sometime yes; sometimes no. But what we are in 2022 is the sole superpower. Russia is not a superpower. China sort of is but their military is not quite ready yet. And the fight between free people and despots will continue until the end of time. It is pretty clear to most people what side is right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

In no scenario do I see us repeatedly bombing mexican hospitals and apartment buildings and shooting journalists.

You might want to review what US drone attacks did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again: so what? Two wrongs do not make a right.

That was not my point. But it’s nice that you respond to drone strikes with “so what”

\

Yes. No one cares. That is why Obama -- and remember it is Obama not Bush that ordered wide-spread drone strikes ---- ordered them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

In no scenario do I see us repeatedly bombing mexican hospitals and apartment buildings and shooting journalists.

You might want to review what US drone attacks did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again: so what? Two wrongs do not make a right.

That was not my point. But it’s nice that you respond to drone strikes with “so what”

DP. No, that was your point. I'm more concerned with the here and now, and focused on what Ukrainian drone attacks are doing to Russian tanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

In no scenario do I see us repeatedly bombing mexican hospitals and apartment buildings and shooting journalists.

You might want to review what US drone attacks did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again: so what? Two wrongs do not make a right.

That was not my point. But it’s nice that you respond to drone strikes with “so what”

\

Yes. No one cares. That is why Obama -- and remember it is Obama not Bush that ordered wide-spread drone strikes ---- ordered them.

No one cares about drone strikes against civilians. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

In no scenario do I see us repeatedly bombing mexican hospitals and apartment buildings and shooting journalists.

You might want to review what US drone attacks did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again: so what? Two wrongs do not make a right.

That was not my point. But it’s nice that you respond to drone strikes with “so what”

\

Yes. No one cares. That is why Obama -- and remember it is Obama not Bush that ordered wide-spread drone strikes ---- ordered them.

No one cares about drone strikes against civilians. Disgusting.

You clearly don't.