US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes 2 dead Americans.

Still awaiting that "forceful" response promised by Biden.

So every time an American journalist dies in a war zone, our military needs to go in? Interesting take.

Biden's words, not mine.
Maybe someone should ask him what he meant by "respond forcefully."

"We are not seeking direct confrontation with Russia, though I have been clear that if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully."

Why don’t you ask Biden, since you seem so concerned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes 2 dead Americans.

Still awaiting that "forceful" response promised by Biden.

Americans die every week in other countries. You want us to invade them all?

If it can be used to slam Biden somehow then this poster would say yes. It's just hot air.

[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:

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.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

I strongly condemned Russia earlier in this thread. I'm not applauding the civilian murder rate in Ukraine. I am horrified by what is happening.

My initial question was roughly this: to those of you who believe that Putin is a barbarian or "evil", do you share the same view of George W? If not, why not? And why wasn't the US treated as a pariah state when it invaded Iraq, while Russia is treated as a pariah now? I want to understand this asymmetric thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes 2 dead Americans.

Still awaiting that "forceful" response promised by Biden.

Americans die every week in other countries. You want us to invade them all?

If it can be used to slam Biden somehow then this poster would say yes. It's just hot air.

It’s everywhere on this site. I’ve never seen this kind of bloodlust by purported liberals and progressives, it’s #ing disgusting and ignores crucial distinctions between direct conflict with Russia and our lopsided destruction of Iraq et al. It’s bizarre.

[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.

It is his job to defend his country and ask for as much as he could, publicly, to put pressure on US and EU politicians. It is not his job to avoid WW3. However other countries have to consider.

The jets should already be there. But, they aren't. The article says the pentagon rejected the deal. Other reports say it was Biden.
The calls for sending the planes is bipartisan.


A growing number of Republican and Democratic lawmakers are urging the Biden administration to facilitate a deal with Poland to send MiG-29 planes to Ukraine for additional air support as Russia continues its multi-front war on the country.

The Pentagon last week rejected Poland’s proposal for the U.S. and NATO to deliver MiG-29 planes to the Ukrainian military, arguing that the move could be mistaken as "escalatory" and could result in "significant Russian reaction" that could increase the prospects of a military escalation with NATO.

The letter to Biden was signed by Republicans and Democrats, including Reps. Jared Golden, D-Maine, Jason Crow, D-Colo., Don Bacon, R-Neb., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., James Baird, R-Ind., John Katko, R-N.Y., Bill Johnson, R-N.C., Conor Lamb, D-Pa., Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., Chris Pappas, D-N.H., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Michael Waltz, R-Fla., Jim Costa, D-Calif., and Kaiali’i Kahele, D-Hawaii.

Meanwhile, their letter to Biden comes after 58 members of the Problem Solvers Caucus — which includes both Republicans and Democrats — urged the U.S. to provide additional defense material — including MiGs — to Ukraine.

Poland surprised the U.S. last week by offering to give its entire fleet of MiG-29 fighter jets to the U.S. in exchange for a chance to buy American F-16s as part of a deal to bolster the Ukrainian air force while upgrading the Poles with NATO aircraft.

The Pentagon, the following day, pushed back on the move and said it raised concerns regarding the deployment of warplanes from a U.S. base in a NATO-allied nation to combat Russian forces.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-ukraine-bipartisan-lawmakers-urge-biden-to-work-with-poland-to-provide-mig-29s-to-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:

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.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

I strongly condemned Russia earlier in this thread. I'm not applauding the civilian murder rate in Ukraine. I am horrified by what is happening.

My initial question was roughly this: to those of you who believe that Putin is a barbarian or "evil", do you share the same view of George W? If not, why not? And why wasn't the US treated as a pariah state when it invaded Iraq, while Russia is treated as a pariah now? I want to understand this asymmetric thinking.

No you don't.

[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:

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.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

I strongly condemned Russia earlier in this thread. I'm not applauding the civilian murder rate in Ukraine. I am horrified by what is happening.

My initial question was roughly this: to those of you who believe that Putin is a barbarian or "evil", do you share the same view of George W? If not, why not? And why wasn't the US treated as a pariah state when it invaded Iraq, while Russia is treated as a pariah now? I want to understand this asymmetric thinking.

Then you should start a new thread about George W. It just looks like whataboutism and minimization of Russia's atrocities by asking that in a thread about Ukraine. It's strange that you call it asymmetric thinking, or that you seem to think you're the only one who was against the Iraq war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know the difference between Putin and the American Presidents. Putin has a lock on being the leader of his country for as long as he wants it (Navalny anyone?)
That allows him a long time line to carry out his actions with very little (no) pushback. Ukraine and the other countries he's take are his master plan.

As of now (knock on wood), no one in the U.S. (President or otherwise) can remain in power indefinitely. Who came after Bush? Obama. You thing Bush and Obama collaborated about Afghanistan and Iraq? So far it is not possible. Your comparison of a U.S. President to Putin as of now is not an apt comparison.

Ask yourself why is Navalny being even allowed to cultivate the “opposition” image when others were murdered for much less. I also find it interesting that the channel 1 protester specially referenced navalny in his speech. Is navalny a “plan b” now for getting out of sanctions?

No surprises there, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes 2 dead Americans.

Still awaiting that "forceful" response promised by Biden.

Americans die every week in other countries. You want us to invade them all?

If it can be used to slam Biden somehow then this poster would say yes. It's just hot air.

It’s everywhere on this site. I’ve never seen this kind of bloodlust by purported liberals and progressives, it’s #ing disgusting and ignores crucial distinctions between direct conflict with Russia and our lopsided destruction of Iraq et al. It’s bizarre.

"purported liberals" is doing a lot of work there.

[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.

It is his job to defend his country and ask for as much as he could, publicly, to put pressure on US and EU politicians. It is not his job to avoid WW3. However other countries have to consider.

The jets should already be there. But, they aren't. The article says the pentagon rejected the deal. Other reports say it was Biden.
The calls for sending the planes is bipartisan.


A growing number of Republican and Democratic lawmakers are urging the Biden administration to facilitate a deal with Poland to send MiG-29 planes to Ukraine for additional air support as Russia continues its multi-front war on the country.

The Pentagon last week rejected Poland’s proposal for the U.S. and NATO to deliver MiG-29 planes to the Ukrainian military, arguing that the move could be mistaken as "escalatory" and could result in "significant Russian reaction" that could increase the prospects of a military escalation with NATO.

The letter to Biden was signed by Republicans and Democrats, including Reps. Jared Golden, D-Maine, Jason Crow, D-Colo., Don Bacon, R-Neb., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., James Baird, R-Ind., John Katko, R-N.Y., Bill Johnson, R-N.C., Conor Lamb, D-Pa., Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., Chris Pappas, D-N.H., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Michael Waltz, R-Fla., Jim Costa, D-Calif., and Kaiali’i Kahele, D-Hawaii.

Meanwhile, their letter to Biden comes after 58 members of the Problem Solvers Caucus — which includes both Republicans and Democrats — urged the U.S. to provide additional defense material — including MiGs — to Ukraine.

Poland surprised the U.S. last week by offering to give its entire fleet of MiG-29 fighter jets to the U.S. in exchange for a chance to buy American F-16s as part of a deal to bolster the Ukrainian air force while upgrading the Poles with NATO aircraft.

The Pentagon, the following day, pushed back on the move and said it raised concerns regarding the deployment of warplanes from a U.S. base in a NATO-allied nation to combat Russian forces.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-ukraine-bipartisan-lawmakers-urge-biden-to-work-with-poland-to-provide-mig-29s-to-ukraine

The answer to you disguising Fox new quote is that we have a competent president that is trying to avoid declaring war on Russia which would result in the destruction of most of the world's population.
That is why Kamala went to Poland, to tell them to stop their BS.

[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:

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.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

I strongly condemned Russia earlier in this thread. I'm not applauding the civilian murder rate in Ukraine. I am horrified by what is happening.

My initial question was roughly this: to those of you who believe that Putin is a barbarian or "evil", do you share the same view of George W? If not, why not? And why wasn't the US treated as a pariah state when it invaded Iraq, while Russia is treated as a pariah now? I want to understand this asymmetric thinking.

Then you should start a new thread about George W. It just looks like whataboutism and minimization of Russia's atrocities by asking that in a thread about Ukraine. It's strange that you call it asymmetric thinking, or that you seem to think you're the only one who was against the Iraq war.

Lots of people were against the Iraq war. The difference is no one was punished for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know the difference between Putin and the American Presidents. Putin has a lock on being the leader of his country for as long as he wants it (Navalny anyone?)
That allows him a long time line to carry out his actions with very little (no) pushback. Ukraine and the other countries he's take are his master plan.

As of now (knock on wood), no one in the U.S. (President or otherwise) can remain in power indefinitely. Who came after Bush? Obama. You thing Bush and Obama collaborated about Afghanistan and Iraq? So far it is not possible. Your comparison of a U.S. President to Putin as of now is not an apt comparison.

Ask yourself why is Navalny being even allowed to cultivate the “opposition” image when others were murdered for much less. I also find it interesting that the channel 1 protester specially referenced navalny in his speech. Is navalny a “plan b” now for getting out of sanctions?

No surprises there, I guess.

Actually it’s hugely surprising and shows the Kremlin is in a weak position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know the difference between Putin and the American Presidents. Putin has a lock on being the leader of his country for as long as he wants it (Navalny anyone?)
That allows him a long time line to carry out his actions with very little (no) pushback. Ukraine and the other countries he's take are his master plan.

As of now (knock on wood), no one in the U.S. (President or otherwise) can remain in power indefinitely. Who came after Bush? Obama. You thing Bush and Obama collaborated about Afghanistan and Iraq? So far it is not possible. Your comparison of a U.S. President to Putin as of now is not an apt comparison.

Ask yourself why is Navalny being even allowed to cultivate the “opposition” image when others were murdered for much less. I also find it interesting that the channel 1 protester specially referenced navalny in his speech. Is navalny a “plan b” now for getting out of sanctions?

No surprises there, I guess.

Actually it’s hugely surprising and shows the Kremlin is in a weak position.

This contradicts with the narrative so far that the russians who are “mostly against the war” are not able to protest because of the harsh repressions - jail terms, etc. So, which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know the difference between Putin and the American Presidents. Putin has a lock on being the leader of his country for as long as he wants it (Navalny anyone?)
That allows him a long time line to carry out his actions with very little (no) pushback. Ukraine and the other countries he's take are his master plan.

As of now (knock on wood), no one in the U.S. (President or otherwise) can remain in power indefinitely. Who came after Bush? Obama. You thing Bush and Obama collaborated about Afghanistan and Iraq? So far it is not possible. Your comparison of a U.S. President to Putin as of now is not an apt comparison.

Ask yourself why is Navalny being even allowed to cultivate the “opposition” image when others were murdered for much less. I also find it interesting that the channel 1 protester specially referenced navalny in his speech. Is navalny a “plan b” now for getting out of sanctions?

No surprises there, I guess.

Actually it’s hugely surprising and shows the Kremlin is in a weak position.

Nah, it was pretty clearly a staged "protest." Putin and his cronies are trying to make themselves look good. Meanwhile, how are the 15,000 commoner protestors who were arrested on the street being treated by the Russian state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know the difference between Putin and the American Presidents. Putin has a lock on being the leader of his country for as long as he wants it (Navalny anyone?)
That allows him a long time line to carry out his actions with very little (no) pushback. Ukraine and the other countries he's take are his master plan.

As of now (knock on wood), no one in the U.S. (President or otherwise) can remain in power indefinitely. Who came after Bush? Obama. You thing Bush and Obama collaborated about Afghanistan and Iraq? So far it is not possible. Your comparison of a U.S. President to Putin as of now is not an apt comparison.

Ask yourself why is Navalny being even allowed to cultivate the “opposition” image when others were murdered for much less. I also find it interesting that the channel 1 protester specially referenced navalny in his speech. Is navalny a “plan b” now for getting out of sanctions?

No surprises there, I guess.

Actually it’s hugely surprising and shows the Kremlin is in a weak position.

Nah, it was pretty clearly a staged "protest." Putin and his cronies are trying to make themselves look good. Meanwhile, how are the 15,000 commoner protestors who were arrested on the street being treated by the Russian state?

I 100% disagree.