What dies it take for Russia to stop this war?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Ukrainians dying- but the upside is lots of Russians are dying and having limbs blown off; the males that can are fleeing. Russian population was already on the decline; Putin literally threw gas on the demise of their society.

Excuse me, the upside?!

There are literally no military strategists who think Russia losing soldiers and equipment is a bad thing for the west.
If we knew the actual numbers of Russian KIA the west could run the number on the price per kill.

The US knows how much direct military hw it has given Ukraine. Say it is 100k kia- if that actual cost is under 20k per kill that is good ROI.
When you factor in equipment loss for Russia the roi goes up even higher.

This is cold as ice. I hope I don't know you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Ukrainians dying- but the upside is lots of Russians are dying and having limbs blown off; the males that can are fleeing. Russian population was already on the decline; Putin literally threw gas on the demise of their society.

Excuse me, the upside?!

There are literally no military strategists who think Russia losing soldiers and equipment is a bad thing for the west.
If we knew the actual numbers of Russian KIA the west could run the number on the price per kill.

The US knows how much direct military hw it has given Ukraine. Say it is 100k kia- if that actual cost is under 20k per kill that is good ROI.
When you factor in equipment loss for Russia the roi goes up even higher.

Don’t be an idiot, PP. the US alone has given Ukraine 68 Billion dollars and Biden just asked Congress for another 37.7 Billion. There are may be 100,000 dead Russian soldiers. That’s a pretty sucky ROI of more than a million per soldier (and that doesn’t even count what the Europeans have kicked in.). And as fast as Ukraine is destroying Russian military equipment, they are also using up US and European munitions. Some tanks have been fired so often, their barrels have worn out and need to be replaced.

The US is not supporting Ukraine out of the petty desire to grind Russia down. Something far more fundamental is at stake - the European post- WWII order in which nations do not militarily invade each other and do not attack civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia has clearly stated its intention to wipe Ukraine off the map as a nation and has threatened a similar desire to others such as Poland or other countries (like the Baltics) which have significant Russian populations.

Durable peace in free societies is priceless. That is why we are supporting Ukraine - not to grind down the Russian army, which many knew to be a corrupt shambles anyway due to Putin’s kleptocratic leadership.

[Anonymous]

The cost is so high because the aid is mostly not military equipment, but salaries and pensions for Ukraine government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take on the history of Crimea that no one wants to talk about:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/25/the-tragedy-of-crimea/

..Since 2014, a number of Western-sponsored polls have likewise shown a high level of support for reunification with Russia. Thus, a Pew survey from April 2014 showed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents believed the 2014 referendum was free and fair. A June 2014 poll, this one by Gallup, found nearly 83 percent of the Crimean population (94 percent of ethnic Russians and 68 percent of ethnic Ukrainians) thought the 2014 referendum reflected the views of the people. A spring 2017 survey conducted by the German-based Center for East European and International Studies found that, if asked to vote again then, 79 percent said they would cast the same vote.

Most striking of all has been the turnaround in the attitude of Crimean Tatars. A 2020 report in Foreign Affairs found that the proportion of Tatars who indicated that they thought being part of Russia would make them better off rose from 50 percent in 2014 to 81 percent in 2019.

Many leading Ukrainian political and cultural figures, including the writers Vasyl Shklyar, Yuri Andrukhovych, and former President Viktor Yushchenko, have referred to Crimea as foreign to Ukraine and depicted its multiculturalism as a threat to the nationalist Ukraine they were trying to create. After 2013, some have suggested letting this territory go its own way. The danger of doing so now, however, according to President Poroshenko’s permanent representative in Crimea, Boris Babin, is that “if we don’t liberate Crimea and the East [militarily], then all of Ukraine will become the East and Crimea.”

..
To be clear, the loss of Crimea stems directly from Russia’s illegal annexation, but, as Ukraine’s first president, Leonid Kravchuk, acknowledged in 2019, it was fed by years of “very aggressive attacks of one region [Galicia in Western Ukraine – NP], which often believes that its ideology is the most correct, the most essential for the Ukrainian people; [and it] encounters the opposition of all regions of Ukraine that have a different ideology, or maybe different views, to be more precise, on the situation in Ukraine.”

To regain their loyalty, Kiev will have to acknowledge the role that its own policies, most notably forcible Ukrainianization, have played in fracturing Ukrainian society, or face the prospect that recapturing these territories will result in a new cycle of violence, at some point in the future.

is this another one of those Russia-engineered websites that they created specifically to mislead Western readers?

everything in this article is wrong and exactly what Russian propaganda says. unfortunately for you it is inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take on the history of Crimea that no one wants to talk about:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/25/the-tragedy-of-crimea/

..Since 2014, a number of Western-sponsored polls have likewise shown a high level of support for reunification with Russia. Thus, a Pew survey from April 2014 showed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents believed the 2014 referendum was free and fair. A June 2014 poll, this one by Gallup, found nearly 83 percent of the Crimean population (94 percent of ethnic Russians and 68 percent of ethnic Ukrainians) thought the 2014 referendum reflected the views of the people. A spring 2017 survey conducted by the German-based Center for East European and International Studies found that, if asked to vote again then, 79 percent said they would cast the same vote.

Most striking of all has been the turnaround in the attitude of Crimean Tatars. A 2020 report in Foreign Affairs found that the proportion of Tatars who indicated that they thought being part of Russia would make them better off rose from 50 percent in 2014 to 81 percent in 2019.

Many leading Ukrainian political and cultural figures, including the writers Vasyl Shklyar, Yuri Andrukhovych, and former President Viktor Yushchenko, have referred to Crimea as foreign to Ukraine and depicted its multiculturalism as a threat to the nationalist Ukraine they were trying to create. After 2013, some have suggested letting this territory go its own way. The danger of doing so now, however, according to President Poroshenko’s permanent representative in Crimea, Boris Babin, is that “if we don’t liberate Crimea and the East [militarily], then all of Ukraine will become the East and Crimea.”

..
To be clear, the loss of Crimea stems directly from Russia’s illegal annexation, but, as Ukraine’s first president, Leonid Kravchuk, acknowledged in 2019, it was fed by years of “very aggressive attacks of one region [Galicia in Western Ukraine – NP], which often believes that its ideology is the most correct, the most essential for the Ukrainian people; [and it] encounters the opposition of all regions of Ukraine that have a different ideology, or maybe different views, to be more precise, on the situation in Ukraine.”

To regain their loyalty, Kiev will have to acknowledge the role that its own policies, most notably forcible Ukrainianization, have played in fracturing Ukrainian society, or face the prospect that recapturing these territories will result in a new cycle of violence, at some point in the future.

is this another one of those Russia-engineered websites that they created specifically to mislead Western readers?

everything in this article is wrong and exactly what Russian propaganda says. unfortunately for you it is inaccurate.

The contemporary “realists” work hard in the comfort of their think tanks to find ways to excuse Putin’s militaristic imperialism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take on the history of Crimea that no one wants to talk about:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/25/the-tragedy-of-crimea/

..Since 2014, a number of Western-sponsored polls have likewise shown a high level of support for reunification with Russia. Thus, a Pew survey from April 2014 showed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents believed the 2014 referendum was free and fair. A June 2014 poll, this one by Gallup, found nearly 83 percent of the Crimean population (94 percent of ethnic Russians and 68 percent of ethnic Ukrainians) thought the 2014 referendum reflected the views of the people. A spring 2017 survey conducted by the German-based Center for East European and International Studies found that, if asked to vote again then, 79 percent said they would cast the same vote.

Most striking of all has been the turnaround in the attitude of Crimean Tatars. A 2020 report in Foreign Affairs found that the proportion of Tatars who indicated that they thought being part of Russia would make them better off rose from 50 percent in 2014 to 81 percent in 2019.

Many leading Ukrainian political and cultural figures, including the writers Vasyl Shklyar, Yuri Andrukhovych, and former President Viktor Yushchenko, have referred to Crimea as foreign to Ukraine and depicted its multiculturalism as a threat to the nationalist Ukraine they were trying to create. After 2013, some have suggested letting this territory go its own way. The danger of doing so now, however, according to President Poroshenko’s permanent representative in Crimea, Boris Babin, is that “if we don’t liberate Crimea and the East [militarily], then all of Ukraine will become the East and Crimea.”

..
To be clear, the loss of Crimea stems directly from Russia’s illegal annexation, but, as Ukraine’s first president, Leonid Kravchuk, acknowledged in 2019, it was fed by years of “very aggressive attacks of one region [Galicia in Western Ukraine – NP], which often believes that its ideology is the most correct, the most essential for the Ukrainian people; [and it] encounters the opposition of all regions of Ukraine that have a different ideology, or maybe different views, to be more precise, on the situation in Ukraine.”

To regain their loyalty, Kiev will have to acknowledge the role that its own policies, most notably forcible Ukrainianization, have played in fracturing Ukrainian society, or face the prospect that recapturing these territories will result in a new cycle of violence, at some point in the future.

This “article” is some kind of bizarre a joke - a history of Crimea before 2019 to show why it will be hard for Ukraine to take it now?

There has been a sea change in the thinking of many (probably most) Ukrainians who were formerly pro-Russian (pre-2014). Every Ukrainian has watched how Russia has behaved as it took over Donbas and Crimea in 2014. Russia was unable to provide stable governance, pensions, etc. and those regions have turned into authoritarian kleptocracies run by thugs. Add in how Russia has behaved in the last 10 months - torture, disappearances, filtration camps, separation of minors from their parents or legal guardians, forced deportation to Russia - and TBH very few people except the most hard core Russians still support any kind of Russian governance in Donbas or Crimea. Russia will be lucky if Crimea gets some kind of independent, non-Ukrainian permanent status or a lengthy deferred status.

Another region Russia will never be able to keep Crimea is that from Crimea they can still easily threaten the major grain shipping channels. No one globally is going to support Russia keeping Crimea.

Anything is a bizarre joke when it goes against your biases. But on an off chance that you're serious, there are a few things to consider:

- Crimea's takeover was largely bloodless and did not inspire a popular rebellion because most people in Crimea were uneasy about the forced Ukrainization of the area that was never Ukrainian in history, ethnicity or spirit. Western-sponsored polls after the takeover confirm as much.

- Ukraine is also an authoritarian kleptocracy run by thugs - a fact that was commonly acknowledged but became verboten in February 2022.

- Nobody globally HAS to support Russia keeping Crimea. I mean no one globally supports Israel's continued annexation of the West Bank, and so? Doesn't change a thing.

- What is your evidence for the bolded?

WOW, good job. are you on Putin's payroll??
you don't talk about the fact that most pro-Ukrainian population chose to move away from Crimea to mainland Ukraine.
you also don't mention that a lot of pro-Putin propaganda-fed Russians moved to Crimea and bought up real estate that was basically taken away from Ukrainians and local Tatars. of course your polls will show russia-support increasing.
also, Crimean Tatars are not pro-Russian, that's a big lie. all local Tatar pro-Ukraine activists have been put in jail on made-up charges or vanished without a trace.

but those and many other points wouldn't serve you right. of course you won't talk about those.
you think you can feed your Putin's propaganda here and silly Americans will believe you. Unfortunately for you people who frequent this board are too smart and intelligent to eat that crap.

Would love to ask Jeff to check your IP, though that's useless with high popularity of VPNs in Russia right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Ukrainians dying- but the upside is lots of Russians are dying and having limbs blown off; the males that can are fleeing. Russian population was already on the decline; Putin literally threw gas on the demise of their society.

Excuse me, the upside?!

There are literally no military strategists who think Russia losing soldiers and equipment is a bad thing for the west.
If we knew the actual numbers of Russian KIA the west could run the number on the price per kill.

The US knows how much direct military hw it has given Ukraine. Say it is 100k kia- if that actual cost is under 20k per kill that is good ROI.
When you factor in equipment loss for Russia the roi goes up even higher.

Don’t be an idiot, PP. the US alone has given Ukraine 68 Billion dollars and Biden just asked Congress for another 37.7 Billion. There are may be 100,000 dead Russian soldiers. That’s a pretty sucky ROI of more than a million per soldier (and that doesn’t even count what the Europeans have kicked in.). And as fast as Ukraine is destroying Russian military equipment, they are also using up US and European munitions. Some tanks have been fired so often, their barrels have worn out and need to be replaced.

The US is not supporting Ukraine out of the petty desire to grind Russia down. Something far more fundamental is at stake - the European post- WWII order in which nations do not militarily invade each other and do not attack civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia has clearly stated its intention to wipe Ukraine off the map as a nation and has threatened a similar desire to others such as Poland or other countries (like the Baltics) which have significant Russian populations.

Durable peace in free societies is priceless. That is why we are supporting Ukraine - not to grind down the Russian army, which many knew to be a corrupt shambles anyway due to Putin’s kleptocratic leadership.

Russia running out of cruise missiles and artillery shells is a nice bonus though. If nothing else, Poland and the Baltic nations should sleep easier at night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Ukrainians dying- but the upside is lots of Russians are dying and having limbs blown off; the males that can are fleeing. Russian population was already on the decline; Putin literally threw gas on the demise of their society.

Excuse me, the upside?!

There are literally no military strategists who think Russia losing soldiers and equipment is a bad thing for the west.
If we knew the actual numbers of Russian KIA the west could run the number on the price per kill.

The US knows how much direct military hw it has given Ukraine. Say it is 100k kia- if that actual cost is under 20k per kill that is good ROI.
When you factor in equipment loss for Russia the roi goes up even higher.

Don’t be an idiot, PP. the US alone has given Ukraine 68 Billion dollars and Biden just asked Congress for another 37.7 Billion. There are may be 100,000 dead Russian soldiers. That’s a pretty sucky ROI of more than a million per soldier (and that doesn’t even count what the Europeans have kicked in.). And as fast as Ukraine is destroying Russian military equipment, they are also using up US and European munitions. Some tanks have been fired so often, their barrels have worn out and need to be replaced.

The US is not supporting Ukraine out of the petty desire to grind Russia down. Something far more fundamental is at stake - the European post- WWII order in which nations do not militarily invade each other and do not attack civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia has clearly stated its intention to wipe Ukraine off the map as a nation and has threatened a similar desire to others such as Poland or other countries (like the Baltics) which have significant Russian populations.

Durable peace in free societies is priceless. That is why we are supporting Ukraine - not to grind down the Russian army, which many knew to be a corrupt shambles anyway due to Putin’s kleptocratic leadership.

Russia running out of cruise missiles and artillery shells is a nice bonus though. If nothing else, Poland and the Baltic nations should sleep easier at night.

Poland and the Baltic nations will not sleep easy until the war is over, with a durable, written peace accord that includes prosecution for war crimes, reparations, repatriation of Ukrainian civilians and soldiers, and Russian troop withdrawal from Belarus. The idea that Poland and the Baltics could ever sleep easily while war grinds on in Ukraine and Russia maintains a large troop presence in Belarus is ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Ukrainians dying- but the upside is lots of Russians are dying and having limbs blown off; the males that can are fleeing. Russian population was already on the decline; Putin literally threw gas on the demise of their society.

Excuse me, the upside?!

There are literally no military strategists who think Russia losing soldiers and equipment is a bad thing for the west.
If we knew the actual numbers of Russian KIA the west could run the number on the price per kill.

The US knows how much direct military hw it has given Ukraine. Say it is 100k kia- if that actual cost is under 20k per kill that is good ROI.
When you factor in equipment loss for Russia the roi goes up even higher.

Don’t be an idiot, PP. the US alone has given Ukraine 68 Billion dollars and Biden just asked Congress for another 37.7 Billion. There are may be 100,000 dead Russian soldiers. That’s a pretty sucky ROI of more than a million per soldier (and that doesn’t even count what the Europeans have kicked in.). And as fast as Ukraine is destroying Russian military equipment, they are also using up US and European munitions. Some tanks have been fired so often, their barrels have worn out and need to be replaced.

The US is not supporting Ukraine out of the petty desire to grind Russia down. Something far more fundamental is at stake - the European post- WWII order in which nations do not militarily invade each other and do not attack civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia has clearly stated its intention to wipe Ukraine off the map as a nation and has threatened a similar desire to others such as Poland or other countries (like the Baltics) which have significant Russian populations.

Durable peace in free societies is priceless. That is why we are supporting Ukraine - not to grind down the Russian army, which many knew to be a corrupt shambles anyway due to Putin’s kleptocratic leadership.

Coming from an assumed American, that's deliciously ironic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take on the history of Crimea that no one wants to talk about:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/25/the-tragedy-of-crimea/

..Since 2014, a number of Western-sponsored polls have likewise shown a high level of support for reunification with Russia. Thus, a Pew survey from April 2014 showed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents believed the 2014 referendum was free and fair. A June 2014 poll, this one by Gallup, found nearly 83 percent of the Crimean population (94 percent of ethnic Russians and 68 percent of ethnic Ukrainians) thought the 2014 referendum reflected the views of the people. A spring 2017 survey conducted by the German-based Center for East European and International Studies found that, if asked to vote again then, 79 percent said they would cast the same vote.

Most striking of all has been the turnaround in the attitude of Crimean Tatars. A 2020 report in Foreign Affairs found that the proportion of Tatars who indicated that they thought being part of Russia would make them better off rose from 50 percent in 2014 to 81 percent in 2019.

Many leading Ukrainian political and cultural figures, including the writers Vasyl Shklyar, Yuri Andrukhovych, and former President Viktor Yushchenko, have referred to Crimea as foreign to Ukraine and depicted its multiculturalism as a threat to the nationalist Ukraine they were trying to create. After 2013, some have suggested letting this territory go its own way. The danger of doing so now, however, according to President Poroshenko’s permanent representative in Crimea, Boris Babin, is that “if we don’t liberate Crimea and the East [militarily], then all of Ukraine will become the East and Crimea.”

..
To be clear, the loss of Crimea stems directly from Russia’s illegal annexation, but, as Ukraine’s first president, Leonid Kravchuk, acknowledged in 2019, it was fed by years of “very aggressive attacks of one region [Galicia in Western Ukraine – NP], which often believes that its ideology is the most correct, the most essential for the Ukrainian people; [and it] encounters the opposition of all regions of Ukraine that have a different ideology, or maybe different views, to be more precise, on the situation in Ukraine.”

To regain their loyalty, Kiev will have to acknowledge the role that its own policies, most notably forcible Ukrainianization, have played in fracturing Ukrainian society, or face the prospect that recapturing these territories will result in a new cycle of violence, at some point in the future.

This “article” is some kind of bizarre a joke - a history of Crimea before 2019 to show why it will be hard for Ukraine to take it now?

There has been a sea change in the thinking of many (probably most) Ukrainians who were formerly pro-Russian (pre-2014). Every Ukrainian has watched how Russia has behaved as it took over Donbas and Crimea in 2014. Russia was unable to provide stable governance, pensions, etc. and those regions have turned into authoritarian kleptocracies run by thugs. Add in how Russia has behaved in the last 10 months - torture, disappearances, filtration camps, separation of minors from their parents or legal guardians, forced deportation to Russia - and TBH very few people except the most hard core Russians still support any kind of Russian governance in Donbas or Crimea. Russia will be lucky if Crimea gets some kind of independent, non-Ukrainian permanent status or a lengthy deferred status.

Another region Russia will never be able to keep Crimea is that from Crimea they can still easily threaten the major grain shipping channels. No one globally is going to support Russia keeping Crimea.

Anything is a bizarre joke when it goes against your biases. But on an off chance that you're serious, there are a few things to consider:

- Crimea's takeover was largely bloodless and did not inspire a popular rebellion because most people in Crimea were uneasy about the forced Ukrainization of the area that was never Ukrainian in history, ethnicity or spirit. Western-sponsored polls after the takeover confirm as much.

- Ukraine is also an authoritarian kleptocracy run by thugs - a fact that was commonly acknowledged but became verboten in February 2022.

- Nobody globally HAS to support Russia keeping Crimea. I mean no one globally supports Israel's continued annexation of the West Bank, and so? Doesn't change a thing.

- What is your evidence for the bolded?

WOW, good job. are you on Putin's payroll??
you don't talk about the fact that most pro-Ukrainian population chose to move away from Crimea to mainland Ukraine.
you also don't mention that a lot of pro-Putin propaganda-fed Russians moved to Crimea and bought up real estate that was basically taken away from Ukrainians and local Tatars. of course your polls will show russia-support increasing.
also, Crimean Tatars are not pro-Russian, that's a big lie. all local Tatar pro-Ukraine activists have been put in jail on made-up charges or vanished without a trace.

but those and many other points wouldn't serve you right. of course you won't talk about those.
you think you can feed your Putin's propaganda here and silly Americans will believe you. Unfortunately for you people who frequent this board are too smart and intelligent to eat that crap.

Would love to ask Jeff to check your IP, though that's useless with high popularity of VPNs in Russia right now.

A Ukrainian-origin academic is a better source on these matters than a random DCUM poster armed with nothing but outrage conveniently produced, packaged in bite-size pieces and held in a spoon near your eager mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Ukrainians dying- but the upside is lots of Russians are dying and having limbs blown off; the males that can are fleeing. Russian population was already on the decline; Putin literally threw gas on the demise of their society.

Excuse me, the upside?!

There are literally no military strategists who think Russia losing soldiers and equipment is a bad thing for the west.
If we knew the actual numbers of Russian KIA the west could run the number on the price per kill.

The US knows how much direct military hw it has given Ukraine. Say it is 100k kia- if that actual cost is under 20k per kill that is good ROI.
When you factor in equipment loss for Russia the roi goes up even higher.

This is cold as ice. I hope I don't know you.

DP... the PP is just laying out basic facts. What's even colder is Putin going ahead and taking that calculated risk anyhow, and not valuing the lives of the tens of thousands of Russian troops he's sent into the meatgrinder to get slaughtered. At this point he doesn't even care that they are conscripting half blind 50 year old men with diabetes, who are being sent to the front without training, without weapons, without food or warm clothing, to just die of hypothermia.

You can't get any colder than the level of callous and reckless derangement we're seeing in Russia's leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Ukrainians dying- but the upside is lots of Russians are dying and having limbs blown off; the males that can are fleeing. Russian population was already on the decline; Putin literally threw gas on the demise of their society.

Excuse me, the upside?!

There are literally no military strategists who think Russia losing soldiers and equipment is a bad thing for the west.
If we knew the actual numbers of Russian KIA the west could run the number on the price per kill.

The US knows how much direct military hw it has given Ukraine. Say it is 100k kia- if that actual cost is under 20k per kill that is good ROI.
When you factor in equipment loss for Russia the roi goes up even higher.

Don’t be an idiot, PP. the US alone has given Ukraine 68 Billion dollars and Biden just asked Congress for another 37.7 Billion. There are may be 100,000 dead Russian soldiers. That’s a pretty sucky ROI of more than a million per soldier (and that doesn’t even count what the Europeans have kicked in.). And as fast as Ukraine is destroying Russian military equipment, they are also using up US and European munitions. Some tanks have been fired so often, their barrels have worn out and need to be replaced.

The US is not supporting Ukraine out of the petty desire to grind Russia down. Something far more fundamental is at stake - the European post- WWII order in which nations do not militarily invade each other and do not attack civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia has clearly stated its intention to wipe Ukraine off the map as a nation and has threatened a similar desire to others such as Poland or other countries (like the Baltics) which have significant Russian populations.

Durable peace in free societies is priceless. That is why we are supporting Ukraine - not to grind down the Russian army, which many knew to be a corrupt shambles anyway due to Putin’s kleptocratic leadership.

Coming from an assumed American, that's deliciously ironic.

The irony only exists in the fictitious construct world of your propaganda.

[Anonymous]

What it takes for this war to end is for Russia to fully withdraw and stop firing missiles and artillery. Nothing short of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Ukrainians dying- but the upside is lots of Russians are dying and having limbs blown off; the males that can are fleeing. Russian population was already on the decline; Putin literally threw gas on the demise of their society.

Excuse me, the upside?!

There are literally no military strategists who think Russia losing soldiers and equipment is a bad thing for the west.
If we knew the actual numbers of Russian KIA the west could run the number on the price per kill.

The US knows how much direct military hw it has given Ukraine. Say it is 100k kia- if that actual cost is under 20k per kill that is good ROI.
When you factor in equipment loss for Russia the roi goes up even higher.

Don’t be an idiot, PP. the US alone has given Ukraine 68 Billion dollars and Biden just asked Congress for another 37.7 Billion. There are may be 100,000 dead Russian soldiers. That’s a pretty sucky ROI of more than a million per soldier (and that doesn’t even count what the Europeans have kicked in.). And as fast as Ukraine is destroying Russian military equipment, they are also using up US and European munitions. Some tanks have been fired so often, their barrels have worn out and need to be replaced.

The US is not supporting Ukraine out of the petty desire to grind Russia down. Something far more fundamental is at stake - the European post- WWII order in which nations do not militarily invade each other and do not attack civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia has clearly stated its intention to wipe Ukraine off the map as a nation and has threatened a similar desire to others such as Poland or other countries (like the Baltics) which have significant Russian populations.

Durable peace in free societies is priceless. That is why we are supporting Ukraine - not to grind down the Russian army, which many knew to be a corrupt shambles anyway due to Putin’s kleptocratic leadership.

Coming from an assumed American, that's deliciously ironic.

The irony only exists in the fictitious construct world of your propaganda.

LOL no. Every time America begins to lecture the world on the virtues of human rights and not invading others, every country outside of America is like, sure, Jan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Ukrainians dying- but the upside is lots of Russians are dying and having limbs blown off; the males that can are fleeing. Russian population was already on the decline; Putin literally threw gas on the demise of their society.

Excuse me, the upside?!

There are literally no military strategists who think Russia losing soldiers and equipment is a bad thing for the west.
If we knew the actual numbers of Russian KIA the west could run the number on the price per kill.

The US knows how much direct military hw it has given Ukraine. Say it is 100k kia- if that actual cost is under 20k per kill that is good ROI.
When you factor in equipment loss for Russia the roi goes up even higher.

Don’t be an idiot, PP. the US alone has given Ukraine 68 Billion dollars and Biden just asked Congress for another 37.7 Billion. There are may be 100,000 dead Russian soldiers. That’s a pretty sucky ROI of more than a million per soldier (and that doesn’t even count what the Europeans have kicked in.). And as fast as Ukraine is destroying Russian military equipment, they are also using up US and European munitions. Some tanks have been fired so often, their barrels have worn out and need to be replaced.

The US is not supporting Ukraine out of the petty desire to grind Russia down. Something far more fundamental is at stake - the European post- WWII order in which nations do not militarily invade each other and do not attack civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia has clearly stated its intention to wipe Ukraine off the map as a nation and has threatened a similar desire to others such as Poland or other countries (like the Baltics) which have significant Russian populations.

Durable peace in free societies is priceless. That is why we are supporting Ukraine - not to grind down the Russian army, which many knew to be a corrupt shambles anyway due to Putin’s kleptocratic leadership.

a.) even if it were all military spending, that's like 10% of the US annual military budget - for which, we've essentially already destroyed easily half or more of Russia's operational conventional warfare capability.
b.) it's not all military spending. There's a big humanitarian mission, too.