American Politics

[shionoro]

At this point, you just cannot keep going "OH THIS IS JUST US PROPAGANDA" when evaluating what is happening.
The vast majority of UN countries, including some countries that are not exactly friendly to americans (the whole middle east sans syria for example) condemned Russia's actions (including Honduras in South America, while we are at it).

At this point, if you still defend it, you should ask yourself whether you might be a victim of russian propaganda rather than if anyone else is a victim of american propaganda.

Russia also violated Swedish airspace just now Swedish defence minister calls Russian violation of airspace 'unacceptable' | Reuters .
This really cannot be framed as some regional conflict between Ukraine and Russia anymore. It always was a war led by putin against the free world.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

So yeah. You never did what Russia is doing there, so maybe stop talking about the US for one second of your waking life in a foncflict that it did not cause.

I realize English is probably not your primary language, but feel free to clean this up and try insulting me again. Maybe then I'll address it as yet another proxy war that we have no business in, and how we make a greater mess than we fix. Yes, Russia is acting in its own self-interest there. As are we. Syrian civilians have a worse life after our 'help' and curiously there are less ISIS members after Russia bombed them to hell, which was actually a net positive for the world, and yet it wasn't for the good of mankind, it was just to support their fellow dictator from our literal terrorist lapdogs.

Funny your knee-jerk response is 'but but but Russia... '

WE are not Russia. We should keep our own noses clean and, again, not throw stones in glass houses.

Wait, so every country that has a civil war inside it (one that would not exist if Russia did not cause it) is fair game to invade?

Congrats, you're just *starting* to understand the pretense that we've been using is bullshit. But when Russia does exactly the same thing (even to use the same legal justification and terminology on the nose) the Western world just can't have that, and you got whipped up into a fury.

Dance, monkey, dance.

That civil war did not have Ukraine killing civilians left and right or any very dangerous insurgency going on.

Yes, it did. The UN - which did not seek intervention - estimates 12,000-15,000 fatalities with many multiples of tens of thousands of injuries more - and they acknowledge lack of access being a problem so that number could be multiples higher.

And industry, places of worship, hospitals, schools, utilities, and - yes - residences bombed. Bombs from both sides, but some estimates show that 70-80% of the separatists took more of the casualties. That dwarfs what is currently happening in the whole of Ukraine, a much larger scale fight where if the targeting of civilians was a common occurrence there should be proportionately many, many more deaths - in the 10s if not 100's of thousands. And yet, there aren't. 500 isn't GOOD by any means but it's certainly not a 'total war' or a war of extermination. And - currently - pales in comparison going by total deaths, injuries, and scale of buildings destroyed relative to the size of the local population.

And yet there are tens of thousands of lives injured or dead in the Donbas, replete with plenty of bombed landmarks that could be making the news, and for some odd reason those haven't been making headlines... so curious. But, we get 'glass-face lady' everywhere we look. Why not any of the civilians harmed or maimed in the separatist regions I wonder? Do you not think there are maimed and injured from the Donbas that could be likewise put on newspapers to elicit responses and play people's heartstrings?

It is curious, isn't it, that all the parts of Ukraine that ukraine controlled did not start killing russians and only the two regions that russia controlled fought against ukraine. So where was the reason for the invasion? A civil war going on in which russia took part in? That is enough to invade a country and destroy its cities?

What are you looking to hear? That Putin broke international law (same as NATO does) - yes, or that he's overplayed his hand - yes, overextended the theater - yes, or has blown up any chance of sympathy and justification he might have had if he hadn't decided total invasion - yes? Yeah, no shit.

That he has OTHER goals, the least of which being to avoid NATO expansion? To keep access to the sea? To keep Ukraine from 'turning West'? To keep control of the flow of spice and mil/arms sales?

Ummm, I've been talking about all those things for pages. Russia does shit for Russian benefit and we do shit for our benefit. It's about power, land, resources, oligarchs raping the people, sphere of influence, MIC contracts, etc. For them - and us as well. It's not for the benefit of the people though, that's a fucking joke.

The problem is you seem to want to paint this as pure evil versus good, as black versus white, rather than two competing dark shades of grey.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 2, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 2, 2022 ---

No US President has gone on record saying that Honduras shouldn't exist as a sovereign nation, the way Putin has with Ukraine.

Yes, there is a difference between installing a puppet regime and outright annexation, but based on Putin's stated desires, either would lead to the outcome he wants, so it's a distinction without difference.

So it's only valid if we SAY it, irrespective of what we are actually DOING?

What kind of arbitrary standard is that? At least Putin is more honest in that regard, as much as he can't be trusted.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 2, 2022 ---

At this point, you just cannot keep going "OH THIS IS JUST US PROPAGANDA" when evaluating what is happening.
The vast majority of UN countries, including some countries that are not exactly friendly to americans (the whole middle east sans syria for example) condemned Russia's actions (including Honduras in South America, while we are at it).

At this point, if you still defend it, you should ask yourself whether you might be a victim of russian propaganda rather than if anyone else is a victim of american propaganda.

Russia also violated Swedish airspace just now Swedish defence minister calls Russian violation of airspace 'unacceptable' | Reuters .
This really cannot be framed as some regional conflict between Ukraine and Russia anymore. It always was a war led by putin against the free world.

^ putting words in my mouth.

Quote me or shut up.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 2, 2022 ---

PS, Honduras isn't in 'South America'

 

[shionoro]

WE are not Russia. We should keep our own noses clean and, again, not throw stones in glass houses.

And "keeping your noses clean" for you means abandoning your allies and letting fascists take over Europe. Noted.

Congrats, you're just *starting* to understand the pretense that we've been using is bullshit. But when Russia does exactly the same thing (even to use the same legal justification and terminology on the nose) the Western world just can't have that, and you got whipped up into a fury.

Dance, monkey, dance.

I was asking you. Is every country which has civil wars inside it, including civil wars an invading force caused, fair game to invade in your opinion? Because that is what you are defending.

putting words in my mouth.

The "you" was a general you. You, as in "one" cannot keep claiming this is just a regional conflict. You (that is a personal you) also cannot keep claiming there were legitimate reasons for this war.

But you still defend and downplay it as 'russia just overplayed its hand a bit'.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

And "keeping your noses clean" for you means abandoning your allies and letting fascists take over Europe. Noted.

How about not causing more deaths and destruction than we are supposedly there to stop (oh, and avoiding all-out war with a nuclear power)? If it takes killing 10 people, displacing them, having them starve, accidentally blown up, caught in the crossfire, etc - to save 1, does that seem like a great trade to you? Meanwhile, our versions of oligarchs get rich off our super-righteous actions. Meanwhile, these 'allies' aren't even our allies or on our doorstep or culturally relevant or natives or anything... but they do usually happen to be sitting on lots of resources, and need to buy lots of arms! That's, um, rather convenient.

PS, we've effectively abandoned Ukraine to blow in the wind. So I'm not sure what you're going on about.

I was asking you. Is every country which has civil wars inside it, including civil wars an invading force caused, fair game to invade in your opinion? Because that is what you are defending.

I'm doing the OPPOSITE of defending that in fact. Try reading for comprehension next time.

The "you" was a general you. You, as in "one" cannot keep claiming this is just a regional conflict. You (that is a personal you) also cannot keep claiming there were legitimate reasons for this war.

But you still defend and downplay it as 'russia just overplayed its hand a bit'.

So, in an effort to show you aren't putting words in my mouth, you put more words in my mouth?

 

[Epic_Rider]

So it's only valid if we SAY it, irrespective of what we are actually DOING?

What kind of arbitrary standard is that? At least Putin is more honest in that regard, as much as he can't be trusted.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that quibbling over differences in how Putin will control Ukraine is pointless when he will in fact control them whichever way he can get and his stated goal is not just control over Ukraine but a negation of their culture and history which has already started, unless you think Russian missiles destroying the Babyn Yar memorial was a coincidence.

 

[kkck]

You yourself acknowledge that is not a possibility due to practicality over desire.

That hurdle existed a week ago as well.

See: literally any recent invasion versus occupation ever. Pick one at random. Putin, for all his flaws, isn't ignorant to this fact.

The only ones that were saying things like 'Putin is annexing Ukraine!' and 'Putin wants to reestablish the USSR!' were those repeating the MSM talking points, which repeat talking points from Langley.

Which is why for the better part of a week I've been telling you specifically that was never on the table.

Welp, I've had various opinions on the issue as the situation evolved. First that they probably weren't going for straight up annexation given the complications of such a thing. Then the sheer escale of the invasion I would argue at least increased the possibility of annexation. And now the sheer destruction they have caused pretty much rules it out unless Putin is firmly in the saturday morning cartoon camp.

I mean, putin did annex crimea. With the current developments its not insane to think he could want the rest.

As for putin wanting to restore the soviet union... I would argue that's factual regardless of the physical impossibility of it. Goal wise he probably wants the more humble reestablishing of russia as a major superpower in the world. Contrary to it's current more humble position of mexican size economy with nukes.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that quibbling over differences in how Putin will control Ukraine is pointless when he will in fact control them whichever way he can get and his stated goal is not just control over Ukraine but a negation of their culture and history which has already started, unless you think Russian missiles destroying the Babyn Yar memorial was a coincidence.

You made the distinction between saying, explicitly, you'd like to be controlling a country as a vassal state (and doing so) with NOT saying outright that's your goal (and yet effectively having a vassal state regardless), or not? How is that 'words in mouth' when that's exactly what you pointed out - that he's vocal about his ambitions while we smile on camera while subverting governments? Correct any misunderstanding if I'm having a problem with your rather clear words here.

I'd say he has a LOT more bombing to do if he's trying to destroy all culture and cultural relics if you're implying that's his goal.

Regardless, I've already seen one accusation of a missile being Russian when on examination it was a Uke tochka-U instead. I'll wait for the smoke to clear before determining who is responsible for what. I'm sure all the media reporting will be unilateral anyways.

How many BS articles have already come out - Snake Island, the 'Ghost of Kiev', Zelenskyy fighting in the streets, a bombing of an apartment building being old footage, the tank going over a vehicle on purpose, etc etc

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 2, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 2, 2022 ---

Welp, I've had various opinions on the issue as the situation evolved. First that they probably weren't going for straight up annexation given the complications of such a thing. Then the sheer escale of the invasion I would argue at least increased the possibility of annexation. And now the sheer destruction they have caused pretty much rules it out unless Putin is firmly in the saturday morning cartoon camp.

I mean, putin did annex crimea. With the current developments its not insane to think he could want the rest.

As for putin wanting to restore the soviet union... I would argue that's factual regardless of the physical impossibility of it. Goal wise he probably wants the more humble reestablishing of russia as a major superpower in the world. Contrary to it's current more humble position of mexican size economy with nukes.

I mean, he can WANT in one hand and shit in the other, then look to see which fills quicker.

The impracticality simply never changed, for either. I think what's evolving is your understanding of how this could play out. A week ago you were saying this might be the death of a country. Unless the nukes start flying there's no indication that the country will be left a crater for no one to occupy.

Crimea certainly isn't the whole of the country. That's like saying the difference between him annexing Donbas and all of Ukraine is the exact same. The pro v anti Russ sentiment and such making most of the difference, and the total scale of each being another. He hardly was met with a fraction of resistance in Crimea as he HAD to know the rest of the pro-West, well, Western part of Ukraine would be.

 

[shionoro]

How about not causing more deaths and destruction than we are supposedly there to stop (oh, and avoiding all-out war with a nuclear power)? If it takes killing 10 people, displacing them, having them starve, accidentally blown up, caught in the crossfire, etc - to save 1, does that seem like a great trade to you? Meanwhile, our versions of oligarchs get rich off our super-righteous actions. Meanwhile, these 'allies' aren't even our allies or on our doorstep or culturally relevant or natives or anything... but they do usually happen to be sitting on lots of resources, and need to buy lots of arms! That's, um, rather convenient.

PS, we've effectively abandoned Ukraine to blow in the wind. So I'm not sure what you're going on about.

So your stance also is that the US should not have interfered in WW1 and 2? Because usually, letting fascist invaders do their thing is a good idea?

I'm doing the OPPOSITE of defending that in fact. Try reading for comprehension next time.

Yes you are defending that. And you are trying your darndest to make it somehow seem understabndable by stories about ukrainian nazis or by comparing it to the US.
You are also taking the stance that nobody should interfere, making the massacre possible and erasing repercussions for russia.
You are defending it.

So, in an effort to show you aren't putting words in my mouth, you put more words in my mouth?

I am not, i am just reading what you are saying. Or are you admitting there are zero legitimate reasons for the russian attack?

 

[kkck]

I mean, he can WANT in one hand and shit in the other, then look to see which fills quicker.

The impracticality simply never changed, for either. I think what's evolving is your understanding of how this could play out. A week ago you were saying this might be the death of a country. Unless the nukes start flying there's no indication that the country will be left a crater for one one to occupy.

Crimea certainly isn't the whole of the country. That's like saying the difference between him annexing Donbas and all of Ukraine is the exact same. The pro v anti Russ sentiment and such making most of the difference, and the total scale of each being another. He hardly was met with a fraction of resistance in Crimea as he HAD to know the rest of the pro-West, well, Western part of Ukraine would be.

I mean, sure?

But... in either scenario the country is heading to its death. Russia not ultimately getting its way is very unlikely here. Ukraine would have to hold on for several more weeks at least to make the case that it's got a shred of a chance. Negotiations are unlikely to go anywhere... So if this ends with russia installing a puppet government... over the current one which at least had a democratically elect president... how is this not the death of a country? Coming back from russia installing a puppet government after having destroyed half the country's infrastructure is going to be a daunting task.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

To be fair, it does look like Lukashenko might have exposed joint plans with Russia to divide Ukraine in two.

 

[shionoro]

Welp, I've had various opinions on the issue as the situation evolved. First that they probably weren't going for straight up annexation given the complications of such a thing. Then the sheer escale of the invasion I would argue at least increased the possibility of annexation. And now the sheer destruction they have caused pretty much rules it out unless Putin is firmly in the saturday morning cartoon camp.

I mean, putin did annex crimea. With the current developments its not insane to think he could want the rest.

As for putin wanting to restore the soviet union... I would argue that's factual regardless of the physical impossibility of it. Goal wise he probably wants the more humble reestablishing of russia as a major superpower in the world. Contrary to it's current more humble position of mexican size economy with nukes.

Usually, strongman leaders are pretty much doing what they were saying. Because after all, that is what their base wants and that is what they'd like to do to put themselves on a pedestal.

We saw that with hitler who people thought would tone it down after being elected or if being appeased.
And not to lump trump with hitler and putin, but we also saw that the "he just does it to be elected" thesis was proven wrong.

And Putin is going to pretty much do what he kept saying, or at least try.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

So your stance also is that the US should not have interfered in WW1 and 2? Because usually, letting fascist invaders do their thing is a good idea?

Is that the same as what's happening here? Good fucking God, man. Either way, I guess not, because NO ONE IS SENDING TROOPS for the umpteenth time. For good reason.

Yes you are defending that. And you are trying your darndest to make it somehow seem understabndable by stories about ukrainian nazis or by comparing it to the US.

No, I'm not. And you can cease talking to me if you keep saying such dumbass things Mr. 'Honduras is in S. America' while talking about geopolitics. I literally called it PRETENSE. Learn to fucking read. Next... learn geography. The Europeans I know are typically *better* than Americans in this regard; not the other way around.

Definition of PRETENSE

a claim made or implied; especially : one not supported by fact; mere ostentation : pretentiousness; a pretentious act or assertion… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You are also taking the stance that nobody should interfere, making the massacre possible and erasing repercussions for russia.

Well, thank God YOU aren't in charge, or we all probably wouldn't be here right now. At least cooler heads are prevailing, because that's exactly what's happening - the West is avoiding interfering militarily. The additional planes (migs) promised to Ukraine can't even get there. At best we can send some stingers. No troops, no planes, no ships, no missile strikes - nada. For good reason. And it has everything to do with practicality and nothing to do with being whipped up into a froth about how evil Putin is or isn't.

You are defending it.

You eat babies. Just as accurate.

I am not, i am just reading what you are saying. Or are you admitting there are zero legitimate reasons for the russian attack?

I'm saying that both sides are guilty of 'justifying' their involvements in other countries under the guise of humanitarianism (I've been pretty clear about that from the start). Breaking more things than they save in the process. However, it is a FACT that there are neos causing harm in the country and it is a FACT that there was an ongoing internal struggle in the Donbas, resulting in multiples of death and destruction over what is all over the news. Both of these cold, hard facts are being under-reported or avoided outright in the media, and humorously/curiously from your posts as well.

I've always been about consistency and not being a hypocrite. The response to this - yours in particular - isn't consistent and it's rather hypocritical really.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 2, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 2, 2022 ---

I mean, sure?

But... in either scenario the country is heading to its death. Russia not ultimately getting its way is very unlikely here. Ukraine would have to hold on for several more weeks at least to make the case that it's got a shred of a chance. Negotiations are unlikely to go anywhere... So if this ends with russia installing a puppet government... over the current one which at least had a democratically elect president... how is this not the death of a country? Coming back from russia installing a puppet government after having destroyed half the country's infrastructure is going to be a daunting task.

Did Ukraine "die" in 2014?

 

[Epic_Rider]

You made the distinction between saying, explicitly, you'd like to be controlling a country as a vassal state (and doing so) with NOT saying outright that's your goal (and yet effectively having a vassal state regardless), or not? How is that 'words in mouth' when that's exactly what you pointed out - that he's vocal about his ambitions while we smile on camera while subverting governments? Correct any misunderstanding if I'm having a problem with your rather clear words here.

Again, my point was not about what was said explicitly or implicitly. It was that based on what Putin has said he wants to do, each method will lead to the same result with him, so quibbling over the definitions is pointless.

I'd say he has a LOT more bombing to do if he's trying to destroy all culture and cultural relics if you're implying that's his goal.

He's literally said that Ukraine should not exist.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

@shionoro you have the same energy as redneck Americans claiming anyone trying to understand the root causes of 9/11 being predicated on constant American interventionism and colonialism as somehow 'justifying' it, rather than being adult enough to understand what 'blowback' is. It's like there's ZERO room for nuance or discussion of how things can be avoided, how they could be much worse, if other parties have any blame, etc.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 2, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 2, 2022 ---

He's literally said that Ukraine should not exist.

I suppose we'll see how that plays out. It doesn't look like this is a war directly on the population or landmarks, or utilities or anything else for that matter. Direct being the key word.

If, at this very moment in time, Putin would do a full withdrawal and every Ukrainian repatriate, for the most part they'd have a country to come back to, and the vast majority of them would still be alive.

Kind of hard to put that in the same category as, say, Iran gets blamed for wanting Israel to be blown off the face of the earth (if that's their position indeed).

 

[shionoro]

Is that the same as what's happening here? Good fucking God, man. Either way, I guess not, because NO ONE IS SENDING TROOPS for the umpteenth time. For good reason.

As far as germany invading poland is concerned, yes, that is pretty similar.

No, I'm not. And you can cease talking to me if you keep saying such dumbass things Mr. 'Honduras is in S. America' while talking about geopolitics. I literally called it PRETENSE. Learn to fucking read. Next... learn geography. The Europeans I know are typically *better* than Americans in this regard; not the other way around.

Yes you are. You keep downplaying it. Its not so bad, Ukraine has Nazis, Maybe Putin does not want Ukraine completely, blablabla.
Day after day the situation gets worse and you keep spouting that. "overextended his hand", come on.

We are looking at a fascist invasion with the outspoken goal of turning ukraine into little Russia and it is very questionable that putin stops after because he said similar things about other regions, like kasachstan.

I'm saying that both sides are guilty

And that is complete bullshit, for starters.

@shionoro you have the same energy as redneck Americans claiming anyone trying to understand the root causes of 9/11 being predicated on constant American interventionism and colonialism as somehow 'justifying' it, rather than being adult enough to understand what 'blowback' is. It's like there's ZERO room for nuance or discussion of how things can be avoided, how they could be much worse, if other parties have any blame, etc.

You give me the energy of the republican maga hats i argue with on reddit, too. You are about as drawn to facts as they are, and about as clueless.

 

[Epic_Rider]

I suppose we'll see how that plays out. It doesn't look like this is a war directly on the population or landmarks, or utilities or anything else for that matter. Direct being the key word.

If, at this very moment in time, Putin would do a full withdrawal and every Ukrainian repatriate, for the most part they'd have a country to come back to, and the vast majority of them would still be alive.

Kind of hard to put that in the same category as, say, Iran gets blamed for wanting Israel to be blown off the face of the earth (if that's their position indeed).

Russian military strikes have targeted cultural landmarks as well as utilities like hospitals, so...

When I say that Putin does not want Ukraine to exist, I'm speaking in terms of their culture and independence as a nation. That is what Putin wants to destroy.

 

[shionoro]

Russian military strikes have targeted cultural landmarks as well as utilities like hospitals, so...

When I saw that Putin does not want Ukraine to exist, I'm speaking in terms of their culture and independence as a nation. That is what Putin wants to destroy.

Its just not good enough to say "maybe he will only erase you a little and stop when he is done".
You dont need to be an interventionist to fight back (in our case economically) against a force that was condemned by almost all of the UN.

It would be ashaming if the west would just let it happen.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

As far as germany invading poland is concerned, yes, that is pretty similar.

Clearly the world doesn't see it like that.

Did we help pre-install a ruler in Poland and fund/arm nazis there as well? LOL

The attacks on the civilians are nothing in comparison to scope, scale, intent, or results.

Your false equivalencies are laughable.

In any event.... Ukraine is effectively on it's own. I guess that's because world leaders just aren't as knowledgeable as you about how bad Putin is? Maybe it's because they are defending his actions? Or is shit a bit more complicated than you're making it?

Yes you are. You keep downplaying it. Its not so bad,

Saying something could be much worse isn't the same thing as saying it is a good thing. Logic!

Are you somehow unaware that things can be much, much worse (for everyone involved)? I'd like to introduce you to reality...

Ukraine has Nazis,

They in fact do. Something you seem to have an extraordinarily-hard time coming to terms with (which is odd for someone who is soft on the plight of Israel, but whatever). However, it's not the ONLY thing at play, and is hardly the only thing I've talked about in relation to Ukraine and Russian interests there, as well as our own. But their involvement is relevant to the events leading up to the separatists in the Donbas, and their treatment, and even propaganda you see that the admin posted many pages ago. Like it or not, Ukraine DOES in fact have a Nazi problem.

Same as Syria and ISIS/ISIL. Russia used their existence to shore up the SAA for his buddy, Assad (that's called PRETENSE). Because we were using them same exact as we've been using Nazis in Ukraine to aid in destabilizing a country that is/was friendly with Russia for our own interests. We literally involve ourselves with the scum of the earth to poke Russia and then act high and mighty whenever Russia responds. It's quite frankly disgusting.

Maybe Putin does not want Ukraine completely, blablabla.

Putin wasn't aware how Afghanistan turned out for BOTH empires? How 'shock and awe' and 'mission accomplished' was just the tip of the iceberg in Iraq? I guess you have more geopolitical awareness than a head of state? He either knew full-blown occupation of Ukraine would be extremely difficult or he didn't, and you don't have any evidence to say he didn't. So... logic dictates that if he knew/knows this is going to be an issue of being bogged down, he'd likely try to leverage his actions there to being willing to negotiate, which he's supposedly open to. He'd also send more troops, use air power, hammer with more missiles, etc if his goal was total surrender at any cost, with full occupation on the other side, or complete destruction of the populace and a humiliating surrender by lining people up against the wall or something.

And he's certainly in no condition to use Ukraine as a jumping off point to continue invading elsewhere. This is decidedly NOT the same thing as the Third Reich taking over Europe in a land grab, wantonly bombing civilians and killing millions either on the battlefield or later by pointedly rounding them up.

And, Ukraine certainly isn't the same as a NATO member, which would trigger all of NATO responding. Funny but you don't see him rolling on Poland for good reason. He may be mad, but he's not crazy. There is ZERO CHANCE, ever, of USSR getting back together.

Saying it's probably not his ultimate goal because feasibility is, you know, a thing is hardly a shill move. And, he's been pretty explicit about what his terms are for a withdrawal (which now include an election supposedly). You were just saying we should believe strongmen dictators at their word - unless when we shouldn't because that opposes your opinion on them?

Just pointing out facts isn't 'downplaying' it. I've invited you to discuss raw numbers, but you keep shying away from it because you're an intellectual coward, seemingly at least. You keep choosing not to actually address what I say, instead opting to make over-exaggerated miscategorizations and ignoring all the bulk of other things I've said on the matter to cherry-pick your points of contention, specifically taking things out of context.

Day after day the situation gets worse and you keep spouting that. "overextended his hand", come on.

He HAS overextended/overplayed his hand - that's a card-playing reference/analogy in relation to what he thinks he can get away with, not a commentary on the ethics of what he's doing FFS. Regardless, in addition to saying that I've also said many other things.

I've said Putin is a:

- bad guy
- dictatorial/dictator
- madman
- involved in a de facto invasion
- (a criminal) illegal occupation
- has no leg to stand on, might have had a point in Donbas, arguably
- has become a pariah
- has destroyed any goodwill he had
- has other, ulterior motives which are strictly Russian and not humanitarian in scope
- has locked up anti-war protesters

He's clearly OK with killing to achieve a goal. I'm not sure what else there is to say. I'm also not sure how any of this is a hot take - 'Putin is bad' - that's news to who exactly??

I'm more interested in what we could have done differently, how we're being strung along by people with competing agendas, and how we can avoid escalation. You can't avoid escalation if you are working with bad data. What WE should and shouldn't be doing is my concern. Could we have avoided this outcome? Were there options to deescalate? Does Putin have any concerns we can agree are legitimate and find concessions on? That and pointing out the hypocritical, manufactured outrage by people such as yourself.

I mean if you ONLY say I said one thing in a vacuum in order to try and besmirch me then that's on you, but you clearly aren't being honest.

If things take a turn for the worse and he starts up gas chambers or carpet-bombing day care centers and hospitals or drops phosphorus on fleeing civilians etc etc then sure, that is what it is - but that's not what it is now. No love lost for Putin either way.

We are looking at a fascist invasion with the outspoken goal of turning ukraine into little Russia and it is very questionable that putin stops after because he said similar things about other regions, like kasachstan.

How many countries has Russia invaded and in what period? How many are right in their immediate sphere of influence, literally on their borders? How many are NATO? How many have large ethnic Russian populations? How many forward Russian bases and ACC groups does Russia have? How many countries does it keep ICBMs in?

Why is that not relevant when you have zero tears for Western involvement around the world? Are you a NATO stooge? Israeli puppet/Zio-trash? Shill for big MIC? Do you like seeing brown people die? (see how annoying that shit is by the way?) Maybe I should just start saying that's what you're doing as a statement of fact.

I mean, what the fuck do you think 'vassal state' or 'install a government' means - these are terms ---> I <--- have used. Do you think those have positive connotations?

Yeah, no shit, that's what he'd like to do. That hardly means he's about to pounce on Poland. You are being unreasonably hysterical. He can barely finish Ukraine. And in doing so, look where it has got him.

And that is complete bullshit, for starters.

I like how you snippet what I said (while I've been very careful to respond to you in context and in full quotes). Both sides justify their behaviors (this does not mean in this particular instance, just overall), and that's a fact. But you cut my sentence in half to try and make it seem like I was saying we both have absolutely equal culpability here (we do have *some*). Which was in fact not what I was saying. You are so blatantly dishonest it's beyond clear to me that there is less and less point in addressing you any further.

You give me the energy of the republican maga hats i argue with on reddit, too. You are about as drawn to facts as they are, and about as clueless.

As clueless as the guy that glosses over our involvement the world over, wasn't even aware the Donbas was still on fire, and can't point to Honduras on a map while attempting to comment on it?

I feel like I'm trying to have a real discussion with Baghdad Bob.

I've brought plenty of sources - many many sources - and you haven't even addressed them or challenged the content at all. But I'm the same as randos you talk to on reddit (there's your problem!) that are ignorant? Okay.

Hilarious you'd cite MAGA when you're the always good/always bad 'everything is black and white' person here. That's no different from 'Trump can never do anything wrong' MAGAtards. Which... are just as bad as their polar opposites. Congrats, you played yourself.

 

[shionoro]

Clearly the world doesn't see it like that.

Did we help pre-install a ruler in Poland and fund/arm nazis there as well? LOL

The attacks on the civilians are nothing in comparison to scope, scale, intent, or results.

Your false equivalencies are laughable.

In any event.... Ukraine is effectively on it's own. I guess that's because world leaders just aren't as knowledgeable as you about how bad Putin is? Maybe it's because they are defending his actions? Or is shit a bit more complicated than you're making it?

Clearly, it does. That is why Russia is sanctioned so badly now and was condemned so widely.

I'm not sure what else there is to say.

YOu could say: "This war was completely unprovoked and is a war crime not seen in Europe since world war 2 and that is why Putin has to be stopped with any effort the western world can take"
Because that is the truth in this conflict.

I like how you snippet what I said (while I've been very careful to respond to you in context and in full quotes). Both sides justify their behaviors (this does not mean in this particular instance, just overall), and that's a fact. But you cut my sentence in half to try and make it seem like I was saying we both have absolutely equal culpability here (we do have *some*). Which was in fact not what I was saying. You are so blatantly dishonest it's beyond clear to me that there is less and less point in addressing you any further.

And one side is justified. The ukrainian side.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Russian military strikes have targeted cultural landmarks as well as utilities like hospitals, so...

"targeted"? Targeted is a charged word. Russia is seeking out and destroying hospitals is what you're saying (So, what, are they succeeding in doing so? Failing?) - or hitting them in the mayhem of engaging enemy combatants? I'm not saying you are wrong, but there is a lot of BS, and I'd like to see those sources. Objectively, and without agenda, that doesn't seem to make any sense considering other actions. If that is indeed the goal, then what's keeping him from Kiev being a smoldering ruin in totality?

How 'clean' should war look like? Can you point to one we waged on the auspices of 'peacekeeping' that didn't have civilian damage? I just want to make sure we are being consistent in our outrage after all.

What's the benefit of keeping corridors open to then attack civilian structures? Where are the Ukrainian forces fighting from? This is getting into the 'we blew up a mosque because the terrorists were inside' territory...

Kyiv Skyline Cam

Welcome to Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine! This live streaming camera offers views of Rusanivka, a man-made island and neighborhood in Kyiv. Viewers can also see the canal that surrounds Rusanivka, the Rusanivs'kyi Kanal, which connects to the Dnieper River.

www.earthcam.com

This ^ might be a capital in a country that's being invaded, but it doesn't appear like one that's being wiped out.

When I say that Putin does not want Ukraine to exist, I'm speaking in terms of their culture and independence as a nation. That is what Putin wants to destroy.

Ukraine isn't monolithic. You/he probably speak of a united people (it isn't already), and the (cultural) destruction of the Western pull. That genie is out of the bottle, at best (for him) the country could be balkanized.

So which is it - is he wanting to destroy the country physically or culturally? Both?