How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[barbos]

? You're not paying attention. Trump loves Putin.

Trump loves Trump.

The purposes of the incentives is to bring Putin back to the negotiating table.

LOL, that's not the purpose. The purpose is to "save" Regime in Kiev in order to continue aggression against Russia later.

The purpose is stop the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, Ukraine. After the war is over, and Russia is willing to following international laws again, I'd be happy to advocate that we stop those meannies from Kiev from attacking Russia and being mean to your country. But where is Kiev? I don't recognize it nor can find it on the map.

You can sell your BS all day long. Nobody is gonna buy it.

 

[TomC]

? You're not paying attention. Trump loves Putin.

Trump loves Trump.

The purposes of the incentives is to bring Putin back to the negotiating table.

LOL, that's not the purpose. The purpose is to "save" Regime in Kiev in order to continue aggression against Russia later.

The purpose is stop the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, Ukraine. After the war is over, and Russia is willing to following international laws again, I'd be happy to advocate that we stop those meannies from Kiev from attacking Russia and being mean to your country. But where is Kiev? I don't recognize it nor can find it on the map.

You can sell your BS all day long. Nobody is gonna buy it.

You still sound like the US media convincing Americans that the US invasion of Iraq was to rescue Iraqis and eliminate the security threat posed to US.
Tom

 

[barbos]

Ukraine is a sovereign country.

Actually it's not. It's completely dependent on USA, and before that it was completely dependent on ..... Russia.
They have never been independent.

 

[barbos]

? You're not paying attention. Trump loves Putin.

Trump loves Trump.

The purposes of the incentives is to bring Putin back to the negotiating table.

LOL, that's not the purpose. The purpose is to "save" Regime in Kiev in order to continue aggression against Russia later.

The purpose is stop the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, Ukraine. After the war is over, and Russia is willing to following international laws again, I'd be happy to advocate that we stop those meannies from Kiev from attacking Russia and being mean to your country. But where is Kiev? I don't recognize it nor can find it on the map.

You can sell your BS all day long. Nobody is gonna buy it.

You still sound like the US media convincing Americans that the US invasion of Iraq was to rescue Iraqis and eliminate the security threat posed to US.
Tom

Iraq was not on US border and was not anybody's puppet.

 

[TomC]

Iraq was not on US border and was not anybody's puppet.

What I am referring to is the transparent excuses for a naked grab for power and wealth.
Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

Try Kyiv. But there are some maps that read Kiev.

What's the difficulty?

Here's the difficulty: Ukraine is a sovereign country. They have a right to the land that is in their country. They have a fucking right to not have their children kidnapped, cities bombed and looted. And they god damn have the right to name their own capital. And they have named their capital Kyiv. Russian imperialists consider the capital of Ukraine to be Kiev. (Don't mean to sound rude.)

Apologies. I misunderstood.

No need. You didn't have the context. My screed was not aimed at you!

 

[ZiprHead]

Ukraine is a sovereign country.

Actually it's not. It's completely dependent on USA, and before that it was completely dependent on ..... Russia.
They have never been independent.

Apparently then neither is Russia since it is dependent on China and North Korea.

 

[bilby]

Ukraine is a sovereign country.

Actually it's not. It's completely dependent on USA, and before that it was completely dependent on ..... Russia.
They have never been independent.

Apparently then neither is Russia since it is dependent on China and North Korea.

No country is independent. Not even North Korea, though they tried their best, and discovered that independence implies famine and poverty.

And of course, @Harry Bosch never suggested that Ukraine was independent; He noted that Ukraine is a sovereign country.

A status that @barbos notably didn't even try to deny.

 

[barbos]

Iraq was not on US border and was not anybody's puppet.

What I am referring to is the transparent excuses for a naked grab for power and wealth.
Tom

Yes, that's what US was and still trying to do. In Iraq, Syria and now Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

Ukraine is a sovereign country.

Actually it's not. It's completely dependent on USA, and before that it was completely dependent on ..... Russia.
They have never been independent.

Apparently then neither is Russia since it is dependent on China and North Korea.

No we are not. We are paying hard cash, whereas Ukraine has been relying on free of charge help throughout their whole 30 years history

 

[barbos]

Ukraine is a sovereign country.

Actually it's not. It's completely dependent on USA, and before that it was completely dependent on ..... Russia.
They have never been independent.

Apparently then neither is Russia since it is dependent on China and North Korea.

No country is independent. Not even North Korea, though they tried their best, and discovered that independence implies famine and poverty.

And of course, @Harry Bosch never suggested that Ukraine was independent; He noted that Ukraine is a sovereign country.

A status that @barbos notably didn't even try to deny.

I don't accept sovereignty without independence. And in case of modern Ukraine i reject their sovereignty outright on the basis of their utter shittiness.
Russia have been criminally soft towards its neighbors for way too long.
I know why we (russians) do that. But it has to change.

 

[bilby]

Ukraine is a sovereign country.

Actually it's not. It's completely dependent on USA, and before that it was completely dependent on ..... Russia.
They have never been independent.

Apparently then neither is Russia since it is dependent on China and North Korea.

No country is independent. Not even North Korea, though they tried their best, and discovered that independence implies famine and poverty.

And of course, @Harry Bosch never suggested that Ukraine was independent; He noted that Ukraine is a sovereign country.

A status that @barbos notably didn't even try to deny.

I don't accept sovereignty without independence.

Why should anyone care what you "accept"?

Sovereignty is commonplace; Independence is mythical.

Russia is not independent; Just ask the North Korean soldiers who are fighting for Russia.

And in case of modern Ukraine i reject their sovereignty outright on the basis of their utter shittiness.

Then you should also reject Russian sovereignty on the same basis.

Russia have been criminally soft towards its neighbors for way too long.

Russia has certainly been criminal, but one thing they have never been is soft. Indeed, it would be a great idea if they would try it.

I know why we (russians) do that.

Yes, utter shittiness and criminality, as you said. Russia desparately needs to stop doing that.

But it has to change.

Again, it would be very nice if Russia were to change dramatically. But don't hold your breath.

 

[Bronzeage]

You are not the arbiter of what others consider to be "the point".

Actually I am, I made the point and am the arbiter of it.

Imagine actually believing that NATO had attacked

And NATO did attack Russia. There can't be any doubt about that fact.

I know you have to keep up a brave face about it, but the Russian military was stopped dead in its tracks by a nation of farmers using second hand NATO equipment.

Imagine if NATO actually attacked Russia's poorly equipped, poorly trained, corruption riddled Army, Air Force, and Navy. One thing is certain, your Baghdag Bob gig would be over, but I'm sure you're flexible enough to switch to a new master.

It's actually NATO who has poorly poorly equipped, poorly trained, corruption riddled Army, Air Force, and Navy.
You repeat what I was just talking about in previous post.
Russia absolutely exposed NATO.
Orange piece of shit just sent 10 missiles to Kiev Regime, 10! Let it sink in your empty head.
10! Russia in the last barrage on Kiev used 500 missiles.

Baghdad Bob would be proud. Russia has now lost more aircraft on the ground than in the sky, thanks to Ukraine's version of Fed-Ex, when it absolutely has to be blown up overnight.

 

[barbos]

Why should anyone care what you "accept"?

Why should anyone care what you accept or think?

 

[barbos]

You are not the arbiter of what others consider to be "the point".

Actually I am, I made the point and am the arbiter of it.

Imagine actually believing that NATO had attacked

And NATO did attack Russia. There can't be any doubt about that fact.

I know you have to keep up a brave face about it, but the Russian military was stopped dead in its tracks by a nation of farmers using second hand NATO equipment.

Imagine if NATO actually attacked Russia's poorly equipped, poorly trained, corruption riddled Army, Air Force, and Navy. One thing is certain, your Baghdag Bob gig would be over, but I'm sure you're flexible enough to switch to a new master.

It's actually NATO who has poorly poorly equipped, poorly trained, corruption riddled Army, Air Force, and Navy.
You repeat what I was just talking about in previous post.
Russia absolutely exposed NATO.
Orange piece of shit just sent 10 missiles to Kiev Regime, 10! Let it sink in your empty head.
10! Russia in the last barrage on Kiev used 500 missiles.

Baghdad Bob would be proud. Russia has now lost more aircraft on the ground than in the sky, thanks to Ukraine's version of Fed-Ex, when it absolutely has to be blown up overnight.

You are projecting.

 

[bilby]

Why should anyone care what you "accept"?

Why should anyone care what you accept or think?

Nobody should. I am just some random guy. I am either right, or wrong.

What's your claim to importance?

You certainly have no claim to being right, so why should we care about the details of how you are so badly wrong?

 

[barbos]

Nobody should.

Exactly. You are known for spewing BS and lies.

You certainly have no claim to being right

Actually I am and I am right.

 

[patchy]

You guys are lining up at a fence trying to explain particle physics to a cow.

Wake up, realize a lost cause, and starve this dumbass conversation of oxygen.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You guys are lining up at a fence trying to explain particle physics to a cow.

Wake up, realize a lost cause, and starve this dumbass conversation of oxygen.

I don't agree. First off, he's maddening to debate. I personally think that it's shameful to be so pro-war if you aren't willing to fight in it (or send your kid). And he has absolutely zero respect for international law and/or other countries sovereign rights. He's an imperialist. However, I don't think that he's a Putin plant. He's not off the reservation. He represents a very large segment of the Russian population. How much is the issue. My guess, after viewing several polling sites is that probably 30 to 35% or higher of Russians would agree with him. And before we think this is outrageous, consider how many MAGA people are in the US? Many of these people wanted the US to bomb Mexico due to the immigration situation. I'm going to keep calling out the Maga's and the Russian' imperialists. Both groups are a danger and are growing. Just my opinion.

 

[Politesse]

At the height of its influence, nearly a fifth of Americans believed in the QAnon conspiracy (that is, believed that the Satanist/Jewish cannibals who run the US "Deep State" was farming kidnapped children for body parts so politicians and celebrities could have abnormally long lives; in effect, medieval witchcraft beliefs with a slight modernist twist). I don't find it at all difficult to believe that a sizeable portion of Russians, with even less access to non state-influenced information sources than have we, might genuinely believe that the Ukrainian government is a NATO-backed Nazi conspiracy to defraud Russians of their heritage/autonomy and endanger Moscow. If anything, it's usually easier to convince people to believe wild but engaging stories than to convince people of mundane but accurate facts about the world. As an anthropologist, half of my work day is telling a bunch of excited teenagers "actually the truth is a bit more complicated than that" and watching the light go out of their eyes. Who wants to believe a boring story about politicians being cynically self-interested, when it is replacing an exciting story about heroes, villains, and ancient secrets? If the Russian press is right about anything, it's that the Western coverage turning Zelenskyy into a people's hero for us all involves a similar degree of conceit. It's always easier to see when "the other side" is doing it, c'est pas?