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

[SigmatheZeta]

We have the single most overbuilt military in the world, though. If we really wanted Russia, we would already have it.

This doesn't pass the laugh test.

Does the term "ICBM" mean anything to you? How about "SLBM"?

I am not impressed. If we really wanted their dumb country, they literally would not last a week.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem here is that it seems like Russia wants a war with Ukraine, for the express purposes of annexation of territory.

That's what MSM says, they are lying. Eastern Ukraine in particular is very unattractive piece of territory. There is only one reason for invading Ukraine - NATO expansion.
Putin informed NATO about that reason in 2008. You should know that by now.

No, this is what the residents of the country who you declare of wanting a war says, and I am most certainly NOT lying.

I do not want a war with Russia over Ukraine. Ask any individual here whether they want that. I'm not speaking from MSM. I don't consume the media the way you appear to.

What I want is Russia to stop making overtures of war towards Ukraine.

Quit trying to gaslight me. Russia is gearing up to attack Ukraine. The first shots will be fired into Ukraine. All boots on the ground will be touching the ground on the Ukrainian side of the border. If bombs are dropped on Russian forces, they will be on Russian forces after those forces have started crossing a border. The only exception to this is the possibility of a stray shot coming from Ukraine being used as an excuse and fig leaf to do all of the above.

Putin can suck the place on the bus seat I plan on farting into repeatedly this morning for all I care, as to his desire that Ukraine have no involvement with NATO. As can you.

That's not up to you, or him. NATO is essentially there to keep Russia from doing this garbage.

Bullcrap. Russian position is clear. There will be no Ukraine if NATO decides to take them. And the fact that you don't know that is MSM's fault. They are filthy liars.

So the Russian position is clear: Russia is going to unilaterally start a war.

There is no excuse.

 

[barbos]

I don't believe that. I did not say they did. This is why I posted the link to the article for you. To clarify. Evidently you did not read it.
But I will look for something that supports your assertions. If I find anything, I'll post it up. Then you can rely on my citations rather than your emotions to support your position.

Of course I did not read it. Why would I read same old shit you post?
I know the facts. All your media are lying about Russia/Ukraine, all of them.

 

[barbos]

So the Russian position is clear: Russia is going to unilaterally start a war.

If it becomes clear that NATO is taking over Ukraine then yes. That's what Putin implied in 2008.

 

[barbos]

Bullcrap. Russian position is clear. There will be no Ukraine if NATO decides to take them. And the fact that you don't know that is MSM's fault. They are filthy liars.

In other words, Russia will destroy Ukraine if Ukraine tries to avoid being taken.

I presume that when you don't simply hand over your lunch money that it's your fault the bully beat you up and took it.

Not destroy, will be forced to occupy it. Maybe just the parts with predominantly russian population, or all except Western Ukraine (former Poland).
The point is, the red line was drawn long time ago.

 

[Jarhyn]

So the Russian position is clear: Russia is going to unilaterally start a war.

If it becomes clear that NATO is taking over Ukraine then yes. That's what Putin implied in 2008.

"Taking over" is not the correct words for this, and I do not believe for a moment you have confused "taking over" with "freely deciding to join".

I repeat, cut the gaslighting bullshit. We see you.

Russia is threatening to attack another country unilaterally for NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS.

 

[barbos]

So the Russian position is clear: Russia is going to unilaterally start a war.

If it becomes clear that NATO is taking over Ukraine then yes. That's what Putin implied in 2008.

"Taking over" is not the correct words for this, and I do not believe for a moment you have confused "taking over" with "freely deciding to join".

I repeat, cut the gaslighting bullshit. We see you.

I am not following you here. Take over, occupy, invade&occupy. What's the difference?

Russia is threatening to attack another country unilaterally for NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS.

What was your business for attacking Yugoslavia? Iraq Syria? going further - Vietnam, Cuba? Cuba by the way is still under attack.

 

[Jarhyn]

So the Russian position is clear: Russia is going to unilaterally start a war.

If it becomes clear that NATO is taking over Ukraine then yes. That's what Putin implied in 2008.

"Taking over" is not the correct words for this, and I do not believe for a moment you have confused "taking over" with "freely deciding to join".

I repeat, cut the gaslighting bullshit. We see you.

I am not following you here. Take over, occupy, invade&occupy. What's the difference?

Russia is threatening to attack another country unilaterally for NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS.

What was your business for attacking Yugoslavia? Iraq Syria? going further - Vietnam, Cuba? Cuba by the way is still under attack.

The difference is the invitation.

It's the same as the difference between sex and rape.

I criticize my country for Vietnam.

As to what it means to be "attacked", though, that's apparently "anything that involves not deciding to give you what you want", to you.

As I said. Cut the gaslighting. We see you.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't believe that. I did not say they did. This is why I posted the link to the article for you. To clarify. Evidently you did not read it.
But I will look for something that supports your assertions. If I find anything, I'll post it up. Then you can rely on my citations rather than your emotions to support your position.

Of course I did not read it. Why would I read same old shit you post?
I know the facts. All your media are lying about Russia/Ukraine, all of them.

You expect people to read the same old shite you post.

You are trotting out the typical Russian paranoia and outright lies. Why should anyone take your position seriously?

 

[laughing dog]

So the Russian position is clear: Russia is going to unilaterally start a war.

If it becomes clear that NATO is taking over Ukraine then yes. That's what Putin implied in 2008.

NATO does not take over anything. A country asks to join NATO.

You literally have no clue what you are posting about.

 

[barbos]

So the Russian position is clear: Russia is going to unilaterally start a war.

If it becomes clear that NATO is taking over Ukraine then yes. That's what Putin implied in 2008.

"Taking over" is not the correct words for this, and I do not believe for a moment you have confused "taking over" with "freely deciding to join".

I repeat, cut the gaslighting bullshit. We see you.

I am not following you here. Take over, occupy, invade&occupy. What's the difference?

Russia is threatening to attack another country unilaterally for NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS.

What was your business for attacking Yugoslavia? Iraq Syria? going further - Vietnam, Cuba? Cuba by the way is still under attack.

The difference is the invitation.

It's the same as the difference between sex and rape.

I criticize my country for Vietnam.

As to what it means to be "attacked", though, that's apparently "anything that involves not deciding to give you what you want", to you.

As I said. Cut the gaslighting. We see you.

Invitation after a coup, OK.
Did Yougoslavia invite NATO?
And Cuba?
Syria?
list is pretty long.

 

[Jarhyn]

So the Russian position is clear: Russia is going to unilaterally start a war.

If it becomes clear that NATO is taking over Ukraine then yes. That's what Putin implied in 2008.

"Taking over" is not the correct words for this, and I do not believe for a moment you have confused "taking over" with "freely deciding to join".

I repeat, cut the gaslighting bullshit. We see you.

I am not following you here. Take over, occupy, invade&occupy. What's the difference?

Russia is threatening to attack another country unilaterally for NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS.

What was your business for attacking Yugoslavia? Iraq Syria? going further - Vietnam, Cuba? Cuba by the way is still under attack.

The difference is the invitation.

It's the same as the difference between sex and rape.

I criticize my country for Vietnam.

As to what it means to be "attacked", though, that's apparently "anything that involves not deciding to give you what you want", to you.

As I said. Cut the gaslighting. We see you.

Invitation after a coup, OK.
Did Yougoslavia invite NATO?
And Cuba?
Syria?
list is pretty long.

We aren't talking about any of those places and they happened in the past, and not to Russia, granted sanctions isn't an "attack".

Suck the teat of Russian propaganda all you want but nothing is going to change the fact that here, now, today, Russia is threatening war unilaterally because they do not like their neighbor's friends.

Nothing excuses that. NOTHING.

 

[barbos]

So the Russian position is clear: Russia is going to unilaterally start a war.

If it becomes clear that NATO is taking over Ukraine then yes. That's what Putin implied in 2008.

"Taking over" is not the correct words for this, and I do not believe for a moment you have confused "taking over" with "freely deciding to join".

I repeat, cut the gaslighting bullshit. We see you.

I am not following you here. Take over, occupy, invade&occupy. What's the difference?

Russia is threatening to attack another country unilaterally for NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS.

What was your business for attacking Yugoslavia? Iraq Syria? going further - Vietnam, Cuba? Cuba by the way is still under attack.

The difference is the invitation.

It's the same as the difference between sex and rape.

I criticize my country for Vietnam.

As to what it means to be "attacked", though, that's apparently "anything that involves not deciding to give you what you want", to you.

As I said. Cut the gaslighting. We see you.

Invitation after a coup, OK.
Did Yougoslavia invite NATO?
And Cuba?
Syria?
list is pretty long.

We aren't talking about any of those places and they happened in the past, and not to Russia, granted sanctions isn't an "attack".

Suck the teat of Russian propaganda all you want but nothing is going to change the fact that here, now, today, Russia is threatening war unilaterally because they do not like their neighbor's friends.

Nothing excuses that. NOTHING.

We ARE talking about those places.
US set the precedents. You attacked Cuba when they invited Soviet Union.
You attacked Yugoslavia, Syria and Iraq over false pretenses.
NATO in Ukraine is as unacceptable as nukes on Cuba, you were told that 14 years ago. You choose to ignore and push anyway, conducting a coup in Ukraine and installing illegal puppet regime.

 

[Jarhyn]

So the Russian position is clear: Russia is going to unilaterally start a war.

If it becomes clear that NATO is taking over Ukraine then yes. That's what Putin implied in 2008.

"Taking over" is not the correct words for this, and I do not believe for a moment you have confused "taking over" with "freely deciding to join".

I repeat, cut the gaslighting bullshit. We see you.

I am not following you here. Take over, occupy, invade&occupy. What's the difference?

Russia is threatening to attack another country unilaterally for NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS.

What was your business for attacking Yugoslavia? Iraq Syria? going further - Vietnam, Cuba? Cuba by the way is still under attack.

The difference is the invitation.

It's the same as the difference between sex and rape.

I criticize my country for Vietnam.

As to what it means to be "attacked", though, that's apparently "anything that involves not deciding to give you what you want", to you.

As I said. Cut the gaslighting. We see you.

Invitation after a coup, OK.
Did Yougoslavia invite NATO?
And Cuba?
Syria?
list is pretty long.

We aren't talking about any of those places and they happened in the past, and not to Russia, granted sanctions isn't an "attack".

Suck the teat of Russian propaganda all you want but nothing is going to change the fact that here, now, today, Russia is threatening war unilaterally because they do not like their neighbor's friends.

Nothing excuses that. NOTHING.

We ARE talking about those places.
US set the precedents. You attacked Cuba when they invited Soviet Union.
You attacked Yugoslavia, Syria and Iraq over false pretenses.
NATO in Ukraine is as unacceptable as nukes on Cuba, you were told that 14 years ago. You choose to ignore and push anyway, conducting a coup in Ukraine and installing illegal puppet regime.

No, you are talking about them. I am taking about Ukraine, which is peacefully and consensually interested in joining NATO.

If Russia finds this so unacceptable that their neighbors would be difficult to attack, that they attack their neighbors (lol, the circularity there), then they will have unilaterally attacked their neighbors.

You have made accusations of installing an "illegal puppet regime". You know, downtown Minneapolis there is a lady... she claims to be a Russian princess and she spouts nonsense like you do, too. Maybe she really is Russian... She talks a lot about Cuba too. And North Korea. And how all the snipers want to take her out.

Honestly I wouldn't blame them if they did, she's annoying as fuck. My point is, your statements and hers have a similar level of credulity to them.

Now, I can imagine that putting nukes next to someone's country in the middle of a cold war was a bit of an issue. But this is a country asking for troop support after another country annexed a part of their land.

This is the reality here: Russia being a shitty fucking neighbor. Don't like it? Well you're Russian so I guess your only option is to shut up or double down because if you complain too loud your shitty fucking leadership will disappear you in the night and because you are a national, it won't even make headlines.

 

[barbos]

No, you are talking about them. I am taking about Ukraine, which is peacefully and consensually interested in joining NATO.

That's a lie. US conducted a violent coup, installed a puppet regime and then these puppets expressed their desire to join NATO. In polls before violent coup NATO were not even close to to have support in Ukraine. And even now, it's not that popular, probably less than 50%
And it's not even relevant. What Ukraine thinks is IRRELEVANT. What Russia (permanent member of security council ) thinks IS.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, you are talking about them. I am taking about Ukraine, which is peacefully and consensually interested in joining NATO.

That's a lie. US conducted a violent coup, installed a puppet regime and then these puppets expressed their desire to join NATO. In polls before violent coup NATO were not even close to to have support in Ukraine. And even now, it's not that popular, probably less than 50%
And it's not even relevant. What Ukraine thinks is IRRELEVANT. What Russia (permanent member of security council ) thinks IS.

In the polls decried by international watchdogs as a sham? Well, I guess if you fear your government enough you learn to just quietly ignore that...

And now you are saying might makes right...

More unilateral imposition!

And you wonder why Ukraine thinks they need some international cooperation to keep invasions out.

"What she thinks is irrelevant, he's the one with the knife and the car keys."

We see you.

 

[barbos]

Now, I can imagine that putting nukes next to someone's country in the middle of a cold war was a bit of an issue. But this is a country asking for troop support after another country annexed a part of their land.

Cold over have never been over. Only total destruction of current Russia will end Cold War.


Nobody annexed part of their territory. They left when their own government cut water and promised to hang them. Their choice was obvious.

 

[barbos]

In the polls decried by international watchdogs as a sham?

Are you fucking insane?
Are you saying that ukrainians wanted to join NATO before 2014?
decried by international watchdogs? Who would even do that?
what watchdogs?
You are fucking insane. Stop inventing shit.
NATO joining is not that popular even NOW, with your puppet regime in place.
You have a bunch nazi-trumpers in power in Ukraine who are on payroll in State Department. Ordinary folk don't want that shit, they are surviving.

 

[barbos]

54% украинцев поддерживают вступление в ЕС, за НАТО - 48%

Членство в Европейском Союзе готовы поддержать 54% украинцев, за вступление в НАТО - чуть меньше половины опрошенных.

www.eurointegration.com.ua

48% support joining NATO (54% for EU which is remarkably low). This is after you exclude Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.
Before 2014 support was clearly less than even that.
And support is wildly fluctuating. It peaks during shit and drops when shit calms down.
NATO is not wildly popular in even present Ukraine.
And don't forget that a lot of this "support" is actually support for EU. They think that joining NATO would help them to join EU, they could care less about mythical threat of Russia, all they want is free access to EU to get the hell out of Ukraine and their corrupt and retarded government. Hell, you can poll in Russia and will get decent support for NATO and especially EU for the same reason. It does not mean shit.
Fucking Putin himself suggested joining NATO for Russia in 2000s.

But who cares about what people think? NATO certainly does not, they occupied Montenegro over objections their people, when they installed friendly regime over there. And keep in mind that Montenegro is useless for NATO. It has zero strategic importance, it was done purely for political reasons to show that everyone wants to NATO. Not everyone!

 

[barbos]

Just listened to Fareed Zakaria on CNN. He essentially repeated word for word what I am saying.
So you people have no excuse for horse shit you are spewing here.