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

[barbos]

Yea, I reject your crazy thesis. But regardless, it is your side that has amassed a large military force on the borders of a neighbor that is on the verge of invasion. Putin controls this current situation. And if your side is honestly so stupid to not realize that you are uniting all of Eastern Europe against you; we are truly in trouble

No, it's your side keeps moving toward Russia, occupying different countries.
Imagine if Russia moved into Cuba and installed nukes there?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yea, I reject your crazy thesis. But regardless, it is your side that has amassed a large military force on the borders of a neighbor that is on the verge of invasion. Putin controls this current situation. And if your side is honestly so stupid to not realize that you are uniting all of Eastern Europe against you; we are truly in trouble

No, it's your side keeps moving toward Russia, occupying different countries.
Imagine if Russia moved into Cuba and installed nukes there?

Why are there no Russian nukes in Cuba?

 

[Copernicus]

Yea, I reject your crazy thesis. But regardless, it is your side that has amassed a large military force on the borders of a neighbor that is on the verge of invasion. Putin controls this current situation. And if your side is honestly so stupid to not realize that you are uniting all of Eastern Europe against you; we are truly in trouble

No, it's your side keeps moving toward Russia, occupying different countries.
Imagine if Russia moved into Cuba and installed nukes there?

The difference is that NATO is a purely defensive alliance that does not pose a threat unless attacked. If Russia intends to attack and invade a NATO country, I can see why the consider NATO a threat. Russia uses the threat of military force to intimidate and dominate neighboring territories. If it feels kind of hemmed in by NATO, it can try to recover all of those "stans" that are not NATO territories. I would suggest staying out of Afghanistan, however. Kazakhstan looks pretty ripe for conquest, doesn't it? We already know that Putin has his mind on Georgia, which is why they are also trying to get into NATO before they find themselves next on Putin's list.

 

[barbos]

Yea, I reject your crazy thesis. But regardless, it is your side that has amassed a large military force on the borders of a neighbor that is on the verge of invasion. Putin controls this current situation. And if your side is honestly so stupid to not realize that you are uniting all of Eastern Europe against you; we are truly in trouble

No, it's your side keeps moving toward Russia, occupying different countries.
Imagine if Russia moved into Cuba and installed nukes there?

Why are there no Russian nukes in Cuba?

Good question, I will ask Putin when I see him.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is a saying, "Communism did not ruin Russia, but Russia ruined communism."

In case I have not mentioned it, one of the reasons why I am firmly on the side of Ukraine is that Ukraine was ultimately the Slavic country where anarcho-communism actually did get a foothold. Whether you call it "anarcho-syndicalism" or "libertarian Marxism" or by any other name, the bottom-line is that their philosophy is descended from the views of Pyotr Kropotkin, which are descended from the views of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. For generations, anarchism has been harshly repressed in Russia.

Anarchism is the opposite of fascism. Anarchy thrives on education because education teaches you to doubt two different lies.

Lie #1: rich people are necessarily better, harder working, and more deserving than you are.
Lie #2: you are a stupid, mindless animal that needs someone bigger than you to control you.

Just by getting an education, you come to doubt both, and to doubt both is anarchy.

Sigma: no anarchy country could survive if bordered next to Russia. To survive long term, Ukraine is going to have to dramatically increase it's military readiness to fight off Russia.

Anarchism is just libertarianism without the short-sighted egotism. People will kill for liberty if you inform them that they deserve it, and the only thing it costs you is your ability to tyrannize over them, either.

I think that starting a separate thread on the effectiveness of an anarchial group vs a traditional military unit would be a very interesting thread.

Yea, I reject your crazy thesis. But regardless, it is your side that has amassed a large military force on the borders of a neighbor that is on the verge of invasion. Putin controls this current situation. And if your side is honestly so stupid to not realize that you are uniting all of Eastern Europe against you; we are truly in trouble

No, it's your side keeps moving toward Russia, occupying different countries.
Imagine if Russia moved into Cuba and installed nukes there?

 

[Copernicus]

Why are there no Russian nukes in Cuba?

Cuba isn't really interested in being a Russian proxy anymore, but Russia is threatening to send nukes to Venezuela:

Russia suggests military deployments to Cuba, Venezuela an option​

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is a saying, "Communism did not ruin Russia, but Russia ruined communism."

In case I have not mentioned it, one of the reasons why I am firmly on the side of Ukraine is that Ukraine was ultimately the Slavic country where anarcho-communism actually did get a foothold. Whether you call it "anarcho-syndicalism" or "libertarian Marxism" or by any other name, the bottom-line is that their philosophy is descended from the views of Pyotr Kropotkin, which are descended from the views of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. For generations, anarchism has been harshly repressed in Russia.

Anarchism is the opposite of fascism. Anarchy thrives on education because education teaches you to doubt two different lies.

Lie #1: rich people are necessarily better, harder working, and more deserving than you are.
Lie #2: you are a stupid, mindless animal that needs someone bigger than you to control you.

Just by getting an education, you come to doubt both, and to doubt both is anarchy.

Sigma: no anarchy country could survive if bordered next to Russia. To survive long term, Ukraine is going to have to dramatically increase it's military readiness to fight off Russia.

Anarchism is just libertarianism without the short-sighted egotism. People will kill for liberty if you inform them that they deserve it, and the only thing it costs you is your ability to tyrannize over them, either.

I think that starting a separate thread on the effectiveness of an anarchial group vs a traditional military unit would be a very interesting thread.

Yea, I reject your crazy thesis. But regardless, it is your side that has amassed a large military force on the borders of a neighbor that is on the verge of invasion. Putin controls this current situation. And if your side is honestly so stupid to not realize that you are uniting all of Eastern Europe against you; we are truly in trouble

No, it's your side keeps moving toward Russia, occupying different countries.
Imagine if Russia moved into Cuba and installed nukes there?

I have an idea. A crazy kind of idea! But let's try. Please say the following five times: "There are no US troops in Ukraine, there are no Nato Troops in Ukraine". Please report back!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why are there no Russian nukes in Cuba?

Cuba isn't really interested in being a Russian proxy anymore, but Russia is threatening to send nukes to Venezuela:

Russia suggests military deployments to Cuba, Venezuela an option​

I say that if he sends deployments to Venezuela: it's a clear-cut green light for the US to invade Mexico.

 

[barbos]

I have an idea. A crazy kind of idea! But let's try. Please say the following five times: "There are no US troops in Ukraine, there are no Nato Troops in Ukraine". Please report back!

There were before. And they will be back once current tensions cease. US does not abandon their puppets that easy.
Plus american/NATO weapons are still in Ukraine and more are coming in.
That's unacceptable too. It creates desire among Kiev regime to invade Donetsk/Lugansk republic Azerbaijani style.

 

[Copernicus]

I have an idea. A crazy kind of idea! But let's try. Please say the following five times: "There are no US troops in Ukraine, there are no Nato Troops in Ukraine". Please report back!

There were before. And they will be back once current tensions cease. US does not abandon their puppets that easy.
Plus american/NATO weapons are still in Ukraine and more are coming in.
That's unacceptable too. It creates desire among Kiev regime to invade Donetsk/Lugansk republic Azerbaijani style.

The only weapons sent from other countries are defensive weapons that would only be useful to impede an invader. And they are there because of the obvious threat of invasion by Russia. The US soldiers were only for training purposes, not combat, and they were withdrawn as the threat from Russia has reached critical mass for an invasion. It is laughable that Ukraine, surrounded by an invasion force of roughly 150,000 Russian troops would seek to retake their Donetsk and Luhansk territories from the Russian puppet regimes. Perhaps only Russians would treat that as a credible threat these days, because that is what so many would like to believe.

 

[laughing dog]

Support for joining NATO in Finland is up.

So all this is an elaborate scheme to get Finland into NATO?

???? Why in the world would Putin want Finland into Nato? That makes zero sense!

US wants Finland in NATO and that's why they created this crisis.

Prove that the US wants Finland in NATO. Then prove the US forced Russia to send troops the Ukraine border.

Yea, I reject your crazy thesis. But regardless, it is your side that has amassed a large military force on the borders of a neighbor that is on the verge of invasion. Putin controls this current situation. And if your side is honestly so stupid to not realize that you are uniting all of Eastern Europe against you; we are truly in trouble

No, it's your side keeps moving toward Russia, occupying different countries.
Imagine if Russia moved into Cuba and installed nukes there?

"Occupation" means an unwanted presence. Prove that NATO troops are occupying any country.

To date, you have provided no evidence to support your claims. Which makes them appear delusional.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I only wish y

Now there’s increased artillery fire in eastern Ukraine as separatists fired artillery at a kindergarten. How dare the Ukrainians fight back! This is the prelude to the Russian invasion. Provoke a reaction and then claim the reaction is the aggression that justifies invasion. Fuck Putin. Seriously, what a cocksucker. I hope his military gets seriously walloped. That’s unlikely, but they could find themselves unable to control the country, and sucked into a quagmire. The US and NATO could support an insurgency there for years that would bleed him and his people dry.

You don't know what happened.

Pretty obvious--Putin tried to provoke hostilities by committing a war crime.

 

[barbos]

Pretty obvious--Putin tried to provoke hostilities by committing a war crime

The same kind of obvious as WMD in Iraq?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Pretty obvious--Putin tried to provoke hostilities by committing a war crime

The same kind of obvious as WMD in Iraq?

See? We can agree sometimes. There were clearly no WMDs in Iraq and rational people knew that. Not everyone acts rationally.

But I was asking a serious question about why there are no Russian nukes in Cuba. You just flipped me off. Do you have a serious answer that might shed some light on what is going on in Ukraine?

 

[barbos]

But I was asking a serious question about why there are no Russian nukes in Cuba.

Because USA went apeshit about it and Soviet Union had to take their nukes and other stuff out. Remind you of anything?

 

[barbos]

See? We can agree sometimes.

How about Georgian War? do we agree on that too?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I have an idea. A crazy kind of idea! But let's try. Please say the following five times: "There are no US troops in Ukraine, there are no Nato Troops in Ukraine". Please report back!

There were before. And they will be back once current tensions cease. US does not abandon their puppets that easy.
Plus american/NATO weapons are still in Ukraine and more are coming in.
That's unacceptable too. It creates desire among Kiev regime to invade Donetsk/Lugansk republic Azerbaijani style.

Oh, believe me can bet that weapons will continuing pouring into Western Ukraine and the other countries with the bad luck to share a border with Russia. If Putin won't accept diplomacy to settle disputes, what else is the alternative? Russia is turning the entire area against Russia, uniting the Nato and Non-Nato countries against Russia.

 

[barbos]

If Putin won't accept diplomacy to settle disputes

If Kennedy won't accept diplomacy to settle disputes.....

 

[barbos]

Russia is turning the entire area against Russia, uniting the Nato and Non-Nato countries against Russia.

Actually, ...... not so much.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If Putin won't accept diplomacy to settle disputes

If Kennedy won't accept diplomacy to settle disputes.....

?? Kennedy didn't invade any Russian lands. After the crisis was over, they returned to normal status. Do you not understand how diplomacy works?