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

[barbos]

Trade us Stavridis for Pooty?

No, you would have to add a dozen of Stavridises to be a fair trade.

 

[Elixir]

Sorry Barbos. I came from the 50s
Gives me the long view. I can tell how that irritates you. Sorry, but the folly of youth has effected each of us at some time.

What are you? 90 years old? I am impressed.
Yes, Alzheimer annoys me.

Are you math challenged? I am astounded.
1950 was 71 years ago.

No, you are, from the 50s means you were adult in the 50s or at least became adult in the 50s

Maybe it means that in Russian. I wouldn’t know. But you wrote it in English. I originated in the 50s so that is the era I am “from”.
No charge for the language lesson. You can thank me later.

 

[barbos]

The difference between NATO expansion and Russian expansion is night and day.
Ukraine is a fine example. If it joins NATO it will be because it’s elected representatives decided to join NATO. If it joins the new USSR it will be at the point of a gun, after much blood is spilled.

Go back to 1960s you came from and take all these retired admirals with you.

I'm not following you here. Are you saying that Nato is threatening Ukraine with invasion if they don't join Nato?

No, I am saying NATO generals wet their pants for nothing when they dreamed about having a naval base in a russian city of Sevastopol.
So NATO threatened to invade Russia, not Ukraine.

 

[Elixir]

I'm not following you here. Are you saying that Nato is threatening Ukraine with invasion if they don't join Nato?

I always wonder about that when b starts in with his false equivalences. He always implies that NATO is that kind of outfit, but is never quite able to say it outright.

 

[Jarhyn]

Aww, poor Pootey! Spent so many of his (stolen) billions trying to keep Ukraine in his portfolio, and now the bad bad US wants to kick the poor humanitarian to the curb and let the Trumpy Ukranians ally themselves with the European aggressors who have been trying to invade Russia and annex it for its oil ever since Crimea volunteered to become part of Russia.

^^^
Your news sources have turned you into a laughingstock, barbos.
Putin's ambition to re-create the Soviet glory days has remained the one constant in his erratic behavior. You can dress it up with all kinds lies, you can cite corrupt American motives, real and imagined, but the fact of Russia's perennial aggression can't be magically disappeared by your whining.

Can't counter facts and resort to attacking the messenger?

If "the messenger" ever came up with actual facts that were relevant and in context, I probably wouldn't counter them since they would be facts. But your specious pro-Putin bullshit contains few facts, and those it does reference are warped beyond recognition by the bias forced upon you by your handlers.
Not worth addressing, when the overriding fact is that rationalizing Russia's expansionist ambitions are truly the sole focus of all the arguments you've been fed. All those whataboutisms and false fears of the mighty Ukranian Empire encroaching on Russian territory - it's all bullshit, no matter how many irrelevant facts (like Russian nukes in Cuba) you try to drag into it.

Tell your bosses they need to send you into battle better equipped than this! It will make for much better discussion.

I personally prefer it when those spinning bad faith are easy to spot. In many ways, the conflict between good faith and bad is an efficient one.

You know, I was watching some He-Man Revelations the other day, and while most of it was just a really interesting reinvention and even redemption of a facile entertainment that could have easily been left happily in a dustbin...

It revisited the ancient trope of the scorpion on the water. Our world is doomed, the great filter is the scorpion on our backs over the water.

 

[barbos]

I'm not following you here. Are you saying that Nato is threatening Ukraine with invasion if they don't join Nato?

I always wonder about that when b starts in with his false equivalences. He always implies that NATO is that kind of outfit, but is never quite able to say it outright.

NATO is obviously not that kind of outfit, It does not invade countries in order to make them join. Well, sometimes it kinda does (Serbia) but generally no, they simply don't have to. And it's irrelevant what small countries think. When it comes down to security of your own country opinion of other especially smaller countries become irrelevant.
Kennedy did not ask for opinion of cubans during Cuban Crisis.
Same here, Russia is not going to ask for opinion of ukrainians when security of the country is at stake. In fact you americans did the same, you fucking ignored opinion of ukrainians when you ordered them to give up nukes.

So shut up.

 

[laughing dog]

The difference between NATO expansion and Russian expansion is night and day.
Ukraine is a fine example. If it joins NATO it will be because it’s elected representatives decided to join NATO. If it joins the new USSR it will be at the point of a gun, after much blood is spilled.

Go back to 1960s you came from and take all these retired admirals with you.

I'm not following you here. Are you saying that Nato is threatening Ukraine with invasion if they don't join Nato?

No, I am saying NATO generals wet their pants for nothing when they dreamed about having a naval base in a russian city of Sevastopol.
So NATO threatened to invade Russia, not Ukraine.

I think someone has been hitting the vodka a bit too hard.

 

[Elixir]

...It [NATO] does not invade countries in order to make them join. Well, sometimes it kinda does...

Like I said... He always implies that NATO is that kind of outfit, but is never quite able to say it outright.

So shut up.

Aw. Such level headed response. Butthurt, much?
If you don't like your false equivalences being pointed out, maybe stop with the false equivalences.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm not following you here. Are you saying that Nato is threatening Ukraine with invasion if they don't join Nato?

I always wonder about that when b starts in with his false equivalences. He always implies that NATO is that kind of outfit, but is never quite able to say it outright.

NATO is obviously not that kind of outfit, It does not invade countries in order to make them join. Well, sometimes it kinda does (Serbia) but generally no, they simply don't have to. And it's irrelevant what small countries think. When it comes down to security of your own country opinion of other especially smaller countries become irrelevant.
Kennedy did not ask for opinion of cubans during Cuban Crisis.
Same here, Russia is not going to ask for opinion of ukrainians when security of the country is at stake. In fact you americans did the same, you fucking ignored opinion of ukrainians when you ordered them to give up nukes.

So shut up.

Oh. My. Dog.

"Might makes right, self over others."

We see you.

 

[Elixir]

Kennedy did not ask for opinion of cubans during Cuban Crisis.

ROFL!!!
He also didn't invade Cuba. His beef wasn't with Cuba in the first place.

 

[barbos]

...It [NATO] does not invade countries in order to make them join. Well, sometimes it kinda does...

Like I said... He always implies that NATO is that kind of outfit, but is never quite able to say it outright.

Like I said, I am a fair person. But NATO did invade Iraq and Serbia.
And again, it's irrelevant. Primary goal of NATO has always been Russia. Small countries are just tools to reaching that goal.

So shut up.

Aw. Such level headed response. Butthurt, much?
If you don't like your false equivalences being pointed out, maybe stop with the false equivalences.

So no comment on Cuba? as expected. Still weird, considering that you must remember it firsthand.

 

[barbos]

Kennedy did not ask for opinion of cubans during Cuban Crisis.

ROFL!!!
He also didn't invade Cuba. His beef wasn't with Cuba in the first place.

Well technically he did, Bay of Pigs, rings a bell? You should remember you were alive, right?

 

[SLD]

I seriously doubt Putin is actually planning an invasion. All of this maneuvering doesn’t amount to a full scale invasion of the country. He’s put 70,000 troops on the border. He’d likely need ten times that number for a full scale invasion. This has all the hallmarks of another psyop on the part of Putin. He’s sending a message: don’t join NATO. And they shouldn’t.

A full scale invasion of Ukraine is far too risky for Putin. It would galvanize NATO, and they’d greatly increase their defense spending in response. And they would definitely help Ukraine fight back, if not actually join the fight. His northern flank would be greatly threatened. He would likely lose nordstream, and many other economic benefits. He isn't popular enough at home to sustain the casualties. He is not Stalin. And the casualties would be horrendous for him. He would win in the end, but at a severe cost. And what would he gain? Control of one of Europe’s poorest country? And then what? Could he even control it? Doubtful. Why the fuck would he want Ukraine?

I doubt even if his military would support him in such a stupid endeavor. He risks losing power. And I suspect he knows this. Thus I see this as a calculated saber rattling to deter Ukraine from aligning too closely with the west, and to stay out of Donbas.

Of course war is borne of such strategic miscalculations. It’s possible that the saber rattling could inadvertently set off a war. But I doubt that’s his intention.

As for our response? First it must be united with our NATO allies. They should not reward him for saber rattling in this fashion. Just make it clear that there will be severe consequences if he does so. The message should also be to his generals, that we would, at a minimum, supply Ukraine with everything they need to defend themselves, and we would boycott all oil and natural gas sales from Russia. We also would want Xi Jingping’s support, but we just pissed him off by boycotting the olympics.

 

[Elixir]

Kennedy did not ask for opinion of cubans during Cuban Crisis.

ROFL!!!
He also didn't invade Cuba. His beef wasn't with Cuba in the first place.

Well technically he did, Bay of Pigs, rings a bell? You should remember you were alive, right?

Yeah. He took one little corner of the island to ensure no more Russian funny business.
Never marched on Havana though, just made nasty Nikita take his toys home. I never really understood that logic.
But I remember it. Do you? Do you also remember who the Republican nominee for US president was in 1960 and what his plan was for dealing with the Soviet Union?

 

[barbos]

SLD, you're looking at this from wrong perspective.
Tensions have been building up as function of completeness of Nord Stream 2.
Ukraine is hopelessly trying to stop it and the only way to stop it is to start a war and blame Russia for it. That is the plan.

 

[barbos]

Kennedy did not ask for opinion of cubans during Cuban Crisis.

ROFL!!!
He also didn't invade Cuba. His beef wasn't with Cuba in the first place.

Well technically he did, Bay of Pigs, rings a bell? You should remember you were alive, right?

Yeah. He took one little corner of the island to ensure no more Russian funny business.
Never marched on Havana though, just made nasty Nikita take his toys home. I never really understood that logic.
But I remember it. Do you? Do you also remember who the Republican nominee for US president was in 1960 and what his plan was for dealing with the Soviet Union?

Dude, Missile Crisis happened AFTER that little "non-invasion", in fact that little "non-invasion" was one of the reasons Castro decided he would really like to have some nukes.

 

[Elixir]

Dude, Missile Crisis happened AFTER that little non-invasion, in fact that little non-invasion was one of the reasons Castro decided he would really like to have some nukes.

Dude, the Bay of Pigs Invasion happened in April 1961. It was a failed attack launched by the CIA to push Cuban leader Fidel Castro from power. It was not an attempt to invade and occupy Cuba. Meanwhile, the Soviet missile buildup began a year earlier...

You don't remember because you were not alive. You only know what your handlers have told you about it.

 

[barbos]

Dude, Missile Crisis happened AFTER that little non-invasion, in fact that little non-invasion was one of the reasons Castro decided he would really like to have some nukes.

Dude, the Bay of Pigs Invasion happened in April 1961. It was a failed attack launched by the CIA to push Cuban leader Fidel Castro from power. It was not an attempt to invade and occupy Cuba. Meanwhile, the Soviet missile buildup began a year earlier...

You mean the same thing you did in Ukraine?
Dude, you are really losing badly

You don't remember because you were not alive. You only know what your handlers have told you about it.

No, I read it on wikipedia and I have no handlers.

So why did you feel so threatened by Cuba that you decided to "non-invade" it?
Cuba is even smaller than Ukraine and it is separated by water.

 

[Elixir]

Right, it all makes it right, It was not invasion, CIA are the good guys. Right.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said (NOT!).

An "invasion and occupation", FYI, is like what Russia did in Crimea, not like what the US did in Cuba.
Look it up:

Simferopol City Municipality Сімферопольська міськрада
Country Disputed: Ukraine (de jure) Russia (de facto)
Region Crimea1
Capital Simferopol

You won't see:

Havana City Municipality
Country	Disputed: Cuba (de jure) USA (de facto)
Region	Carribbean
Capital	Havana

...and that's what makes yours a FALSE equivalence.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trade us Stavridis for Pooty?

No, you would have to add a dozen of Stavridises to be a fair trade.

Is it Stavridises or Stavridisi?