ADVERTISEMENT

Ukraine urgently needs soldiers, but some men are desperate not to fight

Someone is a glutton for propaganda.
Anyone who says NATO expansion has nothing to do with this war is a victim of propaganda.

The major players understood, and have put that understanding into the record.

Angela Merkel has said she feels no regrets for her handling of Vladimir Putin during her time in power, arguing that Russia’s president would have perceived a 2008 Nato membership plan for Ukraine that was blocked by her government as a “declaration of war”.

From the Russian president’s perspective, “it was a declaration of war”. While she didn’t share Putin’s perspective, Merkel said she “knew how he thought” and “didn’t want to provoke it further”.


The only question is, were the neocons naive to think pushing NATO into wouldn’t trigger this war, or did they expect it?

When I consider their willingness to deliberately sacrifice an American pilot in Iraq so they could ‘justly’ launch regime change, I’ve come to the conclusion they’re amoral asshats who shouldn’t be near the levers of power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButtersHawk
It's been awhile, lay it out for us how Russia was provoked into invading and occupying Ukraine.

Angela Merkel has said she feels no regrets for her handling of Vladimir Putin during her time in power, arguing that Russia’s president would have perceived a 2008 Nato membership plan for Ukraine that was blocked by her government as a “declaration of war”.

From the Russian president’s perspective, “it was a declaration of war”. While she didn’t share Putin’s perspective, Merkel said she “knew how he thought” and “
didn’t want to provoke it further”.


Reading comprehension time!
Provoke what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButtersHawk
Belgium has promised Ukraine 30 F-16 jets.

By the end of the year. Why the delay?

I recall something similar (different donating nation) last year. Also delayed. The excuse then was that they needed 6 months to train Ukrainian pilots. Did they ever get those planes?

What's the excuse this time? Surely it's not the training excuse again.

We're talking about jets.

We're talking about a distance of 850 miles or so.

They could be there this afternoon.

It's hard to take the West's commitment to Ukraine seriously.
 
Belgium has promised Ukraine 30 F-16 jets.

By the end of the year. Why the delay?

I recall something similar (different donating nation) last year. Also delayed. The excuse then was that they needed 6 months to train Ukrainian pilots. Did they ever get those planes?

What's the excuse this time? Surely it's not the training excuse again.

We're talking about jets.

We're talking about a distance of 850 miles or so.

They could be there this afternoon.

It's hard to take the West's commitment to Ukraine seriously.
The US MIC is loving this war. Slow walking military aid is their wet dream.
 
Which "they" are you referring to?
The only question is, were the neocons naive to think pushing NATO into wouldn’t trigger this war, or did they expect it?

When I consider their willingness to deliberately sacrifice an American pilot in Iraq so they could ‘justly’ launch regime change, I’ve come to the conclusion they’re amoral asshats who shouldn’t be near the levers of power.

tumblr_npml9aVG5M1tq4of6o1_500.gif
 
Volunteers?!? Lol, why is MAGA so gullible?

You misread what he wrote.

While [Ukrainian] volunteers lined up to fight Russia at the beginning of the war, manpower shortages are now an issue that could seal Ukraine’s fate even if it can retain Western support.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
Nobody has conquered Russia. Yes, they have a few defeats but they win with bodies. They don’t win with tech or tactics. As long as leadership is motivated to keep fighting they will find bodies. I don’t see Ukraine matching that.

Which is why Putin is the key. Crying Russian mom’s and Russian media won’t be helping any peace movement.
The biggest issue for the west is trying to apply western culture to easr Europe. An American in Ukraine is like Dorothy....we arent in Kansas anymore Toto.

An American going to Russia or Ukraine is completely lost in understanding. An American trying to apply American Exceptionalism to the war is going to be completely off equilibrium. Which is why this war was so avoidable and why it wont end well for Ukrainians regardless of who wins or loses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onlyTheObvious
I support a negotiated settlement.

If we have a negotiated settlement it has to be as I said before one that gives Ukraine hard protection from Russia just consolidating it's forces and re-invading in a more prepared manner.

Otherwise you can hand Russia all the territory it claims to want and they likely just come back in a few years to try to take the entire thing.
 
These are the 3 most plausible outcomes of the Ukraine war:

1. A negotiated settlement.

2. Limited nuclear war.

3. WWIII.

I vote for a negotiated settlement.

Not all negotiated settlements are equal. What's the best one we can get - and how do we get it?

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/05/06/2022-secret-ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations

The Russia-Ukraine war has lasted over two years.

But just weeks after Russia's 2022 invasion, both sides came close to a settlement that could have ended the war and saved thousands of lives.

Today, On Point: The story behind those secret, thwarted negotiations.

Guests​

Sergey Radchenko, the Wilson E. Schmidt distinguished professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Co-author of the Foreign Affairs article The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in Ukraine.

Samuel Charap, distinguished chair in Russia and Eurasia Policy and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. Co-author of the Foreign Affairs article The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in Ukraine.


Samuel, can you just at least tell us what the, one of the first surprising things that that you and Sergey uncovered in these documents, these drafts?

CHARAP: In the real actual thing that was agreed between the two sides which was communique and a framework for future negotiations, it included a provision whereby Russia agreed to have a process to diplomatically address the dispute over Crimea. Now, Crimea, the Ukrainian region peninsula had been annexed by Russia, nearly 10 years prior in March of 2014. And ever since then, Russia had basically said that this is a region of Russia like any other. And we don't compromise on our territorial integrity just because someone else is claiming it's part of their country.

And here, of course, it seems like they had essentially, even though they hadn't agreed to give it back by any means, had agreed to some sort of diplomatic process that would effectively treat it differently than the rest of Russia. From the Ukrainian side, we saw a readiness to embrace permanent neutrality.


That is an agreement not to join military alliances. As a matter of their constitution and even in the potential form of a UN Security Council resolution, which is a big shift from where they are, for example, today.
 
"In sum, the roots of the Ukraine crisis do not lie in NATO’s alleged lies and provocations. Firstly, contrary to Russian assertions, the West has not broken a promise not to expand NATO, as such a promise was never made.

Secondly, according to the available evidence, NATO has not pushed Ukraine to join the Alliance. During the Kuchma and Yushchenko presidencies demand for closer NATO-Ukraine cooperation came from the Ukrainian side, and when the Yanukovych administration decided to exclude the goal of joining NATO from Ukraine’s national security strategy in 2010, NATO respected that decision. These findings support the argument made by Michael Rühle, according to which NATO enlargement is not designed as an anti-Russian project but rather as an open-ended “continental unification project”. As such, it has no ‘end point’, which could be morally justified in consideration of the 1975 Helsinki Charter that enshrines the right of sovereign states to choose their alliance."

https://www.iir.cz/lies-provocations-or-myths-pretexts-nato-and-the-ukraine-crisis
 
Angela Merkel has said she feels no regrets for her handling of Vladimir Putin during her time in power, arguing that Russia’s president would have perceived a 2008 Nato membership plan for Ukraine that was blocked by her government as a “declaration of war”.

From the Russian president’s perspective, “it was a declaration of war”. While she didn’t share Putin’s perspective, Merkel said she “knew how he thought” and “
didn’t want to provoke it further”.


Reading comprehension time!
Provoke what?

Putin is completely unjustified in claiming Ukraine joining NATO is a declaration of war. We should be able to agree on that. Which makes this talk an excuse for Putin, not a provocation of Russia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhawkeye
Ukraine has tried. Some have answered the call.
HROT leftwing warhawks are not among them.
I’m a horrible shot. It will get resolved as all proxy wars do. When both sides of bleed enough. Not sure I’d want Chernobyl to be in Russian hands though. If they demand it. Last time they were in charge of it wasn’t a good outcome.
 
JFC.

We are trying to help Ukraine decide it’s fate. The alternative is to let Putin decide.
No, the US has made it clear we won't be directly involved, which is patently absurd as the US has slow walked the weapons the Ukraine could have had in the beginning. This is not a US war, it's a proxy war. Ukraine has been extremely lenient in conscription of men and women for their military.

And you know what? It's not our fight. If it was as easy as Putin deciding, the war would already be over, Putin would have won, and we would have saved at least $150B and counting.
 
Putin is completely unjustified in claiming Ukraine joining NATO is a declaration of war. We should be able to agree on that. Which makes this talk an excuse for Putin, not a provocation of Russia.

Motive isn’t justification, you’re smart enough to not conflate the concepts.

Explaining Hitler’s motive for invading Russia isn’t ‘justifying’ Hitler’s motive. It isn’t giving Hitler an ‘excuse’.

Merkel explains why NATO expansion will trigger war, she doesn’t justify it. How can you not see the difference?

On March 29, the talks achieved a breakthrough.

The treaty envisioned in the communiqué would proclaim Ukraine as a permanently neutral, nonnuclear state. Ukraine would renounce any intention to join military alliances or allow foreign military bases or troops on its soil. The communiqué listed as possible guarantors the permanent members of the UN Security Council (including Russia) along with Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland, and Turkey.”

The communiqué also said that if Ukraine came under attack and requested assistance, all guarantor states would be obliged, following consultations with Ukraine and among themselves, to provide assistance to Ukraine to restore its security.

“Remarkably, these obligations were spelled out with much greater precision than Nato’s Article 5: imposing a no-fly zone, supplying weapons, or directly intervening with the guarantor state’s own military force,” the authors said, citing the text of the communiqué.

The question of Ukraine’ membership of the EU was left open, but Russia had no objection to its accession in principle.

The communiqué also included another “stunning” concession: it called for the two sides to seek to “peacefully resolve their dispute over Crimea” next ten to 15 years. Russia has refused point blank to talk about the status of Crimea since it was annexed in 2014.

The tricky question is why Putin would agree to this deal, given he has the upper hand in the war on paper with hundreds of thousands of troops on-the-ground fighting an under-armed and under-supplied Ukraine.

“We can only conjecture as to why. Putin’s blitzkrieg had failed; that was clear by early March. Perhaps he was now willing to cut his losses if he got his longest-standing demand: that Ukraine renounce its Nato aspirations and never host Nato forces on its territory. If he could not control the entire country, at least he could ensure his most basic security interests, stem the haemorrhaging of Russia’s economy, and restore the country’s international reputation,” the authors wrote
.


Instead Boris Johnson convinced Zelensky to fight on.
We’ll have to compare the eventual agreement with what was rejected in April to see what has been gained/lost by continuing the fight.
 
I’m a horrible shot. It will get resolved as all proxy wars do. When both sides of bleed enough. Not sure I’d want Chernobyl to be in Russian hands though. If they demand it. Last time they were in charge of it wasn’t a good outcome.
The last two times actually. I seem to recall them taking the area over early in the war, and digging foxholes in radiation-contaminated soil. It was a real shame that happened.
 
Traveled Europe for a month and saw an endless number of young Ukrainian men interested in nothing but partying.
Question...how did you know these random young men across Europe were Ukrainians? And how did you know what they're interested in?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you traveled Europe, but added this part on to make a point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eb05
The last two times actually. I seem to recall them taking the area over early in the war, and digging foxholes in radiation-contaminated soil. It was a real shame that happened.
More worried about them starting another accident.
 
The Ukraine situation is a shining example of what an embarrassment a huge swath of people in the former Republican Party, now officially known as MAGA Party have morphed into. The story involves a horrible and murderous dictator ruling our biggest enemy state since 1945 invading a neighboring country in Europe the size of Texas in hopes of rebuilding the former Soviet Empire. It involves an amazing and inspiring defense that will already stand as one of the biggest David vs Goliath military campaigns ever, one country the second biggest military army in world, the other not even in the top 30. The brutish invaders raped and killed women and children and committed acts of genocide intentionally targeting civilians. They threaten the US and NATO daily, including literally 100s of threats about using nukes. As the invaders got pulled into a much larger war and resistance than they ever expected, they turned to getting military aid from such wonderful nations as Iran, North Korea, and China.

And yet a huge chunk of Americans like the OP have constantly been complaining that:
  • Russia was provoked and Ukraine deserved it
  • Ukrainians are Nazis and had Biolabs
  • Why are we spending money on dismantling Russia’s military without losing a single troop?
  • Ukraine should negotiate for peace and let invaders off the ropes
  • Why are Ukrainians not brave and fighting and having trouble finding warm bodies to fight Russia in third year of war (derp)
Your fathers and grandfathers are ashamed of you.
 
Last edited:
If we have a negotiated settlement it has to be as I said before one that gives Ukraine hard protection from Russia just consolidating it's forces and re-invading in a more prepared manner.

Otherwise you can hand Russia all the territory it claims to want and they likely just come back in a few years to try to take the entire thing.
This is the Western manta. It's basically the domino theory in new clothing. It's probably wrong. But it might be right.

If you believe it, the only solution is to destroy Russia (or maybe just Putin - but that assumes his replacement won't follow his course).

Or is there another solution?
 
This is the Western manta. It's basically the domino theory in new clothing. It's probably wrong. But it might be right.

If you believe it, the only solution is to destroy Russia (or maybe just Putin - but that assumes his replacement won't follow his course).

Or is there another solution?
That is a bit like being worried about destroying Germany or Hitler in late 1930s. Russia literally says they want to march to England in all their rhetoric.

Russia should not be let out of their own trap until their military and economy are truly done for- hopefully as that comes close, Putin will finally be killed.
 
Motive isn’t justification, you’re smart enough to not conflate the concepts.

Explaining Hitler’s motive for invading Russia isn’t ‘justifying’ Hitler’s motive. It isn’t giving Hitler an ‘excuse’.

Merkel explains why NATO expansion will trigger war, she doesn’t justify it. How can you not see the difference?

On March 29, the talks achieved a breakthrough.

The treaty envisioned in the communiqué would proclaim Ukraine as a permanently neutral, nonnuclear state. Ukraine would renounce any intention to join military alliances or allow foreign military bases or troops on its soil. The communiqué listed as possible guarantors the permanent members of the UN Security Council (including Russia) along with Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland, and Turkey.”

The communiqué also said that if Ukraine came under attack and requested assistance, all guarantor states would be obliged, following consultations with Ukraine and among themselves, to provide assistance to Ukraine to restore its security.

“Remarkably, these obligations were spelled out with much greater precision than Nato’s Article 5: imposing a no-fly zone, supplying weapons, or directly intervening with the guarantor state’s own military force,” the authors said, citing the text of the communiqué.

The question of Ukraine’ membership of the EU was left open, but Russia had no objection to its accession in principle.

The communiqué also included another “stunning” concession: it called for the two sides to seek to “peacefully resolve their dispute over Crimea” next ten to 15 years. Russia has refused point blank to talk about the status of Crimea since it was annexed in 2014.

The tricky question is why Putin would agree to this deal, given he has the upper hand in the war on paper with hundreds of thousands of troops on-the-ground fighting an under-armed and under-supplied Ukraine.

“We can only conjecture as to why. Putin’s blitzkrieg had failed; that was clear by early March. Perhaps he was now willing to cut his losses if he got his longest-standing demand: that Ukraine renounce its Nato aspirations and never host Nato forces on its territory. If he could not control the entire country, at least he could ensure his most basic security interests, stem the haemorrhaging of Russia’s economy, and restore the country’s international reputation,” the authors wrote
.


Instead Boris Johnson convinced Zelensky to fight on.
We’ll have to compare the eventual agreement with what was rejected in April to see what has been gained/lost by continuing the fight.

I believe you are the one conflating things. If I take an innocent action, and a bad individual uses that as a excuse to take bad action, that does not mean I provoked them. You can say I shouldn't have done it, even if it was innocent, because the bad person was going to use it as an excuse. But you cannot conflate things to say that I am to blame; it's the bad person who is to blame.

In this case it is Putin who is behaving badly, not Ukraine.

Your argument is akin to battered woman syndrome, where they are to blame for being beaten by their husband.
 
This is the Western manta. It's basically the domino theory in new clothing. It's probably wrong. But it might be right.

If you believe it, the only solution is to destroy Russia (or maybe just Putin - but that assumes his replacement won't follow his course).

Or is there another solution?

Russia agrees to allow Ukraine to peacefully join NATO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noleclone2
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT