Russia attacking Ukraine 2/16?

Who wants to go fight for Ukraine in Russia? Who wants to send their sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews to die for Ukraine? Ukraine is so important for us Americans we must go die for them. Right?
 
Our mistake was not bringing Ukraine into NATO quick enough. That's the only thing that would have stopped Putin.

I think you have to consider the political conundrum though. Ukraine wasn't brought in because the alliance knew that it was going to be hard to build popular support to risk money and lives to defend Ukraine. Well, if that's true (which is it clearly is since NATO could defend Ukraine anyway and is choosing not to), then I'm not be sure how them joining NATO would have changed the game dramatically. It would have made Putin's move ballsier, but if the political dynamic is the same, then why not invade anyway and break the alliance?
 
Regardless he does rely on NeoNazi militias for security. It doesn't justify an invasion but it is a fact.

If someone is trying to kill me and a Neo-Nazi is willing to stand between my killer and me, I'll let him do it.

The Azov Battalion are bad hombres, but I don't think you can judge the entire Ukrainian regime and nation on them. It's a pretty small unit. It's not like the SS.
 
Trump applauds his genius moves

Trump clearly said it was a bad thing that needed to be stopped (even if for the wrong reasons, e.g. that he only cares about being perceived as The One Who Would/Could Have Stopped It). Pretending otherwise is fully disingenuous.
 
FB_IMG_1645724460513.jpg
 
I think you have to consider the political conundrum though. Ukraine wasn't brought in because the alliance knew that it was going to be hard to build popular support to risk money and lives to defend Ukraine. Well, if that's true (which is it clearly is since NATO could defend Ukraine anyway and is choosing not to), then I'm not be sure how them joining NATO would have changed the game dramatically. It would have made Putin's move ballsier, but if the political dynamic is the same, then why not invade anyway and break the alliance?

I recognize the politics behind the delay. Can't have a corrupt government with strong Russian influence inside NATO. I agree that NATO wasn't prepared to give Ukraine our military technology or defend it with our own blood. Still, that's the only commitment that would have stopped Putin.

NATO membership would have assured protection else NATO crumbles overnight. It's an entire 'nother level of commitment to protect member states. The lack of NATO membership ensured no military intervention aside from what limited military supplies the West offered Ukraine.
 
Here is a good twitter thread useful to avoid promoting or reposting fake stories/videos that have nothing to do with what's currently happening in Ukraine.

 
I agree that NATO wasn't prepared to give Ukraine our military technology or defend it with our own blood. Still, that's the only commitment that would have stopped Putin.

But that's sorta my concern. If NATO wasn't prepared to give Ukraine military technology or a defense, then would the on-paper commitment really have stopped Putin? It all depends on how strong our commitment to NATO really is.

NATO membership would have assured protection else NATO crumbles overnight. It's an entire 'nother level of commitment to protect member states. The lack of NATO membership ensured no military intervention aside from what limited military supplies the West offered Ukraine.

But it doesn't have to ensure no intervention. The West is choosing not to intervene. Are we not intervening because they're not in NATO, or are they not in NATO because we aren't willing to intervene? I do wonder what factor was bigger, and we're going to find out when he starts screwing with the Baltics.
 
Mona
So according to your link
"But the most infamous is the extreme Azov Battalion, who openly parade with fascist symbols and practice shooting drills in the countryside."
"Based on principles of ultra-nationalism, the group have said they will fight to the death if Putin invades."
And THIS makes them neoNazi???????
Maybe neoNazi in this case does not mean what you want it to

WHO wouldn't want a militia to defend their country to the death?
Heck OUR troops in Afghanistan defended to the death
 
I mean, as an American, at some point in our past and likely in our future at some point, we will see neo-nazis, jews, catholics, protestants, atheists, longhorns, and Sooners all pulling on the same rope. I do hate how bad it has to get for that to happen.
 
If someone is trying to kill me and a Neo-Nazi is willing to stand between my killer and me, I'll let him do it.

The Azov Battalion are bad hombres, but I don't think you can judge the entire Ukrainian regime and nation on them. It's a pretty small unit. It's not like the SS.

I agree. I am not saying that changes the stance. I also think there are more than just the Azov Battalion but I don't know. I also don't judge Ukraine based on that. Just stating facts so we can all know the reality of what is going on.
 
I think you have to consider the political conundrum though. Ukraine wasn't brought in because the alliance knew that it was going to be hard to build popular support to risk money and lives to defend Ukraine. Well, if that's true (which is it clearly is since NATO could defend Ukraine anyway and is choosing not to), then I'm not be sure how them joining NATO would have changed the game dramatically. It would have made Putin's move ballsier, but if the political dynamic is the same, then why not invade anyway and break the alliance?
It's not just the political aspects either. Ukraine doesn't fit the criteria for NATO. For one they have way too much corruption. Much of that corruption involves the US since 2014, think Burisma.
 
Mona
The criticism in your link is that the group has said they will fight to the death if Putin invades.
How is that NeoNazi?
I would want them to fight to the death for their country. Wouldn't you?
How many Americans have fought to the death for other countries.
At this point I think any "neoNazi" tendencies are the least of concerns for Ukraine
 

I was watching. It was a simple misunderstanding. During the PHONE interview, Ingraham broke in multiple times to other things going on. Trump simply pointed out any counter attack should not be known by the press. She clarified and they both moved on. That tweet is a great example of what’s wrong with the msm.
 
Ingram said:

“We’re just learning that U.S. officials are looking at a potential amphibious landing now in Odessa, Ukraine,” she said.

I heard that interview last night also, and I thought she implied Americans are looking into amphibious landing.
 
Last edited:
huma
You thought Ingraham was implying the USA was planning an amphibious landing?
I thought she was saying the USA Intel was suggesting the Russians were planning that.
We can't go in militarily now.
 
The criticism in your link is that the group has said they will fight to the death if Putin invades.
How is that NeoNazi?
I would want them to fight to the death for their country. Wouldn't you?
How many Americans have fought to the death for other countries.
At this point I think any "neoNazi" tendencies are the least of concerns for Ukraine

Incorrect. It says that some of the security forces are fascist aka NeoNazis. If you look into Ukraine further you will see that Ukraine has NeoNazi groups since WW2 in them.

It isn't a concern for Ukrainians needing protection, but it does show who the US is working with, Neo-Nazi sympathizers.
 
It isn't a concern for Ukrainians needing protection, but it does show who the US is working with, Neo-Nazi sympathizers.

Well, if Putin marched on hell it might be worth a favorable reference to Satan sympathizers...
 
At this point, there really isn't a good way to know how the war is going. There are all kinds of reports from both sides and knowing what is truth and what are lies is impossible to know. But among the substantiated news coming out:

1. Putin has refused to negotiate with Zelensky. Russia will wait until he is removed and then negotiate with whomever replaces him.
2. Stoltenberg (the NATO head guy) stated today that NATO would send more weapons to Ukraine.
3. Putin has called for the Ukrainian military to overthrow Zelensky (this is unlikely to happen).

Other news.

1. Russia claims the far right wing of the Ukrainian military has taken up positions within the large cities among the civilian population, basically using the population as human shields. Putin accuses the CIA trainers of supervising this using tactics used by terrorists in Syria. If so, this puts the Russian military in a lose-lose scenario. They either take them out with strikes that will kill large number of civilians, or they wait them out in a prolonged siege that would incur a greater number of Russian casualties and also buy time for insurgencies to organize.
2. Europe is talking up SWIFT sanctions.

Bottom line, these factors move in the direction toward conflict with Russia and NATO. Everything points to escalation.
 
Last edited:
Putin has lost his mind. Threatening Sweden and Finland if they join NATO.

Mind games don't play here, He's talking about political and military options if they join. He can't stare down either country, he's openly Threatening other nations. Two that he obviously can't overwhelm

I miss Trump right now as much as ever. The world needed someone to keep putin from taking over neighboring territories. NATO and Biden and feckless
 
Last edited:
Finland is basically a neutral country with respect to geopolitical implications. Same with Ukraine prior to the 2014 coup. By announcing the intention to join NATO, that neutrality ends and Russia sees NATO as a threat. By pushing NATO expansion, you are encouraging war. It’s that simple. The Baltics are probably next and NATO isn’t strong enough to prevent what’s coming.
 
Suppose the Warsaw pact or something similar existed today. Would Nicaragua have the right to choose to join it? Probably so. And then the pact would build bases there and construct missile launching facilities. Would the US stand for that? Of course not.

Oh, but Musburger. That's not the same thing. NATO is purely defensive. They only wish to spread democracy. Your example means a psychopath would be threatening democracy in the Western hemisphere. That's different. Stop trying to equate Hitler (I mean Putin) with NATO.
 

Recent Threads

Back
Top