LiquidSky Posted March 5 Posted March 5 (edited) The United States has banned Britain from sharing intelligence from Washington with Ukraine as part of its withdrawal of support for Volodymyr Zelensky. Continuing to hamstring Ukraine for no discernable reason. When did we decide Russia was our ally? Won't be shocked to read we pull sanctions or feed them Intel next. Hopefully the dailymail is a shitty enough non msm source for the trolls. Edited March 5 by LiquidSky
gearhog Posted March 5 Posted March 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, LiquidSky said: The United States has banned Britain from sharing intelligence from Washington with Ukraine as part of its withdrawal of support for Volodymyr Zelensky. Continuing to hamstring Ukraine for no discernable reason. When did we decide Russia was our ally? Won't be shocked to read we pull sanctions or feed them Intel next. Hopefully the dailymail is a shitty enough non msm source for the trolls. It's not discernable to you because the senseless killing of hundreds of thousands (millions?) is inconceivable to you as a valid reason to cease hostilities. Name once instance, from anywhere, of anyone here who has said Russia was an ally. You can't. All of your reasonable justifications to continue war have been defeated, so it seems the lot of you must resort to inventing false positions or statements to argue against. Logic, not wishful thinking, will always dictate the ultimate outcome of an event. What are you going to do, make a post every time reality doesn't jive with your position? Fortunately, most people are not like you. Most people believe protracting a foreign conflict where millions continue to die is not in our best interest nor Ukraine's best interest. Thank goodness for real democracy. Events are clearly going to diverge at an increasing rate from your poorly considered desires. I suggest you surrender to the fact our support for this conflict is ending, or you're just going to be yet another in a long line who whine a lot, but never actually do anything to contribute to your cause. You win some, you lose some. Pickyourbattles. Edited March 5 by gearhog 2
RASH Posted March 5 Posted March 5 Ix nay on the attles baySent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
LiquidSky Posted March 5 Posted March 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, gearhog said: It's not discernable to you because the senseless killing of hundreds of thousands (millions?) is inconceivable to you as a valid reason to cease hostilities. Name once instance, from anywhere, of anyone here who has said Russia was an ally. You can't. All of your reasonable justifications to continue war have been defeated, so it seems the lot of you must resort to inventing false positions or statements to argue against. Logic, not wishful thinking, will always dictate the ultimate outcome of an event. What are you going to do, make a post every time reality doesn't jive with your position? Fortunately, most people are not like you. Most people believe protracting a foreign conflict where millions continue to die is not in our best interest nor Ukraine's best interest. Thank goodness for real democracy. Events are clearly going to diverge at an increasing rate from your poorly considered desires. I suggest you surrender to the fact our support for this conflict is ending, or you're just going to be yet another in a long line who whine a lot, but never actually do anything to contribute to your cause. You win some, you lose some. Pickyourbattles. Literally answered this the other day and y'all chose to ignore it. On 3/3/2025 at 6:18 PM, LiquidSky said: Because some recalled the history of the past 100 years and have learned from it. 1940s appeasement directly led to the rise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Post-war iron curtian/Soviet appeasement led to the rise of the USSR. Russian Federation appeasement has led to: 1994: Chechen war 1999: Chechen war round 2 2008: Georgian Invasion 2014: Crimean & Donbas Occupation 2022: Full-scale invasion of Ukraine You think Putin is going to be content with what he has attained? You think Russians will forget the humiliation of a 3 day special operation against a weaker nation turning into a 3 year stalemate? They'll sue for peace, re-arm over the next few years, and then roll over Ukraine when everyone in the west has stopped caring again. They didn't abide by the Budapest memorandum or any other agreement they've made since conspiring with Germany to split up Poland. Why do you think they will now? Secondly for this to end Russia could just leave. They're the aggressor and no one is forcing them to keep fighting until Ukraine sues for peace. They could turn around and leave. Finally, even if you want peace it's in our interest for Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength. Which the current admin isn't doing. Edited March 5 by LiquidSky
BashiChuni Posted March 5 Posted March 5 5 hours ago, VigilanteNav said: Regarding the history of Ukraine that many on here are attempting to skew. Putin could have very likely executed the "coup" in Ukraine in 2014... bro you can't even spin it to be a "pro russian coup". the government removed in 2014 was pro russian. why would putin stage a coup on his own guy? lol. the evidence is overwhelming of western involvement. from 2014: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause "We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe," said McCain, a leading Republican voice on US foreign policy. McCain is in Ukraine with a Connecticut Democrat, Senator Chris Murphy. Speaking to CNN on Sunday, McCain said: “What we're trying to do is try to bring about a peaceful transition here, that would stop the violence and give the Ukrainian people what they unfortunately have not had, with different revolutions that have taken place – a real society. This is a grassroots revolution here – it's been peaceful except when the government tried to crack down on them, and the government hasn't tried that since. Asked about Russian president Vladimir Putin's role in the crisis, McCain said: “There's no doubt that Ukraine is of vital importance to Putin. I think it was [Henry] Kissinger, I'm not sure, said that Russia, without Ukraine it's an eastern power, with Ukraine it's a western power. This is the beginning of Russia, right here in Kiev." "The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless. No Russian government could have acquiesced in such a threat from territory that was at the heart of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Putin's absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and the red line now drawn: the east of Ukraine, at least, is not going to be swallowed up by Nato or the EU." https://truthout.org/articles/the-ukraine-mess-that-nuland-made/ Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs “Toria” Nuland was the “mastermind” behind the Feb. 22, 2014 “regime change” in Ukraine, plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych while convincing the ever-gullible US mainstream media that the coup wasn’t really a coup but a victory for “democracy.” Much of what has happened, of course, was predictable and indeed was predicted, but neocon Nuland couldn’t resist the temptation to pull off a “regime change” that she could call her own. Her husband (and arch-neocon) Robert Kagan had co-founded the Project for the New American Century in 1998 around a demand for “regime change” in Iraq, a project that was accomplished in 2003 with President George W. Bush’s invasion.
gearhog Posted March 5 Posted March 5 2 hours ago, LiquidSky said: Literally answered this the other day and y'all chose to ignore it. Secondly for this to end Russia could just leave. They're the aggressor and no one is forcing them to keep fighting until Ukraine sues for peace. They could turn around and leave. Finally, even if you want peace it's in our interest for Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength. Which the current admin isn't doing. Never saw it. Russia should just quit? How does that even enter into your mind as a realistic solution let alone as being in the realm of remote possibility? What a mind-numbingly ignorant position. That's something you'd expect to hear from your average TikTok account, not an educated military officer. How does Ukraine attain a position of strength? Their population is being drained of warfighters. The world can supply them unlimited weapons and money, but no one is willing to replace Ukraine's soldiers with their own... including you. 1
disgruntledemployee Posted March 5 Posted March 5 4 hours ago, gearhog said: It's not discernable to you because the senseless killing of hundreds of thousands (millions?) is inconceivable to you as a valid reason to cease hostilities. It's seems inconceivable to you that UKR wants to fight for its freedom/independence/etc. Your past words make it sound like the US is forcing UKR to fight off the invaders. Name once instance, from anywhere, of anyone here who has said Russia was an ally. You can't. All of your reasonable justifications to continue war have been defeated, so it seems the lot of you must resort to inventing false positions or statements to argue against. Logic, not wishful thinking, will always dictate the ultimate outcome of an event. What are you going to do, make a post every time reality doesn't jive with your position? Logic does not always indicate the ultimate outcome of an event. Logic might have been obvious with the UK in WWII that they should have negotiated with Germany, but the stubborn stiff upper lip determination got in the way. I'm sure history has other examples. Nuts! Fortunately, most people are not like you. Most people believe protracting a foreign conflict where millions continue to die is not in our best interest nor Ukraine's best interest. I'll support the assumption that most people think war is bad. You mention UKR's best interest. Who gets to determine that, Russia, Putin's Ho, or them? Thank goodness for real democracy. HA! On 5 Mar 2025, Gearhog stated that the events thus far of the 2nd Trump administration is real democracy in action. Events are clearly going to diverge at an increasing rate from your poorly considered desires. Events counter to a desire doesn't always make the desire wrong. Like the desire for freedom. If Russia controls UKR and they lose freedom, does that mean the desire for freedom is "poorly considered"? Asking for a nation. I suggest you surrender to the fact our support for this conflict is ending, or you're just going to be yet another in a long line who whine a lot, but never actually do anything to contribute to your cause. You equate supporting UKRs independence to whining. Well, your 'sucks to be them' attitude is getting old. You win some, you lose some. Pickyourbattles. He was a Level 99 Douche. He your mentor? Dude, you write some gaslighting stuff here. 2
tac airlifter Posted March 5 Posted March 5 On 3/3/2025 at 11:39 AM, LiquidSky said: Considering the sheer number of agencies reporting it and that our allies are commenting on it, I'm inclined to believe it over a random rep. I don't think this will change how you feel, but for the record you were completely wrong. if I were you, I would be asking myself: what other strongly held opinions do I have based on things I assume to be true but are in fact, not true? How else am I the victim of a propaganda machine? 1
LiquidSky Posted March 5 Posted March 5 4 hours ago, gearhog said: Never saw it. Russia should just quit? How does that even enter into your mind as a realistic solution let alone as being in the realm of remote possibility? What a mind-numbingly ignorant position. That's something you'd expect to hear from your average TikTok account, not an educated military officer. How does Ukraine attain a position of strength? Their population is being drained of warfighters. The world can supply them unlimited weapons and money, but no one is willing to replace Ukraine's soldiers with their own... including you. How convenient. And now that you have, still no reply. Because aggressors can always turn around and go home. Look at Afghanistan, we just quit. Look at Vietnam, same thing. Do I think Russia will? They did in their own Afghanistan. They can again. Strength through allies backing them with arms and Intel. Soldiers they have plenty of international volunteers. My entire squadron would fly in tomorrow if asked. We were ready on night 1 and we're still ready. Unfortunately we have ADSCs and the Ukrainian foreign legion isn't seeking pilots. If you stood up the modern equivalent of the flying Tigers you'd run out of positions before bodies.
gearhog Posted March 6 Posted March 6 13 minutes ago, LiquidSky said: How convenient. And now that you have, still no reply. Because aggressors can always turn around and go home. Look at Afghanistan, we just quit. Look at Vietnam, same thing. Do I think Russia will? They did in their own Afghanistan. They can again. Strength through allies backing them with arms and Intel. Soldiers they have plenty of international volunteers. My entire squadron would fly in tomorrow if asked. We were ready on night 1 and we're still ready. Unfortunately we have ADSCs and the Ukrainian foreign legion isn't seeking pilots. If you stood up the modern equivalent of the flying Tigers you'd run out of positions before bodies. You quoted me and said "I literally answered this the other day", but the only question I had asked was if you were just going to complain every time reality doesn't align with what you wanted to happen. What is it that are you so intent that I reply to? Quote it or repeat it. So you're listing our military failures as justifications as to why we should give military support to Ukraine? Well, I'll give you credit: that's a completely new and unexpected way to look at this. I don't think anyone has ever made that argument. It might be the least intellectual point attempted in this thread, but at least it's original. I got nothing for you. If Ukraine has plenty of international volunteers, why do they have conscription? Why are we seeing countless vids of them abducting their own citizens from the streets? Again, this is just basic logic. Your points are really, really bad. "I'd totally help if it weren't for my ADSC." "I'd totally help if I were allowed to fly airplanes." Funny how all of the ways you say you want to help conveniently have conditions, while all the ways you can actually help have none. Show me one receipt. Let's reel it back in to reality: Your SQ isn't getting called. You're not going to help or make sacrifices. Russia isn't just going to pack it up and put it in reverse. There will be a negotiation. Both sides will make concessions. The killing will stop. Life will go on. We'll look back just as we do on AFG, IRQ, Vietnam and say, "Well...that was f'n stupid". 1 1
BashiChuni Posted March 6 Posted March 6 (edited) 5 hours ago, LiquidSky said: How convenient. And now that you have, still no reply. Because aggressors can always turn around and go home. Look at Afghanistan, we just quit. Look at Vietnam, same thing. Do I think Russia will? They did in their own Afghanistan. They can again. Russia will not turn around and go home because home is at their backs. regardless of how you feel, the Russians perceive nato seducing Ukraine as a dire threat to their country. They have complained about NATO expanding east since the breakup of the USSR; I have cited numerous historical articles, speeches, intelligence assessments, and videos in this thread proving so. it's a different sort of calculus for them than what we were operating under in vietnam, iraq, or afghanistan. i predict you will disagree with their rationale and reasoning, but know thy enemy and such. Edited March 6 by BashiChuni 1
raimius Posted March 6 Posted March 6 18 hours ago, gearhog said: So you're listing our military failures as justifications as to why we should give military support to Ukraine? Well, I'll give you credit: that's a completely new and unexpected way to look at this. I don't think anyone has ever made that argument. It might be the least intellectual point attempted in this thread, but at least it's original. I got nothing for you. How are you not getting the concept that a stronger foreign power can lose to a more committed group on their home turf? Did you miss the past 25 years? 2
gearhog Posted March 6 Posted March 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, raimius said: How are you not getting the concept that a stronger foreign power can lose to a more committed group on their home turf? Did you miss the past 25 years? Because it's a hilariously overly simplified comparison. For starters, we were a stronger power fighting a conflict 6-9 thousand miles from home. Russia/Ukraine are fighting a conflict 0 miles from their border. There are thousands of other variables, (social, language, economic, ideological) that make this situation different, just as in the earlier WWII examples. It's lazy to attempt to frame this conflict as the same as any other just because you can claim there is a strong player and a weak player, one was somewhat more committed, one was somewhat less committed. Nonsense. You could say Israel cannot win against the Palestinians because they're super committed. Your rule of thumb doesn't seem to apply there, does it? You're cherry picking a single argument. That's just one of my points in a post with several others. If you want to talk commitment, I would like for just one of you to explain to me how your individual support for Ukraine goes beyond pecking a few keys to whine about how we (collectively) are not dumping hundreds of billion$ more into this fiasco. Edited March 6 by gearhog
HeloDude Posted March 6 Posted March 6 2 hours ago, raimius said: How are you not getting the concept that a stronger foreign power can lose to a more committed group on their home turf? Did you miss the past 25 years? Cool, then I’m looking forward to Ukraine defeating Russia/pushing them out of their territory (including the Crimea) with everything we have given them up until this point.
VigilanteNav Posted March 7 Posted March 7 On 3/5/2025 at 4:41 PM, BashiChuni said: bro you can't even spin it to be a "pro russian coup". the government removed in 2014 was pro russian. why would putin stage a coup on his own guy? lol. the evidence is overwhelming of western involvement. from 2014: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict If you only read those articles you referenced, I see how you take it as overwhelming evidence of western involvement and therefore the "coup" happened only because the west directed it. Yet, a few issues with these... First article: Its an opinion piece written by Seumas Milne. Among many questionable views he has is this beauty from 2006: In a 2006 Guardian article, Milne argued: "For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment ... Its existence helped to drive up welfare standards in the west, boosted the anticolonial movement and provided a powerful counterweight to western global domination. I dunno, but I might disagree with this author's take on world events. If you agree with his take, then the downfall of the Soviet Union was a net negative for the US and Reagan was wrong to tell Gorby to tear down his wall. Second article: no proof in that that the US/West directed the "coup". Third article: this one was more thought provoking but yet still leaves doubts as to the ground truth of who really made the "coup" happen. For example, per the Rand study here, Putin immediately started the Crimean operation within days of the "coup". What are the chances the Russian military (so famous for its centralized control, decentralized execution...I kid) was able to pull that off within days without a whole lot of planning? Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine | RAND Guess we can agree to disagree on the 2014 "coup" in Ukraine. From the article I referenced: But the truth underlying the events of February 2014 is far more interesting: The preponderance of evidence suggests that it was Moscow itself that triggered Yanukovych’s departure in order to launch a pre-arranged Plan B—the invasion of Crimea and an engineered “uprising” in eastern Ukraine—after Moscow’s Plan A—a new treaty with a pliant government in Kyiv that placed it under Russia’s de facto control—was about to fail. Indeed, the timeline shows that preparations for Plan B were well underway before Yanukovych’s removal from office. All this, in turn, demonstrates that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plans for Ukraine were far more predatory all along than merely preventing the country’s drift toward NATO, as many of Russia’s Western apologists contend. You can call this spin but I'm going with it as more than likely what actually happened especially seeing as how Putin has operated over the last few decades. Not to mention the famous quote of his that the fall of the Soviet Union was the worst geopolitical disaster in the history of the world. With that mindset, his main driving force is to recreate it and he can always use the threat of NATO to rally his people to get behind his efforts toward that effect. With that said, going to leave this argument at that from my end. Onto what the future holds: More solid analysis from the ISW on what's going on in Putin's nugget. Sure doesn't look like he wants Peace. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, March 6, 2025 | Institute for the Study of War 1 2
raimius Posted March 7 Posted March 7 20 hours ago, HeloDude said: Cool, then I’m looking forward to Ukraine defeating Russia/pushing them out of their territory (including the Crimea) with everything we have given them up until this point. Missed the point. I'm saying the outcome was not and is not a foregone conclusion. It does depend on many factors. ...not saying Ukraine will decisively win.
raimius Posted March 7 Posted March 7 20 hours ago, gearhog said: Because it's a hilariously overly simplified comparison. For starters, we were a stronger power fighting a conflict 6-9 thousand miles from home. Russia/Ukraine are fighting a conflict 0 miles from their border. There are thousands of other variables, (social, language, economic, ideological) that make this situation different, just as in the earlier WWII examples. It's lazy to attempt to frame this conflict as the same as any other just because you can claim there is a strong player and a weak player, one was somewhat more committed, one was somewhat less committed. Nonsense. You could say Israel cannot win against the Palestinians because they're super committed. Your rule of thumb doesn't seem to apply there, does it? You're cherry picking a single argument. That's just one of my points in a post with several others. If you want to talk commitment, I would like for just one of you to explain to me how your individual support for Ukraine goes beyond pecking a few keys to whine about how we (collectively) are not dumping hundreds of billion$ more into this fiasco. Sure. Oversimplified, just like the majority of arguments here. What would I do, as king for a day? Sell Ukraine just about anything they want, including our old stock at a discount. "Arsenal of Democracy."
gearhog Posted March 7 Posted March 7 1 hour ago, raimius said: Sure. Oversimplified, just like the majority of arguments here. What would I do, as king for a day? Sell Ukraine just about anything they want, including our old stock at a discount. "Arsenal of Democracy." I've used the word "fantasy" multiple times in this thread to describe these completely unrealistic positions/goals. You're explicitly telling me you're fantasizing. You're not going to be king. Nobody who thinks like you is going to be in a position to decide in favor of the things you want to happen. Some of you need to step back and consider the totality of the circumstances. You're focusing on variables that aren't going to change. Allowing oneself to dwell on pipe dreams and delusions is unhealthy.
Stoker Posted March 8 Posted March 8 On 3/6/2025 at 4:59 PM, HeloDude said: Cool, then I’m looking forward to Ukraine defeating Russia/pushing them out of their territory (including the Crimea) with everything we have given them up until this point. Germany in 1917 looked invincible, Germany in 1918 was retreating about as fast as they could walk and the military dictatorship handed over control to the civilians and said 'make peace, we're doomed.' We see the lines on a map, you don't see the guys on the other side making sausages out of sawdust and scraping the hospitals for new recruits.
Clark Griswold Posted March 8 Posted March 8 Good discussion from Bronk on Carroll’s channel Not in full agreement with Bronk but he makes good points, mineral deal sounds like a shit burger we probably should reconsider.
FlyingWolf Posted March 9 Posted March 9 A Brit walking through the vanilla pro-US-defense-of-Ukraine perspective was not very compelling for me. I've still got mixed thoughts about this, but the Europeans thinking more about their own defense strikes me as a pretty big silver lining.
Clark Griswold Posted March 9 Posted March 9 A Brit walking through the vanilla pro-US-defense-of-Ukraine perspective was not very compelling for me. I've still got mixed thoughts about this, but the Europeans thinking more about their own defense strikes me as a pretty big silver lining.Point conceded but I thought his skewering of the minerals deal with the allusion to the Versailles Treaty was prescient and rightly kinda called us out a bit, I’m for helping them and ourselves to an extent but we really can’t be just another evil great power Doesn’t mean at all we continue on as Uncle Sucker selling out our own country but we have enough margin to better Still Europe has got to belly up and stand on their own, this is 80-90% their deal long termSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now