And he would have done to the rest of Ukraine what he's done to Mariupol! and in Chenya and Syria.
good for Ukraine and Europe. Neutral counties enjoy peace and prosperity, just ask Swissland, Finland...
the Ukraine. Anyone that supports Russia is a treasonous waste of space.
Russia wanted another Belarus, not another Switzerland.
(no message)
I'm really just curious, because the responses to your post point in that direction.
Only two posters here openly waned to stop the war. But war mongers here want to fight Russians from day one and want to continue to fight.
I guess what you missed about my point is the war is a result of our NATO eastward expansion. This was predicted by many strategists years ago. We poked the bear, a nuclear bear.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=59727
(no message)
If I'm wrong, let me know. Have you not always supported the invasion?...at least once it occurred?
Happy to try to explain any inconsistencies you think I may have shown. In general, I think:
I have consistently been sympathetic to Ukraine. They were attacked, after all. And, I don't believe the nazi BS. (And, full disclosure, I used to work with a bunch of Kyivans.)
I have always thought the US should assist Ukraine with military aid.
I have always thought we should keep such military assistance quiet.
I initially thought Biden was not helping enough; I have lately thought that Biden is going overboard with helping them (the comparison of our aid to Ukraine and the Russian military budget is eyeopening).
Regarding Russia: I always hoped that US and Russian relations would improve, and Russia would become an ally of the US in opposition to China. I recognize that the expansion of NATO was foolish, and it threatened Russia, but I think Putin is fighting a needless battle against the west, because the West never actually wanted to harm Russia...they are just afraid of Russia (Democrat and Hollywood demonization of Russia notwithstanding). He is fighting on the basis of last century geopolitics (e.g., West vs. Russia + China), when he should be concerned with this century's geopolitics (e.g., West + Russia vs. China). I now think that Putin will have to go before relations can improve. He is harming Russia's position in the world.
confusing. Even this post from you is not very convincing. But I should leave more room for you wrestling with this complicated issue.
I don't support this invasion. I can find the post I said that very clearly. That's my record. But unlike you and almost all posters here, I think the invasion is the consequence of what we did since 2014, especially since last September. We broke Russia's red line. I understand Russia's red line and agree their security concern: a neighbor country of increasingly hostile to Russia, abolished peace treaty of 20+ years with Russia, wants to join NATO. I defend Russia's stand regarding to red line. I don't defend their action after red line being broken, i.e. their full scale invasion. But I use their invasion to justify my point: Western's Ukraine policy is wrong. Neocon is wrong, neolib is wrong. Not just wrong, but also dangerous. Their policy leads to this war and will lead to a bigger war.
P.S. I also against propaganda and lies from our government and MSM about this war. For example, they left a false sense of winning the war to people. I know their purpose. Americans like winner. Only making Americans believe Ukraine is winning can they get support for more $$$$ sent to Ukraine.
...that we should keep quiet, and stop calling press conferences to have the president himself announce what we are doing to the world.
My position is developing. I do have both non-interventionist (what business is it of ours, we can't be the world's policeman) and interventionist (we should help if we can) leanings. The passion says intervene; the intellect says we should mind our own business. A middle path seems the best...send lower level weapons quietly, bloody the active aggressor (Putin) to teach him a lesson but not grossly shift the balance of power (which the $40B aid bill might do), and teach future aggressors (China) a lesson about little guys fighting for their homelands (not a lesson about the United States intervening).
I agree with Rand Paul...the lion's share of this $40B is likely unnecessary, and typical American overkill that may convince Russia it needs to escalate.
to repeat it.
(no message)
At least that's what he claims.
(no message)
You probably also support Biden's peace deal with Iran?
I can do that if you want.
Of course other issues such as Ukraine has to implement Minsk agreement that they signed. But those issue are byproducts of the central issue - Ukraine refuse to be neutral.
That why they invaded and began shelling civilians.
(no message)
since 1959?
(no message)
There would be Nukes deployed in Cuba. Stupid ass.
If the Russians had swept into Kiev, other countries would be (justifiably) worried that Putin would not stop there.
But since his army has turned out to be shit, further attacks seem unlikely. At least for now.
So yeah, it's important that he loses.
(no message)
(no message)
We should trust these depots... like maybe Khamenei as well?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
willing to increase our chances of a nuclear conflagration?
(no message)
I share some of your concerns...but we are not (yet) running a high risk of WWIII.
$53bn seems like a lot. Could we get the job done with less? I think this is a valid question. Of course, there has been no attempt to justify the package on the merits. If anyone asks a question, he is immediately a Russian sympathizer or hates Ukraine or something.
(no message)
(no message)
The EU should be funding this. Not us.
(no message)
(no message)
Not nearly that much yet. And half the money we've spent has gone to the Pentagon.
So you're wrong.
(no message)
(no message)