Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[WyattEarp]

My God, how many times are we going to go through this crap? Didn't we win in Iraq? Get Qaddafi killed in Libya? You will have to remind me if things got better in those countries because I do not see that they did. The mighty Soviet army was defeated in Afghanistan once before and that left us the Taliban and Al Queda. How much good did that war really do the USA in the long run?

If you are a Dem, you will no doubt condemn Fox News and Tucker Carlson for giving Glenn Greenwald a microphone but Greenwald is in his own words a liberal Democrat, and this is what he says about this war.

I think in general, Americans should be very skeptical when the government says 'We're going to fight wars on the other side of the world and spend tens of billions of dollars in military aid to spread democracy. ' The US government doesn't actually care about spreading democracy. Many of its closest allies in the world have always been some of the world's most despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All the US government cares about is whether these regimes serve US interests. . If you want to believe the fairy tale that the US government goes to war to spread democracy, then Ukraine is not the place for you. You mentioned the argument that 'Zelensky is in war, he has to curb liberty', but go back to 2021, a year before Russia invaded and you'll find articles where he shut down opposition television stations and shut down opposition political parties (which is) the hallmark of what every tyrant or despot does. And that was true even before Russia invaded.

If the US government was honest. They would get rid of this script that we have to go and defend democracy. That is a fairy tale that tries to get Americans to feel better about the fact that we are involved in many, many countries all over the world. That is not the real reason. The only reason to do it is for 'vital US interests'. The line in Washington for decades was the US has no vital interests in Ukraine. That was Obama's view, that was the bipartisan view. Why did that change? The only reason is because we saw an opportunity to trap Russia inside Ukraine all based on the view that Russia is our enemy (which is) something only Democrats should believe because they think Russia is to blame for the 2016 election and Hillary's defeat. But why would Republicans want confrontation with Russia? What American benefits from that except arms manufacturers?

If you think Russia is a grave enemy of the United States, then it makes sense to try to lure them into a war that they can't win, like we got lured into Afghanistan for 20 years or like we lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan back in the '70's because it does deplete your enemy. The question is: Why should Russia be seen as our enemy? Both Obama and Trump said there's no reason to see Russia that way. It has one-fifteenth the size of our military budget. It's not threatening American borders. Why are we so obsessed with spending tens of billions of dollars to weaken Russia which we could be using here at home to benefit the lives of American citizens when Russia is not doing anything to the United States unless you are a crazy 'resistance' person who believes they're the reason Donald Trump won. But if you don't believe that, what is the rational for this? There is none.

Yes, anyone who dares asks why we are spending money to buy arms for Ukraine versus caring for our own back home has to be a Putin puppet? The notion that this is a war to prevent democracy is a joke. It is dictator on dictator.

But perhaps the funniest thing I have read about the war was on this site, a bunch of Ukrainians hitting a FKK and spending money like drunken sailors. I guess anyone questioning Ukrainians doing that is a Putin puppet as well.

Elvis, your words might be more interesting than actually constructive. There is some truth here, but foreign affairs is rife with various narratives than often come apart with time. At first blush, your post seems to have a US-centric point of view ignoring everything and everyone else. I would agree USA Military intervention and meddling has only brought us heartache and depleted our treasury.

On the other hand, your post ignores the European point-of-view. I think it's fair to say the Europeans have more at stake then the USA Does. Of course, the Europeans are prone to look to the USA And say "You got this. " There have been exceptions and some European nations have done more than others.

As I said before, this is not just about the Ukraine. It is just as important that China sees the USA And the Europeans stepping up together.

[Xpartan]

My God, how many times are we going to go through this crap?

Sigh, how many indeed. I too would like to know the answer to this question.

Same old Elvis: all over the place, completely incapable of focusing on the message, every sentence starts a new topic only to never finish anything, long-winded, illogical, boring blah blah blah at its finest.

Tens of thousands of Ukrainians are already dead -- men, women and children -- because a mad tyrant decided to grow his empire by starting a full-scale war of choice in Europe. In 21st fucking century.

But no, for Elvis everything is realfuckingpolitik, and America is always a villain.

[Elvis 2008]

It's remarkable how little the conversation in this subforum has evolved over the past months. People still talking about, or obsessing over, pre-Feb 24th Ukraine and Russia as if either existed anymore. They don't, and they're not coming back.

Nobody who matters cares about past Ukrainian corruption and failings. And nobody who matters cares about what Russia was before. All that matters is now, and Putin tipped the scales against himself when he invaded, for which he's reaping the consequences. As far as peace plans are concerned, Ukraine is calling the shots by virtue of their battlefield successes. If Russia was winning, things might be different, but that's not the case. If the West doesn't have the balls to stand up to Putin, that's not a problem because Ukraine will do it. All the West needs to do is provide support.

My God, how many times are we going to go through this crap? Didn't we win in Iraq? Get Qaddafi killed in Libya? You will have to remind me if things got better in those countries because I do not see that they did. The mighty Soviet army was defeated in Afghanistan once before and that left us the Taliban and Al Queda. How much good did that war really do the USA in the long run?

If you are a Dem, you will no doubt condemn Fox News and Tucker Carlson for giving Glenn Greenwald a microphone but Greenwald is in his own words a liberal Democrat, and this is what he says about this war.

I think in general, Americans should be very skeptical when the government says 'We're going to fight wars on the other side of the world and spend tens of billions of dollars in military aid to spread democracy. ' The US government doesn't actually care about spreading democracy. Many of its closest allies in the world have always been some of the world's most despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All the US government cares about is whether these regimes serve US interests. . If you want to believe the fairy tale that the US government goes to war to spread democracy, then Ukraine is not the place for you. You mentioned the argument that 'Zelensky is in war, he has to curb liberty', but go back to 2021, a year before Russia invaded and you'll find articles where he shut down opposition television stations and shut down opposition political parties (which is) the hallmark of what every tyrant or despot does. And that was true even before Russia invaded.

If the US government was honest. They would get rid of this script that we have to go and defend democracy. That is a fairy tale that tries to get Americans to feel better about the fact that we are involved in many, many countries all over the world. That is not the real reason. The only reason to do it is for 'vital US interests'. The line in Washington for decades was the US has no vital interests in Ukraine. That was Obama's view, that was the bipartisan view. Why did that change? The only reason is because we saw an opportunity to trap Russia inside Ukraine all based on the view that Russia is our enemy (which is) something only Democrats should believe because they think Russia is to blame for the 2016 election and Hillary's defeat. But why would Republicans want confrontation with Russia? What American benefits from that except arms manufacturers?

If you think Russia is a grave enemy of the United States, then it makes sense to try to lure them into a war that they can't win, like we got lured into Afghanistan for 20 years or like we lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan back in the '70's because it does deplete your enemy. The question is: Why should Russia be seen as our enemy? Both Obama and Trump said there's no reason to see Russia that way. It has one-fifteenth the size of our military budget. It's not threatening American borders. Why are we so obsessed with spending tens of billions of dollars to weaken Russia which we could be using here at home to benefit the lives of American citizens when Russia is not doing anything to the United States unless you are a crazy 'resistance' person who believes they're the reason Donald Trump won. But if you don't believe that, what is the rational for this? There is none.

Yes, anyone who dares asks why we are spending money to buy arms for Ukraine versus caring for our own back home has to be a Putin puppet? The notion that this is a war to prevent democracy is a joke. It is dictator on dictator.

But perhaps the funniest thing I have read about the war was on this site, a bunch of Ukrainians hitting a FKK and spending money like drunken sailors. I guess anyone questioning Ukrainians doing that is a Putin puppet as well.

[Jmsuttr]

In honor of Ukraine's Armed Forces Day:

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato...the-world.html

[Paulie97]

The true "land of smiles. " You all can have those starfish stick women in Asia. But in any case, some good thoughts from Jmsuttr. And some of us might recall Golfinblow who had Russia taking over Kyiv in one week. Rofl Ahhh the wishful thinking of traitors, whether from the USA or Europe, makes no difference. Wink.

[Xpartan]

If the West doesn't have the balls to stand up to Putin, that's not a problem because Ukraine will do it. All the West needs to do is provide support. And the same lack of balls means the West won't cut off support as long as Ukraine keeps up the positive momentum. And the intensity of support by the Baltics, the Nordics, Poland, and others, more than offsets lukewarm sentiment elsewhere in Europe. The present course of things is likely to continue, barring either a game-changing event or an accumulation of tidal factors.

And things like the missile that hit Poland, whether Russian or Ukrainian, are better thought of as ripples or waves, since they're unlikely to have a lasting effect. Tidal forces are things like Ukraine's use of Western weapons to devastate Russian logistics (fuel, ammo, and other supplies).

Yep, well put!

[Jmsuttr]

It's remarkable how little the conversation in this subforum has evolved over the past months. People still talking about, or obsessing over, pre-Feb 24th Ukraine and Russia as if either existed anymore. They don't, and they're not coming back.

Nobody who matters cares about past Ukrainian corruption and failings. And nobody who matters cares about what Russia was before. All that matters is now, and Putin tipped the scales against himself when he invaded, for which he's reaping the consequences. As far as peace plans are concerned, Ukraine is calling the shots by virtue of their battlefield successes. If Russia was winning, things might be different, but that's not the case. If the West doesn't have the balls to stand up to Putin, that's not a problem because Ukraine will do it. All the West needs to do is provide support. And the same lack of balls means the West won't cut off support as long as Ukraine keeps up the positive momentum. And the intensity of support by the Baltics, the Nordics, Poland, and others, more than offsets lukewarm sentiment elsewhere in Europe. The present course of things is likely to continue, barring either a game-changing event or an accumulation of tidal factors.

And things like the missile that hit Poland, whether Russian or Ukrainian, are better thought of as ripples or waves, since they're unlikely to have a lasting effect. Tidal forces are things like Ukraine's use of Western weapons to devastate Russian logistics (fuel, ammo, and other supplies). That leveled the playing field and resulted in Russia being unable to support their forces on the west bank of the Dnipro. Another tidal force is the lack of workers in Russia's defense industries caused by a combination of brain-drain emigration and mobilization. One estimate I read put the worker deficit at approx 400,000. Lack of skilled workers means battlefield losses can't be replaced quickly, if at all. And that isn't simply an issue for defense companies. Other industries also suffer from lack of skilled workers and shortages of parts and equipment. That's a slow cancer that probably won't show itself until things like trains and planes start failing.

Looking at the current state of affairs, there's a good probability the war continues to drag on through the winter. Russia's on the defensive and no longer controls the where, when, or tempo of battle. But they do benefit from sheer mass, which means that any degradation will be a lengthy process. Unless, of course, something happens internally that results in more rapid changes. Putin's death, or a coup, are two possible examples.

Whatever happens next, it will be dependent on the present situation, not the past. And anyone who wants to see it coming, even a little bit in advance, should focus on the tidal factors and avoid being distracted by every little ripple or wave.

P.S. It is nice to see that the worst of the Putin butt-boy trolls have fled. I guess even they couldn't keep pretending that failures were somehow victories. How embarrassing for them!

[Xpartan]

First, we now know the missile was a Ukrainian stray.

Second, we wouldn't launch a NATO retaliatory attack on Russia even if it was determined to be a Russian stray missile. A severe warning would be more appropriate. If there was anything else that could be embargoed, that would send a message. (Not sure there is anything left to embargo.) Perhaps, there is other forms of support that could be provided to the Ukraine if Russia crosses a line. It's all moot at this point.

First, you're right. It was a Ukrainian missile that missed its target.

Second, really, crossing the line? Russia has crossed 1,000 and one lines and there have been an avalanche of severe warnings already. If anything, warnings only embolden Putin and create an illusion that no actions will follow. I would hope that if Russia does actually attack a NATO country in any way, shape or form, the block will respond with something more essential than yet another "warning". Not nuclear, but the complete annihilation of their Black Sea fleet would be a good start.

[Golfinho]

Looks like the biggest crooks on the planet are part of the biggest scam ever. Of course! Would not have expected anything less.

Laundering money stolen from his ponzi scheme to give to president ziostinklensky. Of course!

[Golfinho]

Xman you are one twisted guy. I think you are honestly hoping for this to escalate.

How many more Ukrainians have to be killed and driven off their homeland, I. E. Palestinianized, before Ukraine can be colonized into a reconstituted Khazaria?

[VinDici]

Looks like the biggest crooks on the planet are part of the biggest scam ever. Of course! Would not have expected anything less.

What does this have to do with Kyiv?

[WyattEarp]

One of the 100 missiles launched by the Russian aggressor today, hit Poland, a NATO member. Two farmers are dead.

As always, Russia has already blamed Ukraine for the attack. Just their usual dumb soundbites, nothing more.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.

Perhaps, end-of-the-world interesting. Intentional or not, NATO can't let it slip. Just can't.

First, we now know the missile was a Ukrainian stray.

Second, we wouldn't launch a NATO retaliatory attack on Russia even if it was determined to be a Russian stray missile. A severe warning would be more appropriate. If there was anything else that could be embargoed, that would send a message. (Not sure there is anything left to embargo.) Perhaps, there is other forms of support that could be provided to the Ukraine if Russia crosses a line. It's all moot at this point.

[DramaFree11]

One of the 100 missiles launched by the Russian aggressor today, hit Poland, a NATO member. Two farmers are dead.

As always, Russia has already blamed Ukraine for the attack. Just their usual dumb soundbites, nothing more.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.

Perhaps, end-of-the-world interesting. Intentional or not, NATO can't let it slip. Just can't.

Xman you are one twisted guy. I think you are honestly hoping for this to escalate.

[Riina]

Looks like the biggest crooks on the planet are part of the biggest scam ever. Of course! Would not have expected anything less.

[Xpartan]

One of the 100 missiles launched by the Russian aggressor today, hit Poland, a NATO member. Two farmers are dead.

As always, Russia has already blamed Ukraine for the attack. Just their usual dumb soundbites, nothing more.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.

Perhaps, end-of-the-world interesting. Intentional or not, NATO can't let it slip. Just can't.