Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Paulie97]

I guess Tiny is solely responsible for the fall of all the Zelensky loving, Putin hating governments falling in the Western powers like Germany, the USA, now Canada, and soon to be France.

Tiny, like you, is responsible for his constant logical fallacies. I'll leave it at that, but Germany's center-right CDU leader Friedrich Merz, who is the likely next chancellor, is a staunch supporter of Ukraine, and unlike the present leader, supports the use of the German made, long range "Taurus" missles inside Russia.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2...affirm-support

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/...onfidence-vote

We know you've exaggerated the US situation, but if you have any evidence that Canada and France are about to close up shop in the matter of support for Ukraine and distaste for the cowardly dictator Putin, then link us to your sources. Links are something you almost never provide, while that would make for a good start in building some credibility for yourself.

BTW, since your Putin sucking up grows all the time, I have a question for you. Do you believe like Blood Red that Alexi Navalny simply died of natural causes? Of course that opens a big can of worms regarding a history of similar events, but a straight answer to that question would be much appreciated.

[Paulie97]

I guess Tiny is solely responsible for the fall of all the Zelensky loving, Putin hating governments falling in the Western powers like Germany, the USA, now Canada, and soon to be France.

Of all the arguments made, the most compelling against Ukraine I have seen is that we could have built a water pipeline and natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Western USA with the money wasted on Ukraine.

This is a clear case of Democratic pols putting their interests above their constituents and IMO why they and the other Zelensky backers got voted out. In the USA's case, the Dems wanted payback for their belief Putin rigged the 2016 election and to hide all the dirt that is and was going on in Ukraine.

You don't have an "argument" here. Why? Because you are just repeating the same nonsense again that's already been refuted dozens of times, here in ISG on these threads. You type up false information, and when corrected, whether ten, twenty, or one hundred times, just keep typing up and posting the same falsehoods. Yours is the most common fallacy of the ad-nauseam. A large portion of Republicans have from the beginning been in favor of Ukrainian aid, while Trump himself oversaw the first administration to send lethal aid.

Anyway here's the voting data on the last Ukrainian aid package from eight months ago, House and Senate. It's all quite bipartisan, which well undermines your "Democrat" conspiracy theories. The third link explains your fallacy of the ad-nauseam, which essentially means that if you tell a lie long enough some are liable to believe it. Regardless you've known for a long time that Ukrainian aid has been quite bipartisan, but instead choose to try and fool a few mongers on stupid shit threads. Knock yourself out, as there isn't a lot of hope for the sort of people that would fall for it, embracing what sounds good to them without doing any fact checking.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...id/ar-AA1nz2Eq

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...id/ar-AA1nmjSP

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam

[Elvis 2008]

What they count on is making guys like you cower (not hard), to secure appeasement so they can regroup and start more fights in the future. The hope though of course is that they make another go at democracy at some point. The West hopes to be influential in that by exacting costs.

I guess Tiny is solely responsible for the fall of all the Zelensky loving, Putin hating governments falling in the Western powers like Germany, the USA, now Canada, and soon to be France.

Of all the arguments made, the most compelling against Ukraine I have seen is that we could have built a water pipeline and natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Western USA with the money wasted on Ukraine.

This is a clear case of Democratic pols putting their interests above their constituents and IMO why they and the other Zelensky backers got voted out. In the USA's case, the Dems wanted payback for their belief Putin rigged the 2016 election and to hide all the dirt that is and was going on in Ukraine.

[Xpartan]

You're making my point Clayton. There was no way Mexico, even if aided with arms (but not troops) from Europe, was going to win the war. And then go marching into Washington D. C. And prosecute James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, and George McClellan for war crimes. And, reaching further into the depths of my fantasy world, no way Europeans would have sent troops if the USA had weapons that could be launched with the touch of a red button and would destroy them ten times over.

I have no idea what you're talking about and why.

1. Mexico, unlike Ukraine, never was aided with arms or troops even though they did appeal to the British. Arguing whether or not they would or wouldn't have won had they received help is utterly pointless.

2. Mexico didn't lose to Texas and later the USA because they had fewer soldiers or weapons. If I remember correctly, the US army was smaller than Mexico's. Mexicans lost because they were disorganized, lacked discipline and were plagued with infighting and political instability.

3. Santa Anna being a narcissist and self-proclaimed Napoleon of the West, royally fucked things up for his country.

4. Finally, for the umpteenth time: What happened in the 19th century has zero bearing for the 2022 Russian colonial war against Ukraine. In the past 200 years, America has changed. Russia hasn't.

[Paulie97]

You continue to advance disinformation about the inevitability of Russian victory. In 2022, when it was already clear that the Russian army was not the second greatest army in the world, only the second greatest in Ukraine, I was worried that Putin would launch his nukes. However, I believe now, that he perceives the war only in terms of his personal survival. He knows that the chance disappears if he uses nukes.

Russia has either lost or failed in their objectives in a number of armed conflicts since developing nukes. Tiny is also incorrect in assuming that Russia is entitled to a sphere of influence while they have an economy about the size of Brazil. That horse left the stable long ago, while nuclear saber rattling is unlikely to get it back.

[John Clayton]

... no way Europeans would have sent troops if the USA had weapons that could be launched with the touch of a red button and would destroy them ten times over.

You continue to advance disinformation about the inevitability of Russian victory. In 2022, when it was already clear that the Russian army was not the second greatest army in the world, only the second greatest in Ukraine, I was worried that Putin would launch his nukes. However, I believe now, that he perceives the war only in terms of his personal survival. He knows that the chance disappears if he uses nukes.

[Paulie97]

And, reaching further into the depths of my fantasy world, no way Europeans would have sent troops if the USA had weapons that could be launched with the touch of a red button and would destroy them ten times over.

Unsurprisingly your analogy only has your beloved Russia with nukes. NATO will very likely send troops if Puts launches tactical nukes. Odds of him doing that though are slim. Use of the big stuff is a suicide mission. What they count on is making guys like you cower (not hard), to secure appeasement so they can regroup and start more fights in the future. The hope though of course is that they make another go at democracy at some point. The West hopes to be influential in that by exacting costs.

[Xpartan]

This is the 82-year old who told Putin to go fuck himself, although I like another quote more.

Don't be scared. When you're scared, fear itself overcomes everything. Don't be scared. When you're scared nothing fucking will change.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarV...man/?rdt=40169

[Paulie97]

You're making my point Clayton. There was no way Mexico, even if aided with arms (but not troops) from Europe, was going to win the war. And then go marching into Washington D. C. And prosecute James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, and George McClellan for war crimes. And, reaching further into the depths of my fantasy world, no way Europeans would have sent troops if the USA had weapons that could be launched with the touch of a red button and would destroy them ten times over.

Your "point" is fallacious. It's called the tu quoque fallacy. When faced with the fact that there was no treaty stipulating that NATO won't expand into Eastern Europe, and while even the idea of past verbal assurances are questionable, you dive back 180 years and start talking about the Mexican-American War. So whether it's this whataboutism or some other, rest assured folks, that when Tiny goes there he's a fish out of water in the hear and now and regarding his slanted, Russophile perspective. Congratulations Paul in Zurich.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

I'll also add that it's nauseating when you claim to care about human life when appeasement historically has encouraged aggression rather than deter it. What is Russia's word worth in any agreement? Oh but forgot, you're the guy who believes Putin hasn't targeted civilians, while you glad hand here with guys who assert that Alexi Navalny died of natural causes.

[PaulInZurich]

Ukraine and the West have to be realistic. Russia has a lot more manpower and military capability than Ukraine in addition to a huge nuclear arsenal. It's not going to lose this war.

So how come they lost in Afghanistan? They were a nuclear power then, with a lot of manpower and military capability.

[Tiny 12]

The main reason that Germany is a decent country today is due to the prosecution of war crimes and the de-nazification of society. Justice and the prosecution of crimes is critical to the continuance of a free, egalitarian state. Truly, the Mexican-American war is an excellent comparison to the current Russian invasion of Ukraine -- the difference being we won decisively. I believe one of the reasons the US is such a f!cked up country today is that our imperialistic crimes in the 19th century were never punished. Further, I believe that the failure to pscourge the oligarchic slave holders for their insurrection in 1861 is the principle cause of the current revanchism of the southern US.

If you hope for a modern, prosperous, free and open Russia, as I do, then you should hope for war crimes prosecutions and the de-putinization of Russia.

You're making my point Clayton. There was no way Mexico, even if aided with arms (but not troops) from Europe, was going to win the war. And then go marching into Washington D. C. And prosecute James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, and George McClellan for war crimes. And, reaching further into the depths of my fantasy world, no way Europeans would have sent troops if the USA had weapons that could be launched with the touch of a red button and would destroy them ten times over.

[John Clayton]

That's a recipe for endless war, "prosecution of war crimes" in particular....You could level the same accusations at the USA that you're leveling at Russia. The Mexican-American war is a good analogy ...

The main reason that Germany is a decent country today is due to the prosecution of war crimes and the de-nazification of society. Justice and the prosecution of crimes is critical to the continuance of a free, egalitarian state. Truly, the Mexican-American war is an excellent comparison to the current Russian invasion of Ukraine -- the difference being we won decisively. I believe one of the reasons the US is such a f!cked up country today is that our imperialistic crimes in the 19th century were never punished. Further, I believe that the failure to pscourge the oligarchic slave holders for their insurrection in 1861 is the principle cause of the current revanchism of the southern US.

If you hope for a modern, prosperous, free and open Russia, as I do, then you should hope for war crimes prosecutions and the de-putinization of Russia.

[Xpartan]

That's a recipe for endless war, "prosecution of war crimes" in particular.

Ukraine's position has been that it must ultimately regain all its territory including Crimea, although its backed off that somewhat. You've outlined Russia's position above. But to what extent are these just opening positions that neither side expects to fully achieve? The two sides were close in April, 2022. They should sit at the same table and hammer something out.

You keep repeating the same propacondoms' lies about some mythical agreement that had been hammered and would've been signed if mischievous Boris Johnson didn't torpedo it at the last moment.

That's a phantasy. There was no agreement ready to sign. It's an FSB construct for useful idiots in the West, and it's upsetting that you believe this nonsense.

Ukraine and the West have to be realistic. Russia has a lot more manpower and military capability than Ukraine in addition to a huge nuclear arsenal. It's not going to lose this war.

You don't know Russian history very well. Russia has managed to lose wars it started in way more favorable conditions. It's one thing to capture a village or town, but it's an entirely different proposition to hold on to it. One way or another, sooner or later, Ukraine will regain its territories.

You could level the same accusations at the USA that you're leveling at Russia. The Mexican-American war is a good analogy although admittedly something that occurred long ago. The USA added territory claimed by Mexico (Texas) where a large % of the population wanted to be annexed by the United States, and then war broke out which resulted in Mexico ceding a large part of the country to the USA.

My goodness, please tell me you DO understand how removed the US is right now from the Manifest Destiny. Please tell me you don't fall for this yet another Russian narrative that we're not better than them. It's 2025, not 19th century when everyone and their mother were in a mad dash to conquer new colonies; we haven't been "that guy" for a long, long time; yet Russia and its imperial aspirations are exactly the same today as they were 200 years ago.

Sane nations do not conquer foreign lands anymore. Russia is the biggest anachronism in the history of mankind, and it will fail -- hard.

[Tiny 12]

I am in favor of peace. Negotiations over the prosecution of war crimes and reparations should begin immediately after Russia withdraws behind sovereign borders.

That's a recipe for endless war, "prosecution of war crimes" in particular.

I really want to see how Ukrainian security can be guaranteed in any peace negotiation. Assuming a deal territories against peace, which foreign troops will be allowed by both Russia and Ukraine to guarantee the demarcation line?

I don't think anybody is against peace and for war. I think some people when they say they are for peace, they mean that they are for Ukrainian capitulation. During the last negotiations Russia was asking for a severe limitation in Ukrainian Army size and what weapons they would be allowed, which would guarantee that Ukraine could not defend itself anymore. Security guarantees would depend on a Russian veto. There was a treaty, more than 30 years ago Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for security and territorial guarantees, Russia signed that treaty. What good is that piece of paper now?

Ukraine was neutral in 2014 and there were no talks of the government then that they are asking to join NATO. Then Putin invaded Crimeea. I find it strange that people keep saying "but in 1990 during negotiations some people said NATO would not expand". Maybe, but in the end it was never in any treaty, whatever was in the treaties then was what was accepted by the Soviet leadership at the time. Should Poland, Romania, the Baltic countries be kicked out of NATO because Putin wants that now?

At the same time people ignore when actual signed treaties were violated by Russia. Can we please hold everybody to the same standard?

Ukraine's position has been that it must ultimately regain all its territory including Crimea, although its backed off that somewhat. You've outlined Russia's position above. But to what extent are these just opening positions that neither side expects to fully achieve? The two sides were close in April, 2022. They should sit at the same table and hammer something out.

Ukraine and the West have to be realistic. Russia has a lot more manpower and military capability than Ukraine in addition to a huge nuclear arsenal. It's not going to lose this war.

You could level the same accusations at the USA that you're leveling at Russia. The Mexican-American war is a good analogy although admittedly something that occurred long ago. The USA added territory claimed by Mexico (Texas) where a large % of the population wanted to be annexed by the United States, and then war broke out which resulted in Mexico ceding a large part of the country to the USA. Iraq is not as good a comparison, although Russia at least is, mistakenly or not, protecting its interest in the near abroad, instead of pursuing democracy and imaginary weapons of mass destruction in a country 11,000 kilometers away. If the 20th century had turned out differently and Canada or Mexico were looking at joining the Warsaw Pact, the USA wouldn't just sit still. And the USA hasn't been one to let a piece of paper (i.e. treaty) dictate its conduct either.

I wish great powers conducted foreign policy as sensibly as yours (Switzerland) has through the centuries. But that's not the world we live in. And the primary goal now should be to stop the bloodshed IMO.

[PaulInZurich]

Then why don't you favor Ukraine and Russia entering into peace negotiations and an armistice ASAP?

This is a worthwhile read for any amateur historian holding the views you do about Russia. Please don't overlook the documents at the end if you take a look.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

I really want to see how Ukrainian security can be guaranteed in any peace negotiation. Assuming a deal territories against peace, which foreign troops will be allowed by both Russia and Ukraine to guarantee the demarcation line?

I don't think anybody is against peace and for war. I think some people when they say they are for peace, they mean that they are for Ukrainian capitulation. During the last negotiations Russia was asking for a severe limitation in Ukrainian Army size and what weapons they would be allowed, which would guarantee that Ukraine could not defend itself anymore. Security guarantees would depend on a Russian veto. There was a treaty, more than 30 years ago Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for security and territorial guarantees, Russia signed that treaty. What good is that piece of paper now?

Ukraine was neutral in 2014 and there were no talks of the government then that they are asking to join NATO. Then Putin invaded Crimeea. I find it strange that people keep saying "but in 1990 during negotiations some people said NATO would not expand". Maybe, but in the end it was never in any treaty, whatever was in the treaties then was what was accepted by the Soviet leadership at the time. Should Poland, Romania, the Baltic countries be kicked out of NATO because Putin wants that now?

At the same time people ignore when actual signed treaties were violated by Russia. Can we please hold everybody to the same standard?