General White Rage Suggests Deployment of U.S. Troops to Ukraine

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,683
8,726
1
This is exactly what happened. The war crimes committed by the nazis in Mariupol and Donbass and the citizens happy reaction to the arrival of Russian forces as saviors is well documented. The choice to know is yours. If you stepped outside your msm bubble you’d know this.



These interviews must all be crisis actors huh??

First you said it’d be impossible for the nazis to destroy the city due lack of weapons then you claim the Russians did it with the very weapons the nazis have easy access to (artillery shells etc.), brilliant! It was the nazis who shelled the hell out of the city then they held the citizens captive so they could be used as human shields making it harder for the Russians to root them out.

A one off story about Some steet artist is what you’re hanging your hat on as some definitive proof? Desperate much? The vast majority in the Donbass welcomed the Russians bc they saved them from being genocided by nazis who you apparently support for some bizarre reason.

I haven't read through all of the gibberish of the various threads on this, but are you saying that the people of Ukraine in the Donbas Region are either Russian or a Nazi? That's what you seem to be arguing. I have a lot of trouble with that. Even if "Nazi," i.e., a descendent of Nazis, you can't seriously be arguing that a person in that region either wants to be part of Russia or they want to ethnically cleanse Russians a la the WW2-style Nazis.

It seems this argument is going the same way so many do on this board -- either black or white -- when the truth is some shade of gray.

I would be interested in the statistics for this region prior to 2014. I don't think your arguments would hold. For example, there are lots of ethnic Hispanics in Texas that would rather not be a part of Mexico. On the flip side, there are a lot of ethnic whites in Texas who don't want genocide committed against Hispanics in Texas even though there are probably some fringe elements that might go that far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,326
24,772
1
2020evidence.org
I haven't read through all of the gibberish of the various threads on this, but are you saying that the people of Ukraine in the Donbas Region are either Russian or a Nazi? That's what you seem to be arguing. I have a lot of trouble with that. Even if "Nazi," i.e., a descendent of Nazis, you can't seriously be arguing that a person in that region either wants to be part of Russia or they want to ethnically cleanse Russians a la the WW2-style Nazis.

It seems this argument is going the same way so many do on this board -- either black or white -- when the truth is some shade of gray.

I would be interested in the statistics for this region prior to 2014. I don't think your arguments would hold. For example, there are lots of ethnic Hispanics in Texas that would rather not be a part of Mexico. On the flip side, there are a lot of ethnic whites in Texas who don't want genocide committed against Hispanics in Texas even though there are probably some fringe elements that might go that far.
The entire eastern half of Ukraine is mainly ethnic russian particularly the Donbass and southern parts like Mariupol. Western Ukraine is mainly ethnic Ukrainian and a subset of them are literal nazis. They have streets named after nazis, hero of Ukraine status given to them (stepan bandera), nazi stamps, nazi political parties (svoboda etc), and nazi militias (Azov, etc.). In other words it was never denazified after WW2 and the toxic ideology was allowed proliferate. These nazis view the ethnic Russians in Ukraine (as well as ethnic Jews, Pols etc) who are Ukrainian citizens as subhuman invaders who need to be exterminated. They aren’t shy about their views or nazism.

In 2014 the west backed violent nazi groups (Right Sector etc) to foment a violent coup then installed a puppet govt littered with nazis. Naturally the regions heavily populated with ethnic russians (Donbass, Crimea) wanted nothing to do with this new regime so they voted to leave Ukraine. Then Ukraine tried to get back control of them by shelling the hell out of them for 8 yrs causing a civil war of sorts. At some point Ukraine even incorporated nazi militia groups like Azov into their Ministry of Interior/military. No big deal huh?

3RVARiP.jpg


yYGkSpx.jpg


Here’s a good summary video:
(Watch the BBC debunk its own denial of nazis in Ukraine. Backup link:

Here are some msm articles from pre 2022:
https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12 (mccain with neonazis in ukraine)

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/world/europe/ukraines-ultranationalists-do-well-in-elections.html (Ukraine’s Ultranationalists Show Surprising Strength at Polls)

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20824693 (Svoboda: The rise of Ukraine’s ultra nationalists/neonazis)

https://thegrayzone.com/2018/10/30/c14-ukrainian-nazi-kiev-police-america-house (An activist from violent Ukrainian neoNazi gang C14 spoke at the US government’s America House Kyiv)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-america-training-neonazis-in-ukraine (The US was training neonazis in Ukraine)

https://archive.ph/2022.03.03-22391...nazi-training-ukraine-russia-putin-biden-nato (CIA training neonazi terrorists in Ukraine)

https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/how-the-ukrainian-nationalist-movement-f4f (How the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement Post-WWII was Bought and Paid for by the CIA)

https://thehill.com/opinion/interna...in-the-ukraine-is-far-from-kremlin-propaganda (The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/opinion/what-ukraines-jews-fear.html (What Ukraine’s Jews fear)

https://towardfreedom.org/story/arc...amilitaries-on-front-lines-of-war-with-russia (How Ukraine’s Jewish President, Volodymyr Zelensky, Made Peace with NeoNazi Paramilitaries on Front Lines of War with Russia)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-farright-insight-idUSBREA2H0K620140318 (Nazis held 5 senior roles in the new Ukrainian govt that waa installed in 2014)
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,254
27,918
1
An altered state
This is exactly what happened. The war crimes committed by the nazis in Mariupol and Donbass and the citizens happy reaction to the arrival of Russian forces as saviors is well documented. The choice to know is yours. If you stepped outside your msm bubble you’d know this.



These interviews must all be crisis actors huh??

First you said it’d be impossible for the nazis to destroy the city due lack of weapons then you claim the Russians did it with the very weapons the nazis have easy access to (artillery shells etc.), brilliant! It was the nazis who shelled the hell out of the city then they held the citizens captive so they could be used as human shields making it harder for the Russians to root them out.

A one off story about Some steet artist is what you’re hanging your hat on as some definitive proof? Desperate much? The vast majority in the Donbass welcomed the Russians bc they saved them from being genocided by nazis who you apparently support for some bizarre reason.
So you are trying to claim the Nazi battalions, which had ten or twenty thousand, has the same firepower as Putin’s 150,000 forces in country plus its air force, naval force, and missiles all attacking from outside Ukraine? You really want to claim that? Maripoul was destroyed by Putin. Fact. Cannot be disputed.

As for a few videos of people that sided with the Russians. Every war has two sides. Some sided with the Russians and were attacked. That’s called war. Again, if the vast majority sided with Russia as you claim this war would have been over in a couple weeks. But they don’t and it didn’t.

Yet again you avoid the most critical question.....who is more dangerous to the world peace.....Ukraine or Putin? Who has a track record of invading its neighbors? Who supports terrorist regimes around the world? Who supplies weapons to dictators and terrorists? Who uses oil and gas as a weapon?

Avoid the most critical issue, have selective outrage over cherry picked data.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,254
27,918
1
An altered state
I haven't read through all of the gibberish of the various threads on this, but are you saying that the people of Ukraine in the Donbas Region are either Russian or a Nazi? That's what you seem to be arguing. I have a lot of trouble with that. Even if "Nazi," i.e., a descendent of Nazis, you can't seriously be arguing that a person in that region either wants to be part of Russia or they want to ethnically cleanse Russians a la the WW2-style Nazis.

It seems this argument is going the same way so many do on this board -- either black or white -- when the truth is some shade of gray.

I would be interested in the statistics for this region prior to 2014. I don't think your arguments would hold. For example, there are lots of ethnic Hispanics in Texas that would rather not be a part of Mexico. On the flip side, there are a lot of ethnic whites in Texas who don't want genocide committed against Hispanics in Texas even though there are probably some fringe elements that might go that far.
He left out a few minor details. Like the fact that the Russians starved over five million Ukrainians to death in the 1930s. And during WWII, the Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators from Stalin’s murderous thugs. That’s why they see Nazis as the good guys there.

And after the war, Ukraine was under the Soviet Union dictators for decades and was raped and pillaged for its resources. When the USSR collapsed, Ukraine became independent but had a couple thousand nuclear warheads left behind. They peacefully gave up the warheads in return for ‘guarantees’ that Russia would not attack and that the US and G Britain would aid in their defense. Since then both Russia and the west have been engaged in serious subterfuge in Ukraine. Putin tried to murder its elected President in 2010. Then rigged a runoff election to install its puppet. Then the west helped start a revolution there and installed its own puppet. Putin invaded Crimea and then held a referendum to secede from Ukraine.....while his troops occupied the area......and then annexed the Crimea.

The entire area of Ukraine has been a chess peice in the global game of power. Each side claims legitimacy over Ukraine. So here we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,683
8,726
1
He left out a few minor details. Like the fact that the Russians starved over five million Ukrainians to death in the 1930s. And during WWII, the Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators from Stalin’s murderous thugs. That’s why they see Nazis as the good guys there.

And after the war, Ukraine was under the Soviet Union dictators for decades and was raped and pillaged for its resources. When the USSR collapsed, Ukraine became independent but had a couple thousand nuclear warheads left behind. They peacefully gave up the warheads in return for ‘guarantees’ that Russia would not attack and that the US and G Britain would aid in their defense. Since then both Russia and the west have been engaged in serious subterfuge in Ukraine. Putin tried to murder its elected President in 2010. Then rigged a runoff election to install its puppet. Then the west helped start a revolution there and installed its own puppet. Putin invaded Crimea and then held a referendum to secede from Ukraine.....while his troops occupied the area......and then annexed the Crimea.

The entire area of Ukraine has been a chess peice in the global game of power. Each side claims legitimacy over Ukraine. So here we are.

Exactly. I had argued some of your points in my response and then inadvertently deleted it (above) to reduce the size of his post within my post.

You made my points well. How was this "referendum" fair and trustworthy while the population is under occupation? A Pew Survey asserted that the truth wasn't 89% for separation, but more like 70% against separation. The truth is that we do not know the facts because the facts are being supplied by entities that cannot be trusted.

I would refrain from using labels like "Nazi" for the same reason I would refrain from labels in this country like "racist." All that is designed to do is sway opinion without any regard for the facts.

We should always be asking Who is shelling Who? We need to be very, very specific, and the response needs to be from a trustworthy source. Details matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,326
24,772
1
2020evidence.org
So you are trying to claim the Nazi battalions, which had ten or twenty thousand, has the same firepower as Putin’s 150,000 forces in country plus its air force, naval force, and missiles all attacking from outside Ukraine? You really want to claim that? Maripoul was destroyed by Putin. Fact. Cannot be disputed.

As for a few videos of people that sided with the Russians. Every war has two sides. Some sided with the Russians and were attacked. That’s called war. Again, if the vast majority sided with Russia as you claim this war would have been over in a couple weeks. But they don’t and it didn’t.

Yet again you avoid the most critical question.....who is more dangerous to the world peace.....Ukraine or Putin? Who has a track record of invading its neighbors? Who supports terrorist regimes around the world? Who supplies weapons to dictators and terrorists? Who uses oil and gas as a weapon?

Avoid the most critical issue, have selective outrage over cherry picked data.
The nazis didn’t need massive air/naval fire power to destroy Mariupol. All they needed were tanks, artillery, etc. which they had in spades. These weren’t hardened targets or anything.

You can’t just dismiss dozens and dozens of videos as if they’re insignificant too show what happened. Go ahead and find me a single video other than the mayor of someone disputing what I’m claiming. They didn’t side with anyone, the Nazis embedded themselves within the civilian population and refused to let them leave because they knew that if they allowed them to evacuate the Russians would easily sweep through and remove the nazis. Bad actors use human shield for a reason, they’re very effective at slowing down enemy advances. They learned a few lessons from Isis I guess
Russians starved over five million Ukrainians to death in the 1930s
No, the Bolsheviks starved all people under their regime both Ukrainian and Russian and everyone else in the USSR. Your selective memory/outrage is something to behold.

Also Putin didn’t invade Crimea. Russian troops had been there since the port was recaptured decades ago. There’s no way the largely ethnic Russian population there voted against leaving after the 2014 coup that was staged by Nazis that wanted to see them dead. If that coup never happened there’d be no civil war and no “Russian invasion.”

Putin is no angel but almost all the things you listed as threats to the world the US has also been doing for DECADES: arming/funding terrorists to foment regime change all around the world, occupying foreign countries, etc are all things that are dangerous for everyone no?
 
Last edited:

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,254
27,918
1
An altered state
The nazis didn’t need massive air/naval fire power to destroy Mariupol. All they needed were tanks, artillery, etc. which they had in spades. These weren’t hardened targets or anything.

You can’t just dismiss dozens and dozens of videos as if they’re insignificant too show what happened. Go ahead and find me a single video other than the mayor of someone disputing what I’m claiming. They didn’t side with anyone, the Nazis embedded themselves within the civilian population and refused to let them leave because they knew that if they allowed them to evacuate the Russians would easily sweep through and remove the nazis. Bad actors use human shield for a reason, they’re very effective at slowing down enemy advances. They learned a few lessons from Isis I guess

No, the Bolsheviks starved all people under their regime both Ukrainian and Russian and everyone else in the USSR. Your selective memory/outrage is something to behold.

Also Putin didn’t invade Crimea. Russian troops had been there since the port was recaptured decades ago. There’s no way the largely ethnic Russian population there voted against leaving after the 2014 coup that was staged by Nazis that wanted to see them dead. If that coup never happened there’d be no civil war and no “Russian invasion.”

Putin is no angel but almost all the things you listed as threats to the world the US has also been doing for DECADES: arming/funding terrorists to foment regime change all around the world, occupying foreign countries, etc are all things that are dangerous for everyone no?
What a joke. The Ukrainian forces didn’t and doesn’t have anywhere near the fire power of Russia. So you are saying that the Nazis’ forces indiscriminately bombed cities for months while Russia stood by and let them? Your buddy Putin just stood by with his 150,000 troops plus naval power plus air power plus land based missiles and let Maripoul be destroyed? What a nice guy!

Oh....the Bolsheviks were Russian. In fact that word is derived from the Russian word for majority. After they seized power they became the Communist Party and founded the Soviet Union.

The only Russian military in Crimea after the 1990s was a naval port in Sevastopol by agreement with the Ukrainian government. Putin moved far more into the country in 2014, took over all government buildings, staged a fake referendum, Crimea declared independence and then Putin annexed it. Which is not recognized by the UN or about 90% of the world.

And to compare the US to Putinstan is beyond any norms of civil and intellectual discussion. The US has made mistakes and sometimes partnered with bad people but difficult choices are necessary in a dangerous world. The US has long fought hard for freedom, liberty, and democracy around the globe. USSR, Russia, and Putinstan......not so much.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,683
8,726
1
What a joke. The Ukrainian forces didn’t and doesn’t have anywhere near the fire power of Russia. So you are saying that the Nazis’ forces indiscriminately bombed cities for months while Russia stood by and let them? Your buddy Putin just stood by with his 150,000 troops plus naval power plus air power plus land based missiles and let Maripoul be destroyed? What a nice guy!

Oh....the Bolsheviks were Russian. In fact that word is derived from the Russian word for majority. After they seized power they became the Communist Party and founded the Soviet Union.

The only Russian military in Crimea after the 1990s was a naval port in Sevastopol by agreement with the Ukrainian government. Putin moved far more into the country in 2014, took over all government buildings, staged a fake referendum, Crimea declared independence and then Putin annexed it. Which is not recognized by the UN or about 90% of the world.

And to compare the US to Putinstan is beyond any norms of civil and intellectual discussion. The US has made mistakes and sometimes partnered with bad people but difficult choices are necessary in a dangerous world. The US has long fought hard for freedom, liberty, and democracy around the globe. USSR, Russia, and Putinstan......not so much.

Yep. This is where his arguments completely fall apart. Russians are not even allowed to hear anything that isn't approved by their own state-run TV. That doesn't sound like a regime that is on the right side of freeing people from persecution.

Everyone knows what this is -- a former, ruthless KGB agent attempting to restore the empire he saw as a child. This is what politicians want. They want power. They want their name written into history. They want their likeness in a statue. This is what Biden wants. Like Putin, Biden is willing to sell his soul to get it. Putin is willing to be viewed as a killer by everyone outside of his empire in order to get that recognition within his empire.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,326
24,772
1
2020evidence.org
What a joke. The Ukrainian forces didn’t and doesn’t have anywhere near the fire power of Russia. So you are saying that the Nazis’ forces indiscriminately bombed cities for months while Russia stood by and let them? Your buddy Putin just stood by with his 150,000 troops plus naval power plus air power plus land based missiles and let Maripoul be destroyed? What a nice guy!

Oh....the Bolsheviks were Russian. In fact that word is derived from the Russian word for majority. After they seized power they became the Communist Party and founded the Soviet Union.

The only Russian military in Crimea after the 1990s was a naval port in Sevastopol by agreement with the Ukrainian government. Putin moved far more into the country in 2014, took over all government buildings, staged a fake referendum, Crimea declared independence and then Putin annexed it. Which is not recognized by the UN or about 90% of the world.

And to compare the US to Putinstan is beyond any norms of civil and intellectual discussion. The US has made mistakes and sometimes partnered with bad people but difficult choices are necessary in a dangerous world. The US has long fought hard for freedom, liberty, and democracy around the globe. USSR, Russia, and Putinstan......not so much.
The Nazis had been terrorizing the people for years here and there but when the russians came for them they shelled the city for a few days/weeks not months. The Russian troops couldn’t hit them without also taking out tons of civilians due to the nazis using them as human shields after they shelled them. The russians had to go building by building in Mariupol and clear them out which is why it took forever.

Funding isis terrorists who decapitated kids is hardly a small mistake but the US isn’t close to as bad as the USSR was i agree with you on that.

It wasn’t a fake referendum. There were no guns held to anyone’s heads etc.. What proof do you have of this?

The Bolsheviks were Khazarian mafia tools just like the jacobins and many other destabilization groups. The KM funded/controlled the commies and fascists to get the masses to kill each other.
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,865
10,295
1
Busy weekend so I'm late to the most recent entries to this thread.

With all due respect to my three conservative friends on opposite sides of the debate, I think all you guys are missing the point...in different ways.

The issue to me has never been which side is more corrupt or has more bad guys aligned with them or whether as a matter of international law (not to mention moral decency), Putin's invasion was wrong.

Rather, the issue in my mind has always been the national interest of our own country, and my position has always been that our national interest would have been served best by preventing this clusterf--k, which we had it in our power to do.

Ironically, with Ukraine now in ruins, it's crystal clear that would have been in the best interest of the Ukrainian people as well. Now that it's too late for that, all sides are doubling down, as predicted, in desperate bids to somehow salvage the situation.

A couple days ago, Dmitriy Medvedev, formerly Russian President and now a close ally of Putin as a member of the Russian Security Council, warned that if Ukraine uses the latest batch of high-tech weapons that will soon be supplied to the Ukie army against targets in Russia proper, Moscow will strike back against "decision-making centers" beyond Ukraine.

I realize the response of the chest-thumpers in our government and commentariat is to sneer at this latest red flag, as they've sneered at everything else while their little proxy war has turned into a historic debacle, but the hard fact is that with the introduction of these weapons, we are now effectively handing to Ukraine control over fundamental questions of our own national security.

Yet nobody questions any of it. Nobody even seems to realize what's happening. It's just a mindboggling thing to watch us sleepwalk our way down this road.

Again, John Mearsheimer in 2015: The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result will be that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.

What Mearsheimer couldn't have imagined is that those leading Ukraine down the primrose path were also going to get wrecked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,254
27,918
1
An altered state
Busy weekend so I'm late to the most recent entries to this thread.

With all due respect to my three conservative friends on opposite sides of the debate, I think all you guys are missing the point...in different ways.

The issue to me has never been which side is more corrupt or has more bad guys aligned with them or whether as a matter of international law (not to mention moral decency), Putin's invasion was wrong.

Rather, the issue in my mind has always been the national interest of our own country, and my position has always been that our national interest would have been served best by preventing this clusterf--k, which we had it in our power to do.

Ironically, with Ukraine now in ruins, it's crystal clear that would have been in the best interest of the Ukrainian people as well. Now that it's too late for that, all sides are doubling down, as predicted, in desperate bids to somehow salvage the situation.

A couple days ago, Dmitriy Medvedev, formerly Russian President and now a close ally of Putin as a member of the Russian Security Council, warned that if Ukraine uses the latest batch of high-tech weapons that will soon be supplied to the Ukie army against targets in Russia proper, Moscow will strike back against "decision-making centers" beyond Ukraine.

I realize the response of the chest-thumpers in our government and commentariat is to sneer at this latest red flag, as they've sneered at everything else while their little proxy war has turned into a historic debacle, but the hard fact is that with the introduction of these weapons, we are now effectively handing to Ukraine control over fundamental questions of our own national security.

Yet nobody questions any of it. Nobody even seems to realize what's happening. It's just a mindboggling thing to watch us sleepwalk our way down this road.

Again, John Mearsheimer in 2015: The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result will be that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.

What Mearsheimer couldn't have imagined is that those leading Ukraine down the primrose path were also going to get wrecked.
You keep repeating the same mantra. You had the solution if only they would have followed it. But your solution is something that never would have happened and, even if it were enacted, it wouldn’t have solved the problems.

Your solution was to hand over the Donbas to Russia in return for peace and some sort of guarantee. But there was no way in hell that the Ukraine government would have agreed to that. They gav e up nukes for peace. Didn’t work. Putin stole Crimea in 2014. No way Kyiv was gonna give more territory. And even if they did Putin would stop there.

Putin would have moved troops into the Donbas, put his stooges in power, and consolidated power there. Then in 2024, while the Biden-Harris-Obama third term was still in office he would have moved on the rest of the country. He has stated several times that Ukraine is not a real country but part of Russia. That Kyiv is the true heart of Russia, where the Russian culture started, where the Russian Orthodox Church was founded. He has even stated that the Baltic states are truly Russian along with eastern Poland.

You continue to cling to your idea of a simple solution but that is some kind of self delusion. Putin is obsessed with Mother Russia and his legacy of restoring it. Appeasing him wouldnork. He has shown that many times over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,865
10,295
1
You keep repeating the same mantra. You had the solution if only they would have followed it. But your solution is something that never would have happened and, even if it were enacted, it wouldn’t have solved the problems.

Your solution was to hand over the Donbas to Russia in return for peace and some sort of guarantee. But there was no way in hell that the Ukraine government would have agreed to that. They gav e up nukes for peace. Didn’t work. Putin stole Crimea in 2014. No way Kyiv was gonna give more territory. And even if they did Putin would stop there.

Putin would have moved troops into the Donbas, put his stooges in power, and consolidated power there. Then in 2024, while the Biden-Harris-Obama third term was still in office he would have moved on the rest of the country. He has stated several times that Ukraine is not a real country but part of Russia. That Kyiv is the true heart of Russia, where the Russian culture started, where the Russian Orthodox Church was founded. He has even stated that the Baltic states are truly Russian along with eastern Poland.

You continue to cling to your idea of a simple solution but that is some kind of self delusion. Putin is obsessed with Mother Russia and his legacy of restoring it. Appeasing him wouldnork. He has shown that many times over.

Spin, we may be making progress in our epic debate on this question...ongoing since last year.

What I mean is, you once had Putin pushing through to the English Channel. Now that you've seen the performance of the Russian Army these past few months, even you can perhaps dispense with that fantastical fear, which I told you was fantastical from our first exchange on the topic.

You say that my solution would never have happened, which is something you can't possibly know since it was never tried. The fact is, a potential deal to head off this disaster was there for the taking. We didn't want it. Indeed, a senior State Department official recently said there was never any notion of taking NATO membership for Ukraine off the table. We refused to even talk about it.

Re Crimea and the Donbas, keep in mind that the Russians would not moved on either if not for the 2014 coup which was supported by Obama's Dem-Media government and overthrew a democratically elected Ukrainian President in 2014, lighting the fuse for the current conflict. This is an inconvenient fact but nevertheless a fact.

But OK, just for grins, let's assume that Putin's goal all the time has been to reconstitute some version of Mother Russia by coercing Ukraine into Moscow's sphere of influence. I mean, I don't actually accept the validity of that assumption, but let's say it's true.

My next question would then be: who cares? Why is it in the vital interest of the United States to prevent Ukraine's gravitational pull into Moscow's orbit? Why are we damaging our economy, destabilizing global order and risking World War III even while wrecking Ukraine itself to prevent this? What is the friggin' point of this exercise?

Finally, let me ask you something: Does it give you pause at all that in the space of a handful of years, Russia and Putin have become such boogeymen in Dem-Media World's toxic ideology? That the Dem-Mediacrats and their propaganda tools now gather us around the campfire every night to be told horrifying tales of the Great Beast in Moscow?

That they built a monstrous lie around this sick fantasy to torpedo Trump's candidacy and sabotage his presidency? That to this day they cling to that lie? That they're rotten people who are wrecking our country and have never been right about anything...but now we're to believe they're playing it straight as they pour countless billions and ever more sophisticated weaponry into Ukraine to fuel an insane conflict that is in large part a product of their own policy?

Seriously, Spin, do any of the above questions cause a second thought to arise in your mind?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: ram2020 and WeR0206

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,326
24,772
1
2020evidence.org
That they built a monstrous lie around this sick fantasy to torpedo Trump's candidacy and sabotage his presidency? That to this day they cling to that lie? That they're rotten people who are wrecking our country and have never been right about anything...but now we're to believe they're playing it straight as they pour countless billions and ever more sophisticated weaponry into Ukraine to fuel an insane conflict that is in large part a product of their own policy?
This ^^^^. I’m fascinated by folks like @The Spin Meister who realize the msm lied about Trump Russia collusion but still believe their every word about Putin, what’s going on in Ukraine, etc..

The corrupt western msm demonized Trump and Putin for a reason. Neither one of them want anything to do with the evil globalists who run the msm. Putins no saint but he apparently wants nothing to do with a one world govt run by WEF goons/clowns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,254
27,918
1
An altered state
Funny how you cherry picked the fact.Spin, we may be making progress in our epic debate on this question...ongoing since last year.

What I mean is, you once had Putin pushing through to the English Channel. Now that you've seen the performance of the Russian Army these past few months, even you can perhaps dispense with that fantastical fear, which I told you was fantastical from our first exchange on the topic.
Never said Putin wanted to take all of Manila d Europe. Preposterous. He famously lamented the passing of the USSR but he had no delusions of reconstituting it as Germany was gone for good as are other countries. Shame on you for distorting things
You say that my solution would never have happened, which is something you can't possibly know since it was never tried. The fact is, a potential deal to head off this disaster was there for the taking. We didn't want it. Indeed, a senior State Department official recently said there was never any notion of taking NATO membership for Ukraine off the table. We refused to even talk about it.
Your supposed deal was turning over the Donbas and Luhansk to Russia. No way in hell would Ukraine ever agree to that. Impossible. Dead on arrival. Quit pretending it had a snowballs chance. They already lost 30% of its country to Russia along with key ports, massive nat gas reserves, and more. Why surrender more land including key agricultural, mineral, and industrial assets? As for NATO membership, other NATO members said they would veto any move to accept Ukraine. Wasn’t gonna happen.
Re Crimea and the Donbas, keep in mind that the Russians would not moved on either if not for the 2014 coup which was supported by Obama's Dem-Media government and overthrew a democratically elected Ukrainian President in 2014, lighting the fuse for the current conflict. This is an inconvenient fact but nevertheless a fact.
Funny how you cherry picked that fact. Here’s a few more. Putin poisoned the elected President shortly before that and he only survived after being flown out of country and spending weeks in a coma at a special hospital. Plus, the 2014 election, to replace the guy that was poisoned, came down to a special runoff election in which three million more votes showed up in the Donbas region just two months after the general election .......for the Putin backed puppet. Widely seen as a rigged election. Then Putin started sending in Russian regulars without uniforms or marked equipment. One stupid Russian unit even shot down a Malaysian airliner killing some 250 people.
But OK, just for grins, let's assume that Putin's goal all the time has been to reconstitute some version of Mother Russia by coercing Ukraine into Moscow's sphere of influence. I mean, I don't actually accept the validity of that assumption, but let's say it's true.

Putin talked about it often. He even said that Ukraine is really just a Russian province. That Kyiv is the true heart of Russia. That they are one and the same. That Ukraine is the cultural, societal, historical, and emotional true home of the Russian culture. That the Russian Orthodox church included the Baltics and parts of Poland and all should be back under the Russian Orthodox Church again.



My next question would then be: who cares? Why is it in the vital interest of the United States to prevent Ukraine's gravitational pull into Moscow's orbit? Why are we damaging our economy, destabilizing global order and risking World War III even while wrecking Ukraine itself to prevent this? What is the friggin' point of this exercise?
Because Putin is nuts and needs to be stopped. The world is far better with a weak Russia than a strong one.
Finally, let me ask you something: Does it give you pause at all that in the space of a handful of years, Russia and Putin have become such boogeymen in Dem-Media World's toxic ideology? That the Dem-Mediacrats and their propaganda tools now gather us around the campfire every night to be told horrifying tales of the Great Beast in Moscow?

That they built a monstrous lie around this sick fantasy to torpedo Trump's candidacy and sabotage his presidency? That to this day they cling to that lie? That they're rotten people who are wrecking our country and have never been right about anything...but now we're to believe they're playing it straight as they pour countless billions and ever more sophisticated weaponry into Ukraine to fuel an insane conflict that is in large part a product of their own policy?

Seriously, Spin, do any of the above questions cause a second thought to arise in your mind?
Well, I don’t have a default mechanism that necessitates me taking a stance directly opposite of what ever some media types take. I actually look at the real world and try to figure out the situation and react to reality, not what the media say or don’t say. And I know that Putin is one really bad dude. That Russia, as the driver behind the USSR, has been a terrible influence on world geopolitics my entire life. That Russia has been a bad actor since the fall,of the Soviet Union. And that a reconstituted Russia......with more resources, more assets, more critical ports and land masses, more economic power, more industrial assets......is an even bigger threat to world peace and stability. In Europe, in Africa, in the Americas, in SE Asia.

You are against the war, which is understandable. But the idea that you had the solution is bolderdash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,865
10,295
1
Never said Putin wanted to take all of Manila d Europe. Preposterous. He famously lamented the passing of the USSR but he had no delusions of reconstituting it as Germany was gone for good as are other countries. Shame on you for distorting things.

OK, the reference to the English Channel was a little snarky on my part, but it was a rhetorical device to magnify something you did in fact say. Repeatedly. Which is that Putin had his eyes on the Baltics and even part of Poland. I told you that was ridiculous. Do you believe me now?

Your supposed deal was turning over the Donbas and Luhansk to Russia. No way in hell would Ukraine ever agree to that. Impossible. Dead on arrival. Quit pretending it had a snowballs chance. They already lost 30% of its country to Russia along with key ports, massive nat gas reserves, and more. Why surrender more land including key agricultural, mineral, and industrial assets? As for NATO membership, other NATO members said they would veto any move to accept Ukraine. Wasn’t gonna happen.

No my supposed deal was NOT turning over the Donbas to Russia. Rather, it was a binding Western pledge of Ukraine's non-membership in NATO and the hammering out of a Finland-style neutrality agreement that would take into account Moscow's legitimate security interests while guaranteeing Ukraine's freedom, independence, and sovereignty. The Russian-occupied territory of Ukraine would be the subject of negotiation as there was no possible way to instantly fix that situation to the satisfaction of both sides.

Funny how you cherry picked that fact. Here’s a few more. Putin poisoned the elected President shortly before that and he only survived after being flown out of country and spending weeks in a coma at a special hospital. Plus, the 2014 election, to replace the guy that was poisoned, came down to a special runoff election in which three million more votes showed up in the Donbas region just two months after the general election .......for the Putin backed puppet. Widely seen as a rigged election. Then Putin started sending in Russian regulars without uniforms or marked equipment. One stupid Russian unit even shot down a Malaysian airliner killing some 250 people.

Spin, you're getting your chronology mixed up...and, well, cherry-picking facts.

The apparent poisoning you mention, a crime which to this day has not been solved, occurred in 2004, fully 10 years before the 2014 coup.

Yanukovich, the pro-Moscow guy who was overthrown in 2014, came to power in 2010 in an election that international observers called "free and fair"...though that characterization remains dubious in my mind.

The anti-Moscow guy who succeeded Yanukovich when the latter fled the country after being ousted in the coup became President in an election that was termed "flawed." Same thing for Zelensky himself.

The point is, there are no truly free and fair elections in that part of the world. The question is not will the vote be rigged, but rather how rigged it will be. Fortunately, we live in a country where such things could never happen, which gives us the moral right to critique everyone else's elections....<cough cough>.

At the end of the day, the 2010 election of the pro-Moscow guy was what passes for legitimate...no less legitimate in fact than the anti-Moscow guys who came after him. And the pro-Moscow guy was overthrown in a coup supported by Obama's Dem-Media government, and this lit the fuse for what we're seeing now.

I'm sorry, but those are facts. And as my favorite President once said: Facts are stubborn things.

Because Putin is nuts and needs to be stopped. The world is far better with a weak Russia than a strong one.

My question was how is Ukraine a vital interest of the United States...worth damaging our economy, destabilizing global order, and risking World War III for? The declaration that Putin is a nut who needs to be stopped is not responsive to that question. Also, do we have an obligation to stop every nut in the world or is it just Putin? If so, why?

Well, I don’t have a default mechanism that necessitates me taking a stance directly opposite of what ever some media types take. I actually look at the real world and try to figure out the situation and react to reality, not what the media say or don’t say. And I know that Putin is one really bad dude. That Russia, as the driver behind the USSR, has been a terrible influence on world geopolitics my entire life. That Russia has been a bad actor since the fall,of the Soviet Union. And that a reconstituted Russia......with more resources, more assets, more critical ports and land masses, more economic power, more industrial assets......is an even bigger threat to world peace and stability. In Europe, in Africa, in the Americas, in SE Asia.

It's not just the media. It's the entire Dem-Media Complex, to include the government and its propaganda organs, that has gone off its rocker over the Great Beast of Moscow.

I've arrived at my own view of the situation independently of Dem-Media's toxic position, but I find it reassuring to know that it's opposite of Dem-Media's. As a general rule of life, you won't go wrong by taking a stance opposite of Dem-Media...on anything.

Beyond that, you're making the fatal but unfortunately common error of conflating today's Russia with yesterday's Soviet Union. Your head is still in the 1980's, but the world has changed drastically since then.

Russia has not been a bad actor since the fall of the Soviet Union. I think it's closer to the mark to say the Russians have been bad actors since approximately 20 years following the fall of the Soviet Union...after we spent that time doing our best to turn them into enemies. Mission accomplished.

You are against the war, which is understandable. But the idea that you had the solution is bolderdash.

Maybe. However, my potential (but untried) "solution" would have been a helluva lot better than what we're looking at now. And that, my friend, is not balderdash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,326
24,772
1
2020evidence.org
Never said Putin wanted to take all of Manila d Europe. Preposterous. He famously lamented the passing of the USSR but he had no delusions of reconstituting it as Germany was gone for good as are other countries. Shame on you for distorting things.

OK, the reference to the English Channel was a little snarky on my part, but it was a rhetorical device to magnify something you did in fact say. Repeatedly. Which is that Putin had his eyes on the Baltics and even part of Poland. I told you that was ridiculous. Do you believe me now?

Your supposed deal was turning over the Donbas and Luhansk to Russia. No way in hell would Ukraine ever agree to that. Impossible. Dead on arrival. Quit pretending it had a snowballs chance. They already lost 30% of its country to Russia along with key ports, massive nat gas reserves, and more. Why surrender more land including key agricultural, mineral, and industrial assets? As for NATO membership, other NATO members said they would veto any move to accept Ukraine. Wasn’t gonna happen.

No my supposed deal was NOT turning over the Donbas to Russia. Rather, it was a binding Western pledge of Ukraine's non-membership in NATO and the hammering out of a Finland-style neutrality agreement that would take into account Moscow's legitimate security interests while guaranteeing Ukraine's freedom, independence, and sovereignty. The Russian-occupied territory of Ukraine would be the subject of negotiation as there was no possible way to instantly fix that situation to the satisfaction of both sides.

Funny how you cherry picked that fact. Here’s a few more. Putin poisoned the elected President shortly before that and he only survived after being flown out of country and spending weeks in a coma at a special hospital. Plus, the 2014 election, to replace the guy that was poisoned, came down to a special runoff election in which three million more votes showed up in the Donbas region just two months after the general election .......for the Putin backed puppet. Widely seen as a rigged election. Then Putin started sending in Russian regulars without uniforms or marked equipment. One stupid Russian unit even shot down a Malaysian airliner killing some 250 people.

Spin, you're getting your chronology mixed up...and, well, cherry-picking facts.

The apparent poisoning you mention, a crime which to this day has not been solved, occurred in 2004, fully 10 years before the 2014 coup.

Yanukovich, the pro-Moscow guy who was overthrown in 2014, came to power in 2010 in an election that international observers called "free and fair"...though that characterization remains dubious in my mind.

The anti-Moscow guy who succeeded Yanukovich when the latter fled the country after being ousted in the coup became President in an election that was termed "flawed." Same thing for Zelensky himself.

The point is, there are no truly free and fair elections in that part of the world. The question is not will the vote be rigged, but rather how rigged it will be. Fortunately, we live in a country where such things could never happen, which gives us the moral right to critique everyone else's elections....<cough cough>.

At the end of the day, the 2010 election of the pro-Moscow guy was what passes for legitimate...no less legitimate in fact than the anti-Moscow guys who came after him. And the pro-Moscow guy was overthrown in a coup supported by Obama's Dem-Media government, and this lit the fuse for what we're seeing now.

I'm sorry, but those are facts. And as my favorite President once said: Facts are stubborn things.

Because Putin is nuts and needs to be stopped. The world is far better with a weak Russia than a strong one.

My question was how is Ukraine a vital interest of the United States...worth damaging our economy, destabilizing global order, and risking World War III for? The declaration that Putin is a nut who needs to be stopped is not responsive to that question. Also, do we have an obligation to stop every nut in the world or is it just Putin? If so, why?

Well, I don’t have a default mechanism that necessitates me taking a stance directly opposite of what ever some media types take. I actually look at the real world and try to figure out the situation and react to reality, not what the media say or don’t say. And I know that Putin is one really bad dude. That Russia, as the driver behind the USSR, has been a terrible influence on world geopolitics my entire life. That Russia has been a bad actor since the fall,of the Soviet Union. And that a reconstituted Russia......with more resources, more assets, more critical ports and land masses, more economic power, more industrial assets......is an even bigger threat to world peace and stability. In Europe, in Africa, in the Americas, in SE Asia.

It's not just the media. It's the entire Dem-Media Complex, to include the government and its propaganda organs, that has gone off its rocker over the Great Beast of Moscow.

I've arrived at my own view of the situation independently of Dem-Media's toxic position, but I find it reassuring to know that it's opposite of Dem-Media's. As a general rule of life, you won't go wrong by taking a stance opposite of Dem-Media...on anything.

Beyond that, you're making the fatal but unfortunately common error of conflating today's Russia with yesterday's Soviet Union. Your head is still in the 1980's, but the world has changed drastically since then.

Russia has not been a bad actor since the fall of the Soviet Union. I think it's closer to the mark to say the Russians have been bad actors since approximately 20 years following the fall of the Soviet Union...after we spent that time doing our best to turn them into enemies. Mission accomplished.

You are against the war, which is understandable. But the idea that you had the solution is bolderdash.

Maybe. However, my potential (but untried) "solution" would have been a helluva lot better than what we're looking at now. And that, my friend, is not balderdash.
Great summary. This post by BioClandestine also sums it up nicely:


"🚨Biden and the western media complex are finally starting to publicly admit that Russia is winning the war.

Think about how much that proves. The western media complex have been pushing nonsense pro-Ukrainian war propaganda for months. Lying endlessly with stories of Ukrainian heroes putting up a valiant fight against Russian forces. Ghost of Kyiv, Snake Island, Maternity Ward, endless reports that Ukraine was winning, endless reports of Russian military incompetence, endless reports of Russian military targeting civilians… all of them lies.

In reality, Russian military admittedly only activated 10% of its forces to engage in this military operation, they were using specific rules of engagement to minimize civilian casualties, and they only pushed as far as Putin said he would. Specifically to “de-nazify” Ukraine and “eliminate biological threats to people of Russia”.

If you all recall when this first started, the western media claimed Putin is a deranged war criminal, hellbent on world domination, moving into Ukraine for no reason other than to kill civilians. Ukraine was his first target and he was soon to move into the rest of Eastern Europe.

They compared him to Hitler a billion times. Only to find out that Ukraine is the only country in the world who literally has NAZI MILITARY UNITS. And instead of realizing who they were supporting… they instead doubled down on supporting proud nazis making biological weapons… can’t make this shit up.

As it turns out, quite literally NOTHING of what the western media said pertaining to Ukraine has been true. None of it.

-Putin is not trying to conquer the world

-Putin is not blindly killing civilians

-Ukraine is not winning the war

-Ukraine has literal nazis in their army

-Ghost of Kyiv wasn’t real

-Snake Island was a lie

-Maternity Ward was actually just nazis

-The biolabs actually exist(ed)

Everything they told you was a lie. And to top it off, they just sent 40 billion of our tax dollars and countless military weaponry to Ukraine, knowing full well Russia was winning and had zero chance to lose from the beginning.

Biden just admitted Putin was honest to his word. Putin said Russia’s intent was to de-nazify Ukraine, eliminate the biological threats to his citizens, liberate the Donbas and Crimea from nazi control, and end the ongoing civil war since 2014. They did just that and now they are in peace talks about demilitarization.

The same people who lied about EVERY SINGLE THING pertaining to Ukraine, want you to believe them when they say that Russia is lying about Biden, Obama, Clinton, and Soros facilitating the biological weapons network in Ukraine…

This is the most explosive story on the planet. Be sure to remember who chose to ignore it.”

 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,254
27,918
1
An altered state
Never said Putin wanted to take all of Manila d Europe. Preposterous. He famously lamented the passing of the USSR but he had no delusions of reconstituting it as Germany was gone for good as are other countries. Shame on you for distorting things.

OK, the reference to the English Channel was a little snarky on my part, but it was a rhetorical device to magnify something you did in fact say. Repeatedly. Which is that Putin had his eyes on the Baltics and even part of Poland. I told you that was ridiculous. Do you believe me now?

Your supposed deal was turning over the Donbas and Luhansk to Russia. No way in hell would Ukraine ever agree to that. Impossible. Dead on arrival. Quit pretending it had a snowballs chance. They already lost 30% of its country to Russia along with key ports, massive nat gas reserves, and more. Why surrender more land including key agricultural, mineral, and industrial assets? As for NATO membership, other NATO members said they would veto any move to accept Ukraine. Wasn’t gonna happen.

No my supposed deal was NOT turning over the Donbas to Russia. Rather, it was a binding Western pledge of Ukraine's non-membership in NATO and the hammering out of a Finland-style neutrality agreement that would take into account Moscow's legitimate security interests while guaranteeing Ukraine's freedom, independence, and sovereignty. The Russian-occupied territory of Ukraine would be the subject of negotiation as there was no possible way to instantly fix that situation to the satisfaction of both sides.

Funny how you cherry picked that fact. Here’s a few more. Putin poisoned the elected President shortly before that and he only survived after being flown out of country and spending weeks in a coma at a special hospital. Plus, the 2014 election, to replace the guy that was poisoned, came down to a special runoff election in which three million more votes showed up in the Donbas region just two months after the general election .......for the Putin backed puppet. Widely seen as a rigged election. Then Putin started sending in Russian regulars without uniforms or marked equipment. One stupid Russian unit even shot down a Malaysian airliner killing some 250 people.

Spin, you're getting your chronology mixed up...and, well, cherry-picking facts.

The apparent poisoning you mention, a crime which to this day has not been solved, occurred in 2004, fully 10 years before the 2014 coup.

Yanukovich, the pro-Moscow guy who was overthrown in 2014, came to power in 2010 in an election that international observers called "free and fair"...though that characterization remains dubious in my mind.

The anti-Moscow guy who succeeded Yanukovich when the latter fled the country after being ousted in the coup became President in an election that was termed "flawed." Same thing for Zelensky himself.

The point is, there are no truly free and fair elections in that part of the world. The question is not will the vote be rigged, but rather how rigged it will be. Fortunately, we live in a country where such things could never happen, which gives us the moral right to critique everyone else's elections....<cough cough>.

At the end of the day, the 2010 election of the pro-Moscow guy was what passes for legitimate...no less legitimate in fact than the anti-Moscow guys who came after him. And the pro-Moscow guy was overthrown in a coup supported by Obama's Dem-Media government, and this lit the fuse for what we're seeing now.

I'm sorry, but those are facts. And as my favorite President once said: Facts are stubborn things.

Because Putin is nuts and needs to be stopped. The world is far better with a weak Russia than a strong one.

My question was how is Ukraine a vital interest of the United States...worth damaging our economy, destabilizing global order, and risking World War III for? The declaration that Putin is a nut who needs to be stopped is not responsive to that question. Also, do we have an obligation to stop every nut in the world or is it just Putin? If so, why?

Well, I don’t have a default mechanism that necessitates me taking a stance directly opposite of what ever some media types take. I actually look at the real world and try to figure out the situation and react to reality, not what the media say or don’t say. And I know that Putin is one really bad dude. That Russia, as the driver behind the USSR, has been a terrible influence on world geopolitics my entire life. That Russia has been a bad actor since the fall,of the Soviet Union. And that a reconstituted Russia......with more resources, more assets, more critical ports and land masses, more economic power, more industrial assets......is an even bigger threat to world peace and stability. In Europe, in Africa, in the Americas, in SE Asia.

It's not just the media. It's the entire Dem-Media Complex, to include the government and its propaganda organs, that has gone off its rocker over the Great Beast of Moscow.

I've arrived at my own view of the situation independently of Dem-Media's toxic position, but I find it reassuring to know that it's opposite of Dem-Media's. As a general rule of life, you won't go wrong by taking a stance opposite of Dem-Media...on anything.

Beyond that, you're making the fatal but unfortunately common error of conflating today's Russia with yesterday's Soviet Union. Your head is still in the 1980's, but the world has changed drastically since then.

Russia has not been a bad actor since the fall of the Soviet Union. I think it's closer to the mark to say the Russians have been bad actors since approximately 20 years following the fall of the Soviet Union...after we spent that time doing our best to turn them into enemies. Mission accomplished.

You are against the war, which is understandable. But the idea that you had the solution is bolderdash.

Maybe. However, my potential (but untried) "solution" would have been a helluva lot better than what we're looking at now. And that, my friend, is not balderdash.
Ukraine would never have agreed to any ‘neutrality status’ without all Russian troops withdrawing from the Donbas region. Most likely would have insisted the same on Crimea.

We ‘guaranteed’ such status in the 1990s. How’d that work out for them? And why would they trust us this time?

Which leads to another issue. We coerced them into surrendering roughly a thousand nukes in return for their sovereignty and joint defense. We failed them when Putin took Crimea. And Putin is continuing to eat up more of Ukraine. So now N Korea sees what happens when a country gives up its nukes. Iran is learning the same lesson. Think this will convince them to give up theirs?

They see that Russia has nukes, Ukraine doesn’t. So the West is helping Ukraine but with serious restraint because it fears a nuclear confrontation. Hhmmmmnnnnnnn........
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski