The Ukraine Crisis

[SeattleGriz]

He'll answer that about as quickly as Klamala answers who in the Russian government said Ukraine would be a three day war, meaning never.

They both love to paint themselves into corners with unfounded statements and then try to change the subject.

Now now, you know very well they were expecting a walkover, you're just being pissy about the metronomic regularity of the all the bitch slaps you're taking. Gotta be a site record.

fuck off. I'll give you pissy.

[UNI88]

I asked my question first. Why don't you and CH answer it and then I'll answer CH's question.

Tell me - what do you think the end results will be of:
- The US continuing to send aid to Ukraine?
- The US stops sending aid to Ukraine?

Will there be less death and destruction if the US stops sending aid? If yes, explain why.

I've seen this trick before. You'll never reveal your thinking. There's always a catch with you. Someone has to do something first and then you never uphold your end of the bargain.

I'll answer CH's question and then we'll see if you'll answer mine as asked (explaining why).

I don't know specifically how monetary aid is delivered but I would guess that it's transferred electronically. I don't think they'd send suitcases of cash on a flight when there are much more secure methods to transfer funds.

Your and CH's turn. Are you going to answer my question or pussy out?

[SeattleGriz]

I've seen this trick before. You'll never reveal your thinking. There's always a catch with you. Someone has to do something first and then you never uphold your end of the bargain.

I'll answer CH's question and then we'll see if you'll answer mine as asked (explaining why).

I don't know specifically how monetary aid is delivered but I would guess that it's transferred electronically. I don't think they'd send suitcases of cash on a flight when there are much more secure methods to transfer funds.

Your and CH's turn. Are you going to answer my question or pussy out?

I've answered this previously in the thread, but I'll do it again. Both end results will be the same. Russia will dictate what it wants out of Ukraine. Ukraine can thank people like you and Mittens Romney on the outcome. Great fucking job.

You stop aid, the war ends faster. You keep giving aid, it takes longer and the Russians start dumping money into the Middle East to cause the US to spend resources to tamp down the fomenting.

[UNI88]

I'll answer CH's question and then we'll see if you'll answer mine as asked (explaining why).

I don't know specifically how monetary aid is delivered but I would guess that it's transferred electronically. I don't think they'd send suitcases of cash on a flight when there are much more secure methods to transfer funds.

Your and CH's turn. Are you going to answer my question or pussy out?

I've answered this previously in the thread, but I'll do it again. Both end results will be the same. Russia will dictate what it wants out of Ukraine. Ukraine can thank people like you and Mittens Romney on the outcome. Great fucking job.

You stop aid, the war ends faster. You keep giving aid, it takes longer and the Russians start dumping money into the Middle East to cause the US to spend resources to tamp down the fomenting.

You didn't answer my question - will there be less death and destruction if the US stops sending aid? If yes, explain why.

You say if the US stops sending aid the war will end faster. How will it end? Will Ukraine give up or will they keep fighting? Will russia stop with the gains they've made? Or will they push to take over more, maybe even all of Ukraine. What will happen to the Ukrainian people in the lands the russians have conquered?

This isn't as simple as the US stops sending aid and the war magically ends. How does it end? What are the likely or possible outcomes if it ends?

International relations is a long-term game, you can't be just thinking of the short-term or you've already lost.

[Caribbean Hen]

You don’t negotiate with authoritarian aggressors. Much less compliment or encourage them.

The expense is a red herring. It’s cost us comparatively little in aid to seriously diminish Russia’s military capability.

Only Russian loving, democracy hating, sheep see otherwise.

Of course you negotiate, giving a little now can save American lives later. If Putin shows any hint of not honoring a treaty on the Ukraine then you crush Russia.

The red herring is we will inherit the financial burden of the entire Ukraine population for the next century .. Puerto Krania

How many decades will it take to weaken Russia? The Ukraine will run out of men before that happens

Biden’s proxy war is crushing the Ukraine minus the handful who are profiting Big with your tax dollars

I asked the question a month ago 88

Still waiting for your answer

[SeattleGriz]

I've answered this previously in the thread, but I'll do it again. Both end results will be the same. Russia will dictate what it wants out of Ukraine. Ukraine can thank people like you and Mittens Romney on the outcome. Great fucking job.

You stop aid, the war ends faster. You keep giving aid, it takes longer and the Russians start dumping money into the Middle East to cause the US to spend resources to tamp down the fomenting.

You didn't answer my question - will there be less death and destruction if the US stops sending aid? If yes, explain why.

You say if the US stops sending aid the war will end faster. How will it end? Will Ukraine give up or will they keep fighting? Will russia stop with the gains they've made? Or will they push to take over more, maybe even all of Ukraine. What will happen to the Ukrainian people in the lands the russians have conquered?

This isn't as simple as the US stops sending aid and the war magically ends. How does it end? What are the likely or possible outcomes if it ends?

International relations is a long-term game, you can't be just thinking of the short-term or you've already lost.

I already did in my first reply. Aid stops flowing, Ukraine will be forced to negotiate much sooner.

Remember how Russia has tried twice now to negotiate an end, but Boris Johnson scuttled the peace talks on one occasion and the US denied the second effort.

[UNI88]

You didn't answer my question - will there be less death and destruction if the US stops sending aid? If yes, explain why.

You say if the US stops sending aid the war will end faster. How will it end? Will Ukraine give up or will they keep fighting? Will russia stop with the gains they've made? Or will they push to take over more, maybe even all of Ukraine. What will happen to the Ukrainian people in the lands the russians have conquered?

This isn't as simple as the US stops sending aid and the war magically ends. How does it end? What are the likely or possible outcomes if it ends?

International relations is a long-term game, you can't be just thinking of the short-term or you've already lost.

I already did in my first reply. Aid stops flowing, Ukraine will be forced to negotiate much sooner.

Remember how Russia has tried twice now to negotiate an end, but Boris Johnson scuttled the peace talks on one occasion and the US denied the second effort.

You gave a shallow answer with no explanation or context. Maybe you just don't understand international relations other regurgitating what you read in your MAQA yahoo echo chambers.

Why did the US deny the second effort? Did putin attempt to negotiate without Ukraine being at the table?

Will Ukraine be forced to negotiate or will they continue to fight for their very existence? Without US aid, will russia negotiate or will they press the advantage? It's not as simple as you try to make it.

[UNI88]

Of course you negotiate, giving a little now can save American lives later. If Putin shows any hint of not honoring a treaty on the Ukraine then you crush Russia.

The red herring is we will inherit the financial burden of the entire Ukraine population for the next century .. Puerto Krania

How many decades will it take to weaken Russia? The Ukraine will run out of men before that happens

Biden’s proxy war is crushing the Ukraine minus the handful who are profiting Big with your tax dollars

I asked the question a month ago 88

Still waiting for your answer

I don't see a question in what you posted. Could you repeat it please?

putin has already shown that he won't honor a treaty - the Budapest Memorandum. If you give him a second chance, what's to say he won't expect a third?

Ukraine is Europe's breadbasket. They have a much greater chance of inheriting the financial burden of rebuilding Ukraine.

The "Biden’s proxy war is crushing the Ukraine" comment assumes that Ukraine will negotiate without aid. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption.

I believe that:
- Ukraine is fighting for its very existence.
- That the russian invasion has strengthened the Ukrainian national identity more than it's ever been.
- Yes, Ukraine has fewer people and fewer resources than russia, but they're stepping up - women are joining and fighting, they've got nothing to lose so they're more innovative than russia.

[Caribbean Hen]

I asked the question a month ago 88

Still waiting for your answer

I don't see a question in what you posted. Could you repeat it please?

putin has already shown that he won't honor a treaty - the Budapest Memorandum. If you give him a second chance, what's to say he won't expect a third?

Ukraine is Europe's breadbasket. They have a much greater chance of inheriting the financial burden of rebuilding Ukraine.

The "Biden’s proxy war is crushing the Ukraine" comment assumes that Ukraine will negotiate without aid. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption.

I believe that:
- Ukraine is fighting for its very existence.
- That the russian invasion has strengthened the Ukrainian national identity more than it's ever been.
- Yes, Ukraine has fewer people and fewer resources than russia, but they're stepping up - women are joining and fighting, they've got nothing to lose so they're more innovative than russia.

Ok the question was

What’s the end game?

If you have Putins signature on a treaty and he doesn’t honor the treaty, the international community has every reason to beat him down hard

Why isn’t Europe doing more? Like you said this war is a much bigger threat to them

Why is Biden allowing Russia to keep the world’s latest gas station open for business? To keep gas prices lower? Yes that’s it

Something just smells rotten about this thing

[UNI88]

I don't see a question in what you posted. Could you repeat it please?

putin has already shown that he won't honor a treaty - the Budapest Memorandum. If you give him a second chance, what's to say he won't expect a third?

Ukraine is Europe's breadbasket. They have a much greater chance of inheriting the financial burden of rebuilding Ukraine.

The "Biden’s proxy war is crushing the Ukraine" comment assumes that Ukraine will negotiate without aid. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption.

I believe that:
- Ukraine is fighting for its very existence.
- That the russian invasion has strengthened the Ukrainian national identity more than it's ever been.
- Yes, Ukraine has fewer people and fewer resources than russia, but they're stepping up - women are joining and fighting, they've got nothing to lose so they're more innovative than russia.

Ok the question was

What’s the end game?

If you have Putins signature on a treaty and he doesn’t honor the treaty, the international community has every reason to beat him down hard

Why isn’t Europe doing more? Like you said this war is a much bigger threat to them

Why is Biden allowing Russia to keep the world’s latest gas station open for business? To keep gas prices lower? Yes that’s it

Something just smells rotten about this thing

The end game for who? I believe that putin wants to restore russia to the old USSR boundaries with himself as Czar. For the US, preventing that from happening and keeping Ukraine a free and independent nation. For Europe, the same as the US plus getting Ukraine back to producing crops for consumption in Europe and other parts of the world.

putin has already shown he doesn't honor treaties over Ukraine. Why give him another chance?

Europe is don't more than they're telling you in those MAQA yahoo echo chambers:

[Caribbean Hen]

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/02 ... ices-down/

Ole Jojo is really tightening the screws on Putin right…. Wrong

Adeyemo responded, “So, the reason we put a price cap on Russian oil was because we wanted to make sure that we did two things: reduce Russia’s revenues, but make sure that we don’t increase the cost of energy for the rest of the world, and we succeeded in doing that to date. Russia’s revenues from energy for the federal government [are] down 40% in 2023, and we’ve seen energy prices in the rest of the world come down. Our goal is to make that even starker for Russia, and that’s why we’re taking the actions going after their largest shipping company.”

[kalm]

Not a fan of Schumer but he’s right here.

“There are those in the House — these far-right people — who are isolationists. They said, ‘This is far away, we don’t have to bother,’’” Schumer said Sunday. “That’s what the world said in 1938 with Hitler, and America paid the price — hundreds of thousands of deaths, billions of dollars spent. That’s what people said in 1916 here in the U.S., and a prolonged World War I then cost us dearly, leading to World War II. So, these isolationists have not learned the lesson of history.”

Schumer then told a personal anecdote about his ancestors in Chortkiv, Galicia — a city in western Ukraine where several groups of Jewish people resided prior to the Holocaust.

“In 1941, the Nazis came in, they told my grandmother, who was well known in the town of Chortkiv, to gather her family on the porch. Thirty-five members gathered from ages in the 80s to 3 months old. The Nazis said, ‘You’re coming with us.’ She said, ‘We’re not moving,’ and they machine-gunned every one of them dead. That’s what happens when you try to suck up to dictators. You can’t. Johnson has to learn that lesson,” Schumer said Sunday.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/448 ... -aid-bill/

[GannonFan]

Not a fan of Schumer but he’s right here.

“There are those in the House — these far-right people — who are isolationists. They said, ‘This is far away, we don’t have to bother,’’” Schumer said Sunday. “That’s what the world said in 1938 with Hitler, and America paid the price — hundreds of thousands of deaths, billions of dollars spent. That’s what people said in 1916 here in the U.S., and a prolonged World War I then cost us dearly, leading to World War II. So, these isolationists have not learned the lesson of history.”

Schumer then told a personal anecdote about his ancestors in Chortkiv, Galicia — a city in western Ukraine where several groups of Jewish people resided prior to the Holocaust.

“In 1941, the Nazis came in, they told my grandmother, who was well known in the town of Chortkiv, to gather her family on the porch. Thirty-five members gathered from ages in the 80s to 3 months old. The Nazis said, ‘You’re coming with us.’ She said, ‘We’re not moving,’ and they machine-gunned every one of them dead. That’s what happens when you try to suck up to dictators. You can’t. Johnson has to learn that lesson,” Schumer said Sunday.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/448 ... -aid-bill/

Eh, he's only kind of right. By 1938, Hitler was going to be starting WWII no matter what was done, it was just a question of where it would start and what that would look like. But war was coming. Appeasement wasn't necessarily about stopping a war - it was also about not getting ready for the war that was coming. The WWI thing is a weird take on it - it was 2.5 years before we got really involved, but that was such a weird war in the first place of how it came about I'm not sure you could say that we really dragged our feet too much. And even then, it took a good year for us to even get enough people over there to make a difference. And our isolationism at the end of WWI had little to do with WWII coming about - that was far more to do with Wilson not being strong enough to stand up to France and England and their demands.

But also with this, it's not always an easy question of whether to get involved and how much to get involved. I doubt Schumer today would be arguing that Vietnam was the right war to get involved with, nor would he be supporting another invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Bringing up Hitler is almost always a way to try to simplify something that isn't really that simple.

[BDKJMU]

Because he was living in Kiev and was giving a first hand account of what was happening in Ukraine.

Legitimate sources.

And Navalny was willing to spend years in a gulag and ultimately give his life opposing a fascist dictator while fighting for his people.

Was lira giving a true first hand account or a MAQA propaganda account. I have no doubt there is corruption and oppression in Ukraine but it pales in comparison to the corruption and oppression in russia.

You sure about that?

[kalm]

And Navalny was willing to spend years in a gulag and ultimately give his life opposing a fascist dictator while fighting for his people.

Was lira giving a true first hand account or a MAQA propaganda account. I have no doubt there is corruption and oppression in Ukraine but it pales in comparison to the corruption and oppression in russia.

You sure about that?

I wondered if it was a complication from the poisoning event. IIRC he was in pretty rough shape from that.

Regardless, his martyrdom relates to how he was treated before he died.

[UNI88]

And Navalny was willing to spend years in a gulag and ultimately give his life opposing a fascist dictator while fighting for his people.

Was lira giving a true first hand account or a MAQA propaganda account. I have no doubt there is corruption and oppression in Ukraine but it pales in comparison to the corruption and oppression in russia.

You sure about that?

Yes, I'm sure about that. If Navalny hadn't returned to russia in 2021 he would almost certainly be alive today with better medical care and overall living conditions. He was gave his life opposing a fascist dictator while fighting for his people.

[UNI88]

Russia Has More Artillery Than Ukraine. But Russian Gunners Have A Bad Habit Of Shelling ... Nothing.

On paper, the Russian army possesses one of the world’s best artillery fire-control systems. In practice, poorly trained and undisciplined Russian gunners following rigid, outdated doctrine are wasting Russia’s artillery advantage. Firing a lot of shells and rockets without necessarily hitting anything.

[SeattleGriz]

I already did in my first reply. Aid stops flowing, Ukraine will be forced to negotiate much sooner.

Remember how Russia has tried twice now to negotiate an end, but Boris Johnson scuttled the peace talks on one occasion and the US denied the second effort.

You gave a shallow answer with no explanation or context. Maybe you just don't understand international relations other regurgitating what you read in your MAQA yahoo echo chambers.

Why did the US deny the second effort? Did putin attempt to negotiate without Ukraine being at the table?

Will Ukraine be forced to negotiate or will they continue to fight for their very existence? Without US aid, will russia negotiate or will they press the advantage? It's not as simple as you try to make it.

Asking such stupid questions that no one can truly answer is a plot of distraction. About time you answer questions. Spill it! How do drones reduce the effectiveness of artillery?

[SeattleGriz]

NY Times runs article explaining how the CIA was behind the 2014 Ukrainian color revolution and how they pretty much control Ukraine.

Hardest hit? StUni, Howndie, Gannenfan and Klamala for parroting propaganda it was all Putin.

[UNI88]

You gave a shallow answer with no explanation or context. Maybe you just don't understand international relations other regurgitating what you read in your MAQA yahoo echo chambers.

Why did the US deny the second effort? Did putin attempt to negotiate without Ukraine being at the table?

Will Ukraine be forced to negotiate or will they continue to fight for their very existence? Without US aid, will russia negotiate or will they press the advantage? It's not as simple as you try to make it.

Asking such stupid questions that no one can truly answer is a plot of distraction. About time you answer questions. Spill it! How do drones reduce the effectiveness of artillery?

For someone who acts like they have access to the "answers" you sure struggle to answer detailed questions.

I posted an article above on why the russians have struggled to get the full benefit of their artillery advantage. I'm sure you'll dismiss the article because it doesn't fit with the narrative you want to believe.

It's obvious you're incapable of answering my question but I'll still answer your "stupid' question. I didn't say drones reduced the effectiveness of artillery. I asked what impact they had on casualties. Ukraine has used drones to to attack bases and supply lines, limiting the effectiveness of russian forces and reducing lives lost.

[SeattleGriz]

Asking such stupid questions that no one can truly answer is a plot of distraction. About time you answer questions. Spill it! How do drones reduce the effectiveness of artillery?

For someone who acts like they have access to the "answers" you sure struggle to answer detailed questions.

I posted an article above on why the russians have struggled to get the full benefit of their artillery advantage. I'm sure you'll dismiss the article because it doesn't fit with the narrative you want to believe.

It's obvious you're incapable of answering my question but I'll still answer your "stupid' question. I didn't say drones reduced the effectiveness of artillery. I asked what impact they had on casualties. Ukraine has used drones to to attack bases and supply lines, limiting the effectiveness of russian forces and reducing lives lost.

You asked for the end results. I gave you the two options I could answer. Russia dictates what happens and it either happens quickly with no aid, or drags on with aid.

A factor I did not account for though, is the upcoming election. The neocons cannot let Ukraine collapse before the election. So they'll have to come up with something to get funding to the MIC.

But back to your questions. You are asking specifics only those negotiating back channels know at this point. Hell, even when you have the Minsk agreements in place, the US and Ukraine didn't follow them.

[SeattleGriz]

I've seen this trick before. You'll never reveal your thinking. There's always a catch with you. Someone has to do something first and then you never uphold your end of the bargain.

I'll answer CH's question and then we'll see if you'll answer mine as asked (explaining why).

I don't know specifically how monetary aid is delivered but I would guess that it's transferred electronically. I don't think they'd send suitcases of cash on a flight when there are much more secure methods to transfer funds.

Your and CH's turn. Are you going to answer my question or pussy out?

No. The vast majority of that money goes to the MIC so they can build new equipment to replace what was given to Ukraine. Pretty much money laundering of taxpayer money right into the MIC.

[UNI88]

For someone who acts like they have access to the "answers" you sure struggle to answer detailed questions.

I posted an article above on why the russians have struggled to get the full benefit of their artillery advantage. I'm sure you'll dismiss the article because it doesn't fit with the narrative you want to believe.

It's obvious you're incapable of answering my question but I'll still answer your "stupid' question. I didn't say drones reduced the effectiveness of artillery. I asked what impact they had on casualties. Ukraine has used drones to to attack bases and supply lines, limiting the effectiveness of russian forces and reducing lives lost.

You asked for the end results. I gave you the two options I could answer. Russia dictates what happens and it either happens quickly with no aid, or drags on with aid.

A factor I did not account for though, is the upcoming election. The neocons cannot let Ukraine collapse before the election. So they'll have to come up with something to get funding to the MIC.

But back to your questions. You are asking specifics only those negotiating back channels know at this point. Hell, even when you have the Minsk agreements in place, the US and Ukraine didn't follow them.

So if we stop sending aid, Ukraine is forced to negotiate a peaceful settlement? What does that settlement look? Where would the borders be drawn? At todays lines? Can we be certain that russia will agree to a peaceful settlement if we stop aiding Ukraine? Isn't it possible that they'll decide to press their advantage and attempt to take over more of Ukraine?

It's not as simple as we stop sending aid, Ukraine is forced to negotiate, russia negotiates in good faith with boundaries acceptable to Ukraine, russia agrees to never invade again, thousands of lives are saved.

There is no guarantee that ending US aid will save lives.

[SeattleGriz]

You asked for the end results. I gave you the two options I could answer. Russia dictates what happens and it either happens quickly with no aid, or drags on with aid.

A factor I did not account for though, is the upcoming election. The neocons cannot let Ukraine collapse before the election. So they'll have to come up with something to get funding to the MIC.

But back to your questions. You are asking specifics only those negotiating back channels know at this point. Hell, even when you have the Minsk agreements in place, the US and Ukraine didn't follow them.

So if we stop sending aid, Ukraine is forced to negotiate a peaceful settlement? What does that settlement look? Where would the borders be drawn? At todays lines? Can we be certain that russia will agree to a peaceful settlement if we stop aiding Ukraine? Isn't it possible that they'll decide to press their advantage and attempt to take over more of Ukraine?

It's not as simple as we stop sending aid, Ukraine is forced to negotiate, russia negotiates in good faith with boundaries acceptable to Ukraine, russia agrees to never invade again, thousands of lives are saved.

There is no guarantee that ending US aid will save lives.

I gave you the end result. I have no idea how they will get there. As I previously posted, now remembering the election, I see the neocons trying really hard to keep this going past the election.

What do you think the article in the NY Times and the CIA was for? Now admitting the CIA has been integral to Ukraine and their security. If those awful Republicans don't send more money, that CIA connection wilts. Better send money.

There is no guarantee that ending US aid will save lives? The faster an agreement is reached, the faster the killing will stop.

[Skjellyfetti]

Russia and Ukraine signed the Minsk agreements in September 2014.

DPR decided to take the Dnipro airport in January 2015 anyway.

They signed the second Minsk agreements in 2015 promising not to do that again. They did... but, a full scale invasion. Excuse me, "Special Military Operation."

Surely Russia would honor Minsk III