Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Kaleredar]

Do you understand, that nuclear missiles in hands of ultra-radical anti-Russia nazis would mean constant blackmailing? Ask yourself simple question. What would mean making agreement with Ukraine? Do you understand, that in this case Ukraine might demand even more Russian territories? While true Ukraine historical territory - is middle Ukraine. Western part - is former European countries territories, and eastern one - Russian territories. Because they're pumped by "special descent" nazi theories and think, that whole Russia is actually historical Ukraine's territory, yeah.

And do you understand, that it's western Ukraine, that has been violating Minsk peace agreements for 8 years and using lethal weapons against eastern Ukraine? Do you understand, that it's western countries, who couldn't (or didn't want to) force Ukraine to follow them?

Uh, nobody believes that Putin is doing this for anyone's "good" except his own.

He doesn't care about "neo-nazis" or eastern ukranian lives (the people he's currently attacking) or western Ukranian lives or Russian lives or whatever other nonsense. He cares about two things:

1) Ukranian resources to prop up the frailty of the current Russian economic and military state

2) Placing a stopping block between NATO countries and Russia.

Actually, maybe 3) as well: recreating the USSR.



It's real early into a war to have already utterly lost the "messaging" war, as Putin has. I think Hitler even managed to maintain it for more than a half a day.

Ukrainians are not Nazis. They wouldn't have nukes.

Your entire spiel here is conspiracy theory propaganda fed to you by Putin. I'd laugh, but Russia going to actual war over this isn't funny.

If it's any consolation that's not why Russia actually went to war, it's the limp-dick excuse Putin put out to try and vaguely justify his wholesale invasion of a sovereign nation.

[s_bushido]

Do you understand, that nuclear missiles in hands of ultra-radical anti-Russia nazis would mean constant blackmailing? Ask yourself simple question. What would mean making agreement with Ukraine? Do you understand, that in this case Ukraine might demand even more Russian territories? While true Ukraine historical territory - is middle Ukraine. Western part - is former European countries territories, and eastern one - Russian territories. Because they're pumped by "special descent" nazi theories and think, that whole Russia is actually historical Ukraine's territory, yeah.

And do you understand, that it's western Ukraine, that has been violating Minsk peace agreements for 8 years and using lethal weapons against eastern Ukraine? Do you understand, that it's western countries, who couldn't (or didn't want to) force Ukraine to follow them?

And why should anyone believe Putin's ridiculous propaganda?

[PhaelixWW]

If it's any consolation that's not why Russia actually went to war, it's the limp-dick excuse Putin put out to try and vaguely justify his wholesale invasion of a sovereign nation.

It's not a consolation at all.

The war is still happening, regardless. And demonstrably, there are plenty of simple-minded people who are being successfully gulled by Putin's propaganda.

[Joszef Kiprich]

And why should anyone believe Putin's ridiculous propaganda?

This guy is spouting so much nonsense that even Putin and Shillcker think: come on comrade, this is getting ridiculous, almost unbelievable.

[PC2]

Do you understand, that nuclear missiles in hands of ultra-radical anti-Russia nazis would mean constant blackmailing? Ask yourself simple question. What would mean making agreement with Ukraine? Do you understand, that in this case Ukraine might demand even more Russian territories? While true Ukraine historical territory - is middle Ukraine. Western part - is former European countries territories, and eastern one - Russian territories. Because they're pumped by "special descent" nazi theories and think, that whole Russia is actually historical Ukraine's territory, yeah.

And do you understand, that it's western Ukraine, that has been violating Minsk peace agreements for 8 years and using lethal weapons against eastern Ukraine? Do you understand, that it's western countries, who couldn't (or didn't want to) force Ukraine to follow them?

Were you implying that Ukrainians are like dangerous villains or something? Everybody is culpable except Russia? I'm not sure what the take away is here.

[Joszef Kiprich]

more lies and propaganda......

You seem to can only quote from propaganda book but you're avoiding my questions, two simple ones:

Again with the bullshit. How many NATO nuclear missiles are there in the Baltics?

Even a better question: how many nuclear missiles does the NATO own? Not the US but NATO.

[Kaleredar]

It's not a consolation at all.

The war is still happening, regardless. And demonstrably, there are plenty of simple-minded people who are being successfully gulled by Putin's propaganda.

Are they, though?

I mean I'm sure there are Russians who genuinely want to believe they aren't being the unfettered aggressors here that they actually are, and there are of course the turnip farmers who are paid or otherwise have a vested interest in spreading this shit, but outside of dumbasses like Trump it's really a losing narrative in the US. And even then I don't think his messaging is getting very far in the US itself. Most of the other republicans seem to have broken rank with him on this one and are indeed calling it an attack. Even tools like Cruz and co. have come out voicing support for Ukraine.

It's worth remembering that, for the most part, most conservatives require very simplistic narratives to be able to understand them. Outside of the few and far between Qanon people, "Hillary caused benghazi" is about as complex as they'll generally understand. "Russia feared that Ukranian Neo-nazi seperatists might gain ground in the Ukranian government and threaten Russia with Nukes they'd acquire so that Putin had to preemptively invade," concepts they've likely never even heard of before, is far, far, FAR too complex a narrative for most of them.

The "Russia invaded Ukraine because they're malignant and power hungry" is far more simple.

[Specialka]

Are they, though?

I mean I'm sure there are Russians who genuinely want to believe they aren't being the unfettered aggressors here that they actually are, and there are of course the turnip farmers who are paid or otherwise have a vested interest in spreading this shit, but outside of dumbasses like Trump it's really a losing narrative in the US. And even then I don't think his messaging is getting very far in the US itself. Most of the other republicans seem to have broken rank with him on this one and are indeed calling it an attack. Even tools like Cruz and co. have come out voicing support for Ukraine.

It's worth remembering that, for the most part, most people require very simplistic narratives to be able to understand them. Outside of the few and far between Qanon people, "Hillary caused benghazi" is about as complex as they'll generally understand. "Russia feared that Ukranian Neo-nazi seperatists might gain ground in the Ukranian government and threaten Russia with Nukes they'd acquire so that Putin had to preemptively invade," concepts they've likely never even heard of before, is far, far, FAR too complex a narrative for most of them.

The "Russia invaded Ukraine because they're malignant and power hungry" is far more simple.

Fixed that for you.

[Corvus]

It helps that Russia had been the enemy for so long that them being the enemy again is a very easy transition.

[PhaelixWW]

Are they, though?

I was talking about people in Russia, not elsewhere.

[Kaleredar]

Fixed that for you.

I suppose so. But the only ones really in "danger" in the US for falling for Putin's lies were by and large of the conservative persuasion, what with Trump slobbing Putin's nob since at least 2016.

Which itself is a sort of double-think they had to exercise. Conservatives, for the most part, never really liked Russia or Putin. Maybe they wish that Trump was more the authoritarian tin pot pseudo strong man that Putin was, and maybe they wish they could exercise more authoritarian power against "liberal policies" like Putin exercised against his opponents in Russia, but that doesn't mean they actually liked Russia itself.

You could see this in their constant insistence that Trump was "tough on Russia," despite all evidence to the contrary. Hell, there are still posters bandying that notion today that insist that "this never would have happened under Trump," as if Putin was somehow scared of Trump, a man who did nothing but sing his praises and is still doing so despite this display of abject aggression on Putin's part. But they had to love Trump, and they had to dislike Russia, so they just sort of invented that Trump was somehow a strongman against Russian interests, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Specialka]

I suppose so. But the only ones really in "danger" in the US for falling for Putin's lies were by and large of the conservative persuasion, what with Trump slobbing Putin's nob since at least 2016.

Which itself is a sort of double-think they had to exercise. Conservatives, for the most part, never really liked Russia or Putin. Maybe they wish that Trump was more the authoritarian tin pot pseudo strong man that Putin was, and maybe they wish they could exercise more authoritarian power against "liberal policies" like Putin exercised against his opponents in Russia, but that doesn't mean they actually liked Russia itself.

You could see this in their constant insistence that Trump was "tough on Russia," despite all evidence to the contrary. Hell, there are still posters bandying that notion today that insist that "this never would have happened under Trump," as if Putin was somehow scared of Trump, a man who did nothing but sing his praises and is still doing so despite this display of abject aggression on Putin's part. But they had to love Trump, and they had to dislike Russia, so they just sort of invented that Trump was somehow a strongman against Russian interests, despite all evidence to the contrary.

And that is mostly US interior politics. Do not forget that most democrats are conservatives by EU standards.

[XDurionX]

Just saying ever since WW2, Germany barely had a military i think? I think they still feel guilty and rather go all passive instead. atleast feels this way :/
I do wish they would atleast get a proper army to defend EU borders...

What does NATO outside America really have to defend us against Russian invasion?

Just to chime in, this is bullshit. Divided Germany has been THE hot border during the cold war, at it's height in the 80ies, the draft lasted 18 months. German pilots are patrolling romanian airspace right now as we speak. German soldiers are stationed in the baltics as well.

[Specialka]

Just to chime in, this is bullshit. Divided Germany has been THE hot border during the cold war, at it's height in the 80ies, the draft lasted 18 months. German pilots are patrolling romanian airspace right now as we speak. German soldiers are stationed in the baltics as well.

It is not that great of an army though, especially for a country that size. Even the general in charge of the army acknowledged it today.

[XDurionX]

It is not that great of an army though, especially for a country that size. Even the general in charge of the army acknowledged it today.

That is true, and we don't have big means of force projection, since the Bundeswehr is a defensive army only. "great" is highly subjective and it has been fit for the low probability of war in central europe. This will change under the new circumstances, that's for sure. But "barely any military" is just not true. It's just incorporated into the bigger picture of NATO, not for a strategy of conquering the whole world alone.

[Specialka]

That is true, and we don't have big means of force projection, since the Bundeswehr is a defensive army only. "great" is highly subjective and it has been fit for the low probability of war in central europe. This will change under the new circumstances, that's for sure. But "barely any military" is just not true. It's just incorporated into the bigger picture of NATO, not for a strategy of conquering the whole world alone.

And I only can agree with that though I would prefer if we would build a real EU defense army now.

[Yetanothernewbie]

Do you understand, that nuclear missiles in hands of ultra-radical anti-Russia nazis would mean constant blackmailing? Ask yourself simple question. What would mean making agreement with Ukraine? Do you understand, that in this case Ukraine might demand even more Russian territories? While true Ukraine historical territory - is middle Ukraine. Western part - is former European countries territories, and eastern one - Russian territories. Because they're pumped by "special descent" nazi theories and think, that whole Russia is actually historical Ukraine's territory, yeah.

And do you understand, that it's western Ukraine, that has been violating Minsk peace agreements for 8 years and using lethal weapons against eastern Ukraine? Do you understand, that it's western countries, who couldn't (or didn't want to) force Ukraine to follow them?

How about you just fuck off you Russian shill.

[XDurionX]

For scale: Kiev is as far from Berlin as Rome is (~1.200km), and Wien is closer to the Ukraine than to Ischgl.

And I only can agree with that though I would prefer if we would build a real EU defense army now.

European Nato forces alone outnumber russia 3-1 (sorry for big graphic, remove if unfit):

[Specialka]

Yes but I do not want the US involved in our defense.

[XDurionX]

Yes but I do not want the US involved in our defense.

Well everybody hopes that will never be needed, but NATO is everything stopping Putin from attacking the baltics and poland. He knows a direct attack on NATO is suicide.

Nato, however, will not get involved in Ukraine. At least not militarily.