Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Shalcker]

I understand you are trying to defend your master but if you look at what I said, I wasn't personally threatening anyone. I was saying that the US and NATO need to play that game with him and let him know that he doesn't want to play chicken with people much better equip to handle that collision then himself and that if he does play that game, he will lose and it will impact not only him but those who were helping him, both family and friend, and that even his own family who stayed out of his affairs would not leave unscathed as he will have nothing to leave them and their name would be forever tarnished thanks to their father.

The thing is, he is the one much better equipped to handle it. Ukraine is important to him and it is just side-story for US, not any kind of primary concern.

You seem to be assuming that NATO is "better equipped" - but how would they be? You aren't proposing anything that haven't been proposed before; every potential weakness have been long investigated on both sides and either pushed or cut already.

You thinking that he can be pressured through family threats is silly.

If he decides to "go into Ukraine" there is no other outcome then Ukrainian defeat; but at the moment it is primarily Ukrainian fearmongering.

I would hope you want it to stay that way?

Or do you want him to go in so that you would finally have "good reasons" to crush him?

But I never once threatened anyone in that post personally.

If you would make credible threats to his family - even in "things stashed for future" kind, why do you think he would instantly fold rather then just make another stash you cannot reach?

But if you are trying to elude that Putin would track me down personally and kill me because I suggested what the US and NATO should do even though I have zero power and authority, you have even less respect for Putin than I do as no one in their right mind thinks he got to where he is today being THAT petty.

Not you personally; those who would act on such plans.

[Fugus]

The thing is, he is the one much better equipped to handle it. Ukraine is important to him and it is just side-story for US, not any kind of primary concern.

You seem to be assuming that NATO is "better equipped" - but how would they be? You aren't proposing anything that haven't been proposed before; every potential weakness have been long investigated on both sides and either pushed or cut already.

You thinking that he can be pressured through family threats is silly.

If he decides to "go into Ukraine" there is no other outcome then Ukrainian defeat; but at the moment it is primarily Ukrainian fearmongering.

I would hope you want it to stay that way?

Or do you want him to go in so that you would finally have "good reasons" to crush him?

If you would make credible threats to his family - even in "things stashed for future" kind, why do you think he would instantly fold rather then just make another stash you cannot reach?

Not you personally; those who would act on such plans.

Given all that has happened, I am not so sure that Putin is better equip given all the shit he has done and been pissing off the world as a whole with his attacks against them.

Ukraine is important to Putin, keeping Russia from getting a bigger foothold as they actively wage war around the globe using the internet is important to the US and NATO. Having countries fear for their lives if they even think about joining NATO is important to the US and NATO as well.

And I didn't say putting pressure on him through his family, I said putting pressure on him knowing what he will do to his kids if he tried. Similar but not the same.

If Russia goes into Ukraine and the US and NATO allow it, then neither NATO nor the US has the right to say a damn thing about any other event and actually just endorsed Putin doing it AGAIN.

If Putin goes into Ukraine, not only is that the green light to intervene on behalf of Ukraine, Putin will have just given them all the justification they need to put Missiles at their doorstep to keep them from trying again.

And "Those who would act on such plans"? You mean like NATO and the US? Well, if Putin ends up feeling froggy, I would hope they turned him into frog stew but lets face it, I am just some rando online with zero power, zero authority, zero name recognition, and zero charisma, I don't think they will hear me, let alone listen. It all comes down to what the experts say and if they are weak enough to let Putin do it after already attacking Crimea and attacking the US as well as the other nations, then America will deserve to be ignored by the rest of the world as nothing but weak opportunists who only attack if they can turn a profit doing it at that point

[Easo]

Ukraine already ignored past agreements that allowed them to retake Donbass as long as they provided amnesty to people there and a few other conditions. But there are no other agreements available, and noone is interested in negotiating them - Ukraine most of all.

No one rationally thinking believes Donbas would disarm. Last thing Ukraine needs are uncontrolled militia doing whatever they want in Eastern Ukraine.
State in a state is not a solution.

[Skulltaker]

If Putin goes into Ukraine, not only is that the green light to intervene on behalf of Ukraine, Putin will have just given them all the justification they need to put Missiles at their doorstep to keep them from trying again.

Russia already has the part of Ukraine that it wants, the Crimea, which provides land access to their important naval base at Sevastopol, was it? The Black Sea fleet.

Honestly, I don't see NATO risking an armed conflict with Russia over Ukraine. No one cares about them, sadly. But I'm no expert. Still, I am missing a similarily worded response from Biden like he made with Taiwan, namely that the US would defend Ukraine in case of an attack. Or did I miss this? Closest I saw was Stoltenberg saying NATO doesn't need anyones permission to negotiate new members (and he's right.)

[Fugus]

Russia already has the part of Ukraine that it wants, the Crimea, which provides land access to their important naval base at Sevastopol, was it? The Black Sea fleet.

Honestly, I don't see NATO risking an armed conflict with Russia over Ukraine. No one cares about them, sadly. But I'm no expert. Still, I am missing a similarily worded response from Biden like he made with Taiwan, namely that the US would defend Ukraine in case of an attack. Or did I miss this? Closest I saw was Stoltenberg saying NATO doesn't need anyones permission to negotiate new members (and he's right.)

If the US and NATO allows it, then they send the message that Russia can take more if they want so long as it doesn't directly impact the short term strategic interests of them. Which also emboldens Russia to make that gamble a third time as this will already be their second time.

It also goes to even attempt to join NATO is a bad idea because NATO won't lift a finger to help you unless it is within their own personal interests to do so which will send a chilling effect to anyone else who wishes to join NATO along with a decline in the trust in NATO among the people of their own members as they just watched NATO abandon people trying to join them.

Just like if the US offered the Kurds anything, the Kurds would be stupid to put too much faith in it because the US has already proven that they are unreliable and can't be trusted the moment conservatives get back into power which will happen eventually. Same deal here, if Ukraine wishes to join and they get attacked for that and NATO and the US stays out, that hurts their image and respect world wide.

[Shalcker]

Given all that has happened, I am not so sure that Putin is better equip given all the shit he has done and been pissing off the world as a whole with his attacks against them.

As long as "world" is "Western world" - or even "primarily US and UK", given that NS2 is still going forward despite US protests.

Ukraine is important to Putin, keeping Russia from getting a bigger foothold as they actively wage war around the globe using the internet is important to the US and NATO. Having countries fear for their lives if they even think about joining NATO is important to the US and NATO as well.

Russia doesn't need Ukraine to "wage war around the globe using internet", so it's hard to see how "having bigger foothold" matters.

If Russia goes into Ukraine and the US and NATO allow it, then neither NATO nor the US has the right to say a damn thing about any other event and actually just endorsed Putin doing it AGAIN.

If Putin goes into Ukraine, not only is that the green light to intervene on behalf of Ukraine, Putin will have just given them all the justification they need to put Missiles at their doorstep to keep them from trying again.

And "Those who would act on such plans"? You mean like NATO and the US? Well, if Putin ends up feeling froggy, I would hope they turned him into frog stew but lets face it, I am just some rando online with zero power, zero authority, zero name recognition, and zero charisma, I don't think they will hear me, let alone listen. It all comes down to what the experts say and if they are weak enough to let Putin do it after already attacking Crimea and attacking the US as well as the other nations, then America will deserve to be ignored by the rest of the world as nothing but weak opportunists who only attack if they can turn a profit doing it at that point

It feels like your primary concern isn't "solving the problem" but "US keeping their face".

Ukrainian problem was in part created through US meddling. From US-supported Orange Revolution leaders being so inept and corrupt they lost to Yanukovich; and then from Nuland going "Fuck the EU" and encouraging opposition, and then from that same opposition giving every indication they'll shit on all previous agreements with Russia - and, indeed, doing that.

Now you seem to be in "We're stuck in bad position but we have to keep defending it or our standing suffers".
Maybe it is better to extricate yourselves from situation? Stop stirring the pot and driving up the heat?

- - - Updated - - -

No one rationally thinking believes Donbas would disarm. Last thing Ukraine needs are uncontrolled militia doing whatever they want in Eastern Ukraine.
State in a state is not a solution.

Noone is going to seriously support military solution too, so it's either Minsk agreement or no solution in sight (and so creeping Russian takeover).

[Fugus]

Sorry Shalcker but nothing you really say carries any weight as you have proven to lie, misrepresent and get stuff wrong more times than you get it right. So, not much faith in your responses.

[Shalcker]

It also goes to even attempt to join NATO is a bad idea because NATO won't lift a finger to help you unless it is within their own personal interests to do so which will send a chilling effect to anyone else who wishes to join NATO along with a decline in the trust in NATO among the people of their own members as they just watched NATO abandon people trying to join them.

Turkey already shown those "chilling effects" when they tried to invoke Article 5.

Really, the only one using Article 5 so far was US - and over highly dubious premise at that (as they weren't attacked by military).

Just like if the US offered the Kurds anything, the Kurds would be stupid to put too much faith in it because the US has already proven that they are unreliable and can't be trusted the moment conservatives get back into power which will happen eventually. Same deal here, if Ukraine wishes to join and they get attacked for that and NATO and the US stays out, that hurts their image and respect world wide.

NATO is primarily US-serving organization.

It only creates "image and respect" within alliance - and that is always limited by US being highly disrespectful to other alliance members.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry Shalcker but nothing you really say carries any weight as you have proven to lie, misrepresent and get stuff wrong more times than you get it right. So, not much faith in your responses.

Why do you need faith in responses? It's just different viewpoints; every personal viewpoint is inherently flawed.

[Ettan]

I have little faith in the effectiveness of sanctions, the regime's control is just far too strong.
To be effective they need to be crippeling to the populace.
"Targeted" sanctions are just a slap on the wrists.

Despite that I think It could be ended right now, with the use of more mad means. Although I deem them all rather unlikely.

Some possible Ukrainian xmas gifts.

I Express free club membership certificate.
II A little nuclear crisis loan (club special bonus giftcard, but not full membership).
Delegation of atomic submarines; at any time 5 active randomly selected nato nuclear armed subs will be under direct ukranian command.
III Early fireworks, do an actual long distance nuclear test at ground level right on the ukranian/ russian border. With the express promise to provide the same fireworks to major cities and capitals if the necessity should present itself.

IV Nuclear winter. Full first strike christmas, fun for everone, no matter where you live.
Big bonuses attached; finally get those housing prices down and no need to worry about silly global warming ever again.

In any case, europe gets a lump of coal in their socks.

[enigma77]

Russia is set on fire.

[Shalcker]

Because most of us aren’t 6 and don’t just accept everything someone says. Especially when that person is someone who is constantly pushing flimsy false narratives.

Doesn't stop me from talking to you.

Got to see different viewpoints to better understand some seemingly insane decisions.

[Shalcker]

Except my viewpoint is based in the facts, you base yours in the assumption that everyone lies about Russia except those earning turnips.

Mine is based on facts too; we are just behind different filters.

Availability of various facts differs in different societies, leading to different perceptions due to availability heuristic.

[Fugus]

Doesn't stop me from talking to you.

Got to see different viewpoints to better understand some seemingly insane decisions.

As Vegas82 has pointed out, there is no faith to be had in you as you are already an established liar who will intentionally lie, give misinformation, and go out of your way NOT to understand something repeatedly as it goes to what you want.

Your record precedes you and trusting you would be like trusting a known liar and thief with a pocket full of collectible coins when he says he wasn't the one who stole your coin collection except worse as you outright lie even when there is objective verifiable evidence you are lying.

[Orange Joe]

Mine is based on facts too; we are just behind different filters.

Availability of various facts differs in different societies, leading to different perceptions due to availability heuristic.

Is this Russias version of "alternative facts"?

[Shalcker]

As Vegas82 has pointed out, there is no faith to be had in you as you are already an established liar who will intentionally lie, give misinformation, and go out of your way NOT to understand something repeatedly as it goes to what you want.

"Understanding something" and "agreeing with something" are different things.

I can understand and still disagree.

Your record precedes you and trusting you would be like trusting a known liar and thief with a pocket full of collectible coins when he says he wasn't the one who stole your coin collection except worse as you outright lie even when there is objective verifiable evidence you are lying.

Where in this discussion did you need to employ trust?

[Fugus]

"Understanding something" and "agreeing with something" are different things.

I can understand and still disagree.

Where in this discussion did you need to employ trust?

It's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing. No one is entitled to their own facts, you pretend you are and will outright lie about what the facts are. As I said, you are one of the ones on this thread I actively do not trust anything you say given your history on the facts and dishonesty. Most of the time I don't even bother responding to you because I know I will most likely get a lie from you or sea lioning or some other way to avoid the facts.

[Shalcker]

It's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing. No one is entitled to their own facts, you pretend you are and will outright lie about what the facts are.

Where did i lie about which facts here?

As I said, you are one of the ones on this thread I actively do not trust anything you say given your history on the facts and dishonesty. Most of the time I don't even bother responding to you because I know I will most likely get a lie from you or sea lioning or some other way to avoid the facts.

"I only speak to people i already trust that will reaffirm my every belief".

Ukraine tries to play your phobias to help solve their internal legitimacy crisis.

[Fugus]

Where did i lie about which facts here?

"I only speak to people i already trust that will reaffirm my every belief".

Ukraine tries to play your phobias to help solve their internal legitimacy crisis.

Nice deflection there. You can ask Endus and the others, I have debated them before and admitted when I was wrong before, that isn't an issue. You have outright lied on countless facts on countless other threads to the point fact checking you is a fools errand.

If you can get people with a history of honesty to vouch for you, you will have something to start with. But you are a known and habitual liar.

[Shalcker]

Nice deflection there. You can ask Endus and the others, I have debated them before and admitted when I was wrong before, that isn't an issue. You have outright lied on countless facts on countless other threads to the point fact checking you is a fools errand.

I have admitted I was wrong before as well.

Most of the time you consider lies are simple disagreements over trustworthiness of facts available at the time.

If you can get people with a history of honesty to vouch for you, you will have something to start with. But you are a known and habitual liar.

Vouch for what?

Why do you feel need to trust anything rather then simply seeing what i say as how it looks from another side? (right or wrong)

[Fugus]

I have admitted I was wrong before as well.

Most of the time you consider lies are simple disagreements over trustworthiness of facts available at the time.

Vouch for what?

Why do you feel need to trust anything rather then simply seeing what i say as how it looks from another side? (right or wrong)

Because you aren't entitled to your own facts which you pretend you are. You will continue to go even with being wrong multiple times.

And it isn't a simple disagreement over the trustworthiness of facts. Flat out, you have outright denied verifiable and proven facts repeatedly.

As for simply seeing what you said, if I was just trying to watch a loon spin his wheels, I would be inclined to just watch you talk. But wrong is wrong and you are outright wrong the vast majority of the time with the closest you typically come is getting a single detail or set of details right while ignoring the context around it where you try and twist a truth to elude to a lie.

On that note, I'm out.