I don’t think US cares about Ukraine, they are giving them limited help just to make sure Russia suffers heavy casualties and an already weak army with the heavy losses then is going to be even weaker and will take years to recuperate.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Severodonetsk is under Russian control now but that is the only major change.
Right, well…
Puppet government: “a government which is endowed with the outward symbols of authority but in which direction and control are exercised by another power”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puppet government
Hence my confusion
Ukraine was fecked no matter what. They had no say in their future. Once the maidan coup happened and Russia got Crimea they had no say in anything. No self respecting Ukrainian can accept the loss of Crimea the way it happened.
The Russians and The Americans sacrifice Ukraine in their attempt at domination.
It's just came out in an interview by Corbyn that the military and pompeo said that he would not let him be the PM. So it's valid to say that the Americans have a very strong influence over a lot of countries.
The Ukrainians wouldn't survive a day without the American support.
The Russians and The Americans sacrifice Ukraine in their attempt at domination.
It's just came out in an interview by Corbyn that the military and pompeo said that he would not let him be the PM. So it's valid to say that the Americans have a very strong influence over a lot of countries.
The Ukrainians wouldn't survive a day without the American support.
Sad scenes from Kyiv.
How have the Americans sacrificed Ukraine? Its not their country in the first place and they are their main ally in this current war.
They literally survived for weeks with nothing but some helpful intel. The weapons and the money started to arrive after they survived the attack on Kyiv. Absurd statement
Americans and UK have done a lot for Ukraine. I am sure that Ukranians will never forget that. Also, both of these countries were doing their best to make sure that the war does not spill out of Ukranian borders. However, the more rushists attack, the more weapons will Ukraine receive. Right now missiles are fired at Kyiv from Caspian Sea. Ukraine has each and every right to make sure that this does not happen in the future. Thus, they will receive weapons that will deal with whatever put-ler is trying to kill them. There will be no peace talks unless on Ukranian terms. After everything that has happened Zelenskyy will want nothing less than Ukraine territory that includes Crimea. There will for sure be more deaths and destruction, but make no mistake put-ler is not winning this war. It is clear for everyone now that his aim is to erase Ukraine as a sovereign country and Ukranians as a nation. Not gonna happen.
The HIMARS are clearly pissing the Russians off. Now they are just launching airstrikes at random all over the country the hope of hitting something Western 
This war would not have happened without the Americans in the first place. Long before Crimea got taken over by The Russians. Any idiot would know that just like the Americans refused to accept missiles in Cuba the Russians won't accept it on their borders. Or have you forgotten Victoria Nuland and the Maidan?
It’s not that we’ve forgotten, it’s just that we have a very different view of reality from the one formed in your head.
Maidan was not about nuclear missiles in Ukraine or NATO. None of those were subject matter at the time and neither are they now. It was about Ukraine’s customs union with Europe and a presidency that was negotiating it for years only to back out on the 11th hour after a trip to Moscow and pressure from Putin. It was about Russia not letting Ukraine decide their own economic and political future. Ukraine was never a military threat for Russia. But carry on.
Last edited:
Pretty much. Also Nato is a defensive alliance anyway. Some people just want to blame the US for everything. How dare the Ukraine people want democracy and join the EU.
Last edited:
Spot bloody on.
You're right there. Putin would have waved his nuclear weapons and Ukraine would have had little option but to allow his tanks over the border. There would not have been a war to speak of, and no Ukraine either.
I'm not really sure if people are aware several nato countries already border Russia and NATO could easily lop nukes from Poland. Or from simply the US with modern tech.
I thought we had moved beyond whole “the US provoked Russia into being aggressors by surrounding the country with missiles”. It’s such a dumb argument based purely on Russian propaganda.
Any self respecting nuclear power has a 24/7 submarine based deterrent (e.g. Trident). No one knows where the subs are at any one time and it means that effectively anywhere is within range. Land based missiles are secondary and Russia obviously knows this, they just need excuses to justify their land grabs.
Pretty much, it's mainly peddled by people who are anti American by nature and there is a lot to be anti American about just not this.
Exactly!
It's not really supposed to make sense after putting any thought into it. It's just shit to throw against the wall and if someone already wanted to believe that US is at fault here they will take that reasoning and justify that position with this. That's why it regularly comes back and then almost immediately disappears again.
There will be an awful lot more Nato troops and weapons in neighbouring countries soon, as they've given them many incentives to join.
It's truly some 1984 self mind bend shit.
Not only that. But precisely because nukes can be either lopped off from submarines or delivered by airstrikes, there has never been any real incentive to move NATO nukes any further eastward.
Despite NATOs enlargement, new countries have not received nukes and western Germany is still the easternmost part of Europe where NATO nukes can be found. It just wouldn’t bring any real advantage to nuclear equip say the Baltics and Eastern Europe and it would only be used by the Russian propaganda machine to justify paranoia and hostility towards the west. Hey, they even used fear of nukes and Cuba analogies as part of their propaganda about Ukraine (that Foxbatt has swallowed whole), despite it not having any correspondence with reality.
Meanwhile, Russia that already has nukes in Kaliningrad…
How would the US stop Corbyn from becoming PM? Curious who they have that much influence over, the Royals?
Indeed but there's never a shortage of thick as pig shit people who buy into that nonsense.
It hasn’t “just come out”, and you seem to have it wrong in any case. Here’s how the Washington Post reported it at the time:
During his meeting with Jewish leaders in New York, Pompeo was asked if Corbyn “is elected, would you be willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the U.K.?”
In response, Pompeo said, “It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best,” he said to fervent applause from attendees.
They don't mention either that Russia has violated the nuclear disarment treaty signed with Ukraine.
Without going for nukes, one has to ask if and when Ukraine (and perhaps the rest of easternmost NATO countries) would start receiving Tomahawk missiles or equivalents now that Russian forces are firing from as far as the Caspian Sea. Putinists are feeling too safe from their ivory tower at the moment while Ukrainian cities far from the main frontlines are still getting bombed. Whatever that will be, that sense of security has to be shattered at one point anyhow the same way that Tokyo and Berlin felt when the Allies dropped their first bombs on them through minor raids. Regaining psychological advantage is the key here.
What I do not understand about Kaliningrad though is how it has not been included for disarmament in previous iterations of treaties against nuclear proliferation. I doubt that Russia has just introduced nukes to that region right after they pulled out from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty.
Put-ler knows that his "denazification" of Ukraine has been a total disaster in the eyes of the world. He is no longer a macho and a ruler of an empire, but a sore loser, a Goliath that has been beaten up by David. The only way for him to restore his image is to provoke NATO, make sure that the use of nukes becomes a real possibility, which will force all world leaders to sit at a negotiation table. This is exactly why the senile Rushist is trying to play his neonderthal mind games with Baltic states, Poland etc. On the contrary, NATO leaders are playing their hand very smart. They are not responding to any provocations, but have called the bunker gnom's bluff and are increasing their support to Ukraine. They know full well that if the cnut crosses the line, they have enough means and power to humiliate him in a matter of days, thus are staying cool, while the maniac is spitting out so much venom and hatred but is not taken seriously anymore. The latest strikes at Kyiv are the signs of impotence rather than bravado.
Was just about to post this, first proper proof the sanctions are effective.
Edit: DW, BBC also reporting this.
This shows the West made a lot of mistakes. Probably because all our leaders are very weak. With dictators like Putin you really need a hard line. A hard line that they know they cannot cross.
The West had so many options! Including, back in February, giving Russia 48 hours to get out of Ukraine of face the NATO air force in full force. I don't understand why Russia always escalates, and the West always try to not escalate. NATO is much stronger than Russia, including in nuclear arsenal. NATO should be dictating terms, not just trying to avoid offending Putin. Yes, I understand the risks, but Kasparov was correct that dictators like Putin (or Stalin, or Hitler before him), only respect strength, nothing else. The risks are probably higher with a "soft line" than with a "hard line" against dictators like Putin. They don't care about their own soldiers either, or long term dangers to their economy.
A NATO ultimatum could be the best way out for Putin, too, since he could come out as the the wise leader that does not want to destroy the whole planet using nuclear forces. On the other hand, now Putin cannot save face accepting that Ukraine beat Russia, the only way out for him is if NATO beat Russia, because Russians already accept that NATO is bigger and stronger than they are. There is no shame being beaten by superior force. And of course, a direct hit of Russian forces by NATO air force those first days of the war, would actually have saved many lives, both Ukrainian and Russian. The West made the same mistake with Hitler, they could have stopped him in 1936 with minimal loss of life, but they kept trying to negotiate till it was too late.
Why do you think the US and the USSR pretty much did all they could to avoid direct confrontation? And people breathed a sigh of relief that they didn't? To some degree I agree with your post, but also if you Nato did what you said they would not be a defensive alliance since Ukraine isn't in Nato.
This is not an argument. Serbia wasn't NATO either. If Ukraine was NATO, and NATO did nothing, then obviously NATO is nothing, we are not that bad.
I acknowledge that we can find many arguments for doing nothing. What I am saying is that history teaches us that doing nothing against dictators, usually costs more in the long term, both in money and in lives.
Good point about Serbia. Still the baddies didn't have nukes. Personally I would love Nato to swoop in and drive Russia out of Ukraine, but I don't think at the end of the day we want to live through decades of nuclear threats.
I am afraid, we are going around, repeating the same arguments.
What I am saying is that the nuclear threats are not going to end, no matter what happens in Ukraine. Putin may win the whole Ukraine, Putin might lose the whole Ukraine, or there will be a stalemate. The nuclear threats will not end. You know why? Because the West has now proved that nuclear threats work!
Actually, if it happens that Putin starts losing ground in Ukraine, he will now be more compelled to use a tactical nuclear weapon. You know why? Yes, you guessed correctly, because the West has already proved that nuclear threats work!
One example. In December 2021 Biden said Russia will pay a heavy price if it invades Ukraine. This is weak. He did not specify anything, this sounds like an empty threat.
If Biden said "USAF will obliterate any Russian forces that enter Ukraine", and he meant it, and F-16s started flying inside Ukraine near the Russian border, with F-22s and F-35s and B-52s nearby... do you really think that Putin would ever invade Ukraine? I don't think so. Putin had his forces on the border for 2 months and was waiting to see what the NATO response is. NATO did nothing: that was the green light for Putin.
Of course, I understand that if Biden did that, the whole world would blame him as warmonger. We'd see the global anti-american squad in full force. Well yes, but how many lives would have been saved by this "USAF air show"? Sometimes leaders do not have any good options, they have to choose the least worst option from an array of bad options.
If Biden said "USAF will obliterate any Russian forces that enter Ukraine", and he meant it, and F-16s started flying inside Ukraine near the Russian border, with F-22s and F-35s and B-52s nearby... do you really think that Putin would ever invade Ukraine? I don't think so. Putin had his forces on the border for 2 months and was waiting to see what the NATO response is. NATO did nothing: that was the green light for Putin.
Of course, I understand that if Biden did that, the whole world would blame him as warmonger. We'd see the global anti-american squad in full force. Well yes, but how many lives would have been saved by this "USAF air show"? Sometimes leaders do not have any good options, they have to choose the least worst option from an array of bad options.