>The top level of the Soviet diplomatic service arranged his 1987 Moscow visit. With assistance from the KGB. It took place while Kryuchkov was seeking to improve the KGB's operational techniques in one particular and sensitive area. The spy chief wanted KGB staff abroad to recruit more Americans... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-fir...
Which doesn't prove Trump did bad stuff but does kind of show the KGB were trying.
Why would the CIA let him become president if they actually had something on him? Why would they let Gabbard (also called a "Russian asset") become DNI if they had something on her?
I.e. belonging to one of the few major UK news outlets not directly controlled by a billionaire...?
Yes, in Russia it happened largely in the same way, and it started much earlier than in 2011 (in 2012 we already had literal Putin cultists marching down the streets). Some people blamed an external enemy for their troubles (both troubles and the enemy were usually imaginary, with the enemy usually being the US), others who rejected the idea blamed the other half and generally had their heads in the sand, but neither wanted to admit their issues or do anything substantial, leaving the Kremlin do what they wanted to do.
This is something that is unique to the administration and those who deeply agree with what it’s done.
Not that it matters… clearly people don’t care enough to vote for it. My heart goes out to the people of Ukraine.
0: https://thehill.com/policy/international/5153611-quinnipiac-...
I see plenty of people in social media (enough to be convinced that they aren't all bots) who appear to believe that continuing to support Ukraine with aid would bankrupt the US, would be equivalent in effect to fighting Iraq or Vietnam again, would lead to WW III, and so on and so forth. The conspiracy theories about Ukraine's leadership are elaborate as well. I imagine almost all these people would tell you they don't like Putin.
Out of that 81%, how many believe in appeasing Putin to "Avoid world war III" despite their animus? Too many, IMO, and Putin doesn't care for how the American populace feel about him personally, as long as he can achieve his foreign policy goals without hindrance from American bombs, intelligence or funding, which has become the status quo as of yesterday.
As someone who lives in the EU and has the same kind of relatives, what I find frustrating is how little actual engagement with the Russian narratives there is from official sides. There is presented "evidence" for US influence in Ukraine long before the war, like the Victoria Nuland video, yet there seems to be no attempts at debunking those arguments, short of a catch-all labeling of all of it as disinformation (which, I can testify from personal experience, does absolutely nothing to dissuade people who already believe it).
The Selinskyji/Trump spat felt like an extreme version of this, where Selinskyji essentially argued with the Western/Ukrainian narrative of the war and Trump argued with the Russian narrative.
The strategy of "ignore the Russian narrative and hope not many people will latch on to it" evidently failed, so I think if we want to have a hope of solving this conflict and countering Trump (and maybe get back the parts of the population that follow the narrative), we at least have to engage with it and provide counterarguments.
Is it not just that media is more fragmented and we've underfunded the fact providing media since?
I'd assume that by the time a disclaimer is written up, submitted, and accepted according to whatever the criteria is, the original un-disclaimered message has been received and digested by its target audience.
1. Viral tweets have a longer-than-average time window between the time they start to go viral and the time the median viewer sees them, so a community note can get there before the median viewer. 2. Users who interacted with a tweet before it got a community note will get a notification when the community note is added. 3. Community note writers can leave a note on a piece of media. If a tweet with a video gets a community note, and that note is about the video rather than about the tweet, that note will show on all other tweets that show that video.
Source: this excellent interview with the Community Notes team (https://asteriskmag.com/issues/08/the-making-of-community-no...), in the section that starts with "Asterisk: Another thing I wanted to talk about is speed". Really that whole interview is great, highlights how deliberate and thoughtful the Community Notes team was regarding everything about the feature. Which is, I think, why community notes have succeeded where a lot of previous fact-checking attempts have failed.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/2/21/musk-vows-to-fix...
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
I swear to god, there is no talking with these people. It's like any argument you make slides right off their reality distortion field.
Which is to say Ukrainian narrative is hard to embrace unless someone is already energized by a need for justice to nations, which might not be certain segment of America.
And don’t think it will be last one Russia started.
To oppose that isn't warmongering.
It really makes me wonder what kind of moral background is required to find supporting subservience through disgusting remarks less despicable than a hypocritical-or-not supporting of a hopeless fight. Like genuinely, how does one get to that point?
Although to be honest with you, the pushback using this argument doesn't seem nearly thought through enough for this. Instead, it's a mere spasmic reaction where people found a catchy clapback to the peace quote, and then end-of-proof right there. Great job indeed...
Im glad tbe adults are in charge.
I don't think anyone does that.
Zelensky is invited here and shows incredible restraint and decorum only to be shouted down and vilified. Meanwhile, Netanyahu comes over here and CHASTISES Congress for not delivering weapons FAST ENOUGH. This after we've propped up Israel's apartheid regime and filled warehouses with weapons for decades.
There absolutely is and you are the victim of it.
Yep, the best propaganda is one you don't even think of as propaganda. It's just the truth.
This is not a new sentiment and it caused by Russian social media propaganda: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4473508,00.html. I cite Chomsky less these days than I used to, but I recall back when I was a Gore-supporting Democrat and we were mocking “Team America: World Police” he was seen as pretty respectable. Is he Russian propaganda?
Seriously? The current president is even more on-board than the previous ones with using Israel as a U.S. proxy. Just because he's also in bed with Putin doesn't mean he opposes American imperialism.
So where did he get that from?
Trump overthrew the Bush dynasty by eviscerating Jeb over the Iraq War: https://youtu.be/H4ThZcq1oJQ?si=Y3nWQeiui8KJhj8b. Now, neocons want to chalk that up as bad execution of an otherwise sound ideology. But you don’t think that Trump’s supporters could genuinely disagree with that assessment—think that the underlying problem is that america is too willing to intervene militarily in places that don’t directly affect the U.S.? You think that view is driven by Russian propaganda?
The way I see it, Ukraine is the test case for the foreign policy populist Democrats have long supported. The Cold War is over. The likelihood that Putin will invade Germany or France next is low. Regional wars are just that, and we should let them play out without getting involved.
Otherwise you’re still subscribing to Reaganite neoconservatism—you’re just quibbling about the details of whether to involve the american military empire in any particular skirmish.
You wouldn't appease a dictator who imprisoned and killed his opposition.
And Putin wouldn't attack openly, nowadays you attack per online sabotage, something the US will see rising, or won't see because Trump suspended the cyber operations.
Strangely enough he has no problem sending money to Israel after Hamas attacked them, despite the Israel army is much more powerful than the Hamas.
So Trump has no problem being involved in wars he knows his supported side will win or has already won.
Trump gos for the easy wins, he is a low-hanging fruit harvester.
Same with DOGE. Firing people doesn't reduce bureaucracy, changing laws and regulations does. But that's not what they do.
BTW people said the same about the likelihood of Putin attacking Ukraine, or about the likelihood of Ukraine withstanding the attack more than weeks. Seems like likelihood is a bad measure for reality.
And pissing of your allies and victim blaming the president of an invaded country is bad politics, unless you are the villain.
Very much so.
https://www.businessinsider.com/gary-cohn-stole-documents-of...
> According to the Washington Examiner, McMaster said on Tuesday that Gary Cohn, Trump's former top economic adviser, did steal documents off the president's desk to prevent Trump from pulling the US out of key trade deals.
> Cohn told colleagues at the time that the theft was necessary and that Trump would forget about the idea, according to the book, released earlier this month. Woodward reported that Cohn also snatched a document that would have pulled the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement from the president's desk.
He has a long history of parroting the last thing someone said to him.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/04/14/want-chan...
Also is anyone seriously suggested France or Germany would be next? Wouldn't it be more like Poland? And your perspective reeks of the weeks prior to the Ukraine invasion, where so many swore Russia would never do it, it was just Biden-antagonism. And this isn't me being pro Biden. These are just facts.
Many people seem to take it as axiomatic that the U.S. has an obligation to use force to maintain pre-existing borders. And we simply don’t agree with you about that. The standard for me is whether it’s going to significantly affect the daily life of someone in Iowa.
So maybe I’d care if anyone was seriously saying France and Germany could fall to Russia. But short of that?
So now Trump can say: Look, if you have 57% approval rating, why do you shun elections?
So a lie to "prove" another lie? Is he's going to show us exactly how he's "shunning elections"?
its hard to care for other people when your basic needs is not fullfill
You need unions and Universal Healthcare like the rest of the developed world to fix those problems.
Since they are so much better at everything. No point in getting the morons in the USA involved in anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
It's all about the willingness to regulate healthcare to benefit the general population.
There are concentric circles of giving a fuck: first in the center is yourself, then your family, then your friends, then your community, then your city, then your country, then other countries on the planet.
It's impossible to get people to care about the outermost circle when their inner circles are not satisfied, so they won't be happy to see their elected officials being generous to foreigners with their own tax money.
Which shows this isn't actually about the cost.
If this had anything to do with money and caring about domestic spending first, then you'd see aid to Israel cut off as well. Funny how that's not happening.
Yeah, why is that?
Hard to imagine why you get labelled antisemitic
And it’s not lost on me that both Starmer and Macron represent a minority of the electorate in their respective countries—having won due to a deeply fractured electorate.
Unfortunately typical that we just get ignored here in the eastern flank. One can only hope that we weren't mentioned because it's obvious that we'd back these operations, since an ascended Russia is an existential threat to everyone here, but alas.
Of course there are ideas like the one from President Stubb, wherein any peace treaty could be dive such that a future attack on Ukraine by Russia world mean Ukraine's automatic ascension to NATO (and/or the EU, depending on just how far America is willing to backstab its allies) and basically having the organisation(s) guarantee Ukraine's independence. Although that would require taking northern and eastern Europeans seriously, and I'm somehow not convinced of that happening.
But yeah, hopefully they get the peacekeepers at the very least.
My comment today on a YT video;
"Trump never apologizes or shows contrition (Roy Cohn's 'always deny' doctrine) as it shows weakness, similar to Putin perceiving appeasement as weakness. He then sets up a scenario (he called it "great television") where he expects Zelenskyy to apologize and say thankyou for the 100th time. He told Zelenskyy he had no cards, so apologizing or showing appreciation-on-demand (for nothing in exchange) would be submitting to being a loser in Trump's own mindset, which is the point of the whole fake deal on offer. No different to the "deal" he made with Afghan government for natural resources, before he sided with the Taliban to withdraw US troops in betrayal of that very agreement. When Zelenskyy pointed out that Putin can't be trusted for any ceasefire, Trump then raised his voice cos his own betrayals (nearly everyone who worked for him that wasn't paid, or went to prison by following instructions, or was summarily fired as per his catchphrase) are viewed as his favorite playing card."
Treachery has been his default modus operandi throughout his personal life (cheating and divorce) as well as in business and politics ("hang Mike Pence"). Reality TV then normalized it to the level of mass-entertainment as he suggested.
Yet MAGA types keep claiming that Donald Trump supposedly got an "overwhelming mandate" from the American people even though he got just under 50% of the popular vote.
That patronizing attitude you showed is exactly the one the Democrats had and is exactly what got Trump elected. Until their attitude changes they will keep losing votes out of sheer spite.
>they will keep losing votes out of sheer spite
Well, I guess that is the answer. You may not look good without a nose, but you sure taught your face a lesson.
The only savior of the poor and vulnerable would have been Bernie Sanders, that's why the democrats have avoided nominating him, because he's a man of the people, not the man of established corporate interests.
So given two bad options, the poor and working class have picked the candidate not insulting and patronizing them based on gender, race and identity politics, while also being able to form a coherent sentence[1]. Democrats are so high on their own self-righteous elitist farts, they still don't realize why the majority of people hate them.
This is purely about Trump helping Putin.
There is no trust between players in the axis of evil.
Khamenei studied as a student in USSR prior to the revolution. He is likely a Russian asset. Nothing else can explain the decisions of that "ayatollah". The other day an Isreali news site reported Iran is not on the list of invitees to the May 9 goose stepping show in Moscow. (Israel is invited). IRI got sanctioned for giving drones to RF and now Russia will get off the list while IRI sanctions remain. Russia supports UAE regarding their bs claims on 3 strategic micro-islands in the Persian Gulf. The fabled S-400 have never ever been offered to IRI, and IRI previously had to sue (yes) Russia to finally get the S-300s that they had long ago paid for, which then promptly got bombed by Israel. The list goes on and on ..
"Back to school now" for Ali Khamenei - I bet you didn't know this. In fact curious as to where you even get actual news about IRI if you don't speak Persian ...
Nevermind that the reason Ukraine can't defend itself is because the US guaranteed their security in exchange for them giving up their nukes. I mean, that was so 30 years ago.
Instead they send it to Ukraine on inflated price and all money goes to the US manufactures to make a modern weapons instead.
It’s now illegal to teach that perspective in Florida however as it falls under recent CRT laws and administrators are now fearful of any adjacent curriculum.
Regardless it’s really important to mention the Civil Rights movement now in the context of the Department of Education which was formed in part to enforce the Civil Rights Act (and later the Americans with Disabilities Act). Republicans are now tearing down the Department of Education. Effecting research and medical student loans TODAY (in my family) and much more TOMORROW.
The whole WireCard scandal there really opened my eyes.
That’s not to say that the KGB didn’t have some degree of influence on certain movements. But the overall picture that Bezmenov paints is laughably false with hindsight. The interview is from 1984, and I’m sure many in the KGB at that time really believed that their cunning plan to brainwash the West was working.
After the failure of world revolution only the subversion program remained. This was widely successful and is still ongoing.
Why would Russia push the 'false narrative' that they supported the anti nuclear power movement? They benefit enormously from replacing nuclear with their gas.
Nuclear disarmament is some miru mir thing.
Huh, so do they have an earthquake machine that caused Fukushima? Quick, someone tell that Jews-Space-Laser-Congresslady!
(Fukushima happened a few days before a German state election. Merkel, ever the opportunist and fearing a loss to the Green Party, finally said "We should accelerate the nuclear shutdown". The Greens won anyway).
I mean, they were caught meeting with a Russian spy in their campaign HQ, told us they got most of their money from Russia, and then told us for 10 years we were being crazy conspiracy theorists by claiming they were aligned with Russia. It's not a hard puzzle if you have the pieces.
So hearing today that "this is such a surprise" is especially frustrating, because this has been the topic of congressional reports written by Republican , impeachment trials, DOJ reports, reports from federal agencies, warnings from the FBI, CIA, and also international intelligence agencies. People like Christopher Steele correctly called this a decade ago and he was demonized. Australia brought it to the attention of the FBI.
Like... people knew this was happening, and warned, and not just nobodies like people on the Internet. What happened over the last 10 years is that Russia won the information war, and the general public decided to trust Russian state media over Democrats when it came to Trump's support of Russia. Which, I think at long last we can all admit this is the case without calling anyone a conspiracy theorist yeah?
What could he possible have done that would deter his followers at this point.
- Nikita KhrushchevAnd what in your opinion may be the opposite?
Would you like to live in a world where the strong can do anything they want? Or do you want to live in a world of laws, where alliances protect groups of countries who want to provide their citizens with safety, economic prosperity, etc.
If people support Ukraine, they can do what I did when I felt the Kurds weren't getting enough help in Syria. I bought a fucking plane ticket, picked up a rifle, and fought for their militia. I did not go hey, these are such proud independent people that you need to go in a fucking cage if you don't pay up for my cause.
Even under fiction I have seen claimed that these are all surplus old arms, the US left them in Afghanistan last time precisely because logistics alone is expensive.
This is what I'm proposing. Eliminate aid, that filters back into Americans not being forced to pay for it. Those who want to can use their savings to donate or fly over and fight.
If we go down your path, you’ll find people who don’t want to fund your government services. If they get their way you’ll be salty.
If you REALLY want to go there, then my blue state taxes should not go to red states.
For reference, I have no police service, no fire service, no public roads where I live. Road access for miles and miles are private easements which works without taxes -- I first built my road with an axe and a shovel with no government assistance. I have privately drilled water, a privately made sewer, and private electric for which I personally funded the power poles. I pay for private education for my children, on top of taxes for public school. Any remaining scraps of public services you might claim I get, I assure you it would be cheaper for me to buy privately than pay ~30% of my income as I do now in tax.
I don't want your tax money or services. You have a deal.
And the idea that your wife and children could be raped and murdered (along with yourself of course) by an invading horde is so far from your mind that you don't even register it as something you're paying for, but if we all weren't paying for other people to protect your liberty, you might be just as unfortunate as the Ukrainians right now, who are facing that very threat.
You think you can fund an army yourself with 30% of your income? Really?
I share my private well with several people who cannot afford a well on their own -- i cant afford it on my own withot them. It's all done privately without government. Thus can happen with militias, with healthcare, other infrastructure, the whole shebang. There is no need for private defense to be entirely funded by one person, for instance as I mentioned previously in the militia I fought in against isis everyone beside me there was on their own dime for a collective defense.
Militias don't protect against invading armies. If you want to protect against an army, you need to fund an army.
What's more likely if aid stops to ukraine is that US taxpayers stop paying and life goes on. My opinion on other taxes notwithstanding, this rabbit hole of cell phones and modern society falling apart and my wife being raped (seriously wtf) because I didn't spend jonnies Christmas money on Ukraine is unraveling. This is why Trump won, and the aid will end. We're done being blackmailed with apocolyptic threats, and the false dichotomies.
It kind of doesn't matter how you feel about it though.
The way we resolve our difference of opinion is our system of representatives. You elect representatives to champion your cause, I elect representatives to champion mine, and then they figure out a compromise memorialized as a bill.
So when you say "well I don't want to spend money on this"... so what?? Your opinion was counted. The decision was that money would be sent but not as much as we would like -- a compromise. This is what enables us to live in harmony.
If you want to throw out the compromise, you're also going to throw out the harmony.
> my wife being raped (seriously wtf)
See? You think this possibility so remote, you just scoff at it. If you had asked Ukrainians in 2021 if it was a possibility it would be happening to them today, some would say yes, but most people felt it was not a possibility. Then it happened.
Your position is just as precarious as theirs was before the war, because you are dependent on distant people to protect your liberty. That's what you pay taxes for.
If you feel you're getting a raw deal, then you and your militia can renounce your citizenship, declare your independence and fend for yourself. Forego access to our banking system, our defense, our welfare, our hospitals, our communication infrastructure, our factories, our ports, our air infrastructure. Make your own nation, defend your own land against stronger neighbors (the USA in this case), and actually be independent.
You won't do it though because deep down you know you depend on the rest of us, you're just salty you're asked to contribute anything at all.
Somewhere in your calculation you are wrong. And it's not my 'feeling' that got us here, your feeling we ought to fund Ukraine is contradicting reality right now. Either US institutions don't function as you think or they are working as you intended with a different mandate than you like. Either way your monologue about renouncing and fighting the USA serves only as your own personal entertainment to distract from that.
It was through Trump's unilateral decision, which is illegal. The money was appropriated by our representatives from our tax dollars, and we want it to go. The President doesn't have the right under the Constitution and the law to halt it.
> Either US institutions don't function as you think
US institutions do function like I think, because I learned how they function, it's pretty straight forward: Congress has the power to how spend money, and the President spends it. That he chooses not to is an abuse of power, and violates the law [1], the Constitution [2], and his oath of office [3].
Congress voted for that money to be spent, and the former President signed it into law. Not spending it unlawfully usurps Congress' Article I "power of the purse", and violates the Article II "take care" clause.
I think it's pretty clear, can you cite where the law and Constitution supports your argument?
[1] https://www.gao.gov/products/095406
[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/
[3] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
This is a shortcutted, half correct view.
Impoundment Is generally illegal and/or unconstitutional.
However,
IF a Congressional directive to spend were to interfere with the President’s authority in an area confided by the Constitution to his substantive direction and control, such as his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and his authority over foreign affairs . . . a situation would be presented very different from [a domestic impoundment]. [0]
If the president may impound appropriations that invade his recognition power, it follows that he may likewise do so when Congress infringes on other exclusive powers, such as that of chief diplomat. ... Similarly, the impoundment power may extend to the president’s core and exclusive powers as commander-in-chief.
[0] 116 CONG. REC. 343–45 (1970)
[1] Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry
[2] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol70/iss3/3/
[3] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
The author argues for impoundment pertaining to exclusive powers, which are very few and limited in the Constitution. I actually agree with the argument laid out in the piece, but I don't think it supports the idea that Trump is within his legal right to impound Ukraine aid.
The core argument is that Congress can't legislate the President's exclusive powers away, and I agree with that. The author then applies a "gloss" test which is used by legal scholars to help interpret the Constitution by taking into account a variety of historical and contemporary contexts.
They apply this test to the idea that POTUS is within his right to impound funds that intersect with this exclusive power as CIC. And they show historically it has been the case that POTUS has impounded WPC funds - military weapons, personnel, and construction.
Key arguments here are that Jefferson did it in the past, and the President is better situated as the head of the executive branch to identify waste in the huge defense complex than Congress, so he should be able to say "Actually we have enough, thanks." despite Congress wanting to spend more.
So we can agree that POTUS has a narrow impoundment power within his exclusive executive authority. The operative word there is exclusive, because where this argument fails is that we're not talking about WPC funding, so Ukraine aid is out of scope for this argument.
However, they do provide this argument. Some choice quotes from the piece you linked:
Curtiss-Wright did not hold that the President is free from Congress’ lawmaking power in the field of international relations . . . . In a world that is ever more compressed and interdependent, it is essential [that] the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected. For it is Congress that makes laws, and in countless ways its laws will and should shape the Nation’s course. The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue . . . . It is not for the President alone to determine the whole content of the Nation’s foreign policy.155
The dissenters, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Antonin Scalia, did not agree that the president’s recognition power was exclusive, arguing instead that it was a shared power with Congress.156 Like the majority, they also repudiated Curtiss-Wright. 157 Only Justice Clarence Thomas clung to a Curtiss Wright conception of presidential power in foreign policy.158 Therefore, eight Justices agreed that Congress has substantial legislative authority in the foreign policy sphere.
In the words of Justice Kennedy, “[W]hether the realm is foreign or domestic, it is still the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch, that makes the law.”
The article, and my prior citations explain how this can expand to military funding. If POTUS cannot impound military funding and instead must distribute funding to armies for proxy wars, he is effectively bypassed as commander in chief. That you've simply declared the history, opinions, constitution don't allow impoundment of money for military weapons and personnel etc doesn't make it true. indeed,this impoundment is happening before our eyes through the machinations of the system. This is democracy in action.
Taxes fund civilization and the world we've built. The IRS collects a percentage of our money to build roads and infrastructure, defend our nation's interests, provide income in retirement, provide health care, and so much more good stuff.
Part of that is ensuring that the world is stable so that our nation doesn't have to go to war. We do that with alliances, investment in military force, investment in diplomacy, and investment in building economic opportunity globally so people don't turn to violence.
It doesn't always work; no system is perfect.
But Ukraine is the perfect example of a democratic nation that has been invaded by a dictatorship and needs our support. They have already destroyed most of the Russian army and economy with our support, and we need to finish the job.
If we don't give them the resources to finish the job, it is just a matter of when the next dictator does similar, and we are forced to send our people to fight. Do you want to go fight in Tawain? Do you want to find in Estonia?
History has shown us that isolationism doesn't work, nor does giving into naked aggression from dictators and autocrats.
They claim independence, time to shine and learn what that means. I wish them best of luck, but sorry, Americans have left the chat.
It is not illegitimate in any way, and I think you are making a bad-faith argument.
American stands strong with Ukraine. The only Americans who have left the chat are those who were never American to begin with.
Goodbye, and good luck, ukraine.
No we didn't. We may have voted for a president who is against funding Ukraine, but notably his role is not to spend money - that is reserved for Congress, and our representatives did vote to spend this money. Meaning, we voted to spend it, so he has no right to hold it up. That he has withheld it is anti-democratic, because it's contrary to Congress' spending directive, and therefore against the people.
If you feel you're getting a raw deal, then you and your militia can renounce your citizenship, declare your independence and fend for yourself. Forego access to our banking system, our defense, our welfare, our hospitals, our communication infrastructure, our factories, our ports, our air infrastructure.
Instead you bypassed that, and start proselytizing about mockery after threatening my wife with a raping. Let's not pretend your conversation has decorum. I am being extremely charitable to you after your threats about my family.
>independent
And yet my initial comment was on Ukraine being independent. The irony here is your Jackyll and Hyde treatment of independence -- you don't hold Ukraine to such demands of never using US ports or services.
> after threatening my wife with a raping
I didn't threaten your wife with anything. I said you aren't worried about such a thing because an army protects her from that literal fate, and Ukrainians experience that fate because they foolishly trusted others to protect them. It's beyond me how you interpret that as a threat.
> you don't hold Ukraine to such demands of never using US ports or services.
Because they don't pay taxes to benefit from such things. Instead they are the recipients of aid that was given to them. Why would they use our ports? You benefit from our ports, so you pays taxes. It's straightforward.
They use more than half of the things you mentioned. Banking services, airports (how does zelensky get here?), defense articles. Wasn't that your demand of independence, not to use them, or shall you walk that back?
>didn't threaten your wife with anything
You didn't threaten you would personally do it. It wasn't an illegal threat, but it was a threat -- pay up for X or else your wife stands to be raped. I understand what you're saying but I find it exhibits a sort of conversation that isn't adhering to a particularly strict decorum that merely mirroring using your own rhetoric creates.
You have to start over and make a cogent argument. I'm not following you. Zelensky is allowed to land in the US because the US allows it. Same with banking, defense, and anything else. If you declare your independence as a nation, you'll have to gain the same recognition, which will be very expensive. Or you can join another nation that has that recognition. Or you can stay a citizen of this nation. But you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources.
> but it was a threat -- pay up for X or else your wife stands to be raped.
That's not a threat, it's the law of the jungle. That's just the natural order of things, and it's why there's such a strong incentive to spend billions on defense. It's not even an abstract thing because we see it happening in real time.
> I understand what you're saying but I find it exhibits a sort of conversation that isn't adhering to a particularly strict decorum that merely mirroring using your own rhetoric creates.
The only thing I ask is you adhere to the HN site guidelines, which is we are here for debate. I called out your last reply not because it was offensive but because it degraded the thread by not providing anything to respond to, so it was thought-terminating. Our other thread got more substantive over replies, which is the ideal. If you have an argument, make it. Snark isn't needed, I've caught myself doing it too, so when you're called out on it just stop and move on.
I'm not bringing up your family to break decorum, I'm bringing it up as my actual argument for why you need to gladly pay taxes, and why you're not as independent as you think. The topic of this whole thread, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is the case-in-point of that, so it's not even an abstract problem people face in the year 2025.
Which brings me back to the double standard you present. The premise is Ukraine is independent, "but you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources."
So we come full circle. Either they're independent and needn't freeload off American taxpayers, or they're actually dependent. I am very happy with the execution of the former and pleased you've come to agree with my point.
What I'm more concerned about is your hypocrisy as a fellow citizen, where you seem to believe you are fiercely independent (and therefore shouldn't be expected to pay into the system) but conveniently ignore all the ways it benefits you and the comforts it brings.
However it is really disingenuous to try frame a global conflict between super powers in terms of personal responsibility. Your prescription is in the same vein as saying those worried about climate change should recycle more, when it is clear their utmost efforts would not make a dent in the global scheme of things. As such, no amount of motivated militia is going to make a dent in a war against an industrialized military.
Just come out and say I don't want to pay for to support Ukraine's war against Russia. Your opinion is valid and should be taken into account. However you don't get to dodge your responsibilities if the outcome doesn't go your way, just like a Democrat has to live with Trump's policies whether they like it or not. It's pathetic to try garnering sympathy with cage analogies.
This should be first, front, and center concern before that gun is pointed at Americans trying to get by.
>However it is really disingenuous to try frame a global conflict between super powers in terms of personal responsibility
Awesome, then I have no personal responsibility to fund it. We're all happy then.
Also NATO is dead now. So why should they stop at the Ukranian border.
If you call that independence, I wouldn't want one for my country.
The Ukrainians certainly does not want the war to end this way.
Are there any "legal agressors" ?
https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russia...
Putin believed he could flip Ukraine in three days. Three years later Ukraine is still explaining to him that he is wrong.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war of independence. And for three years, despite having a larger population and a larger military, Russia has failed to wipe Ukraine off the map.
America is making the wrong choice in submitting to Russian aggression and even becoming a Russian ally. It's grubby stuff.
Successive US administrations (Obama, Biden, and now Trump) want the Russian Federation to survive as an entity, regardless of its aggression and crimes.
It's the same logic the US applied to lend-lease, didn't they? There was a good chance of the USSR collapsing until 1943, and you still helped them. Delaying an invading attacker, especially one who may plan, according to their own internal propaganda, to attack other nations later, is already more than "nothing".
The price for peace is living under occupation. Depending on the occupier, this can be a fate worse than death, and significant numbers of Ukrainians appear to think the latter.
And for a very selfish argument: It buys us, the Europeans, more time (with Ukrainian blood) to prepare for war, when Russia attacks the Baltics in a few years. Which we desperately need, as the US will likely break their promise and not help us under the current administration (and who knows who the US elects next).
The 3 years allowed e.g. the Baltics to build extensive defensive fortifications.
If they lost (or break even, or occasionally even gain) a few hundred feet a day, forever, all the while their young males all go into a meat shredder that is their choice to make. I'd rather let American families use their earnings on their own problems and let Ukraine make those choices for themselves.
Doesn't Ukraine buy most of their heavy weapons from the US (... until now)? If so, isn't most of the tax payer money the US lends Ukraine going back into the US economy, softening the blow by a lot?
Did the (original) lend-lease act even hurt the US economy and US families? Or did it provide jobs and stimulate the US economy, cementing the role of the US as the military / industrial powerhouse they are today? I was under the impression that it's the latter, but I'm not sure, correct me if I'm wrong. Is this one different?
But sure, of course - that's the right of the US, even though it would be nicer not to retroactively break existing agreements. I only wanted to push back against the (new) lend-lease doing "absolutely nothing".
I wonder what media do you consume to get this absolutely ridiculous idea? baltic states have no beef with Russia (except petty provocations which Russia seem to dismiss), Putin never ever said he will do anything like that and actively emphasised he won't. Where the idea of Russia attacking Baltic states or any other european nation to that matter, have stemmed from (besides nonsensical statements of unelected EU bureaucrats like ursula, who have vested interest in stealing money through warmongering)?
The Baltics have no beef with Russia, but Russia with the Baltic states[4], according to e.g. Medwedjew, who thinks they literally belong to Russia. Or Россия 1[5].
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250219-baltic-region-pr... [2] https://www.sab.gov.lv/en/news/russia-is-purposefully-develo... [3] https://www-bundestag-de.translate.goog/dokumente/textarchiv... [4] https://www.euronews.com/2023/05/17/russias-dmitry-medvedev-... [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSJ6py0uVQ4, from 1:30 onwards
There are many signs Baltic states are next in the Russian annexation list. And if Russia going to win control over Ukraine - mobilized to Russian army Ukrainians will be in the first wave of Russian cannon fodder troops advancing through Baltic states.
If you are so informed about the "Russian annexation list", would mind enlighten us about other countries on the list?
It's unimaginable what propaganda can make to otherwise intelligent individual.
There is also the moral argument that you are supporting Ukraine in a war of aggression started by Russia.
My fear is that conceding anything to Russia just gives it an opportunity to regroup, rearm and finish the job. Appeasement has not worked before.
Then there is the whole minerals thing. Now you’re not merely abandoning an ally, but kicking it while it’s down. It’s not a reassuring message for anyone thinking of allying with America.
As a national of a country Trump has threatened to annex, I am wondering how many more allies America can antagonise and how long and costly it will be to rebuild a good reputation.
After the 2014 invasion, the US realized that breaking EU dependence on Russia natural gas would put a serious dent in Putin's wallet.
In response, various groups within the military industrial complex decided to invest into Burisma, where Hunter Biden was oddly a board member with little experience. Burisma's goal was to develop the mineral and natural gas deposits in the Donbas region. Ultimately, Burisma was prevented from this mission because of the 2022 war.
[1]: this interview on Joe Rogan is pretty eye-opening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrJhQpvlkLA&t=9675s&pp=ygUOa...
Imagine I maimed a guy on the street because he was walking too slowly. Was "the whole deal" about him walking too slowly? Yes and no. He was walking slow. But also I was a violent psycho.
Imagine I killed my wife because she was wearing the wrong skirt and looked at another man. Was the whole deal about my wife behaving how I don't like? Yes and no. She was behaving in some way. But also I was a violent psycho.
People come up with all sorts if rationalizations and I definitely heard both "Ukraine had resources Russia needed" and "Ukraine was willing to sell resources to US".
Resources? Excuse me, look at the map? You know that tiny Netherlands beats Russia in agriculture exports. Russia has the most reserves of mineral resources of any country in the world. The country has insane resources already and its corrupt government is unable to make good use of them.
But anyway. They say Ukraine was willing to sell resources to US (those people like to use loaded phrases like "US wanted to siphon resources from Ukraine") and Putin didn't like it? Well there's a well known way to solve this "problem": offer a better deal, don't be a dick, invest, stuff also called "diplimacy".
Resources, NATO, US military complex, whatever, mostly those things are bullshit, maybe they did motivate Putin, who knows. It's just mentioning those things with a solemn face full of insight as if they explain something is what paints a person as Putin supporter and aggression apologists in my eyes. Because none of those things justify the choice of mass murder by a violent psycho.
If I remember correctly, a lot of the problems come down to broken promises of stopping NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia made concessions, NATO did not. This is the Russian case as I vaguely remember it.
This is a reminder that geopolitics are wildly complicated and that the waters are too muddied for laypeople to make sense of in real time.
Your analogy holds. The psychopath must be stopped, but it's good to remember that the west provoked it when it had a chance to tame it.
NATO expansion was not really a threat to Russia beyond Putin's pretense. Putin pulled forces from Finland border after it joined. I hope the wrong lesson won't be learned.
Helping Russia by giving them what they want (time to rebuild their military and economy while lifting sanctions) is what will actually fuel an "endless war" as Russia will simply continue the war at a later stage.
Don't confuse a temporary peace on paper with actual peace.
All sane people are against an endless war. Or, any war for that matter. The only state that can be compared with an endless war is a mid-war period: the time when both sides know that the war is coming, and they live in misery, entrenching and militarizing, while the rest of human development stands still: economy is military-spending driven, birthrate falls, population flees, etc. Do we agree on that or do you need examples?
So, taking your question at its face value: the alternative is lasting peace. The history tells us that the only condition for lasting peace with Russia is either strong and decisive resistance or military alliance membership. Again, examples are a legion: both positive (Finland, Baltics, Turkiye), and negative (Georgia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Chechnya to a certain degree).
The only path for lasting peace for Ukraine is to humiliate Russia on the battlefield. For that to happen they need weapons
20th century history unfortunately tells us the answer is containment, not direct engagement.
From handing over Poland and eastern europe to Stalin in 1945, or refusing to protect Hungary in 1956 or interfere explicitly in the soviet sphere of influence, in exchange for them not interfering explicitly in western sphere of influence.
It's not a nice lesson, but that was how we achieved some form of peace for decades.
Unless one of the two party wins the war, the way a peace agreement is reached is for both parties to consider it a better outcome than continuing the war, which means that the quickest way to reach is to make it harder for both countries to continue the war, and more palatable the result of an agreement.
This is not what Trump is doing. He is not doing harder for Russia to continue the war, in fact it is going to make it easier. He is not going to make the peace agreement more palatable for Ukraine, in fact it made it even harsher.
In other words, Trump is not looking for a "deal" is looking for a capitulation of Ukraine, and to offer it to Putin, probably behind some agreement.
Ukrainian people are not going to like the idea, so they will not surrender soon. Putin will see this as a victory, so he will not stop there (he is trying to get US troops out of Eastern Europe, and I am sure Trump will obey), so any "peace" will be short-lasting. Eastern Europe countries already see this, so they will not stop helping Ukraine because the US did.
Democracy 101: declare foreign leader a dictator. Bomb cities, leaving smoldering ruins. Depose and/or kill dictator. Leave. Serbia, Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, Syria. This is not "once bitten - twice shy", it's "can you stop chewing off my leg?"
Saying Ukraine is a "small breakaway country from the USSR", while being the largest country in Europe is one of the most detached takes I've seen on this subject lmao
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes, ~7 years into the current war, I think a lot of people did.
> Much less 30 years ago.
Yes, I knew the difference, then -- when the breakup of the USSR was relatively recent and the issues in and between post-Soviet states were frequent news items. Again, I think a lot of people did.
Heck, I knew the difference when I was in grade school and both were part of the USSR. There's probably a fair number of people outside the US who have some understanding of the differences between Texas and California, too.
> They were considered basically the same country.
Were considered...by whom?
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Ukraine was the victim of an act of aggression from Russia. Pretty obvious that the US gave its word it would protect them.
Nowhere does it say us has to guarantee safety or go to war. Nevermind the fact that threats of nuclear aggression came much later.
The threats of nuclear aggression were there from the start. What other thing do you think prevents the EU from raining death on the Russians from above.
And that means no more moronic field trips by grandstanding senators.
It is not a requirement, it's the implementation. There is a good reason why the USA was called "world policeman".
And Europeans and leftist shit talked the US for it for decades. They called for the US to close military bases around the world, shit talked the amount the US spends on defense, etc.
Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle.
Don't dump your wars and middle eastern refugees on the EU. What if the EU started a war in Mexico, drove 40 million refugees to the US, then left and let the US clean up the mess?
Educate yourself about Nuland's involvement in the Maidan revolution. Watch Lindsey Graham on YouTube giving militaristic pep talk speeches to Ukrainian soldiers way before 2022.
But it is easier to rewrite the narrative after Trump's win and downvote dissenters. Opinion control and narratives is what the US excels at.
If you need nuclear weapons, let Jewish scientists build them. If you need rockets, let German scientists build them. If you need LLMs, let Russian developers build them.
Soyed, bro.
>Now educate yourself about RAND policy papers on US influence in the Caspian sea and the Black sea.
Ah yes, papers that incorrectly judged the energy landscape of the future and the hilarious inaction of Europe.
>Educate yourself on the perennial desire of the US to weaken Russia and keep Germany down.
Germany has done enough self-owning to keep themselves down. Don't worry though, they'll just import a few million more third-worlders! That'll do the trick!
>Educate yourself about Nuland's involvement in the Maidan revolution.
As stated by another commenter, overwhelming support from Germany, France, and the EU.
>Watch Lindsey Graham on YouTube giving militaristic pep talk speeches to Ukrainian soldiers way before 2022.
Immaterial.
>But it is easier to rewrite the narrative after Trump's win and downvote dissenters.
It's not rewriting, it's a retelling of facts.
>you need rockets, let German scientists build them.
Or Elon Musk LOL!
>If you need LLMs, let Russian developers build them.
Russians are a non-player in the LLM space.
or you mean other countries?
On the contrary, Russian tanks rolling into Eastern Europe is something many people on the left and right in the United States have always taken seriously, and judged to be worthy of the US's intervention, even if they judged some of our other interventions to be bullshit. The strange part - the real change - is that there are people now who do not.
Not at all, we're just giving them what they've asked for for decades.
>What a win for the USA!
What a win for the EU! The militaristic "world police" oppressors are leaving!
>Love basing our geopolitical policy, and breaking our honor in keeping commitments on that.
We're being honorable by finally giving Europeans what they've asked for.
So much losing!
And yes, the invasion of Iraq on a paper thin pretext arguably was the beginning of the collapse of this equilibrium, and it's no surprise that North Korea reacted by doubling down on their nuclear program.
With great power comes great responsibility. For generations, Americans preferred having a monopoly on geopolitical power. The USA can certainly give up its great responsibility, but beware the consequences, because the global calculus changes accordingly.
Trillions of dollars in essential rare earth materials and natural gas isn't worth fighting for? Then why EVER go to war?
Without any requirements that the US puts boots on the ground.
It's in the interest of most countries that borders are immutable and that aggressors are made to pay.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20bitten%2C%...
I think the idea that the Budapest memorandum is a US security guarantee here's another comparable lie.
Because X happened in the past does not mean that Y is X. Only people reaching hard to push an agenda would claim any similarity.
If the goal is to be global police, that is a conversation worth having. Same if the goal is to show solidarity with our EU allies for its own sake. I think these other topics are manufactured consent.
"I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine."
Because now all of the sudden you are saying something totally different and nebulous 'world police' BS.
Why are your trying to equate Europe dramatically and instantly shifting their spending and EU policy to some nebulous 'global police' comment instead of addressing your original point, that you state no one actually believes 'Russia moving on Europe' is a real thing, and trying to equate it to the WMD lie?
You original point is BS, Europe believes to the tune of 650 billion just committed and breaking all of their long standing norms when it comes to defense that it is a real issue. Hense you having to move to some nebulous 'world police' nonsense.
Everything else is a sideshow and distraction.
I don't see how Europe spending 650 billion answers this question either. The US spending money because Europe is with no deeper logic elementary school thought.
"I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine."
Ie, that Russia being a threat to Europe is a convenient lie used to manipulate actions, and Russia isn't a threat.
Europe spending 650 billion and upsetting their long standing defense posture (especially Germany's post WW2 one) shows they didn't/don't view/weren't using the threat Russia poses as a lie to manipulate the USA into being 'World Police' and they are up ending their entire order to defend against Russia (actions with ZERO 'world policing' upside for them).
You tried to downplay Russia as a threat using a comparison to the WMD lie to lend false strength to your position that Russia is not a threat and you failed so miserably you completely pivoted from it.
Edit: News is now reporting that Germany is literally changing their constitution because they don't believe your position that Russia's threat to Europe is a lie.
If that is a real concern, I haven't seen anyone articulate how it is supposed to work. Just hand wavy threats that if Russia isn't stopped in Ukraine, the rest of the continent will be next. Somehow the same people speak out of the other side of their mouth that Russia is simultaneously the sick man of Europe, incompetent, and ready to implode any moment at the slightest breeze.
Reread my posts. I brought up global policing not as an example of a wmd lie, but as a more logical reason to support Ukraine.
Last, the USA spent six trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spending money isnt proof that they posed up legitimate threat of conquering the USA.
Putin has explicitly stated he's getting the USSR back together. He was worked in the eastern Germany KGB. His actions/current proof leans to he wants it all back. Zero leans to he doesn't. You argue you don't think he could take it. Again, that has nothing to do with it. The question is will he try/does he intend to, and everything points to yes. The same people said 'He won't invade Ukraine, he can't' that are now saying 'He won't try to take more, he can't'.
If protecting Germany is your final answer for why support the war, I think it is fine for the US to sit it out until article 5 is invoked.
It is kind of like expecting Europe to be ride or die in a US war with China over Taiwan.
It was the half dozen other adventures in the sandbox with nothing to show for it that made people put down their foot and say no more and stick to it even when it's a cause they may support (Ukraine for some, Israel for others). That's how fed up with it the American public is.
On a related note, a lot of the morons who gave GWB a second term seem to be populists now. They would be more helpful to America if they stopped trying to understand the world around them, and instead just voluntarily stopped voting.
Russia is the source of instability, but it can't be defeated or reasoned with. What to do?
Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country?
> and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war and the world will be less stable.
All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave.
Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base.
Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources.
> But if a line is not drawn against russia, I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time.
Logistics (Ukraine shares a large border with Russia) and people - the people in currently occupied Ukraine aren't as against Russia as those in Afghanistan may be. Even now, we don't really see much of sabotage.
> All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave.
And how are you going to do that? Russia has been gaining land. Currently, Russia is winning.
> Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base.
While losing hundred of thousands of young men and decimating their population. Russia has more men. They can stand a war of attrition a lot longer - and they value soldier's lives less than we do in the west.
> Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources.
Similarly, Ukraine is kidnapping people on the streets to send them to the front lines.
Winning, but winning very slowly. Unless Ukraine collapses, Russian victory is likely years away (depending of course on what Russia decides to consider “victory”)
Although Ukraine is outnumbered, the fact they are mostly playing defence not offence gives them an advantage
If Ukraine drags this out for long enough, there is the possibility Russia may lose its patience with the war before Ukraine does, and Ukraine may suddenly gain the upper hand. If Trump forces Ukraine into a peace deal in which Russia gets most of what it wants, that won’t happen
How long can Ukraine drag this out? They are suffering manpower issues more than Russia. I don't think it's likely that Russia will lose its patience before Ukraine. I wish, but I don't see it. Their economy is somewhat dependent on their military-industrial complex.
Is this the goal? To slowly lose land and lives to Russia, in hopes that they get bored, or that Ukrainians magically get a wonder weapon?
How plausible is that scenario? I don’t know. It isn’t impossible. More likely to happen in a few years time (assuming the war lasts that long). Probably not happening this year, but one never knows - who predicted Prigozhin‘s abortive coup in June 2023? Who knows if or when such an event might happen again - maybe next time more successfully?
Trump’s recent moves arguably reduce the odds of such a development by increasing Russian perceptions that the war is likely to be resolved on terms they’ll find favourable. However, Trump is fickle, and it isn’t impossible that with time he’ll move to a position the Russians will find less encouraging (it isn’t guaranteed, of course)
Continuing to send men to die in a losing battle without an actual plan, hoping that the opponent's leadership falls, seems like an awful idea to me. It gives me similar vibes to "our scientists are on the verge of creating a wonder weapon" that is often propagated on losing sides, e.g Germany in WW2.
Also economic collapse (high inflation, high interest rates, and no industry).
Ukraine just needs to continue to chip away at them, the bigger they are, the bigger the fall, and Russians aren't paying the price for this blunder yet.
Russia doesn't really value the lives of men.
Been waiting for that economic collapse for 3 years. How many more Ukrainian men must die before we get it? How many more are you okay with dying?
What possibly leads you to believe that Ukraine capitulating will end Russia's push to kill Ukrainians? Russia is engaging in a massive ethnic cleansing campaign, as documented in cases such as Bucha. Do you honestly believe that will stop if Ukraine surrendered as Trump is demanding them to?
Try to think about it: why do you think Zelenski is so adamant in demanding security guarantees?
I completely understand why Zelenskyy wants security guarantees. I would too in his place. I don't blame him for that at all - but I don't think it will happen and I would not want my country to provide any security guarantee for Ukraine. I personally would not go to war for Ukraine.
Huge red flag here and a big lie. Let's break it down:
Those "pro russia regions" voted for Zelensky, which was very clear about Ukraine's independence and sovereignty.[0]
> I personally would not go to war for Ukraine.
At the rate you're spreading disinformation here, one does start to wonder if you're even in a Western country lmao
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
Them having high pro russian perc: https://sites.tufts.edu/gis/files/2020/07/hayward_olivia_GIS...
Also those oblasts have a high ethnic population, at around ~38% https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Articles/A...
I'm not saying those regions are more pro russia than Ukraine, but that there is non minor population in there that is pro russia, ethnically russian or speaks russian - which is why russia wants them.
What do you think the russian's end goal here is? To capture all of Ukraine? And then go to Europe?
> At the rate you're spreading disinformation here, one does start to wonder if you're even in a Western country lmao
My country shares the border with Ukraine - I'm not separated from them by an ocean. Just because you don't like facts, doesn't make it disinformation.
I'm not saying those regions are more pro russia than Ukraine, but that there is non minor population in there that is pro russia, ethnically russian or speaks russian - which is why russia wants them.
Polling leaked from Russian authorities running the occupied territories revealed the same thing: even after hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians had fled as refugees, and the remaining had been subjected to terror, nowhere did the support for joining Russia exceed 30%.
This fits nicely with the pre-war polls that showed support ranging from 1% in Kherson to 13% in Luhansk.
Theres enough ethnic russians in there, plus history, for russia to justify (to its citizens / to its allies) the invasion. I dont think the invasion is justified, but do think that russia will stop at the 4 eastern oblasts.
I dont see any good reason why russia would want to take the rest of Ukraine unless they posed a threat (e.g hosting NATO bases/missiles, which wont happen)
Maybe Im wrong. But in my opinion, it's worth the risk to stop the deaths of Ukrainian men.
Kherson oblast is for the land bridge to Crimea
> misplaced expectation that Mr. Hitler will surely stop at Poland
Well, US/UK did it once with USSR. They allowed SU control over Poland and east Germany.
According to iiss [1], Ukraine is "Equipped but not staffed" although they do mention "they will likely need significantly more weapons". It is my understanding (I may be wrong) that their main shortage is artillery shells, which is mainly because EU can't actually produce enough, and have been ramping up.
The 800bn sounds exciting, and hopefully we do actually get 800bn increase since 650bn is > “allow member states to significantly increase their defense expenditures without triggering” punishing rules aimed at keeping deficits from going too far into the red [2]. It is my understanding that countries may choose not to increase their defense as much, but hopefully they do as it's greatly needed in EU.
1: https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/0... 2: https://apnews.com/article/europe-defense-ukraine-united-sta...
Well, US/UK did it once with USSR. They allowed SU control over Poland and east Germany.
The US, UK, and others did not pack things up and go home at the end of WWII, believing that the Russians had their belly full with Eastern Europe and wouldn't push for more. The UK, for example, withdrew its last forces from continental Europe only in 2010. The US withdrew last combat forces in 2013.
Looks like Russia took that as an invitation to invade Ukraine the very next year.
Isn't that a sudden sidestep of the previous points?
My original point, was that Ukraine is losing and in my opinion, it is in their best interest to give those away if it means peace. Given that we can't agree on if Russia will be satisfied with those regions, I thought it best to shift the discussion to what options they have. I wouldn't advocate for Ukraine surrendering those territories if I thought they had better options / a chance to win the war.
I've said my reasons why I think Russia may be satisfied with the eastern oblasts and not seek more.
You simply echo Russia Today narratives.
Ukraine has so many men willing to fight that they have to kidnap them on the streets?
There's Korean soldiers fighting in Kursk only, as far as I'm aware. None in Ukraine. It's free man power for Russia. Both sides have merceneries from Africa and South America, among others.
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/0...
> Staffed and decently equipped: Russia’s outlook for 2025
vs
> Equipped but not staffed: Ukraine’s challenge for 2025
Equipped with golf carts, motorcycles and donkeys?
Staffed with wounded men. There been many cases when russians force people on crutches advance into meat wave assault.
Kidnaping people from streets - that is a Russian narrative as well. Forced mobilization - sure that happens at war.
When police arrests someone - do you call it kidnap as well?
How are Russians gaining territory with gold carts, motorcycles and donkeys? How are those wounded men overwhelming the Ukrainian side?
Forcefully taking someone and sending them to the frontline, I consider that kidnapping yes. I believe forced mobilization to be immoral.
Can you please provide some reliable source that shows Ukraine having more manpower than Russia?
> Between five and ten times as many as the Ukrainian casualties
Citation needed. I do think Russia has more casualties but 5-10x is ridiculous.
The Russian war machine cannot replace its losses, thus they rely on NK men and equipment, amazing job by the Ukrainians and the West destroying the Russian army twice and depleting all the old Soviet stock.
NK men are only in Kursk / Russian region. I don't think there's any confirmed NK men fighting in Ukraine.
According to iiss [1], Russia does not have man power issues, unlike Ukraine.
> amazing job by the Ukrainians and the West destroying the Russian army twice and depleting all the old Soviet stock.
I only wish it wasn't at the cost of hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian men.
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/0...
Isn't it better for Russia if Koreans die instead of Russians? It looks rational (but sad for Koreans dying in a war on the other side of the globe).
From military perspective Koreans are useless cannon fodder for to the language barrier and unaware of modern combat full with FPV drones.
> From military perspective Koreans are useless cannon fodder
Well, that's the soviet doctrine. Men are useless cannon fodder. It does give the NK the chance to catch up on modern combat.
First, they came for Ukraine and we did nothing...
First russians came for Ichkeria and I did nothing because I'm not a Chechen. Then russians came for Georgia and I did nothing because I'm not a Georgian. Then they came for Ukraine...
https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukraine-situation-report-s...
may you expand on this?
But basically, TCC is the recruitment office in Ukraine, and they will pull up in unmarked vans and grab and force them into a van.
Here's an article about it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/11/28/ukrainian-...
A decent video example (ignore the text): https://x.com/East_Calling/status/1896019613198270859 - there's many more.
It's absolutely terrifying for Ukrainian men.
It is very authoritarian.
Nearly every country that has been attacked has forced conscription. The US did during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and we weren't even attacked in 3 of those.
Were we authoritarian then?
Any forced conscription is immoral. Do you think forcing American men to go and die in Vietnam was morally just?
It doesn't make it less Russian propaganda though, and from the same blend of the gay Nazi biolabs nonsense that's constantly spewed around. A telltale sign is the duality of criteria.
What even is the point of having a discussion if anything that isn't pro-Ukraine is dismissed as russian propaganda?
I don't know what your motivation is but I hope you'll stop. It will be more convincing as well if it looks like you're making a fair point in earnest.
User B: that is russian propaganda!!
What am I misunderstanding, or dishonestly representing? If you don't want to have a discussion, you don't have to participate, but those cheap takes contribute nothing to a discussion.
I think it was 1.000.000+ men lmao
Now that's trying to escape war. In every war there's people avoiding conscription, and Russians do it by orders or magnitude we probably haven't seen on record.
Ukraine had to close borders to men because so many were trying to flee. Millions of Ukrainians sought refuge throughout Europe.
I never said they ain't true, as I said - not everyone wants to be in a war, and this happens literally in every war. I just pointed out that in the case of Russia it occurred in an unprecedented manner, while what happens in Ukraine is what's more in line with war.
> A lot of Russian men did flee, but they no longer conscript, while Ukraine still does.
Conscription would probably lead to the final collapse of the Russian economy, they are resorting to the misery of the population which are joining the war with entrepreneurial ambitions (getting well paid... which is a sad event given the high interest rates and inflation). Russia hasn't declared war, and probably never will as that would be a threat to the regime.
> Ukraine had to close borders to men because so many were trying to flee. Millions of Ukrainians sought refuge throughout Europe.
Like in any country being invaded with Martial Law in place.
> I just pointed out that in the case of Russia it occurred in an unprecedented manner, while what happens in Ukraine is what's more in line with war.
Russia did not kidnap man from the streets to force to the frontline, at least not that I'm aware of, and certainly not in the numbers that Ukraine does. Conscription happens in wars, but forcing men off the street to go to the frontline?
> Conscription would probably lead to the final collapse of the Russian economy
I've been hearing that Russian's economy is on the brink of collapse for the last three years. It's awful compared to the West, but they have transitioned into war-fueled economy well, and are still doing well enough despite the war and all the sanctions.
> Like in any country being invaded with Martial Law in place.
So same like Russia? Men want to flee from getting conscripted.
In a coordinated operation, Russian authorities conducted raids on three of Moscow’s largest and most popular nightclubs on Friday night, detaining hundreds of men and taking them to military conscription offices.
According to witnesses, dozens of police vehicles, including paddy wagons, lined up outside the nightclubs as enforcement personnel, accompanied by police K9 units, systematically entered the establishments. Clubgoers described the scene as chaotic, with people being escorted out in groups. The authorities focused their efforts on male patrons, detaining many of them and subsequently transporting them to local military conscription offices. Women, on the other hand, were eventually released after their passports were photographed.
One attendee, who wished to remain anonymous, described the atmosphere inside as tense and surreal. “It was like nothing I’ve ever experienced. They came in and started checking IDs, taking the men away without much explanation. The music stopped, and everyone just froze,” the witness said.
I would guess that the video is just another crackdown on LGBTQ, as they have been doing: https://apnews.com/article/russia-lgbtq-crackdown-nightclub-...
Most of such stories are on Telegram, another example: https://t.me/akaloy/7128
Human rights activists advise young men to live somewhere else than their official address and to avoid public transportation, because raids at metro stations are commonplace, as the local news report:
After the beginning of the autumn call, the police regularly conduct raids in which deviators are identified from military service. Security forces come to the hostels for migrants and warehouses in Moscow and the region, as well as check passengers in the subway. Over the past day, the police conducted raids near the metro station “Electrozavodsk”, and also presented 26 subpoenas to the army in the Krasnogorsk hostel.
Yeah, except Russian propaganda is composed mainly by lies (truth be told, terrible lies that would only work in people with very poor cognitive capacity).
> Russia did not kidnap man from the streets to force to the frontline, at least not that I'm aware of, and certainly not in the numbers that Ukraine does. Conscription happens in wars, but forcing men off the street to go to the frontline?
Another lie.
Not only they kidnaped men, they kidnapped foreign workers.[0]
[0]https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly6ve2x72xo
> So same like Russia? Men want to flee from getting conscripted.
Oh please do show the records of hundreds of thousands of men fleeing a country just upon the announcement of mobilization, here's one example of what happened just at the border with Georgia (Russia is a big place): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzv5fM1LWXk
From your source:
> were lured by agents with the promise of money and jobs, sometimes as "helpers" in the Russian army.
So where's the kidnapping? Seems like you lie just as much as this "russian propaganda". There is no kidnapping.
> Oh please do show the records of hundreds of thousands of men fleeing a country just upon the announcement of mobilization
How about the millions in Europe? I see Ukrainian men everyday in my country.
> In an analysis of figures from EU statistics agency Eurostat in November, BBC Ukrainian found that some 768,000 Ukrainian men aged 18-64 had left the country for the EU alone since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion.
It doesn't look good when you start arguing about semantics when English is not your main language, so let me help you here: When you take someone against their will, it's called kidnapping.
Here's the definition:kidnapping, criminal offense consisting of the unlawful taking and carrying away of a person by force or fraud or the unlawful seizure and detention of a person against his will.[0]
So clearly they were kidnapped and held by force, some were lured which is also kidnapping by definition, and it's well known by the way, another example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64582985
So not only are you lying, you're doubling down spreading misinformation, and you're accusing others of providing you with sources of being liars.
[0]https://www.britannica.com/topic/kidnapping
> How about the millions in Europe? I see Ukrainian men everyday in my country.
You're talking about refugees, of which 2 thirds are women and children?[0] Then you refer to millions of men in Europe, showing a 768.000 figure.
https://unric.org/en/ukraine-over-6-million-refugees-spread-...
> You're talking about refugees, of which 2 thirds are women and children?[0] Then you refer to millions of men in Europe, showing a 768.000 figure.
Well, if 2/3 are women out of 6 million then 2 million would be men. But semantics, we can confirm that theres atleast 768k according to Eurostat. Which I think satisfies your claim: (somewhat, unless you get picky about the "upon the announcement of mobilization")
> Oh please do show the records of hundreds of thousands of men fleeing a country just upon the announcement of mobilization
It would be honest of you to mention the flood of videos on Russian social media showing crippled Russian soldiers on crutches dragged into trucks, driven to the frontline, and forced to attack. Some of them are featured here: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/22/europe/russia-wounded-tro... And this is how they end up, absolutely incredible sight, one "attacking" on crutches, the other next to him crawling on all fours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CQcftiP3jQ
I have not seen anything this wild on the Ukrainian side.
I'ts no less terrifying for Russian men when the goons show up to take you away I assure you.
Sadly my family in Russia has been impacted by this, not in being conscripted forcefully themselves, but needing to destroy their own livelyhoods so that it is not possible for them to facilitate the the sending of others to the front line.
What would you use to transport items through the forest for example?
Allow for long-distance strikes, allow for usage of Starlink without gps limits, send modern equipment. Russian army is barely moving forward even though UA has one of its arm tied on the back.
Wasn't the time for that 3 years ago (or 11)? I'm not pro Russia, but a war of attrition has always seemed a bad play and half-assed. Especially when Europe is still buying gas from Russia...
The West has gone to great lengths to provide the absolute minimum response to Russia's invasion (no troops, even withholding certain weapons classes) and leaders have repeatedly expressed concerns about the danger of an outright Russian collapse. Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal.
True, but the collective West would do much better if the volume of support allowed Ukraine to furtherincrease Russia's attrition rate. Knocking down the Crimean bridge alone would wreak havoc to Crimea's logistics.
Eastern Europe contains many NATO countries, and many European countries feel an increased rather than decreased need for nuclear weapons. Compensation for losses due to sanctions would also effectively legitimize the war, as if though Russia were in the right.
Lifting sanctions could maybe be done, if Russia actually left Ukraine entirely, including Crimea.
I think what's really interesting at the moment, at least to me as a European, is a proper war where we simply go in and pound the Russian positions in Ukraine with bombers, strike all sorts of factories, plants, gas conduits, electrical infrastructure etc., in Russia so as to ensure a reasonable outcome.
This is a very large and difficult to defend country, relative to its population. The Russians are incredibly vulnerable and increasing the violence level to something more appropriate is the going to be the only alternative.
Russia is a bully. What do you think will happen if we have to pay the bully off each time they start smashing up their neighbors stuff up or just making threats?
And as for withdrawing NATO forces - NATO is a purely defensive organization. Its purpose is to defend against just the sort of shit Russia has pulled with Ukraine. If Ukraine was part of NATO the war would not have happened.
NATO is not a threat to Russia. Never has been, never will be. This is equivalent to a local crime lord complaining about being threatened by the police station down the road and demanding that the police station shuts down.
Are nuclear missiles located in Europe and pointed to the East also "purely defensive" weapon? It doesn't help good relations when you have a gun pointed at your face.
This has stopped a war directly between the major powers for the last 70 years and is known as MAD - Mutually assured destruction.
Its not a situation which anybody is comfortable with, but it works.
Honestly, this is basic cold war history stuff. Your question above shows you are either completely naïve or you consume way too much Russian propaganda.
(Probability of deterrer carrying out deterrent threat × Costs if threat carried out) > (Probability of the attacker accomplishing the action × Benefits of the action)
You could argue that Russia successfully destabilising the US (via Trump) and Europe (via Brexit and far right) is proof that nuclear missiles "pointed to the east" worked at defending against direct conflict and forced an alternative.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense?wprov=sfla1 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory?wprov=sfla1
European troops in Ukraine, adding them to a new European nuclear umbrella, and giving them a pathway towards EU membership and a "Marshal Plan" to rebuild are the kinds of things Ukraine needs to feel any kind of confidence in a ceasefire or peace agreement.
Russia is running out of equipment. What they have left is in an increasingly bad state. Ukraine’s recent strategy of targeting refineries is working fairly well.
Ukraine now has domestic laser weapons for taking down Russian drones.
The only reason Ukraine is yet to be as worse for civilians as Afghanistan is the fact that Ukraine successfully routed and defeated Russia's initial invasion push.
Look at Bucha to see a real world example of what expects Ukraine if they capitulate.
Source?
Ukraine is steppe and swamp, very flat. Afghanistan .. is not.
It goes both ways, there's a reason why Russia has more than 900.000 casualties in 3 years of a "3 day special military operation".
But in Crimea? Or the Russo-Japanese War? Or WW1? Whenever the stakes are less than existential, superpowers lose.
Saying Russia can't lose is just defeatism. With a few dozen F35s and better capabilities and ammunition, Ukraine would likely have won this war already.
Russia can be easily defeated; especially at this point. Their armies are demoralized, their equipment is terrible (they are using donkeys), and their budget is running out. The only reason they do not crumble is their sheer size against Ukraine. They would easily be wiped out by a more modern western military. Conservatives in the US now like Russia because they ban LGBT and Europe does not want to pay for a likely 2 year attack and show of force.
And don't talk to me about using nuclear weapons against the west. Russia won't use them. They haven't use them for 3 years despite threats to the west if they don't stop funding Ukraine. The second they use them against the west; the west uses them right back. All the money, power, and influence the elites have in Russia disappears. They won't let Putin launch them.
I protest: donkeys are NOT terrible!
In fact donkeys are absolutely one of the best means of transport in the Ukraine conflict: donkeys maintain themselves, are loyal to their trainers and are reliable. If you allow them to guide themselves, they will almost always move you away from regions of conflict (i.e., they are self-guided and smart).
Furthermore donkeys are by their nature not instruments of war: there are no "attack donkeys" in this or other conflicts. Donkeys are animals of peace.
Free a donkey today: send cash to
Free the Donkeys
123-rt45 Doskilvi via
Kyiv, UKRAINE 79013
(just kidding, but wish I weren't)
This is only true if we keep Ukraine in an undersupplied state.
In fact they are so powerful army, they are using civil vehicles and motorcycle as infantry vehicles for assault. Tanks made in Stalin's era also used.
Even donkeys are used for logistics!
Cannot be defeated? True, if western countries restrict usage of their weapons against Russian army.
Becasue Putin has openly talked about how Latvia and Moldova, for example, are part of Russia.
Say India decided to relitigate the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent and take over Bangladesh. Say India keeps going into Pakistan. Does the U.S. get involved? Why should America care?
India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. If a conflict between them escalates, then even a limited nuclear exchange would lead to tens of millions of casualties, mass starvation, widespread electronic outages, and releasing millions of tons of black smoke into the atmosphere; crop yields worldwide would be severely reduced.
There have been a few studies on a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, although as you'd expect, they're mostly from antinuclear advocacy groups. There are many unknown factors and a wide range of estimates, so I'd take all numbers with a grain of salt.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31616796/
https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/two-billion-at-ri...
There's also an active National Academies study on the environmental effects of nuclear war (https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/independent-study...), although they haven't released anything yet.
Russia is now militarily a hollow shell, except for nukes. They're like North Korea but they eat better (they always did, though). Neither of those nations could engage the USA in a conventional conflict for longer than a half hour. This is sometimes termed "victory" or "success", and I don't think its a bad outcome.
Of course you can imagine fairy tales where the Russians are abjectly defeated and humiliated and such fairy tales would give you more happy Social Media discussions. But such viewpoints also cause multi-generational problems in peoples of Slavic mindsets who view history as a list of wrongs against their ancestors going back centuries.
The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace casualties. Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries. With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same number of casualties in two weeks.
[1] https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
The Russia-Ukraine War makes it clear that the electromagnetic signature emitted from the command posts of the past 20 years cannot survive against the pace and precision of an adversary who possesses sensor-based technologies, electronic warfare, and unmanned aerial systems or has access to satellite imagery; this includes nearly every state or nonstate actor the United States might find itself fighting in the near future. The Army must focus on developing command-and-control systems and mobile command posts that enable continuous movement, allow distributed collaboration, and synchronize across all warfighting functions to minimize electronic signature. Ukrainian battalion command posts reportedly consist of seven soldiers who dig in and jump twice daily; while that standard will be hard for the US Army to achieve, it points in a very different direction than the one we have been following for two decades of hardened command posts