Russia and Ukraine

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, when you turn a power like Russia's satellite state (Ukraine) into a liability for them, and blow up the Crimean bridge and blow up pipelines and bomb Russia's nuclear triad inside of Russia, and you show Russia that almost the entire West is behind them by providing weaponry, Russia is going to respond pretty harshly. This is war. It's not going to be pretty. Countless innocent people were killed and targeted, by all sides, during the world wars. Yes, Russia has gone beyond that in breaking international laws of war, but even still, there were going to be loads of innocent casualties regardless.

Who is the "you" here? And who invaded Crimea in 2014? And what gives Russia the right to kill civilians because a sovereign state won't do its bidding?

What truth do you want to know? You want to know if I believe there needs to be regime change in Russia? Not particularly, and I think it's counter productive for politicians around the world to be talking about such. Am I glad that Russia is destroying innocent people's lives? Obviously not, as my preference would have not been for Russia to take the land they will take inside of Ukraine. My preference would have been that Ukraine didn't get too big for its' britches, and war didn't break out. That's the truth and that's what I wanted. And I'm aware that fighting has been happening already for years, and you have Crimea and all of that, but when I talk about war breaking out, I'm referring to the more recent invasion of Ukraine.

Well, that's an arbitrary point you've selected given that it started in 2014, by Russian aggression in violation of the Minsk Accords.

It's too late for the war to not break out though, so you want to know what I want at the current moment? I want a peace deal, which the spy documents show Zelensky knows is going to have to happen very soon. That means giving something up. May as well give up the couple of spots that are already the most pro-Russian. Be done with it and end the war. Yes, this is what I want. And I don't want it because I'm pro-Russia. That's not the reason I want a peace deal, and that is the truth, whether you want to believe it or not.

So you're okay with rewarding aggression with territorial concession wrung from the force of arms. Thanks for being honest about it.

Zelenski knows that a peace deal must be reached soon, and he's going through his fighting forces pretty quickly, so you can't keep up the war endlessly.

He knows the war must be put to an end soon -- perhaps by, you know, winning, but if we're talking in terms of manpower, the Ukrainians have around a million under arms, while the Russians are scraping out prison cells to round out their ranks. The Ukrainians are receiving and training on fairly modern weaponry, while the Russians are dusting off 50-year-old tanks. Tranches of Ukrainian volunteers are training for military service, and I'm not talking four days with a 19th-century Nosin-Magant before being sent in as cannon-fodder.

I know this. Zelensky knows this. Russia knows this. Which is why they will take the couple most pro-Russian places, and peace will be made, whether it's China or India helping put the peace deal together. The US need not play a role in the peace deal since China and India have stepped up to the plate. There doesn't appear to be an alternative to peace, which is why you guys should be shifting your positions right now, because you guys are pretending that the Pentagon documents don't exist, when they show us, clearly, how this war must end.

I'm all for peace. I'm definitely against rewarding aggression and definitely for Ukrainians who wish to defend their own freedoms. I've never been fond of appeasement. Your mileage seems to vary. I hope that peace comes through Russia being defeated on the battlefield, which I think is possible given the parlous state of their military as well as its demonstrated incompetence as compared to Ukrainian generalship. I'd rather America feed Ukraine supplies to defend itself than feed Russia bits and pieces of land to further whet its appetite, myself.

China's offer to chair negotiations is suspect at best, given their obvious interest in a Russian victory. A defeated Russia makes their issues dealing with both central Asia and Taiwan greater, and so I'm skeptical of their objectivity. But again, you seem to trust authoritarian regimes while I don't.

As for the document leak, there's not much telling which have been altered and which haven't -- for instance, the returns on casualty rates, or the interference with HIMARS guidance systems, both of which strike me as suspect.

So again, me calling the US the great Satan is kind of just a playful thing. Don't take it too seriously.

Trust me when I say I don't take too much of anything you say very seriously.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The Pentagon papers are irrelevant. They won't decide the outcome of the war. The are not divine prophecies.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Yes, when you turn a power like Russia's satellite state (Ukraine) into a liability for them, and blow up the Crimean bridge and blow up pipelines and bomb Russia's nuclear triad inside of Russia, and you show Russia that almost the entire West is behind them by providing weaponry, Russia is going to respond pretty harshly. This is war. It's not going to be pretty. Countless innocent people were killed and targeted, by all sides, during the world wars. Yes, Russia has gone beyond that in breaking international laws of war, but even still, there were going to be loads of innocent casualties regardless.

Who is the "you" here? And who invaded Crimea in 2014? And what gives Russia the right to kill civilians because a sovereign state won't do its bidding?

What truth do you want to know? You want to know if I believe there needs to be regime change in Russia? Not particularly, and I think it's counter productive for politicians around the world to be talking about such. Am I glad that Russia is destroying innocent people's lives? Obviously not, as my preference would have not been for Russia to take the land they will take inside of Ukraine. My preference would have been that Ukraine didn't get too big for its' britches, and war didn't break out. That's the truth and that's what I wanted. And I'm aware that fighting has been happening already for years, and you have Crimea and all of that, but when I talk about war breaking out, I'm referring to the more recent invasion of Ukraine.

Well, that's an arbitrary point you've selected given that it started in 2014, by Russian aggression in violation of the Minsk Accords.

It's too late for the war to not break out though, so you want to know what I want at the current moment? I want a peace deal, which the spy documents show Zelensky knows is going to have to happen very soon. That means giving something up. May as well give up the couple of spots that are already the most pro-Russian. Be done with it and end the war. Yes, this is what I want. And I don't want it because I'm pro-Russia. That's not the reason I want a peace deal, and that is the truth, whether you want to believe it or not.

So you're okay with rewarding aggression with territorial concession wrung from the force of arms. Thanks for being honest about it.

Zelenski knows that a peace deal must be reached soon, and he's going through his fighting forces pretty quickly, so you can't keep up the war endlessly.

He knows the war must be put to an end soon -- perhaps by, you know,  winning, but if we're talking in terms of manpower, the Ukrainians have around a million under arms, while the Russians are scraping out prison cells to round out their ranks. The Ukrainians are receiving and training on fairly modern weaponry, while the Russians are dusting off 50-year-old tanks. Tranches of Ukrainian volunteers are training for military service, and I'm not talking four days with a 19th-century Nosin-Magant before being sent in as cannon-fodder.

I know this. Zelensky knows this. Russia knows this. Which is why they will take the couple most pro-Russian places, and peace will be made, whether it's China or India helping put the peace deal together. The US need not play a role in the peace deal since China and India have stepped up to the plate. There doesn't appear to be an alternative to peace, which is why you guys should be shifting your positions right now, because you guys are pretending that the Pentagon documents don't exist, when they show us, clearly, how this war must end.

I'm all for peace. I'm definitely against rewarding aggression and definitely for Ukrainians who wish to defend their own freedoms. I've never been fond of appeasement. Your mileage seems to vary. I hope that peace comes through Russia being defeated on the battlefield, which I think is possible given the parlous state of their military as well as its demonstrated incompetence as compared to Ukrainian generalship. I'd rather America feed Ukraine supplies to defend itself than feed Russia bits and pieces of land to further whet its appetite, myself.

China's offer to chair negotiations is suspect at best, given their obvious interest in a Russian victory. A defeated Russia makes their issues dealing with both central Asia and Taiwan greater, and so I'm skeptical of their objectivity. But again, you seem to trust authoritarian regimes while I don't.

As for the document leak, there's not much telling which have been altered and which haven't -- for instance, the returns on casualty rates, or the interference with HIMARS guidance systems, both of which strike me as suspect.

So again, me calling the US the great Satan is kind of just a playful thing. Don't take it too seriously.

Trust me when I say I don't take too much of anything you say very seriously.

You are AOK with Russia getting away with annexing land just as I am. Crimea. Do you want to send in US troops to take back Crimea? No? Then you're ok with Russia annexing them, and you and I are not as different as you think. You do support awarding aggression with land. Unless, again, you want to send in US troops to take back Crimea by force.

China being pro-Russia is a good thing for peace talks. China need not be objective. It might scare Ukraine into coming to terms quicker, because Ukraine is looking over their shoulder right now thinking China might supply weapons to Russia. This gives Ukraine even more of a reason to come to peace, and at least China is trying to reach a peace deal, unlike the US.

[Irreligious Atheist]

The Pentagon papers are irrelevant. They won't decide the outcome of the war. The are not divine prophecies.

You just made the claim in this post that knowledge, information, spy docs, etc are irrelevant. Sounds like something Trump would say about facts and data.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You are AOK with Russia getting away with annexing land just as I am. Crimea. Do you want to send in US troops to take back Crimea? No? Then you're ok with Russia annexing them, and you and I are not as different as you think. You do support awarding aggression with land. Unless, again, you want to send in US troops to take back Crimea by force.

He's not okay with letting Russia have Crimea there just isn't a viable way yet to take it back so this argument fails. 

China being pro-Russia is a good thing for peace talks. China need not be objective. It might scare Ukraine into coming to terms quicker, because Ukraine is looking over their shoulder right now thinking China might supply weapons to Russia. This gives Ukraine even more of a reason to come to peace, and at least China is trying to reach a peace deal, unlike the US.

This whole statement is bullshit. China is bluffing. The peace deal is a sham and Ukraine will not and should not negotiate and all your babble is just this. Take Putin's cock out of your mouth.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You just made the claim in this post that knowledge, information, spy docs, etc are irrelevant. Sounds like something Trump would say about facts and data.

No made the statement that these aren't the final word on the war. Try paying attention

[Irreligious Atheist]

You are AOK with Russia getting away with annexing land just as I am. Crimea. Do you want to send in US troops to take back Crimea? No? Then you're ok with Russia annexing them, and you and I are not as different as you think. You do support awarding aggression with land. Unless, again, you want to send in US troops to take back Crimea by force.

He's not okay with letting Russia have Crimea there just isn't a viable way yet to take it back so this argument fails. 

China being pro-Russia is a good thing for peace talks. China need not be objective. It might scare Ukraine into coming to terms quicker, because Ukraine is looking over their shoulder right now thinking China might supply weapons to Russia. This gives Ukraine even more of a reason to come to peace, and at least China is trying to reach a peace deal, unlike the US.

This whole statement is bullshit. China is bluffing. The peace deal is a sham and Ukraine will not and should not negotiate and all your babble is just this. Take Putin's cock out of your mouth.

There isn't a viable way of taking it back... Therefore he's ok with Russia keeping it... Which is awarding Russia for aggression. Which part did I just get wrong. You said the exact thing I said, just in different words.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There isn't a viable way of taking it back... Therefore he's ok with Russia keeping it... Which is awarding Russia for aggression. Which part did I just get wrong. You said the exact thing I said, just in different words.

You can believe it's not viable to take it back and still not want them to have it and not be okay with them getting to keep it as an award for aggression but not be willing to send US troops to take it back. None of those things follow. So you did get it wrong and I didn't remotely say the same thing what I said could not have been more different.

[Irreligious Atheist]

There isn't a viable way of taking it back... Therefore he's ok with Russia keeping it... Which is awarding Russia for aggression. Which part did I just get wrong. You said the exact thing I said, just in different words.

You can believe it's not viable to take it back and still not want them to have it and not be okay with them getting to keep it as an award for aggression but not be willing to send US troops to take it back. None of those things follow. So you did get it wrong and I didn't remotely say the same thing what I said could not have been more different.

One's internal thoughts don't mean much when it comes to awarding bad actors. I can virtue signal all day long about how I don't want girls to be barred from school in Afghanistan, and I can go on about how I really, really care about girls going to school and I really hate that this is happening, but by handing the country back over to the Tali (which I supported), I need at the same time to own that my actions are going to result in girls losing the privilege of going to school. I can't on one hand own the fact that I want the war to end, and then on the other hand, virtue signal about how much I'm against what the people are going to do after I've given them the country on a silver platter.

The same goes for Ukraine. We let them take Crimea by force. No matter how much we want to virtue signal, what that means is that we were ok with it happening. You don't need to support something, to be ok with it happening. Failing to act or failing to support specific actions is enough to show that we were ok with this happening and Russia taking the land.

[The Architect Of Fate]

That is the dumbest take ever. This position is neither virtue signaling and no not taking action is not the same as being okay with something. Those are some absolutely epic mental gymnastic moves to force reality to conform to your warped idealogy

Not as though it's going to matter as there is no certainty Russia keeping Crimea. After they lose the war.