Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Arthur Miller7 said:If they're acting this cocky right now, it seriously scares the hell out of me. Like, what if we just handed them whatever "peace" terms they wanted immediately? I'm dying to know if they'd still be handing out passports in Georgia and Moldova, or if they'd already be eyeing the Baltic. Anyone who thinks they’d just stop at Ukraine clearly wasn't paying attention in class.

They'd probably head straight for Poland next. It’s like, once you get cocky because you conquered Ukraine, suddenly it's the combined US+Russian forces moving on Poland (and maybe Belarus too). I bet the Mexicans would be having a field day with that one.

Jose Clark2 said:Why? Where in the Baltic? Would they attack NATO or Finland?

They’d jump on Georgia or Moldova in a heartbeat—maybe not today, but eventually. It’s simple: once they see they can get away with it in Ukraine, why stop? It’s like asking if you’d turn down a massive raise at work—of course you would! Once they grab everything they set their sights on without even breaking a sweat, they’ll be looking right at the Baltics next. They'd definitely try. I mean, did Putin ever say he wanted NATO to back off? Did he ever claim Lithuania wasn't even a real country? Seriously, have you been sleeping through the last few months or what? You really think Tsar Vlad wouldn't take everything that's handed to him on a silver platter?

Honestly, Jose Clark2 has been spinning this exact same yarn for the tenth time now...

Every single neighbor they’ve ever had has been attacked throughout history—and yet, there are still people out there who actually think they could just peacefully swap out the Nazis in Ukraine and suddenly the whole world would be living in some kind of utopia...

Jose Clark2 said:At what cost? Through what kinds of evils and betrayals?

So, imagine I just show up at your house and tell everyone they have to bow down to me, change their last names to mine, or else I’m gonna absolutely wreck them—dry, mind you, using nothing but a roll of toilet paper as a condom. What would you do then? Just sit there and take it, or try to fight back? Or maybe I tell you I’m gonna go ahead and wreck everyone regardless of whether you surrender, and then I’ll just write a piece in some local rag saying I wiped out half your family and took everything you own just because I felt like it, just so you know I'm not playing games. What’s the move? Would you fight to the bitter end just to feel like you helped, or just watch me destroy your whole family? This is mostly rhetorical, I guess, but based on what you wrote, it seems pretty obvious you’d be more than happy to let me do *anything* to your family as long as you stayed untouched.

Arthur Miller7 said:They’d jump on Georgia or Moldova in a heartbeat—maybe not today, but eventually. It’s simple: once they see they can get away with it in Ukraine, why stop? It’s like asking if you’d turn down a massive raise at work—of course you would! Once they grab everything they set their sights on without even breaking a sweat, they’ll be looking right at the Baltics next. They'd definitely try. I mean, did Putin ever say he wanted NATO to back off? Did he ever claim Lithuania wasn't even a real country? Seriously, have you been sleeping through the last few months or what? You really think Tsar Vlad wouldn't take everything that's handed to him on a silver platter?

I find that hard to believe. If that were the case, they probably would have started with Lithuania or Moldova instead of Ukraine, which has been bracing itself since 2014.

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, imagine I just show up at your house and tell everyone they have to bow down to me, change their last names to mine, or else I’m gonna absolutely wreck them—dry, mind you, using nothing but a roll of toilet paper as a condom. What would you do then? Just sit there and take it, or try to fight back? Or maybe I tell you I’m gonna go ahead and wreck everyone regardless of whether you surrender, and then I’ll just write a piece in some local rag saying I wiped out half your family and took everything you own just because I felt like it, just so you know I'm not playing games. What’s the move? Would you fight to the bitter end just to feel like you helped, or just watch me destroy your whole family? This is mostly rhetorical, I guess, but based on what you wrote, it seems pretty obvious you’d be more than happy to let me do *anything* to your family as long as you stayed untouched.

I am at a loss for how to respond to such crude comparisons.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Look, that whole "attack" argument is wild. It’s like saying you should help a friend instead of standing up to a bully who's beating them senseless. I mean, Putler was already complaining by the second day of the war that they hadn't just hung Zelenskyy and surrendered yet. Now, suddenly, the West is the bad guy because they're helping Ukraine? From their perspective, it’s making a quick victory harder. And then you get people saying, "Yeah, the Russians have a point, it would be awesome if they could just have a fast and easy win." Like, how messed up do you have to be to follow that kind of logic?

Folks, sometimes you need to use your head instead of just charging like a bull into a wall. We're hearing these massive announcements about millions of people heading out to liberate territory. In reality, half of them wouldn't make it out alive. Nobody is calling for dialogue, a ceasefire, or any kind of attempt to de-escalate this madness. Back during our own civil war, there were constant negotiations and attempts at peace, even if only on paper. There were even periods when the fighting near besieged Ottawa actually subsided. You simply cannot defeat a violent man who has a gun in his pocket. If you swing harder, he just pulls the trigger. That doesn't mean you surrender; it means you act with wisdom. For us to have moved toward liberation back then, we had to offer the aggressor a state-within-a-state option, which they rejected, and only then could we move forward. Here, we're talking about sending hundreds of thousands directly into the meat grinder, and nobody says a word... does anyone have any sense or conscience left? We urgently need some kind of ceasefire, any kind of truce, just to stop the shooting. Even Putin won't live for another 300 years; eventually, the leadership over there will change. Russia will likely buckle after a decade of isolation, and a new government will return the occupied territories. That will happen much sooner than liberating those lands by force of arms.

Jose Clark2 said:I am at a loss for how to respond to such crude comparisons.

I literally told you the question was rhetorical, so there wasn't actually an answer expected. If you're not sure what that means, I guess you could look it up in a dictionary or something.

Maybe go listen to some propaganda from Moscow instead.

analogbear70 said:Folks, sometimes you need to use your head instead of just charging like a bull into a wall. We're hearing these massive announcements about millions of people heading out to liberate territory. In reality, half of them wouldn't make it out alive. Nobody is calling for dialogue, a ceasefire, or any kind of attempt to de-escalate this madness. Back during our own civil war, there were constant negotiations and attempts at peace, even if only on paper. There were even periods when the fighting near besieged Ottawa actually subsided. You simply cannot defeat a violent man who has a gun in his pocket. If you swing harder, he just pulls the trigger. That doesn't mean you surrender; it means you act with wisdom. For us to have moved toward liberation back then, we had to offer the aggressor a state-within-a-state option, which they rejected, and only then could we move forward. Here, we're talking about sending hundreds of thousands directly into the meat grinder, and nobody says a word... does anyone have any sense or conscience left? We urgently need some kind of ceasefire, any kind of truce, just to stop the shooting. Even Putin won't live for another 300 years; eventually, the leadership over there will change. Russia will likely buckle after a decade of isolation, and a new government will return the occupied territories. That will happen much sooner than liberating those lands by force of arms.

I guess that's because Putler wants nothing less than wiping the Ukrainian nation and their language off the map entirely. It's incredibly hard to negotiate with someone like Hitler when you're a Jew. That's not a "Jew problem," though—it's a problem with that guy and his mustache.

Jose Clark2 said:I find that hard to believe. If that were the case, they probably would have started with Lithuania or Moldova instead of Ukraine, which has been bracing itself since 2014.

Look, they just went after the easiest target—the one where they thought they'd be greeted with flowers like "liberators." They expected to wipe out the Nazis effortlessly, thinking a huge chunk of people would join them, beef up their army, and maybe even use the Ukrainians as muscle for future conquests. Honestly, if Ukraine had fallen instantly without a single shot being fired, they probably would've swallowed Moldova next. After that? It’s straight to the Baltics, and then we'd see how NATO actually reacts. Let's be real, nobody's dropping nukes immediately. Especially when you've got guys like Orbán and Milanović hanging around... if they managed to get pro-Russian governments in both Ukraine and Moldova, those leaders would be screaming at NATO to retreat to the old borders. I wouldn't even be shocked if they started demanding territory in the Baltics too.

Jose Clark2, why do you view it as "sending millions to their deaths" instead of just "a million people fighting to survive"?

Sandra Harris2 said:Jose Clark2, why do you view it as "sending millions to their deaths" instead of just "a million people fighting to survive"?

I don't recall saying we were sending a million people to die, though I might agree that some of them certainly will. As for survival—if that's what you mean—it's a grim thought.

If that's the case, then the whole thing feels like a desperate gamble by everyone involved.

Arthur Miller7 said:Look, they just went after the easiest target—the one where they thought they'd be greeted with flowers like "liberators." They expected to wipe out the Nazis effortlessly, thinking a huge chunk of people would join them, beef up their army, and maybe even use the Ukrainians as muscle for future conquests. Honestly, if Ukraine had fallen instantly without a single shot being fired, they probably would've swallowed Moldova next. After that? It’s straight to the Baltics, and then we'd see how NATO actually reacts. Let's be real, nobody's dropping nukes immediately. Especially when you've got guys like Orbán and Milanović hanging around... if they managed to get pro-Russian governments in both Ukraine and Moldova, those leaders would be screaming at NATO to retreat to the old borders. I wouldn't even be shocked if they started demanding territory in the Baltics too.

Out of all the nations mentioned—Ukraine is easily the "softest" target. Had things gone differently, a whole new political dimension would have opened up for the Kremlin despots. But as it stands now (or rather, as it has unfolded thus far), it is entirely possible that every door they tried to kick down is slamming shut in their faces. They might even lose what they once considered absolute certainties. Nothing is settled yet, but the current trajectory offers a glimmer of hope for a favorable outcome.

Jose Clark2 said:I don't recall saying we were sending a million people to die, though I might agree that some of them certainly will. As for survival—if that's what you mean—it's a grim thought.

If that's the case, then the whole thing feels like a desperate gamble by everyone involved.

Survival.

Sorry, this was meant for the agricultural reform thread.

And again, do you really think they don't realize death is a certainty?

Jose Clark2 said:I find that hard to believe. If that were the case, they probably would have started with Lithuania or Moldova instead of Ukraine, which has been bracing itself since 2014.

In your last post, you claimed you didn't know the facts, yet suddenly you're an expert? It's a bit surprising coming from someone with your background... usually, people from your neck of the woods are the first to call others sunflowers.

P.s. I see now you're from San Francisco—my bad. But my comment about your sudden memory loss stands.
Sent from my M2007J17G using Reddit

@Jose Clark2

"A man lives honorably, or he dies trying..."

You know, some people just love to preach about patriotism, heritage, freedom, or the future of their kids—it's always their own, or someone else's, depending on the day. Some folks don't even care about the small stuff, like whether they're shivering at 20 degrees in their living room or staying cozy at 72...
There’s this thing people call guts—real, old-fashioned backbone.
Freedom doesn't have a price tag, which I guess means it isn't for sale.

Look, here’s my take on this whole million-soldier thing for the south—they could technically muster a million guys, sure, but even Zelenskyy is out there saying they need the actual hardware to make it count. And we’re talking specific gear here. Sending a million people just armed with rifles or, I don't know, pitchforks? That's basically a suicide mission. But you give them the right equipment, and suddenly the math changes completely. I haven't seen a single credible report saying they're actually launching this counteroffensive right now or that they have a fully equipped army ready to roll. To me, this feels more like a message to the West—like, "Hey, we've got the manpower, but we need the real weapons." So, if you ask me, this doesn't sound like they're hitting the gas "tomorrow" at all.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mdmitri91

The absolute meltdown over on the Russian side of the internet is just getting worse. Now they're starting to spiral into full-blown paranoia regarding the HIMARS...

Arthur Miller7 said:Look, here’s my take on this whole million-soldier thing for the south—they could technically muster a million guys, sure, but even Zelenskyy is out there saying they need the actual hardware to make it count. And we’re talking specific gear here. Sending a million people just armed with rifles or, I don't know, pitchforks? That's basically a suicide mission. But you give them the right equipment, and suddenly the math changes completely. I haven't seen a single credible report saying they're actually launching this counteroffensive right now or that they have a fully equipped army ready to roll. To me, this feels more like a message to the West—like, "Hey, we've got the manpower, but we need the real weapons." So, if you ask me, this doesn't sound like they're hitting the gas "tomorrow" at all.

You've hit the nail on the head. The UA Defense Minister mentioned he received orders from Zelenskyy to develop plans for liberating the southern coastal regions of Ukraine.

That was "sometime in the future," vaguely defined.

But then a news outlet picks it up and runs a headline like "Zelenskyy orders liberation of Ukraine," and now we're stuck dealing with the fallout we see today. 😁