Posts by gentleharbor3

Rebecca Lewis7 said:

Peace to all. As stated by:
BoJo:
To the people of Ukraine: Glory to Ukraine.
To the citizens of Russia: It is my firm conviction that this conflict is being waged entirely without your consent or in your interest.

The current rhetoric regarding the necessity of continued support for Ukraine remains predictably tiresome. One observes the usual parade of political grandstanding, where leaders offer sweeping declarations of solidarity that often lack the practical substance required to actually move the needle on the ground. It is a familiar spectacle: the high-minded speeches designed to satisfy domestic audiences while the actual complexities of the conflict continue to unfold with much less fanfare. While the intention to stop the war in Ukraine is frequently touted, the gap between lofty diplomatic goals and the gritty reality of modern warfare suggests that we are merely engaging in a very expensive exercise in moral signaling.

Good grief, the hairstyles. 🤣🤣🤣
Everything else. 🙏🙏

The Biden administration continues to push the envelope, essentially cheering on the escalation of this bloodshed. One has to wonder: who actually stands to gain from all this?

It is highly improbable that the British or American militaries would actually deploy troops to assist their "allies" in such a capacity. They will simply sit there, watching everything unfold with detached indifference, cheering from the comfort of their offices thousands of miles away.

They refuse to deploy the promised military forces or provide the necessary weaponry, yet they remain equally opposed to any meaningful negotiations; instead, they seemingly pray for an ever-increasing casualty count simply to serve the economic and political interests of the b@b elites.

I find myself struggling to grasp the logic here. We have no intention of deploying our military or sending direct aid, yet we expect you to hold your ground—even though it is painfully obvious to the entire world that victory is simply not on the table for you.

One might argue that forcing Russia to pay a heavy price for their victory is a satisfying goal, yet we must acknowledge the grim reality that such a costly triumph simultaneously demands thousands upon thousands of Ukrainian lives sacrificed for a defeat—all in vain. The economic landscape of Ukraine has been systematically regressed by fifty years, leaving a once-functioning economy in total shambles. One is left to wonder if the entire nation will be completely annihilated or merely left as a fractured, ruined shell of its former self.

Perhaps I am simply lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp why this entire forum is populated by self-proclaimed "experts" on warfare, all of whom seem unshakably convinced that a Ukrainian victory is an absolute certainty. Fairytales, fables, and idle fantasies are one thing, but facts and practical reality are quite another.


If someone were to attempt to convince me that Mexico could actually prevail in a conflict against the United States, I would find the proposition utterly absurd. It seems people possess a profound, almost pathological inability to confront reality. One must ask: did the Taliban truly defeat America by forcing a withdrawal? They were left with a fractured nation, drowning in corruption and effectively regressed to the standards of the 16th century. To suggest that anyone actually "won" in Afghanistan is nothing short of intellectual bankruptcy. Furthermore, if Russia were to suddenly withdraw tomorrow, the reality remains that Ukraine has already lost. Is this truth simply too uncomfortable for the masses to acknowledge? It appears no one possesses the desire to focus on actual damage control.

Back in the 19th century, Americans were still operating under the Monroe Doctrine.
Look, at the start of the 19th century, they made it very clear: everyone was a target.
Who's actually getting close to the West Coast?
It’s not just about the U.S. government. It’s all Americans.
What rights? What democracy? 😁
They’ve made it crystal clear: they've claimed American territory as their own exclusive domain.
The zone of interest where they enjoy absolute hegemony.
It never even crossed anyone's mind to ask.
Maybe this situation actually plays right into those countries' hands?
So, they think it’s perfectly fine to just tear down legitimately elected governments whenever they feel like it?
When does the government stop serving American interests?
But they were invited to step in from across the Atlantic...
And then people go around asking such incredibly stupid questions:
Why is Ukraine being targeted when nearly half its population is...
They’re pro-Russia. There is absolutely no reason to let them be shoved into an American political or military alliance.
If that's what they "want." 😁 That’s it. That's all there is to it.
Nuclear superpowers and America's top rivals are staring each other down right at the borders.

The fundamental flaw in how people view these sanctions and this war
is the delusion that the world still revolves around the West. It doesn't.
We’re seeing a clear break from Western cultural, political, and economic dominance.
Just as the Middle East was our primary focus, the rest of the world sees this conflict in America's backyard as secondary.
America is rapidly becoming a peripheral player on the global stage while the center of gravity shifts toward the East.

cacophony said:Now this is an interesting take. Macron's policy is heading exactly that way. The EU and most European nations aren't maintaining relations with Russia for their own benefit; they're doing the opposite because of NATO policy and American influence. Personally, I'm in favor of a pan-European policy (to a certain extent), and the concept of a European army is, let's say, intriguing.

Sure, but Macron's idea regarding European strategic autonomy
only works on paper.
In reality, there are deep divides between Eastern and Western Europe
and massive, almost irreconcilable differences that have caused the EU to fail
to provide a unified or effective response to a single crisis so far.
So, despite the fact that America has acted arrogant
toward Europe—from Syria and Afghanistan all the way to the recent AUKUS deal
— this specific war in Ukraine will give NATO
a new raison d'être and further blind Europe to its dependence on the USA.

Edward Lee7 said:[/I]

You forgot to mention that ketchup isn't to blame—nope, zero, everyone else is totally at fault instead..

👍

The guy is one of the most respected realists of his generation.
Instead of feeding on the garbage you find on Twitter or clickbait headlines
from bottom-tier news sites, try spending five minutes actually educating yourself.
Don't bother thanking me.

Jeremy Lopez93 said:Seriously, what the hell are the Russians doing in Libya and Syria anyway?

And what's Putin's "Wagner group" doing in the Central African Republic? Setting up communal farms?

At the end of the day, do you actually want a Russian humanitarian center62 miles coming out of Washington, D.C.?

Aha, it’s getting uncomfortable for the apologists of those "Exceptionalists,"
the ones chosen to spread their values to the world,
so now we’re pivoting to whataboutism. 👍
It’s a good thing the world reacted roughly the same way
when Americans carried out baseless invasions and meddled
in the internal affairs of sovereign nations,
just as it is rightfully reacting to Russia now.
Maybe this war wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Really interesting lecture by American neorealist John Mearsheimer
who visited the University of Chicago back in 2015, about a year and a half after Maidan.
He lays out a very clear, well-argued case
on why the West is actually responsible for what’s happening in Ukraine and explains exactly how everyone played their part.
It’s an easy watch. He breaks down all the necessary elements
needed to grasp the broader context
of the conflict and the competing interests in that part of Europe. If you know English, give it a look...

Jeremy Lopez93 said:The US didn't declare Syria or Iraq as part of American territory, nor did they try to annex them or force them into some imaginary nation.

But sure, there's still a distinction.

You get what I'm saying, right? 🤣

How exactly would they annex them when there's an entire ocean and thousands of miles separating them?
Do you realize how baseless their invasion was—this whole intervention
where they manipulated intelligence and lied right to the face of the UN?
And for what? Natural resources and geopolitical interests, all masked as spreading democracy.

Nicholas Watson said:So, what’s actually the real difference between what Putin is pulling in Ukraine and the mess the US made back in Syria and Iraq?

Distance.

Amanda Hughes37 said:I don't quite get it—I haven't seen a single Ukrainian tank (aside from that one with the car attached), no planes, just people walking through the streets, the President giving addresses from the sidewalk... a stray bomb lands here and there, maybe a few people have actually left the country, though some are still heading out. It all feels strangely surreal...

Yeah, if you read these tweets from the people posting here,
it looks like Zelenskyy just takes a break between tweets,
spends maybe 2 or 3 hours dressed like a Ukrainian soldier,
and then barehanded takes down hundreds of Russian helicopters and paratroopers.
On the Russian side, nothing. I remember whenever a meteor fell
there were thousands of dashcam videos; the whole internet was flooded,
now? Nothing...
I wish we could read something strictly objective,
analytical, and surgically precise regarding casualty ratios and the situation on the ground,
without all this normative interference.
Obviously, everyone condemns the aggression—no dilemma there,
but some more objective reporting wouldn't hurt.

Betty Carter3 said:People are slamming Vučić for staying silent.

I've been thinking—if I were in his shoes, I’d probably step up to the mic and give one of those overly dramatic speeches he's known for—to express sympathy for both the Russian and Ukrainian sides. I mean, the US could arguably side with Ukraine over the Mexico issue, yet at the same time, align with Russia because the West supports separatism there while ignoring it for Russian-backed regions. It's complicated, I guess.

Then, I'd just invite both parties to come to Mexico City for peace talks.
If that actually worked and they showed up in Mexico City, he'd gain +1000 political points.

Well, he did react last night by refusing to impose sanctions on Russia.
The interesting part is that it also took Israel a relatively long time
to finally speak up and condemn
the Russian aggression under pressure from the West.
There was even some justification being thrown around that ultimately boils down
to what seems to be the only thing that matters in politics: self-interest.

swiftjackal11 said:It’s always better to deal with a threat far away from home.

Right. Americans are at their best when they're defending territory 3108 miles far away from home.
Reminds me of that long-lost Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, who once claimed
that the US would defend itself in Afghanistan. 🙂

Joseph Clark95 said:And how exactly is Israel supposed to condemn them!?
I mean, Israelis have steamrolled Palestinians and continue to crush them whenever they feel like it.
Where are all those sanctions, the protests, the Democrats standing up for Palestine?
Where are these "intellectuals" on the forums who bash Russians with their keyboards while actual people are picking up stones to fight back against weapons?!

It’s a pathetic world filled with mindless people swayed by mass media—people who would die for someone else's ideals and power just to serve tomorrow's propaganda.

Keep it up.

I brought that up as an example of moral pragmatism,
or rather, pure relativism and double standards.
Look, we condemn every act of aggression, but if we slap sanctions on Russia,
we might deal with a massive revolt from the Russian diaspora, not to mention who
would actually grant us flight paths over Syria...😵
It’s on the level of Italians bickering over sanctions because they have luxury goods to export.
Actually, it's worse, considering the moral authority Israel claims to hold.
This was just an illustration of how international relations
aren't nearly as simple as they seem at first glance
and that there is much more to it than just the "he has a right" argument.

Evincar333 said:So did we just toss our own versions of Putin (like Maddox or Babić) over the border and call it a day?
....
Go ahead, girl. Keep tapping away on that keyboard. It’s clearly your life’s work.

Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah. Excuses upon excuses.
Less talk, more action, action-man! ☕
It’s easy to act tough behind a screen.
Fine. Since I have no idea what you're even defending, I’ll stay quiet.
Anyway, I suggest you find enough
courage to actually pick up a book once in a while,
something on politics, political theory, history, or geopolitics
if those subjects actually interest you...
Otherwise, every single argument you make will just devolve into ad hominem attacks and hysterics
because you obviously don't get—and it's not just you—what I'm saying,
nor am I ever justifying Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

Sam Alvarez4 said:So, who are we even supposed to be negotiating with...?
Is he some KGB-style paranoid? Just days ago, he was insisting there wouldn't be an invasion of Ukraine... mocking Washington and using mouthpieces like Zakharova to claim it’s all just US propaganda...

Such a shame...
So many people—myself included—fell for the idea that it was all just US propaganda... then reality hit us hard.

It is what it is...

The important stuff...
At the end of the day, there's really only one question left... do you support an attack on Ukraine?

Hell no.
Actually, I condemn it.

Nancy Gomez26 said:The West warned an invasion was coming, but I didn't buy it. (Why would you trust the same crowd that went looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and found absolutely nothing?) But this time, they were right. Defying all rational logic, he attacked, and he clearly has a specific agenda. It appears his goal is a rapid regime change in Kyiv, thinking that will be enough. He still hasn't grasped that the will of the people actually matters. Does he honestly think he can hold a country under occupation for years? That would economically bankrupt Russia.

I didn't think an invasion would happen either,
but within a realistic framework, this logic isn't irrational at all.
At least from his perspective.
The Minsk II agreement fell apart, and Ukraine wasn't following it.
It's simple cause and effect.
He didn't just wake up one morning and decide—"today I invade Ukraine."
This happened for clear reasons we've already covered,
including the broader geopolitical context.
You could call this a conflict between the USA and Russia, where Russia
is directly involved, while the USA acts through proxies.

swiftjackal11 said:Of course they can't. But pride is stronger than Hitler's nukes.

Easy for you to say from your comfy armchair.
The people actually dying out there only have one life.
Life is the ultimate value.
And things in Ukraine aren't exactly settled enough
to claim that 90% of Ukrainians agree
on which direction they should take.

Evincar333 said:Thank God you were probably just a kid back in the 90s (or maybe you were some Munich mercenary), because if all Americans were like this now, they'd be speaking gibberish.

If the US Army had even a single-digit number of nukes back in the 90s,
we’d all be speaking some weird hybrid language today.
Russia has 6,255.
It’s fascinating how many people take everything they read
on Twitter and stuff as gospel, ignoring the fact that information warfare
is a core component of every conflict, especially in the age of
the internet and social media...
The Ukrainians aren't going to win this war
because if Putin loses his mind, he'll just level everything to the ground.
And based on the messages coming out of the White House, it's obvious
that lowering the guard and returning to negotiations is smarter
than continuing this stubborn defiance.
That's the reality.
The problem is that Americans completely misinterpret
their own experiences from the American Civil War when looking at this war.

Chris Chase5 said:So you find him pathetic? And you're convinced he'll be dead in a few days? Because of whatever methods the Russians decide to use to avoid looking like villains? He isn't a frontline soldier; if he tried to run at a tank, he'd be gone in a second. He actually does more than any typical statesman facing death threats. He isn't a general, he's a comedian. He's got a family to think about.

What's gotten into you lately?

Nothing is eating me, but you clearly have an issue
given the tone you're using,
since you obviously haven't a clue about the basics
regarding Ukraine or this war.

Chris Chase5 said:Zelensky is a dead man walking. He’s known that for days now. And honestly, I’d say he’s performing an incredible mission, going far beyond just doing a job.

Ukrainians are doing exactly what our people did back during the war. Who can send their wives and children away while they pick up weapons and head out? It's like fighting tanks with nothing but slingshots. We grew up with Molotov cocktails in the newspapers; that was just part of daily life for us. Anyone who lived through our defensive war can't help but feel a sense of mourning seeing this, and you can't help but side with those defending themselves. The Russians really need to get rid of that sick individual...

I think Zelenskyy will survive,
and all this pathetic sentimentality will age poorly in some Sean Penn documentary.
I highly doubt he's some local hero charging tanks with nothing.
He spends more time on Twitter than your average armchair general,
but information warfare is still a critical part of combat,
so credit where it's due regarding keeping Ukrainian morale up!
He handles that perfectly.

Gerald Torres84 said:Naturally, any sane American sees this as a carbon copy of our own war, and it triggers those exact same emotions. There are too many Putin-supporters on this forum enjoying this spectacle and blaming the West.

If being a "sane American" means being uneducated and uninformed, then sure.
This war and ours have nothing to do with each other.