Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

cosmicotter13 said:Look, if NATO didn't exist, America wouldn't be dealing with the mess in Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, or Russia... In fact, America and the American Armed Forces would actually be stronger and more capable. A neutral America would have maintained perfectly fine economic ties with Russia, and Russia wouldn't be attacking us. They won't attack us, and they certainly won't once the Ukrainians surrender. If it wasn't for NATO, Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded in the first place.
The Brits, the Americans, the Canadians... they've acted hostile toward us in the Congo, they exploit us, and they pull their most disgusting stunts against Americans in Canada. Honestly, it’s worth asking, what do they even get out of it?
Before America joined NATO, nobody was losing sleep or panicking about our national security. But suddenly after joining, after all the "reforms," after turning our active, reserve, and standby forces into some sort of "system," all of a sudden—oh no!—here come the Mexicans, here come the Russians... total cowards.

The war in Ukraine isn't our war and it isn't worth our money, our losses, or any potential lives we might lose.

Look, if Russia takes over part of Ukraine and collapses the global order, NATO will be pushed back to its 1997 borders, and then Mexico will be the target. Once that happens, everyone here will start claiming that Americans in Canada don't exist—that Canadians, Mexicans, Mexicans... they're all just Mexicans and part of Mexican territory.

Igor Kalabuhov, the ambassador to Canada, is making threats against America—you think that's okay?

Chris Thomas94 said:Hmm, it’s kind of like when you start coughing from a little cold and your doctor just waves you off, telling you to drink tea and get some rest, but the second they spot even a tiny hint of something cancerous, they're sending you for ten different specialized tests immediately...

Honestly, those questions are pretty shallow and feel a bit like something out of a preschooler's logic...

I really don't know if anyone here is actually willing to sit down and give you a serious answer to that...

So, what you're saying is our five years of fighting was just nothing more than a bad cough, while three months of conflict in Ukraine constitutes a "real" war that actually deserves Western support? It’s like a textbook example of pure patriotism used as a shield, and honestly, it just proves there isn't anyone here capable of having a serious discussion. Either people have already checked out, or they never existed in the first place, because most of what I see here is just people dismissing others or hurling insults instead of using actual logic.

Kimberly Perez82 said:So, what you're saying is our five years of fighting was just nothing more than a bad cough, while three months of conflict in Ukraine constitutes a "real" war that actually deserves Western support? It’s like a textbook example of pure patriotism used as a shield, and honestly, it just proves there isn't anyone here capable of having a serious discussion. Either people have already checked out, or they never existed in the first place, because most of what I see here is just people dismissing others or hurling insults instead of using actual logic.

You're talking total nonsense. The war in Ukraine is on a massive scale and potentially way more dangerous than what we went through in the States.

Kimberly Perez82 said:So, what you're saying is our five years of fighting was just nothing more than a bad cough, while three months of conflict in Ukraine constitutes a "real" war that actually deserves Western support? It’s like a textbook example of pure patriotism used as a shield, and honestly, it just proves there isn't anyone here capable of having a serious discussion. Either people have already checked out, or they never existed in the first place, because most of what I see here is just people dismissing others or hurling insults instead of using actual logic.

Go ahead and check my post #2658 on the previous page if you don't want me to keep repeating myself...

That whole patriotic angle has absolutely nothing to do with this situation....

cosmicotter13 said:Look, if NATO didn't exist, America wouldn't be dealing with the mess in Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, or Russia... In fact, America and the American Armed Forces would actually be stronger and more capable. A neutral America would have maintained perfectly fine economic ties with Russia, and Russia wouldn't be attacking us. They won't attack us, and they certainly won't once the Ukrainians surrender. If it wasn't for NATO, Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded in the first place.
The Brits, the Americans, the Canadians... they've acted hostile toward us in the Congo, they exploit us, and they pull their most disgusting stunts against Americans in Canada. Honestly, it’s worth asking, what do they even get out of it?
Before America joined NATO, nobody was losing sleep or panicking about our national security. But suddenly after joining, after all the "reforms," after turning our active, reserve, and standby forces into some sort of "system," all of a sudden—oh no!—here come the Mexicans, here come the Russians... total cowards.

The war in Ukraine isn't our war and it isn't worth our money, our losses, or any potential lives we might lose.

They aren't attacking with weapons (at least not yet); they're using capital and reactionary populism.

https://www.portalnovosti.com/u-stro...pranje-rubalja

Without NATO, the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, and that whole crew would still be living under the Soviet boot.
It must have been lovely for them, considering they’re currently the loudest and most determined voices against Vladolf and Mother Russia.

Nathan Thomas12 said:Man, you really tried to troll him.
NATO isn't the issue—if it were, Russia would've gone after Sweden and Finland.
The issue is imperialism and just grabbing someone else's land. Russia has attacked basically all its neighbors. Is the USA to blame for that, too?

So NATO is the problem, but Crimea was annexed back in 2014. NATO is the problem, but there's been war in the Donbas since 2014. They could have kept things stalled in the Donbas indefinitely if Ukraine had joined NATO back then—but they never could. It’s just a small Russia that needs more territory. Now, I see someone claiming Ukraine should just accept losing Zaporizhzhia.

cosmicotter13 said:Well, since you're clearly so "brilliant" and "well-informed," why don't you be a gentleman and actually answer your colleague?!

Look, I didn't sleep through the war—I was right there, a volunteer fighting for the cause—so I’m genuinely asking for an answer here. Back then, Ukraine provided us with next to nothing ( and certainly nothing for free. Honestly, the West was more of a nuisance than a help. Even the Russians were selling weapons to both sides, which, given the circumstances, was more useful than any "assistance" we got from Yury Borisov, the USA, Canada, and the rest of them.

American supporters of the Ukrainian cause are hitting a wall when faced with three very simple questions.

The damage being done to Americans is obvious and undeniable, yet:

1. What exactly are we getting out of this right now?
2. What kind of reward—be it economic or political down the road—is waiting for us after all these sacrifices?
3. How much has the average American already paid for the Ukrainian cause, and how much more will it cost (in dollars, euros, or blood), assuming there's even a limit to it?

And sure, I agree—we should provide humanitarian aid, take in refugees, and hand over all those weapons that they once handed to us during our own struggle.

You asked these exact same questions half a month ago. You got answers from ten different people, and yet here you are, trolling again.

Sandra Harris2 said:They aren't attacking with weapons (at least not yet); they're using capital and reactionary populism.

https://www.portalnovosti.com/u-stro...pranje-rubalja

Without NATO, the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, and that whole crew would still be living under the Soviet boot.
It must have been lovely for them, considering they’re currently the loudest and most determined voices against Vladolf and Mother Russia.

The real question is—is that pro-Russian leaning you see in some parts of America just because Americans don't actually have any direct contact with Russians, or never really did?

Timothy Williams5 said:Why bother asking the "experts"?
It seems pretty obvious that there is a massive distinction between supplying arms to an internationally recognized sovereign state and sending them to a territory like ours—a newly formed, non-universally recognized entity where a civil war (if one believes that narrative) is unfolding.

And honestly, labeling us and Ukraine as established European Union states during a time of war is just pure nonsense.

So, what you're saying is the US wasn't internationally recognized in January 1992 right at the start of the conflict, and because it lacked that recognition back then, it didn't deserve any serious weapon shipments until 1995? Good grief, I mean, really... how much research does one person actually need to do before they realize how flawed that logic is?

Kimberly Perez82 said:So, what you're saying is our five years of fighting was just nothing more than a bad cough, while three months of conflict in Ukraine constitutes a "real" war that actually deserves Western support? It’s like a textbook example of pure patriotism used as a shield, and honestly, it just proves there isn't anyone here capable of having a serious discussion. Either people have already checked out, or they never existed in the first place, because most of what I see here is just people dismissing others or hurling insults instead of using actual logic.

Putin could pull his troops out of Ukraine at any second and end this whole thing. Sure, the West made mistakes back in the nineties, but this conflict? This one actually threatens global peace.

gentlerider7 said:You're talking total nonsense. The war in Ukraine is on a massive scale and potentially way more dangerous than what we went through in the States.

Glad someone finally said it. Thanks.

Every war is a tragedy, but let's be real—some wars are just more relevant than others.
Dammit.

Kate Cook27 said:Putin could pull his troops out of Ukraine at any second and end this whole thing. Sure, the West made mistakes back in the nineties, but this conflict? This one actually threatens global peace.

Oh, please, some people are just way too short-sighted to see anything past their own living room recliner...

gentlerider7 said:The real question is—is that pro-Russian leaning you see in some parts of America just because Americans don't actually have any direct contact with Russians, or never really did?

Could definitely be because they haven't had that personal interaction.

Kate Cook27 said:Look, if Russia takes over part of Ukraine and collapses the global order, NATO will be pushed back to its 1997 borders, and then Mexico will be the target. Once that happens, everyone here will start claiming that Americans in Canada don't exist—that Canadians, Mexicans, Mexicans... they're all just Mexicans and part of Mexican territory.

Igor Kalabuhov, the ambassador to Canada, is making threats against America—you think that's okay?

Kate Cook27 said:So NATO is the problem, but Crimea was annexed back in 2014. NATO is the problem, but there's been war in the Donbas since 2014. They could have kept things stalled in the Donbas indefinitely if Ukraine had joined NATO back then—but they never could. It’s just a small Russia that needs more territory. Now, I see someone claiming Ukraine should just accept losing Zaporizhzhia.

Are you thinking about how things went down with Mexico?

Chris Thomas94 said:Oh, please, some people are just way too short-sighted to see anything past their own living room recliner...

It’s such a common way of thinking, honestly, where everyone acts like none of this matters as long as they're sitting pretty and their own skin is safe...

Terry Green3 said:Are you thinking about how things went down with Mexico?

Not quite like Mexico—nothing was annexed there. It’s more like a part of Russia. There’s a referendum where the people vote to join Russia. If they don't want it, the assembly just sends over a formal request.

Terry Green3 said:This nonsense has really started gaining traction lately.
Claiming they're the "only" one...



There's another example much closer to home, barely a century ago.

PS. You segregate the indigenous Americans, shove them into reservations, strip away their political rights, and then pose as the global beacon of democracy. Then, in true Anglo-Saxon fashion (unlike the Spaniards, who didn't share that specific British brand of racist colonization), you paint everyone else as criminals while acting like a saint despite your own criminal policies.

We didn't even mention the struggles of African Americans until the 60s.
Better to just stay quiet, I guess.

Look, the whole world knows about the miserable slavery and the Native Americans in the USA.
But who actually knows about the oppressed peoples in Russia and the mountains of genocide committed there?
Americans are at least facing their past bullshit today, but are Russians?
Have you ever even heard of this group from the Black Sea?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide
Estimates suggest that in Siberia alone, they killed just as many—if not more—of the indigenous population as what happened in the USA.

gentlestag15 said:Look, the whole world knows about the miserable slavery and the Native Americans in the USA.
But who actually knows about the oppressed peoples in Russia and the mountains of genocide committed there?
Americans are at least facing their past bullshit today, but are Russians?
Have you ever even heard of this group from the Black Sea?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide
Estimates suggest that in Siberia alone, they killed just as many—if not more—of the indigenous population as what happened in the USA.

Your claim that it's the only country to have held onto its colonies.

That claim is false. Period.
There isn't much point in debating this at length.

PS. Just one more thing.
Back when Russia was weak, those Asian nations raided and pillaged them. Once they gained strength, they turned the tables. It’s the same with Europeans in America; they couldn't push east because the Ottomans were wiping the floor with us. Whoever is stronger does the crushing.
It always has been, and it always will be. I just had to debunk these claims about Western "benefactors" who wouldn't even step on an ant, while portraying Russians as nothing but bloodthirsty...

Terry Green3 said:If the West had been asked back in the day, we might still be dealing with autonomous provinces within our own borders today.
It’s the same pattern as when the West acted like everything was perfectly fine while Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine.
Even now, the European Union would likely embrace those separatist regions in Ukraine in a heartbeat if the Ukrainians themselves gave them the green light.

That’s why this entire conflict really boils down to the people fighting for Ukraine. There’s plenty of propaganda about Western aid and advanced weaponry supposedly turning the tide, but the reality is simple: only a million Ukrainians picking up arms can actually win this war. It’s reminiscent of how things looked for us before Operation Storm.

The responsibility lies with them. To hell with the West.

It might seem odd—supporting Ukraine with everything I've got while remaining deeply critical of our Western allies. Just because someone isn't a fan of the Britons doesn't mean they're suddenly pro-Russian or whatever other label people want to slap on you...

You're a little hard on the West, sure, but you seem pretty eager to back Putin.

gentlerider7 said:The real question is—is that pro-Russian leaning you see in some parts of America just because Americans don't actually have any direct contact with Russians, or never really did?

Look, for the most part, it's those old-school nostalgia buffs and people obsessed with outdated regional grudges who lean toward Russ. Then you've got a smaller crowd who are just terrified of the aggressive Western political elites, so they view Russ as their only real counterbalance.