If Ukraine loses the war and Russia occupies Ukraine, the US and Europe may not have a choice, but to go to war

[toomuchtime_]

As well as Ukraine attacked DPR and LPR, and, therefore - Russian Federation.



The Bay of Pigs Invasion back in 1961 and blockade of Cuba in 1962.



Ukraine attacked Russian allies DPR and LPR, too.



Ukraine was providing safe haven for Chechen terrorists and ex-president of Georgia Saakashvili.


There are plenty of them.

Once again you show it is impossible for you to put up a post without lying.

LPR and DPR don't exist; they are works of Russian fiction no one in the world recognizes.

The US did not invade Cuba in 1961, the invasion was carried out by exiled Cubans and was not supported by the US government. There was no blockade of Cuba; the US threatened to stop Russian ships suspected of carrying nuclear weapons, but Cuban ports were not blockaded.

Yet another lie. Ukraine never provided safe haven for terrorists.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The US did not invade Cuba in 1961, the invasion was carried out by exiled Cubans and was not supported by the US government.

Jesus Christ. Even I didn’t expect you to be this dumb.

I told you long ago that you were only discrediting yourself and discrediting the correct but difficult decision of Europe and the U.S. to give substantial military and economic aid to Ukraine — after it was invaded by Putin and its people and soldiers bravely threw back Russian troops from the gates of Kiev.

You also show no balanced analysis of this war, which is both a genuine struggle for Ukrainian independence and national liberation and also a proxy war between Russian despotism and the U.S.A. (with its European allies). This brutal war has other aspects as well. We must not blind ourselves to the dangerous logic of escalation that has already set in.

 

[sartre play]

Jesus Christ. Even I didn’t expect you to be this dumb.

I told you long ago that you were only discrediting yourself and discrediting the correct but difficult decision of Europe and the U.S. to give substantial military and economic aid to Ukraine — after they were invaded by Putin and bravely threw back Russian soldiers from the gates of Kiev.

You also show no balanced analysis of this war, which is both a genuine struggle for Ukrainian independence and national liberation and also a proxy war between Russian despotism and the U.S.A. (with its European allies). This brutal war has other aspects as well. We must not blind ourselves to the dangerous logic of escalation that has already set in.

Will always support a country that wants to control its self, and not lead buy ANY out side dictator.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Jesus Christ. Even I didn’t expect you to be this dumb.

I told you long ago that you were only discrediting yourself and discrediting the correct but difficult decision of Europe and the U.S. to give substantial military and economic aid to Ukraine — after it was invaded by Putin and its people and soldiers bravely threw back Russian troops from the gates of Kiev.

You also show no balanced analysis of this war, which is both a genuine struggle for Ukrainian independence and national liberation and also a proxy war between Russian despotism and the U.S.A. (with its European allies). This brutal war has other aspects as well. We must not blind ourselves to the dangerous logic of escalation that has already set in.

There you go again, spouting Putin propaganda while pretending to be "balanced". The notion that the US is fighting a "proxy war" against Russia in Ukraine is without any foundation in fact or logic, but it is a cornerstone of Putin propaganda. The entire Putin political system is built on the lie that the western democracies are out to get Russia and that's why the Russian people had to surrender all their political rights to Putin so he could protect them from the western democracies, and that's why he had to invade Ukraine, and here you are drooling out Putin's lies again.

There are no facts that suggest the US or NATO wanted to fight any kind of war with Russia or harm Russia in any way, and if you were capable of logical analysis, you would understand that such a war would not benefit the US or NATO in any way.

 

[José]

Originally posted by sartre play
Will always support a country that wants to control its self, and not lead buy ANY out side dictator.

The problem is that you're doing 3 different things and none of them is "I will always support a country that wants to control its self, and not lead buy ANY out side dictator."

First:

You're supporting the legitimate aspirations of 50% of a country's population that sincerily wants to become part of western Europe's political, economic bloc and the US led european security structure.

Second:

You're supporting the plans of that 50% to integrate the US led security arrangement for Europe and, in the process, rent its national territory to serve the geopolitical interests of foreign powers in exchange for protection, threatening Russia's national security.

Third:

You're supporting the efforts of that 50% to impose its will on the other half of the country that wants closer ties with Russia or at least neutrality.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The problem is that you're doing 3 different things and none of them is "I will always support a country that wants to control its self, and not lead buy ANY out side dictator."

First:

You're supporting the legitimate aspirations of 50% of a country's population that sincerily wants to become part of western Europe's political, economic bloc and the US led european security structure.

Second:

You're supporting the plans of that 50% to integrate the US led security arrangement for Europe and, in the process, rent its national territory to serve the geopolitical interests of foreign powers in exchange for protection, threatening Russia's national security.

Third:

You're supporting the efforts of that 50% to impose its will on the other half of the country that wants closer ties with Russia or at least neutrality.

Clearly, you have no idea what NATO is or how it works, and your "50%" is just another lie in your long, long history of lying on this board.

NATO members have only three obligations: to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense, make its weaponry compatible with NATO standards and respond if article five is activated, but since all actions by NATO require unanimous votes, each member has a veto over any proposed action and has complete discretion over what foreign military personnel or weapons may be placed on their land.
Your ignorance and bigotry is yet again noted, Putinhead.

 

[Silver Cat]

Once again you show it is impossible for you to put up a post without lying.

LPR and DPR don't exist; they are works of Russian fiction no one in the world recognizes.

As well as Texas didn't exist until 1821 or the USA didn't exist until 1775, and Russian Federation didn't exist until 1991.
Any state is just a collective illusion, but it existence doesn't depends on other people recognition.

The US did not invade Cuba in 1961, the invasion was carried out by exiled Cubans and was not supported by the US government.

As hell it wasn't.

There was no blockade of Cuba; the US threatened to stop Russian ships suspected of carrying nuclear weapons, but Cuban ports were not blockaded.

They called it "quarantine". But in fact it was an attempt of blockade, and, therefore - an act of war.

Yet another lie. Ukraine never provided safe haven for terrorists.

It depends on your definition of the term "terrorism".

 

[toomuchtime_]

As well as Texas didn't exist until 1821 or the USA didn't exist until 1775, and Russian Federation didn't exist until 1991.
Any state is just a collective illusion, but it existence doesn't depends on other people recognition.

As hell it wasn't.


They called it "quarantine". But in fact it was an attempt of blockade, and, therefore - an act of war.


It depends on your definition of the term "terrorism".

LPR and DPR are recognized by the rest of the world as Russian occupied Ukraine.

No Cuban port was blockaded and there was no threat to stop any shipping but Russian ships suspected of carrying nuclear weapons to Cuba. There was clearly no blockade.

There are no grounds for claiming the US government supported the invasion of Cuba. If it had, the invasion would have succeeded. The Cuban exiles were cut to pieces by Cuban warplanes on the beach and when the exiles called for help, the US government refused.

As usual, there is no rational basis for your accusations or for your support for Russian imperialism.

 

[ralfy]

Of course, none of this happened. Ukraine wanted to join the EU because there are huge economic advantages for both the country and individual Ukrainians that being connected to Russia cannot match. Putin and the other ultra nationalists who run Russia aspired to gain control over all the states the Soviets had and more. When he failed to gain control of Ukraine by with Yanukovych, he started and proxy with Ukraine and then invaded.

There are no nuclear missiles in any former soviet state, and neither NATO nor the US would have any reason to go to war with Russia. Putin's problem with NATO is that it prevents him from capturing the former Soviet states.

The EU is strongly dependent not only on Ukraine but on Russia, China, and even Saudi Arabia and various African countries. But they don't trade with these countries so that the latter could gain "huge economic advantages" but so that the former could take advantage of them.

That's why instead of promoting free trade, the EU was trying to pull Ukraine away from the Global south. The U.S. has been pulling the same stunt worldwide via structural adjustment and the IMF-WB so that others would remain dependent on the dollar.

That pull was coupled with corrupt U.S. officials making business deals with oligarchs in Ukraine, NATO dangling the membership carrot (even as it conveniently ensured it for regimes like those in Turkey), and the U.S. threatening to withdraw financial aid to the Ukraine unless the latter had a regime that was pro-U.S., not to mention tomfoolery from Nuland and co. who were even talking about isolating the useless EU from their machinations and assigning personnel to manipulate the UN Secretary General while reporting to Biden, who then wasn't even President.

Finally, these are part of NATO enlargement, which was started in the 1990s, and was meant to strengthen U.S. hegemony:

 

[ralfy]

Of course none of this is true.

Keep living in your la-la land and you won't be able to understand this issue.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The EU is strongly dependent not only on Ukraine but on Russia, China, and even Saudi Arabia and various African countries. But they don't trade with these countries so that the latter could gain "huge economic advantages" but so that the former could take advantage of them.

That's why instead of promoting free trade, the EU was trying to pull Ukraine away from the Global south. The U.S. has been pulling the same stunt worldwide via structural adjustment and the IMF-WB so that others would remain dependent on the dollar.

That pull was coupled with corrupt U.S. officials making business deals with oligarchs in Ukraine, NATO dangling the membership carrot (even as it conveniently ensured it for regimes like those in Turkey), and the U.S. threatening to withdraw financial aid to the Ukraine unless the latter had a regime that was pro-U.S., not to mention tomfoolery from Nuland and co. who were even talking about isolating the useless EU from their machinations and assigning personnel to manipulate the UN Secretary General while reporting to Biden, who then wasn't even President.

Finally, these are part of NATO enlargement, which was started in the 1990s, and was meant to strengthen U.S. hegemony:

The EU and US trade with everyone but Russia and its trade practices are monitored by the WTO, so you are posting nonsense.

NATO is an obstacle to Russian imperialism, but otherwise it is not a problem for Russia.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Keep living in your la-la land and you won't be able to understand this issue.

You clearly have no idea at all what is going on in the world.

 

[AlexanderPK]

You clearly have no idea at all what is going on in the world.

I bet fairies pee with coca-cola in that la-la land of yours, right?

 

[badger2]

Pepsi this:

Scott Ritter: "can only end in a Russian victory."
https://sputnikglobe.com/20230805/the road-to-rabotino-1112407284.html

 

[badger2]

Sputnik News has recently been a Western target, so if the URL does not work, go to the Sputnik site to read Ritter's actual statements.

Scott Ritter: Who is Responsible for Ukraine's Failed Counteroffensive?

Russian casualties, while unspecified, have been alluded to by President Putin, who stated that the kill ratio was 10:1 in Russia’s favor. That equates to 4,300 casualties: the brutal blade of war cuts both ways.

sputnikglobe.com

 

[Likkmee]

Of what strategic interest is Ukraine to the United States?

Medical. auto-tech. Ag tech, Musical accomplishments. Filmography. Tools. Just everything. Look at the investments made to have this access to Uke greatness !

 

[toomuchtime_]

Sputnik News has recently been a Western target, so if the URL does not work, go to the Sputnik site to read Ritter's actual statements.

Scott Ritter: Who is Responsible for Ukraine's Failed Counteroffensive?

Russian casualties, while unspecified, have been alluded to by President Putin, who stated that the kill ratio was 10:1 in Russia’s favor. That equates to 4,300 casualties: the brutal blade of war cuts both ways.

sputnikglobe.com

Why would anyone want to see Ritter's statements? He earns a living by predicting American failure to anti American conspiracy theorists through his books and speaking tours, so regardless of the facts or circumstances, his statements are 100% predictable.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Ritter is now pushing the Russian line that “Russia will inevitably win.” Even if we recognize that the recent Ukrainian offensive has failed, and the Russian mafia-siloviki state has somehow re-stabilized itself, this conclusion is hardly obvious.

It is certainly possible that the war has deadlocked for now behind strong dug-in Russian defensive lines. But even if this is the case and the Ukrainian side is exhausting itself, the appropriate response would not be to encourage the invading Russians to imagine they are on the road to some possible “victory,” but just to more seriously encourage all sides to consider a settlement.

Ritter and many like him are simply taking the wrong side, trying to demoralize Ukrainians and get Americans and Europeans to end their aid to Ukraine — which will help Putin and give his bloody invasion of independent Ukraine a victory it could not otherwise attain.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ritter is now pushing the Russian line that “Russia will inevitably win.” Even if we recognize that the recent Ukrainian offensive has failed, and the Russian mafia-siloviki state has somehow re-stabilized itself, this conclusion is hardly obvious.

It is certainly possible that the war has deadlocked for now behind strong dug-in Russian defensive lines. But even if this is the case and the Ukrainian side is exhausting itself, the appropriate response would not be to encourage the invading Russians to imagine they are on the road to some possible “victory,” but just to more seriously encourage all sides to consider a settlement.

Ritter and many like him are simply taking the wrong side, trying to demoralize Ukrainians and get Americans and Europeans to end their aid to Ukraine — which will help Putin and give his bloody invasion of independent Ukraine a victory it could not otherwise attain.

The Ukrainian offensive has failed, and Russia has re-stabilized itself and the Ukraine is exhausting itself so let's not encourage Russia to fight to a win, let's just give them one by settling on the basis of the present lines, giving Russia 20% of Ukraine, abandoning millions of Ukrainians to Russian tyranny and perhaps sanctions relief.

But you're not a Putinhead at all, are you?

 

[Silver Cat]

LPR and DPR are recognized by the rest of the world as Russian occupied Ukraine.

Actually, the Republics were officially recognized also by Syria, North Korea, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. As well as Republic of Texas was recognised only be the USA in 1837, France 1839 and by United Kingdom in 1940, . Anyway, it's all doesn't mean much because both Republic of Texas and Republic of California were annexed by the United States and the question of the delimitation of US-Mexican border was solved during Mexican War. Same way, the question of were exactly should be drawn a new Russian-Ukrainian border, or even should Ukrainian state still exist after the war at all- is the question of Russian-Ukrainian relationships.

No Cuban port was blockaded and there was no threat to stop any shipping but Russian ships suspected of carrying nuclear weapons to Cuba. There was clearly no blockade.

Particial blockade is a blockade, too.

There are no grounds for claiming the US government supported the invasion of Cuba. If it had, the invasion would have succeeded. The Cuban exiles were cut to pieces by Cuban warplanes on the beach and when the exiles called for help, the US government refused.

Just read anything about the question.

As usual, there is no rational basis for your accusations or for your support for Russian imperialism.

I do not support "Russian imperialism" whatever it's supposed to mean. I do support realistic thinking and well-informed decision-making. I do support human rights for all, and when I say it, I mean actually "all" (including ethnic Russians, Jews and Hungarians).