The Ukraine Crisis

[Skjellyfetti]

Russia and Ukraine signed the Minsk agreements in September 2014.

DPR decided to take the Dnipro airport in January 2015 anyway.

They signed the second Minsk agreements in 2015 promising not to do that again. They did... but, a full scale invasion. Excuse me, "Special Military Operation."

Surely Russia would honor Minsk III

[kalm]

So if we stop sending aid, Ukraine is forced to negotiate a peaceful settlement? What does that settlement look? Where would the borders be drawn? At todays lines? Can we be certain that russia will agree to a peaceful settlement if we stop aiding Ukraine? Isn't it possible that they'll decide to press their advantage and attempt to take over more of Ukraine?

It's not as simple as we stop sending aid, Ukraine is forced to negotiate, russia negotiates in good faith with boundaries acceptable to Ukraine, russia agrees to never invade again, thousands of lives are saved.

There is no guarantee that ending US aid will save lives.

I gave you the end result. I have no idea how they will get there. As I previously posted, now remembering the election, I see the neocons trying really hard to keep this going past the election.

What do you think the article in the NY Times and the CIA was for? Now admitting the CIA has been integral to Ukraine and their security. If those awful Republicans don't send more money, that CIA connection wilts. Better send money.

There is no guarantee that ending US aid will save lives? The faster an agreement is reached, the faster the killing will stop.

You mean the CIA had concerns with Ukraine before the war?

I am shocked!

It’s like they’re supposed to be interested in what happens in Russia, its belligerent tendencies, and huge stockpile of weapons or something.

(Like they have for the past 80 years)

[UNI88]

So if we stop sending aid, Ukraine is forced to negotiate a peaceful settlement? What does that settlement look? Where would the borders be drawn? At todays lines? Can we be certain that russia will agree to a peaceful settlement if we stop aiding Ukraine? Isn't it possible that they'll decide to press their advantage and attempt to take over more of Ukraine?

It's not as simple as we stop sending aid, Ukraine is forced to negotiate, russia negotiates in good faith with boundaries acceptable to Ukraine, russia agrees to never invade again, thousands of lives are saved.

There is no guarantee that ending US aid will save lives.

I gave you the end result. I have no idea how they will get there. As I previously posted, now remembering the election, I see the neocons trying really hard to keep this going past the election.

What do you think the article in the NY Times and the CIA was for? Now admitting the CIA has been integral to Ukraine and their security. If those awful Republicans don't send more money, that CIA connection wilts. Better send money.

There is no guarantee that ending US aid will save lives? The faster an agreement is reached, the faster the killing will stop.

You're assuming that if the aid stops then Ukraine will ask/agree to negotiate and that russia will negotiate in good faith. That's a whole lot of assumptions and you know what they say about assuming. You can be an ass but I'll pass.

[kalm]

I gave you the end result. I have no idea how they will get there. As I previously posted, now remembering the election, I see the neocons trying really hard to keep this going past the election.

What do you think the article in the NY Times and the CIA was for? Now admitting the CIA has been integral to Ukraine and their security. If those awful Republicans don't send more money, that CIA connection wilts. Better send money.

There is no guarantee that ending US aid will save lives? The faster an agreement is reached, the faster the killing will stop.

You're assuming that if the aid stops then Ukraine will ask/agree to negotiate and that russia will negotiate in good faith. That's a whole lot of assumptions and you know what they say about assuming. You can be an ass but I'll pass.

Russia has such a rich history of peaceful, good faith, negotiations.

[Caribbean Hen]

Not a fan of Schumer but he’s right here.



https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/448 ... -aid-bill/

Eh, he's only kind of right. By 1938, Hitler was going to be starting WWII no matter what was done, it was just a question of where it would start and what that would look like. But war was coming. Appeasement wasn't necessarily about stopping a war - it was also about not getting ready for the war that was coming. The WWI thing is a weird take on it - it was 2.5 years before we got really involved, but that was such a weird war in the first place of how it came about I'm not sure you could say that we really dragged our feet too much. And even then, it took a good year for us to even get enough people over there to make a difference. And our isolationism at the end of WWI had little to do with WWII coming about - that was far more to do with Wilson not being strong enough to stand up to France and England and their demands.

But also with this, it's not always an easy question of whether to get involved and how much to get involved. I doubt Schumer today would be arguing that Vietnam was the right war to get involved with, nor would he be supporting another invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Bringing up Hitler is almost always a way to try to simplify something that isn't really that simple.

Vietnam is doing well and is not a threat today

A war that we lost on the battlefield but won the greater peace

Russia is not going away on The Ukraine, it’s no turning back. The Ukraine will have to make concessions or Russia will continue to methodically destroy them… the Ukrainians have to find a way to win the peace which might mean losing the battle and the US should help convince them

[UNI88]

Eh, he's only kind of right. By 1938, Hitler was going to be starting WWII no matter what was done, it was just a question of where it would start and what that would look like. But war was coming. Appeasement wasn't necessarily about stopping a war - it was also about not getting ready for the war that was coming. The WWI thing is a weird take on it - it was 2.5 years before we got really involved, but that was such a weird war in the first place of how it came about I'm not sure you could say that we really dragged our feet too much. And even then, it took a good year for us to even get enough people over there to make a difference. And our isolationism at the end of WWI had little to do with WWII coming about - that was far more to do with Wilson not being strong enough to stand up to France and England and their demands.

But also with this, it's not always an easy question of whether to get involved and how much to get involved. I doubt Schumer today would be arguing that Vietnam was the right war to get involved with, nor would he be supporting another invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Bringing up Hitler is almost always a way to try to simplify something that isn't really that simple.

Vietnam is doing well and is not a threat today

A war that we lost on the battlefield but won the greater peace

Russia is not going away on The Ukraine, it’s no turning back. The Ukraine will have to make concessions or Russia will continue to methodically destroy them… the Ukrainians have to find a way to win the peace which might mean losing the battle and the US should help convince them

If "Russia is not going away on The Ukraine, it’s no turning back" then peace will give russia a chance to recover before they take the next step "to methodically destroy" Ukraine. In that case Ukraine might as well fight to the end unless the proposed peace includes NATO membership.

[Skjellyfetti]

Vietnam is doing well and is not a threat today

A war that we lost on the battlefield but won the greater peace

Vietnam was only a "threat" to us because of communism. They're still communist.

[Caribbean Hen]

Vietnam is doing well and is not a threat today

A war that we lost on the battlefield but won the greater peace

Vietnam was only a "threat" to us because of communism. They're still communist.

Communist in name only? My understanding from some people that just visited is that business was booming … at least on the surface

As far as the idiotic Nam war and all the lies that were told you’ll have to ask Lyndon Johnson.. hopefully you won’t get the chance

[Skjellyfetti]

Vietnam was only a "threat" to us because of communism. They're still communist.

Communist in name only? My understanding from some people that just visited is that business was booming … at least on the surface

As far as the idiotic Nam war and all the lies that were told you’ll have to ask Lyndon Johnson.. hopefully you won’t get the chance

They're a one party government run by the Communist Party.

The US does not consider them a market economy.

Business may be booming. Similar to China.

https://www.trade.gov/nme-countries-list

[SeattleGriz]

Russia and Ukraine signed the Minsk agreements in September 2014.

DPR decided to take the Dnipro airport in January 2015 anyway.

They signed the second Minsk agreements in 2015 promising not to do that again. They did... but, a full scale invasion. Excuse me, "Special Military Operation."

Surely Russia would honor Minsk III

You should check into the OSCE reports. Ukraine was the majority belligerent.

[UNI88]

Russia and Ukraine signed the Minsk agreements in September 2014.

DPR decided to take the Dnipro airport in January 2015 anyway.

They signed the second Minsk agreements in 2015 promising not to do that again. They did... but, a full scale invasion. Excuse me, "Special Military Operation."

Surely Russia would honor Minsk III

You should check into the OSCE reports. Ukraine was the majority belligerent.

Links?

Before you call me lazy, I found this from the US Mission to the OCSE...
Ongoing Violations of International Law and Defiance of OSCE Principles and Commitments by the Russian Federation in Ukraine

For the past four years, this Council has borne witness to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Four years into the fighting, Russia has failed to keep even the most basic of the agreements reached in Minsk. Russia has failed to respect the line of contact, leading incursions since 2014 that have claimed hundreds of square kilometers for its proxies in eastern Ukraine. Russia has failed to respect the ceasefire, making and breaking countless truces. Russia has failed to withdraw heavy weapons, consistently deploying – and firing – them in proscribed areas. And Russia has failed to uphold the mandate of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM), permitting – if not instructing – its forces to deny, detain, threaten, and even shoot at monitors, their vehicles, and their cameras and drones. Russia’s aggression has cost over 10,300 lives, wounded an estimated 25,000 more, and displaced up to two million people.

[houndawg]

Not a fan of Schumer but he’s right here.



https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/448 ... -aid-bill/

Eh, he's only kind of right. By 1938, Hitler was going to be starting WWII no matter what was done, it was just a question of where it would start and what that would look like. But war was coming. Appeasement wasn't necessarily about stopping a war - it was also about not getting ready for the war that was coming. The WWI thing is a weird take on it - it was 2.5 years before we got really involved, but that was such a weird war in the first place of how it came about I'm not sure you could say that we really dragged our feet too much. And even then, it took a good year for us to even get enough people over there to make a difference. And our isolationism at the end of WWI had little to do with WWII coming about - that was far more to do with Wilson not being strong enough to stand up to France and England and their demands.

But also with this, it's not always an easy question of whether to get involved and how much to get involved. I doubt Schumer today would be arguing that Vietnam was the right war to get involved with, nor would he be supporting another invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Bringing up Hitler is almost always a way to try to simplify something that isn't really that simple.

And not necessary. Either you get that Putin won't stop until he's made to stop or you don't.

...backing the godless commies over christian Ukraine...

History isn't going to be kind to little creep in the Speaker's Chair.

[BDKJMU]

Eh, he's only kind of right. By 1938, Hitler was going to be starting WWII no matter what was done, it was just a question of where it would start and what that would look like. But war was coming. Appeasement wasn't necessarily about stopping a war - it was also about not getting ready for the war that was coming. The WWI thing is a weird take on it - it was 2.5 years before we got really involved, but that was such a weird war in the first place of how it came about I'm not sure you could say that we really dragged our feet too much. And even then, it took a good year for us to even get enough people over there to make a difference. And our isolationism at the end of WWI had little to do with WWII coming about - that was far more to do with Wilson not being strong enough to stand up to France and England and their demands.

But also with this, it's not always an easy question of whether to get involved and how much to get involved. I doubt Schumer today would be arguing that Vietnam was the right war to get involved with, nor would he be supporting another invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Bringing up Hitler is almost always a way to try to simplify something that isn't really that simple.

And not necessary. Either you get that Putin won't stop until he's made to stop or you don't.

...backing the godless commies over christian Ukraine...

History isn't going to be kind to little creep in the Speaker's Chair.

Either you get that the Ukrainians have no chance to win the war or you don’t.

History isn’t going to be kind to neocons who have, and continue to mortgae the future of the US, borrowing ginormous sums of $$$ the US doesn’t have, to be the world’s policeman.

[SeattleGriz]

CIA operating 12+ locations. StUni, StKlam, StHowndie...yer idiots and this proves it.

Why would the CIA not only allow the NY Times to write a 34 page single spaced article, while revealing a major source of Intel operations?

Huh?

[houndawg]

CIA operating 12+ locations. StUni, StKlam, StHowndie...yer idiots and this proves it.

Why would the CIA not only allow the NY Times to write a 34 page single spaced article, while revealing a major source of Intel operations?

Huh?

It must be a conspiracy....double-reverse false flag with a disinformation on top.

[SeattleGriz]

CIA operating 12+ locations. StUni, StKlam, StHowndie...yer idiots and this proves it.

Why would the CIA not only allow the NY Times to write a 34 page single spaced article, while revealing a major source of Intel operations?

Huh?

It must be a conspiracy....double-reverse false flag with a disinformation on top.

You just wake up Grampa Geritol?

[houndawg]

It must be a conspiracy....double-reverse false flag with a disinformation on top.

You just wake up Grampa Geritol?

Still peevish today, are we? I was hoping some rest might help.

[SeattleGriz]

You just wake up Grampa Geritol?

Still peevish today, are we? I was hoping some rest might help.

I tried. Your mom wouldn't let me rest.

[Caribbean Hen]

Communist in name only? My understanding from some people that just visited is that business was booming … at least on the surface

As far as the idiotic Nam war and all the lies that were told you’ll have to ask Lyndon Johnson.. hopefully you won’t get the chance

They're a one party government run by the Communist Party.

The US does not consider them a market economy.

Business may be booming. Similar to China.

https://www.trade.gov/nme-countries-list

that sounds accurate especially in the city formerly known as Saigon, other parts not so much

[Skjellyfetti]

[kalm]

He’s sounding like Rogan now when he gets caught being gullible.

[Caribbean Hen]

He’s sounding like Rogan now when he gets caught being gullible.

Gullible?

Lol you’re so mentally challenged

[kalm]

He’s sounding like Rogan now when he gets caught being gullible.

Gullible?

Lol you’re so mentally challenged

Hmmm. I can see your feelings are hurt here. I apologize.

Which of your idols are you defending? Tucker, Rogan, Putin, or all three?

[SeattleGriz]

Gullible?

Lol you’re so mentally challenged

Hmmm. I can see your feelings are hurt here. I apologize.

Which of your idols are you defending? Tucker, Rogan, Putin, or all three?

Tugantin!

[houndawg]

He’s sounding like Rogan now when he gets caught being gullible.

Gullible?

Lol you’re so mentally challenged

Maybe he meant gutless? Tucker didn't say shit for two hours while Putin reminded him that he tried to join the CIA but was refused and that the CIA made a good call on that one.

As one observant reporter noted, for most of the interview Putin seemed like a guy trying to explain Algebra to a dog.