Posted on 09/02/2023 7:15:36 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Critics of the slow progress of the counteroffensive against the Russian invasion are spitting in the face of Ukrainian soldiers and should “shut up”, lest they want to try taking up arms against Moscow themselves, Ukraine has said.
In another instance of Ukraine appearing to snap at its allies and backers, Kyiv’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba made caustic remarks at a conference in Spain on Thursday. Dismissing the concerns of those who discuss the apparent failure of the ‘Spring’ offensive to turn back the Russian war machine now as Autumn approaches, Kuleba said while sharing the podium with his Spanish counterpart:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Shut up ad send us more tanks and planes and money...and don’t forget the trainee folks...these peasants aren’t exactly “trained” in anythong.
Give me my tax dollars back, bitch.
The “tanks and planes” are cover for the river of cash.
“I always side on the defender’s side.”
Thanks for the statement, the additional explanation being unnecessary. I side with neither. We obviously can only differ, therefore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You “side with neither” you say...
At first glance that might be seen as a wise high-ground moral stance.
Unfortunately, it’s a stance and a luxury the planet cannot any longer afford. The word has changed.
You are talking about Neutrality.
The most well-known anti-war nation of the planet, Sweden, somehow managed to implement neutrality for 200 years.
But after Russia’s insane blatant invasion of a European nation the Swedish people concluded that neutrality was a concept of the past. So now, Putin forced to become members of NATO... We have to let that sink in for a minute.
Neutrality is not a tool for peace anymore.
It’s a concept aggressive nations want every non-aggressive nations to implement. That way they can continue to plunder, loot and invade every nation they want, unhindered and unchecked.
The sad reality today is that “Neutrality” has become a weapon of mass destruction.
Being “neutral” ALWAYS help one of two sides these days. It works as a fuel to prolong wars indefinitely.
I’ll end this by stating a well know expression:
“”The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.””
Typo correction:
Here is the corrected version:
But after Russia’s insane blatant invasion of a European nation the Swedish people concluded that neutrality was a concept of the past.
Thus, Putin forced SWEDEN to become a member of NATO...
We have to let that sink in for a minute.
How did you side with Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Libya? Sudan? Somalia? Yemen? With whom did you "side" when we and NATO bombed Serbia, that Kosovo -- still a flashpoint -- was created to be led by the Albanian Muslim majority? How are you siding with Niger?
“We should pay for elections.”
Elections?
Saint Zelensky has outlawed opposition parties, and maybe jailed an opponent or two, so what do they need elections for?
Oh yeah, never leave a dollar on the table.
“...not only do they not care about the Ukrainian losses, but they don’t care about ours if we got in it.”
The Regime is happy to have any number of Ukrainians killed as long as Russia is damaged in the process. When it comes time to escalate this war, the Regime is happy about hundreds of thousands of white men from Red States being killed in this war.
It’s a feature not a bug.
And we have some on FR who think the same. They are even willing to destroy the world in a nuclear war rather than take the L against Putin.
1. Neutrality/objectivity means you take no side.
2. There was a lot that happened before Russia invaded. If you use the invasion as the starting point for determining fault, then we were the bad guys going into Afghanistan, Iraq... We obviously had a reason going into Afghanistan (harbouring OBL...).
That stuff which happened before Russia invaded matters: i.e. NATO East expansion, violations of Minsk, Ballistic Missile Treaty withdrawal. All of that played a role to varying degrees, even our efforts to peel away Russian aligned nations and how we went about bringing Ukraine into NATO. We didn’t consult with Russia or address any of their security concerns, rather we just were going to ram it down their throat.
What is for sure:
1. This war was entirely avoidable.
2. It was a high risk move to push NATO, basically stonewalling the Russians and their concerns (making this into a win-lose situation, basically given them the middle finger), and war was a possible outcome.
3. That if a war started, Ukraine would be severely damaged and lose more of its land, as in 2014.
It was a gamble, we had been arming Ukraine for a while and the cost to Russia will be high if they invade. The gamble being: can we simply force our way and will Russia acquiesce?
Be careful with words like propaganda, imperialism, bla bla bla. Meaningless really. Just emotional words that all depend on where you stand. We are as much, if not MORE imperialistic than Russia. We are the ones invading Iraq on false pretences, invading Syria, Libya, trying to overthrow the government in Venezuela... All oil producing nations, coincidentally, all Russian aligned. If you want to use terms like imperialism and invading nations, could it be that were the ones smelling blood in the water and going after Russia, a has been conventional force that really can’t fend us off taking over their frontier?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020) Our news isn’t talking about our boys that got caught in that mess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
Ask yourself this simple question: what national security need was there for us when we offered NATO membership to Ukraine? Was this really about our national security?
Yes, the Germans were initially greeted as liberators, but amongst most of the population, that changed...
I know I’ve posted this before, but as my Dad’s old Ukrainian friend, who went through all that, told us “The Nazis were awful. The Russians were worse.”
Imagine the Poles. They had deal with the Nazis, the Soviets and the Ukrainians.
But, you too cherry pick your starting point...
Granted. Although we can go back as far as you like, if you like. If that is I ever get this weekend’s “honey do’s” (more like orders) done... :-)
Anyway, the Poles seem to now understand. Which has both its good and bad aspects...
No, I’m willing to accept all the variables, even Ukraines.
But what we have done is to exclude all of Russia’s arguments, to ignore them outright, and that leads to war.
Arm Ukraine, train them, give them Intel. Make a true war where Russia makes a land grab costly. But don’t push Russia into a position where they have legitimate security concerns of their own, which is what we did when we decided to bring Ukraine into NATO the way we did. At that point we were no longer just “defending.”
The Ukrainians had EU membership in their reach and that is realistically less likely now. Long term, maybe even NATO would have been possible, but how we went about it is all wrong - trying to force it. Long term, hypothetically speaking, had we agreed to to say a demilitarized zone (give Russia a buffer and personnel / equipment limits for various types and numbers), allow for an inspection regime by a third party (neutral) to enforce / observe things, long-term it would have maybe worked. But just giving the Russians the middle finger and doing whatever we want, when that has SERIOUS security implications for them, would be unacceptable for us if we were in their shoes.
When you push a dog (in this case a very old and meek bear) into a corner, and he shows you his teeth, is he really attacking you?
There were ways to address Ukraines security concerns without bringing them into a military alliance where Russia is worried about us having a nuclear first strike advantage, missile defense seriously degrading their nuclear deterrent capabilities, us basing vast numbers of troops on their border, etc. What no one talks about, is how Ukraine being in NATO, puts Russia at risk, moreso than if Cuba has a few missiles but there still are 90 miles of water between us (which we didn’t accept): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
Thank you for your answer Red6.
Here are mine:
You wrote:
“There was a lot that happened before Russia invaded. If you use the invasion as the starting point for determining fault, then we were the bad guys going into Afghanistan, Iraq... We obviously had a reason going into Afghanistan (harbouring OBL...).”
My answer: You are fundamentally wrong here.
You can’t in any way compare America’s INVASION of Iraq and Afghanistan with Russia’s forced ANNEXATIONS of many Ukrainian regions!
The difference between INVASION and ANNEXATION is massive.
If America had annexed Iraq for example. America would have done what Russia did in Ukraine...
...like this:
1- The Iraqi flag would have been banned.
America would have waved its own flag all over Iraq’s official buildings.
2- And the Iraq word would have been banned, because Iraq would be no other than The United States of America!
Not bad hm? THAT is what ANNEXATION means.
3- The Iraqi people would be given US passports by force.
Yes, THAT is what ANNEXATION means.
This is exactly how Russia has treated Ukraine.
All the regions Russia has taken are now PART OF RUSSIA itself, Russian flags all over, they force citizens there to get Russian passports.
Also, the schools in the annexed regions, are now following the programing dictated by Moscow.
So you see now, the difference between short lived and comparatively innocent US invasions VS in-depth Russian ANNEXATIONS?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You also said:
“That stuff which happened before Russia invaded matters: i.e. NATO East expansion, violations of Minsk, Ballistic Missile Treaty withdrawal.”
My answer: When it come to NATO or EU. It’s each and every nations sovereign decision and right to decide to which organisation they want to adhere to. Russia CAN’T dictate what free nations can or cannot do.
The violation of Minsk you say... What about Russia’s violation of the Budapest Memorandum!? THAT one is the BIG thing.
The violation of a certain part of the ballistic missile treaty was made by TRUMP. Why? Because Russia had already cheated that treaty to death anyway. Only the USA was abiding to the treaty. Trump was just honest and said, since Russia was ignoring the deal, let’s just finish it off officially. That’s all.
Then you also said:
“1. This war was entirely avoidable.”
My answer: Oh yes it was. The war was launched my the deep-state warmongering machine in the Kremlin. Pure stupidity.
“2. It was a high risk move to push NATO, basically stonewalling the Russians and their concerns (making this into a win-lose situation, basically given them the middle finger), and war was a possible outcome.”
My answer: Basically, every territory that once was under Russian control, but which got its autonomie, while not joining NATO has been attacked by Russia!
No wonder every small weak European nations are rushing to join NATO. If they don’t, they’ll be invaded!
“3. That if a war started, Ukraine would be severely damaged and lose more of its land, as in 2014.”
My Answer: Yes, Russian invasions do terrible damage to free nations.
“It was a gamble, we had been arming Ukraine for a while and the cost to Russia will be high if they invade. The gamble being: can we simply force our way and will Russia acquiesce?”
My answer: Trump was the one who initiated the process of sending weapons to Ukraine, because he respected the Budapest Memorandum deal in protecting Ukraine from Russia. Obama though only sent blankets to Ukraine.
Then you said:
“Ask yourself this simple question: what national security need was there for us when we offered NATO membership to Ukraine? Was this really about our national security?”
My answer:
Wrong. Ukraine demanded to adhere NATO. It was afraid being attacked by Russia, thats why.
And Russia did attack !!
If Ukraine would have been part of NATO, there would not have been ANY war in Ukraine! Zero DEATHS!!
THAT was the biggest mistake. That NATO REFUSED to let Ukraine in!!
So you see... you looked at the whole thing in an upside down way somehow.
Sorry, that whole NATO thing is a complete canard. It is what Pooty and his tools want you to believe. There was never ANY chance of Ukraine getting into NATO, unless Russia invaded Ukraine and Russia got its clock cleaned to the point Ukraine is secure from it and any significant pro-Russia armed groups in Ukraine. If you think there was (that chance), again, sorry, that just proves you have no idea whatsoever of how NATO works, how most of the Euro leadership thinks, or what they were thinking. You are, however, easily gaslit on this one by the Biden people and / or Pooty and his tools.
Please consider again: “Why would “Russia” want to invade Ukraine?” in a deeper light. The starting points are -
Economic (actually, sustaining the wealth train to Russian elite, plus needing that wealth to build Russian power.) No, I do not mean that Russia needs more oil and gas, at least not directly or soon, but, it IS about oil and gas.
Strategic. Things like a deep water shipyard, etc.
Cultural. Here, Pooty has succeeded wildly. The many formerly close family ties between Russia and Ukraine are a factor here.
Prior to this war, Ukrainians in general had soured or were souring on Russia’s gov’t, but not so much Russian people, culture, or Russia itself, so long as Russia quit trying to interfere with Ukraine. Now, Pooty has created a divide and hatred that could well take generations to heal. You may wish to consider why that would be an imperative.
I agree with you 100%.
However, I must say this. "Might is right".
as long as Russia is damaged in the process.
That’s the other part. They claim weakening Russia is a good thing and worth the cost. I say so what? They’re going to rebuild eventually and then what do we do about it?
Russia’s imperialism and expansionism cannot in anyway be accepted or tolerated in this time and age. We are not living in the 1800. We are in 2023.
....
“I agree with you 100%.
However, I must say this. “Might is right”.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, in essence you are right. “Might is right” or “Survival of the fittest”.
But this means that America has to become truly aggressive again and be proactive on the world-stage, and do what we once did: being the world police.
Are we ready to do that again? One thing is for sure, since we stopped being the police of the world, the Russia/China alliance have effectively replaced us in that area. They are now everywhere: in Africa, South America, Caribbean... you name it. They are building military bases all over the place, while we are dismantling them, and in doing so are projecting our weakness...
Russia / China are implementing a policy which highly resembles American Neoconservatism but multiplied by 10.
They are in pure expansion mode. While America has been taken over by dove-like policies pushed by so called “far-right” and lefty people (whom in reality have been brainwashed by our enemies to become doves), bunkering down, and isolate themselves. Russian propaganda did this to us! We fell for it.
And now we are letting our archenemies expand all over the place, while we are occupied talking about trans-ideology. By the way, that trick-ideology was shoved down our throats by our foreign enemies. It helped them to deflect our attention from their expansionism, imperialism and increase in influence.
One thing is for sure:
AMERICAN ISOLATIONISM FEEDS OUR ENEMIES LUST FOR EXPANSIONISM.
We need Patton mentality back in America.
America is too divided at this point and we have internal issues so we can't do the job of being the World Cop right now.
The EU needs to be more assertive.
The Japanese needs to build an alliance with the South Koreans, the Vietnamese and Filipinos to contain China.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.