New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The worst case scenario re: Ukraine war...

EatTheRich

President
We need to flush the DC toilet.
It isn't necessary to create a new political party since Greens and Libertarians could supply a majority of alternatives all by themselves.

https://www.slideserve.com/navid/american-political-parties
Some of those parties are actively worse alternatives. All of them (except the doctrinaire SLP) are capitalist parties who would continue the cycle of capitalist-road politics, and even the best among them (the Greens, who were endorsed by David Duke in living memory) are up to their necks in Beltway reactionary intrigue. The Libertarian Party is even worse, crawling with Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, neo-Confederates, even neo-Nazis.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Well you have been wrong about everything else. That's the problem with you neocons - you think nothing bad good result from your war mongering.
Right...Putin invaded Russia because of me or others who now support Ukraine because of his imperial invasion of that country.

You post repeatedly of the Russian threats to use nuclear weapons, supporting him and claiming he is justified. I post of the need for Putin to declare a ceasefire and withdraw.
So who is the warmonger?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Right...Putin invaded Russia because of me or others who now support Ukraine because of his imperial invasion of that country.

You post repeatedly of the Russian threats to use nuclear weapons, supporting him and claiming he is justified. I post of the need for Putin to declare a ceasefire and withdraw.
So who is the warmonger?
Well yes, in fact I have repeatedly demonstrated to you NATO aggression, lacking any purpose save provoking a war with Russia, and which you have supported every step of the way, is the reason for this war. Own in, it's all on you.

I have never once said or even suggested that the invasion was "justified" - only listing for you the (main) reason for it. Which, since, as I pointed out above, places the blood on your hands, results in your lashing out in an attempt to silence me by FALSELY accusing me of "justifying" it.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Well yes, in fact I have repeatedly demonstrated to you NATO aggression, lacking any purpose save provoking a war with Russia, and which you have supported every step of the way, is the reason for this war. Own in, it's all on you.

I have never once said or even suggested that the invasion was "justified" - only listing for you the (main) reason for it. Which, since, as I pointed out above, places the blood on your hands, results in your lashing out in an attempt to silence me by FALSELY accusing me of "justifying" it.
You haven't demonstrated shit. Your opinions are oddly in line with Putin and Trump. Ukraine doesn't have a right to exist, is run by nazis and is really just part of Russia. Putin is a genius for invading. You claim Nato was guilty of aggression, even though membership for Ukraine was not being discussed.

You claim Nato is a threat to Russia. Based on what? Basically because Putin said so.
Russia has invaded a number of countries and membership in Nato is defensive. Now because of his invasion of Ukraine he will have Finland and Sweden joining Nato. Poland joined because Russia is a threat....as has every other European member.

Now you are oddly claiming I am trying to silence you by criticizing you.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You haven't demonstrated shit. Your opinions are oddly in line with Putin and Trump. Ukraine doesn't have a right to exist, is run by nazis and is really just part of Russia. Putin is a genius for invading. You claim Nato was guilty of aggression, even though membership for Ukraine was not being discussed.

You claim Nato is a threat to Russia. Based on what? Basically because Putin said so.
Russia has invaded a number of countries and membership in Nato is defensive. Now because of his invasion of Ukraine he will have Finland and Sweden joining Nato. Poland joined because Russia is a threat....as has every other European member.

Now you are oddly claiming I am trying to silence you by criticizing you.
My opinions are in line with the facts - there was no reason to keep NATO in existence after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia never was, nor is it now, a "threat" to NATO's original members, so it is patently preposterous to suggest that their mission has been "defensive." It is also a fact that any national leader who isn't a buffoon would consider a foreign military alliance on their borders as anything other than a "threat." Membership for Ukraine HAS BEEN BEING DISCUSSED since your neocon hero GWB first blurted it out in 2008. The first step was to install a western friendly puppet, which occurred in 2014. But where does Biden fit in?

In that 2009 speech, Biden addressed critics who thought the U.S. was no longer focused on central and Eastern Europe. But he didn’t exactly deny the criticism. “It's precisely because of our global responsibilities and your growing capacity and willingness to meet them with us that we value our partnership,” he told the assembled diplomats and officials from across the region. In other words, the U.S. valued this region for its support in our wars — but mostly took its stability for granted...

As countries like Hungary and Poland today confront ethnopopulist movements and democratic backsliding, Biden’s hope back then — that their “sustainable progress” might “help guide Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine along the path of lasting stability” — seems almost quaint.

But should NATO membership have been dangled before Ukraine at all? Biden’s speech in Romania more than a decade ago was delivered a year after NATO pledged at a summit, held in the same city, that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO” in the future.



Tell me again why Putin should have been so sure Ukraine was never going to be a part of NATO after Biden defeated Trump...
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
My opinions are in line with the facts - there was no reason to keep NATO in existence after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia never was, nor is it now, a "threat" to NATO's original members, so it is patently preposterous to suggest that their mission has been "defensive." It is also a fact that any national leader who isn't a buffoon would consider a foreign military alliance on their borders as anything other than a "threat." Membership for Ukraine HAS BEEN BEING DISCUSSED since your neocon hero GWB first blurted it out in 2008. The first step was to install a western friendly puppet, which occurred in 2014. But where does Biden fit in?

In that 2009 speech, Biden addressed critics who thought the U.S. was no longer focused on central and Eastern Europe. But he didn’t exactly deny the criticism. “It's precisely because of our global responsibilities and your growing capacity and willingness to meet them with us that we value our partnership,” he told the assembled diplomats and officials from across the region. In other words, the U.S. valued this region for its support in our wars — but mostly took its stability for granted...

As countries like Hungary and Poland today confront ethnopopulist movements and democratic backsliding, Biden’s hope back then — that their “sustainable progress” might “help guide Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine along the path of lasting stability” — seems almost quaint.

But should NATO membership have been dangled before Ukraine at all? Biden’s speech in Romania more than a decade ago was delivered a year after NATO pledged at a summit, held in the same city, that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO” in the future.



Tell me again why Putin should have been so sure Ukraine was never going to be a part of NATO after Biden defeated Trump...
1. "No reason to keep NATO in existence". That is your opinion. Not a fact.

2. "Russia was never a threat to NATO. Never was". Your opinion...not a fact.
Hungary in 1956. Czechoslovakia in 1968. War with Finland. Invasion of Poland. The Berlin Blockade. Those are facts. It is also a fact that Russia does not have any legal claim to justify the invasion and has now encouraged Finland and Sweden to join NATO.

3. Ukraine was brutally occupied by Russia for decades. How many Ukrainians died in the Stalin induced famine called the Holodomor?

Your reference to "ethnopopulist movements" is comedic. Are you suggesting Putin's war on the freedom of the press, imprisonment of opponents and murder of critics and reporters is preferable to the freedom to have different opinions?

We have the KKK and Nazi party here. We have communists and White Supremacist groups. While we tolerate them, we also never hesitate to criticize them. You seem to think NATO should intervene.

Your opinion: It is also a fact that any national leader who isn't a buffoon would consider a foreign military alliance on their borders as anything other than a
"threat."


Again, your opinion. In my opinion it would be practically criminal to ignore the military threat of Russia on your border. How many countries has Russia invaded again?
 

EatTheRich

President
Well yes, in fact I have repeatedly demonstrated to you NATO aggression, lacking any purpose save provoking a war with Russia, and which you have supported every step of the way, is the reason for this war. Own in, it's all on you.

I have never once said or even suggested that the invasion was "justified" - only listing for you the (main) reason for it. Which, since, as I pointed out above, places the blood on your hands, results in your lashing out in an attempt to silence me by FALSELY accusing me of "justifying" it.
The main reason for it is that Russia needs a permanent-war situation to avoid economic and political collapse.
 

EatTheRich

President
My opinions are in line with the facts - there was no reason to keep NATO in existence after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia never was, nor is it now, a "threat" to NATO's original members, so it is patently preposterous to suggest that their mission has been "defensive." It is also a fact that any national leader who isn't a buffoon would consider a foreign military alliance on their borders as anything other than a "threat." Membership for Ukraine HAS BEEN BEING DISCUSSED since your neocon hero GWB first blurted it out in 2008. The first step was to install a western friendly puppet, which occurred in 2014. But where does Biden fit in?

In that 2009 speech, Biden addressed critics who thought the U.S. was no longer focused on central and Eastern Europe. But he didn’t exactly deny the criticism. “It's precisely because of our global responsibilities and your growing capacity and willingness to meet them with us that we value our partnership,” he told the assembled diplomats and officials from across the region. In other words, the U.S. valued this region for its support in our wars — but mostly took its stability for granted...

As countries like Hungary and Poland today confront ethnopopulist movements and democratic backsliding, Biden’s hope back then — that their “sustainable progress” might “help guide Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine along the path of lasting stability” — seems almost quaint.

But should NATO membership have been dangled before Ukraine at all? Biden’s speech in Romania more than a decade ago was delivered a year after NATO pledged at a summit, held in the same city, that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO” in the future.



Tell me again why Putin should have been so sure Ukraine was never going to be a part of NATO after Biden defeated Trump...
NATO was kept around primarily to advance U.S. and German interests at the expense of Russian interests. The U.S. was strongly committed to expanding NATO for that reason before it shifted during the Obama administration to focusing on China more than Russia.
 
Top