yes moral moral...

Not sure what you don't understand here but i will try to make it simple for you:

- Putin hesitated to take everything because it would have been a complete blood bath.
- Western diplomacy allowed to gain time and Ukraine to prepare to more invasion. Here's the WIN.
- Today West and Ukraine are prepared. Ukraine is not losing it for sure.
- Freedom for Ukraine, neutralization to putin & its supporters.

It's not like there is a choice to do nothing and bark about a "costly war". It's one or the other. Europe is over if Putin wins.

This post was edited by Meanwhile on Dec 24 2022 11:59am

no they prepared ukraine cause they knew they didnt stop to agress dombass people , you are wrong, ukraine is loosing, almost all of his army is dead.

Some refuse to learn and only stand on the wrong side of history.

Nobody should have to settle for being a vassal of a second rate power, gas station on steroids.

Appeasing tyrants does not work.

Your under the assumption that Russians support the war because of Putin, when in reality they understand that this is a war of necessity



Moralists always ignore: Somalia, yemen, iraq, libya, serbia, afghanistan, vietnam, syria, bahrain etc

West-ukranians are free to fight to their best efforts, just as Russia is, just as US/allies was in every of the above examples, stop with the fake tears when West/Us have been aggressors in most events of the last 50 years.. It is a battle of wills, resources and politics.Infantilization and propaganda won't mean shit in the end either way, it never has, it never will.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Dec 24 2022 03:52pm

No tears here. My country did not allow a fascist dictator. What happened to Russians after WW2? Allowing despots to rule above decree, it is weak and embarrassing.

I only stand to rubbish the justifications for Putin's war.
Denazification? Equally as many Nazi's in Russia. Demilitarisation? Ukraine is now the most militarised region on the planet.
Protection of Russian speakers? So where is next to be invaded, New York city?
Halting NATO's advances? NATO just accepted 2 new members because of the invasion. Not to mention the free testing range for NATO weapons.

Just call this what it is, a landgrab. An illegal invasion. An indiscriminate attack on Ukrainians, for little less than wishing to exist.
A maniac who thinks 40 million Ukrainians are expendable to improve the popularity of his own domestic regime and Russia's sphere of influence.

100% the US has been aggressors in a lot of conflicts. Those are equally as pathetic. The peacekeeping in Bosnia was warranted in my opinion, to avoid a genocide.
That gave Tony Blair and Bush a taste of international interventionism. Both are war criminals by anybody's measure, apart from maybe Putin himself.
NATO/UN ought to have got involved in Rwanda.
Removing the Taliban was warranted but an overall failure.
The US funding Saddam against the Iranians and then fighting two wars to remove him, was ridiculous.

That being said, this false narrative of Putin's war being justified simply does not wash. It should not be condemned not apologised for or justified through false narratives.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Dec 24 2022 04:13pm

Lebensraum policy and Holocaust were a necessity to some. Now their descendants keep a tongue up their asses and make decent cars. A cunning plan for Soviet-like Industrialization I foresee.

Orc simps still continue the dumb propoganda that only works on orcs

Russia had no choice but to invade a neighbor, commit acts of genocide and try steal more land cuz nazis

What kind of pea brains believe this nonsense?

Dumbshits still continue to push the narrative that NATO can stage a coup and make Ukraine a NATO member cuz Crimea / Sevastopol would be a sweet price.

You gotta be a complete and utter moron to think that will fly when a country like Russia is going to do whatever it takes to stop it.

NATO should stick with countries like Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya and just bomb the crap out of them, civilians, infrastructure and what have you, no one cares anyways

Seems like a lot of the posts critical of NATO and explaining Russia's motives are just that, explanations based on logic and evidence
whereas a lot of the pro-NATO talking points are just cheap jingoistic labels.

If one side is saying 'NATO expansion up to Russia's doorstep and the euromaidan insurrection and 8 year siege explain Russia's casus belli', and the other side is saying 'orcs bad', what am I to make of it?