Quote (DizzyBusiness @ Feb 6 2023 09:21pm)

Yes, is it shocking that people interact with you when you post here 24/7? Might want to reconsider posting in public forums if that bothers you lol.

And because my opinions have remained largely the same since I have posted them here so I have no need/desire to reiterate them, certainly no interest in rolling the weeds with you and Meanwhile about anything since you don't read sources and Meanwhile can barely understand or speak English.

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 6 2023 07:56pm)

You've done nothing but deny Russia's responsibility for a war they started. Your a bootlicker through and through.
Hate on anyone with the substance to call out your false version of events.
I couldn't care less what you think of me :rofl:

It is a testing ground for NATO weapons, that is literally happening. Those other things you attribute to me are false; Whatever makes Putin's leather taste better I suppose.

Quote (Djunior @ Feb 6 2023 09:33pm)

You're celebrating the dead of ordinary Russians that were pulled from their villages while the kleptocrats are drinking champagne, nothing will happen to them and they can keep it up forever, sheltered by an immense nuclear arsenal.

While at the same time a huge number of Ukrainians are dead. And you're cheering when more weapons are sent over.

You've got no fucking clue, you're supporting escalations cuz it will mean more dead Russians (and more dead Ukrainians that you don't care about).

Only a complete piece of excrement would call this conflict a testing ground for NATO weapons. Filth

Quote (Djunior @ 6 Feb 2023 22:33)

You're celebrating the dead of ordinary Russians that were pulled from their villages while the kleptocrats are drinking champagne, nothing will happen to them and they can keep it up forever, sheltered by an immense nuclear arsenal.

While at the same time a huge number of Ukrainians are dead. And you're cheering when more weapons are sent over.

You've got no fucking clue, you're supporting escalations cuz it will mean more dead Russians (and more dead Ukrainians that you don't care about).

Only a complete piece of excrement would call this conflict a testing ground for NATO weapons. Filth

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 6 2023 05:32pm)

And yet. Here you are.

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ 6 Feb 2023 22:12)

Crying?

Quote (ofthevoid @ Feb 6 2023 03:34pm)

>We can only take 1/8th the refugees because of geography. Pathetic excuse tbh. In the aggregate Germany has done way more to help the actual people suffering, something that should be praised, instead you see this only through the eyes of a warmongerer thinking if only they contributed to the war machine, something would be different. More weapons just means more war and more dead people, it doesn't actually mean something that's a net good.

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 6 2023 03:51pm)

Your original point was about the cost of supplying tanks. Your straw manning into refugees doesn't change the facts around the original point.
I applaud any country that takes refugees. Poland and Germany have done especially well. The point about geography is completely valid.
If your a refugee escaping an active war, it is more realistic to travel to nearby countries that you can reach by road/rail.
Kiev to Berlin is almost half the distance as Kiev to London.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 6 2023 04:31pm)

The point of providing weapons to Ukraine is not deterrence, it's to enable Ukraine to defend itself and fight back. The goal isn't for the Russians to stop this war because they deem it too risky, the goal is for them to stop because they realize they cannot achieve their primary objectives anymore, and that any minor gains they might still be able to brute-force would come at an outsized, unjustifiable cost. To be clear: we are not at this point yet, far from it. Maybe we'll get to this point if the upcoming Russian offense fizzles out.

The rest of your post is the usual "Russia cannot possibly lose"-argument that's been debated back and forth in this thread. (Of course the term 'lose' has to be understood here as "failing in its quest to conquer and subjugate Ukraine", not in the sense of "Putin's naked, dead body being dragged across Moscow's Red Square by Ukranian tanks".)

Quote (bogie160 @ Feb 6 2023 04:50pm)

What they have in common is that the experts you rely on made egregious errors in all four. It is a poor argument to say that "the experts know what they're doing", because no one should be convinced that that's the case.



So previous errors in judgement (including re: the Taliban a year or so ago) are irrelevant because this is an even bigger foreign policy crisis? How do you figure?



By dropping language focused on the "collapse" of the Russian Federation and an obsession with taking back lands lost in 2014. Russia's goals in the war are still maximalist, the goal is to stabilize Ukraine. I'm not sure where you read that I'm blaming the West for the war, I find conversations on who started what to be very tedious.

Whether they've been liberated or not is besides the point. Russia's influence in the country is centered in the south and east. Sympathizers were critical to Russia's initial seizing of Kherson, and before that to Russia's current presence in Crimea and the Donbass. It goes without saying that the east and south of the country is far more pro-Russian than the west and north. I'm not sure why Ukraine would want to hold onto the Donbass at this point, it will remain a constant source of irritation and remain a vehicle for Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs.

The Russian regime is not going to willingly choose annihilation. They will do everything in their power to prevent it. What about that do you think is controversial?



You need to move beyond the dichotomy of pro-Russian and pro-Ukraine. You can support Ukraine without support maximalist Ukrainian goals. We ignore Russia's nuclear capacity at our own peril. There is a fine line between allowing countries to do whatever they want, and actively pushing a country to go nuclear.

In my opinion, you're too wrapped up in moral considerations to consider this rationally.

Quote (ofthevoid @ 6 Feb 2023 23:00)

113 Billion dollars from the US alone in 2022, which is between 10-15% of our defense budget. Don't feel like looking up how much Europe spent as a whole but i'm sure it's sizable. Now look at the war currently, objectively. What has that gotten Ukraine so far? How many more years of hundreds of billions being sent to Ukraine to "win"? Now ask yourself what would it take to displace an entrenched, artillery superior army with hundreds of thousands out of the Donbass? Because that's how Russia losses here and they won't have a few units here and there like they did Kharkiv which can be overrun with numerical superiority like we seen prior. Crimea is off the table to anyone who can rationally think. The fate of the Donbass is what determines winning and losing here and the probability of getting them out fully is close to zero unless this turns into a multi-year war and NATO troops have to go in because believe it or not Ukraine doesn't have an endless supply of men to go die in the east. I mean I'm looking at the collective west and thinking to myself, which country is going to actually want to send their soldiers, boots on the ground to go fight Russia. You see German lads lining up in your country for that feat? You think Spaniards, Italians, French, etc. are going to rush in to 'save' the Donbas? You think America is eager to send in troops when they have the behemoth China in the east?

Even if they don't have an offensive but simply hold most of what they have, it can still be sold domestically as a win, and even most internationally would say it's certainly not a loss if you end up with such a large land area when it's all said and done.