d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Russia / Ukraine
Prev1280428052806280728085001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 15,940
Joined: Jun 27 2010
Gold: 102,354.50
May 25 2023 01:51pm
Quote (theCrossbones @ May 25 2023 09:50pm)
your cheerleading is pretty pathetic.


Being objective is pathetic? LOL

YOU are pathetic
Member
Posts: 27,048
Joined: Dec 21 2007
Gold: 14,569.69
May 25 2023 01:53pm
Quote (Djunior @ May 25 2023 12:51pm)
Being objective is pathetic? LOL

YOU are pathetic



you think your objective.. LOL
Member
Posts: 15,940
Joined: Jun 27 2010
Gold: 102,354.50
May 25 2023 01:56pm
Quote (theCrossbones @ May 25 2023 09:53pm)
you think your objective.. LOL


Go back to your MSM they'll tell you that Ukraine still holds Bakhmut

Then think about this:

Quote (theCrossbones @ May 25 2023 09:50pm)
your cheerleading is pretty pathetic.


LOL
Member
Posts: 27,048
Joined: Dec 21 2007
Gold: 14,569.69
May 25 2023 01:59pm
Quote (Djunior @ May 25 2023 12:56pm)
Go back to your MSM they'll tell you that Ukraine still holds Bakhmut

Then think about this:



LOL


I'm not talking about or watching MSM.. I'm talking about your communist cheerleading.
Member
Posts: 20,044
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,397.50
May 25 2023 02:08pm
Quote (Djunior @ May 25 2023 08:45pm)
Nope, the orcs won the battle of Soledar and Bakhmut while Ukraine is saying they still hold Bakhmut and Western MSM are all spreading that propaganda. *Guffaw*

BTW

Their counteroffensive will need to break through well prepared defenses while a whole lot of artillery / missile systems are waiting and drones are constantly monitoring the situation.

Looks like there are a couple hundred thousand Russian forces that were mobilized and haven't been committed yet meaning they're by now fully trained reserves and no doubt will be rushed in when needed.




And that's 100% correct, Ukraine is beaten and only kept in the fight because of massive Western support. And still Ukraine can't win...


Remember you thought the war would be over in 3 months?

Maybe avoid making predictions kremboy :D
Member
Posts: 9,693
Joined: Mar 2 2006
Gold: 1,590.00
May 25 2023 02:14pm
Quote (fender @ 25 May 2023 21:42)
so your "argument" shifted from 'NATO membership means certain death' (chicken is killed after it can't lay eggs any longer) to 'economically, countries can develop without NATO' (no shit, as it isn't an ECONOMIC alliance, but a military one), lol?

guess that's what happens when your analogy gets completely rekt by history. also, you might want to compare standards of living in former warsaw pact NATO members (like poland and czechia for example) with those of belarus and russia for example, if you want to have an actually meaningful indicator of what it means to ally with the west vs. what it means to be in the russian sphere of influence.


My argument stands. s hen analogy holds up pretty well.


I believe that if, theoretically, this conflict would result in a loss for Russia and regime domestically was to change into pro-american democracy - Ukraine would suddenly become irrelevant in western mass media and everyone would start to bash them again for being an emerging market with corruption and hilarious nationalism issues. Their role as a tool in this proxy war would be complete. After all there is no free lunch. Why would Americans rebuild Ukranian economy once Russia loses. They have so many domestic issues and a war with China to prepare for.

NATO - is a military alliance. It started out as purely defensive to protect Western Europe against possible attack by USSR. Since the collapse of the USSR - NATO has somewhat lost its meaning as Russia no longer presented a threat and actually wanted to join - (see May 1997 Russia-NATO partnership act) fearing an expansion of the rising China which can lay claim to eg Russian Far-East. This has been denied, which sent a pretty strong signal domestically, especially after the alliance was expanded eastward and went on on several foreign interventions severely stretching and expanding what can be called a “defensive” mandate.

Was Operation Allied Force or Operation Unified Protector a defensive mission because an alliance member was attacked by a sovereign state? How about Operation Resolute Support (which was arguably unanimously approved by UN SC, but executed by NATO alliance).

Since Russia was denied NATO ambitions, but all kinds of small and irrelevant countries (like eh Georgia) were being welcomed - this raised the degree of paranoia, which coupled with recent NATO foreign interventions abroad - made Russian politicians and military leaders think they will be the next target under a made-up casus belli ala WMDs in Iraq - once NATO figures out how to neutralize Russian nuclear deterrent.

Please tell me I’m wearing my crazy hat and I’m pulling facts together on a string. I truly want to be disproven.

This post was edited by Malopox on May 25 2023 02:16pm
Member
Posts: 20,044
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,397.50
May 25 2023 02:17pm
Quote (Malopox @ May 25 2023 09:14pm)
My argument stands. ^Ironfister s hen analogy holds up pretty well.


I believe that if, theoretically, this conflict would result in a loss for Russia and regime domestically was to change into pro-american democracy - Ukraine would suddenly become irrelevant in western mass media and everyone would start to bash them again for being an emerging market with corruption and hilarious nationalism issues. Their role as a tool in this proxy war would be complete. After all there is no free lunch. Why would Americans rebuild Ukranian economy once Russia loses. They have so many domestic issues and a war with China to prepare for.

NATO - is a military alliance. It started out as purely defensive to protect Western Europe against possible attack by USSR. Since the collapse of the USSR - NATO has somewhat lost its meaning as Russia no longer presented a threat and actually wanted to join - (see May 1997 Russia-NATO partnership act) fearing an expansion of the rising China which can lay claim to eg Russian Far-East. This has been denied, which sent a pretty strong signal domestically, especially after the alliance was expanded eastward and went on on several foreign interventions severely stretching and expanding what can be called a “defensive” mandate.

Was Operation Allied Force or Operation Unified Protector a defensive mission because an alliance member was attacked by a sovereign state? How about Operation Resolute Support (which was arguably unanimously approved by UN SC, but executed by NATO alliance).

Since Russia was denied NATO ambitions, but all kinds of small and irrelevant countries (like eh Georgia) were being welcomed - this raised the degree of paranoia, which coupled with recent NATO foreign interventions abroad - made Russian politicians and military leaders think they will be the next target under a made-up casus belli ala WMDs in Iraq - once NATO figures out how to neutralize Russian nuclear deterrent.

Please tell me I’m wearing my crazy hat and I’m pulling facts together on a string. I truly want to be disproven.


"once NATO figures out how to neutralize Russian nuclear deterrent. "

:rofl: You smoking that kremlin crack dude lmao.
Member
Posts: 4,147
Joined: Jun 30 2022
Gold: 6.42
Warn: 10%
May 25 2023 02:32pm
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ May 25 2023 05:17pm)
"once NATO figures out how to neutralize Russian nuclear deterrent. "

:rofl: You smoking that kremlin crack dude lmao.


Great argument!
Member
Posts: 9,693
Joined: Mar 2 2006
Gold: 1,590.00
May 25 2023 02:32pm
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ 25 May 2023 22:17)
"once NATO figures out how to neutralize Russian nuclear deterrent. "

:rofl: You smoking that kremlin crack dude lmao.


You have a unique chance to convince me I’m smoking kremlin crack.

Please build a good argument.

I want to be convinced I’m wrong.
Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
May 25 2023 02:57pm
Quote (Malopox @ 25 May 2023 22:14)
My argument stands. ^Ironfister s hen analogy holds up pretty well.


I believe that if, theoretically, this conflict would result in a loss for Russia and regime domestically was to change into pro-american democracy - Ukraine would suddenly become irrelevant in western mass media and everyone would start to bash them again for being an emerging market with corruption and hilarious nationalism issues. Their role as a tool in this proxy war would be complete. After all there is no free lunch. Why would Americans rebuild Ukranian economy once Russia loses. They have so many domestic issues and a war with China to prepare for.

NATO - is a military alliance. It started out as purely defensive to protect Western Europe against possible attack by USSR. Since the collapse of the USSR - NATO has somewhat lost its meaning as Russia no longer presented a threat and actually wanted to join - (see May 1997 Russia-NATO partnership act) fearing an expansion of the rising China which can lay claim to eg Russian Far-East. This has been denied, which sent a pretty strong signal domestically, especially after the alliance was expanded eastward and went on on several foreign interventions severely stretching and expanding what can be called a “defensive” mandate.

Was Operation Allied Force or Operation Unified Protector a defensive mission because an alliance member was attacked by a sovereign state? How about Operation Resolute Support (which was arguably unanimously approved by UN SC, but executed by NATO alliance).

Since Russia was denied NATO ambitions, but all kinds of small and irrelevant countries (like eh Georgia) were being welcomed - this raised the degree of paranoia, which coupled with recent NATO foreign interventions abroad - made Russian politicians and military leaders think they will be the next target under a made-up casus belli ala WMDs in Iraq - once NATO figures out how to neutralize Russian nuclear deterrent.

Please tell me I’m wearing my crazy hat and I’m pulling facts together on a string. I truly want to be disproven.


your "argument" is based on a complete ignorance concerning economic and political development in eastern europe in the last three decades.

that's why you're constantly changing your "point" - from 'NATO membership means death once you've outlived your usefulness' (demonstrably not) to 'economic development is possible without NATO' (no shit, not at all the point) to 'after the war is over, ukraine will not be the topic of daily headlines in the rest of the world' (no shit, again not at all the point)...

the hen analogy the way YOU interpreted it makes no sense whatsoever. history proves you wrong. poland and czechia are way better off in NATO than belarus as a de facto russian puppet. that's a fact. feel free to keep posting your other copium all you want, but it doesn't make a dumb point any more valid.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1280428052806280728085001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll