• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gen Mike Flynn weighs in

The west has in Ukraine a good proxy. Ole "blood and guts" leads me to suggest a "blood for metals" relationship; western metal for Ukrainian blood! Politics is horrible!
You make it sound like it's some deep conspiracy by the West instead of Putin the Imbecile stepping into shit to get involved in a war Russia doesn't need while making unnecessary enemies with its neighbors.
I consider that a bad example. The fact is France and Britain were never serious about defending Poland.
They entered World War II, which is way more than the West has done this time.
The Soviet Union at that point was a gun for hire. Disliked by both France/Britain and Nazi Germany; and in danger from both. Stalin was available to the highest bidder. The Nazis made a serious offer while France/UK made none.
What are you rambling about? "Gun for hire?" The USSR was a belligerent country determined to conquer territory by military force, same as Nazi Germany.
Last I looked it is the bear that has a piece of Ukraine
They used to have a much bigger piece, and Ukraine has brought the fight onto Russian territory, so the tide has clearly turned. Best of all, we in the West get this result basically for free.
 
You make it sound like it's some deep conspiracy by the West instead of Putin the Imbecile stepping into shit to get involved in a war Russia doesn't need while making unnecessary enemies with its neighbors.


I said Ukraine is the west's proxy, is it not? And Putin did not do anything the US would not do in same circumstances. As a matter of fact the US did samething in 1962


They entered World War II, which is way more than the West has done this time.


And the UK and France are to blame for that. Stalin had been calling for years for combined action to contain Nazism, and what did he get? France and UK tossed Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. Russians had to take note of that. If the French and English would not fight for liberal, democratic Czechoslovakia, how can they be expected to fight for the Soviet Union they hated? Stalin did receive a delegation from France/UK and from the Nazis. The France/UK delegation left Stalin with the impression if he was attacked by Hitler they in all likelihood would prefer an outcome where the Nazis get badly bruised destroying Russia, while they themselves go up to speed. Stalin wisely avoided the UK/France offers. And he was later proven correct when the Nazis attacked Poland. France put up appearances of fighting. It was so bogus that not one German division was diverted from Poland to contain France


What are you rambling about? "Gun for hire?" The USSR was a belligerent country determined to conquer territory by military force, same as Nazi Germany.


The USSR was a gun for hire in the west that France/UK and Germany that both hated the Soviet Union wanted it on their side. Or in the case of Germany at least not actively against Germany


They used to have a much bigger piece, and Ukraine has brought the fight onto Russian territory, so the tide has clearly turned. Best of all, we in the West get this result basically for free.


Its all PR. Just like Zelensky's Kursk offensive. Big wins in the media with little to show on the ground.
 
I said Ukraine is the west's proxy, is it not? And Putin did not do anything the US would not do in same circumstances. As a matter of fact the US did samething in 1962
What do you mean by "proxy?" Per Google's AI definition of the word:

But I don't see how this is a case of the US wanting to engage Russia in battle without doing so directly. What makes you think the US wanted to fight Russia in the first place?
And the UK and France are to blame for that.
So maybe the West learned its lesson that appeasement doesn't work. Perhaps that's why they reacted a bit faster against Russia, and that's partly why Russia is still stuck in a quagmire 11 years later rather than steamrolling across Europe.

The USSR was a gun for hire in the west that France/UK and Germany that both hated the Soviet Union wanted it on their side. Or in the case of Germany at least not actively against Germany
What does this have to do with anything? Looks like some bizarre attempt to insert Kremlin apologist metodichka into the discussion.
Its all PR. Just like Zelensky's Kursk offensive. Big wins in the media with little to show on the ground.
Russia got as far as Kiev. Since then they've been pushed back significantly.

To call that "all PR" exposes your agenda.
 
The US supplied the satellite for these attacks. We are a part of it either partially or more so. Graham and Blumenthal met days before the attack and states that: Zelensky does have the cards. These individuals do not have the authority to conduct foreign policy without the consent of the President.
Correct that the US has a nuclear arms agreement that bombers must be parked in plain sight so that either side can monitor via satellite the numbers and locations. The US is now a party to this breach of the agreement. I do not think Trump had any fore knowledge of this attack and the Senators and Pompeo did.

This is unacceptable.
 


Moscow put the Russian aircraft at risk by using them as airborne platforms for launching cruise missiles and glide-bombs at Ukraine.

Ukraine's actions are permitted under the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict (IHL).
 
And this is why, if you see Anything on the Internet that you want to be able to refer to in the future, Print It!
 
Moscow put the Russian aircraft at risk by using them as airborne platforms for launching cruise missiles and glide-bombs at Ukraine.

Ukraine's actions are permitted under the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict (IHL).
Did the US put our satellites at risk by using them in an attack on their bombers?
 
Link to your map.

The map is stupid.
 
Did Zelensky inform Trump before the attack or not? I am not asking for speculations
Obviously not, because the Russians never knew it was coming.
 
The west has sunk in hundreds of billions of dollars, what do they have to show for it? Zero.

Russia's military has been humiliated & depleted & its economy has been stagnated.

I'd say we got our money's worth.
 
Where Zelensky was wrong was protocol and initial refusal to accept the concept of a cease fire if one could be worked out. Zelensky's team is at this point in time negotiating with the Russians

The drone attack on the bombers may change that.
Yes it got Putin to withdraw from the negotiation charade entirely. He called Ukraine a terrorist State for defending itself from missiles launched at Ukraine's cities by the bombers they destroyed. The reality is that Putin is the war criminal launching terror attacks on Ukrainian civilians every night.
 
3 years later, Ukraine still stands, and is still achieving victories in battle. I think it's time for Putin to quit, and to leave Ukraine.
 
3 years later, Ukraine still stands, and is still achieving victories in battle. I think it's time for Putin to quit, and to leave Ukraine.
Ukraine is losing its battles. Not at all sure what you are talking about
 
3 years later, Ukraine still stands, and is still achieving victories in battle. I think it's time for Putin to quit, and to leave Ukraine.




There's a disconnect here. If Ukraine is achieving victories Russia won't be there and, critically, the Europeans won't be screaming for ceasefire. What you are calling victories are PR stunts that did not move the needle on the ground