NATO Assures Ukraine of Open-Ended Military Support Against Russia

[Fledermaus]

None of which backs your claim. Recall i say they, the profiteers and leaders of the west, don't care if Ukriane gets wrecked in the process of their use as western proxies. That's different to them " wanting" Ukraine to get wrecked. They don't care and that's the point.

Nobody in the east wants either UKRAINE destroyed or RUSSIA destroyed (other than Litwin).

They aren't arming Ukraine to destroy Ukraine.

They are arming Ukraine so that Russia doesn't destroy it.

 

[poweRob]

NATO cowards fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian, who knew?

Funny, seeing how Ukrainians are the Russians run for the border in the East right now while Putin begins dying of whatever the **** he's dying of now.

 

[poweRob]

Amazing how obediently all the pro-Russian conservatives that stayed quiet until told to start backing Russia again. Now they are coming out of the wood-works to support the dying Pulter.

All these posters coming in to try various tactics of backing Russia in this just as this story broke:

The list of anti-Ukraine Republican lawmakers is quickly growing

The list of anti-Ukraine Republican lawmakers is quickly growing Rep. Thomas Massie (R/KY) 5.14.22 Once belittled by then-President Trump as a “third-rate grandstander,” Rep. Thomas Massie is used to tilting at political windmills. In early March, the Kentucky Republican was one of just...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Michael McMahon]

Handguns are a critical tool for civilians under extreme armed threat. A handgun is more concealable than a long gun which is important for differentiating civilians from soldiers. The international emphasis is of course on the supply of long guns for the Ukrainian military. Nonetheless handguns would be a good backup for civilians who are fleeing or living under occupation. Their lighter weight would allow speedy foot movement for those who are escaping. A handgun would be disadvantaged against long guns but could still provide emergency counter-fire against any marauding invaders. A shoot-only-if-fired-upon policy would help protect civilians from exposing themselves to better-equipped adversaries.


"Sasha told him to leave, saying Oleg would surely not kill him because he, too, was Russian.
But when he turned to go back into his house, the young soldier opened fire again, shooting Sasha in the back of the neck. He fell to the floor."

Ukrainian women reveal their rape ordeal and say Russian soldiers must 'be punished'

As two women tell Sky News their harrowing stories, the Ukrainian authorities are conducting at least 10 active rape investigations involving Russian forces, with many more pending.

news.sky.com

 

[Michael McMahon]

I'm not opposed to temporary bouts of mass civilian gun ownership when there's a war that'd makes gun control unenforceable. Needless to say when peace returns I'd support a return to disarmament for the general populace. Those Ukrainians who'll be living in occupied territory might always have to be lightly armed with handguns if Russia fails to police the area fairly. Somehow I don't think Russia will allow civilian militias or gun clubs in their conquered territory. Handguns are still very dangerous to society but they might have no choice if the state engages in authoritarianism.

 

[Antiwar]

Avoidance isn't debate.

Avoidance is your main "debate" tactic.

 

[Fledermaus]

Avoidance is your main "debate" tactic.

Please lie again .

 

[Antiwar]

Please lie again .

Chuckle.

 

[joluoto]

I'm not opposed to temporary bouts of mass civilian gun ownership when there's a war that'd makes gun control unenforceable. Needless to say when peace returns I'd support a return to disarmament for the general populace. Those Ukrainians who'll be living in occupied territory might always have to be lightly armed with handguns if Russia fails to police the area fairly. Somehow I don't think Russia will allow civilian militias or gun clubs in their conquered territory. Handguns are still very dangerous to society but they might have no choice if the state engages in authoritarianism.

The Kremlin will have no issue with mad militias as long as it's their mad militias. They will most likely encourage their supporters to arm and harrass people who does not support them.

 

[oneworld2]

Funny, seeing how Ukrainians are the Russians run for the border in the East right now while Putin begins dying of whatever the **** he's dying of now.

That doesn't even make sense on its own and doesn't even refute what it was directed at. I guess you are referring to the situation with Kharkiv and how the Ukrainians have taken back some villages and stuff there.

I know thw western media and western social media are allowing you to believe its just a matter of weeks before the Russian army in Ukraine is beaten and returns home with its tail between its legs. Hardly surprising seeing as all we see are , often dubious, clips of randon military footage allegedly claiming this or that Ukrainian success against the Russian forces. The reality imo is somewhat different and the real damage done to both the Ukrainian infrastructure/buildings and the Ukrainian military is being played down for the most part so as to not show the devastation Russian weaponry is actually causing.

I don't expect you to think any differently than you do

 

[Irredentist]

That doesn't even make sense on its own and doesn't even refute what it was directed at. I guess you are referring to the situation with Kharkiv and how the Ukrainians have taken back some villages and stuff there.

I know thw western media and western social media are allowing you to believe its just a matter of weeks before the Russian army in Ukraine is beaten and returns home with its tail between its legs. Hardly surprising seeing as all we see are , often dubious, clips of randon military footage allegedly claiming this or that Ukrainian success against the Russian forces. The reality imo is somewhat different and the real damage done to both the Ukrainian infrastructure/buildings and the Ukrainian military is being played down for the most part so as to not show the devastation Russian weaponry is actually causing.

I don't expect you to think any differently than you do

Unless Russia finds a way to end the war soon, it's going to devolve into a bloody stalemate. The Russian army won't be able to push against a million strong Ukrainian army equipped with NATO weaponry, not without incurring very heavy losses.

 

[oneworld2]

Avoidance is your main "debate" tactic.

He has avoided the question of how Russia is to be " defanged" by throwing Ukrainians under the tank shells and making sure they are there for the long haul without any comment about its 6-7000 nuclear weapons remaining as an option. Obviously avoidance WAS the better option than trying to flog the dead horse argument he presented.

Nobody in the east wants either UKRAINE destroyed or RUSSIA destroyed (other than Litwin).

They aren't arming Ukraine to destroy Ukraine.

They are arming Ukraine so that Russia doesn't destroy it.

Russia IS destroying it and will continue to destroy it despite weaponry from the donor countries using Ukraine as a proxy. There's an easy equation, the longer it goes on and the more weapons used by both sides the greater the damage and body count. That you are in denial of such an obvious conclusion isn't really a surprise.

People who GENUINELY care about the fate of Ukraine and Ukrainians, and even Russians would be calling for a deescalation and peace talks. Those who want more weapons are complicit in the very thing they claim to be against. That's people like you and it's common in your views on other stuff too.

 

[Irredentist]

He has avoided the question of how Russia is to be " defanged" by throwing Ukrainians under the tank shells and making sure they are there for the long haul without any comment about its 6-7000 nuclear weapons remaining as an option. Obviously avoidance WAS the better option than trying to flog the dead horse argument he presented.


Russia IS destroying it and will continue to destroy it despite weaponry from the donor countries using Ukraine as a proxy. There's an easy equation, the longer it goes on and the more weapons used by both sides the greater the damage and body count. That you are in denial of such an obvious conclusion isn't really a surprise.

People who GENUINELY care about the fate of Ukraine and Ukrainians, and even Russians would be calling for a deescalation and peace talks. Those who want more weapons are complicit in the very thing they claim to be against. That's people like you and it's common in your views on other stuff too.

If Russia wants to deescalate the war, they only have to withdraw their troops. Anything less obviously won't be considered acceptable by the Ukrainians.

 

[oneworld2]

Unless Russia finds a way to end the war soon, it's going to devolve into a bloody stalemate. The Russian army won't be able to push against a million strong Ukrainian army equipped with NATO weaponry, not without incurring very heavy losses.

Russia is NOT the only party that is significant here. The armers and enablers are playing a crucial role too. So too are the Ukrainian leadership.

You might be well served to think of other options the Russians have and compare it to the US justification for the strategic use of nuclear weapons. In short, things could get very very much worse that they are now and all I hear is the clarion call to act like lemmings from people who don't really care about peace.

The mantra is flood Ukraine with conventional arms and let them weaken Russia and allow everyone else to stick it to Russia via financial and economic means in order to try to isolate it. And all the sheeple here repeat it and see no issue with the moral bankruptcy of it and/or the potential for catastrophe it provides, hence my commentary here

 

[Irredentist]

Russia is NOT the only party that is significant here. The armers and enablers are playing a crucial role too. So too are the Ukrainian leadership.

You might be well served to think of other options the Russians have and compare it to the US justification for the strategic use of nuclear weapons. In short, things could get very very much worse that they are now and all I hear is the clarion call to act like lemmings from people who don't really care about peace.

The mantra is flood Ukraine with conventional arms and let them weaken Russia and allow everyone else to stick it to Russia via financial and economic means in order to try to isolate it. And all the sheeple here repeat it and see no issue with the moral bankruptcy of it and/or the potential for catastrophe it provides, hence my commentary here

The ball is in Russia's court, so to speak. They've dug themselves into this mess, and only they can dig themselves out. Western politicians don't control Russian nukes. Whether Putin decides to escalate or deescalate the conflict is entirely up to him. But he can hardly expect the west to simply allow his conquest of the Ukraine.

 

[oneworld2]

If Russia wants to deescalate the war, they only have to withdraw their troops. Anything less obviously won't be considered acceptable by the Ukrainians.

Which Ukrainians are you speaking about? The ones in the west or the ones in the east who don't appear to have a voice worth listening to judging by the commentary here.

Russia will stay there until its leadership think they have significantly reduced the threat the Ukrainian military pose to both itself and the areas of Ukraine that are now seperate from rule from Kiev.

 

[Irredentist]

Which Ukrainians are you speaking about? The ones in the west or the ones in the east who don't appear to have a voice worth listening to judging by the commentary here.

Russia will stay there until its leadership think they have significantly reduced the threat the Ukrainian military pose to both itself and the areas of Ukraine that are now seperate from rule from Kiev.

The ones in the east seem to have made it very clear that they do not consider themselves to be Ukrainians at all. They consider themselves to be Russians, so I will treat them with respect by taking them at their word.

The threat posed to Russia by the Ukrainian military has only increased as a result of this war. If the Russian intention was to reduce that threat, they have categorically failed.

 

[oneworld2]

The ball is in Russia's court, so to speak. They've dug themselves into this mess, and only they can dig themselves out. Western politicians don't control Russian nukes. Whether Putin decides to escalate or deescalate the conflict is entirely up to him. But he can hardly expect the west to simply allow his conquest of the Ukraine.

I don't accept that Russia has " dug themselves into this mess" at all. Yes they are responsible for the decision to invade Ukraine and should be fully expectant of the consequences, no issues with that, but to deny that the West and particularly the USA has been provoking them into a response to the changes in Ukraine is a pathetic denial of the reality imo.

Likewise the West can have hardly expected to use Ukraine as a proxy with which to threaten Russia/Russians for so long and expect no reaction to it. The reaction was stated years back by knowledgeable people and has come to bear in the present. It could also get a whole lot worse but still the people here cheer for further escalations.

Western politicians control the arms and other support for Ukraine/attacks on Russias economy/finances etc but they indeed do not control Russian nukes and they would do well to remember that and so would we.

 

[Irredentist]

I don't accept that Russia has " dug themselves into this mess" at all. Yes they are responsible for the decision to invade Ukraine and should be fully expectant of the consequences, no issues with that, but to deny that the West and particularly the USA has been provoking them into a response to the changes in Ukraine is a pathetic denial of the reality imo.

Likewise the West can have hardly expected to use Ukraine as a proxy with which to threaten Russia/Russians for so long and expect no reaction to it. The reaction was stated years back by knowledgeable people and has come to bear in the present. It could also get a whole lot worse but still the people here cheer for further escalations.

Western politicians control the arms and other support for Ukraine/attacks on Russias economy/finances etc but they indeed do not control Russian nukes and they would do well to remember that and so would we.

Russia's position has not been improved by their invasion of the Ukraine, and it's not going to be improved by launching nukes either. Quite the opposite. The only thing which might improve the Russian position is ending the war. If and when Putin decides to do that, it will be in the best interests of everyone.

 

[oneworld2]

The ones in the east seem to have made it very clear that they do not consider themselves to be Ukrainians at all. They consider themselves to be Russians, so I will treat them with respect by taking them at their word.

It's not that black and white and never was imo. The east if much more of a mixed bag and there lies the issue when it comes to the dictates coming from Kiev coupsters that hail from predominantly from ethnic Ukrainian regions, Lviv is another.


I think that the Ukraine will lose more than just Crimea at the end of this war and might well become a failed state made up of a land locked western Ukraine. That's what winning might look like.

The threat posed to Russia by the Ukrainian military has only increased as a result of this war. If the Russian intention was to reduce that threat, they have categorically failed.

The threat has been increasing year on year since the US backed coup sparked a civil war. The Russians decided that it was a now or never moment and are taking steps to demilitarize the Ukrainians , I feel they had little choice in the face of western meddling and Ukrainian naivety

 

[snakestretcher]

NATO cowards fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian, who knew?

Have you any idea what the consequences of a physical NATO military involvement might be? Clearly not, as your poorly thought-out post reveals. If you really want to risk escalation to a third world war, further NATO involvement would make your wish come true. Putin has already made it quite clear that no option is off the table; including nuclear.

Russia’s Nuclear Threats in the War against Ukraine

Consequences for the International Order, NATO and Germany

www.swp-berlin.org

 

[Irredentist]

The threat has been increasing year on year since the US backed coup sparked a civil war. The Russians decided that it was a now or never moment and are taking steps to demilitarize the Ukrainians , I feel they had little choice in the face of western meddling and Ukrainian naivety

The Ukrainian army isn't "demilitarizing", quite the opposite. The threat they pose to Russia only increases each and every day that Russia remains in this war, and Russia remains in this war only because they choose to do so. Invading Ukraine was never in the best interests of Russia, and we are seeing the proof of that now.

 

[snakestretcher]

It's not that black and white and never was imo. The east if much more of a mixed bag and there lies the issue when it comes to the dictates coming from Kiev coupsters that hail from predominantly from ethnic Ukrainian regions, Lviv is another.


I think that the Ukraine will lose more than just Crimea at the end of this war and might well become a failed state made up of a land locked western Ukraine. That's what winning might look like.



The threat has been increasing year on year since the US backed coup sparked a civil war. The Russians decided that it was a now or never moment and are taking steps to demilitarize the Ukrainians , I feel they had little choice in the face of western meddling and Ukrainian naivety

Here's something which may have escaped you; it isn't up to the Russians to decide what's best for a foreign, sovereign nation which never threatened anyone-let alone her neighbour.

 

[oneworld2]

Here's something which may have escaped you; it isn't up to the Russians to decide what's best for a foreign, sovereign nation which never threatened anyone-let alone her neighbour.

It didn't " escape "me.

It's up to Russia to decide whats best for Russians too. They decided that Kievs bid to join a hostile military alliance, it's dictates and attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine and the potential loss of its Black Sea naval base was a bridge too far for them wrt their national security concerns.

 

[snakestretcher]

It didn't " escape "me.

It's up to Russia to decide whats best for Russians too. They decided that Kievs bid to join a hostile military alliance, it's dictates and attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine and the potential loss of its Black Sea naval base was a bridge too far for them wrt their national security concerns.

Hostile? It's Russia doing the hostile bombing and invading, not NATO! Remind me, when did NATO last threaten Russia in any way? Furthermore if Russia was so concerned about its Black Sea port, perhaps invading Ukraine wasn't such a great idea, given the response it wasn't expecting.