Not Just Putin: Most Russians Support the War in Ukraine

[Cardinal]

There's a thing called nuclear deterrence.

That's a very interesting statement. So you think that Ukraine maybe one day joining NATO is a provocation to Russia, but Ukraine acquiring nuclear weapons wouldn't be.

You clearly aren't able to think one step ahead of your arguments.

 

[ChickenTendies]

That's a very interesting statement. So you think that Ukraine maybe one day joining NATO is a provocation to Russia, but Ukraine acquiring nuclear weapons wouldn't be?

You clearly aren't able to think one step ahead of your arguments.

Nuclear deterrence for NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO is it. Nor will it ever be at this rate.

 

[ClaraD]

Libya

NATO didn't invade Libya....the UN security council did authorize an intervention to stop the murder of innocent people...by chance yes all were also members of NATO...the UNSCR1973 is why the intervention occurred

 

[ChickenTendies]

NATO didn't invade Libya....the UN security council did authorize an intervention to stop the murder of innocent people...by chance yes all were also members of NATO...the UNSCR1973 is why the intervention occurred

Bruh look at Libya now. We made everything worse. Gaddafi was the only thing keeping the country stable.

 

[Cardinal]

Nuclear deterrence for NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO is it. Nor will it ever be at this rate.

Then you're throwing the premises for your own arguments under the bus. You think that NATO isn't the real deterrence to Russian invasion; nuclear weapons are. Yet NATO, which has never invaded Russia, is a "provocation" to Russia. So if Ukraine was a member of NATO, they wouldn't be a deterrent to Russia, but they'd be a provocation. And all they'd need is nuclear weapons, except they're Ukraine so they can't because "reasons."

If that sounds like an absolute mess, that's because that's you making up your position as you go. You're obviously from Russia and joined the forum just to justify the invasion a week after it began. The problem is that in your country, you're used to delivering propaganda by bayonet. Here in the West, we're allowed to call you out on your terrible nonsensical arguments without fear of going to prison for it. That's why what you're trying to do here will never work.

 

[ClaraD]

Bruh look at Libya now. We made everything worse. Gaddafi was the only thing keeping the country stable.

Tell us you don't know what UNSCR1973 was all about a little louder. Is it cold in Moscow?

 

[Hamish Howl]

Then you're throwing the premises for your own arguments under the bus. You think that NATO isn't the real deterrence to Russian invasion; nuclear weapons are. Yet NATO, which has never invaded Russia, is a "provocation" to Russia. So if Ukraine was a member of NATO, they wouldn't be a deterrent to Russia, but they'd be a provocation. And all they'd need is nuclear weapons, except they're Ukraine so they can't because "reasons."

If that sounds like an absolute mess, that's because that's you making up your position as you go. You're obviously from Russia and joined the forum just to spread Russian propaganda. The problem is that in your country, you're used to delivering propaganda by bayonet. Here in the West, we're allowed to call you out on your terrible nonsensical arguments without fear of going to prison for it. That's why what you're trying to do here will never work.

But all those rubles, tho

 

[Tender Branson]

Political polling results in a police state where fear and oppression reigns must be taken with a grain of salt.

I think about 25% of Russian people support the war, 25% are opposed and 50% are somewhere in between and think they can’t do much.

This is similar to Austria around the Nazi invasion in 1938. The election results before the invasion were no different than election results right now, in the year 2022.

The Nazi party NSDAP and Great German parties got a combined 25% in the democratic elections before annexation.

Just like the FPÖ is now polling some 25%.

But the Nazi occupation was well planned by Hitler and the Austrian Nazis mobilized their supporters and school children to wave when the Führer rode into Austria.

Still, 200.000 enthusiastically waving people were also not representative of the 7 million Austrians at the time, even though media said 70% of Austrians were in favour of Hitler and 99% voted in favor of annexation in a staged intimidation referendum …

Just like the police state and its 25% enforcers in Russia are not representative of all Russians.

 

[Cardinal]

Political polling results in a police state where fear and oppression reigns must be taken with a grain of salt.

I think about 25% of Russian people support the war, 25% are opposed and 50% are somewhere in between and think they can’t do much.

And 100% of them know that if they say a single negative thing about the invasion or call it a war, they're off to an internment camp in Siberia.

This is similar to Austria around the Nazi invasion in 1938. The election results before the invasion were no different than election results right now, in the year 2022.

The Nazi party NSDAP and Great German parties got a combined 25% in the democratic elections before annexation.

Just like the FPÖ is now polling some 25%.

But the Nazi occupation was well planned by Hitler and the Austrian Nazis mobilized their supporters and school children to wave when the Führer rode into Austria.

Still, 200.000 enthusiastically waving people were also not representative of the 7 million Austrians at the time, even though media said 70% of Austrians were in favour of Hitler and 99% voted in favor of annexation in a staged intimidation referendum …

Just like the police state and its 25% enforcers in Russia are not representative of all Russians.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Then you're throwing the premises for your own arguments under the bus. You think that NATO isn't the real deterrence to Russian invasion; nuclear weapons are. Yet NATO, which has never invaded Russia, is a "provocation" to Russia. So if Ukraine was a member of NATO, they wouldn't be a deterrent to Russia, but they'd be a provocation. And all they'd need is nuclear weapons, except they're Ukraine so they can't because "reasons."

If that sounds like an absolute mess, that's because that's you making up your position as you go. You're obviously from Russia and joined the forum just to spread Russian propaganda. The problem is that in your country, you're used to delivering propaganda by bayonet. Here in the West, we're allowed to call you out on your terrible nonsensical arguments without fear of going to prison for it. That's why what you're trying to do here will never work.

What? You asked if not military, what deterrence, and I provided an alternative. I did not at all say military deterrence was not viable, in fact its clearly obvious that Russia cannot win a war with NATO. NATO expanding eastwards is a provocation. NATO's entire existence is a provocation. IF the NATO alliance wanted to get out of the Cold War mentality, they would've disbanded NATO. But they didn't. They took advantage of Russia's internal chaos, subsumed all the satellite republics, and isolated Russia on the global stage. NATO is simply the poker that the West uses to provoke Russia. And yes, Ukraine's membership to NATO is a provocation, and Russia is entirely 100% justified in its apprehension. And offensive nuclear weapons would never be stationed in Ukraine because that is the trigger for world war.

But by all means keep drinking the state department kool aid.

 

[ChickenTendies]

But all those rubles, tho

I prefer my payments in yuan

 

[ChickenTendies]

Tell us you don't know what UNSCR1973 was all about a little louder. Is it cold in Moscow?

I know what it entails and I know what happened. NATO started a bombing campaign that allowed rebels to overthrow the government. Look at how that ended up. Libya is a literal failed state whereas it was stable under Gaddafi. Stop ignoring my points. US interventions have and will always be unacceptable. Look at the Middle East, for god's sake.

 

[oneworld2]

NATO didn't invade Libya....the UN security council did authorize an intervention to stop the murder of innocent people...by chance yes all were also members of NATO...the UNSCR1973 is why the intervention occurred

Not that straightforward imo

The civil war in Libya was all but over with around 1000 people killed when Qaddafis forces were set to take Benghazi. Fears of high civilian casualties gave birth to UNSCR 1973 which was there to protect civilians by means of a no fly zone. It also called for a negotiated ceasefire. Qaddafi agreed to the deasefire the rebels refused and the NATO planes enforcing the fly zone likely violated the terms of UNSCR 1973 by acting as the air foirce of the rebels and attacking Qaddafi forces.

The US, at this point, took a back seat, surely concerned that their wish for regime change in Libya , the repeated denials themselves raising concerns.might actually put them in the frame for what was really going on, and which was never a part and could never have been a part of UNSCR1973, the removal/killing of Qaddafi himself. To attack with the intention of inducing regime change being illegal under international law and thus never a part of UNSCR 1973

I would argue that UNSC1973, although borne of good intention, was actually violated by its prosecuters to induce a regime change they had always wanted. The targeting of Qaddafi residences etc etc seems a little obvious

The Big Lie About the Libyan War

The Obama administration said it was just trying to protect civilians. Its actions reveal it was looking for regime change.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[Cardinal]

What? You asked if not military, what deterrence, and I provided an alternative. I did not at all say military deterrence was not viable, in fact its clearly obvious that Russia cannot win a war with NATO. NATO expanding eastwards is a provocation. NATO's entire existence is a provocation.

Since NATO doesn't invade Russia, then all you're announcing is that it was Russia's intention to invade anyway. I don't think you're prepared to digest this kind of common sense because in your country, you're used to forcing propaganda on your citizens by bayonet. It doesn't work like that here.

IF the NATO alliance wanted to get out of the Cold War mentality, they would've disbanded NATO.

So they can all share the fate of Georgia, Chechnya and Ukraine? Ha ha........no. This kind of argument may work on people you can throw in prison if they don't nod and "agree," but that's not how it works here.

But they didn't. They took advantage of Russia's internal chaos, subsumed all the satellite republics,

Nations apply for NATO membership. This may seem confusing to you because in your country, "applying" isn't an option. When a country becomes a part of Russia, it's because they were invaded and made to be a part of it. You're looking at NATO through the lens of forced absorption, because that's how it works in your country.

and isolated Russia on the global stage.

Russia isolated itself.

NATO is simply the poker that the West uses to provoke Russia.

And a home security system is the poker that a home owner uses to provoke the burglar. But nobody cares about the burglar's feelings, and for good reason.

And yes, Ukraine's membership to NATO is a provocation,

See above.

and Russia is entirely 100% justified in its apprehension.

A burglar would understandably feel apprehension if his goal was to rob the house and the home owner installed a home security system before he could do it.

And offensive nuclear weapons would never be stationed in Ukraine because that is the trigger for world war.

And yet you accept nuclear weapons in the rest of Europe. Your arguments are a mess because you're making them up as you go.

But by all means keep drinking the state department kool aid.

Healer, heal thyself.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Since NATO doesn't invade Russia, then all you're announcing is that it was Russia's intention to invade anyway. I don't think you're prepared to digest this kind of common sense because in your country, you're used to forcing propaganda on your citizens by bayonet. It doesn't work like that here.



So they can all share the fate of Georgia, Chechnya and Ukraine? Ha ha........no. This kind of argument may work on people you can throw in prison if they don't nod and "agree," but that's not how it works here.



Nations apply for NATO membership. This may seem confusing to you because in your country, "applying" isn't an option. When a country becomes a part of Russia, it's because they were invaded and made to be a part of it. You're looking at NATO through the lens of forced absorption, because that's how it works in your country.



Russia isolated itself.



And a home security system is the poker that a home owner uses to provoke the burglar. But nobody cares about the burglar's feelings, and for good reason.



See above.



A burglar would understandably feel apprehension if his goal was to rob the house and the home owner installed a home security system before he could do it.



And yet you accept nuclear weapons in the rest of Europe. Your arguments are a mess because you're making them up as you go.



Healer, heal thyself.

How tf did you get that out of my post. I was saying by backing Russia into a corner and subsuming its buffer states, NATO forced Russia to retaliate to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.

Chechnya was a wayward province. Ukraine and Georgia were only invaded due to Russian paranoia about the westward drift of the two countries into the embrace of NATO. That wouldn't be a problem if NATO didn't exist, would it.

And NATO happily accepted them, despite promising to the contrary to Gorbachev.

The West excluded Russia from international institutions, reduced their sphere of influence, and funded proxy wars to cause regime change in pro-Russian states (Syria) as well as backed the far-right coup in Ukraine.

Russia is completely justified in its anger over a rival rolling right up to its borders.

I never accepted them. I said they were an alternative, not an acceptable or good one.

Since you clearly have your head deep in the sand, there's no point in continuing this conversation, nor will I continue to respond if you keep making braindead takes. Think hard and come up with some better arguments instead of vomiting western propaganda.

 

[Cardinal]

How tf did you get that out of my post. I was saying by backing Russia into a corner and subsuming its buffer states, NATO forced Russia to retaliate to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.

Which is saying that a home owner installing a home security system is forcing a burglar into a corner.

Chechnya was a wayward province. Ukraine and Georgia were only invaded due to Russian paranoia about the westward drift of the two countries into the embrace of NATO. That wouldn't be a problem if NATO didn't exist, would it.

Yeah, paranoia over having to invade Ukraine before joining NATO took that off the table.

And NATO happily accepted them, despite promising to the contrary to Gorbachev.

The West excluded Russia from international institutions, reduced their sphere of influence, and funded proxy wars to cause regime change in pro-Russian states (Syria) as well as backed the far-right coup in Ukraine.

Sadly, you only knew what you had after the entire West took it all away from you.

Russia is completely justified in its anger over a rival rolling right up to its borders.

And I'm sure a burglar feels justified in his anger over the homeowner installing a home security system. But nobody cares about the feelings of burglars.

I never accepted them. I said they were an alternative, not an acceptable or good one.

Since you clearly have your head deep in the sand, there's no point in continuing this conversation, nor will I continue to respond to your braindead takes. Think hard and come up with some better arguments instead of vomiting western propaganda.

Healer, heal thyself.

 

[ChickenTendies]

and Which is saying that a home owner installing a home security system is forcing a burglar into a corner.



Yeah, paranoia over having to invade Ukraine before joining NATO took that off the table.



Sadly, you only knew what you had after the entire West took it all away from you.



And I'm sure a burglar feels justified in his anger over the homeowner installing a home security system. But nobody cares about the feelings of burglars.



Healer, heal thyself.

Ok genius, if Canada and Mexico joined a "defensive" alliance with Russia and China and pushed their alliance up to the US's border, how would the US respond?

Lol, and in your narrow-minded view, anyone who even says anything to the contrary to the NATO very good Russia very bad narrative is grouped into the "Russian bot" category and ignored. That's the problem with liberal hypocrisy and their caveman, tribal thinking, they turn a blind eye to anything that disrupts their (flawed) narrative whilst criticizing conservatives for theirs. I live in the US, but obviously to you, anyone who even criticizes the West loves authoritarianism. I'm not sure you even realize there's a spot in between being pro-NATO and pro-Russia, considering your blind faith in the US. Ofc you probably will dismiss these points out of hand immediately because they dont fit into your closed bubble of reality by just responding with "well durrrh, the same applies to you", even though I condemn both NATO escalations and the Russian invasion, and am adamantly anti-war. I hope your next post isn't anything stupid but actually constructive or I'm gonna ignore you.

Thank you for listening to my TedTalk

 

[Cardinal]

Ok genius, if Canada and Mexico joined a "defensive" alliance with Russia and China and pushed their alliance up to the US's border, how would the US respond?

Since the last time we were in a war that might warrant that kind of alliance was in 1898, your hypothetical scenario is a little stale. You’re not even trying. Or maybe you think that Canadian Bacon is a documentary?

Lol, and in your narrow-minded view, anyone who even says anything to the contrary to the NATO very good Russia very bad narrative is grouped into the "Russian bot" category and ignored.

The laughable credulousness of your pro-Russian arguments combined with your arrival here one week after the invasion of Ukraine makes who and what you are impossible to ignore. Your arguments are obviously crafted for an audience that has the choice of agreeing to them or go to prison. I warned you this wouldn’t work on us, didn’t I?

That's the problem with liberal hypocrisy and their caveman, tribal thinking, they turn a blind eye to anything that disrupts their (flawed) narrative whilst criticizing conservatives for theirs. I live in the US,

Sure.

but obviously to you, anyone who even criticizes the West loves authoritarianism. I'm not sure you even realize there's a spot in between being pro-NATO and pro-Russia, considering your blind faith in the US. Ofc you probably will dismiss these points out of hand immediately because they dont fit into your closed bubble of reality by just responding with "well durrrh, the same applies to you", even though I condemn both NATO escalations and the Russian invasion, and am adamantly anti-war. I hope your next post isn't anything stupid but actually constructive or I'm gonna ignore you.

Thank you for listening to my TedTalk

Nice rant.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Since the last time we were in a war that might warrant that kind of alliance was in 1898, your hypothetical scenario is a little stale. You’re not even trying. Or maybe you think that Canadian Bacon is a documentary?



The laughable credulousness of your pro-Russian arguments combined with your arrival here one week after the invasion of Ukraine makes who and what you are impossible to ignore. Your arguments are obviously crafted for an audience that has the choice of agreeing to them or go to prison. I warned you this wouldn’t work on us, didn’t I?



Sure.



Nice rant.

Answer the question. The only thing that separates the US and Russia is that the US is willing to put up a facade of having the moral high ground.

Lol way to prove my point.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Yes, and that was a provocation just as it is now. Sleep Joe literally said in 1997 that eastern expansion of NATO would trigger conflict with Russia

Provocation my ass. It's self-defense. Those countries have some shared history with Russia. And they haven't forgotten it. So when Putin came into power those countries said; "Oh, ohh... seen this movie before." Once a Cheka. Always a Cheka. They knew that Putin's ultimate goal was going be to restore Russia to it's previous Soviet Union glory. Which Putin means to do through the reacquisition of the satellite states that departed the Soviet Union when it collapsed. And punish them for their humiliation. Which we saw play out in Georgia, Chechnya, and now playing out in Ukraine. So when you stop to think about it it's really kind of ironic that it was Putin's coming into power that prompted nearby states to seek NATO membership and this lawless ill-advised invasion of his of Ukraine will very likely result in furthering another expansion of NATO countries.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Answer the question. The only thing that separates the US and Russia is that the US is willing to put up a facade of having the moral high ground.

Lol way to prove my point.

Afraid you don't understand English all that well. But what else should I have probably expected, right? What you wrote there is a declarative sentence. Not a question.

 

[snakestretcher]

"Do you support the invasion of Ukraine? Keep in mind we can imprison you for saying you don't."

Yeah I'm sure those polls are accurate.

Yep, just like Lukashenko claimed he won over 80% of the votes in Belarus! And like Putin he also likes to lock up anyone opposing or challenging his dictatorship.

Belarus election: Lukashenko's claim of landslide victory sparks mass protests

Riot police deployed in Minsk and about 20 other cities in some of the biggest clashes in the country’s history

www.theguardian.com

 

[Khayembii Communique]

What's your point?

The point, of course, is that the claim that this invasion was triggered by "Ukraine's attempts to join NATO" are completely bs.

 

[ChickenTendies]

The point, of course, is that the claim that this invasion was triggered by "Ukraine's attempts to join NATO" are completely bs.

How so? The relevant time frame is much larger than simply the immediate days and weeks before.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

How so? The relevant time frame is much larger than simply the immediate days and weeks before.

Ukraine has not moved any closer to membership status in a much longer time frame than "days and weeks".