Abandoning allies

[dgibbons]

I’d like to see that.

Everything I see is that the Ukrainian constitution and parliament made that call.

I guess the Ukrainian constitution provides that elections can be postponed during war. Israel has something similar.

I don't blame Zelenskyy for suspending elections. A bunch of people in a confined polling place seems like a target Russia would hit, and the election would be the subject of all kinds of intelligence operations and interference. And Zelenskyy's approval was 57 percent last I heard.

 

[Observer11]

I guess the Ukrainian constitution provides that elections can be postponed during war. Israel has something similar.

I don't blame Zelenskyy for suspending elections. A bunch of people in a confined polling place seems like a target Russia would hit, and the election would be the subject of all kinds of intelligence operations and interference. And Zelenskyy's approval was 57 percent last I heard.

Was it 57% or 5 to 7%?

 

[dgibbons]

Was it 57% or 5 to 7%?

Let's go with > 4 percent.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Geezus will you guys just quit? 2nd graders in the sandbox arguing over nothing.

And for the record, England postponed all of their federal elections for the entirety of WWII. I don't see the difference here. Except that German troops weren't on English soil during the war. As opposed to Ukraine.

On polling, I did see one today that had Zelensky's approval at 49% after Friday's ambushing. Certainly better than the claimed 4%.

 

[Stretch 74]

Geezus will you guys just quit? 2nd graders in the sandbox arguing over nothing.

And for the record, England postponed all of their federal elections for the entirety of WWII. I don't see the difference here. Except that German troops weren't on English soil during the war. As opposed to Ukraine.

On polling, I did see one today that had Zelensky's approval at 49% after Friday's ambushing. Certainly better than the claimed 4%.

Just curious- were they polling in Ukraine or polling Americans? I wonder what the difference might be.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Just curious- were they polling in Ukraine or polling Americans? I wonder what the difference might be.

Both polls (the 57% and the 49%) were Ukrainians, taken weeks or more apart by 2 completely different polling companies. As opposed to the King's Poll, who sez it's 4%. Don't forget the point.

 

[UberCougars]

 

[UberCougars]

Victoria Nuland’s son is part of a think tank working against President Trump’s efforts to end the Ukraine War.Prior to Zelensky's DC visit, the group was drafting alternative "peace plans" to escalate the war and lobbying against the proposed mineral deal.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

First, you shouldn't be so impressed that AI can scrape up articles that contain the word "unprovoked." Second, the author of that article basically says Putin kills civilians (and even brings up Syria) and is a very, very bad man. Nothing about NATO expansion, especially during a period of time (up to about 2004) when Russia was incredibly weak. Nor was there anything about the US pushing forward leadership for the new regime in 2014 which was another obvious provocation.

Finally, and to repeat, you used the term unprovoked. The definition has already been provided. There were provocations. That means your use of the term was incorrect, as noted. You're also conflating the existence of provocation with justification. I will repeat myself again- using the term unprovoked is as inaccurate as using the term justified. And I already gave you the proper term to use- wrongful. So, that's your answer.

You compounded all of this by reading Sachs' article poorly, specifically this "Recognizing that the war was provoked helps us to understand how to stop it. It doesn’t justify Russia’s invasion." You either wittingly or unwittingly (I would chalk it up to your brainwashing), don't understand one of Sachs' underlying points- the Biden administration wants to flood the public forum labeling the invasion as unprovoked for the self-serving purpose of burying their involvement in Ukraine.

I'll analogize for you. Let's say your dog craps in your neighbor's yard now and then. Your neighbor complains about it. After a few more dumpings, your neighbor knocks on your door, throws a bag of shit at you and punches you in the gut. Wrongful, but not unprovoked. In this analogy, you are Ukraine, the neighbor is Russia, the the USA is the dogwalker that feeds your dog a high fiber diet.

Bad analogy. We're talking about destruction and death. If the neighbor killed my pets, took possession of some of my property and destroyed a portion of my house, then we're talking.

And in this country, any court would say my neighbor would not be justified in doing so and would be wrong because the provocation didn't rise to the level of the response.

You found an article discussing "unprovoked". I guess "AI" (eyeroll) can find those articles too.

And noted YOU haven't stated whether YOU think russia was wrong to invade or whether they were justified to take the aggressive actions they have. I think we can all see who's being brainwashed.

Why won't you answer my question? You often do this because you know that either answer you give either destroys your argument or makes you look like a putin-loving POS...because you've overextended yourself again...like you always do.

I've even given you (for the sake of argument) the dismissal of "unprovoked"and focused on justified and wrong (to which you refuse to answer). Why are you such an internet coward? You ask me something, I'll answer. It takes asking you about 5 times to get an answer to a direct question. Taihtsat

 

[dgibbons]

Bad analogy. We're talking about destruction and death. If the neighbor killed my pets, took possession of some of my property and destroyed a portion of my house, then we're talking.

And in this country, any court would say my neighbor would not be justified in doing so and would be wrong because the provocation didn't rise to the level of the response.

You found an article discussing "unprovoked". I guess "AI" (eyeroll) can find those articles too.

And noted YOU haven't stated whether YOU think russia was wrong to invade or whether they were justified to take the aggressive actions they have. I think we can all see who's being brainwashed.

Why won't you answer my question? You often do this because you know that either answer you give either destroys your argument or makes you look like a putin-loving POS...because you've overextended yourself again...like you always do.

I've even given you (for the sake of argument) the dismissal of "unprovoked"and focused on justified and wrong (to which you refuse to answer). Why are you such an internet coward? You ask me something, I'll answer. It takes asking you about 5 times to get an answer to a direct question. Taihtsat

Quoting myself: “And I already gave you the proper term to use- wrongful. So, that's your answer.”

That’s a bigger whiff than not knowing Jeffries was the Speaker of the House. Wow.

 

[UberCougars]

Why is Europe funding Russia?

Shouldn’t they be funding Ukraine instead?

EU imports of Russian fossil fuels in third year of invasion surpass financial aid sent to Ukraine – Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air

energyandcleanair.org

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Why is Europe funding Russia?

Shouldn’t they be funding Ukraine instead?

EU imports of Russian fossil fuels in third year of invasion surpass financial aid sent to Ukraine – Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air

energyandcleanair.org

shhhhhhh

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Quoting myself: “And I already gave you the proper term to use- wrongful. So, that's your answer.”

That’s a bigger whiff than not knowing Jeffries was the Speaker of the House. Wow.

Gibby - WTF is wrong with you? Do you log and file every post from every patron so you can root around and find some months-old faux pax to latch onto like a remora to a shark? Then beat it into the ground for months or years?

Hell I thought Hakeem was a BB player - thanks for jogging my memory.

You have actually been posting some decent stuff when you aren't engaging in your petty little spats.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I did not know that Ukraine gave up its nukes back in 1991 in return for assurances from the US, Britain and (ha) Russia to protect them against aggression. I never hated Rubio, but I'm kind of getting there. What a two-faced pussy.

MSN

 

[Flatlandcoug]

You're mischaracterizing what's been happening in Ukraine for the last 12-18 months. We've been hearing that Russia's economy is failing for almost three years. Ukraine devoted its best troops and equipment to the 2023 summer offensive that failed. Ukraine is at a disadvantage because Ukraine has less manpower, very little industrial capacity and is completely reliant on foreign aid, not because Biden was tying hands behind their back. Not conscripting 18-25 year old men is a Ukrainian decision.

For your education, this is what the NYT thinks- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/world/europe/ukraine-russia-soldiers-loss.html

1863- A lot happened that year. You said Lee advancing into Pennsylvania. The Army of Northern Virginia started moving northward in early June 1863. The Battle of Gettysburg started July 1, 1863. Grant and Farragut were cutting the south in two. Vicksburg started in May of 1863, and ended in July. Shiloh was already a Union victory. The Union had big industrial and manpower advantages. The Confederacy was trying to force a decisive battle while it still could. Ukraine does not have industrial or manpower advantages, and has been getting steadily pushed back for 12-18 months. The US Civil War was a civil war, the USA was not backing one side as a proxy.

Early 1944- The Allies were winning. The Soviet Union had been steadily advancing on the Eastern front since Stalingrad, Germany's counteroffensive at Kursk failed. Germany evacuated North Africa, the Allies liberated Sicily, and were moving north up the Italian peninsula. In the Pacific, the Allies steadily advanced and the Japanese steadily retreated since Guadalcanal ended in February of 1943, and had lost aircraft carriers it could not replace at Midway in early June of 1942. The Allies industrial and manpower advantages were taking hold. Again, Ukraine does not have those advantages.

For Korea- That's a really terrible analogy. You're comparing North Korea versus the United Nations lead by the US, to Russia versus Ukraine. Does the United States have an invasion fleet heading for, I don't know what the analogy would be, Sevastopol right now and tens of thousands of troops headed for Odesa?

Please indulge me- How is Ukraine going to turn things around?

Good points above....but it doesn't change the base argument. You said that we shouldn't be spending money fighting wars when we could save lives by suing for peace. Pick your date in the Civil War, we could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers by simply accepting slavery.

And your comments about WWII actually support our involvement in Ukraine. If not for US intervention in Africa, Germany wouldn't have had to leave. When you say the Allies liberated Sicily....you meant the US and British armies. If we would have focused on Asia (sound familiar?), Hitler would have been able to hold his gains in Europe and Africa and would have been able to drive the Russians back and, by your dear leader's logic, set up a temporary cease fire on the Eastern front while he regrouped. It would have saved lives in the short term.

As for Korea being a bad analogy, you actually made it better. If the US and UN sent troops to Ukraine to push back the Russians, they would be likely pushed almost all of the way out of the country in a couple months....just like in 1950. And if we had just not gotten involved in Korea at all, just think of all the American soldiers that wouldn't have died.

So again, every war can be ended sooner and "save lives", you just may not like the result.

 

[UberCougars]

Worth the risk of a nuclear exchange, for sure.

I mean, if it worked in the Civil War, it’s worth a try, I say.

Is your daughter gonna fight for team Army or Marines?

 

[UberCougars]

Ruh roh

Looks like France may not be in such a hurry to take the front lines for Ukraine after all?

 

[UberCougars]

I did not know that Ukraine gave up its nukes back in 1991 in return for assurances from the US, Britain and (ha) Russia to protect them against aggression. I never hated Rubio, but I'm kind of getting there. What a two-faced pussy.

MSN

Are you unaware of this too?

 

[UberCougars]

Good points above....but it doesn't change the base argument. You said that we shouldn't be spending money fighting wars when we could save lives by suing for peace. Pick your date in the Civil War, we could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers by simply accepting slavery.

And your comments about WWII actually support our involvement in Ukraine. If not for US intervention in Africa, Germany wouldn't have had to leave. When you say the Allies liberated Sicily....you meant the US and British armies. If we would have focused on Asia (sound familiar?), Hitler would have been able to hold his gains in Europe and Africa and would have been able to drive the Russians back and, by your dear leader's logic, set up a temporary cease fire on the Eastern front while he regrouped. It would have saved lives in the short term.

As for Korea being a bad analogy, you actually made it better. If the US and UN sent troops to Ukraine to push back the Russians, they would be likely pushed almost all of the way out of the country in a couple months....just like in 1950. And if we had just not gotten involved in Korea at all, just think of all the American soldiers that wouldn't have died.

So again, every war can be ended sooner and "save lives", you just may not like the result.

 

[dgibbons]

Gibby - WTF is wrong with you? Do you log and file every post from every patron so you can root around and find some months-old faux pax to latch onto like a remora to a shark? Then beat it into the ground for months or years?

Hell I thought Hakeem was a BB player - thanks for jogging my memory.

You have actually been posting some decent stuff when you aren't engaging in your petty little spats.

I’m not going to apologize for having a good memory.

 

[dgibbons]

Good points above....but it doesn't change the base argument. You said that we shouldn't be spending money fighting wars when we could save lives by suing for peace. Pick your date in the Civil War, we could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers by simply accepting slavery.

And your comments about WWII actually support our involvement in Ukraine. If not for US intervention in Africa, Germany wouldn't have had to leave. When you say the Allies liberated Sicily....you meant the US and British armies. If we would have focused on Asia (sound familiar?), Hitler would have been able to hold his gains in Europe and Africa and would have been able to drive the Russians back and, by your dear leader's logic, set up a temporary cease fire on the Eastern front while he regrouped. It would have saved lives in the short term.

As for Korea being a bad analogy, you actually made it better. If the US and UN sent troops to Ukraine to push back the Russians, they would be likely pushed almost all of the way out of the country in a couple months....just like in 1950. And if we had just not gotten involved in Korea at all, just think of all the American soldiers that wouldn't have died.

So again, every war can be ended sooner and "save lives", you just may not like the result.

You didn’t indulge me by explaining how Ukraine can turn it around.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Quoting myself: “And I already gave you the proper term to use- wrongful. So, that's your answer.”

That’s a bigger whiff than not knowing Jeffries was the Speaker of the House. Wow.

Welp, not really. Forgetting that Jeffries had ascended to the democratic leader of the House is a pretty bad whiff.

You actually suggested I use the term. YOU never said YOU thought they were wrong. Not until this poat of yours WAY, WAY down the line.

So...I guess after all your dancing around the question and being directly asked whether russia was justified or "wrong" and refusing to answer you finally offer that above quote as your answer? And yet you believe russia was provoked by ukraine and the west. Wtf?

 

[Coug90]

Ruh roh

Looks like France may not be in such a hurry to take the front lines for Ukraine after all?

View embedded media

Honestly what we should have done long ago is invite Russia to join NATO. Then when they declined we coulda been like…hey, you were invited to the party too, what are you so worried about? That woulda been the all time geopolitical deke and ultimately unjustified every act of aggression since.

 

[Coug90]

You didn’t indulge me by explaining how Ukraine can turn it around.

Go four wide to spread out the defense, then hit them with draws and counters. When the safeties suck up, go over the top with PA. Simples.

 

[dgibbons]

Welp, not really. Forgetting that Jeffries had ascended to the democratic leader of the House is a pretty bad whiff.

You actually suggested I use the term. YOU never said YOU thought they were wrong. Not until this poat of yours WAY, WAY down the line.

So...I guess after all your dancing around the question and being directly asked whether russia was justified or "wrong" and refusing to answer you finally offer that above quote as your answer? And yet you believe russia was provoked by ukraine and the west. Wtf?

TAKE NOTICE! KRUSTYtheCOUG has spoken! From now on everyone must declare in every post that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was wrong. If you don't KRUSTY will send Biden presidency killer George Clooney after you. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.