Should the US shed blood for Ukraine

Should the USA along with NATO defend Ukraine with troops.

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 40.4%
  • No

    Votes: 59 59.6%

  • Total voters
    99

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
He is sane.
He is also not publicly discussing his ambition to be Tsar of all the Russias, from Gibraltar to Okinawa.
Are you saying that Putin is a rational/sane man?
No, in the long term he will lose, he knows that now, yet he will knowingly take the path to war, that's insanity.
A suiting comparison would be Japan in the 1930's when militarism emerged led by Tojo Hideki (Putin) and presented they're plans to take over Indo-China.
I see a comparison in both, with dreams of glory & to show the World that I am the greatest Human that ever walked this earth.
Two others at the tip of my tongue would be Napoleon/Hitler.
In my mind he's a sociopathic madman thug that loves fucking around with the US/NATO & he's doing it now & he's doesn't really give a shit about his people, who by the way have lived in shit since 1917, so just give them a bottle of Stoyle & a potato & they're good.

I just don't see Putin backing down & oh yea, he added more warships today in the Black Sea in support of THE FUCKING LAND EXERCISES!!!!

Putin/China are laughing

Biden is shitting

This is bad
 

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
Why go to all that trouble when you can just buy it?
Putin?
He's a fucking Russian gangster just like most the oligarchy.
They have enough money in gold somewhere, bet on it & they're fucking vicious thieves & smart.
1st they'll take you money & then rape you women.
Only then they will kill you in front of your eyes :)
I actually knew one from Brighton Beach, he was married to a friend of my wife & yea, they got the tats :)
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Occupying and ruling large empires is so 19th century.

Why go to all that trouble when you can just buy it?


As Russia has grown more kleptocratic and authoritarian, another form of elite enrichment has become increasingly important, namely extortion by the Kremlin of the truly rich. US businessman and now Putin opponent Bill Browder argues that after Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s conviction in 2005, Putin demanded 50 percent of the wealth of the other oligarchs. “He wasn’t saying 50 percent for the Russian government or the presidential administration, but 50 percent for Vladimir Putin personally. From that moment on, Putin became the biggest oligarch in Russia and the richest man in the world,” Browder testified before the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017.25 This is possible, though not proven. What we do know from many interviews is that Kremlin extortion is standard procedure and that tens of millions of dollars are customarily extorted in “donations” for “charity” from individual oligarchs.

Assessments of the Russian offshore holdings vary. James S. Henry of Columbia University assessed for the Tax Justice Network that by the end of 2014 no less than $1.3 trillion of Russian assets were sitting offshore.11 But this number appears too high, presumably because it includes outflows that returned to Russia.12 Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, and Gabriel Zucman have analyzed Russian offshore wealth to analyze inequality, offering a very different perspective on the same facts. They argue that Russia is the country in the world where offshore wealth is most significant “at about $800 billion or 75 percent of national income in 2015.” One can reasonably estimate a figure of $920 billion of net private Russian offshore wealth at the end of 2019.
13
Modern empires are economic, not military, money is power in a place with law and rules, not so much where there is chaos and lawlessness, there, might is right. Britain was a tiny country with a vast empire, but it was economic in nature and Britain's wealth was built on trade and modern manufacturing driven by science and engineering. The British army was tiny, even the one they had in India, they had a big navy and just three layers on bureaucracy. The subsequent American empire was almost wholly economic with control of the currency of international trade and investments globally. America has a large military, but it is not a military empire, it is an economic one. Russia on the other hand is a poor country that cannot influence it's smaller neighbors economically and must intimidate them, use political subversion and information attacks against them in an effort to control them. If the Ukraine joined the EU, the average citizen would be making thousands of Euros a month within a few years and that would make the 400 Euros/mth the average Russian gets look pretty bad and create an intolerable political situation for Vlad. Belorussia would be surrounded on 3 sides by western countries and see how well they are doing and would be the next to go.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Putin?
He's a fucking Russian gangster just like most the oligarchy.
They have enough money in gold somewhere, bet on it.
They're fucking vicious thieves & smart.
1st they'll take you money & then rape you women.
Only then they will kill you in front of your eyes :)
I actually knew one from Brighton Beach, he was married to a friend of my wife & yea, they got the tats :)
Putin's an old man. Isn't there a limit on how much Vyhagra one can take?

Anyway, why own when you can rent?

In January 2007, Mikhail Prokhorov and a group of close friends hopped aboard his private jet and flew to the upscale French resort town of Courchevel, high up in the Alps to celebrate the Russian Orthodox New Year. Also on board that flight: Eight 20 year old sexy Russian prostitutes. Technically the women were never proven to be anything more than "models" who were brought for "entertainment", but any reasonable person would agree that this is a very grey area.

After a debaucherous three day party that has been described as a massive orgy, 50 French police officers swooped in and arrested Mikhail and all of the "models". The women were immediately released, but Mikhail was held in a jail cell for four days on charges that he was importing prostitutes. He was eventually released and all charges were dropped, but the incident sent shock waves all across Russia. The scandal was parodied on dozens of television shows, commercials, magazines and radio stations.


 

twentyeight.threefive

Well-Known Member
With President Biden’s top security adviser warning that Russia could invade Ukraine “any day now,” a new poll shows that Donald Trump voters are now more than twice as likely as Joe Biden voters to say “the conflict is none of America’s business” — a striking role reversal after decades of right-wing hawkishness toward Moscow.

The shift presumably reflects the influence of GOP figures such as Trump and top Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who have long rationalized & supported Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The poll of 1,628 U.S. adults, which was conducted from Feb. 3 to 7, found that a full 42 percent of Trump voters now say the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is none of America’s business — 6 points more than the share who say “it’s in America’s best interests to stop Russia and help Ukraine” (36 percent).

In contrast, 60 percent of Biden voters now insist that it is in America’s best interests to help Ukraine, while just 20 percent disagree and claim the conflict doesn’t concern the U.S.

By the same token, more Trump voters now say the U.S. should take “neither” country’s side in the clash (49 percent) than say the U.S. should side with Ukraine (46 percent). Biden voters say the opposite, with more than two-thirds (67 percent) insisting the U.S. should side with Ukraine, compared with just 29 percent who prefer neutrality.

To some degree, this gap may arise from America’s usual partisan patterns. As more than 130,000 Russian troops mass on the Ukraine border, it has been Biden, not Trump, who has been trying to defuse the situation by threatening “swift and severe” economic sanctions and sending arms and troops to the region. It is not surprising that Americans who voted for the current president would be more inclined to favor his approach than those who backed his predecessor.

Yet the new poll results also suggest that partisanship isn’t the only — or even the major — force at work here. Conservatives are also divided among themselves, signaling a larger rift between traditional Republicans and their TrumpTard counterparts that could complicate America’s efforts to respond to Russia.

By and large, Republican leaders in Congress have encouraged Biden to get tougher on Russia by imposing immediate sanctions on Russian energy exports and sending more lethal aid to Ukraine’s military.

But Fox’s Carlson has repeatedly questioned U.S. support for Ukraine, asking on Nov. 10 why the U.S. would take Ukraine's side and arguing in December that Putin was justified in building up troops along the border.

"Ukraine is not strategic for America's interest" (unlike Vietnam, right?) Carlson added in January. “No rational person could defend a war with Russia over Ukraine.”

Sure enough, poll respondents who name Fox as their most-watched cable news network say the U.S. should take neither country’s side rather than Ukraine’s by 48 percent to 44 percent. Among those who watch CNN, the split is 53 percent to 37 percent in favor of Ukraine; MSNBC viewers, meanwhile, are 70 percent pro-Ukraine to 24 percent pro-neutrality. As Carlson steers rank-and-file Republicans toward Russia, his liberal counterpart, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, appears to be having the opposite effect on her audience.

Another important factor is the strength of party identification. On the question of which side to take in the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, self-described Democrats look a lot like independents who lean Democratic. Less than a quarter of both groups — 22 percent and 24 percent, respectively — say the conflict is none of America’s business.

But on the right it’s a different story. There, independents who lean Republican (57 percent) are 7 points more likely than self-described Republicans (50 percent) to insist that the U.S. should stay neutral. They’re also 9 points less likely — 30 percent vs. 39 percent — to say it’s in America’s best interests to help Ukraine and stop Russia.

The implication is clear: On the right, the less strongly someone identifies as a Republican, the more skeptical they tend to be of intervening on Ukraine’s behalf.

Age and income seem to contribute as well. Hawkishness prevails among older Republicans, with those over 45 favoring Ukraine (51 percent) over neutrality (48 percent) and those under 45 favoring neutrality (53 percent) over Ukraine (32 percent)

The same goes for Republicans who make more or less than $50,000 a year; the former side with Ukraine by 4 points, while the latter side with “neither” by 24.

The picture that emerges is of a significant faction of non-establishment-oriented conservatives — younger, less wealthy and less engaged with Washington politics — who now favor a softer stance toward Russia.

Their views were likely shaped by several years of sympathetic statements from Trump, who said in 2016 that Putin “has been a leader far more than” then-President Barack Obama, and who continued to defend and praise his Russian counterpart throughout his presidency, particularly as evidence emerged that Putin had meddled in the 2016 election to benefit him.

As political commentator William Saletan recently pointed out in Slate, “In Gallup polls before 2016, Republicans generally viewed Russia less favorably than Democrats did. Now it’s the other way around.”

Polls taken in June of last year also showed that Putin enjoys a better net favorable rating among Republicans than Biden does, by anywhere from 16 to 22 percentage points. In a January survey 62 percent of Republicans said Putin was “a stronger leader” than Biden. (God I would LOVE to choke a Republican)

As a result, there is little consensus among Americans as a whole about how to proceed. Just 40 percent, for instance, say it’s in America’s best interests to stop Russia and help Ukraine, while 33 percent say the conflict is none of America’s business and 27 percent are unsure. Similarly, more Americans now say the U.S. should stay neutral (49 percent) rather than take Ukraine’s side (46 percent).

Meanwhile, not one of a list of potential U.S. policy responses garners majority support. The most popular — “continue diplomacy with Russia to avoid an invasion” (43 percent) and “implement severe economic sanctions to counter an invasion” (39 percent) — fall short by several points. None of the rest — “send arms to Ukraine” (24 percent); “send troops to the region to bolster defenses, including to Ukraine” (19 percent); “send troops to the region to bolster defenses, but not to Ukraine” (19 percent); “avoid further foreign conflict by agreeing to Putin’s demands” (6 percent) — appeal to more than a quarter of the public.

Yet on the question of Putin’s demands for NATO to withdraw from Eastern Europe and bar Ukraine from joining the alliance, Trump voters (14 percent) are nearly twice as likely as Biden voters (8 percent) to describe them as “reasonable.”

So, Tucker Carlson & his listeners are having a major influence on US foreign policy

Holy fuck

We're fucking doomed.

Thanks Murdoch/Fox, you singlehandedly have fucking ruined the USA

Was that your purpose/goal?

Sorta fitting in a way that just a corperation for profit/ratings was willing to and able to Divide/Destroy the US

Corporations win and we the sane get fucking obliterated.

Fox wins.

America loses.

If you're interested, I say Putin has to either back off or be stopped by any means necessary.

He can't be allowed to succeed.
Is there Cliff Notes available for this post?
 

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
I'm so bad at that game
Here' s funny story.
This was like 15 years ago when my son was 7 & I had just gotten a computerized chess board for Xmas & had set it at level 3 with 10 being the hardest.
I had been playing for a week, around 20 games or so & had won twice.
I had showed my boy how to play like a year before, so he knew how to play & one night he asks if he could play & I said fine & gave him the chair.
That little bastard won his 1st game.
Motherfucker!!!
Then I think /say "That's impossible/a fluke"
You know the end already, don't you?
Yup, the little prick played back-to-back check mates.
I cried
:)
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Maybe chess is the better description?

Moves, counter moves:

- Vlad puts 100k troops at Ukraine's border and demanded NATO formally exclude Ukraine from being members, NATO said no

- Joe said US would not put troops into Ukraine and communicated that invasion would lead to personal sanctions against Vlad. Vlad was triggered into making some statements he later corrected.

- Vlad ratcheted up the tension by amassing yet more troops -- 150,000 in all and installed missile defense systems in Belarus.

- Biden made very clear that the US is ready to implement severe sanctions against Russia if they invade.

- Vlad says the Kremlin is still seeking a diplomatic mission.

Biden's move is next.

Anyway, I think this is more about Putin testing unity among NATO members. They need LNG from Russia. It's a lever Putin has yet to use but hasn't yet done so. Not sure he will. That would be more like mutually assured destruction because Russia needs that money.
I think of it more like Texas Hold'em.

Putin won some early hands. This hand started, Biden was in the big blind, EU in the little, Russia raised. Biden and the EU saw.

On the flop after Biden and the EU/UN checked, Putin raised big with 80k troops, Biden and the EU called with threatening sanctions and backing the Ukrainian people.

On the turn, Putin raised with over 100k troops and his navy. Biden and EU/UN called.

And now here we are on the river and Putin just checked. Hopefully Putin withdraws his troops and tosses this hand.
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
I'm so bad at that game and my wife is so good. We played one game in our decades long marriage. I was so slow and lost so badly, she has never offered another match. I should be sued for even mentioning the word.
I am not that good with that game either, still like to play though. It's interesting that if u take what's going in Ukraine and put it on a board like this some things become more clearer.....js
 

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
I am not that good with that game either, still like to play though. It's interesting that if u take what's going in Ukraine and put it on a board like this some things become more clearer.....js
I think Putin play's Chess & Texas Hold'em, both at the same time in this case it seems to me.
His pawns have been advancing methodically, keeping his Royals in reserve and at the same time going all in.
I don't think I'd want to play that board or call that hand.
Either one sucks :(
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Nah, they ain't going to invade, they're just going for a Sunday drive, right?

I’ve said before Putin won’t attack because it would be political and perhaps even national suicide, i.e. possibly the end of Russia. I stiil believe the latter. Assuming Putin is aware of that too, it means that if he attacks, he’s all in. Time to move up the doomsday clock. (Some local tv station decided this would be a good time to air Watchmen again.)
 

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member

I’ve said before Putin won’t attack because it would be political and perhaps even national suicide, i.e. possibly the end of Russia. I stiil believe the latter. Assuming Putin is aware of that too, it means that if he attacks, he’s all in. Time to move up the doomsday clock. (Some local tv station decided this would be a good time to air Watchmen again.)
I hope your right, but my pinky toe is twitching
Not good :(
 

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
It's the most open "secret attack" in history.
Whoever it was in charge should have told them 3 months ago that if they moved within 100 km of Ukraine's border it would be considered an Act of Aggression & we will act accordingly.
The Russians should never should have gotten that fucking close.
They fucked up, simply put.
 

CCGNZ

Well-Known Member
This will be the War of all Wars if it occurs
No doubt about it
You will have in truth a World War between 2 of the 3 true World's Super Powers, that that have over 75 years to develop a trove of weaponry the likes of which have never been seen/assembled before, because they never could be.

Now we shall see if all of Trillions & Trillions & Trillions of dollars given to the Military/Industrial Complex was worth it

:) :) :)

The reason for all the smiley faces is that I'm laughing so hard at the thought that it was worth it
Because the answer is nope.
No nuclear weapons will be used so they were a waste.
Nah, just conventional

Ukraine/NATO, they're really not I think as important as Joe vs Vlad, that's the show to watch.
If Russia successfully invades Ukraine, which they will, that's when Biden has to put up or shut up
Putin is going to call Joe's hand
Just watch
This is why I've said the West was too arrogant and dismissive of Russia in stating WE won the Cold War, as the amount of national treasure wasted from the 50's thru the 90's is stunning if you add it up,(all the nuclear submarines,generations of US Super Carriers each succ. generation bigger and more$,generations of ICBM's,and on and on and on I could go). The Russians don't even decommission their nuke reactors in subs properly and we are starting to look at our failure to invest in infrastructure from the 60's to the 2010's now, so did we really win, the only win I see is the shit never got used,in that regard everyone won.
 
Top