DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ukraine: The Saga Concludes

Of course you do. You're another who wishes to not only ignore dissenting voices but facts as well like the plague. You have sat back and helped enable trump with your silence. Well done comrade.

Shocker. Looking to be the contrarian once again.

However it's a false equivalent just to try to avoid saying how bad it is siding with Russia and China instead of simply condemning Russia's invasion of a sovereign state. I'm certain other nations have supported Ukraine for more than simply altruistic reasons. No doubt about it. But that does not equate to what Trump has said and done since taking office. Its not hard.

...Agreeing with someone is incredibly contrarian, apparently.

I never said anything about equivalence or Trump doing the right thing.

Then you post something that also agrees with what I said.

I never tried to make it equate, but you and Pit are trying to make it appear as if I somehow did.

You and Pit try to make complex things simple, but in doing so completely misrepresent what actually is there.

I try to consider all the complexity. You and Pit are all "'we' (simplistic) are good and everyone else (that doesn't say "we" are good) is bad, nana nana boo boo."

It's rather frustrating. Kind of like trying to teach algebra to a toddler. You can't follow the logic and so insist the variable, "x," is a letter and not a number. While that in a way "makes sense," it completely misses the point.

You've written a bunch of posts trying to suggest that Trump is no worse than other nations regards to his approach to Ukraine. When you spend as much time and effort pontificating about how other UN nations have nefarious reasons of their own for their support..... Instead of simply condemning Trumps decision to side with Russia, China and Nth Korea ..... You absolutely create a false equivalent.

Thank god we have you as the smartest guy I'm the room. Eh
?

And next you'll be telling me you don't belittle or talk down to posters.

Your relationship with God is between the two of you. Being alone in a room with you is something I'll do my best to avoid.

Probably would work better if I talked down to you. Writing as if you were any typical person I've come into contact with clearly goes over your head.

That's how it's done.

War should be over with somehwat soon or we will end up in ww3.

Worse and equivalents are your constructs. What you and Pit say I suggest, and what I wrote are two very different things.

I've got plenty of condemnation to go around. Forgive me for not being a simpleton that feels the need to belabor the obvious.

So in simple terms - whether or not you make a valid point on other countries ulterior motives for supporting Ukraine is speculation.You have spent a lot of time deflecting fom Trump and this UN decision. It probably has some merit - Europe is very happy to have a 'buffer' between itself and Russia. With that said and acknowledged, what you did in multiple posts was spend MUCH MORE time trying to paint this complicated picture that only you think you see, than simply coming out and saying "Siding with Russia, Nth Korea and China is really bad". In fact I don't believe you ever stated that without a "BUT" or other caveat to then justify or equate it to other nations. . . . Stating the obvious in no way removes the possibility of other states also acting with self interest. Though as mentioned none of them as bad or blatant as Trump - and none of them doing it while also cosying up to Russia and China. Additionally - what Trump has just done is factual and reality - your speculation on ulterior motives is just that, speculation. It's not unreasonable to talk specifics for a few posts before diverging off into other areas of discussion.

To give some examples or analogies ... when Eric Adams was accused of and probably guilty of corruption as a Democrat, the "Left" leaning posters on this board didn't all write to say how bad it was "but there's probably lots of corruption within Republican Mayors and administrations" . No. What you saw was universal condemnation of what Eric Adams did. Does that mean no-one thinks there might some form of corruption in Republican administrations somewhere? No. It means people were happy to focus on and comment on the specific topic at hand. I can find a link for it if you need to see that for yourself.

Yes - the two party system is not good for the USA. We know you believe that - but crow barring that into every political conversation is not appropriate. Yes both parties do many things that are not in the best interest of the country. Many Dem and Rep politicians at all levels put self interest above the country. That doesn't mean they are equally bad or equivalent. It doesn't justify not calling a spade a spade when you see it and hear it. Yes, the world is complex and nuanced. Not much is black and white. But that doesn't mean when something is straightforward, stating it means you don't see the other nuance. Only an egotistical fool would believe and post such things and then double down in multiple posts saying as much about people he has never met and essentially knows nothing about.

If you're going to ignore my posts keep my name out of your mouth. We both nailed you and you keep trying to squirm out of it. You didn't just suggest it. You made it perfectly clear.

Once again your superiority complex is showing.

And Russia will end up being the big winner. No wonder you're celebrating Comrade.

I was out of the office and away from my computer yesterday, so I'm catching up today.

Regarding the argument early yesterday, I only have 2 things to add.

The original reason for the creation of NATO was to check Russian aggression. So strategically speaking, weakening/slowing Russian aggression via Ukraine would be well within NATO's scope.

And before we restart the pearl-clutching at the idea of using Ukraine as a blunt instrument, I say so long as Ukraine wants to stay in the fight, who are we to tell them no?

Sorry if this post was a day late.

Quoting your entire posts and responding with multiple paragraphs somehow is me ignoring them? But, you picking out individual sentences and straight up making things up is perfectly acceptable to you? You didn't nail me. You're claiming things I didn't say. Something I didn't say being perfectly clear makes no sense.

In psychology textbooks, it reads more like constantly claiming someone else has a superiority complex is evidence of that person's inferiority/Napoleon complex or they see that person as a threat to their own superiority complex.

The real world is complicated. Your feeling that my trying to actually consider the complexity of topics is me trying to make you look dumb is a you problem.

I'm sorry that trying to "solve"/considering approaches to a complex "equation" can't solely be done with simple "addition" and "subtraction", or a single phrase summation, that you can understand.

The world isn't black and white. It's shades of gray. Some people try to turn things into absolutes (you used absolutely up above) because they are "scared" of things they can't wrap their heads around. It seemingly makes them feel inadequate and threatened to admit not knowing. Then they lash out. Then they scream and pout when they get the clap back and make things up (find one example where I said things are the same) to try to squirm out of being shown "weak." Then they try to push their own foibles onto others. You seem to be one of those people. Now tell me they're my problems and prove my point.

I quoted everything you ignored. Should we go through it again? Nah, you would just ignore it all again while claiming you addressed it. I'm glad people can read this thread. They can see what happened despite your incessant denial.

Once again you claim to be the all seeing Bull. At least you got the Bull part right.

1. Was it to check Russian aggression period? Or to check Russian aggression against the treaty members? Ukraine isn't a member. Did we get involved in the Sino-Soviet conflict in '69? Was the agreement to be world police or for mutual protection? Ukraine was also part of the USSR when NATO was formed, so going back to the time of origin seems somewhat of a paper shield. Times have changed. I'm not sure for the better.

I'm not saying your point is without merit. And, I do appreciate you trying to bring things back towards the topic. In theory the strategy of weakening/slowing Russian aggression makes sense. I'm just not sure the reality of executing that strategy actually is in keeping with NATO's alleged ideals, or that it is the only strategy in play.

2. We were telling them no unless they give us mineral rights. I wasn't in the we should do nothing camp. I was in the we should do something else camp. I also think "who are we to tell Russia?" follows the same logic as "who are we to tell Ukraine?" I get what you are saying and the sentiment. I'm not sure about the strength of that argument, though it certainly could be expanded upon in a direction that makes sense.

#PitLogic

Only an idiot would say something like that when they only read one side of a discussion. You ignore someone and then comment on things you didn't even see. Some might say that is the act of a coward.

Thanks for proving my point. Once again you quoted nothing. Ignored it all while claiming you addressed it. Then you made up a claim that I never said.

The name does seem to fit, if not in the way you imply. That's why I picked it. I guess a not very bright, dank hole, possibly with excess rocks that rattle around when you try to do anything with it, fits you, too.

You want to try again?

Russia invaded Ukraine. Rewarding Russia for that while sitting idly by only emboldens Putin. Giving Ukraine the ability to fight against Putin helps keep Putin in check. You spin it every other way than that. Your excuse? "It isn't that simple."

1. Those 2 are one-in-the-same. Russia will continue to push boundaries whenever it feels it can get away with it and appeasement only serves to embolden. What they've been doing in Ukraine for the last 10+ years, they are doing elsewhere. This whole thing started with their puppet govt being overthrown, then they annexed Crimea, and then launched their full-scale invasion.

A strong and independent Ukraine helps keep NATO allies safer. Allowing the aggressor to move closer to NATO countries while also appeasing their aggression significantly raises the likelihood of Russia-NATO dustup. Along those lines, it'll be really interesting how the additions of Sweden and Finland to NATO play out long term. Russia's actions pushed them towards NATO, but now we have (more) NATO countries on Russia's border.


2. I was not aware of any mineral rights agreement being discussed until Trump entered the picture. As far as "doing something else", I'd love to know what that would be. Personally (and with the benefit of hindsight), we'd be much better served if NATO went in and smacked the -ish out of Russia. Given the fits that Ukraine's patchwork military gave Russia, I doubt a conflict between NATO and Russia would last long and it would send the message that Russia doesn't have the muscle to back up its tough talk.

Also "Who are we to tell Russia" is not the same thing at all as with Ukraine. Russia can stop and pull back whenever they want. Today, Ukraine's options are resist or get run over.

Zelensky is coming to the white house on Friday. Trump thinks he’ll make Z sellout to stop the war. Give us half their rare earth minerals without security agreements or Putin returning seized land. This is an outrage of epic proportions IMHO. Trump is operating like a Russian plant.

This is how a Russian asset works. Putin and even the Russian press are praising trump while many seem to pretend they still don't have a clue.

1. They aren't the same. One can contribute to the other and they are related/linked, but they aren't in lockstep. I'm in no way saying Russian aggression is good in my opinion. But if Russian aggression weakens Russia without NATO having to get involved, it's "good for NATO."

A weak and reliant Ukraine could also be beneficial to some. Strong and Independent countries don't necessarily make other countries safer. They are potential threats. Again, I'm not saying absolutely will be threats, but I can see how some people with political power could see how keeping them weak and exploitable is personally profitable and lessens the likelihood of future rivals. If you can weaken a current rival while making a profit doing that, the cynic towards anything geopolitics related in me finds that somewhat "convenient."

2. I'd prefer an approach towards the actual bad actor(s)/decision maker(s) with less overall loss of life staged as internal dissent, but I do find boots on the ground is preferable to acting as Ukraine's pimp. Sure, we were dressing Ukraine up nice, but we were still sending them out on there own to get ...worked over for "our" "benefit"/"security."

I don't understand why people go so far out of there way to protect "bad" (pick your own pejorative) heads of state that are perfectly content to send thousands to their deaths. I understand why heads of state want people to think leaders should be untouchable, but why common people accept it is beyond me. Well, I do get it, fear is powerful, but not addressing the problem leads to more "power" to fear.

Logically, replacing one country with another in a one sentence argument is the same. Yes, more complex arguments can be made. Ukraine's options are also more complex than a simple binary. Resist how?

Nobody "sent Ukraine out there". That is a compete manipulation of the facts. They were fighting for the survival of their nation against a foreign invader. Dear Lord man.

1. I meant that helping Ukraine accomplishes both (checks Russian aggression vs NATO and non-NATO alike). NATO articles only apply to NATO members. I agree with you about not wanting to get involved, but when you're dealing with an aggressor that has a consistent track record of pushing boundaries and escalating tensions, you have to put your foot down earlier to mitigate the worse situation (when they're on NATO's doorstep). A strong and independent Ukraine makes for a stronger buffer between NATO and Russia.

Sending equipment and economic sanctions was as 'non-involved' as we could hope to be without giving Ukraine over to Putin. It was working until MAGA caused the US to hesitate in sending timely equipment. Some would argue correlation vs causation on those two things, but the spring we slow-walked equipment that Ukraine needed for their second counterattack was also the spring that Russia was able to dig in and slow down the pace of the conflict.


2. I think you're insinuating a Putin assassination. I doubt many on this board would shed a tear if that happened, but that was never an option. It's far more likely we risk open conflict in Ukraine vs an assassination attempt. IMO, the latter has a much higher risk of ticking off the world. I don't understand what you mean about "protecting" heads of state. The US approach up until this year wasn't about protecting anyone other than Ukraine's sovereignty.

Also, Ukraine wasn't getting "worked over". They would have fallen already if that were the case. Russia is the one getting worked over, but the invaders are throwing far more people into the conflict to mitigate that.

Ukraine is fighting a war on its own soil, and has been for a while. They are fighting an adversary that's perfectly fine dumping unlimited lives into achieving its goal. I don't think it's a complex choice for them at all, especially given NATO membership has supposedly been taken off the table.

It was an analogy. It wasn't a literal account. Did we fight with them in the flesh? No.

Being an ally apparently means something different to me than it means to you. I would hazard the guess it does to most people who have served in war time.

Shipping our surplus material is fine, but it's not exactly brothers in arms.

It's like you want it both ways. "Trump" hung them out to dry. "Trump" is taking advantage of them. Ally isn't how I would characterize that behavior. It's more a "boss"-expendable employee type relationship to me.

My distaste for Trump undoubtedly flavors my analogies.

1. What NATO wants and what I want are two separate things. My pondering what happened and pulling an interpretation out, and what I would have wanted to happen are vastly different.

2. The world is full of lousy people because the world is set up to protect the lousiest people.

"Eating the rich" feeds a lot more people than "eating the poor."

Why isn't it an option? Hundreds of thousands of pawns dying is fine. Heaven forbid you kill one rich dillweed to prevent that.

No offense, but what would you call 100,000 casualties? Trump as pimp in a disgusted analogy was an easy fit for me. The words I wanted to use in place of getting "worked over" aren't board appropriate.

I guess I'm not really sure what you're looking to debate. I thought we were having a side-convo... I'm not really interested in the back and forth you're having with Pit.

First let's address the trump issue. trump is the person saying they can not enter NATO. trump is the only one who as it turns out is being "an arms dealer" as you earlier described. trump is the one already suggesting Russia keep parts of Ukraine.

We do have a pact with our NATO allies to fight along side them. We do not have that pact with Ukraine. As far as I know they didn't even so much as ask or request we send troops to help them fight Russia. So it would appear your contention is that we should have voluntarily entered the war? It seems the main difference in your assertion is that unless we fight along side a nation that didn't even ask us to fight, they are not our allies. That everyone we consider an ally is on the same footing. That our commitment to some of them through something such as the NATO alliance applies to all of them. I see it as Ukraine being on a different level than nations were have such a alliance with. As with everything degrees vary.

So no, I don't want to have it both ways. One administration came to the aid of Ukraine. When not obstructed they gave Ukraine the weaponry Ukraine requested. I don't think "volunteering to send troops into a war which were not requested" is selling anyone out. I do believe that flatly refusing to allow them to enter NATO, giving Putin territory he invaded and bullying Ukraine is.

I think the 'debate' is to try and make himself look smart and try to talk down to people.

We can get into side-bars about all sorts of details and subtleties and offer opinions on different elements. But the simple facts are Russia invaded Ukraine. The world thought Ukraine would fall or cave in to Russian demands in weeks if not days. But they fought and EU and the USA gave them aid. For 3 years. Trump comes in term 2 - and putting his bromance with Putin aside and any other questionable adoration he appears to have for "strong leaders" - Trump came out and called Zelensky a dictator, stated any deal would require Ukraine to relinquish some of it's sovereign territory and made a comment that Ukraine had started the war. At the same time Trump tried to negotiate without Ukraine's input and excluded Europe by claiming that EU didn't offer as much aid as the US... which is just one more lie or incorrect statement depending on how you want to frame it. Trump also claimed in the last couple of days that the European Union was born to "cheat the USA" (which again is a lie or an incorrect statement).

I think what might be the most interesting talking point of all of this when it is said and done - Europe is going to probably look at the US as something of an unstable partner. While on the one hand this may cause the EU to increase spending on defence, it probably makes the 'West' a little less stable.

If we want to talk about peace in Ukraine and how to handle Russia - then I think any appeasement by Trump. Any lack of troops on the ground or joining of Nato. Will see Russia try to expand it's borders again in 6-7-8 years time and we will rinse and repeat. And I think it's worth noting that while it's easy to think this is a Putin problem and that when he's gone things will be better ... according to the '16 myths about Russia' that I posted earlier, one of the myths is that whatever comes after Putin must be better. Another is/was the belief that Russia and the West want the same thing, which is where I worry one of Trump's biggest failings in any negotiations with Putin might be.

trump and vance being trump and vance.......



A man who knows nothing about respect claiming he is getting none.

That was embarrassing.

"Actual leadership."

I can't believe what i just watched on live TV.


seriously....wth was that? what in god's name was that in the White House today?

MAGA is the worst thing to ever happen in this country's modern history.

trump is firmly on putins side, always has been, always will be. Congrats America we a friends with an evil dictator. We dont stand up for freedom and democracy anymore its just not our thing.

The more I think about it, the madder I get. Seeing that put on display just makes me boil.

I feel embarrassed more than anything. Utterly embarrassing.
.

You visited America and visited with democrats! Biden Biden Biden

Trump claimed that "HE" gave them the Javelin anti tank weaponry. Trump had nothing to do with it. That was done during the Biden administration and passed by congress. The people fighting against that funding were Republicans. Trump yet again trying to rewrite history for the gullible that will believe it. As far as I know not so much as one dime of additional funding for Ukraine has been passed since trump came into office.

Javelin missiles were being sent to Ukraine as far back as 2022.

Then there was the "350 billion dollars sent to Ukraine by the U.S." lie again when that total is much closer to the amount sent by both the U.S. and Europe combined.

Government employees are losing their jobs while the occupation of fact checker need more help. They're already working long overtime hours and understaffed while trying to keep up with all of this.

Well you need not apply for the open fact checker positions.
The Javelins were sent to Ukraine way back in 2018.I can't remember who was Pres. then,but I'm sure it wasn't Biden.

So you mean well before the war with russia when they need them the most? Maybe you're confused about the difference. So you're saying republicans haven't been voting against funding for Ukraine to fight against Russia?

Slava Ukraini!