ok what the fuck is happening in ukraine

New Polling!!

It said 92% of Republicans had a negative view of Biden, while 81% had a negative view of Putin

god the "this never would've happened under Trump" argument drives me up the fuckin wall, as though he didn't give Putin every single thing he wanted

― frogbs, Friday, 25 February 2022 21:36 (one minute ago) link

I think that's their point, right?

Um, you guys talking about the US running guns to Ukraine, I don’t you’ve fully thought this out.

Comrade Calz would have something saltier to say if here were here probably.

I've thought it out, send them arms

America has a rich, glorious history of arming belligerents in conflicts that have nothing to do with us, why stop now

Worked great in Afghanistan in the 80s.

Statement concerning crisis in #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/Ck17sMrAWy

— Abdul Qahar Balkhi (@QaharBalkhi) February 25, 2022

See, if Trump had just issued tweets like the Taliban, he would've never been kicked off

Alex Vindman (the Ukraine-born expert that Trump hated so much) has suggested something akin to Lend/Lease, where we sent all these weapons & vehicles to the USSR before we officially joined WWII as a active combatant - I think we should do nothing less

what came after Lend-Lease?

So how should Ukrainians resist an invasion vs an imperalist nation that has ten times the military capacity?

Just brainstorming no bad answers.

what came after Lend-Lease?

Uhh, Allied victory over the Axis?

In between those two?

I'm not sure if there are unofficial rules of the game about such matters, but the US and Russia have a long history of arming each others' opponents in proxy wars. One thing that would represent a major escalation that some people have called for would be trying to enforce a no-fly zone.

Personaly, I wouldn’t go too far into WW2 comparisons while arguing for appeasement and against nation’s rights to defend themselves against an imperial aggressor.

https://twitter.com/PMBreakingNews/status/149733729904193126

Breaking: Intensive gunfire heard in Kyiv. Ukraine President Zelensky says Russian troops will storm the city tonight. pic.twitter.com/WwXGHERj5R

— PM Breaking News (@PMBreakingNews) February 25, 2022

I wouldn’t go too far into WW2 comparisons

arguing for appeasement

nation’s rights to defend themselves against an imperial aggressor

We're talking about the US and arms dealing, do follow along.

Lend-Lease of war material to UK in 1940 is an extremely poor parallel case. For that matter, so is Afghanistan in the 80s. If Russia controls its borders, Ukraine would be very hard to arm in any quantity, and they have no mountainous terrain to hide in like Afghanistan. This feels more like a shift into a new Cold War based on vigorous containment.

Cool, so if Ukrainians can defend themselves it will include procuring weapons for said defense.

If Russia controls its borders, Ukraine would be very hard to arm in any quantity, and they have no mountainous terrain to hide in like Afghanistan

Looks like the Ukraine border with Romania (a NATO country) passes through the Carpathian Mountains and is about 380 miles long.

xp
And my country shouldn't be the one sending them.

A "new Cold War" and the "long history of arming each others' opponents in proxy wars" are things that anyone without apocalyptic fantasies should be actively opposed to.

Positive thought for those wanting the US to supply weapons: historically that not being loudly announced in the media doesn't need to mean it's not happenig.

And my country shouldn't be the one sending them.

The Ukrainian people salute your solidarity.

Don't worry, Germany will pick up the slack. The 5000 helmets they promised back in January are finally en route:

https://www.businessinsider.com/helmets-germany-offered-ukraine-en-route-days-after-russian-invasion-2022-2

"Appeasement" implies that the country I live in has, or should have, any say over something happening on the other side of the globe.

Considering the victim country has made it clear joining NATO was a priority and that it is suffering the consequences of that act of sef-determination, and that your country is the key player and architect of NATO, then yes, the US has a say in this.

NATO countries have been arming Ukraine for the last couple of months, at least, so it’s not like it’s a line in the sand that hasn’t been crossed. It wouldn’t be the first time Russian soldiers have faced US-supplied weapons recently either.

There have been compelling reasons for not arming Ukraine in the past but they’re much less relevant now.

I think the big question is whether it’s going to make a material difference to the outcome or just the duration. I get that a long, costly war followed by a protracted insurgency would be a potential disincentive to repeating this elsewhere but it would also be absolutely catastrophic for Ukraine. If the opposition is insurmountable, and there’s no other help on the way, providing weapons to keep the war going an extra six months isn’t necessarily a great idea. However, that’s for Zelenskiy to decide.

made it clear joining NATO was a priority

this might be a compelling argument for someone who cares about NATO or thinks its continued existence is a positive

this might be a compelling argument for someone who cares about NATO or thinks its continued existence is a positive

― papal hotwife (milo z), Friday, February 25, 2022 6:04 PM (thirteen seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

You mean the Ukrainians?

ShariVari I just want to thank you for your posts here, again. and yeah otm in your last post, again

VHS, you're not even a coherent warmonger now.

anyone without apocalyptic fantasies should be actively opposed to

apocalyptic? no, that would have to be a hotwar. a cold war is grim, but as long as it stays cold, no apocalypse.

as for thinking 'no war' is always the best choice, I agree. but isn't often a choice made by mutual agreement between opposing sides. usually it's just one side that chooses war and the other side finds itself at war involuntarily. the Ukraine invasion occupies a somewhat gray area in terms of whether it triggers a wider war. that's why it feels to me like the NATO powers will attempt to contain further Russian aggression while avoiding a 'hot' war on a wide scale. iow, a cold war.

as long as it stays cold

well then, nothing to worry about!

We definitely didn't have any close calls during the first one nor was nuclear war averted by sheer dumb luck.

idgi, milo. what are you thinking exactly? is your take that Russia should be allowed to invade and occupy any country it finds too weak to effectively resist, because our taking steps short of war to prevent this would entail the risk of Russia choosing to initiate a war against the NATO alliance? and yes, I do recall that the earlier cold war resulted in the coining of the word "brinkmanship" and both sides practiced it.

could you all stop this again

seriously, very much appreciate the usual suspects burying the actual news and expert commentary with ideological sniping

is your take that Russia should be allowed to invade

The problem there is the word "allowed." This is not something that anyone gets to "allow" or "disallow."

because our taking steps short of war to prevent this would entail the risk of Russia choosing to initiate a war against the NATO alliance

Steps that are even theoretically useful in combating expansionism - an actual transition away from fossil fuels depriving petrostates of their power, real attempts to seize hidden wealth globally - aren't on the table. "Arming Ukraine" and brinksmanship do absolutely nothing to save Ukrainian lives or make the world a better or more peaceful place - a new Cold War benefits only authoritarians at home and abroad, arms manufacturers/dealers and the security state while providing a useful pretext for the continuance and expansion of our own hollow, destructive empire. It's all theater to benefit the ghouls who've been making the world worse for 75 years already.

in other words, what ShariVari said

Ukrainians would very much like the US to have a say. This isn’t Iraq.

However, that’s for Zelenskiy to decide.

― Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Friday, February 25, 2022 6:03 PM (thirty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

That's really all of it.

Strengthening sanctions, concrete defense assistance and an anti-war coalition have just been discussed with @POTUS. Grateful to 🇺🇸 for the strong support to 🇺🇦!

— Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) February 25, 2022

Zelenskyy the imperialist. Watch out Putin!

Anyway, it seems inevitable that the US and Western Europe are “doing something” so a generalized debate about interventionism, isolationism or whatever in between seems better for another thread and maybe we can just continue to update and discuss what is actually going on here instead?

Will do.

Where is "here"?

Meanwhile, thousands streaming (as fast as they can stream) into Poland and Romania. And they're not going home any time soon, let alone to a Russian controlled puppet state.

apparently a lot of men attempting to leave the country are being forcibly sent back to fight

Where is "here"?

― anatol_merklich, Friday, February 25, 2022 6:52 PM (twenty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Confusing syntax. I meant let’s try to keep this thread specific to the situation in Ukraine and not hash out extremely general ideological stuff in this thread.

aye, I see those implicit parentheses now, thanks for clarifying.

Ok I’m going to own up that I gave Calzino, a poster I like, an FP cause I thought he crossed a line to personal insults the other day rather than his usual righteous invective.

Now I see that his temp ban has led to this thread running rampant with idiocy and bad takes that I thought were only possible on Twitter by wannabe Brookings Institution foreign policy experts, I regret my FP profoundly.

I don’t.

take it to Admin Log, but Boring otm