O/T:- Betting odds for US Election [The USA Politics Thread]

[i961pie]

Ok so to try and stay with the same analogy, if there were people coming to your house and doing the things I described every day and night for 3 years, you could decide to find out where they live and go round there with a truck full of mates to dissuade them. I don't think that's escalation but you do - fair enough.

By your logic though, when the RAF was carrying out bombing raids on Germany to reduce their military capacity during the blitz, the UK was actually escalating the conflict.

During that time there was an isolationist mood in the US (funnily enough with a popular movement called America First too) and they cared as much about the UK getting levelled as some MAGA people care about Ukraine getting levelled now. That didn't lead to less war.

Putin wants to restore the Russian empire and he sees Ukraine and Belarus as a big part of that. He has effectively taken Belarus already by sending thousands of riot police and FSB to prop up the dictator there after he lost an election, and he tried to take Ukraine by force. Any ceasefire will just be an opportunity to replenish his forces and try to make Ukraine a non-viable country before starting round 2 in a few years. Also China will see that if you invade another country, basically you get put on the naughty step for a couple of years but then people get bored and you can keep what you took. I really do think that any alternative here leads to more war in the future.

Excellent post

[drillerpie]

Ukraine doing to Russia what Russia was already doing to Ukraine is, by definition, not escalation. Not sure why people can't understand this rather obvious fact.

Because Russia has done a tremendous PR job, especially in the alternative media space.

I'm surprised the fact that alternative / MAGA / heterodox / IDW (however you want to describe them) podcasters like Dave Rubin and Tim Pool take large amounts of money from anyone, let alone Russia, hasn't created more noise. Their reason for being is that they are supposed to give an honest assessment unlike the corrupt corporate media.

But anyway, in the alternative media space Putin is just doing what nature intended, the Dems are the real warmongers, something something NATO and if we stop sending weapons to Ukraine there will be no more homeless people.

[SmiffyPie]

I'm sure all the Baltic states are happy for Ukraine to cede to Russia the land they have invaded aren't they! I'm sure they don't think that if he gets away with this he just might turn his eye their way.

[Lullapie]

Ok so Ukraine gives up land, are they then free to join the EU or NATO or does Russia dictate that also.
Ukraine is a sovereign country. I can see resistance movements forming because this is what happens when land is lost. Which would give Putin an excuse to move further into Ukraine.

I don't think Ukraine will ever join NATO. In my opinion, Zelenskyy goading Russia by threatening it in the first place was the whole cause of the current crisis.

EU? Maybe, but that wouldn't bother Russia.

I fully agree with the resistance thing. However, that would be more likely if Ukraine surrendered, which I don't think would ever either. I feel it will be a negotiated ceasefire and then an uneasy peace for a few years.

If it was negotiated, the question would be, who would fund the resistance? There would be many ex-pat Ukrainians who'd send money over, but it's not the same as in the Middle East, where Iran funds anybody and everybody who is anti-US or anti-Israel. If a separate state backed a resistance, it would soon be put down by Russia and the US (if the US were part of the ceasefire agreement).

Interesting times.....

[Lullapie]

Ok so to try and stay with the same analogy, if there were people coming to your house and doing the things I described every day and night for 3 years, you could decide to find out where they live and go round there with a truck full of mates to dissuade them. I don't think that's escalation but you do - fair enough.

By your logic though, when the RAF was carrying out bombing raids on Germany to reduce their military capacity during the blitz, the UK was actually escalating the conflict.

During that time there was an isolationist mood in the US (funnily enough with a popular movement called America First too) and they cared as much about the UK getting levelled as some MAGA people care about Ukraine getting levelled now. That didn't lead to less war.

Putin wants to restore the Russian empire and he sees Ukraine and Belarus as a big part of that. He has effectively taken Belarus already by sending thousands of riot police and FSB to prop up the dictator there after he lost an election, and he tried to take Ukraine by force. Any ceasefire will just be an opportunity to replenish his forces and try to make Ukraine a non-viable country before starting round 2 in a few years. Also China will see that if you invade another country, basically you get put on the naughty step for a couple of years but then people get bored and you can keep what you took. I really do think that any alternative here leads to more war in the future.

Unless you believe in peace through strength. In the last 75 years or so, that has proved to work, but many seem to ignore that fact.

[Elite_Pie]

In my opinion, Zelenskyy goading Russia by threatening it in the first place was the whole cause of the current crisis.

So this "current crisis" (I think you mean war) is the fault of Zelenskyy rather than Putin?

Your posts on this topic are becoming increasingly bizarre.

[Lullapie]

Because Russia has done a tremendous PR job, especially in the alternative media space.

I'm surprised the fact that alternative / MAGA / heterodox / IDW (however you want to describe them) podcasters like Dave Rubin and Tim Pool take large amounts of money from anyone, let alone Russia, hasn't created more noise. Their reason for being is that they are supposed to give an honest assessment unlike the corrupt corporate media.

But anyway, in the alternative media space Putin is just doing what nature intended, the Dems are the real warmongers, something something NATO and if we stop sending weapons to Ukraine there will be no more homeless people.

I can't agree with any of that. It sounds like an anti-Trump rant again. Are you seriously saying that only the right are peddling propaganda and the left is as clean as a whistle?

Both sides sell misinformation. Recent history shows that there has been more world conflict under a Democrat government than a Republican one.

NATO is nothing without the US, so if the US stop funding NATO, what happens? Bugger all really, unless all the others that are sat on the gravy train step up, pay their way and supply the munitions and forces to police the world.


Can you point to any conflict in the last 50 years where sending in more and more weapons has provided a solution? Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, Somalia - to name the more common ones. I can only think of one 'success' with what happened in the Balkans and only then because the US led allies bombed the hell out of Belgrade and didn't supply any arms to the Bosnians or Croatians.

An Indian friend of mine once said to me that when the British go into a country they leave a political infrastructure behind that can carry on on its own. When the Americans go into a country, they just leave desolation.

With 2024 glasses on, I realise that all the British did wasn't PC or on the side of human rights, but in the day, it was a tried and trusted process.

[Lullapie]

So this "current crisis" (I think you mean war) is the fault of Zelenskyy rather than Putin?

Your posts on this topic are becoming increasingly bizarre.

I think both countries are partly to blame.

As an aside, who would you blame for the first World War? Kaiser Wilhelm? Or was it more the tensions between the countries in Europe at the time and the treaties and alliances that pulled everyone into it.

Was Hitler personally to blame for the second World War - nothing to do with his rise to power having anything to do with how the Germany was treated at Versailles or the German peoples' desire to pay back the Allies for how they were treated? Was Hirohito to blame for the war in the Pacific. Bit of a pattern emerges, where every other country is at fault, but not the one you support.

One of things in history that you learn, is that generally, we don't learn from history. There is no one cause of conflict and where soldiers are eventually sent in, is normally at the latter part, but not the end, of the conflict.

It's a very simplistic view blaming Putin, but if that's how you roll - then so be it.

[Elite_Pie]

I think both countries are partly to blame.

As an aside, who would you blame for the first World War? Kaiser Wilhelm? Or was it more the tensions between the countries in Europe at the time and the treaties and alliances that pulled everyone into it.

Was Hitler personally to blame for the second World War - nothing to do with his rise to power having anything to do with how the Germany was treated at Versailles or the German peoples' desire to pay back the Allies for how they were treated? Was Hirohito to blame for the war in the Pacific. Bit of a pattern emerges, where every other country is at fault, but not the one you support.

One of things in history that you learn, is that generally, we don't learn from history. There is no one cause of conflict and where soldiers are eventually sent in, is normally at the latter part, but not the end, of the conflict.

It's a very simplistic view blaming Putin, but if that's how you roll - then so be it.

As I said, your posts on this thread are becoming increasingly bizarre. After being a Putin apologist you now appear to be a Hitler apologist.

Do you think Hitler's actions were justified because of the reasons you gave?

[BigFatPie]

So this "current crisis" (I think you mean war) is the fault of Zelenskyy rather than Putin?

Your posts on this topic are becoming increasingly bizarre.

Increasingly??!