Favorite team:USA 
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:2411
Registered on:4/17/2016
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
There wouldn’t be anything they could do about it. Article 5 doesn’t force us to do anything
“One or the other we will get it”

*cuts his eyes to democrats knowing this will trigger them*

:lol:
quote:

There's also a serious humanitarian issue with number 1. It's easy to say let's just keep using Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia but hundreds of thousands of kids are dying under this option with no end in sight.


Agreed. Lost in all of these discussions is just the straight up loss of life both sides of had. It seems like the “stand with Ukraine” crowd is a lot more naive to it
quote:

However, making the territory Russia occupies untenable, thus willing to withdraw (like Kherson) can be accomplished with said force multiplier weapons.


If it’s untenable for Russia it would be untenable for Ukraine as well. Still wouldn’t make much sense for Russia to just give it back
The obvious problem with option 1 is that it’s essentially just kicking the can down the road and delays the inevitable. Not to mention it would give DC warmongers more justification to move towards American boots on the ground if the wrong people were to gain power in 2028
quote:

The thing is, option 1 has worked. Russia is spending more on this war than Ukraine and the west, yet Ukraine has regained most of the territory they lost at the start and have actually occupied Russia for 6+ months. We’ve given them $175 Billion on paper, but most of that was to build new factories (industrialize) so we could produce the amount of shells, and buy even more modern replacement equipment, which also helps us. Now take into account we spend $800 Billion every year on our defense, why do we do that? That’s so we can fight concurrent wars against Russia and China. For a fraction of what we spend yearly on defense, and without our troops, they’ve weakened Russia significantly which means we can then spend less on defense thus saving money. Point is, everyone here treats option 1 as a handout that we don’t benefit from, and that’s just false.


Ukraine is running out of men
quote:

What that assurance looks like though without it being some type of security guarantees I'm not really sure.


I feel like the mineral agreement would have been a great start to that. If I was Zelenskyy I would have signed it the first chance I got. Why he not only didn’t, but decided to make the spectacle he did about it on Friday is puzzling to me
quote:

Why can’t we just withdraw from the war? The options you listed are essentially kill Americans, spend American money or side with Russia/Trump.


We definitely could and I think we should if option 3 doesn’t work. Maybe I should have listed that as an option, but until this past Friday it seemed far fetched
quote:

Ukraine is going to want something based on the argument of we have fought and held back the Russian army for 3 years


Not being a smart arse, but I think Ukraine getting to keep the territory it has left is more than enough. If we pull all the way out, Putin could take the whole thing if he wanted to. It would take time obviously, but would be almost imminent.

I think Trump could try to negotiate a non aggression pact and somehow arrange things to make a future Russian act of aggression on Ukraine very inefficacious to Russia, but at this point I think Z would be smart to realize that’s the best he’s going to get
1. Keep funding the war with billions of dollars of taxpayer money. We’ve been doing this for 4 years now and it has led to Russia gaining approximately 20% of the Ukrainian territory they are targeting.

2. Realizing that option 1 hasn’t worked due to the lack of manpower on the Ukrainian side, putting American boots on the ground. This would of course lead to American casualties/heightened tensions/other world powers getting involved. Most importantly, Americans would die.

3. What Trump is attempting to do now, negotiating peace. Obviously, Russia has all of the leverage so Zelenskyy isn’t going to get everything he wants.

So my question is, what is even the argument here? What do those who “stand with Ukraine” suggest we do?
quote:

I'm also not against Europe helping a country defend itself against a foreign invader.


We aren’t either, but for some reason that’s turned into a some pro-Russian opinion to have for some.
It’s customary to say a few words in front of the press before the private talks and signings actually take place. Nothing crazy, just the standard, “It’s good to be here/We look forward to our discussions” etc.

It was going that way until Zelenskyy started with verbal attacks on Putin/Russia immediately following Trump talking about the importance of diplomacy
What’s funny is some of these idiots who “support Ukraine until the end” have spent more $ buying oil from Russia than they have in supporting Ukraine
I don’t see what they were trying to accomplish in said “set-up”.


We either get peace or the USA completely gets out of funding Ukraines war efforts, putting the entirety of the bill on Europe.

Win/Win.
quote:

The topic has no bearing on whether today's behavior was embarrassing.


Well yeah, it does. If you know nothing about the Russia-Ukraine and the involvement of the US, then this whole exchange wouldn’t be anything more than 3 guys arguing with one another.
quote:

Correct


Asking someone their opinions isn’t a meltdown. That’s a very dramatic overreaction, which makes your stance on this topic a lot more clear
quote:

I'm making an observation about human behavior. You're having a meltdown because I said that their behavior isn't impressive.


A meltdown? From what I’ve seen I’m the only one in this thread who is asking you questions about your position. Most of which you won’t answer

quote:

Overall, the exchange was embarrassing. That shouldn't be a controversial thing to say.


I wouldn’t call it controversial, I would just bet that the majority of Americans who are read up on this topic would disagree, but you’ve got a right to that opinion
quote:

Oh, we know. The talking points are already out there.


I mean, you can have a problem with the way it was handled, but to argue that it’s not transparent and call me names like a 3rd grader doesnt really help your argument :lol:
So you’re fine with the stance Trump and Vance took, but you’re displeased that it happened the way it did?