Videospirit

I mean, Russia's war in the Donbass was in full swing during the Trump Presidency. Sure you can blame Obama for that mess, but Trump didn't break from Obama's policy in any significant way. They both gave the same amount of lethal aid to Ukraine, even if Trump expanded the variety a tiny bit. Trump wasn't any harsher on Putin than Obama was. And Ukraine didn't outright ask to be allowed to join NATO immediately during Trump's Presidency either. Putin started military buildup for the invasion pretty much immediately after he learned about that. All signs point to Trump having nothing to do with it(Well, aside from the fact that Ukraine didn't trust Trump because, yeah, what kind of fool other than American voters trusts Trump?)

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-syria-pullout-aiding-russia-turkey-when-america-stopped-ncna1070551 How do you rationalize Trump pulling out of Syria with your belief of him curtailing Russian expansionism? All evidence shows Trump has no interest in resisting Russian Expansionism. Your ironclad proof is non-existant.

Stop simping for Trump. The man is a pathological liar. What the hell he "meant to say" is a futile endeavor. No one can be certain what he "meant to say", and the truthfulness of what he says is even less certain. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040 Trump... didn't give all that much more aid/year than Obama did, some years he even gave less aid. Most of that wasn't even Trumps decision, he just didn't veto what congress approved. The only pro Ukraine thing I've learned about that trump was personally involved in was he allowed Ukraine to buy some javelins from the US that Obama had declined to give to Ukraine. There's also the outright bribery crime he committed by trying to withhold aid for Ukraine congress had approved unless they agreed to slander Biden. A more concerning issue regarding trump and Russia, is that, as is publicly acknowledged via the Mueller report, Trump's Son and Son in Law, with Trump's knowledge and approval, met with Russian Nationals to discuss what Russia could do to help get Trump elected. You'd think that would have been a crime, but since they never officially agreed to anything it's somehow not, although Trump later suggested Russia choose to do some of those things they discussed in one of his speeches. That should be all the knowledge you need to know that Trump can't be trusted not to cozy up to Russia for his own benefit. Why any intelligent individual would want such an openly corrupt individual to lead their country boggles my mind. The man idolizes mob bosses and emulates them in his way of life, encouraging his subordinates to commit crimes for him without actively ordering them to do so, many of such subordinates having been prosecuted for said crimes. The man is a proven rapist convicted in a civil trial. The man brags about cheating hard working Americans out of their wages by refusing to pay them. The man has lost countless lawsuits filed against him, many for outright fraudulent business practices. The man suggested his supporters overthrow the election and caused a riot to attack Congress. The man tried to convince governors to lie about votes to get him elected. The man tried to replace electors in states he lost with fake electors who'd vote for him instead despite their states voting for Biden. The man took home classified documents and openly bragged about them and showed them to foreign agents, than later lied about returning them after asked to do so. Any one of these things should disqualify him, and the list goes on and on. If this is the best candidate the Republican party can produce, it does not deserve to exist as a political entity.

Russian Artillery is bad Artillery. But any artillery is an effective weapon, especially when you launch as many shots as the Russians have been. Ukraine's biggest problem is their lack of military industry. Even when the war officially started Ukraine's industry had basically 0 partnerships with foreign manufacturers. Everything was deeply interconnected with Russian Manufacturers before Crimea was invaded, relying on Russian made parts for their own production. Many efforts were made to sever their reliance on Russia after Crimea was invaded, but the manufacturers themselves didn't take it seriously and nothing had been done by the time the war started. Even for the first year of the war they had tons of problems producing their own weapons. It's only just recently that their industry has started to pick up. The most surprising thing is that Western Arms Manufacturers have not taken advantage of the war to up their production to meet the demand.

Alright, so Athos is definitely a Nazi, got it.

Rofl, you just made a massive post glorifying your own ignorance of the term antisemitism. Language evolves you fool, the term Antisemitism has evolved to mean hatred against jews. Although I shouldn't be surprised that you fail basic English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism "Due to the root word Semite, the term is prone to being invoked as a misnomer by those who incorrectly assert (in an etymological fallacy) that it refers to racist hatred directed at "Semitic people" in spite of the fact that this grouping is an obsolete historical race concept. Likewise, such usage is erroneous; the compound word antisemitismus was first used in print in Germany in 1879[18] as a "scientific-sounding term" for Judenhass (lit. 'Jew-hatred'),[19][20][21][22][23] and it has since been used to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment alone.[19][24][25]" So I guess we can add "Holocaust denier" to your resume.

And? Nobody's disputing that. Why are you obsessing over this? Are you an antisemite? Your complete and utter failure at reading comprehension is wasting everyone's time. Either Shut up or think before you communicate. Maybe ask for clarification if you don't understand instead of going on random unrelated tangents.

Don't quote me if you're just going to talk to yourself about completely unrelated topics. None of what you just said matters at all whether it's true or not.

What does genetics have to do with whether or not this is a civil war? If the president of the US is of Russian ancestry and invades Russia, is that a civil war too? It's not like "Russian" is the only culture in Russia either. Is your brain just for show, cause you certainly don't seem to use it. Ukraine is an independent country. Countries and cultures are completely different things. A Civil war is a war within a single country. How does this need to be explained to someone on a forum like this. God, have some shame and educate yourself before you open your mouth being the same species as you is embarrassing.

It's not like there aren't Russian Sockpuppets in Ukraine. The people who have the option of attending the Orthodox Church of Ukraine but attend the Ukrainian Orthodox Church instead are some of them. Could just be a dumbass who has been attending the services of a Russian Propaganda site masquerading as a religion his whole life.

What garbage propaganda source do you get your news from that you think he banned the orthodox religion in Ukraine? The Orthodox Church of Ukraine is still in full swing, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has not been banned yet either, they still have 6 months to cut ties to Russia before they'll be shut down, but the Orthodox Church of Ukraine will still operate even if that happens. If a Church starts preaching for its followers to commit violence like the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been it should expect to be shut down too so I'm not even remotely bothered.

I mean it's a fact that Ukraine has been losing ground along the frontlines, no matter how little ground they've been losing. Kursk's success was because they opened a new front against an area that Russia hadn't fortified. If Ukraine has been telling the truth about needing more support from the rest of the world, opening a new front would have made their supply situation even worse. If we're seeing Russia's gains start to increase even if it's still slow progress for them, it's concerning. Even just a short term increase in support could help Ukraine stabilize the frontlines until the war enters another winter, and Ukraine's military industrial complex should be in better shape soon to help them supply their own supplies now that its reforms are starting to have effect.

Does seem like Ukraine needs more support asap, more justifiable with North Korea entering the conflict too. Put some boots on the ground already. We need to have a no tolerance policy towards wars of conquest.

If you rooted for the truth you wouldn't be spreading propaganda completely out of touch with the truth like "Russia invaded to give the citizens self determination". You're either a compulsive liar or are fully committed to doing everything you can to aid Russia's narrative without any concern for how truthful that narrative is(Which seems more plausible than you just being a completely arbitrary compulsive liar since why the hell would you even be on this forum if you were). Either way you do not root for truth in any way whatsoever.

Mostly it comes down to war fatigue. Most Russians don't want this war to go on forever. Putin's grip on the country is pretty strong, but Putin isn't going to live forever. If the war still hasn't ended when it's time for someone to succeed Putin the war could just flat out end with Russia's withdrawal. That's the only way I see Ukraine getting their land back without another country joining the war. If Ukraine can keep up its will to fight that long it'll probably work too. Strategically, it will greatly weaken Russia and make the world a safer place, so I see no reason to discourage Ukraine from doing that if Ukraine is willing to make that sacrifice. It's the most likely route to a Ukraine victory that avoids world war 3 too. I am curious if Ukraine could actually win outright with full support from the armories of the west though, but I think Russia's too dug in at this point to be completely defeated without a significant manpower difference. Ukraine would almost certainly stop losing ground with more western support though.

It's not the best example to use of Nationalist's Simping for Russia. Plenty of people believe in the notion that Russia invaded Ukraine because they were afraid Ukraine would join NATO, and that Russia considers NATO their enemy. His comment about Russia joining NATO was just his personal stance that Russia might calm down about NATO expansion if they were a member of NATO. Although if true that Russia invaded Ukraine to keep it from joining NATO, it just proves that Ukraine really needed to join NATO because that isn't any justification to invade Ukraine, much less to annex the territory, and Russia really is a threat to their neighbor's sovereignty that needs to be resisted. It's also not accurate at all. Russia isn't scared of having NATO on its border, it already has NATO on its border. It doesn't give a shit about It's border with NATO expanding now that FInland has joined either. Putin has always wanted to annex Ukraine. Ukraine joining NATO would destroy his ambitions of annexing Ukraine, so the risk of it may have caused him to invade Ukraine to prevent his dream of annexing Ukraine from being ruined, but the goal has always been to annex Ukraine. Putin would never accept both Ukraine and Russia joining NATO, because than he wouldn't be able to annex Ukraine. So while it's a wrong belief, it's not one that proves he's a Russian simp like him saying they're just invading Ukraine to bring Democracy to the Russians in Ukraine was. Plenty of people have an ignorant understanding of Russia's motives because western journalists toss around this idea that Putin is scared of NATO being on its border.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682 Not sure where you're getting your information from. The 2022 map and 2024 map are almost identical. Russia gained a tiny little almost insignificant bit along the eastern front that is less than the Kursk occupation in total(Russia's gains practically unnoticeable on the map), and while Ukraine drove russia out of a large area of Kursk, they didn't stick around to hold all that ground, they've only held the territory where they dug in and haven't lost much ground in Kursk they actually occupied since the incursion started.

Part of it is that NATO doesn't trust Russia to act in a rational manner. If they felt they could give full support to Ukraine and kick Russia out of the country tomorrow without provoking a war with Russia, enough countries want that outcome that it would have happened by now. But countries don't trust Russia not to start world war 3 over Ukraine, so they've taken a cautious approach of gradually escalating support and gauging Russia's reaction. And since they've taken such an approach other motives have gotten mixed into the process, like testing weapons data and cost effectiveness and gauging Russia's military capability. Personally I feel they could kick Russia out of Ukraine and leave Russian territory alone and Russia would not destroy the world over Ukraine when it still has the entirety of Russia under its control, but I'm not 100% confidant in that because Putin calls a lot of the shots in Russia and while Russia would control all of Russia's territory if that happened, Putin might be ousted from power if it happens and I can't be certain what he'd do if he faced losing power. I'm skeptical he would lose power though, Putin's control of Russia is so firm that he could brand a total defeat in Ukraine as a Russian victory and the citizens of Russia would largely accept that explanation. I don't know the perfect approach to defeating Russia without starting world war 3, I just know that Russia can't be allowed to succeed, and that it's better to risk world war 3 than to guarantee world war 3 by convincing Russia it can conquer other Countries without opposition so risking it may be necessary. The US has lost the right to claim they're the world's police though. Mostly due to various republican presidents destroying the US softpower by abusing that unofficial role. The world doesn't trust the US enough for that.

Nato only bears as much responsibility as literally every country on the planet that isn't Russia. I'm disappointed by Nato's contributions, but acting like any of this is NATO's fault is just incompetent. There is no legal obligation for humans to not destroy the earth. Reasonably, we should want humanity to ensure our survival, but there is no specific country or group of countries in charge of enforcing that. We can hope that countries start to take action, and absolutely should condemn individuals who support destroying the earth or inaction to prevent it's destruction, but there is no individual who bears sole responsibility for earth's survival. This ukraine war is bad news though, and ignorant people like to act like it isn't a big deal without considering what's at stake. Many countries in the world are military superpowers that could conquer many other countries on earth if they felt so inclined. They don't do that because humanity has come to recognize the sheer destruction that will be caused if superpowers clash against each other and so all wars of conquest were banned. It hasn't been a flawless implementation, but this is the first time a nuclear capable country has ever invaded another country with the intent of annexing it's territory, so until Russia went full rogue state the effort had achieved a considerable amount of success.

That's a pretty shitty article, acts like this war isn't completely unprecedented since world war 2. If nothing else, we could drag the war out until Putin dies or becomes so infirm as to be incapable of continuing in office so peace can be possible with his successor. We could ramp up support for Ukraine's foreign legion if it starts struggling to obtain manpower. Russia's economy is suffering as well, other than its military industrial complex, agriculture, and energy exports everything else is shrinking and it's economy is in a full out recession, the longer this war continues the weaker Russia's economy will become. As long as Ukraine is willing to continue resisting we have no reason not to support that will.

We only have one Planet we can live on, we can't let Russia ruin everything for everyone else. Sticking your head in the sand and going "It's not my problem" is unacceptable because mankind has too much military power. We need to enforce norms to prevent humanity from destroying itself. Not that you actually stick your head in the sand and ignore the issue, you want Russia to win which is so much worse. Do you desire the destruction of life on earth that much? This war isn't about whether or not Russia will conquer Ukraine, it's about whether the norms put in place to prevent the end of the world after world war 2 will survive. But you don't give a shit about the sacrifices made in world war 2 or any of the soldiers who have died since than to protect peace in the world, you just want to see Russia win because you find their success thrilling.

Yes, Russia attacking another nation on the same planet as me with the intent to conquer it threatens every other country on earth, and thus every other citizen of those countries. The only thing stupid about this conversation is your ignorance of the threat an unchecked Russia poses to the planet we live on. Nuclear powers cannot be allowed to wage wars of conquest. Such a war is an existential threat to life on the planet. If they can conquer one country they can conquer more countries. If they are not stopped eventually their aggression cannot be tolerated and a nuclear exchange is inevitable. So they need to be stopped before things get to that point. If that leads to Russia launching nukes to prevent others from stopping it from invading other countries, than Russia was always going to launch nukes it's merely a question of how long until it happens. You don't seem to give a shit if earth is doomed to be destroyed in 20 years as long as there isn't even the slightest chance of it being destroyed this year. For the sake of the world, Russia needs to lose, nothing else will guarantee peace.

This alone should disqualify you from pretending you're here to debate anything. It is not opinion that Nationalist is Pro Russian, it's verifiable, and has been verified, to you no less. The post Nationalist made literally two posts before the post I'm quoting alone is all the proof anyone needs to understand that Nationalist is Pro Russian. So it is either willful ignorance on your part, or your motives are malicious, either one disqualifies you from being taken seriously. If you aren't going to debate in good faith you don't deserve anyone to debate with you.

This is the most pathetic comment I have ever seen from someone who claims to understand the reality of what they're talking about. Does Russia pay you to spread their propaganda or are you a willing tool?

Which isn't possible as long as Russia is not convinced to stop being a rogue state, but you have shown 0 support for any kind of action that could force Russia to start playing by the rules put in place to allow Peace to exist. Russia winning in Ukraine doesn't bring peace, it brings war. But you're completely ignorant of the geopolitical ramifications of a Russian Victory and have no understanding of the relationship between the Ukraine situation and the rest of the world. You might toot your own horn about how well you understand the reality of the conflict, but you don't understand the reality of the conflict.