DeSantis on Ukraine

[Boges]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

It certainly seems that way. I'm not here to teach you people history. Everyone can just go read what happened.

I suggest starting at least as far back as Feb 2014.

As for NATO, my favourite memory is when Don Trump whipped the rest of NATO asses, forcing deadbeats to pony up for what they originally signed onto. Deadbeat countries like Canada. In doing so he gave NATO a huge financial boost. And was praised by Jens Stolltenberg.

I might have that name wrong. I'm not here to teach you people history.

Seems like an invasion of an independent Democracy has convinced much of NATO to re-up on Defence spending. 

Trump didn't like NATO because Putin doesn't like NATO, simple as that. And now all you Conservative clones would rather Putin annex an independent nation than for Ukraine to win this war. Because that means NATO's support of Ukraine was actually successful. 

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

Seems like an invasion of an independent Democracy has convinced much of NATO to re-up on Defence spending. 

Trump didn't like NATO because Putin doesn't like NATO, simple as that. And now all you Conservative clones would rather Putin annex an independent nation than for Ukraine to win this war. Because that means NATO's support of Ukraine was actually successful. 

Ronald Reagan and all the Republicans told Americans we needed to spend TRILLIONS to stop Russian aggression. Suddenly, Republicans are in favor of Russian aggression!  

[Boges]

Just now, Rebound said:

Ronald Reagan and all the Republicans told Americans we needed to spend TRILLIONS to stop Russian aggression. Suddenly, Republicans are in favor of Russian aggression!  

To be fair, the OP illustrates that it's only the more Trumpy side of the GOP that thinks Ukraine isn't worth supporting (I wonder why). 

There is a strong faction of the GOP that recognizes that supporting Putin here is absurdly hypocritical. Which means with Dem support the Pro Putin Crowd is a somewhat fringe minority. 

 

[myata]

7 minutes ago, Boges said:

To be fair, the OP illustrates that it's only the more Trumpy side of the GOP that thinks Ukraine isn't worth supporting (I wonder why).

Trump's is chaotic, populist, principle-less style of management, authoritarian too (recall his attitude to professionals). That's the same as Putin's, a natural similarity and attraction. And perpetuation of course, should it become acceptable and a new normal in the new world.

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Defeating Putin in Ukraine is the only way back to any normalcy in the world.

There will be no defeating Putin. Only negotiations will end this war. It would be incredibly delusional to think otherwise, with a leader who will happily throw bodies at Ukraine, to hold territory until its mild enough to plan further attacks.

This isn't a person that can be defeated. Only means of "winning", would be negotiating after delivering crippling losses to them. But this would come with heavy handed retaliatory practices, and further war crimes.

It will boil down to negotiations.

Try to play with the wording all you wish. There is only one way out of this war. 

Putin needs an exit ramp that appeals to him, in allowing him to save face. This war otherwise, must be fought in perpetuity, as will be a humiliating loss that they just cannot afford.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

To be fair, the OP illustrates that it's only the more Trumpy side of the GOP that thinks Ukraine isn't worth supporting (I wonder why). 

There is a strong faction of the GOP that recognizes that supporting Putin here is absurdly hypocritical. Which means with Dem support the Pro Putin Crowd is a somewhat fringe minority. 

 

Except that the two GOP front-running Presidential candidates are pro-Putin, right?  And the GOP’s biggest mouthpiece, Tucker Carlson, is also pro-Putin. That’s very significant. 

[Rebound]

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

There will be no defeating Putin. Only negotiations will end this war. It would be incredibly delusional to think otherwise, with a leader who will happily throw bodies at Ukraine, to hold territory until its mild enough to plan further attacks.

This isn't a person that can be defeated. Only means of "winning", would be negotiating after delivering crippling losses to them. But this would come with heavy handed retaliatory practices, and further war crimes.

It will boil down to negotiations.

Try to play with the wording all you wish. There is only one way out of this war. 

Putin needs an exit ramp that appeals to him, in allowing him to save face. This war otherwise, must be fought in perpetuity, as will be a humiliating loss that they just cannot afford.

There was no defeating America in Vietnam or Afghanistan, either.  Right?

There is no negotiated outcome which allows Putin to save face, because Ukraine will not give them territory. In fact, I believe the Ukrainian government’s position is that Russia must also leave the Crimea, which Russia occupied back in 2014.

Edited March 16 by Rebound

[Contrarian]

22 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

There will be no defeating Putin.

Putin is already defeated, in the weeks the Hostomel Kyiv blitz airport attack failed. His intelligence failed him both prior and during the blitz attack. 

Ever since then he is licking his wounds and doing damage control with propaganda in my view.  

Of course, it will end in a negotiation, however, no matter how many fake referendums he holds with the gun, in the eyes of the strong, of the big boys, he already lost this war. 

Now, the question is if he will survive politically at home after the dust settles when the real economic bill will come? That one is yet to be known. 

Edited March 16 by Contrarian
edit design

[Rebound]

8 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Putin is already defeated, in the weeks the Hostomel blitz airport attack failed. His intelligence failed him both prior and during the blitz attack. 

Ever since then he is licking his wounds and doing damage control with propaganda in my view.  

Of course, it will end in a negotiation, however, no matter how many fake referendums he holds with the gun, in the eyes of the strong, of the big boys, he already lost this war. 

Now, the question is if he will survive politically at home after the dust settles when the real economic bill will come? That one is yet to be known. 

Even more importantly, this is the end of Putin’s expansionist aims.  Had he taken Ukraine, the subsequent occupation of the rest of the former Soviet republics was quite likely.  With his failure in Ukraine, no matter the outcome at this point… even if he completely prevails, his aims of re-taking the other former republics are very impractical.
 

This has been precisely the goal of the US and NATO. And now NATO is far stronger and it has been enlarged.  So by these measures, Putin has decisively failed.  

Edited March 16 by Rebound

[Contrarian]

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Even more importantly, this is the end of Putin’s expansionist aims.  Had he taken Ukraine, the subsequent occupation of the rest of the former Soviet republics was quite likely.  With his failure in Ukraine, no matter the outcome at this point… even if he completely prevails, his aims of re-taking the other former republics are very impractical. 

Is the story of any fanatic getting surrounded by puppy dogs telling him everything he wanted to hear, instead of the reality. 

There are reports from Western Intelligences which clearly state that the FSB prior to the war promised to Putin that the population, The Fifth Column, and Members of the Ukrainian military were ready to assist him to take down the Kyiv government. 

When the blitz attack happened, the shock that must have been on Vlad's face. 

This is why the CIA was always on top of the KGB. Is just a matter of intelligence and talent. Natural law. 😄

*as you know the blitz attack warning was provided by the CIA to Ukrainian intelligence which prevented the fall of Kyiv. 

Edited March 16 by Contrarian
edit design

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Is the story of any fanatic getting surrounded by puppy dogs telling him everything he wanted to hear. 

There are reports from Western Intelligences which clearly state that the FSB prior to the war promised to Putin that the population, The Fifth Column, and Members of the Ukrainian military were ready to assist him to take down the Kyiv government. 

When the blitz attack happened, the shock that must have been on Vlad's face. 

This is why the CIA was always on top of the KGB. Is just a matter of intelligence and talent. Natural law. 😄

*as you know the blitz attack warning was provided by the CIA to Ukrainian intelligence. 

I’m not quite following you. Are you suggesting that the CIA fed fake data to Putin which lead to the Ukraine invasion?  Or just that the CIA warned Ukraine of the imminent attack? I believe the imminent attack was widely reported in the press.  

Edited March 16 by Rebound

[Contrarian]

8 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I’m not quite following you. Are you suggesting that

• Not sure what you are talking about, I am talking about reality. 

The CIA warned Kyiv, the Ukrainians as to what the Russians wanted to do via the blitz attack.

Even though, initially, the Russians landed there, based on that intelligence, the Kyiv's other divisions were behind and stopped the advance. 

That airport was the key, If the Russians would have been able to seize it, they would have landed multiple divisions and it will have been game over.

The Agency won yet again against the KGB, in a master chess game. 

To Sum it Up:

So, what happened was the Russians lost the intelligence war and suffered a crushing defeat when it comes to the initial plant. 

Edited March 16 by Contrarian
edit design

[myata]

33 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

There will be no defeating Putin. Only negotiations will end this war.

Just forget it. Not gonna happen, period. Putin's [email protected] will be kicked and Russia may collapse yet again as it did three (OK, 2.95) times in a single century, a sad and useless parody on a human society that, having unprecedented resources just couldn't figure out how to develop positively improving life of own population rather than making miserable that of the others.

[Boges]

25 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Except that the two GOP front-running Presidential candidates are pro-Putin, right?  And the GOP’s biggest mouthpiece, Tucker Carlson, is also pro-Putin. That’s very significant. 

I misread the OP. 

There are quotes in it not attributed to Desantis. I had assumed it all way. 

Who said this? 

Quote

"Territorial dispute", really? This is what you call a brutal invasion by a power-hungry dictator; not a bit better than that of Hitler in the past war? "Territorial dispute between Germany and Poland, 1940?"? "Should not have provoked Hitler?"

 

[Contrarian]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I’m not quite following you. Are you suggesting that the CIA fed fake data to Putin which lead to the Ukraine invasion?  Or just that the CIA warned Ukraine of the imminent attack? I believe the imminent attack was widely reported in the press.  

It was not reported in the press, specifically about Hostomel, it was a secret trip. 

• During a secret trip to Kyiv in January 2022, CIA Director William Burns again urged Zelenskyy to take the threat of war seriously. He warned of specific details of the plan, including that Antonov Airport (Hostomel) would be targeted as a staging area for the assault on Kyiv.

Edited March 16 by Contrarian
edit design

[myata]

27 minutes ago, Boges said:

Who said this? 

Hint: a direct quote can be found right at the top of the post, with an appropriate label.

Edited March 16 by myata

[Perspektiv]

17 minutes ago, myata said:

Just forget it.

Again, emotions won't resolve this type of problem. It can only be resolved with a pragmatic approach.

Forget winning. How do you resolve this problem, and avoid a repeat.

Continuing a war, is lose lose for both sides, regardless of how propagandists from either side choose to frame it.

The west relies firmly on Russia's collapse, to force it to the negotiation table.

One thing it likely did not anticipate, was the ironclad alliance that China, India, Turkey and Iran would maintain with Russia. The first two, are key, and in fact have grown exponentially since the start of the war. Both countries put their own interests, in front of picking sides.

Russia expected sanctions, so to avoid catastrophic collapse, rerouted a lot of its cash into these countries.

So while its economy did shrink in 2022, the official on paper damage (2.5%), was far lesser than anticipated.

It also wouldn't factor for illegal activity and cash which is harder to trace.

Also, last time I checked, Putin had yet to directly be sanctioned. He is worth an insane amount of money.

I want peace as much as you do, but am finding it difficult to believe the news, which often frame this war positively for Ukraine and negatively for Russia.

Russia takes out Kyiv, and there's a different story and they know it. 

Russia hasn't used the entirety of its power yet.

[myata]

Just now, Perspektiv said:

Again, emotions won't resolve this type of problem. It can only be resolved with a pragmatic approach.

Not emotions: only a kick in the brutal dictator's ass, one more and more, till it's enough to get it finally: no world doesn't belong to you. No you can't break into other peoples home without asking.

Just like the last time. This worked and works. And nothing else, in these cases. Certainly not "negotiations" inviting them try it again, because it worked.

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

Russia hasn't used the entirety of its power yet.

Oh yes, and why wouldn't it? Being so peaceful and humane, da tovarisch?

[Perspektiv]

5 minutes ago, myata said:

No you can't break into other peoples home without asking.

Asking makes it better, somehow? Like are we at this level of political correctness, where I break into a car and must leave a thank you note and a bodyshop's business card or am being rude?

The break in is already in progress. You have options. Can you outgun them?

Crap no, you gave away your powerful weapons. So what does that leave you? They're getting angrier by the minute.

You run to your bedroom and call your neighbor to throw you weapons, and buy yourself time until the police gets there?

I mean they have held off killing you until now, or do you negotiate in good faith, based on what you can reasonably give them, and arm the living daylights out of your home, and buy that "expensive" house alarm you had scoffed at?

11 minutes ago, myata said:

Oh yes, and why wouldn't it?

Why use your stealth aircraft and high priced assets now? You use them at a point of no return, with hypersonic missles.

It would be insanely expensive, and if they lost such assets as shot down, incredibly humiliating.

Battered and back against the wall, I wouldn't be surprised that they opt for the hail Mary attempt.

[myata]

22 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

based on what you can reasonably give them

Right. You give them what is reasonable (for them) and then they still kill you. Why wouldn't they? Like, their word means anything? Great thinking there... because it's Russia everybody else sees it for the crap it is. No: you cannot negotiate or have any agreements with a brutal bloodthirsty dictator . They don't speak that language.

22 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Why use your stealth aircraft and high priced assets now? You use them at a point of no return, with hypersonic missles.

You are late to the show, they already used those. Nope, still no miracles. So fairy tales of some vague very scary miracle weapon is all that's left, really? Reminds of something... like, last days in the bunker.. rings any bells?

Edited March 16 by myata

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

Seems like an invasion of an independent Democracy has convinced much of NATO to re-up on Defence spending. 

Trump didn't like NATO because Putin doesn't like NATO, simple as that. And now all you Conservative clones would rather Putin annex an independent nation than for Ukraine to win this war. Because that means NATO's support of Ukraine was actually successful. 

If Trump didn't "like" NATO then why did he put so much pressure on Canada and EU to up their ante? Why was he given such a compliment by Stoltenschnitzel?

You a-historic types are really a laugh.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Why is that? What was wrong with the 2019 election which brought Zelenskyy to power? 

Well one problem is there shouldn't have been an election at that time at all. 

The west attacked a democratic nation called Ukraine.

 

[Mako]

On 3/15/2023 at 12:06 PM, Aristides said:

Ukraine as it was, not what is left after Putin chops it up. Ukraine will not negotiate as long as there are Russian troops on Ukrainian soil. That should be obvious by now.

As the atrocities (on both sides) pile up, the more difficult the path to peace. We should push for negotiations before this stupid war brings us WW III.

https://www.newsweek.com/volodymyr-zelensky-accused-trying-start-world-war-iii-over-poland-missile-strike-1760125

[Contrarian]

Trump's idea to be hard on China and easy on Russia is not something new. This is an idea that is present in many Republican think tanks in my view. 

Of course, the Democrats took that and said it was "collusion." It was narcissism and more to try to get the FSB gang from Moscow closer to Washington against China's CCP.  

Anyhow, glad it did not work, as per my average Non-Diplomat Joe. 

Hope something happens and both these gangs (The leaders of those countries) collapse already, one can have a civilized world is my opinion on this. 

Edited March 16 by Contrarian
edit design

[Mako]

On 3/15/2023 at 12:05 PM, Boges said:

It's good that some Republicans realize this war is a horrific attack on Freedom and Democracy. 

And the comparisons to Hitler annexing territory in 1939 is a perfect comparable. 

Anyone who see it otherwise is just an Pro-Putin Chamberlain. pEaCe In OuR tImE. 

Anyone who doesn’t call for peace is a tool of Xi Jin Ping, arms profiteers, neocon warmongers, and oligarchs like Kolomoisky