Ukraine Can't Win the War

[User]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Did The US win the war?

What are you rambling on about?

Your argument here has been that it is not worth the bloodshed. That peace is what you desire. Following your absurd logic, the world should have just let Hitler roll over them and the US should not have provided support to anyone. 

You are looking back in hindsight from the end of the war... when if we followed your depraved indifference, it would be looking at the start of the war and seeing Hitler steamrolling all of Europe. 
 

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

In this case, I "support" common sense. Like Japan in '45, they should recognize they can't win a war of attrition with Russia. I hope that's the outcome of this peace summit that Zelinsky is holding.

No, you support Russia. It is your biased and wrong conclusion that this is only some war of attrition that Russia will never quit. Why? Because you are on here supporting Russia. 

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

By actually talking to the adversary. Even if its not Putin. But Zelinsky is holding his peace summit without any Russian participation. That signals to me that he's begging for long range missiles and NATO military personnel to aim and fire them into Russia.

They talked to Russia since 2013. Russia took Crimea. Then Russia instigated a proxy war in the Donbas. Then Russia launched a full scale invasion. Every step of the way they were talked to. Before the invasion Ukraine was pleading for peace and to not invade. 

You are being beyond disingenuous, if not outright deceitful since you have repeatedly pushed Russian lies and support for them... and now you are all like, if only we talked with Russia there could be peace! 

 

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Tell me...why do you care about this war? I mean really...why do you care? How does it affect you? How does it affect the USA? Why is it so important to fight with Russia over Ukraine?

I have answered this question before. Russia is a geopolitical foe. They routinely act against our interests and the general interests of freedom and liberty around the world. We expend great sums of $$$ to be prepared to counter their threats and they are the reason NATO exists. Ukraine is an ally of sorts we have been working with and supporting since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is in our interests to support them against aggression and to oppose Russian aggression. 

The real question is why you don't care if Russia invades Ukraine. I mean, I already know you push their lies and support them... but not sure why you do. 

 

[DUI_Offender]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Well thanks for expressing your simple minded outlook. Did Hitler have America over a barrel? No. In fact, by the time America joined the war in Europe, it was already obvious that Germany was gonna lose.

The USA entered the war on December 7, 1941. At the time, Germany was deep into Russian territory, and would be gearing up a massive spring offensive, which they thought would finish off the Soviets. 

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 

As for Japan, did they have a distinct advantage? Were they destroying America? No? Hmmm...

Do you even know the first thing about WWII? japan did destroy a major US military base in hawaii (Pearl Harbour), and if the Americans had not went to war immediately, it would be safe to say Alaska, and eventually the West Coast of the United States would be next.

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Why is this so important to you? Ukraine is losing. Shouldn't peace be sought before a disaster of global proportions happens?

 

it is in the best interests of those of us who are intelligent enough to see that a weakened Russia is of the best interest of North America and Europe. And why would anyone not root for Ukraine?  

 

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

A peace agreement.

I've told you several times but you seem incapable of understanding. You have a very binary outlook on things.

This conflict is now 10 years old. Russia has never even entertained the idea of peace. Only Ukrainian surrender, and annexing large parts of Ukraine is acceptable to Putin and his cronies.

[Perspektiv]

3 hours ago, User said:

So... your idea of consequences is to let them get away with their aggression. 

Consequences would be taking the war to Russian soil. Making them feel the weight of their actions, in devastating fashion.

Right now, Russia is taking the war to Ukraine. Sanctions have proved ineffective at stopping this. 

What consequences?

The west has been petrified of escalation. The US has been laughably restrained and hesitant in its assistance.

How do you expect Ukraine to make any advancements without heavy handed air support? There is a blatantly obvious reason why spring offensives for Ukraine beared no major results. Its a suicide mission without air support.

What you're seeing is "for show" support, but only holding appearances.

Reality, is Putin is sitting comfortably, throwing tens of thousands of bodies at this war, satisfied with keeping the status quo as long as he needs, knowing the sabre rattling will keep his enemies at bay.

He has the manpower to keep this up long term.

Like I said. Only way out of this, is via negotiation. 

3 hours ago, User said:

They are losing more men and more hardware than Ukraine.

They also dwarf Ukraine in manpower and weapons.

A significant portion of casualties, were poorly trained convicts. Putin was literally throwing tens of thousands of bodies simply to hold positions while they built more ammunition.  Casualties don't matter to Putin, and if this is your measurement of victory with over 18 percent of your land occupied, then to each their own.

3 hours ago, User said:

This is not the only way out. 

Ukraine will not win on the battlefield. They will not push Russia out of their country. 

They have tried, and Russia has had the firepower to hold onto the bulk of their gains.

Even Zelensky has had to concede the futility in sending his men to their death, needlessly. With heavy air support, its a different picture, but Russia playing defense now, can easily pick apart Ukrainian ambush attempts.

Sure, negotiations aren't the only solution but 4 to 5 years in, will start to look like the wisest one.

[User]

3 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Consequences would be taking the war to Russian soil. Making them feel the weight of their actions, in devastating fashion.

So, now you support Ukraine fighting back harder? Great!

That is what they have been doing:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-military-says-it-carried-out-refinery-attack-june-5-2024-06-10/#:~:text=June 10 (Reuters) - Ukraine's,billion dollars in lost production.

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Right now, Russia is taking the war to Ukraine. Sanctions have proved ineffective at stopping this. 

What consequences?

The consequences of having to deal with a Ukraine armed and equipped with more lethal firepower that has been devastating Russian armor, devastating Russian men with artillery, all the things that have been grinding down the Russian war machine. 

It's more than you just wanting to surrender. 

7 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The west has been petrified of escalation. The US has been laughably restrained and hesitant in its assistance.

So now... you want more support and more aggression? OK, great! 

7 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

How do you expect Ukraine to make any advancements without heavy handed air support? There is a blatantly obvious reason why spring offensives for Ukraine beared no major results. Its a suicide mission without air support.

So, now you support more military aid, like more air support? OK, great!

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ukraine-may-store-some-f-16-warplanes-in-other-countries-to-protect-them-from-russian-attacks

8 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

What you're seeing is "for show" support, but only holding appearances.

I don't consider more than 100 Billion in aid and more "for show" support. So, now your tune has changed! Lets give them more support. OK, Great!

11 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Reality, is Putin is sitting comfortably, throwing tens of thousands of bodies at this war, satisfied with keeping the status quo as long as he needs, knowing the sabre rattling will keep his enemies at bay.

He has the manpower to keep this up long term.

Like I said. Only way out of this, is via negotiation. 

Putin is struggling with manpower, weapons, and resources even more than Ukraine is. This notion that he can somehow just do this forever is nonsense; why... is it almost wish casting on your part.

Nothing you have said here supports the only way out of this being negotiation. Nothing you have said explains how Putin is a trust worthy person to negotiate with. 

13 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

They also dwarf Ukraine in manpower and weapons.

OK... sure isn't getting them very much more in the last 3 years now. 

14 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

A significant portion of casualties, were poorly trained convicts. Putin was literally throwing tens of thousands of bodies simply to hold positions while they built more ammunition.  Casualties don't matter to Putin, and if this is your measurement of victory with over 18 percent of your land occupied, then to each their own.

Who said victory? I am merely pointing out that Russia is losing a lot of manpower and weaponry. 

15 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Ukraine will not win on the battlefield. They will not push Russia out of their country. 

You have no idea of what the future holds. Why... it is almost like you are cheering Russia on. Battlefield conditions change daily, strategy and tactics continue to evolve, there are way too many variables to definitively declare that Ukraine can't make any gains or that Russia will stay committed to their losses forever. 

18 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Sure, negotiations aren't the only solution but 4 to 5 years in, will start to look like the wisest one.

You just got done saying in the same post that they were the only way... glad you are coming around to my position. 

[Perspektiv]

32 minutes ago, User said:

So, now you support Ukraine fighting back harder?

This isn't "fighting back harder". Fighting back harder is a sustained bombing campaign of Moscow and many Russian assets with intensity, thus bringing it to its knees, daring it to use its nuclear weapons, with NATO pointing at Russia from all sides if it does, turning it into a third world country, overnight.

This is the language Putin understands.

Anything less, is spraying Raid on a cockroach. You're tickling it at best.

A person like Putin needs to be stomped out.

35 minutes ago, User said:

So now... you want more support

That window has passed. Now I want an end to the war, and would vote accordingly.

36 minutes ago, User said:

Nothing you have said explains how Putin is a trust worthy person to negotiate with. 

He isn't. Negotiations would buy time. 

37 minutes ago, User said:

Why... it is almost like you are cheering Russia on. 

Being a realist isn't cheering for Russia.

39 minutes ago, User said:

You just got done saying in the same post that they were the only way

There are plenty of ways. Negotiations are the best available. 

[User]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

This isn't "fighting back harder".

You made a point about taking the war to Russian soil. They are. They have been. That was what the example was of. 

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

A person like Putin needs to be stomped out.

Make up your mind. Do you want Ukraine to negotiate their surrender with the man, or does someone like him need to be stomped out?

3 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

That window has passed. Now I want an end to the war, and would vote accordingly.

Why has that window passed?

Again... Russia is invading Ukraine, the end to the war is in their hands or in Ukraine forcing them to end it or you are wanting Ukraine to basically surrender. 

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

He isn't. Negotiations would buy time. 

Buy time for what? You want the war to end... now you claim negotiations will buy time. 

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Being a realist isn't cheering for Russia.

You are "being a realist" entirely in Russias favor... 

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

There are plenty of ways. Negotiations are the best available. 

Best... how? Certainly not the best for Ukraine. The best for Russia. Which seems to be exactly what you want. 

[Perspektiv]

4 hours ago, User said:

You made a point about taking the war to Russian soil.

Taking the war to Russia, is literally the act of overwhelming their forces, domestically. Ukraine literally has some entire cities in ruin.

Ukraine doesn't have that level of fire power, nor have they attempted anything remotely close to this. 

4 hours ago, User said:

Do you want Ukraine to negotiate their surrender with the man, or does someone like him need to be stomped out?

They can't stomp him out, so they need to negotiate with him.

This is inevitable. 

4 hours ago, User said:

Why has that window passed?

In my opinion it has.

Looming US elections will confirm or deny this.

4 hours ago, User said:

entirely in Russias favor

Wanting a war to end, doesn't necessarily mean one favors Russia. It means one favors peace.

The best path to this, is negotiation.

You literally have an army occupying your land (around 20% of it), so the only other option is bombing the living daylights out of all of them, without the tools for the job.

Sounds like negotiations it is.

4 hours ago, User said:

Certainly not the best for Ukraine.

The best for Ukraine is this war to end. One way or another, they will be ceding part of their land.

This isn't siding with Russia, its pointing to the obvious. How exactly do you expect Ukraine to take that land back without air superiority?

[myata]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

They can't stomp him out, so they need to negotiate with him.

So the split-brain people are fine with negotiating with Hamas, ISIS and any kind of brutal, abysmal evil? Or is it just a different conversation?

Because the "can't" argument can obviously be verified only by the reality test. Those same words could have been said: and were, about the Axis when it controlled most of the world. If you can do it in the reality then yes, you can no matter what someone wise or dumb said. The reality decides: not words, any words. And if you won't even try then it will be "can't" by default and you've only proven to yourself that you won't, from the outset and nothing else.

So let's get back to the essence: do they advocate to accept and compromise with any kind of obvious, inhumane, brutal evil? Or it's the split-brain: I say something in one place and the opposite, in the next? Both are known and have been tested extensively in history. So, which one?

[Perspektiv]

30 minutes ago, myata said:

So the split-brain people are fine with negotiating with Hamas, ISIS and any kind of brutal, abysmal evil? Or is it just a different conversation?

Because the "can't" argument can obviously be verified only by the reality test. Those same words could have been said: and were, about the Axis when it controlled most of the world. If you can do it in the reality then yes, you can no matter what someone wise or dumb said. The reality decides: not words, any words. And if you won't even try then it will be "can't" by default and you've only proven to yourself that you won't, from the outset and nothing else.

So let's get back to the essence: do they advocate to accept and compromise with any kind of obvious, inhumane, brutal evil? Or it's the split-brain: I say something in one place and the opposite, in the next? Both are known and have been tested extensively in history. So, which one?

Uh.

[User]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Taking the war to Russia, is literally the act of overwhelming their forces, domestically. Ukraine literally has some entire cities in ruin.

Ukraine doesn't have that level of fire power, nor have they attempted anything remotely close to this. 

That isn't what you said. It seems you are moving the goalposts now that I proved you wrong. I had to provide multiple links to things you seemed unaware of happening. 

Well, the point of warfare is not to level cities, in fact, that kind of warfare is expressly forbidden by international law and norms today. Ukraine is in fact making strategic attacks on Russian resources and if you bothered to look at the link I provided, you will see they are significant ones. 

Ukraine has also been hitting airfields and other military targets on Russian soil. 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

They can't stomp him out, so they need to negotiate with him.

This is inevitable. 

They can certainly resist Russian aggression enough to make it too painful for him. Your argument seems to be that you want Putin stomped out, but if all Ukraine can do is push him out and give him a bloody face, well, nevermind then, just surrender. 

No, they do not need to negotiate. You want them to negotiate... and from all indications, it is because the outcome you support here is in favor of Russia. 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

In my opinion it has.

Looming US elections will confirm or deny this.

You just restated your position again. I asked you why. Why is it your opinion that it has. 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Wanting a war to end, doesn't necessarily mean one favors Russia. It means one favors peace.

The best path to this, is negotiation.

You literally have an army occupying your land (around 20% of it), so the only other option is bombing the living daylights out of all of them, without the tools for the job.

Sounds like negotiations it is.

Except, your position does favor Russia. Peace can be obtained from opposing aggression. Surrendering to it invites more aggression. 

Again... you are the one who now opposes giving Ukraine tools for the job you criticize them for not having. It is a two faced argument. 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

The best for Ukraine is this war to end. One way or another, they will be ceding part of their land.

This isn't siding with Russia, its pointing to the obvious. How exactly do you expect Ukraine to take that land back without air superiority?

No, that is the best for Russia, not Ukraine. Ukraine leadership wishes to fight on to defend themselves and their homeland. 

Yes, you are siding with Russia. This isn't what Ukraine wants. 

[Moonbox]

5 minutes ago, User said:

Again... you are the one who now opposes giving Ukraine tools for the job you criticize them for not having. It is a two faced argument. 

It's circular, self-reinforcing reasoning.  Ukraine can successfully (and has successfully) resisted Russia with outside support.  It's not really capable of doing it without.  Arguing against supporting Ukraine is setting the conditions for them to fail, and the Putin boosters and the clownosphere are pretending that the results are the same either way.  They're not. 

When folks say, "I just want peace," that's really just a dog whistle for "abandon Ukraine - let Putin have whatever he wants and reward his naked aggression. "

 

[Perspektiv]

54 minutes ago, User said:

that kind of warfare is expressly forbidden by international law and norms today.

Russia doesn't care for laws and norms. They only respect power.

They haven't felt it from the west, so have arrogantly entered Ukraine knowing there would be highly limited things the west could do.

They aren't too worried for a reason.

The west has shown it is petrified of pushing back too hard, projecting weakness.

55 minutes ago, User said:

Again... you are the one who now opposes giving Ukraine tools for the job

No. I oppose giving and wasting tax payer dollars in pertuity for a war of attrition that will one way or another, be resolved at the negotiating table.

57 minutes ago, User said:

Surrendering to it invites more aggression. 

Thats why you put protections and deterrents in place.

You need politicians with balls as big as Putin. Otherwise you're projecting weakness.

A person like Biden would have Putin test those boundaries, tenfold.

He projects frailty. Weakness. 

He sees weakness and fear.

 consequences.

The US doesn't have that type of leadership, now. You need that type of leadership dealing with a autocratic  leaders.

There is absolutely no way Putin enters Ukraine with powerful western leadership. Powerful western militaries.

Knowing there would be catastrophic consequences. 

1 hour ago, User said:

Ukraine leadership wishes to fight on to defend themselves and their homeland. 

Let them.

What am saying, is voters in western countries will sooner or later get sick of sending money to a futile war, and will vote to pressure both parties to negotiate its end.

1 hour ago, User said:

Yes, you are siding with Russia.

Divisive diatribe doesn't do anything for Ukraine. "You're supporting these weapons packages or are against Ukraine".

This type of approach will make people tire of supporting the war even quicker.

People typically don't like to be told what to think. Especially when a government uses shaming to do it.

[User]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Russia doesn't care for laws and norms. They only respect power.

They haven't felt it from the west, so have arrogantly entered Ukraine knowing there would be highly limited things the west could do.

They aren't too worried for a reason.

The west has shown it is petrified of pushing back too hard, projecting weakness.

So, naturally, if they respect power your big plan is to stop supporting Ukraine. So, naturally, if it is that you think they sense weakness, you want to project even more weakness.  

How do you presume to know how worried or not they are? 

NATO and the West have continued to show they are willing to pour the money, and military equipment needed, to help Ukraine defeat Russia. This has proven out as Russian advances were mostly pushed back after the initial invasion and they can't get much farther and have wasted massive amounts of manpower and their war machine in trying to do so. 

And so now... you want to bail on Ukraine. 

If you are so concerned about showing strength, you sure have a funny way of showing it now. 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

No. I oppose giving and wasting tax payer dollars in pertuity for a war of attrition that will one way or another, be resolved at the negotiating table.

That is your false presumption, that it will only be solved at a negotiating table, and right now what is it that Russia is offering that you want Ukraine to accept? Because all you are offering now is to stop supporting Ukraine. That is not going to help with any negotiations. That is going to give Russia an upper hand in destroying more of Ukraine if not outright conquering them. 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Thats why you put protections and deterrents in place.

You don't even support helping Ukraine now... but you are willing to help them if Putin continues?

Putin is trying to invade them now, right now, there is a war right now, and you are not willing to commit to any protections or deterrents. 

Nothing you are saying makes any sense. 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Let them.

No, you want to abandon them and are here trying to argue like you know what is best for them, when you do not. 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Divisive diatribe doesn't do anything for Ukraine. "You're supporting these weapons packages or are against Ukraine".

This type of approach will make people tire of supporting the war even quicker.

People typically don't like to be told what to think. Especially when a government uses shaming to do it.

We are two folks arguing on a forum, your positions are either good ones or bad ones, you are making factual statements or ignorant ones... my calling out your arguments for being what they are, mostly ignorant and supporting of Russia is just that. You threatening to somehow care less because of it... only shows how much more incredibly awful your position is. 

I am not the government, if you feel shamed, good. You are here putting forth these two faced arguments wanting to bail on Ukraine and give in to Putins aggression. 

[myata]

Yes, they don't have any intelligible answers to simple questions. No surprise, as I can see the people who admire Putin and his doings fall into two categories (excluding the bots and trolls which Russia uses extensively and ubiquitously).

The first one is, the admirers more often tacit, of aggressive brutality. It's really down to school mob psychology: 90% or 95, 99% of the power of a bully is the perception that they cannot be beaten. That one mental thing causes all that follows. It has been recorded in so many stories and movies: the moment this perception is broken, most of the power disappears like a punctured balloon. "Britain cannot stand up to the Nazis". "Israel cannot win". A classical school bully story - and mentality. They really can't add, at their best anything to "you can't win".

And the second group, split-mind or "trampist" people: one kind of terrorist brutality is so wrong, while this one can be understood and perhaps, compromised with. No principles or logical rules. Just because I like it so it has to be that. OK that's pretty much it. Anyone with a sound mind, looking at these situations cannot find essential difference between the Nazi invasions; Russia in Ukraine; ISIS; Hamas attack on Israel and if China decides to attack Taiwan. Pure, unjustified aggression as clear as it gets. No miraculous ways to deal with it; no magic words to "negotiate"; the only options are to stand up to it and defeat it; or cower to it and watch it come back for more again and again. Really, what more to explain here?

Edited June 13 by myata

[DUI_Offender]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Russia doesn't care for laws and norms. They only respect power.

They haven't felt it from the west, so have arrogantly entered Ukraine knowing there would be highly limited things the west could do.

They aren't too worried for a reason.

The west has shown it is petrified of pushing back too hard, projecting weakness.

No. I oppose giving and wasting tax payer dollars in pertuity for a war of attrition that will one way or another, be resolved at the negotiating table.

Thats why you put protections and deterrents in place.

You need politicians with balls as big as Putin. Otherwise you're projecting weakness.

A person like Biden would have Putin test those boundaries, tenfold.

He projects frailty. Weakness. 

He sees weakness and fear.

 consequences.

The US doesn't have that type of leadership, now. You need that type of leadership dealing with a autocratic  leaders.

There is absolutely no way Putin enters Ukraine with powerful western leadership. Powerful western militaries.

Knowing there would be catastrophic consequences. 

Let them.

What am saying, is voters in western countries will sooner or later get sick of sending money to a futile war, and will vote to pressure both parties to negotiate its end.

Divisive diatribe doesn't do anything for Ukraine. "You're supporting these weapons packages or are against Ukraine".

This type of approach will make people tire of supporting the war even quicker.

People typically don't like to be told what to think. Especially when a government uses shaming to do it.

Someone is coo coo 4 Putin...lol

[Perspektiv]

4 hours ago, User said:

So, naturally, if they respect power your big plan is to stop supporting Ukraine.

No, my plan is to persuade both to sign a permanent ceasefire and reinforce Ukraine's ability to defend itself from future attacks.

4 hours ago, User said:

So, naturally, if it is that you think they sense weakness, you want to project even more weakness.  

The weakness has already been projected. Tough talk from Ukraine, and Russia has bogarted 20% of its territory, with key allies sullying themselves over whether to send aircraft or tanks to Ukraine.

Sure they will have both, but the sheer volume of time it took due to the "risks" and fears of escalation made Russia likely feel they made the right move and just needs to ride this out until the next US election.

4 hours ago, User said:

NATO and the West have continued to show they are willing to pour the money, and military equipment needed

This won't go into perpetuity.

You need a plan.

4 hours ago, User said:

If you are so concerned about showing strength

There is no saving face when you have been invaded and are begging for weapons for your survival. Negotiation isn't far off.

4 hours ago, User said:

you want to abandon them

Support them via a peace agreement and support once peace has been obtained.

4 hours ago, User said:

are either good ones or bad ones

Some are rational.

4 hours ago, User said:

if you feel shamed, good

Why would I feel shamed for not wanting to continue warfare, and seeking peace?

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Someone is coo coo 4 Putin

The moment one disagrees with you they are coo coo for putin.

Ok..

[User]

28 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

No, my plan is to persuade both to sign a permanent ceasefire and reinforce Ukraine's ability to defend itself from future attacks.

How are you persuading Russia to do anything? 

Again, you are not even willing to help Ukraine now... but you want to help them in the future? That makes no sense. Why would Putin believe that if we were unwilling to help Ukraine now, we would later?

Your position makes no sense. 

30 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The weakness has already been projected. Tough talk from Ukraine, and Russia has bogarted 20% of its territory, with key allies sullying themselves over whether to send aircraft or tanks to Ukraine.

Sure they will have both, but the sheer volume of time it took due to the "risks" and fears of escalation made Russia likely feel they made the right move and just needs to ride this out until the next US election.

No, it has not. NATO/US backed Ukraine before the invasion and committed to their defense as well as sanctions. We have continued to support them and the initial Russian invasion push was largely pushed back. Ukraine can continue to make gains and make Russia suffer. 

YOU are the one who is pushing weakness. YOU are the one who is making this two faced argument now, not wanting to support Ukraine while then criticizing Ukraine for not being strong enough or having enough of our support. 

Oh, I criticize the timing and decision making on our support, but that is a different discussion and your criticism is two faced. You don't want to fix it and make it better, you want to make it worse. 

35 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

This won't go into perpetuity.

You need a plan.

 And yet you presume Russia will go on forever with no real plan beyond that. 

36 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

There is no saving face when you have been invaded and are begging for weapons for your survival. Negotiation isn't far off.

Of course there is still saving face. Ukraine is still in the fight. Nothing is over yet. YOU are the one advocating for them to give up. 

37 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Support them via a peace agreement and support once peace has been obtained.

You won't support them now, what sense does it make that you will then say you will support them in the future?

The war is happening now, they need the support now. 
 

37 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Why would I feel shamed for not wanting to continue warfare, and seeking peace?

You were the one who brought it up. You tell me. 

 

[myata]

He is lying of course. In a better case, to himself. What "peace agreement": with who? Russia broke no less than six or eight agreements it has signed with Ukraine, not including international commitments to observe peace and internationally recognized borders such as OSCE and the Charter of the United Nations. Who cares what she will sign next if the confidence in that couldn't even be zero - but in the deep negatives? What Russia says she does not or will not do, she does with certainty over and again. How blind or dumb one has to be to not see that in plain sight?

So, the first lie. There can be no "peace" in this case other than defeating this aggression; and showing all the aspiring ones that the cost of such attempts will be high and all the way to their demise. That works by the way, as proven in history. F-ing lying "peace" with brutal thugs never worked as proven in any number of examples.

The second lie: we want to arm them but need this (lying) peace first. No. Read it as: I want to help Russia. First let's do as Russia asks and then I won't help you. I'll find the reason, sure. This is my tongue. No you don't need it, the peace that is impossible and doesn't exist. Arm them now, squeeze the aggressor dead with sanctions and that would be the perfect solution to this problem and all the future ones.

The diagnosis: he has a hidden attachment to the brutal might of Putin's new fascism in Europe but he would'nt admit it even to himself; and instead he's squirming and twitching to connect the two, hide it behind some empty words that never worked, couldn't work and only one honest look at the history would tell him that with a final certainty. The reality is very clear though: if you won't stand to a brutal thug, he will come for more and will keep coming till you are done for. No other ends, no miracle solutions. Please don't lie.

 

Edited June 13 by myata

[myata]

The same can be said succinctly:

if you want and can make Russia observe rules and norms, why wouldn't you do it now, without conditions, squeaks and twitches? Why would you want first to give her what she wants? Absurd. Doesn't make any sense, does it?

The answer: no, he doesn't want to make her observe the norms. Just to give her what she wants.

[Nationalist]

21 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

The War in Europe had been over for months when the Americans deployed nuclear weapons.

Gee you split that hair nicely. As I said...

Quote

Then the Americans got the bomb in '45 and it was over.

 

21 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Japan was NOT speaking to Russia about a peace deal in 1945.  Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Quote

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s emperor would be allowed to stay as a figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion could begin.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

 

21 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

The United States now has a military 1,000 times stronger than the one that fought in WWII.  They are also easily the undisputed most powerful nation on earth.

Yes...I've seen...

 

21 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Not even close. Japan attacked a more powerful enemy, and paid the price. Japan was the aggressor. Ukraine has been victim of Russian aggression for over 500 years, and this is just the latest incident of the Russians invading their country.

I had said...

Quote

They were not in the same position Ukraine is. Ukraine is in the same position Japan was in '45.

Pay attention.

21 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

People care, because it is the right thing to do. I cannot remember in my lifetime, a military conflict being so black and white, with Russia being the aggressors, and Ukraine being victimised by Russian expansion. This happened in Georgia not too long ago. 

That's horseshit. First of all, up until recently, Ukraine WAS part of Russia.

History...it takes some reading but it does help to understand things today. But you seem to wanna warp history.

What a surprise...

Edited June 13 by Nationalist

[myata]

What an id!ot ohoh. The USA was a part of the Great Britain. China was a part of Japan. Every country in Europe was a part of something else at some point in its history. What does it explain, today?

Only this maybe: how many lying f-king id!iots is just enough to screw up any place? Russia is one, success! and counting.

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, User said:

How are you persuading Russia to do anything?

Giving them an exit ramp. Negotiate.

1 hour ago, User said:

Ukraine can continue to make gains and make Russia suffer. 

If you genuinely believe Ukraine will magically regain 20% of its land, push back Russia and sing kumbaya, you're day dreaming.

1 hour ago, User said:

Ukraine is still in the fight. Nothing is over yet.

For now. Yet. Not words that I still confidence of a win.

1 hour ago, User said:

You won't support them

I support peace. Negotiations.

1 hour ago, User said:

You tell me. 

I feel no shame for wanting peace. For feeling this war could have been stopped at the negotiation table.

None, whatsoever. 

[User]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Giving them an exit ramp. Negotiate.

What exit ramp? They don't need you to give them an exit ramp... they are the ones pushing the war. They can exit whenever they want to. 

The question is, how are you convincing them to stop their war of aggression? The only thing I see you offering is surrender. 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

If you genuinely believe Ukraine will magically regain 20% of its land, push back Russia and sing kumbaya, you're day dreaming.

Nothing magical about it. War is brutal and Ukraine will have to push and punish and fight for it. Unlike you, I support them and want NATO/US to continue supporting them in their efforts so they can. 

There is give and take going on here, Russia has not just held onto everything they have taken. Ukraine made a massive push back on them during the initial invasion, made some decent gains during their offensive, but now Russia is making some gains in their offensive as well. 

This notion that Russia simply holds what it has and lets nothing go or cant or Ukraine wont ever be able to push back is just wish casting on your part and exactly why I say you are practically supporting Russia. 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

For now. Yet. Not words that I still confidence of a win.

Certainly not if folks like you have their way. 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I support peace. Negotiations.

This is meaningless words with no substance behind them. Russia is not interested in peace. So now what?

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I feel no shame for wanting peace. For feeling this war could have been stopped at the negotiation table.

None, whatsoever. 

How? How could it have been stopped? Russia has been pushing on Ukraine for 10 years now. They took Crimea. They instigated a proxy war in the Donbas, and then launched a full scale invasion. 

The whole way Ukraine and the world were asking for peace. 

 

[DUI_Offender]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 

Yes...I've seen...

 

 

When losing an argument, always bring up irrelevant issues like.......Transgenders.   

13 minutes ago, User said:

 

How? How could it have been stopped? Russia has been pushing on Ukraine for 10 years now. They took Crimea. They instigated a proxy war in the Donbas, and then launched a full scale invasion. 

The whole way Ukraine and the world were asking for peace. 

 

These people are not arguing in good faith, or they are intellectually limited, and easily influenced by Russian propaganda. I would quit debating, and enjoy life. No point in even trying, we will just be going in circles.

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, myata said:

What an id!ot ohoh. The USA was a part of the Great Britain. China was a part of Japan. Every country in Europe was a part of something else at some point in its history. What does it explain, today?

Only this maybe: how many lying f-king id!iots is just enough to screw up any place? Russia is one, success! and counting.

https://www.historyhit.com/ukraine-and-russia-history-medieval/

History. Try it.