Differing View on the Ukraine/Russia Conflict

[ajax]

Interesting take here:

[blitzinstripes]

At the end of the day, this is simply Sodom playing a blame game with Gomorrah over who is the more wicked. Us or Russia. I don't really think it matters much what either side does. We're either going to smite each other or God will smite us both.

Let's just get it over with, already. I don't think Noah paid much attention to the squabbles between the wicked while he nailed the last few boards onto the ark.

Get right spiritually while there are a few ticks left on the clock and prepare for the worst. Hopefully the righteous are spared the worst part of the tribulations.

It feels like we went over the edge of the cliff a few years ago. There is no saving the planet at this point. I'm not watching the state of the union. I think I'm done with it all, now.

Let Gog and Magog have their wars. Pray for the innocent caught in the crossfire.

[ajax]

Ukraine the sacrificial lamb for the war party

HILLARY CLINTON WANTS TO TURN UKRAINE INTO AFGHANISTAN
https://libertarianinstitute.org/news-r ... ghanistan/

[ajax]

At the end of the day, this is simply Sodom playing a blame game with Gomorrah over who is the more wicked. Us or Russia. I don't really think it matters much what either side does. We're either going to smite each other or God will smite us both.

Let's just get it over with, already. I don't think Noah paid much attention to the squabbles between the wicked while he nailed the last few boards onto the ark.

Get right spiritually while there are a few ticks left on the clock and prepare for the worst. Hopefully the righteous are spared the worst part of the tribulations.

It feels like we went over the edge of the cliff a few years ago. There is no saving the planet at this point. I'm not watching the state of the union. I think I'm done with it all, now.

Let Gog and Magog have their wars. Pray for the innocent caught in the crossfire.

Agreed, the wicked fighting the wicked. The state of the union is the worst. I haven’t been able to watch it for decades. The more we personally secede from the world, the better.

[Dave62]

Here is a link to a differing view on what is going on in Ukraine/Russia titled They're Trying To Get You To Support Another Phony War .

https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022 ... t.html?m=1

Thank you very much, Investigator. This is a very well written essay that helps me get my head around the current debacle in Ukraine. The first casualty of war certainly is truth.

[Subcomandante]

I think Martin Armstrong has been nailing this conflict down very well. He has no love lost for anyone, especially not Zelenskiy.

The best way for this to have gone through with very little risk for an invasion, was to have a vote in the two provinces, convened by international authorities.

With a simple question:

Do you want to: 1. Remain part of Ukraine? 2. Become independent states? 3. Become part of Russia?

If they had chosen (1) and Putin invaded anyway, he would definitely be the bad guy. But those guys were never given that choice. And Zelenskiy might very well lose his entire country, or at least get it puppeted by someone that would be more in Putin's good graces. What the West is doing to Russia is only going to get Russia pissed off at them more and more, and they will end up falling into the laps of good old China.

Things are about to get very interesting.

[harakim]

This is silly. Why doesn’t the US give up its big guns? Why doesn’t it allow Mexico to have big guns? This is not reality based. As Mearsheimer stated, it will allow Ukraine to be a neutral buffer at best. Whether you like it or not, that’s reality. For us to try to change this reality is fantasy.

It's not realistic for Russia to think it can be super strong militarily and it's neighbors will not want to match their strength so they don't get run over, just like Russia is doing now.

Why not? As Ajax said (and you ignored) - why is it ok for the US to place limits on other countries' weapons, but wrong for Russia to do the same?

We would not stand for Mexico to host or obtain Russian nukes would we?

Why should it be different the other way round?

If that's the reality for both nations, then preach what it should be, rather than saying one wrong makes the other justified. Either one demanding things and threatening aren't justified. They probably have suitcase nukes already within our borders. And they probably aren't making any showy deals with Mexico so they can claim moral authority.

Russia is incapable of sneaking suitcase nukes into the United States.


If you want to put this into perspective, imagine society collapses and you live in a Suburban neighborhood. Imagine there is a house of Navy Seals that trains every day outside and has lockers full of weapons. They randomly lash out at houses where the people are acting like they don't like. And they've always had it in for you. How would you feel?

The United States doesn't have any "near peer" adversaries. We are so much more powerful that we could easily take over Russia or any other country in the world (forgetting about nuclear weapons.) In fact, we could probably take over all of Europe or all of Asia. We are that much more powerful. It is reasonable for other countries to be afraid of the United States, especially when we start encircling them.

I think this is all some kind of performance, but it's a believable one if it is. The United States is really that much of a threat to the entire world.

[harakim]

At the end of the day, this is simply Sodom playing a blame game with Gomorrah over who is the more wicked. Us or Russia. I don't really think it matters much what either side does. We're either going to smite each other or God will smite us both.

Let's just get it over with, already. I don't think Noah paid much attention to the squabbles between the wicked while he nailed the last few boards onto the ark.

Get right spiritually while there are a few ticks left on the clock and prepare for the worst. Hopefully the righteous are spared the worst part of the tribulations.

It feels like we went over the edge of the cliff a few years ago. There is no saving the planet at this point. I'm not watching the state of the union. I think I'm done with it all, now.

Let Gog and Magog have their wars. Pray for the innocent caught in the crossfire.

Agreed, the wicked fighting the wicked. The state of the union is the worst. I haven’t been able to watch it for decades. The more we personally secede from the world, the better.

I think it's important to not be dependent on the world, but still try and influence the world for good.

[tmac]

I actually listened to the SOU for the first time in years, probably decades. All I can say is this: As big a joke as Biden is in every possible way, and as much as I have always tried to give Trump every benefit of the doubt, at this point Biden's teleprompter -enhanced (and maybe even drug-enhanced) oratory delivery is a whole lot easier to listen to and stomach than Trump's. For that reason and probably no other, I'll bet his current low approval ratings will go up after the SOU.

[Niemand]

The United States doesn't have any "near peer" adversaries. We are so much more powerful that we could easily take over Russia or any other country in the world (forgetting about nuclear weapons.) In fact, we could probably take over all of Europe or all of Asia. We are that much more powerful. It is reasonable for other countries to be afraid of the United States, especially when we start encircling them.

I've heard this argument before. It didn't exactly work all the time when the USA was fighting technologically inferior Communist nations (the smaller ones) or Islamic countries. The USA is ahead technologically- no doubt about it - but tech is expensive to produce, not always reliable in the field and there are umpteen other problems.

It is one thing to conquer a place, another to occupy it. The USA has been more successful with imperialism when it installled proxy/satellite/puppet governments. It has been less successful with direct conquest and occupation of larger countries.

As for taking over Asia, the USA couldn't even take over Afghanistan. Not unless it intended to wipe out the entire population. Same with Russia. The USA could take major cities, but it would never fully control the vast countryside without full genocide, and many people would resent them, especially after American troops misbehaved themselves with local women etc. (America's issues with this are real - it has caused major issues in Japan for example)

The only continent I could see the USA taking and occupying successfully would be Australia, and even there would be issues.

Remember, even with the big European empires, there was a huge gap between conquerer and conquered in most cases than exists today. When Britain took much of Africa, Canada, Australia and NZ, it was an industrial power fighting tribes that were still in the Stone Age or at Iron Age level (in Africa)... and they still had problems. It did take parts of Asia, but often using proxy rulers - local rajahs, sheikhs, emirs etc. The UK nearly took Argentina at one stage, but it was fought back by a citizenry which was far more up to its own level of technology than Stone Age tribes.

[mudflap]

Here is a link to a differing view on what is going on in Ukraine/Russia titled They're Trying To Get You To Support Another Phony War .

https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022 ... t.html?m=1

The guy is just repeating the Russian narrative. He says that the Ukrainian government has been shelling it's own people in Eastern Ukraine, but that is not true and there's no proof. The many testimonies out there are that the Russian "separatists" have been shooting at the Ukrainians every day. Just watch all the videos I posted of reporters on the front lines.
This guy also claims that the government in Ukraine are Western puppets, but I just did a post about how un-western these guys are acting.

https://popularresistance.org/ukraine-i ... re-silent/

care to recant?

[Durzan]

The United States doesn't have any "near peer" adversaries. We are so much more powerful that we could easily take over Russia or any other country in the world (forgetting about nuclear weapons.) In fact, we could probably take over all of Europe or all of Asia. We are that much more powerful. It is reasonable for other countries to be afraid of the United States, especially when we start encircling them.

I've heard this argument before. It didn't exactly work all the time when the USA was fighting technologically inferior Communist nations (the smaller ones) or Islamic countries. The USA is ahead technologically- no doubt about it - but tech is expensive to produce, not always reliable in the field and there are umpteen other problems.

It is one thing to conquer a place, another to occupy it. The USA has been more successful with imperialism when it installled proxy/satellite/puppet governments. It has been less successful with direct conquest and occupation of larger countries.

As for taking over Asia, the USA couldn't even take over Afghanistan. Not unless it intended to wipe out the entire population. Same with Russia. The USA could take major cities, but it would never fully control the vast countryside without full genocide, and many people would resent them, especially after American troops misbehaved themselves with local women etc. (America's issues with this are real - it has caused major issues in Japan for example)

The only continent I could see the USA taking and occupying successfully would be Australia, and even there would be issues.

Remember, even with the big European empires, there was a huge gap between conquerer and conquered in most cases than exists today. When Britain took much of Africa, Canada, Australia and NZ, it was an industrial power fighting tribes that were still in the Stone Age or at Iron Age level (in Africa)... and they still had problems. It did take parts of Asia, but often using proxy rulers - local rajahs, sheikhs, emirs etc. The UK nearly took Argentina at one stage, but it was fought back by a citizenry which was far more up to its own level of technology than Stone Age tribes.

Literally the only way directly in and out of Afghanistan we had was air travel. And it was pretty much a mountainous wasteland. Our grip there was tenuous at best...

Imperialism in general only works if you CAN install a proxy government and then demand tribute. However, the US can theoretically do more with Imperialism if they were to dangle statehood above the locals once stabilized. Getting to that point would be a steep uphill battle though.

[Niemand]

The United States doesn't have any "near peer" adversaries. We are so much more powerful that we could easily take over Russia or any other country in the world (forgetting about nuclear weapons.) In fact, we could probably take over all of Europe or all of Asia. We are that much more powerful. It is reasonable for other countries to be afraid of the United States, especially when we start encircling them.

I've heard this argument before. It didn't exactly work all the time when the USA was fighting technologically inferior Communist nations (the smaller ones) or Islamic countries. The USA is ahead technologically- no doubt about it - but tech is expensive to produce, not always reliable in the field and there are umpteen other problems.
U
It is one thing to conquer a place, another to occupy it. The USA has been more successful with imperialism when it installled proxy/satellite/puppet governments. It has been less successful with direct conquest and occupation of larger countries.

As for taking over Asia, the USA couldn't even take over Afghanistan. Not unless it intended to wipe out the entire population. Same with Russia. The USA could take major cities, but it would never fully control the vast countryside without full genocide, and many people would resent them, especially after American troops misbehaved themselves with local women etc. (America's issues with this are real - it has caused major issues in Japan for example)

The only continent I could see the USA taking and occupying successfully would be Australia, and even there would be issues.

Remember, even with the big European empires, there was a huge gap between conquerer and conquered in most cases than exists today. When Britain took much of Africa, Canada, Australia and NZ, it was an industrial power fighting tribes that were still in the Stone Age or at Iron Age level (in Africa)... and they still had problems. It did take parts of Asia, but often using proxy rulers - local rajahs, sheikhs, emirs etc. The UK nearly took Argentina at one stage, but it was fought back by a citizenry which was far more up to its own level of technology than Stone Age tribes.

Literally the only way directly in and out of Afghanistan we had was air travel. And it was pretty much a mountainous wasteland. Our grip there was tenuous at best...

Imperialism in general only works if you CAN install a proxy government and then demand tribute. However, the US can theoretically do more with Imperialism if they were to dangle statehood above the locals once stabilized. Getting to that point would be a steep uphill battle though.

The first mistake the Americans made with Afghanistan's administration was trying to turn it into a republic, the second a centralised state and the third to install the first people they found willing to exchange their services for money.

A better way to run it would have been to have various areas run by local chiefs who would meet in council every so often, with a figurehead monarch. The fake democracy, rigged elections and corrupt politicians were not a good look. Nor was having a big military occupation.

[The Red Pill]

George Soros "helped" the Ukrainian president come to power...

George Soros is CURRENTLY promoting support for Ukraine and it's president.

Do you really need to understand any more than this????

Just as the United States would NEVER allow China to install nuclear missiles in Tijuana...Putin CANNOT allow Ukraine to become part of NATO and do just the same on Russsia's border.

This ENTIRE war could have and should have been avoided....by Ukraine announcing that NATO is OFF the table.

Ask yourself why the Ukrainian president wants to poke the bear...and sacrifice his own people in the process.

[Artaxerxes]

George Soros "helped" the Ukrainian president come to power...

George Soros is CURRENTLY promoting support for Ukraine and it's president.

Do you really need to understand any more than this????

Just as the United States would NEVER allow China to install nuclear missiles in Tijuana...Putin CANNOT allow Ukraine to become part of NATO and do just the same on Russsia's border.

This ENTIRE war could have and should have been avoided....by Ukraine announcing that NATO is OFF the table.

Ask yourself why the Ukrainian president wants to poke the bear...and sacrifice his own people in the process.

I don't understand this talking point. Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

We're leaping all the way to the US putting a base and nukes in Ukraine?

[mudflap]

George Soros "helped" the Ukrainian president come to power...

George Soros is CURRENTLY promoting support for Ukraine and it's president.

Do you really need to understand any more than this????

Just as the United States would NEVER allow China to install nuclear missiles in Tijuana...Putin CANNOT allow Ukraine to become part of NATO and do just the same on Russsia's border.

This ENTIRE war could have and should have been avoided....by Ukraine announcing that NATO is OFF the table.

Ask yourself why the Ukrainian president wants to poke the bear...and sacrifice his own people in the process.

+1000!

Biden / Pelosi / Romney's kids aren't going to be the ones getting killed. The fact that we've gone from "no more wars" to "let's do a no-fly zone over Ukraine" in less than a month is a testament to the propaganda power of the Deep State that surely exists.

That bullet list of all the reasons Russia wants Ukraine that's been floating around - listing agricultural reasons and other nonsense - I think it's US Gov propaganda. a lot of people that don't study history fell for it. Since a lot of those folks are here on the forum, here's an image showing how well you've been played by your own government:



- you got played when we went off the gold standard
- you got played by sending all our manufacturing to China
- you got played about WMD's in Iraq
- you got played for 20 years in Afghanistan - they told you we were winning, and in 1 month, it all collapsed, the Taliban is back in power, and nobody got fired for failure or losing all those planes / helicopters / tanks / or weapons.
- you got played over Covid - and most of you got played over the vaxxine - even "the very elect" are deceived
- you are being played right now with Ukraine - It's astounding how many are beating the war drums.

Mormon 5:18:

But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they.

Please wake up.

[ajax]

I don't understand this talking point. Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

Nobody is saying justified. This is simply the reality of power politics. If you ignore the reality, you get yourself into problems, not matter how illogical you think the other side is.

[Artaxerxes]

I don't understand this talking point. Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

Nobody is saying justified. This is simply the reality of power politics. If you ignore the reality, you get yourself into problems, not matter how illogical you think the other side is.

Red pill said "Putin CANNOT allow Ukraine to become part of NATO and do just the same on Russsia's border."

That sounds like he's saying it's justified.

[ajax]

I don't understand this talking point. Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

Nobody is saying justified. This is simply the reality of power politics. If you ignore the reality, you get yourself into problems, not matter how illogical you think the other side is.

Red pill said "Putin CANNOT allow Ukraine to become part of NATO and do just the same on Russsia's border."

That sounds like he's saying it's justified.

That's a description of power politics from Putin's perspective. Explanation does not equal condoning.

[Sarah]

It's not realistic for Russia to think it can be super strong militarily and it's neighbors will not want to match their strength so they don't get run over, just like Russia is doing now.

Why not? As Ajax said (and you ignored) - why is it ok for the US to place limits on other countries' weapons, but wrong for Russia to do the same?

We would not stand for Mexico to host or obtain Russian nukes would we?

Why should it be different the other way round?

If that's the reality for both nations, then preach what it should be, rather than saying one wrong makes the other justified. Either one demanding things and threatening aren't justified. They probably have suitcase nukes already within our borders. And they probably aren't making any showy deals with Mexico so they can claim moral authority.

Russia is incapable of sneaking suitcase nukes into the United States.


If you want to put this into perspective, imagine society collapses and you live in a Suburban neighborhood. Imagine there is a house of Navy Seals that trains every day outside and has lockers full of weapons. They randomly lash out at houses where the people are acting like they don't like. And they've always had it in for you. How would you feel?

The United States doesn't have any "near peer" adversaries. We are so much more powerful that we could easily take over Russia or any other country in the world (forgetting about nuclear weapons.) In fact, we could probably take over all of Europe or all of Asia. We are that much more powerful. It is reasonable for other countries to be afraid of the United States, especially when we start encircling them.

I think this is all some kind of performance, but it's a believable one if it is. The United States is really that much of a threat to the entire world.

I don't agree with your assessment. Russia and China are definitely peer adversaries, and have had the goal of building up their militaries to defeat us for decades. It's very likely they have lied about the true number of everything in their arsenal. Please read the thread I've started about the book, "New Lies for Old," to understand their long-term strategy. Also, Heritage foundation does an assessment our our military every year: https://www.heritage.org/military They've labeled much of our military force as "marginal" and "weak." Scroll down the Executive Summary to see the charts. Or dive in deeper with their essays.

[blitzinstripes]

I actually listened to the SOU for the first time in years, probably decades. All I can say is this: As big a joke as Biden is in every possible way, and as much as I have always tried to give Trump every benefit of the doubt, at this point Biden's teleprompter -enhanced (and maybe even drug-enhanced) oratory delivery is a whole lot easier to listen to and stomach than Trump's. For that reason and probably no other, I'll bet his current low approval ratings will go up after the SOU.

I echo that. I see Biden's approval going up significantly. I fear that Trump's latest talking points are serving to further alienate himself from the mainstream Republicans. I wish he would learn when to speak, when to shut up, and how to say it without sounding pompous. I'm starting to think he's not going to fare very well in 2024. I see other (R) fan favorites garnering more support, i.e. Desantis, Abbot, etc.

[Artaxerxes]

I don't understand this talking point. Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

Nobody is saying justified. This is simply the reality of power politics. If you ignore the reality, you get yourself into problems, not matter how illogical you think the other side is.

Red pill said "Putin CANNOT allow Ukraine to become part of NATO and do just the same on Russsia's border."

That sounds like he's saying it's justified.

That's a description of power politics from Putin's perspective. Explanation does not equal condoning.

Hard disagree. Saying Putin HAD to do something, and that Ukraine SHOULD have appeased them is a value judgment, not merely a statement of Putin's immoral view of world politics.

It also ignores the fact that Russia already shares a border with four Nato countries and has lived with that for years, but that's another matter.

[Sarah]

Here is a link to a differing view on what is going on in Ukraine/Russia titled They're Trying To Get You To Support Another Phony War .

https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022 ... t.html?m=1

The guy is just repeating the Russian narrative. He says that the Ukrainian government has been shelling it's own people in Eastern Ukraine, but that is not true and there's no proof. The many testimonies out there are that the Russian "separatists" have been shooting at the Ukrainians every day. Just watch all the videos I posted of reporters on the front lines.
This guy also claims that the government in Ukraine are Western puppets, but I just did a post about how un-western these guys are acting.

https://popularresistance.org/ukraine-i ... re-silent/

care to recant?

Surprise Surprise, but the author has RT next to her name. That means she is paid by the Russian government. Can you find any front line videos with reporters that aren't connected to RT?

Russia has a massive media complex.

[Sarah]

George Soros "helped" the Ukrainian president come to power...

George Soros is CURRENTLY promoting support for Ukraine and it's president.

Do you really need to understand any more than this????

Just as the United States would NEVER allow China to install nuclear missiles in Tijuana...Putin CANNOT allow Ukraine to become part of NATO and do just the same on Russsia's border.

This ENTIRE war could have and should have been avoided....by Ukraine announcing that NATO is OFF the table.

Ask yourself why the Ukrainian president wants to poke the bear...and sacrifice his own people in the process.

"Ask yourself why the Ukrainian president wants to poke the bear...and sacrifice his own people in the process."

Zelenski is wittingly or unwittingly doing the will of Putin. Putin knows he has the power to fight for awhile in Ukraine with only a weak opposition to deal with, just like he knew in all the other places Putin has invaded. It's a way to draw out the strong freedom-loving fighters and put them down. He's trimming up the country of any opposition. Zelenski is sending the people into a trap.

[Sarah]

George Soros "helped" the Ukrainian president come to power...

George Soros is CURRENTLY promoting support for Ukraine and it's president.

Do you really need to understand any more than this????

Just as the United States would NEVER allow China to install nuclear missiles in Tijuana...Putin CANNOT allow Ukraine to become part of NATO and do just the same on Russsia's border.

This ENTIRE war could have and should have been avoided....by Ukraine announcing that NATO is OFF the table.

Ask yourself why the Ukrainian president wants to poke the bear...and sacrifice his own people in the process.

"This ENTIRE war could have and should have been avoided....by Ukraine announcing that NATO is OFF the table."

No friend, this war has been planned a long time in advance. Don't believe the victim-hood excuses. This is all part of the narrative they've created by getting their western puppets to invade places like Afghanistan, so they also have the justification to invade whomever they want to invade. They invaded Ukraine in 2014, (and had their puppets in there since the 90's) long before this NATO excuse was ever a thing. Supposedly they went in to protect the separatists. Now it's because someone suggested they join NATO and NATO (who is totally weak and divided) won't guarantee that they won't help another in time of war. And how long did Russia give them to decide before they started rolling in? It's a ridiculous, deceitful, manipulative, shaming, blaming, victim-obsessed, narcissistic argument that tries to be really convincing. I've been deceived and manipulated by narcissists before, and I know how easy it can be to fall into that emotional trap of feeling sorry for someone who is feels "so hurt." Don't fall for the nonsense.