'Russia is now at war with NATO and the West'

[Estro Felino]

Is that what Putin told you?

Not personally. Russians who know him very well, did. Let's say I have good Russian contacts.
Not to mention Italians who live in Russia.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I don't feel fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not personally. Russians who know him very well, did. Let's say I have good Russian contacts.
Not to mention Italians who live in Russia.

Well, when we conquer & annex Russia
as the 51st state, I'll ensure that Italy pays
more than any other European country
for gas.
That'll fix y'all for taking Putin's side in this war!

Oh, I just might give Italy to George Soros.

 

[Father Heathen]

"Disingenuous"? That's your opinion, and I see no basis for it.

And we're not talking about Alaska, are we? American territory is not being attacked. American territory is not being threatened.



I've found that it's far better to look at geopolitics from a rational, objective viewpoint, even if it might sound "cold-blooded" to some. Making important decisions when angry, in despair, or some other debilitating emotional state is unwise.

I think allowing despots to act with impunity is unwise. I think ignoring war crimes and human rights violations is unwise. I think letting democracies fall is unwise. Are those precedents you want to set?

 

[Sand Dancer]

At this point putin is a war criminal, and ther war is total war, nation against nation. This is certainly tactics motivated by putin's ego, which is a huge liability for any authoritarian leader. NATO has been a part of this war on Ukraine's side, and there is no mistake that NATO sees putin a huge threat to security.

Stalin was as poor a commander as Hitler, and neither made good choices. The only reason both leaders had such good success was genuinely talented commanders on the field.
...

The problem for putin is that this is an unpopular war that is serving no purpose. They aren't defending themselves from an invader like the Germans. Stalin could afford to create a meatgrinder approach because he had men from all of Russia who were willing to be a part of it. That is no longer the case. putin has used convicts for penal units, which is what Stalin used as well. The difference is that putin's criminals have non-military offenses and will be exonerated if they survive the war. But he will run out of convicts at some point. They need to be healthy and be trained. Belorussia is unlikely to help since their military is small and trained for anti-terrorism, not field warfare. So Russia is on its own and running out of options.

They won't be healthy though, if what I heard about Russian prisons is true.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, when we conquer & annex Russia
as the 51st state, I'll ensure that Italy pays
more than any other European country
for gas.
That'll fix y'all for taking Putin's side in this war!

This proves my point. It's a war of conquest. Gazprom is too attractive.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think allowing despots to act with impunity is unwise. Is that a precedent you want to set?

I asked you for a solution.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think allowing despots to act with impunity is unwise. Is that a precedent you want to set?

Well, I can think of one country in Europe
that not only allowed a despot free reign,
it actually sided with the despot in WW2.

Guess which country?
I'll give you a hint....

 

[Debater Slayer]

"Wiping Russia off the map" needn't mean
killing'm all. It could mean conquering the
country, & creating 1 or more new ones.

It would be great if Russia ceased to exist,
& it's replacement(s) were less malignant.

It would only be great if one viewed Russia as synonymous with Putin's regime. I see it as much bigger than that. He's a stain on its history, and it can wipe him away and outlive him just like it did Lenin and Stalin.

Most of the Middle East doesn't have an exactly pleasant history with the US, but I wouldn't wish for the US to cease to exist either. I just wish it would change for the better while staying.

 

[Sand Dancer]

"Wiping Russia off the map" needn't mean
killing'm all. It could mean conquering the
country, & creating 1 or more new ones.

It would be great if Russia ceased to exist,
& it's replacement(s) were less malignant.

Sometimes they are more malignant. Think Cuba, Iran, and much of Africa.

 

[Revoltingest]

This proves my point. It's a war of conquest. Gazprom is too juicy to be renounced.

No gas for you!
One year!

You'll have to burn olive oil in your Ferraris,
Lamborghinis, Fiats, Vespas, & Ducatis!

 

[Father Heathen]

What do you think we should do to make this war terminate, as soon as possible?

Nothing that involves appeasement.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sometimes they are more malignant. Think Cuba, Iran, and much of Africa.

What about much of Africa? I'm not sure I get your point.

Cuba and Iran are less malignant than the US if we're talking about foreign policy. I generally don't think such comparisons are useful or conducive to understanding, though.

 

[Stevicus]

The US has an atrocious record, but that doesn't excuse Putin or his actions. Siding with Putin isn't any better than supporting what the US did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

It doesn't excuse Putin, although it does complicate certain US geopolitical postures which have been used in the past - such as in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Ultimately, national leaders and governments are expected to support and pursue their own national interests and geopolitical aspirations. The trouble with presenting the US as some kind of global superpower version of "Dudley Do-Right" is that it complicates and undermines our government's ability to pursue strictly U.S.-based interests, as we somehow have become tied and obligated to side with the interests of multiple nations - even if they don't always side with our interests.

 

[Sand Dancer]

What about much of Africa? I'm not sure I get your point.

Cuba and Iran are less malignant than the US if we're talking about foreign policy. I generally don't think such comparisons are useful or conducive to understanding, though.

Worse leaders coming into power.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It doesn't excuse Putin, although it does complicate certain US geopolitical postures which have been used in the past - such as in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Ultimately, national leaders and governments are expected to support and pursue their own national interests and geopolitical aspirations. The trouble with presenting the US as some kind of global superpower version of "Dudley Do-Right" is that it complicates and undermines our government's ability to pursue strictly U.S.-based interests, as we somehow have become tied and obligated to side with the interests of multiple nations - even if they don't always side with our interests.

It would be nice if the US either lived up to the platitudes it kept repeating or became more honest about its actual intentions—that is, maximization of geopolitical gain—but I would much prefer the former. I find a lot of isolationist and nationalist policies deeply harmful and ethically flawed.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would only be great if one viewed Russia as synonymous with Putin's regime. I see it as much bigger than that. He's a stain on its history, and it can wipe him away and outlive him just like it did Lenin and Stalin.

No, the problem is broader than just 1 leader.
Russia has a culture & long history of brutal
authoritarian power, & coveting its neighbors.
Many Russians still lust for the glory days of
expansive Soviet power.

Most of the Middle East doesn't have an exactly pleasant history with the US, but I wouldn't wish for the US to cease to exist either. I just wish it would change for the better while staying.

Terrible analogy....suggesting that Ameristan
& Russia are comparable bad actors is lame.
Let me ask you....
Which one just invaded another country, bombed
hospitals, bombed stores, bombed schools,
raped people, executed people, & threatened
nuclear armageddon if anyone dare defend the
victim.
And this all because it wanted take the country,
take the land, take the resources, & eliminate
the country it would absorb back into the mother
land in its godly crusade against western
decadence & secularism?

 

[Estro Felino]

It doesn't excuse Putin, although it does complicate certain US geopolitical postures which have been used in the past - such as in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Ultimately, national leaders and governments are expected to support and pursue their own national interests and geopolitical aspirations. The trouble with presenting the US as some kind of global superpower version of "Dudley Do-Right" is that it complicates and undermines our government's ability to pursue strictly U.S.-based interests, as we somehow have become tied and obligated to side with the interests of multiple nations - even if they don't always side with our interests.

US Government ≠ American people.

American citizens are not in on it.
Greedy American élites are in on it. Who crave for Russian resources.
Even here we have money-hungry élites but whenever someone mentions them, I don't feel targeted.
I am not them.

 

[Estro Felino]

Terrible analogy....suggesting that Ameristan
& Russia are comparable bad actors is lame.

Libya, Syria, Yemen. US was a bad actor.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sometimes they are more malignant. Think Cuba, Iran, and much of Africa.

I see Russian malignance as more limited
to its contiguous neighbors...at least the
weaker ones.
Even Putin knows better than to cast an
envious eye in China's direction.