Another win for Trump (breaking news)

[MicroB]

9 hours ago, thesetat said:

yeah.. and the US ha already approved of the first haul of weapons to be sent there. 

 

I believe the shipment was symbolic, in the week that Europe delivered 6 million shells, and the UK developed a new artillery shell propellant, whch replaces nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine; significant because both these materials are in short supply globally, and Europe was largely dependant US supplies. The deal assures Ukraine's financial future, and, in principle, allows it to finance its own defence, rather than being dependent on the fickle largesse of Western powers. Economically, Russia is kaput. Its kleptocratic government has financed the war through debt that it can't pay back. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

 

The recent US announcement on talks is also an attempt to exert pressure on Russia. Ukraine is free to buy arms on a lend lease basis now.  And the difference is rather than before getting whatever they can, now they can buy what they need.

 

In the Vietnam War, there were apothrical tails of disillusioned troops "fragging" their officers. In Russia, the officers frag their own men.

 

https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russian-officer-kills-three-own-soldiers-with-grenade-in-donbas/

 

The Russian Army has changed from a military with a substantive professional core, to a largely reluctant citizen army interspersed with convicts

[ThreeCardMonte]

13 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Well, he's not negotiating any more. 

 

 

US pulls out of formal peace talks between Ukraine and Russia

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/us-withdraws-ukraine-russia-peace-talks-b1225632.html

Tome for Zelensky and Putin to be big boys now and work it out.

 

Trump will intervene again in the future.

 

Still much more than Biden ever accomplished..

[jas007]

13 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Tome for Zelensky and Putin to be big boys now and work it out.

 

Trump will intervene again in the future.

 

Still much more than Biden ever accomplished..

So the Neocons got to Trump and now the war continues with US support?  And with a deal that is unacceptable to Russia? All paid for by US taxpayers, once again. 

 

That's too bad.  Unless it's all part of some larger negotiating tactic, it sure doesn't sound to me like "ending the war in 24 hours."  What happened to "stop the killing"? 

 

It doesn't make much sense to me. 

[ThreeCardMonte]

2 minutes ago, jas007 said:

So the Neocons got to Trump and now the war continues with US support?  And with a deal that is unacceptable to Russia? All paid for by US taxpayers, once again. 

 

That's too bad.  Unless it's all part of some larger negotiating tactic, it sure doesn't sound to me like "ending the war in 24 hours."  What happened to "stop the killing"? 

 

It doesn't make much sense to me. 

True, the 24 hour statement was a bit far fetched.

 

No worse than Biden claiming “I will not pardon my son”

 

Still, more productive than Biden ever ATTEMPTED.

 

 

[jas007]

15 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Still, more productive than Biden ever ATTEMPTED.

Biden never attempted to do anything much, except fund the war for Ukraine. 

 

At least Trump tried, I guess. Still, it seems silly. Make a deal with Zelenskyy that he should know full well Russia will never accept.  

 

Maybe that's the point.  Appear to do something, even if that something doesn't change anything. 

[ThreeCardMonte]

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Biden never attempted to do anything much, except fund the war for Ukraine. 

 

At least Trump tried, I guess. Still, it seems silly. Make a deal with Zelenskyy that he should know full well Russia will never accept.  

 

Maybe that's the point.  Appear to do something, even if that something doesn't change anything. 

It ain’t over yet.

 

Be patient.

 

Just like the market comeback after the doom and gloom of the tariffs.

 

A little patience and time is all it took.  That and China slowly giving in little by little.   Saving face is a big deal.

 

Same same with Putin and Zelensky.

 

[ChicagoExpat]

On 5/2/2025 at 3:34 PM, jas007 said:

Right now, Finland is not a focus for Russia.  And for what it's worth, Finland probably knows better than to allow missiles to be installed on its territory.  Like it or not, they're probably neutral territory. 

Well, except that Russia's third invasion of Ukraine was what finally pushed them out of their sideline, neutral stance into NATO membership.

[jas007]

5 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Well, except that Russia's third invasion of Ukraine was what finally pushed them out of their sideline, neutral stance into NATO membership.

And what they may well find out is that NATO membership is not necessarily a guarantee of security under Article 5. It's not necessarily a binding guarantee.  Moreover, NATO itself may dissolve over time. That's already taking place, to a degree, as not all NATO members are on the same page concerning Russia.  That's probably a  good thing.  Nations should be able to act in their own best interest. 

 

Finland may be back to square one before too long. 

[ChicagoExpat]

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Nations should be able to act in their own best interest. 

And yet you won't oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

 

And unless you support Russia continually invading/destroying/absorbing other countries, who in the world would think NATO's dissolution is a good thing?

[jas007]

39 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

And yet you won't oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

 

And unless you support Russia continually invading/destroying/absorbing other countries, who in the world would think NATO's dissolution is a good thing?

At this point, it’s not a matter of what I “oppose” or what I “support.”

 

Zelenskyy had his shot. Ukraine had its shot. And they had so much support that they had no problem whatsoever squandering half of that support by way of corruption.They still lost. To think otherwise is delusional.  Russia is never giving back that territory it now occupies and is now part of Russia. .

 

And I think you assume too much about Russia’s intentions.

 

Several years ago, Russia was willing to end the war until Ukraine was persuaded by Boris Johnson to continue. At that time, all Russia wanted was a cessation of hostilities, a de-militarization/de-Nazification of Ukraine, and a buffer zone.  And they were willing to stop with the territories already occupied and incorporated into Russia.

 

And so today, I look at reality.  I try not to live in the same fantasyland occupied by Zelenskyy.

 

Ukraine can stop now, make a deal acceptable to Russia, and perhaps save what’s left of Ukraine. Or, they can continue with the Zelenskyy fantasy and perhaps lose it all.  And in the process, how many more young men will die for no good reason?

[GarryP]

On 5/3/2025 at 7:13 AM, MicroB said:

 

I believe the shipment was symbolic, in the week that Europe delivered 6 million shells, and the UK developed a new artillery shell propellant, whch replaces nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine; significant because both these materials are in short supply globally, and Europe was largely dependant US supplies. The deal assures Ukraine's financial future, and, in principle, allows it to finance its own defence, rather than being dependent on the fickle largesse of Western powers. Economically, Russia is kaput. Its kleptocratic government has financed the war through debt that it can't pay back. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

 

The recent US announcement on talks is also an attempt to exert pressure on Russia. Ukraine is free to buy arms on a lend lease basis now.  And the difference is rather than before getting whatever they can, now they can buy what they need.

 

In the Vietnam War, there were apothrical tails of disillusioned troops "fragging" their officers. In Russia, the officers frag their own men.

 

https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russian-officer-kills-three-own-soldiers-with-grenade-in-donbas/

 

The Russian Army has changed from a military with a substantive professional core, to a largely reluctant citizen army interspersed with convicts

.........interspersed with convicts and North Koreans.  

[ChicagoExpat]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

At this point, it’s not a matter of what I “oppose” or what I “support.”

 

Zelenskyy had his shot. Ukraine had its shot. And they had so much support that they had no problem whatsoever squandering half of that support by way of corruption.They still lost. To think otherwise is delusional.  Russia is never giving back that territory it now occupies and is now part of Russia. .

 

And I think you assume too much about Russia’s intentions.

 

Several years ago, Russia was willing to end the war until Ukraine was persuaded by Boris Johnson to continue. At that time, all Russia wanted was a cessation of hostilities, a de-militarization/de-Nazification of Ukraine, and a buffer zone.  And they were willing to stop with the territories already occupied and incorporated into Russia.

 

And so today, I look at reality.  I try not to live in the same fantasyland occupied by Zelenskyy.

 

Ukraine can stop now, make a deal acceptable to Russia, and perhaps save what’s left of Ukraine. Or, they can continue with the Zelenskyy fantasy and perhaps lose it all.  And in the process, how many more young men will die for no good reason?

I'm pointing out that in a conversation about Ukraine you state one thing but support another -- inconsistency, hypocrisy, whatever you want to call it.  "Nations should be able to act in their own interests" -- except Ukraine.  "For Ukraine, Russia gets to decide what happens."

 

This is the universal response of the Russia supporter who won't admit he is a Russia supporter.  While claiming neutrality, the absolute refusal to denounce Russia, coupled with an eagerness to denounce Ukraine.  You just want peace, right?  But only on Russia's terms.  Russia's victory is both inevitable and imminent, correct?  And has been for more than three years.

[jas007]

1 minute ago, ChicagoExpat said:

I'm pointing out that in a conversation about Ukraine you state one thing but support another -- inconsistency, hypocrisy, whatever you want to call it.  "Nations should be able to act in their own interests" -- except Ukraine.  "For Ukraine, Russia gets to decide what happens."

 

This is the universal response of the Russia supporter who won't admit he is a Russia supporter.  While claiming neutrality, the absolute refusal to denounce Russia, coupled with an eagerness to denounce Ukraine.  You just want peace, right?  But only on Russia's terms.  Russia's victory is both inevitable and imminent, correct?  And has been for more than three years.

For the purpose of discussion, let's assume Ukraine has the absolute right to act in its own best interest.  Fine. I have no problem with that whatsoever. 

 

And how is Ukraine's best interest any business of the United States?  

 

Let me guess. You're going to tell me that if Putin isn't stopped now, he'll just keep on moving west until Russia eventually conquers all of Eastern Europe, all of Western Europe, and then moves on to the USA where he starts  on the East Coast and eventually ends up in Los Angeles and San Francisco. 

 

And with a straight face you'll tell me that that's not too far fetched. A very convenient lie for the warmongers, no?  A Boogeyman.  Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption.

 

I don't buy it.

[ChicagoExpat]

17 minutes ago, jas007 said:

For the purpose of discussion, let's assume Ukraine has the absolute right to act in its own best interest.  Fine. I have no problem with that whatsoever. 

 

And how is Ukraine's best interest any business of the United States?  

 

Let me guess. You're going to tell me that if Putin isn't stopped now, he'll just keep on moving west until Russia eventually conquers all of Eastern Europe, all of Western Europe, and then moves on to the USA where he starts  on the East Coast and eventually ends up in Los Angeles and San Francisco. 

 

And with a straight face you'll tell me that that's not too far fetched. A very convenient lie for the warmongers, no?  A Boogeyman.  Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption.

 

I don't buy it.

Ukraine not being conquered and absorbed into Russia is definitely in the interests of the United States.  And Europe.

 

For the rest, you set up a silly straw man.  That's on you.

[jas007]

8 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Ukraine not being conquered and absorbed into Russia is definitely in the interests of the United States.  And Europe.

 

For the rest, you set up a silly straw man.  That's on you.

Please explain why, without the boogeyman angle.   

 

If you know history, you must know that people have been fighting over that part of the world for centuries.  What's different today? What's different, other than Ukraine wanting a continuing flow of money from the USA?  That's understandable, from a financial/corruption angle, of course, but other than that, what's the reality? 

 

As for a straw man?  I think you're the one who set up Russia as the boogeyman.  I'm just looking for specifics. 

[ChicagoExpat]

21 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Please explain why, without the boogeyman angle.   

 

If you know history, you must know that people have been fighting over that part of the world for centuries.  What's different today? What's different, other than Ukraine wanting a continuing flow of money from the USA?  That's understandable, from a financial/corruption angle, of course, but other than that, what's the reality? 

 

As for a straw man?  I think you're the one who set up Russia as the boogeyman.  I'm just looking for specifics. 

No, the straw man is completely your creation.  Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S.  And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption."

 

"I'm just looking for specifics," as one dishonest AseanNow contributor once said to me.

[jas007]

33 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

No, the straw man is completely your creation.  Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S.  And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption."

 

"I'm just looking for specifics," as one dishonest AseanNow contributor once said to me.

So, how is a continuing involvement in the war in the "best interest" of the US?  You say that as if it's self evident.  It's not. That's your boogeyman, not mine. Please explain.  

 

I really don't care what Ukraine does in its own self interest, so long as it doesn't require my tax dollars, half of which go down the drain for some sort of kickback scheme to corrupt politicians and the war machine. I just paid some taxes not too long ago, and it wasn't much fun.

 

And let's not forget about the inflation that results when the USA borrows money it doesn't have to fund the continuing war and the continuing corruption schemes. And because of the way the world economy works, it isn't just the USA middle class that funds the nonsense.  The USA inflation is primarily exported to the rest of the world, in case you didn't know that. 

[bannork]

An interesting article about the minerals deal recently signed between Trump and Zelensky

Mining projects are slow, high-risk and enormously expensive processes which can often take over a decade.

It’s possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US, boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important, given Beijing’s closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals.

The terms of the agreement are explicit: “states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction”.

Zelensky just might have beat Trump at his own game

 

[jas007]

2 hours ago, bannork said:

An interesting article about the minerals deal recently signed between Trump and Zelensky

Mining projects are slow, high-risk and enormously expensive processes which can often take over a decade.

It’s possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US, boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important, given Beijing’s closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals.

The terms of the agreement are explicit: “states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction”.

Zelensky just might have beat Trump at his own game

 

That's all well and good, except for the fact that Ukraine doesn't have any minerals that Russia doesn't also have.  Aren't the valuable minerals in the territory currently occupied by Russia?

 

I'm not sure what Trump is thinking, other than he's got some scheme to get Zelenskyy talking to Russia while the US exists, stage left.  

[bannork]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

That's all well and good, except for the fact that Ukraine doesn't have any minerals that Russia doesn't also have.  Aren't the valuable minerals in the territory currently occupied by Russia?

 

I'm not sure what Trump is thinking, other than he's got some scheme to get Zelenskyy talking to Russia while the US exists, stage left.  

Where are Ukraine's critical mineral deposits?

Ukraine has at least thirty seven crtiical mineral deposits across the country, with Lithium, Titanium and Graphite being the most abundant.
Approximately 19% (seven) of Ukraine's main critical mineral deposits are currently held in Russian-occupied territory, according to the latest frontline data from ISW in February 2025.

What are Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, where are they and what does this deal with Trump involve? | The Independent

[ChicagoExpat]

17 hours ago, jas007 said:

So, how is a continuing involvement in the war in the "best interest" of the US?  You say that as if it's self evident.  It's not. That's your boogeyman, not mine. Please explain.  

 

I really don't care what Ukraine does in its own self interest, so long as it doesn't require my tax dollars, half of which go down the drain for some sort of kickback scheme to corrupt politicians and the war machine. I just paid some taxes not too long ago, and it wasn't much fun.

 

And let's not forget about the inflation that results when the USA borrows money it doesn't have to fund the continuing war and the continuing corruption schemes. And because of the way the world economy works, it isn't just the USA middle class that funds the nonsense.  The USA inflation is primarily exported to the rest of the world, in case you didn't know that. 

Still waiting for your explanation for what I asked you -- here's a reminder:  Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S.  And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption."  Because you can't just make sh!t up, and when called out on it, make up more sh!t.

[jas007]

25 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Still waiting for your explanation for what I asked you -- here's a reminder:  Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S.  And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption."  Because you can't just make sh!t up, and when called out on it, make up more sh!t.

Go back and look at some of your earlier posts.  You state that Putin's original intent was to take all of Ukraine, but that's a questionable assertion. That's why the original incursion was called a "Special Military Operation" and not a war. The objectives were limited. You say "no one denies" that Russia's original goal was to take all of Ukraine, but again, just because that assertion fits your narrative doesn't make it true.  Finally, you assert that countries have a right not to be Russia vassal states. By implication, the gist of that assertion is that Putin could continue the war from Ukraine into other countries.  

 

And finally, you have stated that it's in the "best interest:" of the US to continue its involvement in the war, but nowhere do you explain why. In reality, the US has no strategic interest in Central Europe in today's world.  It's no longer 1939 and, in case you're not aware, the USA is just about bankrupt. Wasting billions on an exercise in futility in Central Europe is probably the last thing that should happen, bth for the country as a whole and the people who will pay the price via inflation and destruction of the dollar. 

 

In any event, the reality is that the war is now lost. It's over. Russia will continue the war and continue to move West until Zelenskyy comes to his senses.  And perhaps Trump will also come to his senses and withdraw all American support.

 

 I'd refer you to the start of the war, where Russia poured in over the entire Russian and Belarusian border in an attempt to take Kyiv.  It seems you're not familiar with the war's first year or so -- it might be a good thing to study as you're obviously very interested in the topic.  Yes, Russia DOES (or did) want to take the entire country and the current disaster is what they have to settle for.  No one denies this was Russia's original goal, including Russia.  And you're claiming they COULD overrun all of Ukraine... but are settling for a costly stalemate?  Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

I know you think Russia is entitled to use other countries as buffer zones -- same as the Soviets -- even if against their will, but those same countries have the right NOT to be Russian vassal states.

 

[ChicagoExpat]

6 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Go back and look at some of your earlier posts.  You state that Putin's original intent was to take all of Ukraine, but that's a questionable assertion. That's why the original incursion was called a "Special Military Operation" and not a war. The objectives were limited. You say "no one denies" that Russia's original goal was to take all of Ukraine, but again, just because that assertion fits your narrative doesn't make it true.  Finally, you assert that countries have a right not to be Russia vassal states. By implication, the gist of that assertion is that Putin could continue the war from Ukraine into other countries.  

 

And finally, you have stated that it's in the "best interest:" of the US to continue its involvement in the war, but nowhere do you explain why. In reality, the US has no strategic interest in Central Europe in today's world.  It's no longer 1939 and, in case you're not aware, the USA is just about bankrupt. Wasting billions on an exercise in futility in Central Europe is probably the last thing that should happen, bth for the country as a whole and the people who will pay the price via inflation and destruction of the dollar. 

 

In any event, the reality is that the war is now lost. It's over. Russia will continue the war and continue to move West until Zelenskyy comes to his senses.  And perhaps Trump will also come to his senses and withdraw all American support.

 

 I'd refer you to the start of the war, where Russia poured in over the entire Russian and Belarusian border in an attempt to take Kyiv.  It seems you're not familiar with the war's first year or so -- it might be a good thing to study as you're obviously very interested in the topic.  Yes, Russia DOES (or did) want to take the entire country and the current disaster is what they have to settle for.  No one denies this was Russia's original goal, including Russia.  And you're claiming they COULD overrun all of Ukraine... but are settling for a costly stalemate?  Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

I know you think Russia is entitled to use other countries as buffer zones -- same as the Soviets -- even if against their will, but those same countries have the right NOT to be Russian vassal states.

 

It's not questionable at all.  When you invade a country across every border possible and intend to take the capital, that's trying to conquer an entire country.

 

Here's a little story for you -- a parable, even.  I wonder if you'll recognize who is who.  Hint:  You're in there!

 

One day a thug started stabbing someone, in broad daylight, where everyone could see.  As people prepared to try and stop the thug from killing the victim, an observer claimed "He's not really trying to kill him!  It's a just Special Stabbing Operation!  The victim obviously deserves to die -- don't try to stop the dignified gentleman from completing his noble work.  Oh, and I DEFINITELY DO NOT SUPPORT THE DIGNIFIED GENTLEMAN.  I just want peace in the neighborhood and am tired of my tax dollars going to persecute dignified gentlemen.  Who are the rest of you to judge the dignified gentleman?"

 

You know, the lengths to which you'll go to justify Russia's actions to us, all while DEFINITELY NOT SUPPORTING RUSSIA, is remarkable.

[jas007]

27 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

It's not questionable at all.  When you invade a country across every border possible and intend to take the capital, that's trying to conquer an entire country.

 

Here's a little story for you -- a parable, even.  I wonder if you'll recognize who is who.  Hint:  You're in there!

 

One day a thug started stabbing someone, in broad daylight, where everyone could see.  As people prepared to try and stop the thug from killing the victim, an observer claimed "He's not really trying to kill him!  It's a just Special Stabbing Operation!  The victim obviously deserves to die -- don't try to stop the dignified gentleman from completing his noble work.  Oh, and I DEFINITELY DO NOT SUPPORT THE DIGNIFIED GENTLEMAN.  I just want peace in the neighborhood and am tired of my tax dollars going to persecute dignified gentlemen.  Who are the rest of you to judge the dignified gentleman?"

 

You know, the lengths to which you'll go to justify Russia's actions to us, all while DEFINITELY NOT SUPPORTING RUSSIA, is remarkable.

Here's the problem: your view of the war, how it started and why, and how it's now progressing does not comport with reality.  In fact, it's all more or less wishful thinking.  I've outlined why.

 

Ukraine cannot win the war at this point. For them, it's over and the best they can hope for is a deal with Russia. The sooner the better. Maybe, they can keep what's left of their country. Consider the past three or four years.  Ukraine had ample support from the US and from certain EU countries. Apparently, more support than they really could use, as half the money and equipment was stolen or sold on the black market.  And now they want more?  I don't think so.

 

How can you possibly be so callous as to think thousands more dead kids is no big deal?  

 

And I'm not "supporting" Russia.  I'm just not in favor of endless wars that enrich only bankers and the military complex and the politicians who profit from the corruption.  And, most importantly, I'd rather not see WW III. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

Here's the problem: your view of the war, how it started and why, and how it's now progressing does not comport with reality.  In fact, it's all more or less wishful thinking.  I've outlined why.

 

Ukraine cannot win the war at this point. For them, it's over and the best they can hope for is a deal with Russia. The sooner the better. Maybe, they can keep what's left of their country. Consider the past three or four years.  Ukraine had ample support from the US and from certain EU countries. Apparently, more support than they really could use, as half the money and equipment was stolen or sold on the black market.  And now they want more?  I don't think so.

 

How can you possibly be so callous as to think thousands more dead kids is no big deal?  

 

And I'm not "supporting" Russia.  I'm just not in favor of endless wars that enrich only bankers and the military complex and the politicians who profit from the corruption.  And, most importantly, I'd rather not see WW III. 

More like it doesn't comport with Z fascist and Maga fascist talking points about the war which are weirdly exactly the same.

[jas007]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

More like it doesn't comport with Z fascist and Maga fascist talking points about the war which are weirdly exactly the same.

Just because something is a "talking point" doesn't make it untrue.

 

I have yet to see a persuasive argument that details how, exactly, Zelenskyy's fantasies could ever come to fruition.  Russia isn't going to stop and say "sorry."  They aren't giving back Crimea, and they aren't giving back the parts of the Donbas that are now part of Russia.  It's a war and they won. 

 

And yet people like you repeat the left wing narrative that anyone who sees reality and opposes a continuation of the war for no good reason must be "fascist."  

 

What do you say to the families of the hundreds of thousands of kids who will no doubt be slaughtered for no good reason?   It's a meat grinder for those kids, and there's no point to it.

 

And there would certainly be no value to the world if WW III were to break out simply because the war mongers  have good propaganda and people like you believe it.  It's called brainwashing for a reason.  

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Just because something is a "talking point" doesn't make it untrue.

 

I have yet to see a persuasive argument that details how, exactly, Zelenskyy's fantasies could ever come to fruition.  Russia isn't going to stop and say "sorry."  They aren't giving back Crimea, and they aren't giving back the parts of the Donbas that are now part of Russia.  It's a war and they won. 

 

And yet people like you repeat the left wing narrative that anyone who sees reality and opposes a continuation of the war for no good reason must be "fascist."  

 

What do you say to the families of the hundreds of thousands of kids who will no doubt be slaughtered for no good reason?   It's a meat grinder for those kids, and there's no point to it.

 

And there would certainly be no value to the world if WW III were to break out simply because the war mongers  have good propaganda and people like you believe it.  It's called brainwashing for a reason.  

No doubt that you are familiar with brainwashing. 

[jas007]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No doubt that you are familiar with brainwashing. 

I am. You are the perfect example.  Anyone buying into your nonsense would have to deny a lot of reality.

 

You'd have to believe that Russia would stop, apologize, and return all captured territories to Ukraine, including Crimea. 

 

You'd have to believe that, despite massive help over the past few years from the US and from the EU, none of which was successful in stopping Russia, that somehow, more aid is necessary and would result in a Ukrainian victory.

 

You'd have to believe that kids won't be slaughtered by the thousands. And that even if they are, "so what"? 

 

And you'd have to be indifferent to the consequences of WW IIII breaking out and possibly escalating to a nuclear armageddon. 

 

So tell me, who's brainwashed? 

[thesetat]

49 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No doubt that you are familiar with brainwashing. 

I am familiar with it. Zelenski has been doing it for some time now. Including his own people. He uses hope and desperation as his tactics. But nonetheless, his people are beginning to see him for what he is. Stubborn only to continue being fed money to keep his people dying without any real hope to win back what was taken. 

[ChicagoExpat]

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

How can you possibly be so callous as to think thousands more dead kids is no big deal?  

Setting aside the other nonsense in your post, let's focus on this little gem.  The corpses of thousands more dead kids lie at the feet of Russia.  Period.  For all three invasions of Ukraine.

 

Still waiting for your explanation for what I asked you -- here's a reminder:  Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S.  And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption." 

 

You never argue in good faith, Jas (James?).  Including the endless claim that you are not a Russia supporter -- the one cheering on "the thousands more dead kids" is you.  You are indeed a Russia supporter, and all of this is what you cheer on.  Of course, you can solve this dilemma but condemning Russia's invasion -- but in all the scores of online arguments I've had with guys like you, not a single one has EVER clarified his position as a lover of peace by simply condemning Russia.  Not a single one.  And the silence speaks louder than all the Kremlin agitprop stuff you say.

 

P.S. I'm a little hurt you didn't at least acknowledge how funny my last post was.  Admit it, it WAS funny!   Trying to keep things light.