aTmAg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

It's not the best use of USA resources to protect the rights of Ukraine, whatever they are.

The era of the USA asserting its empire over the entire world is coming to an end. We should not be trying to export our culture through force. We have enough problems right now to fix at home.

That is bad for a lot of people, both philosophically and financially, but that is the reality.

---

This is a different argument. I could be persuaded by this, since we are up to our eyeballs in debt.


However, that is completely different than claiming that the war was UKRAINES fault. That is an asinine assertion. The person who commits violence first is the one at fault. Russian FREAKING INVADED a sovereign nation. Not for retaliation of any attack or anything.. just because they want it. Just like Hitler invading Poland or Japan invaded China. There is ZERO justification for that.

---

And they pretended they weren't going to invade until the moment they did, then made up a classic excuse that made sense to nobody, straight from the German playbook.

In a sense, it feels like we're back in 1938. Like we didn't learn anything.

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

Trump is Putin's stooge. It's so disheartening. There was so much in Trump's Truth message that is demonstrably false.

I remember when Republicans hated Russian dictators.

Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.

---

How many tabs you got open mr. farmer? Did you forget to switch tabs before this comment?

Quote:

---

spare me. the trump admin has ideologically realigned the republican party to support russia and oppose europe because they strive to emulate the former's style of governance. reagan is rolling in his grave.

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe peace with Russia would follow if Ukraine joins NATO?

---

Of course. Russia wouldn't risk an article 5 trigger over Ukraine. Bullies only attack those they think are weak.

---

You have been watching Russia in this conflict, no?

They certainly don't give up easily.

What do we do when Russia starts having nuclear tests? Do we balk like Russia did in 1962? Do we call their bluff?

I certainly don't want to push us to the brink of WWIII.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

Trump is Putin's stooge. It's so disheartening. There was so much in Trump's Truth message that is demonstrably false.

I remember when Republicans hated Russian dictators.

Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.

---

Talking point is out. This is probably the 10th leftist/Ukraine cheerleader I have seen invoking Ronald Reagan, who the left hates with every ounce of their being.

---

The joke is on you.

It's the same guy with a bunch of different socks.

Yes I've watched Russia in this conflict. They attacked Ukraine because they thought it would be easy. Then they gave us about 100 red lines in the sand every time we sent Ukraine a new weapon system and bluffed every single time.

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

Trump is Putin's stooge. It's so disheartening. There was so much in Trump's Truth message that is demonstrably false.

I remember when Republicans hated Russian dictators.

Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.

---

Why do people keep saying this? Reagan hated communism/marxism. That's what he wanted defeated. To the extent that communist led Soviet Union wanted to project communist power on the world, yes, he wanted to defeat that. But the end goal was not to wipe out the Russians, it was to defeat a dangerous ideology and its ability to project power in the world.

President Reagan developed a relationship with Gorbachev. Margaret Thatcher developed a relationship with Gorbachev. Nixon/Kissinger engaged in the policy of "detente" with the Soviets and Brezhnev. That's what led to the lowering of tensions between us in the 70s and 80s. Yes, there was an ebb and flow in terms of the dance, but make no mistake, the GOP administrations of the 1970s and 1980s were trying to get the two superpowers to back away from the point of no return. And it took developing relationships with Soviet leaders.

Reagan's infamous "Tear Down this Wall" line came not from him seeing Gorbachev as his mortal enemy. Reagan had developed a relationship of mutual respect with Gorbachev. It was because of this relationship that Reagan instinctively knew that it would help, not hurt, the tensions between the two countries. Reagan ignored the state department bureaucrats on that speech and the world became safer for it. Why did he feel safe to do it? Because of the relationship.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reagan-and-gorbachev-shutting-the-cold-war-down/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/31/gorbachev-and-reagan-the-capitalist-and-communist-who-helped-end-the-cold-war

I'm not a fan of Trumps approach here and I'm in no way comparing what Reagan said or did to what Trump just did here in the last 24 hours. But I'm also not a fan of people rewriting history to make a point about Reagan vs Trump. Reagan and Gorbachev would eventually consider each other friends. Let's not gloss over that in order to try and score some weird gotcha points over Trump here.

Gordo14 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Same reason he said Zelenskyy has a 4% approval rating. Love the guy, voted for him 3 times and would again if I could, but he sometimes says some really really stupid *****

---

He's not just saying stupid ***** This is a very calculated effort to realign America with Russia. I know you're struggling because you are not the average MAGA bot on this forum... You're struggling to accept the reality because you're invested in him. You didn't see this in Trump. But it'd always been there. We were just lucky enough that it mattered a whole lot less in his first term.

Over the next few weeks, we will pull American troops out of NATO countries east of Germany (Donald Trump is so strong - funny joke), the MAGA algorithm will be flooded with anti-NATO and pro Russia content (a lot of emphasis on conservative values of Russia), peace talks will collapse and Trump will blame Ukraine and Europe, Trump will hold hands with Putin and Xi in Moscow on May 9tn, and the Republican party will further it's descent into mindless collapse behind Trump.

If you're not a slave to this algorithm, you'll be very confused. Many, like teslag are too invested to take it seriously. Some of you are waking up to just how awful the global security environment is going to be. Russia will challenge NATOs Article V due to Trump's weakness, and a Chinese invasion of Taiwan (2027) is much more likely today than it was even a month ago.

I wish this wasn't so predictable. I've basically been right about everything in regards to Trump so far. But even I am shocked at how bad he's been.

---

There are many interests in this conflict:

1) Russia
2) Ukraine
3) Corrupt democrat politicians that need their money laundered
4) Corrupt GOP politicians that need their defense contractor buddies taken care of
5) The people of Ukraine
6) The people of Russia
7) The American tax payer.

Trump decided to side with #7, all others can figure it out amongst themselves. That's why he won the presidency, and why Vance will be your next president.

This new line of rhetoric going around that Trump is aligning with Russia because he is pushing for peace is simply a false dichotomy. You can be for the American people without really giving a damn about the other 6.

Take that back to your discord server and ask your overlords to try again.

Quote:

---

In a sense, it feels like we're back in 1938. Like we didn't learn anything.

---

Maybe. But not in the way some may be thinking. Russia is more likely the "Mussolinis Italy" that with some hard work diplomacy, could be separated from Hitler's agenda (China and Xi toward Taiwan). Another parallel -- he was then guilty of a fumbled invasion that was globally unpopular, but still a figure of stature that could have been brought to the French side of the equation had a stronger stance against Germany been taken and his own tress-passes less emphasized going forward.

If some of what have heard about Xi and this Mehmet II style sense about Taiwan is true, its a dicey picture.

policywonk98 said:

---

Why do people keep saying this? Reagan hated communism/marxism.

---

Everyone knows that.

The people putting out this talking point also put out talking points that the reason why Harris lost the election is that more than 50% of the American population are racist bigots.

It's clear to me that the USAID money hasn't completely dried up yet, or these talking points are being bankrolled from another pile of money.

I love that they are doing it, because it makes it easy to find the NPCs.

Teslag said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Same reason he said Zelenskyy has a 4% approval rating. Love the guy, voted for him 3 times and would again if I could, but he sometimes says some really really stupid *****

---

4% approval seems high.

---

Dumb. It's over 50% on recent polls. Good lord.

---

Proving there are a ton of very stupid people in this world that don't mind being robbed blind.

---

It's a poll of Ukrainians. Their perspective may be different than yours.

---

Fair point. I'd have a high approval too if I was in on the cash grab.

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Same reason he said Zelenskyy has a 4% approval rating. Love the guy, voted for him 3 times and would again if I could, but he sometimes says some really really stupid *****

---

4% approval seems high.

---

Dumb. It's over 50% on recent polls. Good lord.

---

Proving there are a ton of very stupid people in this world that don't mind being robbed blind.

---

It's a poll of Ukrainians. Their perspective may be different than yours.

---

Fair point. I'd have a high approval too if I was in on the cash grab.

---

What if you really didn't want to be invaded by another country and one person was doing all he could to prevent that? Would you approve of him?

aTmAg said:

---

Regarding the war itself, Ukraine is no demon at all. Not even close.

Um, they were the chief money laundering arm of the democratic party until about 29 days ago. The people might not be endlessly corrupt, but their government is.

---

Which is why I said "regarding the war itself". Which is the topic of this thread.

Quote:

---

I don't know how you can say that with any authority. Like I said before, it was absolutely a consideration. Putin covets Kiev. Was it 100% the reason for the invasion? It is a pretty messy conflict. Trying to assign white and black hats doesn't really work.

---

I don't care what Putin considers before invading another nation. If he did so without being attacked first, then he is wrong. PERIOD. Treating his "consideration" as legit is like saying Ted Bundy had a legit complaint against women and that it wasn't "black and white".

BboroAg said:

---

Because Ukraine/USA did start the war….very similar playbook to the USA's role in the Vietnam war

---

The US entered into the Viet Nam War in 1965, but it had already been going on for something like twenty years.

Teslag said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

I always thought Russia was the aggressor.

---

You are wrong.

Imagine if you had an American-majority living in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, they wanted to be independent from Canada. Things devolve, and Canada decides to outlaw pro-NS/NB media so these provinces are unable to have journalism and press and they are forced to listen to Canadian-majority media. They are becoming marginalized politically without a voice or ability to engage in messaging. War breaks out.

The world learns that Canada has been torturing, raping, and targeting civilians. The world forces a cease-fire. A cease-fire which Canada breaks, with the tenuous claim that Nova Scotia broke it first.

You are sitting in America, seeing your American brothers brutalized, marginalized, and being beaten. People have fled to your town asking you and your government for help.

At what point does the big brother step in and engage the bully?

---

Would we also launch cruise missiles into Ottawa, and then try to level residential areas in Toronto and Montreal to purposely punish their civilians and force them into capitulation? Would we then annex several Canadian provinces and make them the 51st through 53rd states? Even those that are still culturally Canadian?

---

No, but if Canada was once under our rule and historically had been for 300 years we def would feel differently.

I think the biggest concept I think about regarding this mess is imagine if Canada or Mexico decided they were going to join BRICS AND BRICS had a mutual defense clause (which it doesn't but NATO does). You think we wouldn't intervene and ***** slap them back in line? Would we let Canada form an alliance with Russia, do joint military drills, and certainly have opportunity to install bases, missles, defenses near our border? Yaaaaaaa OK.

No we would NEVER allow it. Russia has been pretty clear over the years on their thoughts of NATO expansion east and they have to do what is best for them.

Taking "Putin bad dictator" out of it and feels, he's defending his homeland and I actually understand it.

You have to look at this conflict further back in the timeline and not just the invasion of Crimea in 2014. It's much more complex than that.

All arguments for or against either side that only discuss the most recent invasion is not worth discussing imho. It's just not that simple. Nothing in Geo Politics is.

I don't think under your scenarios we annex parts of Canada and Mexico as states, level their cities to dust, purposely target their civilians, or roll the equivalent of the 82nd, 101st, 1st cav, 1st armored, and 4th ID in a 3 day push to Ottawa.

So no, I don't buy that **** at all.

Teslag said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Same reason he said Zelenskyy has a 4% approval rating. Love the guy, voted for him 3 times and would again if I could, but he sometimes says some really really stupid *****

---

4% approval seems high.

---

Dumb. It's over 50% on recent polls. Good lord.

---

Proving there are a ton of very stupid people in this world that don't mind being robbed blind.

---

It's a poll of Ukrainians. Their perspective may be different than yours.

---

Fair point. I'd have a high approval too if I was in on the cash grab.

---

What if you really didn't want to be invaded by another country and one person was doing all he could to prevent that? Would you approve of him?

---

I don't agree that this is the case. My only thought is that it is absolutely absurd how much of our tax dollars have gone over there. We've been fleeced like no other. And the gaul of the guy in the video a few pages back saying Ukraine doesn't owe the USA a damn thing is something else.

You don't agree he's doing all he can? What's the best thing he can do to kill Russians and prevent them from taking his country in a land grab?

At least one Republican has found his spine.

"In a post on his X handle on Wednesday, the former Vice President told Trump that the road to peace must be built on the truth. Pence said: "Mr President, Ukraine did not 'start' this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The road to peace must be built on the truth."

PENCE

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

I always thought Russia was the aggressor.

---

You are wrong.

Imagine if you had an American-majority living in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, they wanted to be independent from Canada. Things devolve, and Canada decides to outlaw pro-NS/NB media so these provinces are unable to have journalism and press and they are forced to listen to Canadian-majority media. They are becoming marginalized politically without a voice or ability to engage in messaging. War breaks out.

The world learns that Canada has been torturing, raping, and targeting civilians. The world forces a cease-fire. A cease-fire which Canada breaks, with the tenuous claim that Nova Scotia broke it first.

You are sitting in America, seeing your American brothers brutalized, marginalized, and being beaten. People have fled to your town asking you and your government for help.

At what point does the big brother step in and engage the bully?

---

Would we also launch cruise missiles into Ottawa, and then try to level residential areas in Toronto and Montreal to purposely punish their civilians and force them into capitulation? Would we then annex several Canadian provinces and make them the 51st through 53rd states? Even those that are still culturally Canadian?

---

No, but if Canada was once under our rule and historically had been for 300 years we def would feel differently.

I think the biggest concept I think about regarding this mess is imagine if Canada or Mexico decided they were going to join BRICS AND BRICS had a mutual defense clause (which it doesn't but NATO does). You think we wouldn't intervene and ***** slap them back in line? Would we let Canada form an alliance with Russia, do joint military drills, and certainly have opportunity to install bases, missles, defenses near our border? Yaaaaaaa OK.

No we would NEVER allow it. Russia has been pretty clear over the years on their thoughts of NATO expansion east and they have to do what is best for them.

Taking "Putin bad dictator" out of it and feels, he's defending his homeland and I actually understand it.

You have to look at this conflict further back in the timeline and not just the invasion of Crimea in 2014. It's much more complex than that.

All arguments for or against either side that only discuss the most recent invasion is not worth discussing imho. It's just not that simple. Nothing in Geo Politics is.

---

Except Ukraine wasn't close to actually joining NATO and most members of NATO had no intention of letting them ever join.

BusterAg said:

---

titan said:

---

We have the same issue coming up with Taiwan.

---

We should absolutely protect Taiwan until we can compete with TSMC here in the states. It is in our best interests. Not really the same as Ukraine.

---

There is zero evidence that we could protect Taiwan and after this week there will not be a coalition willing to lift a finger to help on tariffs or sanctions let alone military help.

BusterAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe peace with Russia would follow if Ukraine joins NATO?

---

Of course. Russia wouldn't risk an article 5 trigger over Ukraine. Bullies only attack those they think are weak.

---

You have been watching Russia in this conflict, no?

They certainly don't give up easily.

What do we do when Russia starts having nuclear tests? Do we balk like Russia did in 1962? Do we call their bluff?

I certainly don't want to push us to the brink of WWIII.

---

Russia is pushing us to the brink. Ukraine is saving us. WWII started precisely because of the exact appeasement you are suggesting.

Quote:

---

Ukraine is saving us.

---

More hilarity. Thx.

aTmAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Regarding the war itself, Ukraine is no demon at all. Not even close.

Um, they were the chief money laundering arm of the democratic party until about 29 days ago. The people might not be endlessly corrupt, but their government is.

---

Which is why I said "regarding the war itself". Which is the topic of this thread.

Quote:

---

I don't know how you can say that with any authority. Like I said before, it was absolutely a consideration. Putin covets Kiev. Was it 100% the reason for the invasion? It is a pretty messy conflict. Trying to assign white and black hats doesn't really work.

---

I don't care what Putin considers before invading another nation. If he did so without being attacked first, then he is wrong. PERIOD. Treating his "consideration" as legit is like saying Ted Bundy had a legit complaint against women and that it wasn't "black and white".

---

Again, the Cuban Missile Crisis is a great contra example.

I do not believe that JFK would have been wearing the black hat had he bombed and invaded Cuba. I do not believe that Obama was wearing a black hat when he invaded Pakistan to take out Bin Laden. I do not believe that G.W.Bush or Colon Powell were wearing black hats when we invaded Iraq (but, I do believe that Cheyne was).

Your litmus test "being attacked first" fails.

rootube said:

---

Ukraine is saving usAID.

---

FIFY

This might be the most braindead statement I have ever seen be made by a sitting U.S. President. Calling Zelensky a dictator while someone like Putin has been in power now for over 25 years is some next level stupidity. This is the President of the United States on one of his… pic.twitter.com/d5cLZQOe2q

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 19, 2025

Would love to bet you a few hundred thousand dollars that we will NOT:

"have all of our troops pulled out of all countries east of Germany in a few weeks"

rootube said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

titan said:

---

We have the same issue coming up with Taiwan.

---

We should absolutely protect Taiwan until we can compete with TSMC here in the states. It is in our best interests. Not really the same as Ukraine.

---

There is zero evidence that we could protect Taiwan and after this week there will not be a coalition willing to lift a finger to help on tariffs or sanctions let alone military help.

---

Where does Trump say that Putin is NOT a dictator?!?!

you know two things can be true simultaneously

Hitler was a dictator
Stalin was a dictator
Tojo was a dictator

Putin at least had "elections" before his term was up-

which Zelensky can't say the same!

Zelensky is LITERALLY acting under Martial Law in the sixth year of a 5 year term!

is that democracy?!

sanangelo said:

---

This might be the most braindead statement I have ever seen be made by a sitting U.S. President. Calling Zelensky a dictator while someone like Putin has been in power now for over 25 years is some next level stupidity. This is the President of the United States on one of his… pic.twitter.com/d5cLZQOe2q

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 19, 2025

---

People from group A read Trump's statement and say: "Holy crap, he called Z a dictator"

People from group B read Trump's statement and say: "Holy crap, even Z says that half the aid is missing! And he is asking for more?"

There are more people in group B than there are in group A.

And that is why Trump is POTUS, and not Harris.

I recommend watching the Youtube video of Jeffrey Sachs on the Ukraine fiasco. He covers from 1991 to today, and no surprise the Biden admin, with Tony Blinken, really f'd it up. This whole thing appears to be a cluster *****on our end. I support Trump 110% on ending this damn thing.

sanangelo said:

---

This might be the most braindead statement I have ever seen be made by a sitting U.S. President. Calling Zelensky a dictator while someone like Putin has been in power now for over 25 years is some next level stupidity. This is the President of the United States on one of his… pic.twitter.com/d5cLZQOe2q

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 19, 2025

---

Crazy times where the sitting president fires off a string of ridiculous lies like that

GAC06 said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

This might be the most braindead statement I have ever seen be made by a sitting U.S. President. Calling Zelensky a dictator while someone like Putin has been in power now for over 25 years is some next level stupidity. This is the President of the United States on one of his… pic.twitter.com/d5cLZQOe2q

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 19, 2025

---

Crazy times where the sitting president fires off a string of ridiculous lies like that

---

Would you like to be specific about the lies?

This is as good as saying "you know a democrat is lying when he opens his mouth"

Care to bring some specificity to your generalized commentary?

Everytime I see "independent" pro-Ukrainian war accounts I can't help but think if they're so angry because NGOs like the Institute for War are getting cut-off the government gravy train.

BusterAg said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

This might be the most braindead statement I have ever seen be made by a sitting U.S. President. Calling Zelensky a dictator while someone like Putin has been in power now for over 25 years is some next level stupidity. This is the President of the United States on one of his… pic.twitter.com/d5cLZQOe2q

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 19, 2025

---

People from group A read Trump's statement and say: "Holy crap, he called Z a dictator"

People from group B read Trump's statement and say: "Holy crap, even Z says that half the aid is missing! And he is asking for more?"

There are more people in group B than there are in group A.

And that is why Trump is POTUS, and not Harris.

---

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. And when it was corrected, the right media didn't even bother whispering the truth after shouting the lie.

Z said Ukraine did not receive over half of the aid earmarked. And that is correct. Something like 60 to 70% of said aid never leaves our shores. Especially those first big packages. Which were used to build up our infrastructure here. Ukraine never saw that money. They were never going to see that money. That's not how it works.

There are still sooooooo many LIV people who still blindly believe we just shipped over $200BN in cash on pallets and said good luck! It became my litmus actually on whether I would even engage someone on this overall topic. If someone didn't or couldn't understand the basics of the aid packages and how they worked, it wasn't worth anyone's time trying to engage further.

There probably is missing money somewhere. I'd count on it even. But $100BN+ is a joke and has moved from a misunderstanding to an outright lie at this point.

BusterAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

This might be the most braindead statement I have ever seen be made by a sitting U.S. President. Calling Zelensky a dictator while someone like Putin has been in power now for over 25 years is some next level stupidity. This is the President of the United States on one of his… pic.twitter.com/d5cLZQOe2q

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 19, 2025

---

Crazy times where the sitting president fires off a string of ridiculous lies like that

---

Would you like to be specific about the lies?

This is as good as saying "you know a democrat is lying when he opens his mouth"

Care to bring some specificity to your generalized commentary?

---

Well for starters we haven't "spent" $350 billion. Most is book value of older weapons, some of which will not be replace. And Zelenskyy also doesn't have low approval ratings. Last month they were over 50%.