A Russian invasion of Ukraine: Just how far would Russia go and what would Russia's war aims be?

TheRejectionist

TheRejectionist
I'm still not seeing a compelling reason to allow Russia to take over Ukraine.
For us not to he world police is all I saw

You do know we have your nukes in Italy? Where I live , where my loved ones lives, where my friends live. ME AND ALL OF THEM WOULD BE TURNED TO ASH because of your petty muh liberty.

Which has a negative value if the aftermath is being ash or a radioactive husk.

Also, I see no reason why your wretched Russophobic megalomaniacal elites should add another puppet state to their already large list.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
You do know we have your nukes in Italy? Where I live , where my loved ones lives, where my friends live. ME AND ALL OF THEM WOULD BE TURNED TO ASH because of your petty muh liberty.

Which has a negative value if the aftermath is being ash or a radioactive husk.

Also, I see no reason why your wretched Russophobic megalomaniacal elites should add another puppet state to their already large list.
What you said, I am not dealing with the aftermath of a massive war right next door, as well as disruptions to energy supply, because somebody has to spout stupid propaganda and because the inbreaded shadow elite in the US, UK and some parts of the EU are mental retards.And because the bloated bureaucracies and vested interests in NATO, the EU and the US just wnat to keep justifying their miserable existence and expand more.
(Looking at those morons Borrell and that sick joke of a foreign minister the even sicker joke of a coalition put up in Germany.As well as that sad joke Blinken and the cretin Stoltenberg.)
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
You do know we have your nukes in Italy? Where I live , where my loved ones lives, where my friends live. ME AND ALL OF THEM WOULD BE TURNED TO ASH because of your petty muh liberty.

Which has a negative value if the aftermath is being ash or a radioactive husk.

Also, I see no reason why your wretched Russophobic megalomaniacal elites should add another puppet state to their already large list.
Yet another false dichotomy. Also, what makes you think Russia would nuke Italy in retaliation for the US helping Ukraine militarily? The US is the one with the nuclear target on our backs. I also live in a state that has a good deal of silos in it, so if things went nuclear, I'm pretty sure I'd be one of the first ones dying in nuclear fire. We also aren't the ones threatening to conquer Ukraine, Russia is. Russia are also the ones threatening nukes, just like China when it comes to Taiwan, and you bet your ass I want to defend Taiwan from China, too.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
@Captain X Yeah, so that Burgerland can add another puppet state to the collection?

Or so that the Deutsche can have another member of the new Reich?

So that the Western sphere of influence would be larger.

A cold comfort, even if we take this assertion at face value, to the hundreds of millions who die in the exchange all because you wanted to get into a dick waving contest over Ukraine with Russia for "reasons".

Wouldn't that mean that sponsoring an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine would be considerably less risky?

BTW, the only winners in your scenario would be the Chinese, who will subsequently move into Siberia and the Russian Far East en masse. In such a scenario, the threat of a Yellow Peril would finally become real! ;)
 

TheRejectionist

TheRejectionist
Yet another false dichotomy. Also, what makes you think Russia would nuke Italy in retaliation for the US helping Ukraine militarily? The US is the one with the nuclear target on our backs. I also live in a state that has a good deal of silos in it, so if things went nuclear, I'm pretty sure I'd be one of the first ones dying in nuclear fire. We also aren't the ones threatening to conquer Ukraine, Russia is. Russia are also the ones threatening nukes, just like China when it comes to Taiwan, and you bet your ass I want to defend Taiwan from China, too.

  1. No you are not the only ones to have targets in your backs.
  2. You are threatening to surround militarily another country. It would have never happened if you guys didn't pull off another Spring to add to one of your puppets. Just like you tried with
  3. Far as I can the overwhelming majority of times in the last decades the majority of the times, you guys were the ones doing the invading and without much threats.
Western Ukraine's history outside of Russian rule is considerably longer than its history under Russian rule.

That's right. Western Ukraine.

Still not NATO business. Still not want to get blown up because you guys wanna play world police who accepts bribes from lobbyists to do so or to mantain your "strategic" "interests".
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
  1. No you are not the only ones to have targets in your backs.
  2. You are threatening to surround militarily another country. It would have never happened if you guys didn't pull off another Spring to add to one of your puppets. Just like you tried with
  3. Far as I can the overwhelming majority of times in the last decades the majority of the times, you guys were the ones doing the invading and without much threats.


That's right. Western Ukraine.

Still not NATO business. Still not want to get blown up because you guys wanna play world police who accepts bribes from lobbyists to do so or to mantain your "strategic" "interests".

Then why not kick the Baltic countries out of NATO for the same reason?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
(Looking at those morons Borrell and that sick joke of a foreign minister the even sicker joke of a coalition put up in Germany.As well as that sad joke Blinken and the cretin Stoltenberg.)
Oh the irony, the circus in Germany is most pro-Russian of the bunch, to the point of blocking weapons from being sold to Ukraine by other countries.

But what do you think the western leaders from the times of Patton, Churchill and Adenauer would have done with the current situation?
 

TheRejectionist

TheRejectionist
Then why not kick the Baltic countries out of NATO for the same reason?

Because they are useful puppets for your geriatric elites.

Oh the irony, the circus in Germany is most pro-Russian of the bunch, to the point of blocking weapons from being sold to Ukraine by other countries.

But what do you think the western leaders from the times of Patton, Churchill and Adenauer would have done with the current situation?

First then there was the USSR.

Second they wouldn't mess with another nuclear power.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Because they are useful puppets for your geriatric elites.

First then there was the USSR.
So? Different name, but lead by their geriatric elites from KGB, same ones USSR would have been lead by if it still existed. They just became less socialist, and lost more ethnically distinct and culturally alien frontier lands in the fall, which is what Putin is known to call "“the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century ". Not WW1. Not WW2. Fall of Soviet Union. Let that sink in .
So it follows logic that now he's trying to roll the effects of that back.
Second they wouldn't mess with another nuclear power.
Yeah, right...
Reminder that they formed NATO in the first place, and Russia hated it from the beginning.
Did they just throw their hands up, drop everything, and go home to pray commies don't look in their direction when they built nukes too?
No, they kept "messing with another nuclear power" until it bankrupted itself in the arms race.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Oh the irony, the circus in Germany is most pro-Russian of the bunch, to the point of blocking weapons from being sold to Ukraine by other countries.

But what do you think the western leaders from the times of Patton, Churchill and Adenauer would have done with the current situation?
I know what George F. Kennan would have done, told everyone that to be polite to the Russians and to understand that they have national interests that they will safeguard.
Patton?
What do I care what he might have done, he was a soldier, not a politician or a diplomat, he would have followed orders, and as incompetent as the FDR administration might have been, well not even they are as pig-headed and retarded as Sleepy Joe's blob creatures.

Diplomatically and financially Churchill was a bull in a china shop, his little seizure of two warships ordered by the Turks basically helped push Turkey into the open arms of the central powers and his reinstatement of the gold peg of the pound at pre-war rates, disregarding the expansion of the money supply, contributed massively to the great depression.
Citations ready if you need them!

However faced with the current situation in the UK, he probably would try and extrecate himself from the Ukraine situation and reign in his Neocons.

Adenauer would do what would provide peace and prosperity to Germany, cutting ties with a major trading partner and the source of much Russian energy would not be what he wants.

Are you intentionally listing random political figures of major national interest in the hopes that I am going to attack them and look like a nasty pinko commie Britain/USA/Germany-hater or something, because frankly the question has zero point otherwise, either as self-validation or as a way to mobilize a few of the more jingoistic chest-pumper chickenhawk cuckservatives?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Adenauer would do what would provide peace and prosperity to Germany, cutting ties with a major trading partner and the source of much Russian energy would not be what he wants.
For how much of its oil and gas supply was West Germany relying on the USSR?
Hint: Its as much as Germany should rely on Russia for right now.
Are you intentionally listing random political figures of major national interest in the hopes that I am going to attack them and look like a nasty pinko commie Britain/USA/Germany-hater or something, because frankly the question has zero point otherwise, either as self-validation or as a way to mobilize a few of the more jingoistic chest-pumper chickenhawk cuckservatives?
Because you keep downplaying the less isolationist opinions of the current western leaders on account of their rather low caliber... So i asked what do you think the more respected leaders of the past would have done.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
For how much of its oil and gas supply was West Germany relying on the USSR?
Hint: Its as much as Germany should rely on Russia for right now.

Because you keep downplaying the less isolationist opinions of the current western leaders on account of their rather low caliber... So i asked what do you think the more respected leaders of the past would have done.
You do realize that 1) The situation then was very differnet from the one now, trying to shoehorn the invasion of Ukrane back then is a non-starter, since Ukraine was a constituent republic of the USSR.

What are you asking, exactly, how these world leaders would react in the current situation, or if the USSR decided to do something in Ukraine after a pro-western riot, the NKVD and the military would have stopped in its tracks, you asked, quote 'But what do you think the western leaders from the times of Patton, Churchill and Adenauer would have done with the current situation', this implies they are somehow ISOTed into the bodies of their current counterparts.Who would Patton be, by the way, Milly?

Get your questions straight.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
You do realize that 1) The situation then was very differnet from the one now, trying to shoehorn the invasion of Ukrane back then is a non-starter, since Ukraine was a constituent republic of the USSR.

What are you asking, exactly, how these world leaders would react in the current situation, or if the USSR decided to do something in Ukraine after a pro-western riot, the NKVD and the military would have stopped in its tracks, you asked, quote 'But what do you think the western leaders from the times of Patton, Churchill and Adenauer would have done with the current situation', this implies they are somehow ISOTed into the bodies of their current counterparts.Who would Patton be, by the way, Milly?

Get your questions straight.
I'm asking it in the straightest way possible. Lets assume they won the genetic lottery, didn't die in accidents, and the medical technology is a bit better now, so its possible for well off westerners to live to the age of 150, and as such they are still alive and sometimes comment on politics.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
I'm asking it in the straightest way possible. Lets assume they won the genetic lottery, didn't die in accidents, and the medical technology is a bit better now, so its possible for well off westerners to live to the age of 150, and as such they are still alive and sometimes comment on politics.
Probably what I already surmised they'd do.
Is there a point to such off topic , and Alternate history/what-if? There is a subforum for that, you know.

Then again, one good turn deserves another, and I ask my nonsensical off topic question.
What if we do the same with every great Russian Tzar, Prime-Minister and General?
Answer: "Praise Putin for restoring ancestral Russian land and safeguarding Russian people from impudent upstarts aided and abetted by foreign powers."

Are we done with the ASB shenanigans now?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Probably what I already surmised they'd do.
Is there a point to such off topic , and Alternate history/what-if? There is a subforum for that, you know.

Then again, one good turn deserves another, and I ask my nonsensical off topic question.
What if we do the same with every great Russian Tzar, Prime-Minister and General?
Answer: "Praise Putin for restoring ancestral Russian land and safeguarding Russian people from impudent upstarts aided and abetted by foreign powers."

Are we done with the ASB shenanigans now?
Yes, thank you for finishing my point. Russian policy on expanding the land it controls, directly or indirectly, to the west, through both violent and non-violent means, is 100% consistent with both the pre-Soviet and Soviet policy regarding that matter. The question isn't whether it will make the westerners uncomfortable, the only question is whether they can pull it off.

The better question is, for all those who see no problem with such policy on Russia's part at all, or better yet, think its perfectly fine, rational and sane policy... Why don't you want western countries to be lead by people willing to mirror such an illustrious example?
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Why can Germany or Poland or Lithuania or Belarus get Kaliniigrad back then if Ukraine has Rissian I terests?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Yes, thank you for finishing my point. Russian policy on expanding the land it controls, directly or indirectly, to the west, through both violent and non-violent means, is 100% consistent with both the pre-Soviet and Soviet policy regarding that matter. The question isn't whether it will make the westerners uncomfortable, the only question is whether they can pull it off.

The better question is, for all those who see no problem with such policy on Russia's part at all, or better yet, think its perfectly fine, rational and sane policy... Why don't you want western countries to be lead by people willing to mirror such an illustrious example?

Yeah, if expanding Russia's sphere of influence is perfectly acceptable, why exactly is it unacceptable for the West to do the same thing? Central and Western Ukraine were previously Polish and, in some cases, Austro-Hungarian, after all.

Why can Germany or Poland or Lithuania or Belarus get Kaliniigrad back then if Ukraine has Rissian I terests?

Yeah, I do wonder if Russia's policies have always been done with Western interests in mind.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top