Russia(gate/bot) Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[Bacle]

Theb why is us cutting off Russian oil bad?
It will push for more domestic one way or another

Except it's not, it's part of the DCs/Great Reset's push to remove as much fossil fuel reliance as possible, and shift more of the market towards EVs and non-fossil fuel using machines for lawn care and the like.

Banning Russian oil was about hurting Moscow, but the lack of increased domestic production is because the powers in DC buy into the rad-greens and the whole 'go meatless' push.

Why do you think the powers in DC are letting the CCP/Russia/PETA types continouosly torch meat production facitilies/food distrubution hubs, and only responding with fires set in Russian infrastructure?

Edit: I mean even the Pentagon is openly talking about trying to go to an all EV military in future procurement.

 

[Zachowon]

Except it's not, it's part of the DCs/Great Reset's push to remove as much fossil fuel reliance as possible, and shift more of the market towards EVs and non-fossil fuel using machines for lawn care and the like.

Banning Russian oil was about hurting Moscow, but the lack of increased domestic production is because the powers in DC buy into the rad-greens and the whole 'go meatless' push.

Why do you think the powers in DC are letting the CCP/Russia/PETA types continouosly torch meat production facitilies/food distrubution hubs, and only responding with fires set in Russian infrastructure?

Edit: I mean even the Pentagon is openly talking about trying to go to an all EV military in future procurement.

Except the military knows that isn't possible.
We will humor it.

And I have seen people bring up thay the rate of places being destroyed is actually pretty normal

 

[Bacle]

Except the military knows that isn't possible.
We will humor it.

If the procurement only goes out for EVs, and that's all that is offered, you won't have much choice for anything non-nuclear powered.

I mean I know why pure EVs are absolute shit (less cold weather starting ability compared to even hybrids, for one), but that is the way the wind is blowing in terms of equipment/vehicle manufacture.

And I have seen people bring up thay the rate of places being destroyed is actually pretty normal

This is the first time I've ever heard the large number of suspicious fires at food production facilities in the US, particularly all in a rather short time frame, is nothing to be worried about.

Where are you hearing people thinking the issues with large amounts of food production literally going up in flames is just 'normal'?

 

[King Arts]

Theb why is us cutting off Russian oil bad?
It will push for more domestic one way or another

Because ever since this year started prices have gone up, cut Russia out AFTER you secure yourself. You don’t want your strategy to hurt yourself doing that would make you the dumbest commander.

 

[Zachowon]

If the procurement only goes out for EVs, and that's all that is offered, you won't have much choice for anything non-nuclear powered.

I mean I know why pure EVs are absolute shit (less cold weather starting ability compared to even hybrids, for one), but that is the way the wind is blowing in terms of equipment/vehicle manufacture.
This is the first time I've ever heard the large number of suspicious fires at food production facilities in the US, particularly all in a rather short time frame, is nothing to be worried about.

Where are you hearing people thinking the issues with large amounts of food production literally going up in flames is just 'normal'?

The militaru won't go EV because we use one ful for everything.
Going EV would be worse and they know it.

And people who work in that field.it wasn't o. Ts last I checked will find out who and let ya knkw

 

[Lord Sovereign]

It's rather astonishing to see many on the Right, people who believe very strongly in the sovereignty of a country, bat for the Kremlin so very hard when it is trampling the sovereignty of Ukraine. When do you lot confront the fact that you've gone off the deep end? That radicalism has rotted your brain so badly that you reflexively side with an expansionist empire, ruled by an autocrat who disappears his "enemies", just because the MSM is reporting that Russia is being a bastard in Ukraine.

This is as myopic as it is childish.

Grow up.

Also, in terms of realpolitik, why in the balls would you want to give Russia a free hand in Eastern Europe? Some on the right are too sodding isolationist for their own good as the game of empires is not something you can opt out of.

 

[Zachowon]

It's rather astonishing to see many on the Right, people who believe very strongly in the sovereignty of a country, bat for the Kremlin so very hard when it is trampling the sovereignty of Ukraine. When do you lot confront the fact that you've gone off the deep end? That radicalism has rotted your brain so badly that you reflexively side with an expansionist empire, ruled by an autocrat who disappears his "enemies", just because the MSM is reporting that Russia is being a bastard in Ukraine.

This is as myopic as it is childish.

Grow up.

Also, in terms of realpolitik, why in the balls would you want to give Russia a free hand in Eastern Europe? Some on the right are too sodding isolationist for their own good as the game of empires is not something you can opt out of.

Not our problem thay say.
Europe's issue.
What happend the last two times we said thay?

 

[Floridaman]

Not our problem thay say.
Europe's issue.
What happend the last two times we said thay?

....... american politicians decided to hell with the peoples complaint, and wound up birthing our next problem. If we didn't get involved in ww1 there would be no ww2, and by intervening there we saved the soviets causing the cold War, and the Chinese who are now the real threat our politicians are owned lock stock and barrel by. Had we stayed out of them we would have saved large amounts of American blood and treasure.

 

[King Arts]

It's rather astonishing to see many on the Right, people who believe very strongly in the sovereignty of a country, bat for the Kremlin so very hard when it is trampling the sovereignty of Ukraine. When do you lot confront the fact that you've gone off the deep end? That radicalism has rotted your brain so badly that you reflexively side with an expansionist empire, ruled by an autocrat who disappears his "enemies", just because the MSM is reporting that Russia is being a bastard in Ukraine.

This is as myopic as it is childish.

Grow up.

Also, in terms of realpolitik, why in the balls would you want to give Russia a free hand in Eastern Europe? Some on the right are too sodding isolationist for their own good as the game of empires is not something you can opt out of.

First people on the right care very much for the sovereignty of THEIR country, not a nation half way around the world. Yes a Ukranian nationalist will oppose Putin and fight for the Freedom of his people. But why should an AMERICAN nationalist care about a Ukranian anymore then they care for a Yeminite being oppressed by the monarchy of Saudi Arabia?

As for staying out of the game of empires Switzerland for 200 years disproves you.

Not our problem thay say.
Europe's issue.
What happend the last two times we said thay?

Again we never said it was not our problem. People tried to say it, but then interventionists took us in both times.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

First people on the right care very much for the sovereignty of THEIR country, not a nation half way around the world. Yes a Ukranian nationalist will oppose Putin and fight for the Freedom of his people. But why should an AMERICAN nationalist care about a Ukranian anymore then they care for a Yeminite being oppressed by the monarchy of Saudi Arabia?

If it was just apathy, no one would care. But you lot seem rather insistent on repeating Kremlin propaganda to counter Western "propaganda", right down to the point where you condemn the Ukrainian for defending his home. From a distance it looks like you lot are cheering on Russia's conquest.

As for staying out of the game of empires Switzerland for 200 years disproves you.

Switzerland has far more influence than you realise, and it is also a pathetically easily defensible mountain country. They've played the game of empires well by saying "you want to invade us, you're going to bleed for it."

 

[Bacle]

....... american politicians decided to hell with the peoples complaint, and wound up birthing our next problem. If we didn't get involved in ww1 there would be no ww2, and by intervening there we saved the soviets causing the cold War, and the Chinese who are now the real threat our politicians are owned lock stock and barrel by. Had we stayed out of them we would have saved large amounts of American blood and treasure.

Siding with Britain and France was understandable, and the Zimmerman telegram nearly brought us to war with Mexico because of Pancho Villa's fucking around.

However, in hindsight, siding with Whillhelm and Austria-Hungry might have saved many more lives, and kept Lenin from getting power in Russia, and kept Hitler from getting power later on.

We were also on friendly enough terms with the Tsar that we might have been able to keep there from being an Eastern Front, or stopped the fighting there once we got involved.

The real kicker would be this might save the Ottomans, which would also keep the mid-East from being a massive shitshow.

It'd just mean throwing France, Britain, Ireland, and Italy under the bus. Not sure how it would affect Spain, they always kinda do their own thing and without Lenin pushing Marxism, the Spanish Civil War might be much different.

However, it would mean an early Pacific War with Japan, if they stayed with their ally Britain. This would be the huge issue that might see a dreadnought age island hopping campaign with only primitive aircraft.

 

[Floridaman]

Siding with Britain and France was understandable, and the Zimmerman telegram nearly brought us to war with Mexico because of Pancho Villa's fucking around.

However, in hindsight, siding with Whillhelm and Austria-Hungry might have saved many more lives, and kept Lenin from getting power in Russia, and kept Hitler from getting power later on.

We were also on friendly enough terms with the Tsar that we might have been able to keep there from being an Eastern Front, or stopped the fighting there once we got involved.

The real kicker would be this might save the Ottomans, which would also keep the mid-East from being a massive shitshow.

It'd just mean throwing France, Britain, Ireland, and Italy under the bus. Not sure how it would affect Spain, they always kinda do their own thing and with Lenin pushing Marxism, the Spanish Civil War might be much different.

However, it would mean an early Pacific War with Japan, if they stayed with there ally Britain. This would be the huge issue that might see a dreadnought age island hopping campaign with only primitive aircraft.

Or, alternatively we could have stayed neutral like the founders encouraged us to do. There was no need to be an enemy of any of the other great powers because apart from the british holdings in Canada none had a foothold in the America's.

John Quincy Adams's

Warning Against the Search for "Monsters to Destroy," 1821​

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

 

[King Arts]

If it was just apathy, no one would care. But you lot seem rather insistent on repeating Kremlin propaganda to counter Western "propaganda", right down to the point where you condemn the Ukrainian for defending his home. From a distance it looks like you lot are cheering on Russia's conquest.

Ahh yes the old, "if you don't support neo con wars, you are a traitor that likes Putin, Xing, the Soviets, Islamic terrorists!" Got any more old tropes you'd like to beat like a dead horse? Got any proof of any of my quotes where I support Russia over Ukraine? Because I'll let you in on a secret it's the opposite, I want Russia to not gain any more territory. I want a buffer between Poland, and other NATO nations and Russia. Russia conquring those territories would be bad since then no buffer would exist. But you know what would also be bad, if the buffer joins NATO, since now no buffer exists.

Switzerland has far more influence than you realise, and it is also a pathetically easily defensible mountain country. They've played the game of empires well by saying "you want to invade us, you're going to bleed for it."

Even though you are from England you don't seem to know English? Game of Empires is where you compete to gain wealth, power and influence over others. Staying in your own lands and protecting what is yours is not playing the game of empires.

Siding with Britain and France was understandable, and the Zimmerman telegram nearly brought us to war with Mexico because of Pancho Villa's fucking around.

However, in hindsight, siding with Whillhelm and Austria-Hungry might have saved many more lives, and kept Lenin from getting power in Russia, and kept Hitler from getting power later on.

We were also on friendly enough terms with the Tsar that we might have been able to keep there from being an Eastern Front, or stopped the fighting there once we got involved.

The real kicker would be this might save the Ottomans, which would also keep the mid-East from being a massive shitshow.

It'd just mean throwing France, Britain, Ireland, and Italy under the bus. Not sure how it would affect Spain, they always kinda do their own thing and without Lenin pushing Marxism, the Spanish Civil War might be much different.

However, it would mean an early Pacific War with Japan, if they stayed with their ally Britain. This would be the huge issue that might see a dreadnought age island hopping campaign with only primitive aircraft.

It would be throwing France, and Britain under the bus, but not Ireland. It might do Ireland a favor since they might be able to get a better deal and be free of the English.

 

[Bacle]

Or, alternatively we could have stayed neutral like the founders encouraged us to do. There was no need to be an enemy of any of the other great powers because apart from the british holdings in Canada none had a foothold in the America's.

John Quincy Adams's

Warning Against the Search for "Monsters to Destroy," 1821​

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

You ignore the potential for war with Mexico, and the real, serious issues with securing the US border, particularly in the age before aircraft or satellites.

I believe in what JQA was trying to say, however the reality was that if shit went bad with/in Mexico, then the US homeland would be under direct and sustained threat from a power with a land border with us, and the same applies if we did not help the Allies out.

WW1 was a mess that never should have happened, and we tried to stay out of it, but the Zimmerman telegram crossed a line, and things were already dicey because of the Lusitinia (even if it's been shown it had war material onboard in later expeditions to the wreck and declassed docs).

Ahh yes the old, "if you don't support neo con wars, you are a traitor that likes Putin, Xing, the Soviets, Islamic terrorists!" Got any more old tropes you'd like to beat like a dead horse? Got any proof of any of my quotes where I support Russia over Ukraine? Because I'll let you in on a secret it's the opposite, I want Russia to not gain any more territory. I want a buffer between Poland, and other NATO nations and Russia. Russia conquring those territories would be bad since then no buffer would exist. But you know what would also be bad, if the buffer joins NATO, since now no buffer exists.


Even though you are from England you don't seem to know English? Game of Empires is where you compete to gain wealth, power and influence over others. Staying in your own lands and protecting what is yours is not playing the game of empires.


It would be throwing France, and Britain under the bus, but not Ireland. It might do Ireland a favor since they might be able to get a better deal and be free of the English.

No, too much Brit control at the time; in fact if it goes badly, a proxy war between the US and Brits for control of Ireland could happen.

 

[Floridaman]

You ignore the potential for war with Mexico, and the real, serious issues with securing the US border, particularly in the age before aircraft or satellites.

I believe in what JQA was trying to say, however the reality was that if shit went bad with/in Mexico, then the US homeland would be under direct and sustained threat from a power with a land border with us, and the same applies if we did not help the Allies out.

WW1 was a mess that never should have happened, and we tried to stay out of it, but the Zimmerman telegram crossed a line, and things were already dicey because of the Lusitinia (even if it's been shown it had war material onboard in later expeditions to the wreck and declassed docs).
No, too much Brit control at the time; in fact if it goes badly, a proxy war between the US and Brits for control of Ireland could happen.

Mexico wasn't a threat and after the Mexican American War it effectively became a collapsed shell of a nation as it is now. If you mean the Zimmerman note, that was an offer of alliance if war between Mexico and the US began, which judging by the reaction to certain countries wanting to join NATO I have been told that cant be considered an aggressive act.

 

[Bacle]

Mexico wasn't a threat and after the Mexican American War it effectively became a collapsed shell of a nation as it is now. If you mean the Zimmerman note, that was an offer of alliance if war between Mexico and the US began, which judging by the reaction to certain countries wanting to join NATO I have been told that cant be considered an aggressive act.

Did you forget Pancho Villa was a thing?

There were legitimate, proven fears in border communities about the violence in Mexcio spreading north and possibly becoming more organized/directed if they were willing to even think about an alliance with the Germans.

The Pershing Expedition happened for a damn good reason. Plus, there was the whole Tampico Affair still in recent memory as well.

 

[Floridaman]

Did you forget Pancho Villa was a thing?

There were legitimate, proven fears in border communities about the violence in Mexcio spreading north and possibly becoming more organized/directed if they were willing to even think about an alliance with the Germans.

The Pershing Expedition happened for a damn good reason. Plus, there was the whole Tampico Affair still in recent memory as well.

Except Pancho villa was a rebel against the government, the Zimmerman note was a letter to the Mexican government which he was opposed to.

 

[Bacle]

Except Pancho villa was a rebel against the government, the Zimmerman note was a letter to the Mexican government which he was opposed to.

You forget that the Mexican gov was barely legit itself, and Mexico was in a state of near continuous civil war for a while in that era, and the US had to worry about both gov and non-gov hostiles coming from south of the border.

Pershing happened to punish the Mexican gov for not keeping their house in order and to demonstrate what would happen if they did side with Germany.

 

[Floridaman]

You forget that the Mexican gov was barely legit itself, and Mexico was in a state of near continuous civil war for a while in that era, and the US had to worry about both gov and non-gov hostiles coming from south of the border.

Pershing happened to punish the Mexican gov for not keeping their house in order and to demonstrate what would happen if they did side with Germany.

Demonstrate what happens if they side with Germany? Are you saying countries are allowed to invade a neighbor if there is concerns they might join an alliance the country is not even at war with. Mr Putin is that you?

 

[Bacle]

Demonstrate what happens if they side with Germany? Are you saying countries are allowed to invade a neighbor if there is concerns they might join an alliance the country is not even at war with. Mr Putin is that you?

If they are not dealing with rebels in their own nation, and said rebels are attacking across the border during a civil war, a punatitive expidition to deal with said rebels, and to show the gov what happens if they do decide to take up Germany's offer, isn't all that outrageous.

However, since I know you are angling to make what Russia is doing in Ukraine seem more acceptable with how you are trying to lead the conversation, remember that the Donbas rebels never attacked Russia, but Pancho did attack the US. And none of that even comes close to excusing Crimea.