[chaosbolt]

Yes Russia did invade Ukraine, but wouldn't the US invade Canada if Russia had organized a coup there to get rid of Trudeau then put a Russian puppet there? Of course the US would... Or would you argue that the 2014 Ukrainian coup wasn't supported by the US?

The thing we never mention is how agressive Nato (the US since it has military bases in Turkey for example, while Turkey doesn't have military bases in the US) has been at pushing its borders towards Russia.

In the end we can call this whatever we want, the facts are clear, if Zelensky had resigned less Ukrainians would have died, and the only ones profiting from this are the US, you can't fight a country like Russia, they have 7000 nukes, it's like thinking Mike Tyson is losing against you because he's too nice to punch you in the face... eventually he will.

The arguments used today are the same as ever (we're freeing the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, etc.), if you look at it as it really is, less dead people is better than more dead people, eventually Ukraine will be destroyed and the US will not even help to rebuild it, if you think they will then look at Iraq.

[_kbh_]

> you can't fight a country like Russia, they have 7000 nukes, it's like thinking Mike Tyson is losing against you because he's too nice to punch you in the face... eventually he will.

Russia likes to rattle there nuclear sabre about everything regarding Ukraine (and beyond) because that is all Russia is capable of doing with there nuclear weapons without causing the quick, fast and hard collapse of there entire country.

7,000 nukes doesn't make a country win a war instantly, Russia lost in the first Chechen war even with all there nukes, they lost in Afghanistan with all the nukes, the US lost in a whole number of wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc) whilst having shit loads of nukes.

Russia is throwing everything they have at Ukraine including mad max inspired franken vehicles and T-54 tanks, to pretend they are fighting with one hand behind their back is disingenuous.

It may look like Russia is fighting with one hand behind their back, but the reality is, that this is all Russia has.

> The arguments used today are the same as ever (we're freeing the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, etc.), if you look at it as it really is, less dead people is better than more dead people, eventually Ukraine will be destroyed and the US will not even help to rebuild it, if you think they will then look at Iraq.

The only one who has the power to decide the number of dead people is Russia, when Russia leaves the killing stops, until then the Ukrainians have to kill Russians until enough die and they decide to go home.

[mschuster91]

> Or would you argue that the 2014 Ukrainian coup wasn't supported by the US?

Yanukovich fled the country all on his own, after police didn't back his government any more following months of massive protests. These protests in turn came from Yanukovich not signing an agreement with the EU that was already ratified by the parliament.

> the facts are clear, if Zelensky had resigned less Ukrainians would have died

Lol. Just look on Butcha and all the other places where Russian troops massacred the local population, or where they eradicated everything Ukrainian, from street signs to library books. There would have been no freedom under Russian rule.

> you can't fight a country like Russia

Of course one can fight a country like Russia. They lost 100.000 units fighting over Bakhmut in the last months and made absolutely zero progress in their war.

> they have 7000 nukes, it's like thinking Mike Tyson is losing against you because he's too nice to punch you in the face... eventually he will.

That assumes two things: first, that the nuclear weapons and their launch systems actually work - the sorry state of the ordinary Russian troops makes me seriously question just how much of the rest of their military has gone downhill. The second thing is, it assumes Putin is completely lost in madness. China and the US have it made very clear behind the doors that using anything nuclear is something Putin does not want to do, and in exchange the US and Ukraine's other allies have placed the condition on all major arms deliveries that these are not to be used to attack targets in Russia. Seems to have worked out pretty well so far.

[OkayPhysicist]

>> you can't fight a country like Russia, they have 7000 nukes

That's why people join NATO: Access to nuclear firepower. NATO serves as a list of countries that cannot be invaded, because they have bent at the knee to US hegemony, and thus the US is (at least convincingly postured as) willing to use its world-ending nuclear arsenal to defend them.

That's the post-WWII world order: sovereignty belongs to those with the power to wipe out any other country on Earth. You can either be a nuclear power, join in on one's protection scheme, or pray you stay irrelevant enough to not get conquered.

What you're misconstruing as "NATO's aggressive expansion" is countries scrambling to get the US's protection, because the alternative is Russian occupation. NATO was founded specifically to counter Russia's aggressive expansionism.