"Right now Ukrainian forces are engaged against nearly 50,000 enemy troops in Russia's Kursk region. Russia has deployed 11,000 North Korean troops to the region and that they have already been involved in the fighting"
So Russia and North Korea, two historic enemies of the United States.
True devils..... Russia played a huge part in the deaths of 58.000+ american soldiers in Vietnam. I hope DT know that, and i am sure he does.
Damn, DT is stuck between a rock and a hard place here..... we, Europe and the US, can't fund the war forever, but letting the enemies of the United States win?
No way...... imagine thinking or saying that doing WW2.
What the hell will DT do? π€¦ββοΈπ€¦ββοΈ
Ukraine was a separate state in USSR and Russia was a separate state as well and the tsarist empire ... well, was an empire, if you know what I mean. If your basing on that it's like arguing that UK should get back India, China, and 80% of the world.
In fact Ukraine (Kyiv) is a LOT older than Moscow and Russia ...
If Russia occupies (or "takes back, lmao) Ukraine then what else would it be entitled to "take back"? Belorussia? Moldova? The Baltic countries? Maybe some territory in Finland? Regain it's sphere of influence in East Europe?
IMHO if Russia is "allowed" to get Ukraine then the door is really open to a much larger ww3. Russia would try to extend it's sphere of influence, China would feel that USA is weak and will feel encouraged to attack Taiwan and maybe more than just Taiwan. A military alliance between Russia, China and Iran would be more devastating in a ww3 than just NATO against a weak Russia.
Ukraine and Russia are both problematic countries, and neither has any clearcut right to the land. You seem to have some cut and dry, good guy vs. bad guy opinion about the conflict, but that's not the case. Billions, possibly over a trillion, of U.S. taxpayer money has been shunted off to Ukraine with zero oversight, and it's very likely a lot of that has been stolen by American and Ukrainian politicians. And even if that isn't the case, and every penny has been accounted for and properly used, the fact remains that the conflict there is no concern of the U.S. The U.S. aren't the world police.
You seem to think Russia is going to attempt to conquer Europe. That strikes me as so unlikely that it isn't worth thinking about it. If you're right, again-- what does that have to do with the U.S.? Do you think the U.S. should fight wars with Russia, China, and whoever else is doing something you don't like? What about all the African countries rife with corruption, conquest, and civil war? Should we be there, too, or only in more popular places like Europe and Taiwan?
Alarmist fear-mongers like you want to go to war constantly. Why? What's wrong with the U.S. focusing on its own interests, and letting the rest of the world focus on their own? If Russia takes back Ukraine--which is an accurate statement-- what concern is it to the U.S.? Europe can stand up to Russia if they want to. Maybe if we weren't always over there protecting them, they would have their act together and could do so. Russia and China able to thrive without American, maybe it's time the rest of that region learned to do the same.
They surely acted like that so far. Or is IT OK only when US benefits from playing the βworld policeβ? You pretended to be the worl police, kinda late to stop doing that after fucking so much of this world β¦
β You seem to think Russia is going to attempt to conquer Europe.β
wouldnβt be the first time, read some history. Read Putinβs statements about the mighty old USSR. Ah, wait, ignorants donβt like to read.
β what does that have to do with the U.S.?β
treaties, alliances, NATO, etc.
β Alarmist fear-mongers like you want to go to war constantly.β
Actually the opposite, I want the wars to stop, but not under any conditions. It like you would say, if Mexico shots one bullet over the border, USA should surrender in order to not be a war β¦
The war is already started and going on, I want it to stop.
β If Russia takes back Ukraine--which is an accurate statementβ
as I said itβs not accurate, or maybe it is for ignorant, stupid Americans with zero knowledge of history.
Yes, the U.S. has a long history of intervening in wars that it should avoid, but just because they've made the mistake in the past is no justification for it to continue. Beyond that it seems all you've done is call me ignorant because I disagree with you.
If Mexico attacks the U.S. then yes, we'd be justified in fighting back. If Chad attacks Cameroon, that's on them. We shouldn't fund that war, or send our troops in to fight. The same goes for Ukraine. That's for them to sort out with Russia. We can still negotiate treaties with other countries even if we don't blow them up.
"Beyond that it seems all you've done is call me ignorant because I disagree with you."
Yeah, If I say 2+2=4 and you disagree with me ... well, yeah, you're ignorant. You don't disagree with me but with ... science.
The fact that Ukraine is not part of Russia is well documented and historically attested. Disagreeing with historical facts IS ignorant.
And it's funny that Putin have used the argument "we are only defending the Russia population in Ukraine" several times. What does that tell you? That the rest of population is NOT Russian but Ukrainian. And yes there are ethnic differences, language and cultural, not understanding this is ignorant.
Again, leave the typical American ignorance aside and educate yourself in some history. Start with the links I provided.
As for US getting involved, you don't understand the implications of not getting involved.
Hint: Belgium was neutral in WW2, that didn't stop the Nazi Germany to invade it.
Let me teach you some more history: if USA wouldn't had been involved in the war since the begining - sending help to UK, USSR, etc (the lend-lease program) now the whole world would speak German. Including USA. What do you think it would happen when your traditional enemies conquer the whole world while you do nothing because ... it's not your fight. When it becomes your fight it might be too late for you. And it WILL become your fight sooner or later.
Nope, that's a reality. See the whole history of USSR (including it's efforts to help the Nazi Germany prior to operation Barbarossa and the attempts to join the Axis). See the cold war. See the main manifesto of socialism: "socialism is possible only when all capitalist states are overthrown and the whole world is socialist" - those positioning itself as a de facto enemy of USA and the capitalist world. See Putin acts (including the invasion of Ukraine) and declarations.
I know, some of you don't want to see/accept reality ...
Nope , all of that is bullshit, and if its true , it is as I said A flaw n the human psyche that makes people want to kill each other all the time.
how could "only when all capitalist states are overthrown" be logical? Any young upn copming cocialist state that wants to operate that way could simply ignore other states if it wants to . why does it have to kill them ?
All of that is history, you should learn some, read some.
Or if you really want to "debunk" it then tell me, punctually, what is bullshit. And I will provide you evidence for my claims.
"how could "only when all capitalist states are overthrown" be logical? Any young upn copming cocialist state that wants to operate that way could simply ignore other states if it wants to . why does it have to kill them ?"
Ask Marx, ask Lenin, ask Stalin and all other Marxists. It's not me who postulates that.
Simple. Heβll make a call to Putin, heβll cut off funding to Ukraine, the war will end. They will adopt the peace deal that they had in May 2022 that the Democratic Party blocked because they were more interested in money laundering than killing 150,000 Ukrainians.
There will sabotage and other major attacks in the areas Russia is occupying.... that can go for 20+ years. Ukraine will not give.
Will DT really forget about the history of Russia and Korea Vs. the United States
That is very weak........remember that after 9/11 all NATO members helped the US in Afghanistan.
"NATO invoked its collective defence clause (Article 5) for the first and only time in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the United States"
"NATO invoked its collective defence clause (Article 5) for the first and only time in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the United States"
Eff. Before the left puppets of the WEF made such a fuzz about the Ukraine, 99% of the world did not even know that this corrupt country is in Europe... π
correct , both Russia and Ukraine are corrupt shitholes, filled with scoundrels, criminals and swindlers.
but only one of them have invaded other countries over and over throughout it's history, and only one of them is a historic enemy of the United States and the rest of the free world.
It can at least be ended officially. But you're right, there will be skirmishes, even after a "peace treaty" is signed. Plus, rumor has it Zelensky is on the outs. Sounds like he won't be able to buy anymore mansions or yachts soon, and his wife won't be going on another expensive Christmas shopping expedition after this year.
Instead of investigating back when he was in the White House, Trump sent aid to Ukraine. Why would he change? Because he said he would? I don't think that you are that stupid.
I am DT supporter. Would have voted for him if i could, but i am European.
.
But Putin and Russia are enemies of the united states..... and has been since the Vietnam war.
Not okay..... but the afghans did not help us (US and euro forces)
they could have picked up a gun and fought the Taliban.
they wanted no change.
ukraine will continue the fight even if russia keep the occupied areas.
there will be sabotage and precision strikes aimed at individuals. like we see now, both in ukraine and in russia.
you have heard of the car bombs and other strikes against collaborators and other russia friendly people, right?
Sure - but that's part of life. Nothing suddenly stops - the momentum keeps going for some time, even once the war is over (one way or another).
Many Germans/Japanese kept fighting long after the war was lost. Do you think Japan should have never surrendered? Or Germany? After all, Japanese/Germans would continue to fight - we cannot negotiate peace under any circumstances! Do you see the fallacy of that sort of thinking?
It's as if nobody ever bothered to look back into history. Worst enemies have often become best friends in the past. In this case, you have same people (at the very least, very close cousins - the percentage of related Russians/Ukrainians is astronomical) - the odds of all this artificially induced animosity dying off quickly are by far better than they ever were between Japan and USA, which are VERY different culturally and ethnically.