Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:I searched for both 'guys' and 'seriously'

Topics only and it is sandwiched between this and this

BurtReynolds wrote:its still not working and im getting pretty pissed off.

obviously your RM trademark expired.

I still love that bird so fucking much

WWIII? Or just a new proxy war?

elliseamos wrote:WWIII? Or just a new proxy war?

I don't know why the Ukraine accepted unenforceable assurances from the US and Russia in exchange for giving up the nukes back in 91. At the very least could have sold them to China in exchange for conventional ballistic or cruise missiles which would be a useful deterrent in just this situation.

State Dept. bragging about how successfully their backing of insurgents in Afghanistan worked against Russia in the 80s feels a bit foolish.

My same old relatives that don't trust anything the media or government tells them regarding domestic matters (rightly, I might add) are willing to believe whatever the very same sources say regarding Russia/Ukraine. They can't be helped.

BurtReynolds wrote:My same old relatives that don't trust anything the media or government tells them regarding domestic matters (rightly, I might add) are willing to believe whatever the very same sources say regarding Russia/Ukraine. They can't be helped.

If the media is being provacative here, its not really in the administration's interest. We don't really have any good options and prompting the admin to make more aggressive statements will just make then look weaker whenever this current status changes.

Sounds like their own Barry Goldwater.

Are they trying to answer my post from the other day?

elliseamos wrote:Are they trying to answer my post from the other day?

I don't think they believe that they can win with a first strike. They don't have a technical advantage sufficient to justify that claim. Its either to assuage domestic concerns on the cost/ benefit analysis of invading Ukraine or to intimidate the US to giving in.

So proxy war. Got it.

The machinery is in motion.

Did Biden just let Russia know that they can take more of Eastern Ukraine, as a treat?

(We are effectively unable to prevent that, but you don't need to say it out loud)

elliseamos wrote:So proxy war. Got it.

I don't know if that is quite the correct term. We aren't goading* the Ukrainians to do anything they wouldn't do without our paltry support. Russians aren't going to rely exclusively on Belarus and Donbas to invade, if they do so.

The Brits are the only ones to send anti-tank systems because they use some non-US made systems. Other European countries (Baltics maybe?) want to send US made systems but we have not approved their re-export.
We sent whatever we could buy or steal to jihadis in Syria but we won't allow re-export to Ukraine?

Russia wants to force Ukraine back into their sphere of influence. Us promising they won't be allowed into NATO doesn't fully accomplish that goal.

*unless yoi believe the Russians that Ukraine's Maidan movement was entirely a creation of NGOs and the CIA

I'm using the term to mean the US backing/training/Spec. Op. supporting non-official Ukrainian combatants against the Russian/Belarusian & Ukrainian seperatist forces.

The arms non-dealing/exporting obviously gets in the way of this plan. Hadn't read about that. It was based on the US's bragging about their successes against the soviets in Afghanistan.

To Burts thread post: Isn't it curious that for 4 years Dems connected Team Trump to Russia (and their partners) and Russia chooses now (when said team is out of office) to act this way? And the response from the right is to let Russia have what they want?

Biden is damned either way.

elliseamos wrote:I'm using the term to mean the US backing/training/Spec. Op. supporting non-official Ukrainian combatants against the Russian/Belarusian & Ukrainian seperatist forces.

The arms non-dealing/exporting obviously gets in the way of this plan. Hadn't read about that. It was based on the US's bragging about their successes against the soviets in Afghanistan.

To Burts thread post: Isn't it curious that for 4 years Dems connected Team Trump to Russia (and their partners) and Russia chooses now (when said team is out of office) to act this way? And the response from the right is to let Russia have what they want?

Biden is damned either way.

I think the response from the right is lets watch the Biden shit show. There is no winning hand in the short term, so folding or keeping silent is a good play when not in power.

elliseamos wrote:
To Burts thread post: Isn't it curious that for 4 years Dems connected Team Trump to Russia (and their partners) and Russia chooses now (when said team is out of office) to act this way? And the response from the right is to let Russia have what they want?

Yes, it is curious that he held off on acting in Russia's interests until he no longer had a Russian agent installed in The White House that would let him do whatever he wanted. So curious that it suggests that the fundamentals of the argument don't make no sense at all!

The response from the Right is muddled and conflicting because -- like I've been saying for years -- there are now two rights (and the populist Trump one isn't remotely the worst), which is something you people haven't figured out yet.

My sister in law is Ukrainian. I visited there for their wedding. Disgusting what Putin is doing.