But hurt, but why?then fucking leave because i can smell Borscht
Should the US shed blood for Ukraine
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
It worked so well with Poland and Hungary.Yes. They want to join and were on their way. Then the Dutch (founder eu, veto right) held a referendum, and we set fuck 'm, they're basically Russians. When you ask people if they are for or against something they don't really understand, most will vote against solely to to feel they are in control. After that we ditched referendums.
Dutch referendum voters overwhelmingly reject closer EU links to Ukraine
Two-thirds of voters oppose political, trade and defence treaty, showing strength of Eurosceptic feeling in the Netherlandswww.theguardian.com
If anything it was more about the EU already being way larger than intended. Ukrainians have a bad name here though.
*spoiler alert*
I don't blame them.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
"Getting"?
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Crimea is an example of why this is already false.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i don't think all russians are evil, but i do think pootin and the oligarchs are, and they're the ones in charge.
of course their bases are built in countries they control, no one they didn't control would allow them to build a military base inside their country, thats just a silly statement..
America isn't getting anywhere close to russia, even russia doesn't claim that. NATO is getting close, hell, already is close, and will probably get closer...
so tell me, do you think russia will be happy and quit trying to expand if we let them consume Ukraine? Moldava should sleep easy? what about Slovakia and Poland? think they want pootin on their borders? russia needs to be slapped the fuck back inside it's own borders, hard enough for them to know not to get out of their own yard again
oh, and your opinion is just so reassuring....
Man, people of Crimea held a referendum, peaceful practice of self determination.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/03/18/five-years-after-crimeas-illegal-annexation-the-issue-is-no-closer-to-resolution/
By early March, the Russian military had control of Crimea. Crimean authorities then proposed a referendum, which was held on March 16. It proved an illegitimate sham. To begin with, the referendum was illegal under Ukrainian law. Moreover, it offered voters two choices: to join Russia, or to restore Crimea’s 1992 constitution, which would have entailed significantly greater autonomy from Kyiv. Those on the peninsula who favored Crimea remaining a part of Ukraine under the current constitutional arrangements found no box to check.
The referendum unsurprisingly produced a Soviet-style result: 97 percent allegedly voted to join Russia with a turnout of 83 percent. A true referendum, fairly conducted, might have shown a significant number of Crimean voters in favor of joining Russia. Some 60 percent were ethnic Russians, and many might have concluded their economic situation would be better as a part Russia.
but they never got the chance to make a fair choice...did they? they were forced to pick between two irrelevant choices, either of which left pootin in control...
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
90% ethnic-Russians in Crimea and 10% Ukrainians. Now look at Ukraine, it's basically the opposite. Crimea wanted to be under Russia's rule, but far more Ukrainians do not, more so as you move west.
i call it psychological warfare and propaganda. the dudes in the trenches are smoking weed and playing cards, laughing. it's kind of hard to take that seriously.what would you call moving 100,000 military personnel to the border of a neighboring free state that you have already declared you want to claim as your own...that's not fucking provocative at all, countries do that every day, so that makes America a bunch of alarmist....
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I've never said that. Even with Putin escalating by putting -- what is it now? 7 million troops at Ukraine's border? -- and making demands he cannot ever expect NATO to accede to, I'm still saying, Putin will not invade.
Biden, on the other hand is making real political hay out of Putin's missteps. He's already said the US will not put troops in Ukraine. He's going to ruin Putin's dirty money empire. He called them Personal Sanctions but Putin knows he's going to be a few trillion poorer if he does invades.
I think Biden should anyway, just because of the little green men Putin has inside Ukraine already. But then again, I'm just a resident in Oregon.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
how come Navalny is still in jail? elections are over. i want him as Russia President- all the good presidents are tall and thin. Navalny is a leader-Putin a criminal.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
no is a good word. I wish somebody had taught that word to shrub.
I've watched the below and have had to somewhat adjust my hardline thoughts on the matter, but there are two things that linger. One is that, if the problem truly is being neighbors with a NATO country, then taking Ukraine presents the same problem. Either it comes to you, or you go to it, what's the difference. The other is that, if any country wants to apply to join the EU, no other nation has the right to use force to stop it.
ummmm, you could have used the Poll..what's wrong with you? my post about Navalny too soon?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I watched it too. It's a good listen. I don't agree with the assertion that Putin's vile actions are the US's fault. That line of thinking is used by every wife beater, every crime boss, and every dictator everywhere. It pisses me off. Putin is trying to wreck Ukraine and his actions have led to the deaths of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.
The US does not have clean hands but Putin's hands are dripping with blood.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I thought your point about Navalny was on point and a good reply to what that scrub said regarding Crimea.
I feel like that was more just hyperbole in the video title to get views. The video agrees with what you're saying about Putin trying to wreck Ukraine. The toned down version of the title has more to do with the US' actions, due to a lack of understanding, which make the situation worse. I really don't see a problem with fostering a neutral Ukraine, but ultimately it's not the US/Russia's decision to make.