Arming the Ukrainians

[ad_orientem]

Self defense can be necessary, Luke 22:36. In this case the people of Donbass are the victims. They have the right to self defense. If Ukraine stops taking weapons from NATO the war can end.

[jeremyp]

Self defense can be necessary, Luke 22:36. In this case the people of Donbass are the victims. They have the right to self defense. If Ukraine stops taking weapons from NATO the war can end.

If Russia withdraws its invading forces, the war can end.

[Outrider]

Indeed, but we also need to point whoever is behind the Ukrainian policy of using lethal force against their enemy, to the teaching of Romans 12:17-21,

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Carefully consider what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible on your part, live at peace with everyone.

19Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God’s wrath. For it is written: “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord.”b

20On the contrary,

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him a drink.

For in so doing,

you will heap burning coals on his head.”c

21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

No, we don't, because we're not all Christians. At least some people would say 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' (Matthew 22:21) indicating they feel this is a political and military issue, not a religious or spiritual one, whilst a large number of the rest of us would suggest that Putin should 'Look to the splinter in your own eye' (Matthew 7:3) in his quest for fascist elements to wage war upon.

Ukrainians, meanwhile, should feel free to say 'Get off my land' (Redneck Souljers).

Why is it that you suggest the Ukrainians should adhere to Bible verses, but the Russians who are explicitly backed by the Russian Orthodox Church should just ignore the 'Thou shalt not covet...' bit that caused them to invade, and the 'Thou shalt not kill' bit that they did when they illegally invaded or the 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' bit that they ignored with the war crimes they've been committing whilst they've been there?

O.

[Spud]

Away with the fairies.

When I read your posts I sometimes think you'd agree with Russia invading the UK because we enjoy Chicken Kiev and the term offends Putin.

You are one weird guy.

Putin isn't going to invade a NATO country, this is one of the lies being used to justify arming Ukraine.

I knew from the start that Russia would be impossible to defeat unless NATO itself does it.

Ukraine is sending in tanks without an air force to protect them. I mean, this is absurd in the extreme, it's suicidal, let alone a complete waste of equipment.

After failing to convince you of this, I started looking into the origins of the war. From a close look at the footage of the riots in Kiev in 2014 when the rioters were using bulldozers and shooting the police, then burning people to death in Odessa, it was obvious that parts of the country would not stand for it.

Is a strip of land in East and South Ukraine, along with NATO membership, worth expending  hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives for? You're the ones who are bonkers.

[Sebastian Toe]

Is a strip of land in East and South Ukraine, along with NATO membership, worth expending  hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian  lives? You're the ones who are bonkers.

Putin seems to think that strip of land is worth many thousands of Russian lives and as many civilians that he can kill.
Who is bonkers now?

[Spud]

Putin seems to think that strip of land is worth many thousands of Russian lives and as many civilians that he can kill.
Who is bonkers now?

People will disagree, but the original plan was to liberate two independent territories, not to annex them. Even if there was a plan to annex them, they have historically been part of Russia anyway.

[Maeght]

People will disagree, but the original plan was to liberate two independent territories, not to annex them. Even if there was a plan to annex them, they have historically been part of Russia anyway.

Part of Russia or part of the Soviet Union?

[jeremyp]

People will disagree, but the original plan was to liberate two independent territories, not to annex them. Even if there was a plan to annex them, they have historically been part of Russia anyway.

Oh please.

They’ve always been part of Ukraine. They voted for independence along with the rest of Ukraine. They were destabilised by Putin then they were invaded by Putin.

There’s no way any of this is on anybody but Putin. So get your head out of his arse.

[ad_orientem]

Putin isn't going to invade a NATO country, this is one of the lies being used to justify arming Ukraine.

I knew from the start that Russia would be impossible to defeat unless NATO itself does it.

Ukraine is sending in tanks without an air force to protect them. I mean, this is absurd in the extreme, it's suicidal, let alone a complete waste of equipment.

After failing to convince you of this, I started looking into the origins of the war. From a close look at the footage of the riots in Kiev in 2014 when the rioters were using bulldozers and shooting the police, then burning people to death in Odessa, it was obvious that parts of the country would not stand for it.

Is a strip of land in East and South Ukraine, along with NATO membership, worth expending  hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives for? You're the ones who are bonkers.

Firstly, that ruSSia has never invaded a NATO country is the best argument for joining it. Secondly, regarding Kyiv and Odesa, have you ever spoken with someone who was there? I would wager that you haven't. Thirdly, any concern you have is fake.

[ad_orientem]

People will disagree, but the original plan was to liberate two independent territories, not to annex them. Even if there was a plan to annex them, they have historically been part of Russia anyway.

Worst argument ever. Maybe Britain should get America, Ireland and India back. Same logic.

[Outrider]

Putin isn't going to invade a NATO country, this is one of the lies being used to justify arming Ukraine.

Like he wasn't going to invade Ukraine? Or, after that, he wasn't going to invade Ukraine again?

I knew from the start that Russia would be impossible to defeat unless NATO itself does it.

Well, they're trying hard to prove you wrong, let's hope they finally succeed at something.

Ukraine is sending in tanks without an air force to protect them. I mean, this is absurd in the extreme, it's suicidal, let alone a complete waste of equipment.

So is Russia - they're sending aircraft, they're just providing the protection in the face of air-defence installations and mobile stations. Which makes it pretty much a purely ground war where the differences appear to be in terms of numbers (+ for Russia), training (+ for Ukraine), technological superiority (+ for Ukraine) and funding (+ for Ukraine).

[qiuote]After failing to convince you of this, I started looking into the origins of the war. From a close look at the footage of the riots in Kiev in 2014 when the rioters were using bulldozers and shooting the police, then burning people to death in Odessa, it was obvious that parts of the country would not stand for it.[/quote]

You mean when the people revolted against the attempts of Russia to get a stooge to defy the explicit will of the people - Putin failed to steal the country so he's now invading it.

Is a strip of land in East and South Ukraine, along with NATO membership, worth expending  hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives for?

Well it appears to be worth expending millions of Russian lives for it, along with huge stockpiles of WWII military equipment and the Russian economy... It's a strip of land for Russia, it's home for the Ukrainians.

You're the ones who are bonkers.

All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and do nothing...

O.

[Spud]

All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and do nothing...

That assumes that "we are good, they are evil". Reality is, everyone is capable of evil.
Options, then:
1. Supply weapons. Ukraine fights until the last Ukrainian.
2. NATO intervenes, nuclear exchange results, earth contaminated, life ends.
3. Agree to Russia's terms for peace.

"Nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war"
Robert F Kennedy Jr

[ad_orientem]

That assumes that "we are good, they are evil". Reality is, everyone is capable of evil.

But this really is as black and white as it gets in the real world. RuSSia is the one committing genocide. Ukraine is fighting to exist

  Options, then:
1.Supply weapons. Ukraine fights until the last Ukrainian.

We make sure Ukraine has superior firepower. We've done a lot but we could still do so much more, such as giving Ukraine the ability to hit targets inside ruSSia. All ruSSia has is numbers (and that's debatable, given ruSSia's reluctance to fully mobilise). Numbers alone don't win wars.

2. NATO intervenes, nuclear exchange results, earth contaminated, life ends.

This is a bullshit argument. The only language ruSSia understands is violence. We've backed down far too often. Backing down merely makes nuclear escalation more likely.

3. Agree to Russia's terms for peace.

Let ruSSia continue to commit genocide in peace, you mean! I have a better idea. We inflict such a defeat on ruSSia that it can never do this again. This includes decolonisation of ruSSia, bringing war criminals to the Hague, and making ruSSia pay for Ukraine's reconstruction. RuSSia needs to go through the same process as Germany did after WWII. Russki mir needs to die. It's a massive shit stain on humanity.

[ad_orientem]

The ruSSian terrorists are planning to blow of the Zaporizzia nuclear power plant.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1671805650106474497?s=19

[Outrider]

That assumes that "we are good, they are evil".

It doesn't assume it, it looks at the situation where one country has repeatedly invaded another on falsified claims and then tried to rig elections to post-hoc justify its claims whilst committing atrocities and says 'which one of these do we think is in the wrong'?

Reality is, everyone is capable of evil.

Yep. And one of the countries involved here is realising that potential.

Options, then:
1. Supply weapons. Ukraine fights until the last Ukrainian.
2. NATO intervenes, nuclear exchange results, earth contaminated, life ends.
3. Agree to Russia's terms for peace.

Or, Russia pulls out of the illegally occupied territory, gives Ukraine back to the Ukrainians, returns the Ukrainian children that they've stolen, makes reparations for the losses of people, property and opportunities, and agrees to Ukraine's terms for peace.

Since they appear to be losing anyway.

"Nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war"
Robert F Kennedy Jr

Russia is one of those 'nuclear powers' that must avert such confrontations.

O.

[ad_orientem]

The ruSSian terrorists are planning to blow of the Zaporizzia nuclear power plant.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1671805650106474497?s=19

Someone might see this and ask "Why on Earth would ruSSia blow up the ZNPP?" RuSSia doesn't need a reason. All it knows is how to destroy. Remember the graffiti the ruSSians wrote in Bucha? "How dare you live like this!" This is the essence of ruSSki mir!

[ad_orientem]

This is a bullshit argument. The only language ruSSia understands is violence. We've backed down far too often. Backing down merely makes nuclear escalation more likely.

I'll elaborate on this too. All this could have been prevented 30 years ago. When the Soviet Union broke up Westerners where deluded by the idea that ruSSia could reform itself into a civilised, democratic country. RuSSia invaded Chechnya and we looked away. RuSSia invaded Chechnya again and we looked away. RuSSia invaded Georgia and we looked away. RuSSia invaded Crimea and Donbas and we did the bare minimum. All that inaction merely encouraged ruSSia to escalate. Now we have the full scale invasion of Ukraine. The more we fail to do what's needed, the greater the risk of ruSSian escalation.

Rearding Chechnya, please read more about Dzhokhar Dudayev. He was the first president of the Chechen Republic of Ickeria. A very based man. He predicted what is happening today. He is commemorated all over Eastern Europe, especially Tallinn.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Dudayev

[jeremyp]

That assumes that "we are good, they are evil".

In all my life I have rarely come across a more clear cut example of one side (Russia) is evil. I don't say the other side is all good, but is certainly not in Russia's league.

Reality is, everyone is capable of evil.
Options, then:
1. Supply weapons. Ukraine fights until the last Ukrainian.

Do you not understand that this is an existential crisis for Ukraine? If they don't fight to the last man then Putin will have them murdered to the last man.

Please get it into your thick fucking skull, Russia is the evil one here.

[Spud]

In all my life I have rarely come across a more clear cut example of one side (Russia) is evil. I don't say the other side is all good, but is certainly not in Russia's league.
Do you not understand that this is an existential crisis for Ukraine? If they don't fight to the last man then Putin will have them murdered to the last man.

Please get it into your thick fucking skull, Russia is the evil one here.

If you think that if they don't fight to the last man then Russia would have them murdered to the last man then I think your perception of Russia is wrong.

I can see that the grinding down  principle Russia is following on the battlefield seems criminal. But I think they are targeting any weaponry whether or not it is carried by or carries a person. This is in line with their objective to de-militarize. Also, they are defending their Russian kin in Ukraine. We however are handing out weapons knowing full well that the Ukrainian army will be wiped out. That is not 'good', imo.

[Spud]

Or, Russia pulls out

I am talking about our options.

[Spud]

All it knows is how to destroy.

Don't forget it is fighting a US and NATO proxy, the US/NATO that killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[ad_orientem]

If you think that if they don't fight to the last man then Russia would have them murdered to the last man then I think your perception of Russia is wrong.

I can see that the grinding down  principle Russia is following on the battlefield seems criminal. But I think they are targeting any weaponry whether or not it is carried by or carries a person. This is in line with their objective to de-militarize. Also, they are defending their Russian kin in Ukraine. We however are handing out weapons knowing full well that the Ukrainian army will be wiped out. That is not 'good', imo.

Spud drunk on ruSSian cum again.

[Sebastian Toe]

Don't forget it is fighting a US and NATO proxy, the US/NATO that killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, nobody died in the Soviet/Afghan war, did they Spud?
No Russian caused deaths in Syria more recently either?

Check out the numbers for those conflicts.

[Outrider]

If you think that if they don't fight to the last man then Russia would have them murdered to the last man then I think your perception of Russia is wrong.

That's possibly the case, but if there's a doubt it's not a mistake you get the opportunity to make twice. Given their track record for indiscriminate bombing of civiian targets, the ecoterrorism of destroying the dam, the repeated threats of nuclear escalation, and the forced deportations it's apparent that the Russians do not feel bound by the conventions of war, so where exactly is anyone expected to believe that they'll draw a line?

I can see that the grinding down  principle Russia is following on the battlefield seems criminal.

It doesn't 'seem' criminal, it is explicitly criminal - that's why international arrest warrants have been issued for members of the Russian military leadership.

But I think they are targeting any weaponry whether or not it is carried by or carries a person.

Notwithstanding the whole 'unwarranted illegal invasion of a sovereign nation' bit - the hospitals that they've bombed? The schools, the apartment blocks? How is stealing children away 'targetting weaponry'? How is destroying the dam 'targetting weaponry'?

This is in line with their objective to de-militarize.

And what right do they have to 'de-militarize' a foreign nation?

Also, they are defending their Russian kin in Ukraine.

THEIR RUSSIAN KIN SHOULD BE IN FUCKING RUSSIA!

We however are handing out weapons knowing full well that the Ukrainian army will be wiped out.

How do we 'know' that? Russian forces so far have demonstrated absolutely no capability at the tactical or logistical level, and bare competence at the strategic level, with widespread corruption in the supply mechanisms, incompetence in the officer corps and a lack of discipline in the prosecution of their objectives. They've been shown to be fundamentally incompetent at pretty much every level of warfare so far, and the West so far has just been rotating out of date stocks that otherwise would have been destroyed into service to no real military, economic or political cost.

That is not 'good', imo.

Not if you're a Russian war criminal. Or one of the Russian criminals they've freed to fight their war. Or one of the Russian military 'professionals' who've been shown to be criminally incompetent.... The list goes on.

O.

[jeremyp]

If you think that if they don't fight to the last man then Russia would have them murdered to the last man then I think your perception of Russia is wrong.

But it's not wrong, it's the kind of rhetoric Putin is (or was before the rebellion) using.