Zelensky says US will have to send its sons and daughters.
(thedcpatriot.com)
Comments (37)
sorted by:
I didn't have strong opinions about this war before, but now I hope Putin butchers this guy.
On live television.
Imp: 'can we settle for just the daughters?'
I kid, but seriously this politi-thot isn't satisfied enough with begging for money and draining his countries men but now wants to send OTHER nations people into what would be a nuclear grinder as Russia won't just allow effectively a US invasion at that point.
I didn't used to hate Ukraine, but now I want to see it burn.
It goes back to the assumption that if Russia were to conquer Ukraine that Putin is a crazed madman that will keep going.
My argument is either Putin is not and has no intent to continue further -or- the Russian military is incompetent and we should just bolster anti-nuclear defenses. I mean it's been what like a year? If I'm to fear their army then they should be done conquering Ukraine by now. I mean it took Hitler like a month to take Poland, right?
Honestly, I doubt he had any intentions beyond Ukraine from the get-go. Pretty sure invading Ukraine was almost never about resources so much as looming strategic concerns.
Although I'm not so clear on what Russia's motivation was for hitting Georgia a few years ago. Might've been related to steps to addressing strategic concerns as well.
Yeah I highly doubt he had/has and motivations beyond Ukraine. Like the Maiden Coup in '14 and their hard on for joining NATO is what started this whole mess, even alot of the intelligence community and leaked diplomatic cables over the years have admitted this.
Iirc Russia only hit Georgia because they struck first. From what I remember the Georgian government eventually admitted this and it was something along the lines they were hoping the west would intervene. Of course the world wasn't ready to go to war over Georgia so they got steamrolled by the Russkies at the time.
Conquering western Ukraine was basically never gonna happen. It's clear that his hope was to overthrow the government in Kiev, and then potentially partition.
Frankly, Russia was gunning for Georgia, but Georgia got way to aggressive (mostly because the Americans falsely promised that McCain would totally pull us into yet another war) and had a fairly significant armed incursion into the Russian side of disputed territory. The Russians took that as an act of war and hit back very fucking hard.
Lucky for the Georgians, Putin didn't install a puppet government, but it absolutely showed that the Americans 100% could not protect you from the Russian bear... mostly because we are really shit allies.
Aye, that adds some useful info I wasn't fully privy to.
And to your last point, the US is even more unreliable as allies when we've been kicking rocks in the Middle East for 20+ years. And now after all of that wasted time, resources, and manpower the US military is a shell of its former self. (And of course, those countries we were "helping" have just folded in on themselves more or less the second we left)
No one wants to get involved with US abroad operations after that entire period, and on top of that the military has become so pozzed with woke politics that it's gutting what little quality it might've had left. At least where its leadership is concerned, not that US brass has really been worth a damn for decades.
There's a 1:1 model with Georgia.
Same exact scenario played out with US trying to get them into NATO, Russia stopping that with unrest and then military, then Georgia decided it didn't want to be in NATO after all.
Turns out Russia just didn't want more of their neighbors in a hostile military alliance, just like they said.
Plus, isnt georgia like stalins home country?
Not that I agree we need to get involved in the ukraine, but the argument in doing so is that it creates a deterrent to Russia and China acting against US interests in the future.
Zelensky's threats of Russia moving into Poland are ridiculous.
Well, yes, but US interests aren't interests of US citizens.
The problem is that Russia would actually love to have Poland back, (and in so doing, entirely dissolve Poland, as they did before) but they are simply too protected. Belarus is basically the counter to Poland.
no thanks i'm not interested in dying for your fake country
Or we could just let you bleed out you filthy entitled weasel.
This is the big lie. Ukraine (a non-NATO country whose pro-Russian president was regime changed in 2014) is not Poland (a country that joined NATO freely a generation ago). If Ukraine falls, Obama's State Department stumbles; if losing Ukraine is a threat to NATO then people literally need to be executed for being so grossly incompetent that they made overextending into the former USSR a linchpin of Western national security.
I like how we bombed a NATO ally for a non-NATO vassal, with the assistance of another non-NATO state.
To kill him? Nah, just let Russia do it's job.
Plenty of "I stand with Ukraine" feminists and "I support the Azov" soibois.
I'm sure Putin is trembling with fear.
what's this about buildings good as new?
Russia's not exaggerating about your casualties then, are they?
Title is a clickbaity misrepresentation and this website glows like hell.
Website is glowy, I agree, but the title is only a little clickbaity. context of the quote
He's essentially just recycling the old cold-war domino theory. If Ukraine loses, then Putin will go on to invade Poland, and since Poland is in NATO then the US will be obligated to send troops in. So may as well send in troops now
Personally, I'd like to take my chances and see what Russia does after it's conquered Ukraine. Zelensky can get bent, the ungrateful, entitled, fucking leech.
Ahh yes, surely Putin will directly go after Nato countries and start ww3 when he's done with Ukraine
This part isn't there. It's just the usual "send us weapons now or you'll have to send your sons later".
... good? The Russians have quite a history involving their army, and conquered populations women.
"Why don't they fight like the men!"
Because loosing 100,000 men is significantly damaging to your population. Loosing 100,000 women is a major loss to your populations fertility, to the point that it is fostering demographic replacement. Also, they are worse fighters, and are thus more likely to die. Making that 100,000 lost women more likely than lost men.
It's fine if it's a volunteer army and your doing American style "interventions" and other such limited warfare conflicts.... but when you're looking at potentially losing 1-2% of your country, you can't risk it.
It's not just that, they're also a liability. Imagine you're in the trenches and you get wounded, the last thing I'd want is my life to now be in the hands of someone 1/3rd my size and 1/100th my strength and endurance, unless she's God's daughter and can just put her hand over my wound and heal it. Women are still useful in wartime however, they can perform auxiliary and social tasks, even some manufacturing like they have in the past, but they have no business fighting side by side with men. Just like they shouldn't be police officers.
I've pointed this out to Imp on multiple occasions.
He's perfectly willing to sacrifice a few men if it means that some women will also suffer.
Well of course when he's a retard. I'm not sure if he just doesn't care or if he's completely oblivious to the fact that he's a male version of a radical feminist, the same way they view men is how he views all women, and he thinks he thinks he's the righteous one still.
The zealots always are.