Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP News)   Goofus is planning to park in his neighbors' yard on Christmas, Gallant readies a tow truck   (apnews.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Russia, NATO, U.S. intelligence officials, Russia's Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Putin, Soviet Union, President Joe Biden, Russian planning  
•       •       •

5707 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2021 at 8:15 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



190 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-12-04 7:28:51 AM  
So does Fox have both a "why have we responded with military force" and a "why haven't we responded with military force" team?  Or do they wait until the see which Biden chooses.
 
2021-12-04 8:18:44 AM  
Russia once again plays the "your defensive positioning in response to our troop & weapons buildup is going to force us to invade your country (which is totally what we were planning to do anyway)" media game.

Ignore it. Position forces and be ready to be attacked.
 
2021-12-04 8:18:59 AM  
Fark Putin and his government. Fark them right off the planet.
 
2021-12-04 8:28:34 AM  
Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.
 
2021-12-04 8:34:48 AM  

flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.


Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.
 
2021-12-04 8:36:39 AM  

flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.


Da, I am agreeing with this appling pie american person.
 
2021-12-04 8:37:01 AM  
They bring mistletoe, we bring a TOW missile. It's the 'Murican way.
 
2021-12-04 8:37:30 AM  

EvilEgg: So does Fox have both a "why have we responded with military force" and a "why haven't we responded with military force" team?  Or do they wait until the see which Biden chooses.


Yes. They can take a position and then just reverse it the day after Biden does something else. Their viewers won't notice, won't care or will find it perfectly appropriate because Biden's position is more wrong.
 
2021-12-04 8:37:33 AM  

flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.


Countering Russian aggression against neighboring nations is precisely why NATO exists.
 
2021-12-04 8:42:28 AM  
Expansion of Russia into Ukrainian territory is bad news for NATO and the EU. Romania and Moldova are not equipped to resist an invasion force and will roll right over. The EU will really shiat themselves if that happens.
 
2021-12-04 8:42:33 AM  

flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.


As a professional arsonist, why is the local pet supplies store covered by the fire department? That move is only going to make me madder and burn something else
 
2021-12-04 8:45:36 AM  

EvilEgg: So does Fox have both a "why have we responded with military force" and a "why haven't we responded with military force" team?  Or do they wait until the see which Biden chooses.


The lower third graphics are already made.
 
2021-12-04 8:46:04 AM  
Equip Ukraine with some toys that turn Russians into red mist.
 
2021-12-04 8:46:17 AM  
President Joe Biden has pledged to make it "very, very difficult" for Russia's Vladimir Putin to take military action in Ukraine
...
"We've been aware of Russia's actions for a long time and my expectation is we're gonna have a long discussion with Putin," Biden said.



So, a "discussion"? We're practically in strongly-worded letter territory here, people. Maybe he'll even put together a task force to discuss assessing the potential of actually enacting those sanction his admin unilaterally blocked?

It seems all of the claims of Trump being a Putin puppet were just projection. Every accusation a confession.
 
2021-12-04 8:47:30 AM  

Shaggy_C: President Joe Biden has pledged to make it "very, very difficult" for Russia's Vladimir Putin to take military action in Ukraine
...
"We've been aware of Russia's actions for a long time and my expectation is we're gonna have a long discussion with Putin," Biden said.


So, a "discussion"? We're practically in strongly-worded letter territory here, people. Maybe he'll even put together a task force to discuss assessing the potential of actually enacting those sanction his admin unilaterally blocked?

It seems all of the claims of Trump being a Putin puppet were just projection. Every accusation a confession.


That's weak even for you.
 
2021-12-04 8:49:54 AM  

flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.


Da, tovarishch, you get extra ration of vodak from Papa tonight after shift at trollfarm.
 
2021-12-04 8:50:12 AM  

flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.


Other former Soviet countries have become NATO members. Why NOT Ukraine?

Does Russia worry that having folks near them who have treaties about respect of their sovereign borders might affect their future plans? Please, expand your idea. Please.
 
2021-12-04 8:51:26 AM  

animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.


NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).
 
2021-12-04 8:53:08 AM  
The Biden/Putin call will be pretty interesting, if it happens. I think we can rest assured that there won't be any leg humping, as with TFG.
 
2021-12-04 8:54:43 AM  

Shaggy_C: President Joe Biden has pledged to make it "very, very difficult" for Russia's Vladimir Putin to take military action in Ukraine
...
"We've been aware of Russia's actions for a long time and my expectation is we're gonna have a long discussion with Putin," Biden said.


So, a "discussion"? We're practically in strongly-worded letter territory here, people. Maybe he'll even put together a task force to discuss assessing the potential of actually enacting those sanction his admin unilaterally blocked?

It seems all of the claims of Trump being a Putin puppet were just projection. Every accusation a confession.


The previous administration is over, water-carrier.

We're done with the empty chest-thumping then rolling over for Rooskie tummy-rubs.

Back to speaking softly and carrying a wide array of well-positioned missile batteries backed by dominating air power and well-prepared Ukrainian ground forces.
 
2021-12-04 9:00:19 AM  

flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).


So, you don't think that Ukraine is strong enough to be useful to NATO? It's literally not just the US in NATO, but an alliance of nations, and I suspect that a lot of European nations, especially those former members of the USSR, would welcome their neighbors' to the mix. Defining NATO in terms that closing in towards the century mark is perhaps not the best argument.
 
2021-12-04 9:02:45 AM  

flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).


You sure are open to the idea that some countries shouldn't exist.

Because Putin feels the same way about Ukraine
 
2021-12-04 9:02:50 AM  

flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).


How does that jive with the fact that NATO was actually created specifically for situations exactly like this one (Russia threatening former soviet countries) ?
 
2021-12-04 9:03:05 AM  
How desperate are things in Russia that Putin would risk an attack?

It seems to me there must be some serious political forces moving against him to do this.  I don't believe for one instance that Putin is blinded by the fantasy of achieving superpower parity with the US or even China. He is too smart for that.
 
2021-12-04 9:05:50 AM  

GregInIndy: The previous administration is over, water-carrier.

We're done with the empty chest-thumping then rolling over for Rooskie tummy-rubs.

Back to speaking softly and carrying a wide array of well-positioned missile batteries backed by dominating air power and well-prepared Ukrainian ground forces.


Don't kid yourself. Biden's first trip abroad was to go running to a private meeting with Putin. He's simply not tough on Russia. We created this meme about Trump-Russia being a "thing" but it's the current president we may actually need to be worried about. He comes from an era where it was called "the Ukraine" and was part of Soviet territory. I don't see him going to bat for them.
 
2021-12-04 9:06:01 AM  

hubiestubert: flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).

So, you don't think that Ukraine is strong enough to be useful to NATO? It's literally not just the US in NATO, but an alliance of nations, and I suspect that a lot of European nations, especially those former members of the USSR, would welcome their neighbors' to the mix. Defining NATO in terms that closing in towards the century mark is perhaps not the best argument.


And where does NATO membership stop? They already have Poland and Hungary as members and to what effect? They are both anti-democratic nations and are providing nothing for European stability or progress. If NATO's sole function is to hem in Russia, why not make China a member? It's all just brinkmanship at this point and a waste of time and resources. Let Russia invade Ukraine like they did in Georgia and Afghanistan. The results will be the same. Ukraine provides nothing toward the furthering of American and European interests.
 
2021-12-04 9:07:04 AM  

goodncold: How desperate are things in Russia that Putin would risk an attack?

It seems to me there must be some serious political forces moving against him to do this.  I don't believe for one instance that Putin is blinded by the fantasy of achieving superpower parity with the US or even China. He is too smart for that.


anything is better, egotistical and politically, than irrelevance
 
2021-12-04 9:07:56 AM  

Shaggy_C: President Joe Biden has pledged to make it "very, very difficult" for Russia's Vladimir Putin to take military action in Ukraine
...
"We've been aware of Russia's actions for a long time and my expectation is we're gonna have a long discussion with Putin," Biden said.


So, a "discussion"? We're practically in strongly-worded letter territory here, people. Maybe he'll even put together a task force to discuss assessing the potential of actually enacting those sanction his admin unilaterally blocked?

It seems all of the claims of Trump being a Putin puppet were just projection. Every accusation a confession.


Dumbest thing I've read all day but I have seen your other posts to this thread yet.
 
2021-12-04 9:08:21 AM  

INTERTRON: flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).

How does that jive with the fact that NATO was actually created specifically for situations exactly like this one (Russia threatening former soviet countries) ?


NATO was founded to prevent an attack by East Germany/USSR into western Europe. Nothing in there about protecting former USSR block nations.
 
2021-12-04 9:08:47 AM  

goodncold: How desperate are things in Russia that Putin would risk an attack?

It seems to me there must be some serious political forces moving against him to do this.  I don't believe for one instance that Putin is blinded by the fantasy of achieving superpower parity with the US or even China. He is too smart for that.


The kleptocracy has pretty much stripped Russia bear. Everything worth stealing has been stolen. Their entire stock market is worth less than Apple right now. They NEED new pockets to filch from, otherwise they're going to start turning on one another, and no one wants that. Ukraine offers new horizons for kleptocrats. And resources that can be turned into ready cash. Plus, they've got all that krokodil that needs a new market.
 
2021-12-04 9:09:03 AM  

flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).


So let Russia gain strength bulldozing through countries you don't like until they find one you do like?
 
2021-12-04 9:09:04 AM  

flamark: hubiestubert: flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).

So, you don't think that Ukraine is strong enough to be useful to NATO? It's literally not just the US in NATO, but an alliance of nations, and I suspect that a lot of European nations, especially those former members of the USSR, would welcome their neighbors' to the mix. Defining NATO in terms that closing in towards the century mark is perhaps not the best argument.

And where does NATO membership stop? They already have Poland and Hungary as members and to what effect? They are both anti-democratic nations and are providing nothing for European stability or progress. If NATO's sole function is to hem in Russia, why not make China a member? It's all just brinkmanship at this point and a waste of time and resources. Let Russia invade Ukraine like they did in Georgia and Afghanistan. The results will be the same. Ukraine provides nothing toward the furthering of American and European interests.


why do you ask?

need it stop?

after all, NATO's purpose of neutralizing Russia's territorial ambitions has not yet been achieved
 
2021-12-04 9:09:49 AM  

flamark: INTERTRON: flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).

How does that jive with the fact that NATO was actually created specifically for situations exactly like this one (Russia threatening former soviet countries) ?

NATO was founded to prevent an attack by East Germany/USSR into western Europe. Nothing in there about protecting former USSR block nations.


NATO was actually created specifically for situations exactly like this one (Russia threatening former soviet countries)
 
2021-12-04 9:11:58 AM  
Putin can put all the troops there he wants, but how many are willing to fight and die in the first skirmish for a horrendously corrupt government that is also rapacious for territorial expansion?
 
2021-12-04 9:13:35 AM  

INTERTRON: flamark: INTERTRON: flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).

How does that jive with the fact that NATO was actually created specifically for situations exactly like this one (Russia threatening former soviet countries) ?

NATO was founded to prevent an attack by East Germany/USSR into western Europe. Nothing in there about protecting former USSR block nations.

NATO was actually created specifically for situations exactly like this one (Russia threatening former soviet countries)


Hmm. from Wikipedia ... "On 4 March 1947, the Treaty of Dunkirk was signed by France and the United Kingdom as a Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance in the event of a possible attack by Germany or the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II."
 
2021-12-04 9:17:21 AM  

flamark: hubiestubert: flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).

So, you don't think that Ukraine is strong enough to be useful to NATO? It's literally not just the US in NATO, but an alliance of nations, and I suspect that a lot of European nations, especially those former members of the USSR, would welcome their neighbors' to the mix. Defining NATO in terms that closing in towards the century mark is perhaps not the best argument.

And where does NATO membership stop? They already have Poland and Hungary as members and to what effect? They are both anti-democratic nations and are providing nothing for European stability or progress. If NATO's sole function is to hem in Russia, why not make China a member? It's all just brinkmanship at this point and a waste of time and resources. Let Russia invade Ukraine like they did in Georgia and Afghanistan. The results will be the same. Ukraine provides nothing toward the furthering of American and European interests.


You are literally arguing that we shouldn't have Ukraine allow to join an association that is supposed to hem in aggression into Europe by Russia  because they are currently under the very real possibility of invasion by Russia. But you are correct that NATO is not about stemming threat from just one or two nations, about providing stability in Europe, which given that Russia is close to collapse, again, and is seeking invasion as a means to stem that, and has provided examples of existential threat to European democracies, it makes perfect sense to bring Ukraine under the treaty. Putting a NATO nation right up on the Russian border might make them reconsider that whole invasion as 'economic expansion' theory.
 
2021-12-04 9:20:53 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-04 9:22:30 AM  

12349876: flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).

So let Russia gain strength bulldozing through countries you don't like until they find one you do like?


In practice? Yeah, pretty much.
 
2021-12-04 9:22:33 AM  

flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).


I think most of Europe shows a wee bit more concern over what happens on their doorstep than some random American. NATO isn't just the USA.
 
2021-12-04 9:23:34 AM  

Weird Hal: Shaggy_C: President Joe Biden has pledged to make it "very, very difficult" for Russia's Vladimir Putin to take military action in Ukraine
...
"We've been aware of Russia's actions for a long time and my expectation is we're gonna have a long discussion with Putin," Biden said.


So, a "discussion"? We're practically in strongly-worded letter territory here, people. Maybe he'll even put together a task force to discuss assessing the potential of actually enacting those sanction his admin unilaterally blocked?

It seems all of the claims of Trump being a Putin puppet were just projection. Every accusation a confession.

That's weak even for you.


No it isn't (the "for him" part)
 
2021-12-04 9:24:15 AM  

flamark: INTERTRON: flamark: INTERTRON: flamark:

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).

How does that jive with the fact that NATO was actually created specifically for situations exactly like this one (Russia threatening former soviet countries) ?

NATO was founded to prevent an attack by East Germany/USSR into western Europe. Nothing in there about protecting former USSR block nations.

NATO was actually created specifically for situations exactly like this one (Russia threatening former soviet countries)

Hmm. from Wikipedia ... "On 4 March 1947, the Treaty of Dunkirk was signed by France and the United Kingdom as a Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance in the event of a possible attack by Germany or the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II."


Evidently I need more parentheses for this:

"NATO was actually created specifically for situations (exactly like (this one (Russia threatening former soviet countries)))"

What you are describing are situations of invading countries, this is also a situation of invading a country, specifically a former soviet one
 
2021-12-04 9:26:51 AM  

hubiestubert: flamark: hubiestubert: flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).

So, you don't think that Ukraine is strong enough to be useful to NATO? It's literally not just the US in NATO, but an alliance of nations, and I suspect that a lot of European nations, especially those former members of the USSR, would welcome their neighbors' to the mix. Defining NATO in terms that closing in towards the century mark is perhaps not the best argument.

And where does NATO membership stop? They already have Poland and Hungary as members and to what effect? They are both anti-democratic nations and are providing nothing for European stability or progress. If NATO's sole function is to hem in Russia, why not make China a member? It's all just brinkmanship at this point and a waste of time and resources. Let Russia invade Ukraine like they did in Georgia and Afghanistan. The results will be the same. Ukraine provides nothing toward the furthering of American and European interests.

You are literally arguing that we shouldn't have Ukraine allow to join an association that is supposed to hem in aggression into Europe by Russia  because they are currently under the very real possibility of invasion by Russia. But you are correct that NATO is not about stemming threat from just one or two nations, about providing stability in Europe, which given that Russia is close to collapse, again, and is seeking invasion as a means to stem that, and has provided examples of existential threat to European democracies, it makes perfect sense to bring Ukraine under the treaty. Putting a NATO nation right up on the Russian border might make them reconsider that whole invasion as 'economic expansion' theory.


Maybe yes, maybe no. Putin hasn't exactly been shy about meddling in the Baltic states.
 
2021-12-04 9:28:56 AM  
Well this is looking not good in the least. If we end up balls deep in a European conflict that would leave a lot of opportunity for Asia Pacific and middle eastern  tensions to unwind. I really hope not but the dominoes do seem to be lining up to fall that way. Russia can't let go of Ukraine, China can't let go of Taiwan, and Israel can't let go of Iran so eventually something's gunna give and that's not to mention all the much smaller regional conflicts (including in the U.S. 😬) that may try to resolve once the groups keeping things in check are occupied elsewhere. Interesting times indeed.
 
2021-12-04 9:29:04 AM  

qorkfiend: hubiestubert: flamark: hubiestubert: flamark: animal color: flamark: Ukraine should not be part of NATO. This (Russia's actions) seems to be a reaction to that prospect.

Why do you say that? NATO is specifically a bulwark against Russian ambitions. Membership in NATO for Ukraine seems the right solution to Russia's hegemony.

NATO membership should be for countries that we are willing to go all out to defend. That means countries that have been traditional allies of the US and WW2 allied block. Who wants to go to all out war protecting Ukraine? Not me. To hell with them. (Speaking as a second generation Ukrainian immigrant to the US).

So, you don't think that Ukraine is strong enough to be useful to NATO? It's literally not just the US in NATO, but an alliance of nations, and I suspect that a lot of European nations, especially those former members of the USSR, would welcome their neighbors' to the mix. Defining NATO in terms that closing in towards the century mark is perhaps not the best argument.

And where does NATO membership stop? They already have Poland and Hungary as members and to what effect? They are both anti-democratic nations and are providing nothing for European stability or progress. If NATO's sole function is to hem in Russia, why not make China a member? It's all just brinkmanship at this point and a waste of time and resources. Let Russia invade Ukraine like they did in Georgia and Afghanistan. The results will be the same. Ukraine provides nothing toward the furthering of American and European interests.

You are literally arguing that we shouldn't have Ukraine allow to join an association that is supposed to hem in aggression into Europe by Russia  because they are currently under the very real possibility of invasion by Russia. But you are correct that NATO is not about stemming threat from just one or two nations, about providing stability in Europe, which given that Russia is close to collapse, again, and is seeking invasion as a means to ...


In fairness, he's not been shy about meddling in European elections or the US either. And maybe it's time that we do something about addressing that cash flow.
 
2021-12-04 9:36:50 AM  
Will it be like last time when it wasn't the Russian army just a bunch of concerned milita types with no markings and lots of Russia weapons?
 
2021-12-04 9:39:37 AM  

groppet: Will it be like last time when it wasn't the Russian army just a bunch of concerned milita types with no markings and lots of Russia weapons?


The hope is this time that there won't be Kurds who have air support in the mix though. Russian ground forces really HATE when the fight gets closer to fair.
 
2021-12-04 9:45:01 AM  
Time to stop farking around and start bombing the ever loving fark out them. We are good at bombing the ever loving fark out of things, let's do that to this troop build up.
 
2021-12-04 9:48:29 AM  

physt: Dumbest thing I've read all day but I have seen your other posts to this thread yet.


Alright, smart guy. Why don't you explain to me with examples how Biden is objectively "tough on Russia." I don't want to see any "b-b-but Trump here. Just cold, hard facts.

I gave you mine; Biden spent his first foreign trip abroad in a private meeting with Putin and then blocked bipartisan sanctions from taking place on their natural gas pipeline. I see those as signs of weakness.

Let's hear your reasoning. I'm happy to be convinced that I'm wrong.
 
2021-12-04 9:55:06 AM  
If TFG were still in office, we'd just turn our  back on them and kneel to puttie putt.  Bowing to Putin is how we got here boys and girls.  Thanks tRump~
 
2021-12-04 9:57:03 AM  

The Drawing Board: Time to stop farking around and start bombing the ever loving fark out them. We are good at bombing the ever loving fark out of things, let's do that to this troop build up.


Russia has the right to station their troops as they please on their own territory.

It's when they move to somebody else's territory that we should bomb the everloving Fark out of them.
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.