For Those Who Might Be Wondering Why We Might Be In Ukraine

[Lazaran]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1926989626956259783

Is BabyBoobs referring to the war their orange god promised would be over in “24 hours”???



BabyBoobs



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Well, that's as may be, but it's undeniable that Trump is batshit crazy

 

[Rightguide]

Personally I think the key here is killing Putin.

Wishing too hard for Vladimir Putin’s removal without a clear understanding of who might replace him is a dangerous gamble, as several prominent figures waiting in the wings, such as Dmitry Medvedev, Igor Girkin, Ramzan Kadyrov, and Alexander Dugin, are not moderates but far more nationalistic, authoritarian, and openly warlike. While Putin is undeniably aggressive, his actions are often tempered by calculated strategic interests; by contrast, Medvedev now routinely calls for nuclear strikes, Girkin demands full mobilization and total war, Kadyrov advocates brutal repression and escalation, and Dugin envisions a messianic Russian empire in open conflict with the West. If Putin were suddenly removed without a managed transition, the resulting power vacuum could elevate these ultra-hawks, plunging Russia into even deeper militarism and heightening the risk of global instability. In this context, toppling Putin may not lead to peace or reform, but to something far more volatile. Wishes could have consequences.

 

[Rightguide]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1926989626956259783

This raises a profound and uncomfortable question: What vital U.S. interest justifies risking a nuclear strike on New York, Washington, or Chicago to defend Ukraine’s ability to fire long-range missiles into Russia? The moral argument for supporting Ukraine is strong, but the strategic one is far murkier. Ukraine is not a treaty ally, and the war, while tragic, does not threaten core U.S. security or sovereignty. Yet by eroding the line between indirect support and co-belligerence, the U.S. could be drawing a line in the sand that's already shifting beneath our feet.

 

[HisArpy]

Wishing too hard for Vladimir Putin’s removal without a clear understanding of who might replace him is a dangerous gamble, as several prominent figures waiting in the wings, such as Dmitry Medvedev, Igor Girkin, Ramzan Kadyrov, and Alexander Dugin, are not moderates but far more nationalistic, authoritarian, and openly warlike. While Putin is undeniably aggressive, his actions are often tempered by calculated strategic interests; by contrast, Medvedev now routinely calls for nuclear strikes, Girkin demands full mobilization and total war, Kadyrov advocates brutal repression and escalation, and Dugin envisions a messianic Russian empire in open conflict with the West. If Putin were suddenly removed without a managed transition, the resulting power vacuum could elevate these ultra-hawks, plunging Russia into even deeper militarism and heightening the risk of global instability. In this context, toppling Putin may not lead to peace or reform, but to something far more volatile. Wishes could have consequences.

Revolutions are bloody and often those who seem to be next in line to the seat of power often find themselves standing before a bullet riddled wall before the revolution is finally over.

 

[MajorRewrite]

This raises a profound and uncomfortable question: What vital U.S. interest justifies risking a nuclear strike on New York, Washington, or Chicago to defend Ukraine’s ability to fire long-range missiles into Russia? The moral argument for supporting Ukraine is strong, but the strategic one is far murkier. Ukraine is not a treaty ally, and the war, while tragic, does not threaten core U.S. security or sovereignty. Yet by eroding the line between indirect support and co-belligerence, the U.S. could be drawing a line in the sand that's already shifting beneath our feet.

Russia isn’t going to attempt to nuke the US.

If Russia is afraid of Ukrainian missiles, Putin could simply remove his troops from Ukraine. No invasion, no missiles.

 

[Rightguide]

Revolutions are bloody and often those who seem to be next in line to the seat of power often find themselves standing before a bullet riddled wall before the revolution is finally over.

The key to understanding the Russians is their history and their stated definition of what an "existential threat" is. Our leftist friends here simply don't get it. The list of brutal Russian victories is long: Golden Horde (Mongols), Sweden, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Napoleon’s France, Ottoman Empire, Persian Empire (Qajar Iran), Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan (in Manchuria), Hungarian Revolutionaries (1956), Czechoslovak Reformists (1968), Chechen Separatists, Georgian Military (2008), Crimean Khanate. They are an old-world people, with deep roots in an ancient battlefield. War is in their blood, fighting is not just a necessity, but a tradition. Losses are a lesser concern; they endure, absorb, and adapt. And when they retreat, it is rarely in defeat. Ask Napoleon at the gates of Moscow, or Hitler in the snows of Stalingrad, and they might whisper from the grave: "The chase was the easy part."

 

[Rightguide]

Russia isn’t going to attempt to nuke the US.

If Russia is afraid of Ukrainian missiles, Putin could simply remove his troops from Ukraine. No invasion, no missiles.

You have no clue.

 

[ll74]

You have no clue.

Putin gave multiple red lines for nukes.
None have come to fruition.

Do you have a poster of Putin, shirtless on a horse, on your ceiling?

 

[Rightguide]

Putin gave multiple red lines for nukes.
None have come to fruition.

Do you have a poster of Putin, shirtless on a horse, on your ceiling?

The only red line I've seen is the official public policy statement concerning the use of nuclear weapons, assessing an "existential threat" to the country. Perhaps you can list those you've claimed

No, but if I did, it still wouldn’t be as embarrassing as watching you mistake snark for insight while knowing absolutely nothing about global affairs. You mock what you don’t understand, it's a classic symptom of irrelevance.

 

[ll74]

The only red line I've seen is the official public policy statement concerning the use of nuclear weapons, assessing an "existential threat" to the country. Perhaps you can list those you've claimed

Yes, because you're a fucking idiot.
He's made several "don't do that or I'll nuke you"

You may want to review this thread, since you posted all of them.

No, but if I did, it still wouldn’t be as embarrassing as watching you mistake snark for insight while knowing absolutely nothing about global affairs. You mock what you don’t understand, it's a classic symptom of irrelevance.

You suck Putin cock consistently
You don't see beyond what he tells you

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, because you're a fucking idiot.
He's made several "don't do that or I'll nuke you"

You may want to review this thread, since you posted all of them.


You suck Putin cock consistently
You don't see beyond what he tells you

Produce the links, not your imagination.

You need to stop projecting your homosocial desires with erotic inflection. It's beginning to reveal your lack of manhood.

 

[ll74]

Produce the links, not your imagination.

It's in your thread.
You've posted about the threat multiple times here. If you can't remember or review your own thread, it's not my issue.

You need to stop projecting your homosocial desires with erotic inflection. It's beginning to reveal your lack of manhood.

You keep thinking this is a gay thing. Again, that is your issue. You sucking the Putin cock or admiring Putin is not a gay thing.... It's your ability to understand propaganda of an autocratic dictator.

If you were smarter, you'd understand.

 

[Rightguide]

It's in your thread.
You've posted about the threat multiple times here. If you can't remember or review your own thread, it's not my issue.


You keep thinking this is a gay thing. Again, that is your issue. You sucking the Putin cock or admiring Putin is not a gay thing.... It's your ability to understand propaganda of an autocratic dictator.

If you were smarter, you'd understand.

You made a specific statement about what Putin said, but you can't link to it'

I think you're gay, you project it. Your constant allusions to Homoaffectional imagery is a symptom, a veiled signal of a latent predilection for all things "Lavender."

My practice of listening to "all" sides is why I'm better informed than you. Your lack of polymathic processing of available sources of information is your downfall. It's why my assessment of the facts on the ground in Ukraine is more accurate than your illusions based on legacy media propaganda.

 

[ll74]

You made a specific statement about what Putin said, but you can't link to it'

No, I said he has mentioned nuclear options and red lines multiple times. You've commented on this multiple times in this thread.

Your memory isn't my issue.

Giving Ukraine tanks was a red line
Giving them anti aircraft.missiles was a red line
Giving them aircraft was a red line

I think you're gay, you project it. Your constant allusions to Homoaffectional imagery is a symptom, a veiled signal of a latent predilection for all things "Lavender."

Im not
I enjoy that that is your focus though.

My practice of listening to "all" sides is why I'm better informed than you. Your lack of polymathic processing of available sources of information is your downfall. It's why my assessment of the facts on the ground in Ukraine is more accurate than your illusions based on legacy media propaganda.

You don't listen to all sides.
You are biased towards Putin because you like him and think he is a good leader.
This entire thread is evidence of that.

 

[Baztrachian]

This raises a profound and uncomfortable question: What vital U.S. interest justifies risking a nuclear strike on New York, Washington, or Chicago to defend Ukraine’s ability to fire long-range missiles into Russia? The moral argument for supporting Ukraine is strong, but the strategic one is far murkier. Ukraine is not a treaty ally, and the war, while tragic, does not threaten core U.S. security or sovereignty. Yet by eroding the line between indirect support and co-belligerence, the U.S. could be drawing a line in the sand that's already shifting beneath our feet.

If Russia is willing to launch a nuclear attack on the United States because we're frustrating their plans to enslave other people then why shouldn't we nuke those motherfucking bastards right the fuck NOW???

 

[Rightguide]

If Russia is willing to launch a nuclear attack on the United States because we're frustrating their plans to enslave other people then why shouldn't we nuke those motherfucking bastards right the fuck NOW???

Their public position is clear: they have no intention of using nuclear weapons unless faced with a direct, existential threat to their homeland. Let’s be honest, there is nothing in Ukraine worth sacrificing American lives or property for. Now flip the scenario. Imagine a foreign power placing military forces in Mexico or Cuba. We’ve been down that road before, and we didn’t tolerate it. So why should we expect Russia to react any differently to NATO or U.S. forces on its southern border? This isn’t strategy; it’s recklessness. It’s ignorant people playing with matches, while sitting on a powder keg.

 

[ll74]

Their public position is clear: they have no intention of using nuclear weapons unless faced with a direct, existential threat to their homeland.

Youve stated, in this thread, that the reasoning for the Ukranian war was because of NATO's existential thread to Russia.

Let’s be honest, there is nothing in Ukraine worth sacrificing American lives or property for. Now flip the scenario. Imagine a foreign power placing military forces in Mexico or Cuba. We’ve been down that road before, and we didn’t tolerate it. So why should we expect Russia to react any differently to NATO or U.S. forces on its southern border? This isn’t strategy; it’s recklessness. It’s ignorant people playing with matches, while sitting on a powder keg.

Their invasion has directly resulted in an expansion of NATO memberships.

 

[Rightguide]

Youve stated, in this thread, that the reasoning for the Ukranian war was because of NATO's existential thread to Russia.

I've not stated that NATO itself is an existential threat. I have said that putting NATO troops in Ukraine would probably be seen as such a threat. The US and Western Europe governments stating that the weapons they supply to Ukraine can now be used against the Russian people "might" be considered an existential threat to the Russian homeland. It implies co-belligerency. Russia could be within its rights under the laws of war to destroy those systems in their country of origin or at any point along their logistical trail.

Their invasion has directly resulted in an expansion of NATO memberships.

Ukraine is not, and will not be, a NATO member. There are now over thirty member countries, all of which have different political objectives and foreign policy motives. It will be like herding cats in order to get them all lined up to oppose or to receive a nuclear response from Russia.

 

[ll74]

I've not stated that NATO itself is an existential threat. I have said that putting NATO troops in Ukraine would probably be seen as such a threat.

Lol
Of course

The US and Western Europe governments stating that the weapons they supply to Ukraine can now be used against the Russian people "might" be considered an existential threat to the Russian homeland.

That was the last red line. The one after allowing NATO supply aircraft to be used.

It implies co-belligerency. Russia could be within its rights under the laws of war to destroy those systems in their country of origin or at any point along their logistical trail.

Lol

Ukraine is not, and will not be, a NATO member.

That remains to be seen.

There are now over thirty member countries, all of which have different political objectives and foreign policy motives. It will be like herding cats in order to get them all lined up to oppose or to receive a nuclear response from Russia.

No one is afraid of a nuclear strike anymore. He's run that threat out.

youre the only one who continues to believe it..... Multiple times

 

[dmallord]

The key to understanding the Russians is their history and their stated definition of what an "existential threat" is. Our leftist friends here simply don't get it. The list of brutal Russian victories is long: Golden Horde (Mongols), Sweden, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Napoleon’s France, Ottoman Empire, Persian Empire (Qajar Iran), Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan (in Manchuria), Hungarian Revolutionaries (1956), Czechoslovak Reformists (1968), Chechen Separatists, Georgian Military (2008), Crimean Khanate. They are an old-world people, with deep roots in an ancient battlefield. War is in their blood, fighting is not just a necessity, but a tradition. Losses are a lesser concern; they endure, absorb, and adapt. And when they retreat, it is rarely in defeat. Ask Napoleon at the gates of Moscow, or Hitler in the snows of Stalingrad, and they might whisper from the grave: "The chase was the easy part."

Look, as a vet who’s seen the brutal face of war, I gotta say this reads like a recycled internet post or AI text—not your usual style. It’s too polished and stuffed with history lessons to be off the cuff. If it’s yours, fine—own it. If not, some credit would be fair.

Now, about the content. Sure, Russia’s got a long list of battles won, but don’t romanticize it like it’s some proud warrior code. War isn’t a tradition to be proud of—it’s a hell no one wants to relive. Saying “war is in their blood” sounds more like an excuse to justify aggression than real understanding.

I’ve seen what war really means—loss, pain, and scars that last a lifetime. Russia’s actions today come from fear, control, and hard politics, not some ancient destiny. To get it right, you’ve gotta look past the fairy tales and face the facts head-on.

Let’s talk honestly, not borrow borrowed lines that make tough realities sound poetic.

 

[Celand]

Trump gone completely crazy , what a failure !

Nobody gets the fact that Russia every two or three generations needs a " Great Patriotic War" and we are heading there, except there will NOT be much left from humanity when its over.

 

[ishtat]

I doubt Putin will use nuclear weapons. It would give Emperor Xi effective permission (excuse) to stomp all over the Russian "colonies" in East Asia. Remember that in the last 80 years, France, UK, Portugal, Spain, USA, Netherlands and Germany have all given up their colonial possessions and treaty ports in Eastern Asia. Only one country has refused - Russia. Every Chinese government since Sun Yat Sen in 1912 has demanded their return. The reckoning of that account is overdue. It might be good strategic policy for the West particularly the USA to encourage Chinese ambitions in that region.

 

[Lance_Castro]

I just want the war to escalate to the point where Putin releases The Pee Tape.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[Rightguide]

Lol
Of course


That was the last red line. The one after allowing NATO supply aircraft to be used.

In 2024 Putin widened 2020 meaning of what would be considered an existential threat:

Aggression against Russia or its ally Belarus using conventional weapons that create a critical threat to their sovereignty or territorial integrity.
Aggression by a non-nuclear state supported by a nuclear state, considered as a joint attack.
Massive aerospace attacks involving strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, or unmanned systems crossing Russia's borders.

But if you think that no amount of aggression by the West will bring us any harm, go right ahead and start banging that war drum. Perhaps you'd like to suit up and run over and help out.