quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Putin has a lot of flesh to go through, but his inability to conquer Ukraine in over a year isn't just noteworthy, it's a huge clue as to the ineffective nature of his military's weapons, training, and troop morale.

This one statement would seem to contradict the entire premise of your post, and your justification that 'All In for Ukraine' is in our best interests!

Your assumption that I'm, "All in for Ukraine" is totally unsubstantiated by anything I said in my post. Did I suggest sending US troops, US jets flown by US pilots, or nukes? Nope. Did I suggest that the United States attack Russia? Nope. None of those things, but you claim I'm "all in"?

Nope, it's a claim based purely on exaggeration and supposition. Are there ways we can and should assist Ukraine in my opinion? Yes, but I don't think even Zelenskyy has asked for things like direct military involvement by our country or nuclear weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Over here, surveys suggest that ca. 10 to 20 percent of Germans fully believe various Russian narratives, and another 15 to 25 do at least partially. There's an upcoming "peace demonstration" in two weeks initiated by the same wide assortment of suspects - leftists, feminists, peace activists and pro-Russian fellow travellers - who are back with the same reasoning they proffered last spring: So many people have been killed, maimed and raped in Ukraine, they should stop the war (read: surrender) to end the suffering, and most importantly avoid our latte being nuked.

quote:

Thousands in Berlin attend 'naive' Ukraine peace rally

8 hours ago

Organizers of the Rebellion for Peace protest have been criticized for playing into Russian President Vladimir Putin's hands. Far-right groups have told their supporters to show up, prompting a strong police presence.

Police in Berlin said on Saturday afternoon that roughly 13,000 people had attended an event in central Berlin organized by a controversial socialist politician, Sahra Wagenknecht, and a prominent writer and feminist, Alice Schwarzer.

The Rebellion for Peace rally organizers have received fierce criticism from many politicians, including Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who say the demonstration could weaken public support for Ukraine's fightback against Russia.

Organizers had reckoned with a likely turnout in the region of 10,000 but police estimates exceeded these figures despite freezing temperatures and sleet.

Renegade Left Party politician Wagenknecht, who has faced criticism from party colleagues for her pro-Russian stances, and Schwarzer both hailed the large turnout and repeatedly spoke of a "citizen's movement" or "peace movement."

Some of the demonstrators carried more innocuous banners or slogans like "make peace without weapons," but others were more contentious. One seemed to liken Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock sending weapons to Ukraine's government now with past dictators like Adolf Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm and Napoleon invading the territory in history.

What is the Rebellion for Peace rally?

Saturday's rally follows a protest in solidarity with Ukraine, attended by some 10,000 people in Berlin on Friday night — the one-year anniversary of Russia's invasion.

Police had earlier voiced concerns that the event, at the Brandenburg Gate, could be buttressed by far-right groups for their own ends.

Two weeks ago, Wagenknecht and Schwarzer published a "Manifesto for Peace," which has been backed by the signatures of more than 620,000 people, according to the change.org website.

The pair say they want to see "negotiations and compromises" on both sides of the Ukraine conflict to prevent it from escalating into possible nuclear war.

What was said at the rally?

The crowd gathered at the Brandenburg Gate on Saturday afternoon to hear from a series of podium speakers known for some highly unconventional views in recent years.

Wagenknecht told the crowd their manifesto had prompted a "genuine hysteria" in Germany refuting it.

She often referred to "hysterical bellowing" in "parts of politics and the media" in Germany, saying "they're really afraid of us. They're afraid of a new peace movement."

"It's about ending the terrible suffering and the dying of Ukrainians. It's about making Russia an offer of negotiations, instead of an endless war of attrition being supplied with ever more weapons," Wagenknecht said.

Schwarzer singles out Baerbock

Schwarzer, meanwhile, said it was a "real shame" that there wasn't space near the stage for everybody who had attended.

"The word pacifist has been turned into an insult, and from the left, just imagine that," Schwarzer said.

She said it was "truly criminal to convince Ukraine it can defeat Russia," arguing that ultimately it could not.

Schwarzer also paused when a mention of Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock prompted boos from the crowd, and said it seemed you could "bank" on dropping her name.

"A foreign minister is a diplomat by profession, and indeed the first diplomat of the country. But what does this foreign minster do? She seemingly doesn't even hold talks with Russia in this extremely dangerous situation, although one can only hope she might be doing that in secret, behind closed doors — but it doesn't look that way," Schwarzer said.

She said talks with Russia would prove the only way to end the war, even if Baerbock disputed this, so "why not start the talks now?"

Former Bundeswehr officer and contentious economist

The first speaker to take the podium, professor and economist in the US, Jeffrey Sachs of Colombia University, joined via video link and spoke English.

Known in recent years for his speculation that COVID was a US bioweapon, mirroring Chinese disinformation, Sachs told the audience various questionable assertions that he described as "the truth" about the war. These included claims that the US blocked peace talks early in the conflict, that the "overwhelming evidence" pointed to the US blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, and that Russia had invaded Ukraine as a result of a lack of guarantee that Ukraine would not join NATO.

And a former German military officer turned consultant, Erich Vad, picked up on criticism of the event as "naive," arguing that this better described NATO's posture. Like most speakers, he said the conflict had become "a war of attrition."

"What's clear is that for months we've been delivering weapons but that we can't think of very much else," Vad said. He said military aid needed to be tied to political targets and argued the latter were not easy to recognize in the current conflict.

[...]

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:
... would you please tell me what victory will look like.

quote:

As much as Chellim1 complains about government, he seems to limit his complaints to OUR government and fails to address the alternative: Submission to threats by the Russian and Chinese (or even North Korean and Iran) to our sovereignty. At least in America, he has the protections offered by our Constitution. If we were to submit to a direct threat by the communists (and IMHO Putin is as much a commie now as he was when the USSR existed), does Chellim1 believe we'd be better off living under their rules?

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:


Tell me why we have to support Ukraine without telling me that
A) Russia bad.
B) It's the right thing to do.
C) We owe them.
or
D) Because NATO and UN.

quote:

Originally posted by Hildur:
One perspective about backing Ukraine is that Ukrainian soldiers with US equipment, training and intel has exposed Russia's military to be incompetent and ineffective.

For under $100 billion (which is less than 5% of the entire US military budget) the US essentially used Ukrainian manpower to decimate Russia's military.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:
... would you please tell me what victory will look like.

For me? Russia out of Ukraine. That's it. I won't speak for anyone else here, but I suspect that that's where most, if not all, of us are.

I do not, and will not, support a war inside of Russia...unless that brings about the former, which should not be necessary. But, once Russia pulls (or is pushed) out of Ukraine? Job over.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by Hildur:
One perspective about backing Ukraine is that Ukrainian soldiers with US equipment, training and intel has exposed Russia's military to be incompetent and ineffective.

For under $100 billion (which is less than 5% of the entire US military budget) the US essentially used Ukrainian manpower to decimate Russia's military.

That's fine and all, but you do realize that we need to replace all that stuff, right? While you can compare it to the US military budget, that $100 billion for Ukraine wasn't actually part of the budget, so it results in additional spending! As such, it's still equates to a shit-ton of extra spending that further burdens the US taxpayer, their children, AND their children's children!

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I think Ukraine, and the world, needs to hold Russia responsible for the damage that they have done.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

And wasn't it Jefferson who sent the Marines to Tripoli?

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:
... would you please tell me what victory will look like.

For me? Russia out of Ukraine. That's it. I won't speak for anyone else here, but I suspect that that's where most, if not all, of us are.

I do not, and will not, support a war inside of Russia...unless that brings about the former, which should not be necessary. But, once Russia pulls (or is pushed) out of Ukraine? Job over.