What end to the Ukranian war would be acceptable to you?

[It’s so Joever]

A ceasefire with current borders upheld and de facto Ukrainian ascension to NATO even if not formal. That’s the best we can expect at this point and time is only favoring the orcs.

[Meclazine for Israel]

What would I like to see?

A battalion of grey German Panzer Tanks rolling across the wheat fields towards Eastern Ukraine.

A salivating rematch of the Battle of Kursk between Germany and Russia.

[UWS]

Ukraine total victory for the preservation of democracy in Europe and hopefully will deter China from invading Taiwan. We can’t let Emperor Palputin prevail in Ukraine which would make him able to invade other European countries in the coming years after reorganizing his army

[HisGrace]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.

Or Afghanistan was a 20 year, several thousand US troops died, trillion dollar project that ended up being in vain as the local population didn’t care if the Taliban was in charge or not vs Ukraine a 3 year war, no U.S. troop death project for a country that actually wants to fight the enemy. But why worry about details when you can do a fake virtual signal like a douche

[HisGrace]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.

Or Afghanistan was a 20 year, several thousand US troops died, trillion dollar project that ended up being in vain as the local population didn’t care if the Taliban was in charge or not vs Ukraine a 3 year war, no U.S. troop death project for a country that actually wants to fight the enemy. But why worry about details when you can do a fake virtual signal like a douche

Well a hell of a lot more than "several thousand people" have gotten killed here and Russia's certainly not worse than the Taliban, so the moral calculus doesn't make any sense. If anything you could argue the other way around: taking relatively light casualties to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan would be worth it but with hundreds of thousands getting killed in Ukraine the war needs to end as quickly as possible to stop loss of life on that scale even if it means a non optimum outcome. Or you could support both or be opposed to both, but not do what you guys are doing.

The rhetoric is just so much tougher here from the left than for any other armed conflict I can think of, usually you just want to roll over and let the aggressor push everyone around because you're so afraid of war.  We have a guy arguing on the second page that the US should be willing to get nuked for Ukraine. So a few thousand soldiers dying to stop the Taliban is too much but hundreds of thousands or even millions dying for Ukraine is ok.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.

Or Afghanistan was a 20 year, several thousand US troops died, trillion dollar project that ended up being in vain as the local population didn’t care if the Taliban was in charge or not vs Ukraine a 3 year war, no U.S. troop death project for a country that actually wants to fight the enemy. But why worry about details when you can do a fake virtual signal like a douche

Well a hell of a lot more than "several thousand people" have gotten killed here and Russia's certainly not worse than the Taliban, so the moral calculus doesn't make any sense. If anything you could argue the other way around: taking relatively light casualties to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan would be worth it but with hundreds of thousands getting killed in Ukraine the war needs to end as quickly as possible to stop loss of life on that scale even if it means a non optimum outcome. Or you could support both or be opposed to both, but not do what you guys are doing.

The rhetoric is just so much tougher here from the left than for any other armed conflict I can think of, usually you just want to roll over and let the aggressor push everyone around because you're so afraid of war.  We have a guy arguing on the second page that the US should be willing to get nuked for Ukraine. So a few thousand soldiers dying to stop the Taliban is too much but hundreds of thousands or even millions dying for Ukraine is ok.

(Citation needed)

[HisGrace]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.

Or Afghanistan was a 20 year, several thousand US troops died, trillion dollar project that ended up being in vain as the local population didn’t care if the Taliban was in charge or not vs Ukraine a 3 year war, no U.S. troop death project for a country that actually wants to fight the enemy. But why worry about details when you can do a fake virtual signal like a douche

Well a hell of a lot more than "several thousand people" have gotten killed here and Russia's certainly not worse than the Taliban, so the moral calculus doesn't make any sense. If anything you could argue the other way around: taking relatively light casualties to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan would be worth it but with hundreds of thousands getting killed in Ukraine the war needs to end as quickly as possible to stop loss of life on that scale even if it means a non optimum outcome. Or you could support both or be opposed to both, but not do what you guys are doing.

The rhetoric is just so much tougher here from the left than for any other armed conflict I can think of, usually you just want to roll over and let the aggressor push everyone around because you're so afraid of war.  We have a guy arguing on the second page that the US should be willing to get nuked for Ukraine. So a few thousand soldiers dying to stop the Taliban is too much but hundreds of thousands or even millions dying for Ukraine is ok.

(Citation needed)

Russia doesn't execute gay people, force people to convert at swordpoint, or treat women as the legal property of men and ban them from even learning to read. I'm a straight man and even I'd rather live in Russia than Taliban Afghanistan and that would be 10x the case if I were a woman or gay.

Regardless, quibbling about that part of it is not important, for the sake of argument you can just say they're both authoritarian states and the point still stands. Why is one worth so much loss of life to stop but not the other?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.

Or Afghanistan was a 20 year, several thousand US troops died, trillion dollar project that ended up being in vain as the local population didn’t care if the Taliban was in charge or not vs Ukraine a 3 year war, no U.S. troop death project for a country that actually wants to fight the enemy. But why worry about details when you can do a fake virtual signal like a douche

Well a hell of a lot more than "several thousand people" have gotten killed here and Russia's certainly not worse than the Taliban, so the moral calculus doesn't make any sense. If anything you could argue the other way around: taking relatively light casualties to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan would be worth it but with hundreds of thousands getting killed in Ukraine the war needs to end as quickly as possible to stop loss of life on that scale even if it means a non optimum outcome. Or you could support both or be opposed to both, but not do what you guys are doing.

The rhetoric is just so much tougher here from the left than for any other armed conflict I can think of, usually you just want to roll over and let the aggressor push everyone around because you're so afraid of war.  We have a guy arguing on the second page that the US should be willing to get nuked for Ukraine. So a few thousand soldiers dying to stop the Taliban is too much but hundreds of thousands or even millions dying for Ukraine is ok.

(Citation needed)

Russia doesn't execute gay people, force people to convert at swordpoint, or treat women as the legal property of men and ban them from even learning to read. I'm a straight man and even I'd rather live in Russia than Taliban Afghanistan and that would be 10x the case if I were a woman or gay.

Regardless, quibbling about that part of it is not important, for the sake of argument you can just say they're both authoritarian states and the point still stands. Why is one worth so much loss of life to stop but not the other?

Because again the Afghan people didn’t care about fighting the Taliban while Ukrainians do care about fighting Russia.

[MasterJedi]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.

Or Afghanistan was a 20 year, several thousand US troops died, trillion dollar project that ended up being in vain as the local population didn’t care if the Taliban was in charge or not vs Ukraine a 3 year war, no U.S. troop death project for a country that actually wants to fight the enemy. But why worry about details when you can do a fake virtual signal like a douche

Well a hell of a lot more than "several thousand people" have gotten killed here and Russia's certainly not worse than the Taliban, so the moral calculus doesn't make any sense. If anything you could argue the other way around: taking relatively light casualties to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan would be worth it but with hundreds of thousands getting killed in Ukraine the war needs to end as quickly as possible to stop loss of life on that scale even if it means a non optimum outcome. Or you could support both or be opposed to both, but not do what you guys are doing.

The rhetoric is just so much tougher here from the left than for any other armed conflict I can think of, usually you just want to roll over and let the aggressor push everyone around because you're so afraid of war.  We have a guy arguing on the second page that the US should be willing to get nuked for Ukraine. So a few thousand soldiers dying to stop the Taliban is too much but hundreds of thousands or even millions dying for Ukraine is ok.

(Citation needed)

Russia doesn't execute gay people, force people to convert at swordpoint, or treat women as the legal property of men and ban them from even learning to read. I'm a straight man and even I'd rather live in Russia than Taliban Afghanistan and that would be 10x the case if I were a woman or gay.

Regardless, quibbling about that part of it is not important, for the sake of argument you can just say they're both authoritarian states and the point still stands. Why is one worth so much loss of life to stop but not the other?

The people who have left America for being “too woke” and went to Russia don’t have the best time. No matter what the thought nobody from the west truly wants to live there.

[Sir Mohamed]

To me personally? Ukraine regaining all its original 1991 territory as accepted by Russia in the Budapest memorandum, Putin at En Hague and Russia paying billions of reparations to Ukraine.

Ideally, the entire Mafia apparatus in Moscow would be removed from power and replaced by a more Western friendly govt that also guarantees basic freedoms in Russia, so that their intellectual elite can return and help rebuild a new Russia.

For sure, as of today, that's a pipe dream.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.

Or Afghanistan was a 20 year, several thousand US troops died, trillion dollar project that ended up being in vain as the local population didn’t care if the Taliban was in charge or not vs Ukraine a 3 year war, no U.S. troop death project for a country that actually wants to fight the enemy. But why worry about details when you can do a fake virtual signal like a douche

Well a hell of a lot more than "several thousand people" have gotten killed here and Russia's certainly not worse than the Taliban, so the moral calculus doesn't make any sense. If anything you could argue the other way around: taking relatively light casualties to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan would be worth it but with hundreds of thousands getting killed in Ukraine the war needs to end as quickly as possible to stop loss of life on that scale even if it means a non optimum outcome. Or you could support both or be opposed to both, but not do what you guys are doing.

The rhetoric is just so much tougher here from the left than for any other armed conflict I can think of, usually you just want to roll over and let the aggressor push everyone around because you're so afraid of war.  We have a guy arguing on the second page that the US should be willing to get nuked for Ukraine. So a few thousand soldiers dying to stop the Taliban is too much but hundreds of thousands or even millions dying for Ukraine is ok.

(Citation needed)

Russia doesn't execute gay people, force people to convert at swordpoint, or treat women as the legal property of men and ban them from even learning to read. I'm a straight man and even I'd rather live in Russia than Taliban Afghanistan and that would be 10x the case if I were a woman or gay.

Regardless, quibbling about that part of it is not important, for the sake of argument you can just say they're both authoritarian states and the point still stands. Why is one worth so much loss of life to stop but not the other?

The people who have left America for being “too woke” and went to Russia don’t have the best time. No matter what the thought nobody from the west truly wants to live there.

I doubt many people in the West want to live in Moldova or Bulgaria, but what does that have to deal with anything? Meanwhile people in the West choose to live in ultra-conservative near theocracies like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, and Qatar because they think it's Las Vegas.

To answer the question, it doesn't matter what would be acceptable to me. It's up to the Ukrainians and Russians.

HisGrace is correct in the discussion above. "You mentioned Russia there Mitt. The 1980s called and want their foreign policy back." Obama was in an era of Democratic Party dovishness, but Georgia 2008 still happened and Obama still said that, Crimea 2014 happened and Obama didn't change his tune. (Spare me nonsense that sanctions meant anything real.) If Biden was contrary to Obama at the time, other than a token statement he didn't disagree with it strongly. I'm going to apply to Vice President Biden the same standards people expect Vice President Pence to live up to concerning the Presidents they served.

[Torie]

 A negotiated settlement where the status quo ante is largely left in place. But a lot more people will need to die sadly I suspect for that to happen.

[HisGrace]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.

Or Afghanistan was a 20 year, several thousand US troops died, trillion dollar project that ended up being in vain as the local population didn’t care if the Taliban was in charge or not vs Ukraine a 3 year war, no U.S. troop death project for a country that actually wants to fight the enemy. But why worry about details when you can do a fake virtual signal like a douche

Well a hell of a lot more than "several thousand people" have gotten killed here and Russia's certainly not worse than the Taliban, so the moral calculus doesn't make any sense. If anything you could argue the other way around: taking relatively light casualties to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan would be worth it but with hundreds of thousands getting killed in Ukraine the war needs to end as quickly as possible to stop loss of life on that scale even if it means a non optimum outcome. Or you could support both or be opposed to both, but not do what you guys are doing.

The rhetoric is just so much tougher here from the left than for any other armed conflict I can think of, usually you just want to roll over and let the aggressor push everyone around because you're so afraid of war.  We have a guy arguing on the second page that the US should be willing to get nuked for Ukraine. So a few thousand soldiers dying to stop the Taliban is too much but hundreds of thousands or even millions dying for Ukraine is ok.

(Citation needed)

Russia doesn't execute gay people, force people to convert at swordpoint, or treat women as the legal property of men and ban them from even learning to read. I'm a straight man and even I'd rather live in Russia than Taliban Afghanistan and that would be 10x the case if I were a woman or gay.

Regardless, quibbling about that part of it is not important, for the sake of argument you can just say they're both authoritarian states and the point still stands. Why is one worth so much loss of life to stop but not the other?

The people who have left America for being “too woke” and went to Russia don’t have the best time. No matter what the thought nobody from the west truly wants to live there.

I don't "truly want to live there" I just said it was preferable to the Taliban in the context of the side discussion I started. That's a very low bar, like being better than North Korea.

[HisGrace]

HisGrace is correct in the discussion above. "You mentioned Russia there Mitt. The 1980s called and want their foreign policy back." Obama was in an era of Democratic Party dovishness, but Georgia 2008 still happened and Obama still said that, Crimea 2014 happened and Obama didn't change his tune. (Spare me nonsense that sanctions meant anything real.) If Biden was contrary to Obama at the time, other than a token statement he didn't disagree with it strongly. I'm going to apply to Vice President Biden the same standards people expect Vice President Pence to live up to concerning the Presidents they served.

That's what I'm talking about, the rhetoric towards Russia changed completely post election interference. When they attacked Georgia and Crimea all anyone on the left was worried about was preventing escalation and not in stopping them.  And I they were wrong both times, too dovish at first and too hawkish now. If there had been the kind of hardcore sanctions against them in 2014 when they attacked Crimea that we got a couple years ago we might not be in this situation now.

[Open Source Intelligence]

HisGrace is correct in the discussion above. "You mentioned Russia there Mitt. The 1980s called and want their foreign policy back." Obama was in an era of Democratic Party dovishness, but Georgia 2008 still happened and Obama still said that, Crimea 2014 happened and Obama didn't change his tune. (Spare me nonsense that sanctions meant anything real.) If Biden was contrary to Obama at the time, other than a token statement he didn't disagree with it strongly. I'm going to apply to Vice President Biden the same standards people expect Vice President Pence to live up to concerning the Presidents they served.

That's what I'm talking about, the rhetoric towards Russia changed completely post election interference. When they attacked Georgia and Crimea all anyone on the left was worried about was preventing escalation and not in stopping them.  And I they were wrong both times, too dovish at first and too hawkish now. If there had been the kind of hardcore sanctions against them in 2014 when they attacked Crimea that we got a couple years ago we might not be in this situation now.

Those hardcore sanctions from 2022 have helped divide the world in two as everyone non-West saw the sanctions as a weapon of warfare that could be used against them purely up to American motivations. They happen in 2014 I think that process just starts 8 years earlier. I do think in a hypothetical world where there was a unified and harsher response to Crimea (maybe even Georgia), this war probably never happens.

[MasterJedi]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

Well the Taliban committed all kinds of atrocities against civilians and it took significantly less loss of life to stop them than it would for the kind of total victory against Russia that all of you seem to want here. Yet most of you were fine letting them take over Afghanistan, it's not logical so have those two positions in concert, there's just some kind of emotional bias here.

Or Afghanistan was a 20 year, several thousand US troops died, trillion dollar project that ended up being in vain as the local population didn’t care if the Taliban was in charge or not vs Ukraine a 3 year war, no U.S. troop death project for a country that actually wants to fight the enemy. But why worry about details when you can do a fake virtual signal like a douche

Well a hell of a lot more than "several thousand people" have gotten killed here and Russia's certainly not worse than the Taliban, so the moral calculus doesn't make any sense. If anything you could argue the other way around: taking relatively light casualties to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan would be worth it but with hundreds of thousands getting killed in Ukraine the war needs to end as quickly as possible to stop loss of life on that scale even if it means a non optimum outcome. Or you could support both or be opposed to both, but not do what you guys are doing.

The rhetoric is just so much tougher here from the left than for any other armed conflict I can think of, usually you just want to roll over and let the aggressor push everyone around because you're so afraid of war.  We have a guy arguing on the second page that the US should be willing to get nuked for Ukraine. So a few thousand soldiers dying to stop the Taliban is too much but hundreds of thousands or even millions dying for Ukraine is ok.

(Citation needed)

Russia doesn't execute gay people, force people to convert at swordpoint, or treat women as the legal property of men and ban them from even learning to read. I'm a straight man and even I'd rather live in Russia than Taliban Afghanistan and that would be 10x the case if I were a woman or gay.

Regardless, quibbling about that part of it is not important, for the sake of argument you can just say they're both authoritarian states and the point still stands. Why is one worth so much loss of life to stop but not the other?

The people who have left America for being “too woke” and went to Russia don’t have the best time. No matter what the thought nobody from the west truly wants to live there.

I don't "truly want to live there" I just said it was preferable to the Taliban in the context of the side discussion I started. That's a very low bar, like being better than North Korea.

Cool, they won’t come and chop your head off they’ll just put you in a gulag and let you be worked to death for saying anything minor outside the government line. Just a tad bit better.

[Damocles]

🇺🇦 Liberation -> Donetsk 🇷🇺
🇺🇦 Liberation -> Luhansk 🇷🇺
🇺🇦 Liberation -> Kherson 🇷🇺
🇺🇦 Liberation -> Zaporizhzhia 🇷🇺
🇺🇦 Liberation -> Crimea 🇷🇺
🇺🇦 Cut down to size 🇷🇺
🇺🇦 Humiliate 🇷🇺

War score requirement (83)

[All Along The Watchtower]

HisGrace is correct in the discussion above. "You mentioned Russia there Mitt. The 1980s called and want their foreign policy back." Obama was in an era of Democratic Party dovishness, but Georgia 2008 still happened and Obama still said that, Crimea 2014 happened and Obama didn't change his tune. (Spare me nonsense that sanctions meant anything real.) If Biden was contrary to Obama at the time, other than a token statement he didn't disagree with it strongly. I'm going to apply to Vice President Biden the same standards people expect Vice President Pence to live up to concerning the Presidents they served.

Obama was wrong on Russia, certainly after 2014. But the real problem was certain Europeans who were overly fond of Russia (and Russian gas) and who badly underinvested in their own defense, which along with myriad divisions both between and within NATO member states, made any unity within the alliance elusive. That is a big part of why Putin didn’t think he would face much backlash to his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and indeed the Russians are still counting on NATO being too divided and exhausted to continue supporting Ukraine.

[Open Source Intelligence]

HisGrace is correct in the discussion above. "You mentioned Russia there Mitt. The 1980s called and want their foreign policy back." Obama was in an era of Democratic Party dovishness, but Georgia 2008 still happened and Obama still said that, Crimea 2014 happened and Obama didn't change his tune. (Spare me nonsense that sanctions meant anything real.) If Biden was contrary to Obama at the time, other than a token statement he didn't disagree with it strongly. I'm going to apply to Vice President Biden the same standards people expect Vice President Pence to live up to concerning the Presidents they served.

Obama was wrong on Russia, certainly after 2014. But the real problem was certain Europeans who were overly fond of Russia (and Russian gas) and who badly underinvested in their own defense, which along with myriad divisions both between and within NATO member states, made any unity within the alliance elusive. That is a big part of why Putin didn’t think he would face much backlash to his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and indeed the Russians are still counting on NATO being too divided and exhausted to continue supporting Ukraine.

Well most of the Europeans (and the Canadians, they're in NATO too) need to start spending money and getting people to enlist...their support so far has been giving the Ukrainians equipment that was sitting around.

Ironically, Trump being an asshole to them combined with this war has made members of the alliance not named the U.S. finally cease being children and start to give a sh*t about their defense. I'm on a board with non-American NATO country military officers, they'll tell you their capacity has been hollowed out. The French dream is NATO disappears and is replaced by an EU version of NATO, which due to military capacity means it would be led by the French. The Eastern Europeans though would never stand for it because they trust the U.S. for collective defense more. Then you have the likes of the Germans that just didn't understand why they had to be bothered to do anything, which sucks when they are the richest country on the continent.

[bagelman]

What I want: Russia losing completely, left only powerful enough to suppress Islamist revolts in peripheral territories vulnerable to such, forced to redefine its role in the world.

What I'll accept: Russia leaving any territories captured this decade, Russian nationalist and other war supporters feeling like they've lost, Crimea still showing up as Ukrainian on maps.

[HisGrace]

HisGrace is correct in the discussion above. "You mentioned Russia there Mitt. The 1980s called and want their foreign policy back." Obama was in an era of Democratic Party dovishness, but Georgia 2008 still happened and Obama still said that, Crimea 2014 happened and Obama didn't change his tune. (Spare me nonsense that sanctions meant anything real.) If Biden was contrary to Obama at the time, other than a token statement he didn't disagree with it strongly. I'm going to apply to Vice President Biden the same standards people expect Vice President Pence to live up to concerning the Presidents they served.

Obama was wrong on Russia, certainly after 2014. But the real problem was certain Europeans who were overly fond of Russia (and Russian gas) and who badly underinvested in their own defense, which along with myriad divisions both between and within NATO member states, made any unity within the alliance elusive. That is a big part of why Putin didn’t think he would face much backlash to his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and indeed the Russians are still counting on NATO being too divided and exhausted to continue supporting Ukraine.

Well most of the Europeans (and the Canadians, they're in NATO too) need to start spending money and getting people to enlist...their support so far has been giving the Ukrainians equipment that was sitting around.

Ironically, Trump being an asshole to them combined with this war has made members of the alliance not named the U.S. finally cease being children and start to give a sh*t about their defense. I'm on a board with non-American NATO country military officers, they'll tell you their capacity has been hollowed out. The French dream is NATO disappears and is replaced by an EU version of NATO, which due to military capacity means it would be led by the French. The Eastern Europeans though would never stand for it because they trust the U.S. for collective defense more. Then you have the likes of the Germans that just didn't understand why they had to be bothered to do anything, which sucks when they are the richest country on the continent.

Is there a reason for the bolded besides the US being able to match Russia's nuclear deterrent?

[Open Source Intelligence]

HisGrace is correct in the discussion above. "You mentioned Russia there Mitt. The 1980s called and want their foreign policy back." Obama was in an era of Democratic Party dovishness, but Georgia 2008 still happened and Obama still said that, Crimea 2014 happened and Obama didn't change his tune. (Spare me nonsense that sanctions meant anything real.) If Biden was contrary to Obama at the time, other than a token statement he didn't disagree with it strongly. I'm going to apply to Vice President Biden the same standards people expect Vice President Pence to live up to concerning the Presidents they served.

Obama was wrong on Russia, certainly after 2014. But the real problem was certain Europeans who were overly fond of Russia (and Russian gas) and who badly underinvested in their own defense, which along with myriad divisions both between and within NATO member states, made any unity within the alliance elusive. That is a big part of why Putin didn’t think he would face much backlash to his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and indeed the Russians are still counting on NATO being too divided and exhausted to continue supporting Ukraine.

Well most of the Europeans (and the Canadians, they're in NATO too) need to start spending money and getting people to enlist...their support so far has been giving the Ukrainians equipment that was sitting around.

Ironically, Trump being an asshole to them combined with this war has made members of the alliance not named the U.S. finally cease being children and start to give a sh*t about their defense. I'm on a board with non-American NATO country military officers, they'll tell you their capacity has been hollowed out. The French dream is NATO disappears and is replaced by an EU version of NATO, which due to military capacity means it would be led by the French. The Eastern Europeans though would never stand for it because they trust the U.S. for collective defense more. Then you have the likes of the Germans that just didn't understand why they had to be bothered to do anything, which sucks when they are the richest country on the continent.

Is there a reason for the bolded besides the US being able to match Russia's nuclear deterrent?

Western and Central Europe mostly under Merkel's leadership had for a long time considered Eastern Europe stuck in the Cold War regarding viewing Russia as a military threat to them so I think there's a lack of trust there. Plus, if facing Russia, I'd rather have NATO with me instead of the EU. The EU is way more of a power economically than it is militarily. For real militaries, the NATO to EU transition you're losing the U.S., the UK, and Turkey. With Sweden and Finland now in NATO you're losing anything on the other side you could add going EU only. If the EU were forced to do an expeditionary unit it'd be either French or Polish-controlled most likely. Europeans are talking about bringing back conscription because we're in a time that's shaky geopolitically on their periphery and they don't have the troops.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Russia keeps the 3 Russian speaking provinces and Crimea in return Ukraine doesn't join NATO unless it is truly threatened again

That's what it's gonna come down to anyways because Russia said if NATO supplies troops to Ukraine, ever, it will go Nuke