Russian Invasion of Ukraine

  • Thread starter Rage Racer
  • 10,140 comments
  • 609,021 views
Volodomir Zelenskij is the then-less important and less well-known "President of Ukraine" that Trump pressured and attempted to extort over military aid in the Hunter Biden controversy.

Don't forget that. That maggot would have no qualms about handing Ukraine over to Russia.
 
Volodomir Zelenskij is the then-less important and less well-known "President of Ukraine" that Trump pressured and attempted to extort over military aid in the Hunter Biden controversy.

Don't forget that. That maggot would have no qualms about handing Ukraine over to Russia.
Completely anonymous to the rest of the world at the time. Maybe noteworthy for being an actor/comedian who got elected.
 
View attachment 1292510
At the very least, they have met. (from Zelensky's wiki page)
They...they've also spoken over the phone.

...

dd0.jpg
 
Yet military contractors reaped trillions .
The fact that more money is spent on weapons during war does not mean that there is a “war economy” where the regime seeks to prolong the war in order to achieve some financial benefit. The economy is much better in peacetime than in wartime and there is absolutely no financial benefit from trying to extend a conflict.
You must be joking if you think war profiteering benefits very one and not just a select few .
I have no idea what you’re on about.
" more money please "
???
 
So far the US is sending about ~$116 per capita per year to support Ukraine.

About the Ukrainian Nazi in the Canadian parliament fiasco. I'm not gonna say that it was a good idea to venerate the guy, but I will say this - if I had to pick between the Nazis and the Soviets as a Ukrainian circa 1935, after the you know what happened and before the other stuff happened, I'm pretty sure the choice would have been obvious. I don't know anything else about the guy, he could have been terrible.
Double it, LFG.
 
All of this started when I quoted a BBC article, stating that if Trump got into power again he would likely attempt sue for peace. I stated my opinion that I would find that preferable. I don’t know how that conversation would unfold. Neither do I know on what terms peace would be achieved. I’m woefully unqualified to even hazard a guess. I ain’t pretending to be otherwise. I’m sure if I was qualified I wouldn’t waste my time writing paragraph after condescending paragraph about it in the off topic section of a Gran Turismo forum.
Firstly, that's not what your quote said.
From a BBC News article about the West’s depleting ammunition stockpiles:

“Such is Kyiv's dependence on US ammunition that there are real concerns among Nato allies about the possibility of Donald Trump being re-elected president next year.

They fear that US military support for Ukraine might diminish if Mr Trump were to seek some kind of political settlement with Moscow.”
NATO allies have concerns that IF Trump is relected and IF he makes some sort of political deal with Russia then MAYBE military support from the US might decrease.

That's a lot of ifs. Assuming that he would sue for peace is not supported at all by this quote. In fact, quite the opposite. NATO allies wouldn't be concerned about a lack of ammunition in the case that Trump makes a deal if they thought "making a deal" was synonymous with ending the war. You don't need ammunition if you're not fighting. They're concerned that Trump will make some sort of side deal with Russia in exchange for pulling US support for Ukraine, and that's probably a fair concern.

So really, this whole "someone should sue for peace" thing is entirely your own idea. You made it up.

Secondly, if you claim to be so unknowledgeable that you're unqualified to even attempt to hazard a guess at the consequences of your own imaginary scenarios then why on earth do you imagine that anyone should take anything you say seriously? Just say that Jesus should come down and give Putin and Zelenskyy a good spanking like the naughty boys they are, that'll sort them out.
After reading everyone else’s opinions on the matter, I personally would still prefer someone attempt a political solution to the war, whether it’s Donald Trump or anyone else.
You keep saying this, but I don't think you can state clearly what a "political solution" even is. It's just a set of words that sound like they might be the result of a considered opinion, but you can't clarify in any meaningful way what they might refer to. At best you're virtue signalling.
 
Plus going to war to defend your territory is just as much of a "political solution" to someone invading your territory, annexing a bunch of land with sham elections and trying to bonb your capital to the ground as Chamberlain-ing it up is.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, that's not what your quote said.

NATO allies have concerns that IF Trump is relected and IF he makes some sort of political deal with Russia then MAYBE military support from the US might decrease.

That's a lot of ifs. Assuming that he would sue for peace is not supported at all by this quote. In fact, quite the opposite. NATO allies wouldn't be concerned about a lack of ammunition in the case that Trump makes a deal if they thought "making a deal" was synonymous with ending the war. You don't need ammunition if you're not fighting. They're concerned that Trump will make some sort of side deal with Russia in exchange for pulling US support for Ukraine, and that's probably a fair concern.

So really, this whole "someone should sue for peace" thing is entirely your own idea. You made it up.

Secondly, if you claim to be so unknowledgeable that you're unqualified to even attempt to hazard a guess at the consequences of your own imaginary scenarios then why on earth do you imagine that anyone should take anything you say seriously? Just say that Jesus should come down and give Putin and Zelenskyy a good spanking like the naughty boys they are, that'll sort them out.

You keep saying this, but I don't think you can state clearly what a "political solution" even is. It's just a set of words that sound like they might be the result of a considered opinion, but you can't clarify in any meaningful way what they might refer to. At best you're virtue signalling.

I later went on to quote a statement by Trump himself, in an interview with Fox News, that he would indeed seek to end the war. In his own words. So if we do take him for his word, admittedly a foolish thing to do, I’d support that, and genuinely hope he achieves it. That’s if he is reelected, and if he isn’t talking out of his arse as per.
 
Trump's (idiotic) solution to the war in Ukraine is for Ukraine and its allies to stop resisting and to capitulate entirely to Russian aggression.

It's like saying that you can stop someone dying from cancer by telling them to blow their own brains out with a shotgun.
Idiotic or bought solution?
 

He is the head of the occupied Zaporizhia region.

As full of copium as these orc mouthpiece takes are, they do make for good educational material for any "independent thinkers" still out there complaining about NATO expansion.
Idiotic or bought solution?
So idiotic that it could have only been conceived as a paid opinion.
 
Russia once again showed that it's a terrorist state. They bombed a highly strategic grocery store, killing at least 45 people.
 
It probably depends on how many ships they have that can actually still move.
What the article doesn't say is that the only ships they have left are PT boats.

As a fallback to potentially losing Sevastopol and it's Black Sea ports?
Absolutely. Plus they're going to need someplace to park them when the Istanbul canal and complete and the US Navy starts patrolling the Black Sea during the Ukrainian rebuild process.
 
Last edited:
What the article doesn't say is that the only ships they have left are PT boats.


Absolutely. Plus they're going to need someplace to park them when the Istanbul canal and complete and the US Navy starts patrolling the Black Sea during the Ukrainian rebuild process.
I can't see that canal being operational until 2035 at the soonest...I'd guess closer to 2040 or even 2045. It's a massive project.
 
I can't see that canal being operational until 2035 at the soonest...I'd guess closer to 2040 or even 2045. It's a massive project.
It's big but Turkiye doesn't follow the usual rules that we do in the States. Who knows if they even pay property owners to tear down their houses. 2035 easy.
 
It's big but Turkiye doesn't follow the usual rules that we do in the States. Who knows if they even pay property owners to tear down their houses. 2035 easy.
The topography near the airport isn't flat...in some cases they are going to be excavating something like 40+m of earth to get down to sea level (+20m for the depth of the canal itself!). The final 10 miles is going to be an enormous amount of earthwork and that's setting aside how many bridges will need to be built, what to do about the huge losses of freshwater reservoirs, and what to do about entire towns that seem to be sitting directly on the most obvious path. I'm not convinced its even a real project...probably more of some domestic political stunt (build the wall) to keep Erdogan's base happy/distracted. I'll believe its real when Russia starts getting more vocal about it.
 
The topography near the airport isn't flat...in some cases they are going to be excavating something like 40+m of earth to get down to sea level (+20m for the depth of the canal itself!). The final 10 miles is going to be an enormous amount of earthwork and that's setting aside how many bridges will need to be built, what to do about the huge losses of freshwater reservoirs, and what to do about entire towns that seem to be sitting directly on the most obvious path. I'm not convinced its even a real project...probably more of some domestic political stunt (build the wall) to keep Erdogan's base happy/distracted. I'll believe its real when Russia starts getting more vocal about it.
Judging by how quickly they built the airport I think it can be done. They've already begun the first bridge across and have begun clearing out the valley below toward the Mediterranean and this imagery is upwards of a year old. If anything, this project has been pressured forward by NATO particularly as Russia has gotten out of control. Never underestimate the power of a populist government to get contruction project done ahead of schedule, especially when it comes to forcing entire towns to move elsewhere lol.
 
Bunch of war mongers. You guys justified Iraq too. The quickest way to end the war is literally to lose . Ukrainian is being propped up by the west , thus we are deliberately prolonging a war. Ukraine isn't even part of Nato or the UN . Literally not our business. I don't see you guys advocating for money to be sent to fight Azerbaijan who is occupying Armenia and attacking civilians.
 
The quickest way to end the war is literally to lose . Ukrainian is being propped up by the west , thus we are deliberately prolonging a war. Ukraine isn't even part of Nato or the UN .

Seems short sighted. Yes, if Ukraine immediately caved the war would be over. But Russia and China would likely be starting more, and that's to say nothing of what is lost in Ukraine in the process.

Literally not our business.

When you're directly asked to assist, it becomes your business if you want it to.

I don't see you guys advocating for money to be sent to fight Azerbaijan who is occupying Armenia and attacking civilians.

It turns out that taking one particular action doesn't require you to take every other action that has any similar attribute.
 
Last edited:
Bunch of war mongers. You guys justified Iraq too. The quickest way to end the war is literally to lose . Ukrainian is being propped up by the west , thus we are deliberately prolonging a war. Ukraine isn't even part of Nato or the UN . Literally not our business. I don't see you guys advocating for money to be sent to fight Azerbaijan who is occupying Armenia and attacking civilians.
You're supposed to duck when someone throws a brick at you. But you clearly thought it was a ball.
 
Last edited:
Back