Kraut783
SOF Support
Congrats Comrade Snowden! You are tank commander!
Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter pardus
- Start date
Congrats Comrade Snowden! You are tank commander!
Well I think reality will stop Snowden being conscripted let alone mobilised.
He’s in the camp of “Actually, Putin is justified in invading because of NATO expansion/euromaidan/whatever figleaf of the week”. I think that there’s legitimate arguments to be made about the cost involved in supporting Ukraine, but folks like Bannon are not making those arguments.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I hate, loathe, the "Putin was justified..." defense. It's analogous to "she deserved it because she was dressed like a slut" argument.
I am not 'pro-Ukraine' as much as I am 'anti-sovereign nation that gets invaded.' I am also "against unchecked, unconditional, and unending support for the war in Ukraine." As a nation we never learned the 'fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.' We do this all. The. Time.
Can someone (not you, rabbit, I have an NSA guy that watches my phone) share a link or a place where I can find all this pro-Putin, always on the right side of the aisle support? I want to hear/read the people making this case. Maybe I am not as heavy on the internet as I think- I don't see this take in any real sense.
I get the "stop spending money on this proxy war because rainbow colored fentanyl is killing kids and 5k migrants a day are walking across the southern border", but I am not seeing a lot of, "Putin was justified for these reasons".
I get the "stop spending money on this proxy war because rainbow colored fentanyl is killing kids and 5k migrants a day are walking across the southern border", but I am not seeing a lot of, "Putin was justified for these reasons".
Can you link me to those comments? I did a quick search but the top links are (unsurprisingly) far-left hit pieces with very little actual journalism, or it quote comments other people have made in discussions with him.
Additionally, there's a lot of distance between explaining someone's rationale and saying that he's "justified" in doing them. I think Putin's move is completely understandable from his perspective. Russia has long been extremely wary of NATO expansion into what it considers its sphere of influence. We saw it in Georgia in 2008 after several years of that country making noise about joining NATO. We saw it when Russia bit off large parts of Ukraine in 2014 after regime change there made NATO membership much more likely. Russia sees Ukraine, and more importantly the West (i.e. the US) weak and wracked by internal divisions. This was perhaps his best chance to secure a more-favorably geopolitical situation, and he took it. That's not "justifying" his deeds, it's just understanding them. Bannon may indeed have made justification comments, but as I said I don't follow the guy and I didn't see anything immediate when I Googled "Bannon justifies Russian invasion of Ukraine."
related reading: Why NATO Should Not Offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans - War on the Rocks
R.Caerbannog
Verified Military
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,445
Almost all of the "pro-Putin" takes are from people in the right-wing "outrage coverage" media space. Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, and Tucker Carlson have all made comments about Putin attacking the "globalists" in Ukraine, or Putin fighting against "woke-western ideology". I don't think any of them are Pro-Putin as much as they are fitting culture war talking points into an international incident.
The same is true of the politicians like MTG and Madison Cawthorn, who called Ukraine Neo-Nazis and woke, respectively. It's not really about Ukraine or Putin as much as it is finding a way to turn the war into anti-Biden/Dem talking points.
The only legit "Putin is doing a good thing" takes I've seen are from dudes like Nick Fuentes, and that guy is a legit white nationalist, so not really someone I think should be representative of a "right-wing" pro-Putin take.
Snowden isn't eligible as he doesn't have prior service per his attorney.
I read the story you linked (Nick F) what is GAB? I ask because the CEO is a Putinista.
So we all agree that there are **not** a significant percentage of Republicans who are "pro-Putin?" Because that's what started this line of discussion.
Nah, there’s a couple of weirdos on the far right and like two congressional reps, but not much beyond that.
That's what I was getting at as well.
Reading this thread, I was under the impression this is some sort of formalized GOP talking point that I somehow missed... but it turns out there's a white nationalist that's outspoken on the matter and that's seemingly it? And if you maybe highlight the fact that Ukraine is one of the more corrupt countries in the world with a dictator Obama installed masquerading as a democracy, like Tucker and Candace have, you get thrown into the same boat?
And on that topic specifically, I would be willing to agree to...
... this- but in the reverse. It most certainly seems like someone is making it a talking point politically, but all evidence points to the Dems highlighting a fringe member of the GOP, making it seem like that's a main-party point supported by most and then demonizing everyone on that side.
And I know, I know, the Dems would never do such a thing
Now that that's settled, I'm curious about what the board's thoughts are on this piece. To sum up, Putin claims his callup is "limited" and will only involve 300,000 troops. I don't think that's enough for what he says its for, and it may be a ruse for... I don't know, something else.
@pardus @DasBoot
Link to story
@pardus @DasBoot
Link to story
It's one of the "free speech" twitter clones. It became a hub for the "Christian Nationalist"/neo-nazi crowd when stormfront (Neo-Nazi forum) went down for a bit in 2017.
Pretty much. I think it was a bit of a "fuck Tucker Carlson" take that took broader swipes at "conservatives" as shorthand.
I see the bolded more from media sources than politicians. I'm sure there have been a few people with hawkish takes in support of Ukraine attacking any GOP member not fully on board, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head.
The partial mobilization seems less like a military focused choice and more a domestic one. Putin clearly needs more than 300k based on how badly he was already losing professional troops, but he needed to see if it would be possible to do a national draft.
As shown by the attacks against recruitment centers, this probably isn't the case.
At this point, the best policy for the US regarding Russia is probably to just support our NATO allies and wait for Russia to implode itself.
As long as the populace doesn't have a enemy to unite against other than their own government, it seems Putin may get himself overthrown.
Aside from mass conscription, I'm not sure Putin has many more options. From everything I've seen, these are retired members being called up; zero retraining/skill upgrade and straight to the front.
Crazy that Putin's "sort of" conscription of 300K is just shy of how many active duty AF people there are (325K ish).
I've seen the same floating around- videos of Russians leaving the processing places for the front without training or equipment.
