Ukraine - Russia Conflict

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
5,120
Location
The Big D
So, "our boy" Snowden was granted citizenship by Putin. Guess, that means he's available for conscription, right? His lawyer says it doesn't, we'll see what Moscow says.
Merrick Garland would get some points from me for trying Snowden for Treason in absentia and getting a conviction and the death penalty in the sentencing phase.
 

Salt USMC

Intel
SOF Support
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
3,232
Location
Washington, DC
Is he "against Ukraine" or is he "against unchecked, unconditional, and unending support for the war in Ukraine?" I don't know because I don't follow the guy. But if being "against Ukraine" is the latter of the two, count me in that camp as well.

More importantly, being "against Ukraine" or "unending Afghanistan-style conflict in Ukraine" or whatever else is far different than being "pro-Putin," which was the original charge laid against some Republicans.
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
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
5,314
Location
Durham, NC
Is he "against Ukraine" or is he "against unchecked, unconditional, and unending support for the war in Ukraine?" I don't know because I don't follow the guy. But if being "against Ukraine" is the latter of the two, count me in that camp as well.

More importantly, being "against Ukraine" or "unending Afghanistan-style conflict in Ukraine" or whatever else is far different than being "pro-Putin," which was the original charge laid against some Republicans.

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.

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.
 

amlove21

Pararescue
Verified SOF
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
4,774
Location
The City of Destiny
SSMP
SOF Mentor
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".
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,386
Location
CONUS
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.
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
1,577
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".
All's fair in love and war zoomie.


Tell the wiretap pog I said hello.
 

Cookie_

SOF Support
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
1,112
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.

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.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,801
Location
San Antonio Texas
Yep, how nice would it be if he was drafted for the Ukraine conflict....that would be such wonderful Karma
Snowden isn't eligible as he doesn't have prior service per his attorney.
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.
I read the story you linked (Nick F) what is GAB? I ask because the CEO is a Putinista.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,386
Location
CONUS
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.
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.
 

amlove21

Pararescue
Verified SOF
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
4,774
Location
The City of Destiny
SSMP
SOF Mentor
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.
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...
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.
... 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 like they did with CRT or gender ideology in schools or abortion or climate change or election integrity or transing the kids or drag queen story hour for kids or labeling parents as terrorists or labeling things as vaccine misinformation or keeping books in a child's library that openly describes anal sex meant for 5th graders
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,386
Location
CONUS
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


But what if Putin’s partial mobilization is “partial” at all, but much more widespread than he has so far let on? A largescale mobilization, under the screen of a smaller one, makes sense in the Russian strategy of “maskirovka,” or deception. And Putin will need more troops if he is anticipating a wider struggle inside or outside Ukraine with Western forces.



1664307295407.png
 
Top