Western Expresso

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Is it worth the risk finding out? There is no way Putin stops without some kind of victory. This is the reality for mad men like him. And if he does end up dying, which shouldn't be counted on, he could very well be replaced by someone even more mad and trigger happy. He's not even the most extreme far-right nationalist in Russia.

Appeasement does not have such a great history in modern warfare. Look no further than the European leaders giving Hitler the Sudetenland, with the promise Germany would cease to invade any other country.


Putin's main goal is to reclaim all territory lost from Russia, when the Soviet Union collapsed. This includes Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, and most likely the Asian republics of the old Soviet Union. Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine. A peace agreement will give him enough time to replenish his military, and attempt to invade at a later date.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Its weird to refer to me in the third person, when I'm in here, bro. I didn't misrepresent anything. I very clearly said one-quarter of Canadians support peace negotiations. Interesting that you think majority opinions make something right, though. I will remember that.

You avoided answering my question, so I will repeat it:

"If a foreign entity invaded Western Canada via the Pacific Ocean, and occupied as far as the Kootenays, while murdering tens of thousands of civilians, and launching missiles at ever major Canadian city, would you drop your weapons, and give the foreign invaders the entire province of British Columbia, for "peace?"

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I will repeat: I don't fault Ukraine for continuing to fight. What I am against is the West giving them the false sense that they can win, while arming them in the meantime and further destabilizing the region.

This was a standard operating procedure for America during the first half of World War II. While America abstained from entering the war (until Pearl Harbour), they did give billions of dollars worth of military aid to the UK. Was that a mistake too?

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I will not respond to a wildly-implausible scenario. Our country is already on stolen territory so its a completely different situation.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Nope, it was not. Different circumstances.

"Lend-Lease, formally the Lend-Lease Act and introduced as An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States (Pub. L. 77–11, H.R. 1776, 55 Stat. 31, enacted March 11, 1941),[1] was a policy under which the United States supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, France, China, and other Allied nations with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and 1945. The aid was given for free on the basis that such help was essential for the defense of the United States.

The Lend-Lease Act was signed into law on March 11, 1941, and ended on September 20, 1945. A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $719 billion in 2021) worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all, $31.4 billion went to the United Kingdom, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to other Allies. Roosevelt's top foreign policy advisor Harry Hopkins had effective control over Lend-Lease, making sure it was in alignment with Roosevelt's foreign policy goals."[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Umm, have you ever heard of East Germany?

Elaborate, please.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Dude, there is literally no point in going down this path. We get it, you care about and support Ukraine and you think I don't. There's nothing we are going to do to prove each other wrong. Why do you care so much? Do you think you're saving Ukrainians by posting so furiously about this?

If you did the math, 50% of posts on this topic have been made by you. Not only did you initiate this discussion, but when others would post something not related to the Ukraine situation, you ignored those posts, and immediately brought the subject back to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. I guess self-awareness was never your strong point.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Sorry, is this not an anything goes thread? Anyways, there's no point in going back and forth because it's clear we have nothing more to say to each other about this. Pretty wild that you're taking the time to compile stats about me though. Kinda creepy and obsessive actually.

This is probably not the time to tell you that I sifted through your Twitter feed that you have posted in your profile, and blew up all of your social media photos, and made a shrine of you in my room.

[Crisis]

Just a shout out to djforsberg, BlackDog204 & esquire. Thanks for containing this discussion to Western Expresso - it's been very entertaining and actually contained in the thread that was expressly (subtle pun) created for this stuff.

This has been a great example of why this thread was created. Try to temper the personal attacks but, all in all, this has been pretty good.

[esquire]

I might fling poo from time to time, but at least I try to do it in the right place

[Stormer]

Just noted this thread. I consider myself a student of history and world affairs. I feel like I know more about these topics and in particular Ukraine than just about any other topic. Having blown my own horn, I 100% agree with BlackDog. I know I will never convince DJF to change his mind. It seems to be a universal truth that the far right and far left seem to have a nearly identical penchant to be Russia appeasers/apologists.

Key points of my disagreement with DJF:

1. Ukraine can win;
2. Letting Russia steal Ukraine's land and murder its people will embolden Putin (and others) and we will be forced to step in directly at some point, rather than having Ukrainians do the fighting. This could be in Poland, Moldova, Finland, the Baltics or Romanian, Taiwan or all of the above;
3. Russia is not going to nuke anyone in response to conventional defense or even attacks that do not threaten the motherland. Use of nuke would mean the loss of the Ukraine war, the loss of China as an "ally", the end of the Putin Regime and in the worst case the end of Russia as we know it.
4. Supporting Ukraine with weapons, money and sanctions is morally the right thing to do.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Just noted this thread. I consider myself a student of history and world affairs. I feel like I know more about these topics and in particular Ukraine than just about any other topic. Having blown my own horn, I 100% agree with BlackDog. I know I will never convince DJF to change his mind. It seems to be a universal truth that the far right and far left seem to have a nearly identical penchant to be Russia appeasers/apologists.

Key points of my disagreement with DJF:

1. Ukraine can win;
2. Letting Russia steal Ukraine's land and murder its people will embolden Putin (and others) and we will be forced to step in directly at some point, rather than having Ukrainians do the fighting. This could be in Poland, Moldova, Finland, the Baltics or Romanian, Taiwan or all of the above;
3. Russia is not going to nuke anyone in response to conventional defense or even attacks that do not threaten the motherland. Use of nuke would mean the loss of the Ukraine war, the loss of China as an "ally", the end of the Putin Regime and in the worst case the end of Russia as we know it.
4. Supporting Ukraine with weapons, money and sanctions is morally the right thing to do.

Couldn't agree more.

[optimusREIM]

To veer off topic a bit, what does everyone make of this snow storm taking a run at the Red River valley today and tomorrow. It's made me think of the April storm in 97, just before the flood. I'm guessing it won't be nearly as bad, but it is interesting to see how there are some parallels.

Looks like things are set to get much warmer too in the next several days.

[esquire]

^ That storm was 48 cm and basically shut down the city for a day... this storm isn't likely to reach half that snowfall, at least going by the forecasts I've seen. Maybe a third of that.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

We must do everything we can to not be in direct conflict with another nuclear power, especially one with the historical relationship of NATO vs Russia. To assume Putin is not capable of escalating this is a risk I don't think we should be taking. We all empathize with Ukraine but we also should be thinking about this rationally instead of with highly-charged emotions.

I'm sorry I just don't agree that opposing Putin will inevitably lead to mutual assured destruction. Would Putin and some of his closest allies consider using tactical nukes? I wouldn't put it past them. Would his professional soldier class who know what a nuclear conflict would do to Russia allow it? That's the point that we don't know, but I can't imagine it's not possible, and maybe even being planned as we speak.

We can't ignore the horrors that Ukraine has suffered, but neither can we abandon them, especially as they are willing to continue the fight for their own sovereignty.

I simply cannot get behind the notion of sacrificing another sovereign nation to allay my fears for my own personal safety. I could litter this posting with quotes about how important it is to stand up to aggressors, but I won't. I'll just say that capitulating to illegal aggression, which is what sentiment without action really is, seems to me to be the antithesis of what pretty much every social justice leader of the past two centuries has advocated for.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Who is saying that Putin shouldn't be opposed and that the horrors of Ukraine should be ignored? Also, why are you and others so emotionally charged about this specific illegal aggression and not the myriad others going on in the world? This isn't a "whataboutism". It's a legitimate question because I too care about the suffering of all humans. I have just yet to be convinced that this is the one I/we should care about the most. Maybe if someone can explain that to me, I would better understand the emotions here. I have already explained how Russia would be annihilated if they tried to invade a NATO country because of the NATO duty of collective defence, so that is not a realistic reason to be concerned about this specifically. This whole slippery slope idea could be applied to many other ongoing conflicts as well.

To answer your question, it's because it's so blatantly obvious that Russia is in the wrong here. Seldom is an international conflict so clear-cut in terms of the divide between good and evil. Clearly that has struck a chord.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Really? I wasn’t aware that there were varying degrees of illegality. It seems to me that what Saudi Arabia is doing to the Yemeni, what Israel is doing to Palestinians, what Turkey (our NATO ally) is doing to the Kurds, and what Myanmar are doing to their own people, just to name some examples, are just as evil and illegal. It’s just peculiar to me how more important this one conflict is according to politicians and the mainstream media… Prior to Putin invading, why weren’t we putting Palestinian or Yemen flags in our windows? Why weren’t we flying refugees from those countries to Canada? As I mentioned before, FAR more people in Yemen are being killed or suffering from Saudi Arabia’s war against them than what’s happening in Ukraine. I certainly hope it doesn’t have to do with the colour of their skin or the fact we are allies with all those other countries…

The Syrian civil war which broke out in 2012 saw Canada accept 40,000 refugees. A decade later we agreed to accept 40,000 Ukrainians. Canadians were up in arms when Canada failed to adequately help Afghans when the Taliban took over recently. I think you're reaching a bit to claim it's an issue of race.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-ref...come-syrian-refugees/looking-future.html

[esquire]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I specifically didn’t mention Syria or Afghanistan because I do know we accepted refugees from there. We were the invaders in Afghanistan though so that is a bit of a different situation. So why aren’t we putting Palestinian or Yemen flags in our windows? Why aren’t we sending them weapons to defend against their violent oppressors?

So we should throw Ukraine under the bus because you think we haven't done enough to help Palestinians? That is quite the leap of logic there.

Anyway, you are repeating everything I have heard a hundred times before from vatnik pro-Russia trolls on Twitter over the past 14 months. It's very...coincidental. You can just be honest about where your sympathies lie instead of timidly dancing around it.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I specifically didn’t mention Syria or Afghanistan because I do know we accepted refugees from there. We were the invaders in Afghanistan though so that is a bit of a different situation. So why aren’t we putting Palestinian or Yemen flags in our windows? Why aren’t we sending them weapons to defend against their violent oppressors?

The US at least was very involved for a long time in the Syrian civil war providing military training and NATO created no fly zones in Lybia to assist their people who revolted.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I am not going to converse with you if you continue the personal attacks and putting words in my mouth.

Don't feel obliged to do anything.