Don't worry. I'm sure someone on here will soon reassure us that Putin did nothing wrong, or that the US is responsible.
"You got your blood and teeth all over my knuckles" - Putin, probably, but in Russian.Don't worry. I'm sure someone on here will soon reassure us that Putin did nothing wrong, or that the US is responsible.
Only if the United States loses its cool.Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I say we may just have witnessed Putin starting WWIII live on television.
Like fucking clockwork.Only if the United States loses its cool.
We literally do not have to react to anything Putin does.Like fucking clockwork.
Worked real well for Chamberlain.We literally do not have to react to anything Putin does.
Nationalism is a hell of a drug
- I really wish I could meet the russian exchange student I shared a class with during the Crimea crisis. That ***** was hardcore brainwashed.
I don't find the Hitler comparisons terribly persuasive when they're being deployed on behalf of a country that has banned the famous image of a soldier flying the Soviet flag over the Reichstag and regards enthusiastic Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera as a national hero. They're also not terribly persuasive when applied to a possible conflict between the holders of the two by far largest nuclear arsenals in the world. The second of those is the more important one practically speaking, but the first one has a special irony.Worked real well for Chamberlain.
I don't think he plans to hold it if he ends up invading the whole thing. Everything I've read suggests he would be dumb to try to hold the western regions. He would shake things up (so to speak) and then leave. The Russo-Georgian War seems like a model of what to expect should Ukraine be totally defeated.Putin will have a really hard time holding Ukraine
Yeah. This isn't seeming to hurt Putin's standing in Russia at all. Probably the opposite. Russia has a lot of people like... well, like most of the people commenting in this thread.I guess the only exit would be if Russian got rid of Putin, but that's almost certainly impossible at this point.
Man, with the vigor you're simping for Putin here I could make some comments about a certain appendage of his and your mouth, but it would likely get me suspended. What I really wanna know is how much does it pay? Gotta be a sweet deal considering the fervor you're showing.
I don't find the Hitler comparisons terribly persuasive when they're being deployed on behalf of a country that has banned the famous image of a soldier flying the Soviet flag over the Reichstag and regards enthusiastic Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera as a national hero. They're also not terribly persuasive when applied to a possible conflict between the holders of the two by far largest nuclear arsenals in the world. The second of those is the more important one practically speaking, but the first one has a special irony.
BRB making a grindr profile and messaging men to tell them that I don't think that they are HitlerMan, with the vigor you're simping for Putin here I could make some comments about a certain appendage of his and your mouth, but it would likely get me suspended. What I really wanna know is how much does it pay? Gotta be a sweet deal considering the fervor you're showing.
Don't worry, though. Nothing bad will happen as long as the US lets Russia do whatever she wants.So Russia has begun an invasion of Ukraine while implying nuclear retaliation against anyone who interferes.
That's kind of a terrifying precedent for all Russias neighbours. "Let us do what we want or WW3".
In fairness to Chamberlain, the British economy was still a mess after WW1, and people were in no hurry to start the greatest war in human history. After the 1938 agreement, IIRC, he did re-arm to an extent, and when WW2 started, after the period of phony war ended and the Germans attacked France, they quickly took it and chased the British across the channel.Worked real well for Chamberlain.
I completely agree with you, actually. I always felt Chamberlain made the decision that seemed best at the time, even if hindsight makes it a bit iffier. It was just the easiest name to think of when it came to "Just stand back and let one country invade another without interfering."In fairness to Chamberlain, the British economy was still a mess after WW1, and people were in no hurry to start the greatest war in human history. After the 1938 agreement, IIRC, he did re-arm to an extent, and when WW2 started, after the period of phony war ended and the Germans attacked France, they quickly took it and chased the British across the channel.
For that matter, every major enemy of the USSR after 1945 avoided war with them as well.
Now, in hindsight we can say Chamberlain was wrong, and that might have been apparent at the time, but he had very good reasons to try to avoid war.
George W. Bush in 2008 concerning Georgia is another example. He would have been incorrect to intervene in Georgia.I completely agree with you, actually. I always felt Chamberlain made the decision that seemed best at the time, even if hindsight makes it a bit iffier. It was just the easiest name to think of when it came to "Just stand back and let one country invade another without interfering."
He probably thought Hitler was going to go after the Soviet Union before France.Now, in hindsight we can say Chamberlain was wrong, and that might have been apparent at the time, but he had very good reasons to try to avoid war.