Ukraine War and Politics

[Dakar34]

Oh gosh, nobody else here could possibly have a pedigree like that. Nope, not a one.

Many do, but I'm not claiming they're Russian bots or lick Putin's boots if they oppose spending hundreds of millions of (borrowed) dollars to fund a long-term war of attrition where the side we fund will invariably run out of bodies first. People are welcome to have their own (different) opinion w/o that making them traitors or agents for foreign nations.

 

[General Zod]

Many do, but I'm not claiming they're Russian bots or lick Putin's boots if they oppose spending hundreds of millions of (borrowed) dollars to fund a long-term war of attrition where the side we fund will invariably run out of bodies first. People are welcome to have their own (different) opinion w/o that making them traitors or agents for foreign nations.

And you've decided Ukraine has to lose because...?

There are plenty of examples of smaller and less equipped forces overcoming world powers. Going back to 1776 or earlier. The US has been on the receiving end of such efforts several times, as have your mighty Russians. There is no reason at all to believe a Russian victory is inevitable, unless you're buying into Putins' propaganda. Considering the rate of losses Russia has experienced, there's no reason to believe Ukraine will run out of people first, either. And yet here you are, offering absolutely nothing to back up your opinion, authoritatively telling us Russia must inevitably win.

That's an unfounded opinion and this is a news thread. And even if, as you claim, only 20% of the posts here link to news stories...that's better than 0% supporting your opinion.

 

[Dakar34]

And you've decided Ukraine has to lose because...?

There are plenty of examples of smaller and less equipped forces overcoming world powers. Going back to 1776 or earlier. The US has been on the receiving end of such efforts several times, as have your mighty Russians. There is no reason at all to believe a Russian victory is inevitable, unless you're buying into Putins' propaganda. Considering the rate of losses Russia has experienced, there's no reason to believe Ukraine will run out of people first, either. And yet here you are, offering absolutely nothing to back up your opinion, authoritatively telling us Russia must inevitably win.

That's an unfounded opinion and this is a news thread. And even if, as you claim, only 20% of the posts here link to news stories...that's better than 0% supporting your opinion.

Your opinion on the outcome is certainly possible. It's my belief that Putin (and Russia generally) sees this as a question of their ability to ultimately survive as a country, and were they to be losing they would employ tactical nukes to prevent it. We might well respond in kind. The whole stumbling towards a world war that no one (presumably) wants is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW1. But that, of course, is just my opinion.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Your opinion on the outcome is certainly possible. It's my belief that Putin (and Russia generally) sees this as a question of their ability to ultimately survive as a country, and were they to be losing they would employ tactical nukes to prevent it. We might well respond in kind. The whole stumbling towards a world war that no one (presumably) wants is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW1. But that, of course, is just my opinion.

First: take it to the politics thread

Second:
Invading a sovereign nation, which was never threatening to you, as a "survival" method for your own in no way could justify either your survival or the invasion.

It is the personal equivalent of murdering someone and drinking their blood and eating their meat so you "survive". If that is what it takes to survive, perhaps death is the best thing that could happen to you.

If invading a peaceful sovereign nation is what russia views as a necessary act for survival then you are the Jeffery Dalmer of nations and must be stopped at all costs.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Dakar34]

First: take it to the politics thread

Second:
Invading a sovereign nation, which was never threatening to you, as a "survival" method for your own in no way could justify either your survival or the invasion.

It is the personal equivalent of murdering someone and drinking their blood and eating their meat so you "survive". If that is what it takes to survive, perhaps death is the best thing that could happen to you.

If invading a peaceful sovereign nation is what russia views as a necessary act for survival then you are the Jeffery Dalmer of nations and must be stopped at all costs.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Russia sees its ongoing encirclement by the western militaries as a direct threat, and our plans to make Ukraine part of that encirclement as a dagger to its throat. (Blinkin was just stating it again a couple of days ago.)
And, of course, we do it all the time, anywhere in the world. Because we can.

 

[General Zod]

Russia sees its ongoing encirclement by the western militaries as a direct threat, and our plans to make Ukraine part of that encirclement as a dagger to its throat. (Blinkin was just stating it again a couple of days ago.)
And, of course, we do it all the time, anywhere in the world. Because we can.

Ah, while innocent little Russia is the victim of American imperialism, da Comrade? Never mind all of Putin's prattle about rebuilding a "greater Russia" that never really existed, but is a pastiche of the Soviet empire and 17th Century Tsarist Russian holdings...

Y'know, it's hard as hell to "encircle" a country with as many deep water ports as Russia has. Totalitarian paranoia is not the same as a real-world situation. If Russia is so angry about its former republics trying to ally themselves with NATO, maybe Russia should change the way it behaves and stop fucking invading them.

The crux of your argument seems to be "Just let the bad man have what he wants and he'll leave everyone else alone". Name me one time in the entire history of the world that has worked.

 

[glenbo]

If Blinken said it, it must be true.

 

[General Zod]

BTW, thanks a hell of a lot for dragging me into the damn politics thread, newbie.

 

[Dakar34]

Ah, while innocent little Russia is the victim of American imperialism, da Comrade? Never mind all of Putin's prattle about rebuilding a "greater Russia" that never really existed, but is a pastiche of the Soviet empire and 17th Century Tsarist Russian holdings...

Y'know, it's hard as hell to "encircle" a country with as many deep water ports as Russia has. Totalitarian paranoia is not the same as a real-world situation. If Russia is so angry about its former republics trying to ally themselves with NATO, maybe Russia should change the way it behaves and stop fucking invading them.

The crux of your argument seems to be "Just let the bad man have what he wants and he'll leave everyone else alone". Name me one time in the entire history of the world that has worked.

Comrade my ass. I respected your difference of opinion, but civility is becoming a lost virtue.
Russia was massively invaded by western powers in the 19th C and again in the 20th. Their primary foreign policy goal since WW2 has been to maintain a buffer (ie neutral or client states) in the plains to their east that provide easy invasion routes. It was for this reason that people like George Kennan and Henry Kissinger (you might want to discover who they were) believed the logical consequence of expanding NATO to the east would be conflict.
If really smart people say "If we do x, y will be the result" and you do x anyway and y does happen, maybe they were right? But perhaps that's what you wanted all along - or you just didn't care.

 

[General Zod]

Their primary foreign policy goal since WW2 has been to maintain a buffer (ie neutral or client states) in the plains to their east that provide easy invasion routes.

If you want to convince people you're not a Russian asset, maybe you should stop saying ridiculous things like this.

The USSR's primary foreign policy after WWII was expansion into and enslavement of every country they could invade and subjugate. Russia saw no "neutral" states except for Switzerland - and then only because it was made clear that the cost would be too high for the invader. There was no effective difference between their "client" states and the supposedly neutral states they allowed to pretend their puppet governments weren't completely Soviet dominated. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and others were not "neutral", they were slaves. And this is why so many former Soviet puppets have been eager to join NATO.

Putin has done everything he can to renew this policy of expansionism and enslavement under his rule. Which you seem to be perfectly fine with. Comrade.

 

[glenbo]

If you want to convince people you're not a Russian asset, maybe you should stop saying ridiculous things like this.

The USSR's primary foreign policy after WWII was expansion into and enslavement of every country they could invade and subjugate. Russia saw no "neutral" states except for Switzerland - and then only because it was made clear that the cost would be too high for the invader. There was no effective difference between their "client" states and the supposedly neutral states they allowed to pretend their puppet governments weren't completely Soviet dominated. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and others were not "neutral", they were slaves. And this is why so many former Soviet puppets have been eager to join NATO.

Putin has done everything he can to renew this policy of expansionism and enslavement under his rule. Which you seem to be perfectly fine with. Comrade.

You just can't give it up, can you? You have to bring up reality and common sense in everything.

 

[General Zod]

You just can't give it up, can you? You have to bring up reality and common sense in everything.

Yeah, crazy me. I guess I should just accept that Russia is a shining light in the world guided by the benevolent hand of St Vladimir Putin, and if everyone would just stop being so mean to them he wouldn't be forced to repeatedly defensively invade his neighbors...

 

[cycleguy2300]

Comrade my ass. I respected your difference of opinion, but civility is becoming a lost virtue.
Russia was massively invaded by western powers in the 19th C and again in the 20th. Their primary foreign policy goal since WW2 has been to maintain a buffer (ie neutral or client states) in the plains to their east that provide easy invasion routes. It was for this reason that people like George Kennan and Henry Kissinger (you might want to discover who they were) believed the logical consequence of expanding NATO to the east would be conflict.
If really smart people say "If we do x, y will be the result" and you do x anyway and y does happen, maybe they were right? But perhaps that's what you wanted all along - or you just didn't care.

The idea that ther was a "agreement" not to expand NATO is a bogus idea perpetuated by those who either support russian expansion or who have not looked into the matter.

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

putin is the bad-guy who tried to burn his neighbor's house down because a stand-up (perhaps only relatively) family moved in and he is worried his dirty games will get spoiled.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Dakar34]

If you want to convince people you're not a Russian asset, maybe you should stop saying ridiculous things like this.

The USSR's primary foreign policy after WWII was expansion into and enslavement of every country they could invade and subjugate. Russia saw no "neutral" states except for Switzerland - and then only because it was made clear that the cost would be too high for the invader. There was no effective difference between their "client" states and the supposedly neutral states they allowed to pretend their puppet governments weren't completely Soviet dominated. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and others were not "neutral", they were slaves. And this is why so many former Soviet puppets have been eager to join NATO.

Putin has done everything he can to renew this policy of expansionism and enslavement under his rule. Which you seem to be perfectly fine with. Comrade.

I'm simply pointing out what the authors of Containment Doctrine and Realpolitik warned us about 30 years ago. (Note that Austria was and remains today officially neutral.) We ignored them because either A) we wanted this approximate outcome or B) we were at that point so much more powerful than anyone else, we could do whatever we cared to. Personally I don't really give a shit if we fund the war indefinitely (or until both sides are exhausted from death and destruction). Yes, I know it's all borrowed money, and currently our national debt is going up about $1T every 100 days. But I often joke that if it wasn't for bad public policy, we wouldn't have any policy at all. I fully expect there will be some NATO troops assisting in Ukraine within a year. Just as in WW1, where each step was a logical reaction on both sides. C'est la vie.
BTW, kinda funny coincidence all this is happening in the country where Biden's kid had a six-figure no-show "job" doncha think?

 

[cycleguy2300]

I'm simply pointing out what the authors of Containment Doctrine and Realpolitik warned us about 30 years ago. (Note that Austria was and remains today officially neutral.) We ignored them because either A) we wanted this approximate outcome or B) we were at that point so much more powerful than anyone else, we could do whatever we cared to. Personally I don't really give a shit if we fund the war indefinitely (or until both sides are exhausted from death and destruction). Yes, I know it's all borrowed money, and currently our national debt is going up about $1T every 100 days. But I often joke that if it wasn't for bad public policy, we wouldn't have any policy at all. I fully expect there will be some NATO troops assisting in Ukraine within a year. Just as in WW1, where each step was a logical reaction on both sides. C'est la vie.
BTW, kinda funny coincidence all this is happening in the country where Biden's kid had a six-figure no-show "job" doncha think?

For those that want to use Hunter's dealings in Ukraine over 6 years ago, it only shows how corrupt Obama and the Biden's are. Ukraine has a different president and a whole new slate of people in office, WE on the other hand still have the dirtiest politician in office since LBJ, if not ever.

Just as Hunter's and FJB's dirt shouldn't prevent others from assisting us if Mexico or Canada invaded us, Hunter and the old guard shouldn't prevent us from helping Ukraine.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

Yep, now Ukraines government hides money overseas(until it is was revealed by others) steals the “aid” we send them, and jails political opponents. So much better.

Lol thinking our “old” guard isn’t also the new guard. The guy who wanted the prosecutor fired and was getting his 10% is now in the Oval Office, even if just for photo ops while Obama etc make the actual decisions that run our country into the ground. we also don’t have many allies whose friendship is not based on us giving them money and offering protection, so if we were invaded, don’t expect much help.

 

[Dakar34]

For those that want to use Hunter's dealings in Ukraine over 6 years ago, it only shows how corrupt Obama and the Biden's are. Ukraine has a different president and a whole new slate of people in office, WE on the other hand still have the dirtiest politician in office since LBJ, if not ever.

Just as Hunter's and FJB's dirt shouldn't prevent others from assisting us if Mexico or Canada invaded us, Hunter and the old guard shouldn't prevent us from helping Ukraine.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

6 years, ancient history. Now it's the successors to the people that Victoria Nuland and other Obama staff selected that run Ukraine. Nothing to see here, move along ...

 

[General Zod]

6 years, ancient history. Now it's the successors to the people that Victoria Nuland and other Obama staff selected that run Ukraine. Nothing to see here, move along ...

By your logic, then Donald Trump is dirty and deserves prison time for failing to fully drain the swamp. Every time you guys trot out that whole situation with the government the Ukrainians kicked out when they elected Zelenzky as the anti-corruption (and coincidentally, anti-Russian influence) candidate, you react the same way when you're presented with non-Russian favoring facts. Or, as Havoc loves to do, you trot out claims of the current Ukrainian government squirreling away billions overseas, citing sources that, if you follow the trail of links, all originate with the Kremlin's media outlets.

But hey, if we can't trust the mouthpieces of an oligarchy centered around the cult of personality of a former KGB stooge who has on multiple occasions expressed his admiration of Josef Stalin and his desire to reclaim all of the Soviet Union's former territories, who can you trust?

 

[BigRed]

BigRed's proposal for "foreign aid"

Absolute -0-.

 

[cycleguy2300]

BigRed's proposal for "foreign aid"

Absolute -0-.

But are you willing to say that russia is not justified in invading Ukraine and continuing to intentionally attack civilians?

Saying "russia/putin isnt justified in attacking Ukraine" doesn't obligate you to support sending out taxes there.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk