LDD Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 On 4/29/2024 at 8:18 AM, Tommy Callahan said: So much propaganda posted as fact by the war mongers. 90+% of the citizens of the disputed region and Crimea are Russian citizens. They even had a vote and everything. unlike Ukraine that suspended elections and is in martial law. Why does every post you make go against American interests? It is a brutal world, you seem not to understand that. Ask the Israelis. If you are an American citizen you are either a coward or a liar. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) 14 minutes ago, LDD said: Why does every post you make go against American interests? It is a brutal world, you seem not to understand that. Ask the Israelis. If you are an American citizen you are either a coward or a liar. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd argue America has no vital interest there and therefore getting involved will result in one of many outcomes. All of which are bad. China is our biggest threat, but it looks like they've bought off all the American officials and elites necessary to get policy makers to more or less ignore them. Edited May 3 by All_Pro_Bills 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDD Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd argue America has no vital interest there and therefore getting involved will result in one of many outcomes. All of which are bad. China is our biggest threat, but it looks like they've bought off all the American officials and elites necessary to get policy makers to more or less ignore them. I disagree if your position is that America has no vital interest in Europe. Ukraine is a country in flux (politically, economically, socially). There is a war there for a reason. It is also a barrier between one of our big three rivals and NATO. No argument that our biggest threat is China. That is clear. However, Russia is a close number two and operates in a different, but not less effective manner than China. In the end, I feel for the Russian people in this scenario. They are being used brutally by a criminal dictator. I cannot imagine what would happen to Ukrainian citizens without our support. The crying here reflects no perception of reality IMO. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd argue America has no vital interest there and therefore getting involved will result in one of many outcomes. All of which are bad. China is our biggest threat, but it looks like they've bought off all the American officials and elites necessary to get policy makers to more or less ignore them. Ukraine falling due to lack of Western support will make Putin think the West is weak. He miscalculated in launching the war in Ukraine but if he ends up winning it, it’ll reinforce his belief that the West is weak and Russia can regain its empire. At that point, it’s only a matter of time before he tests NATO. I’d rather avoid that scenario all together. Sending money now prevents sending troops later. As to China, the US has tariffs against Chinese steel, is stepping up export controls to hamper Chinese technological advances, stepping up US production of chips so we aren’t reliant on imports, banning TikTok to prevent CCP data collection, strengthening alliances and relationships with key Asian and Pacific countries like Japan, Australia, India, the Philippines and others to box in China. We probably have the most anti-China posture that we’ve had in decades. Not to mention, a Russian defeat in Ukraine due to Western support might make China hesitate to invade Taiwan. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeesforclosers Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 40 minutes ago, LDD said: Why does every post you make go against American interests? It is a brutal world, you seem not to understand that. Ask the Israelis. If you are an American citizen you are either a coward or a liar. Look at All Pro's posting history in this thread. It's a bizarre mix of leftist "anti-imperialism" and isolationist declinism. He thinks America is an Empire that deserves to fall because Empires are wrong, but that Russia and China are Empires that deserve to rise because de- dollarization is good and a weakened America is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Ukraine falling due to lack of Western support will make Putin think the West is weak. He miscalculated in launching the war in Ukraine but if he ends up winning it, it’ll reinforce his belief that the West is weak and Russia can regain its empire. At that point, it’s only a matter of time before he tests NATO. I’d rather avoid that scenario all together. Sending money now prevents sending troops later. As to China, the US has tariffs against Chinese steel, is stepping up export controls to hamper Chinese technological advances, stepping up US production of chips so we aren’t reliant on imports, banning TikTok to prevent CCP data collection, strengthening alliances and relationships with key Asian and Pacific countries like Japan, Australia, India, the Philippines and others to box in China. We probably have the most anti-China posture that we’ve had in decades. Not to mention, a Russian defeat in Ukraine due to Western support might make China hesitate to invade Taiwan. There is zero chance he tests NATO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeesforclosers Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 44 minutes ago, Doc said: There is zero chance he tests NATO. Right? I mean, just add up the numbers. The 13 Colonies vs the British Empire. North Vietnam vs the USA. Afghanistan vs. the USSR The Russian Empire vs. the Japanese Empire. Weaker powers never fight larger ones. Because if they just add up the numbers, they'd realize they're doomed. And there's no point in trying. Look at Imperial Japan...they realized they couldn't win a war against the US... that's why they didn't bother bombing Pearl Harbor... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 11 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: Right? I mean, just add up the numbers. The 13 Colonies vs the British Empire. North Vietnam vs the USA. Afghanistan vs. the USSR The Russian Empire vs. the Japanese Empire. Weaker powers never fight larger ones. Because if they just add up the numbers, they'd realize they're doomed. And there's no point in trying. Look at Imperial Japan...they realized they couldn't win a war against the US... that's why they didn't bother bombing Pearl Harbor... How'd that turn out again? And it was the Germans who bombed Pearl Harbor... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, Doc said: There is zero chance he tests NATO. I don’t understand the confidence that the guy who wants to destroy NATO, wants to resurrect Russian empire, has surrounded himself with sycophants, has killed or removed anyone who challenges him, who massively miscalculated the Ukraine invasion, wouldn’t, upon being triumphant in what he views as a war against the West, push the envelope for the goal he clearly seeks. I agree that it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, but are we willing to risk WWIII on Putin being rational and tethered to reality when the evidence clearly cuts against that? Edited May 4 by ChiGoose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I don’t understand the confidence that the guy who wants to destroy NATO, wants to resurrect Russian empire, has surrounded himself with sycophants, has killed or removed anyone who challenges him, who massively miscalculated the Ukraine invasion, wouldn’t, upon being triumphant in what he views as a war against the West, push the envelope for the goal he clearly seeks. I agree that it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, but are we willing to risk WWIII on Putin being rational and tethered to reality when the evidence clearly cuts against that? Again he's struggling against a non-NATO country with minimal NATO help. He thought it would take a couple weeks and it's year 3 now. Russia has no chance against NATO and he knows it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 6 minutes ago, Doc said: Again he's struggling against a non-NATO country with minimal NATO help. He thought it would take a couple weeks and it's year 3 now. Russia has no chance against NATO and he knows it. He also knew that he would capture Kyiv in three days. He wouldn’t be betting that he could beat NATO, he’d be betting that NATO wouldn’t actually come to the defense of a smaller Baltic state and risk global war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: He also knew that he would capture Kyiv in three days. He wouldn’t be betting that he could beat NATO, he’d be betting that NATO wouldn’t actually come to the defense of a smaller Baltic state and risk global war. To what smaller Baltic state are you referring? A NATO one? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 15 minutes ago, Doc said: To what smaller Baltic state are you referring? A NATO one? If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, reconstitutes its military and then invades Latvia, would you support sending US troops to defend it in accordance with Article V? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 (edited) 7 hours ago, ChiGoose said: If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, reconstitutes its military and then invades Latvia, would you support sending US troops to defend it in accordance with Article V? Yes, but Russia isn't going to do that because they don't have the military or economic power and size to take on the US military and NATO. All involved parties, their officials and intelligence resources know the numbers. That theoretical belief that Russia aspires to reconstitute the former Soviet Union being championed by many in the US and the western alliance is one of many excuses used to mold support to continue to supply a war Ukraine cannot win at this point. Absent any radical increase in conscription of men into the military they don't have enough troops. Rather than a need for more weopons they need more trained troops to use them. The majority of their best and experienced fighters have been killed, wounded, captured, or are too burned out by 2 continuous years of constant combat without a break. It's time to negotiate. France has been threatening to send troops to join combat operations. I doubt that's a popular view domestically. It's a senseless escalation. What we're doing now is similar to a person sitting on an unrealized loss from making a bad investment decision. Rather than admit to a mistake they pour more money into it, averaging down. In an attempt to recover their initial cost. Rather than doing that, it would be better to cut your losses and look at other potential opportunities for putting additional money to work. Instead they mindlessly pump more money into the loser. Which never comes back. That's what we're doing in Ukraine. Edited May 4 by All_Pro_Bills 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Yes, but Russia isn't going to do that because they don't have the military or economic power and size to take on the US military and NATO. All involved parties, their officials and intelligence resources know the numbers. That theoretical belief that Russia aspires to reconstitute the former Soviet Union being championed by many in the US and the western alliance is one of many excuses used to mold support to continue to supply a war Ukraine cannot win at this point. Absent any radical increase in conscription of men into the military they don't have enough troops. Rather than a need for more weopons they need more trained troops to use them. The majority of their best and experienced fighters have been killed, wounded, captured, or are too burned out by 2 continuous years of constant combat without a break. It's time to negotiate. France has been threatening to send troops to join combat operations. I doubt that's a popular view domestically. It's a senseless escalation. What we're doing now is similar to a person sitting on an unrealized loss from making a bad investment decision. Rather than admit to a mistake they pour more money into it, averaging down. In an attempt to recover their initial cost. Rather than doing that, it would be better to cut your losses and look at other potential opportunities for putting additional money to work. Instead they mindlessly pump more money into the loser. Which never comes back. That's what we're doing in Ukraine. Russia wasn’t going to invade Ukraine either. Even though the US said they would, Ukraine and others doubted because it would be such a bad decision by Russia. Then what happened? I don’t understand people thinking that Russia is a rational actor making decisions based on considered thought of examinations of the facts. That’s not how it operates. As to the revanchism, you just need to listen to Putin himself, “In 2005, Putin called the Soviet collapse “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” In 2008, then-Prime Minister Putin told President George W. Bush, “Ukraine is not even a country.” Soon Russia invaded Georgia and asserted “privileged interests” in the wider region. In 2014 and on a larger scale in 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. In 2022, Putin claimed that prior to President Nursultan Nazarbayev's reign, “Kazakhsnever had statehood.” In 2016, Putin claimed that Russia's border “has no end.”” (Source) “Firebrand Russian politician Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday that the Baltics belong to Russia. Writing on Twitter, the former Russian Prime Minister referred to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as "our" provinces, saying they had "soiled themselves" over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.“ (Source) Honestly, the idea that Russia doesn’t want to test NATO is just wishcasting at this point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Russia wasn’t going to invade Ukraine either. Even though the US said they would, Ukraine and others doubted because it would be such a bad decision by Russia. Then what happened? I don’t understand people thinking that Russia is a rational actor making decisions based on considered thought of examinations of the facts. That’s not how it operates. As to the revanchism, you just need to listen to Putin himself, “In 2005, Putin called the Soviet collapse “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” In 2008, then-Prime Minister Putin told President George W. Bush, “Ukraine is not even a country.” Soon Russia invaded Georgia and asserted “privileged interests” in the wider region. In 2014 and on a larger scale in 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. In 2022, Putin claimed that prior to President Nursultan Nazarbayev's reign, “Kazakhsnever had statehood.” In 2016, Putin claimed that Russia's border “has no end.”” (Source) “Firebrand Russian politician Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday that the Baltics belong to Russia. Writing on Twitter, the former Russian Prime Minister referred to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as "our" provinces, saying they had "soiled themselves" over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.“ (Source) Honestly, the idea that Russia doesn’t want to test NATO is just wishcasting at this point. The problem is none of that is going to lead to a military solution favorable to Ukraine absent direct NATO intervention. And direct NATO intevention will likely lead to a tactical nuclear exchange and the end of the world. So we're stuck with a difficult choice. Continue down the escalation path or negotiate, or attempt to negotiate, security guarantees for all parties. If you want to say that's not possible because you believe the Russians will refuse to negotiate I contend that's a bad assumption. Everything is subject to negotiation. As an agreement between Ukraine snd Russia was reached over a year ago before it was scuttled by Boris Johnson's visit it shows its possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 8 hours ago, ChiGoose said: If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, reconstitutes its military and then invades Latvia, would you support sending US troops to defend it in accordance with Article V? Even if Russia could reconstitute its army enough (after another year or so of struggling against a non-NATO country) to attempt an invasion of Latvia, yes, I would have to support sending US troops because that's what NATO is there for. And a big reason why Putin invaded Ukraine, i.e. their pursuit of NATO inclusion. 13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Russia wasn’t going to invade Ukraine either. Even though the US said they would, Ukraine and others doubted because it would be such a bad decision by Russia. Then what happened? I don’t understand people thinking that Russia is a rational actor making decisions based on considered thought of examinations of the facts. That’s not how it operates. As to the revanchism, you just need to listen to Putin himself, “In 2005, Putin called the Soviet collapse “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” In 2008, then-Prime Minister Putin told President George W. Bush, “Ukraine is not even a country.” Soon Russia invaded Georgia and asserted “privileged interests” in the wider region. In 2014 and on a larger scale in 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. In 2022, Putin claimed that prior to President Nursultan Nazarbayev's reign, “Kazakhsnever had statehood.” In 2016, Putin claimed that Russia's border “has no end.”” (Source) “Firebrand Russian politician Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday that the Baltics belong to Russia. Writing on Twitter, the former Russian Prime Minister referred to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as "our" provinces, saying they had "soiled themselves" over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.“ (Source) Honestly, the idea that Russia doesn’t want to test NATO is just wishcasting at this point. Russia invaded Ukraine under Obama. He didn't under Trump. He was always going to invade Ukraine again if/when Trump left Office. You can deny it all you want. But believing he's going to invade Latvia is fear-mongering at this point. He doesn't have the ability. If he had taken Ukraine in a couple weeks like he predicted, sure, he might have tested NATO. But after the B word slapping he would have received by the full force of all those NATO countries surrounding him and would have surrendered. And if you think he's so irrational, why do you think being defeated in Ukraine would make him stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Doc said: Even if Russia could reconstitute its army enough (after another year or so of struggling against a non-NATO country) to attempt an invasion of Latvia, yes, I would have to support sending US troops because that's what NATO is there for. And a big reason why Putin invaded Ukraine, i.e. their pursuit of NATO inclusion. Russia invaded Ukraine under Obama. He didn't under Trump. He was always going to invade Ukraine again if/when Trump left Office. You can deny it all you want. But believing he's going to invade Latvia is fear-mongering at this point. He doesn't have the ability. If he had taken Ukraine in a couple weeks like he predicted, sure, he might have tested NATO. But after the B word slapping he would have received by the full force of all those NATO countries surrounding him and would have surrendered. And if you think he's so irrational, why do you think being defeated in Ukraine would make him stop? So you believe that Trump is responsible for Armenian-Azerbaijan war, the India-Pakistan border crisis of 2019, three separate Israel-Gaza clashes, the Tigray war, and the Ethiopian-Sudan conflict? I guess we should blame FDR for WWII as well Edited May 4 by ChiGoose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: So you believe that Trump is responsible for Armenian-Azerbaijan war, the India-Pakistan border crisis of 2019, three separate Israel-Gaza clashes, the Tigray war, and the Ethiopian-Sudan conflict? I guess we should blame FDR for WWII as well Did those conflicts start under Obama, take a break under Trump and restart under Biden? Edited May 4 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts