Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

"We have been forced into a conflict. For we are called, with our allies, to meet the challenge of a principle which, if it were to prevail, would be fatal to any civilized order in the world.

It is the principle which permits a state, in the selfish pursuit of power, to disregard its treaties and its solemn pledges; which sanctions the use of force, or threat of force, against the sovereignty and independence of other states.

Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that "might is right"." King George VI 1939

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

"We have been forced into a conflict. For we are called, with our allies, to meet the challenge of a principle which, if it were to prevail, would be fatal to any civilized order in the world.

It is the principle which permits a state, in the selfish pursuit of power, to disregard its treaties and its solemn pledges; which sanctions the use of force, or threat of force, against the sovereignty and independence of other states.

Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that "might is right"." King George VI 1939

---

Let the Brits give billions to the corrupt neo-Nazis.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Still not one Chicken Hawk poster is offering to volunteer his son or grandson to die for Ukraine.

Enough said.

---

Which "chicken hawk" posters are suggesting the US engage in a ground war with Russia in Ukraine? Do tell.

If it's any consolation, you have conquered that straw man like Clausewitz, though.

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

Golem said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Still not one Chicken Hawk poster is offering to volunteer his son or grandson to die for Ukraine.

Enough said.

---

Which "chicken hawk" posters are suggesting the US engage in a ground war with Russia in Ukraine? Do tell.

If it's any consolation, you have conquered that straw man like Clausewitz, though.

---

Thanks you. No one has said that US soldiers be involved, only to supply the Ukrainians with the tools they need to defend themselves. That is consistent with US policy since Truman and the even named it the Eisenhower Doctrine for his use of similar tactics in the Middle East to keep US troops out.

I did say that IF NATO does send troops we would have to take part as NATO. But, that is not on the table.

If you let Putin profit from his aggressive acts, it will not stop. Obiden tried this in 2014 and here we are in 2022 with the same problem, bigger.

Also, the rest of the world is watching. Taiwan, Singapore, Finland, and everyother non-treaty allie to see what we do since we brokered Ukraine's existence and Ukraine warned this would happen. You cannot walk away now.

As for the neo-Nazi's, the Azov Battllaion de-politicized when moved into the Ukrainian National Guard. The ALL right wing parties represent 2.5% of the last election. Every Democracy has their share of extremist including the US. We don't abandon a Nation over 3000 people...


Ukraine's Azov Battalion: Neo-Nazis or Russian Propaganda? - CounterPunch.org

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

part in bold is the key. The critique being offered has an implicit premise that Ukrainians are stooges duped by Nato nations into fighting a war to defend their country. They shoulda surrendered! It is immoral to encourage people to defend their country!! Sending the arms/ammo merely encourages them to engage in very self-destructive behavior!!!

Reality is, it is entirely normal for a nation of 50m people to fight to retain their sovereignty.
Reality is, the Ukranian people are willing to defend their homeland to the death.
Reality is, the resistance of the Ukrainian people is noble, and deserves to be supported.

It makes complete sense, in every context of the phrase, that the democracies of Western Europe, with whom we have historical, cultural, political, and economic common interests, would want to defend an aspiring democracy from an autocratic regime which has stated a desire to reestablish a world order that threatens the peace and stability of Europe.

No democracy should die for lack of ammunition.

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

part in bold is the key. The critique being offered has an implicit premise that Ukrainians are stooges duped by Nato nations into fighting a war to defend their country. They shoulda surrendered! It is immoral to encourage people to defend their country!! Sending the arms/ammo merely encourages them to engage in very self-destructive behavior!!!

Reality is, it is entirely normal for a nation of 50m people to fight to retain their sovereignty.
Reality is, the Ukranian people are willing to defend their homeland to the death.
Reality is, the resistance of the Ukrainian people is noble, and deserves to be supported.

It makes complete sense, in every context of the phrase, that the democracies of Western Europe, with whom we have historical, cultural, political, and economic common interests, would want to defend an aspiring democracy from an autocratic regime which has stated a desire to reestablish a world order that threatens the peace and stability of Europe.

No democracy should die for lack of ammunition.

---

Well said.

The other piece to this is that NATO has not only courted Ukraine for 50 years, but brokered their existence as a sovereign nation. Ukraine was hesitant to give up the nukes on their territory because of exactly what is happening. NATO and the US said they would support Ukraine.

When what Ukraine feared came to fruition, the honorable people on this Board said it was not a binding agreement. Yeah, credible bunch...

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Also not happy that our idea of Ukraine has completely changed. They're still a deeply corrupt, racist and backwards country.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Also not happy that our idea of Ukraine has completely changed. They're still a deeply corrupt, racist and backwards country.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

I actually agree with you on all points.

I understand the need for monies to support foreign nations. Ultimately, it helps our security, economy and builds allies. So, those expenditures I have less of a problem than others. (Granted, I went in the military in 86, so I am a Reagan Cold-War guy that views freedom as an American goal. I understand many don't agree anymore).

Immigration, I am with you. Disgusting that situation has deteriorated like it has. Border security should be a top priority. We should have a Commission on that, not wasting time with the Trump crap...

I am not sure our idea of Ukraine has changed, that was Obama's idea. The US has been courting Ukraine and the Baltics for 50 years. Any former totalitarian Government moving to Democracy is going to have corruption, extreme groups and other problems. They want to move toward a modern European Nation, I don't know why you would say no.

I agree, this is all on Russia. They are reneging on their 1990's agreement. 100% their fault. Ukraine should have the right of self determination.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

Excellent post but such rational thought processes aren't acceptable to keyboard Rambo's .

Meanwhile our dementia afflicted president continues to engage in nuclear 'brinkmanship' with a ruthless ex KGB agent over a country most Americans couldn't even find on a map prior to the beginning of the war .

While our country continues to stagger toward a severe recession.

Insanity .

Presenting you a firm offer of 5 US dollars for a poster of you sans shirt with your bandanna and pellet rifle …in the appropriate Rambo grimace.

Please leave your bifocals on.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Also not happy that our idea of Ukraine has completely changed. They're still a deeply corrupt, racist and backwards country.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

Does speak volumes that the leadership class of the United States is willing to spend billion helping Ukraine protect its borders by fighting a war. Think we are already past $50 billion with more to go.

But they would not spend $8 billion for a border wall to keep out mass illegal immigration, deadly fentanyl smuggling that is killing thousands of Americans, and help stop other cross border crime.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/20211117.htm
[Drug Overdose Deaths in the U.S. Top 100,000 Annually]

https://grothman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2993
"Of the record number of migrants illegally crossing the border, an estimated 184,000 were released and remain in the interior of the United States. The 117,989 recorded 'humanitarian releases' represent an increase of 47 percent from March and we saw roughly an additional 8,600 unaccompanied children released to sponsors. This is on top of the estimated 58,000 got-aways who dodged Border Patrol altogether."

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Also not happy that our idea of Ukraine has completely changed. They're still a deeply corrupt, racist and backwards country.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

Does speak volumes that the leadership class of the United States is willing to spend billion helping Ukraine protect its borders by fighting a war. Think we are already past $50 billion with more to go.

But they would not spend $8 billion for a border wall to keep out mass illegal immigration, deadly fentanyl smuggling that is killing thousands of Americans, and help stop other cross border crime.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/20211117.htm
[Drug Overdose Deaths in the U.S. Top 100,000 Annually]

https://grothman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2993
"Of the record number of migrants illegally crossing the border, an estimated 184,000 were released and remain in the interior of the United States. The 117,989 recorded 'humanitarian releases' represent an increase of 47 percent from March and we saw roughly an additional 8,600 unaccompanied children released to sponsors. This is on top of the estimated 58,000 got-aways who dodged Border Patrol altogether."

---

I think we'll be well over $100B in the next few months:

JUST IN - U.S. lawmakers discuss passing a $50 billion aid package for Ukraine by end of January, NBC reports citing sources.

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) October 20, 2022

Also the leadership class wants to disarm us but they want to arm Ukraine.

If there wasn't so much hypocrisy, it wouldn't bother me as much.

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

---

The Domino theory was wrong.

"a Cold War policy that suggested a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos"

The Fall of China to communism did not lead to the fall of Japan to communism. The fall of Vietnam to communism did not lead to the fall of Thailand. The fall of Angola to communism did not lead to the fall of South Africa. The fall of Cuba did not lead to the fall of Colombia or Mexico. The fall of Czechoslovakia to communism did not lead to the fall of Austria.

We were right to resist and assist anti-communist movements world wide. But the idea that every battle for every State had to be won was simply not true. Each country had its own unique internal political and cultural issues that made it more or less susceptible to communist take over.

The Domino theory stuff is why we wasted more than a decade on heavy combat in Vietnam, and 60,000 dead, when we should have cut bait and re-entrenched in a more stable anti-Communist Southeast Asian nation.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

---

The Domino theory was wrong.

"a Cold War policy that suggested a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos"

The Fall of China to communism did not lead to the fall of Japan to communism. The fall of Vietnam to communism did not lead to the fall of Thailand. The fall of Angola to communism did not lead to the fall of South Africa. The fall of Cuba did not lead to the fall of Colombia or Mexico. The fall of Czechoslovakia to communism did not lead to the fall of Austria.

We were right to resist and assist anti-communist movements world wide. But the idea that every battle for every State had to be won was simply not true. Each country had its own unique internal political and cultural issues that made it more or less susceptible to communist take over.

The Domino theory stuff is why we wasted more than a decade on heavy combat in Vietnam, and 60,000 dead, when we should have cut bait and re-entrenched in a more stable anti-Communist Southeast Asian nation.

---

Or, perhaps the plain events of history tell the opposite story: that we were right to fight them everywhere, to make them pay dearly for every inch gained, thereby ensuring their system collapsed before ours did.

Signed, an old Cold Warrior

Redbrickbear said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

---

The Domino theory was wrong.

"a Cold War policy that suggested a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos"

The Fall of China to communism did not lead to the fall of Japan to communism. The fall of Vietnam to communism did not lead to the fall of Thailand. The fall of Angola to communism did not lead to the fall of South Africa. The fall of Cuba did not lead to the fall of Colombia or Mexico. The fall of Czechoslovakia to communism did not lead to the fall of Austria.

We were right to resist and assist anti-communist movements world wide. But the idea that every battle for every State had to be won was simply not true. Each country had its own unique internal political and cultural issues that made it more or less susceptible to communist take over.

The Domino theory stuff is why we wasted more than a decade on heavy combat in Vietnam, and 60,000 dead, when we should have cut bait and re-entrenched in a more stable anti-Communist Southeast Asian nation.

---

China was not a proselytizing communist nation. They had their own problems. They still managed to make a mess of the Korean Peninsula. Don't forget Laos, Cambodia and Burma. South east Asia was pretty red for quite a while. Thailand always valued the monarchy too much to go red. That may change with the new king.



Vietnam was fought poorly and politically and our media sided with the communists. We should have simply supported our allies with bombing campaigns and let them sort it out. But the domino theory was correct.

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

Excellent post but such rational thought processes aren't acceptable to keyboard Rambo's .

Meanwhile our dementia afflicted president continues to engage in nuclear 'brinkmanship' with a ruthless ex KGB agent over a country most Americans couldn't even find on a map prior to the beginning of the war .

While our country continues to stagger toward a severe recession.

Insanity .

---

"I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year."

That is a Fallacy of relative privation - that because we have not been willing to spend the necessary to secure our own border, we should not spend what is necessary to help Ukraine defeat Russia.

I firmly believe we should do both. I would further allow that securing the southern border is the more important if the two. But, if offered, I would accept an effective solution on either. I would not hold one hostage to the other. We need to do both.

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

Excellent post but such rational thought processes aren't acceptable to keyboard Rambo's .

Meanwhile our dementia afflicted president continues to engage in nuclear 'brinkmanship' with a ruthless ex KGB agent over a country most Americans couldn't even find on a map prior to the beginning of the war .

While our country continues to stagger toward a severe recession.

Insanity .

---

"I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year."

That is a Fallacy of relative privation - that because we have not been willing to spend the necessary to secure our own border, we should not spend what is necessary to help Ukraine defeat Russia.

I firmly believe we should do both. I would further allow that securing the southern border is the more important if the two. But, if offered, I would accept an effective solution on either. I would not hold one hostage to the other. We need to do both.

---

Not saying that we shouldn't give Ukraine assistance. Just saying if we're eager to drop billions on Ukraine, but not to help our own citizens, with our own money, we're huge hypocrites.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

---

The Domino theory was wrong.

"a Cold War policy that suggested a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos"

The Fall of China to communism did not lead to the fall of Japan to communism. The fall of Vietnam to communism did not lead to the fall of Thailand. The fall of Angola to communism did not lead to the fall of South Africa. The fall of Cuba did not lead to the fall of Colombia or Mexico. The fall of Czechoslovakia to communism did not lead to the fall of Austria.

We were right to resist and assist anti-communist movements world wide. But the idea that every battle for every State had to be won was simply not true. Each country had its own unique internal political and cultural issues that made it more or less susceptible to communist take over.

The Domino theory stuff is why we wasted more than a decade on heavy combat in Vietnam, and 60,000 dead, when we should have cut bait and re-entrenched in a more stable anti-Communist Southeast Asian nation.

---

Hmmm... There are 5 communist Nations left. Sure look like most are around China. Plus Tibet, which ceased to exist...




The domino theory does have credence. Right now, the momentum is with the West. More nations wanting to be in NATO and the west. But, neighbors follow neighbors...

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

Excellent post but such rational thought processes aren't acceptable to keyboard Rambo's .

Meanwhile our dementia afflicted president continues to engage in nuclear 'brinkmanship' with a ruthless ex KGB agent over a country most Americans couldn't even find on a map prior to the beginning of the war .

While our country continues to stagger toward a severe recession.

Insanity .

---

"I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year."

That is a Fallacy of relative privation - that because we have not been willing to spend the necessary to secure our own border, we should not spend what is necessary to help Ukraine defeat Russia.

I firmly believe we should do both. I would further allow that securing the southern border is the more important if the two. But, if offered, I would accept an effective solution on either. I would not hold one hostage to the other. We need to do both.

---

Not saying that we shouldn't give Ukraine assistance. Just saying if we're eager to drop billions on Ukraine, but not to help our own citizens, with our own money, we're huge hypocrites.

---

This is accurate. We are run by democrats. It kind of goes without saying.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

---

The Domino theory was wrong.

"a Cold War policy that suggested a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos"

The Fall of China to communism did not lead to the fall of Japan to communism. The fall of Vietnam to communism did not lead to the fall of Thailand. The fall of Angola to communism did not lead to the fall of South Africa. The fall of Cuba did not lead to the fall of Colombia or Mexico. The fall of Czechoslovakia to communism did not lead to the fall of Austria.

We were right to resist and assist anti-communist movements world wide. But the idea that every battle for every State had to be won was simply not true. Each country had its own unique internal political and cultural issues that made it more or less susceptible to communist take over.

The Domino theory stuff is why we wasted more than a decade on heavy combat in Vietnam, and 60,000 dead, when we should have cut bait and re-entrenched in a more stable anti-Communist Southeast Asian nation.

---

Hmmm... There are 5 communist Nations left. Sure look like most are around China. Plus Tibet, which ceased to exist...




The domino theory does have credence. Right now, the momentum is with the West. More nations wanting to be in NATO and the west. But, neighbors follow neighbors...

---

Of course it has credence, particularly when it was first advanced. We saw a resurgence of same when Venezuela became socialist and teamed up w Cuba to spread the virus.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

Excellent post but such rational thought processes aren't acceptable to keyboard Rambo's .

Meanwhile our dementia afflicted president continues to engage in nuclear 'brinkmanship' with a ruthless ex KGB agent over a country most Americans couldn't even find on a map prior to the beginning of the war .

While our country continues to stagger toward a severe recession.

Insanity .

---

"I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year."

That is a Fallacy of relative privation - that because we have not been willing to spend the necessary to secure our own border, we should not spend what is necessary to help Ukraine defeat Russia.

I firmly believe we should do both. I would further allow that securing the southern border is the more important if the two. But, if offered, I would accept an effective solution on either. I would not hold one hostage to the other. We need to do both.

---

Not saying that we shouldn't give Ukraine assistance. Just saying if we're eager to drop billions on Ukraine, but not to help our own citizens, with our own money, we're huge hypocrites.

---

I agree with you. There is a lot of spending that needs to happen in the US. There are a lot of programs that should be re-thought. There are also a lot of Nations receiving US aide that should be re-thought. No argument.

At this point in time, I do not believe Ukrainian support is one that should be slashed. This is money that can actually bring about a result favorable to the US and its allies. I do believe if Obiden had dealt with this and Iran in 2014, we would not be spending these amounts...

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

Excellent post but such rational thought processes aren't acceptable to keyboard Rambo's .

Meanwhile our dementia afflicted president continues to engage in nuclear 'brinkmanship' with a ruthless ex KGB agent over a country most Americans couldn't even find on a map prior to the beginning of the war .

While our country continues to stagger toward a severe recession.

Insanity .

---

"I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year."

That is a Fallacy of relative privation - that because we have not been willing to spend the necessary to secure our own border, we should not spend what is necessary to help Ukraine defeat Russia.

I firmly believe we should do both. I would further allow that securing the southern border is the more important if the two. But, if offered, I would accept an effective solution on either. I would not hold one hostage to the other. We need to do both.

---

Not saying that we shouldn't give Ukraine assistance. Just saying if we're eager to drop billions on Ukraine, but not to help our own citizens, with our own money, we're huge hypocrites.

---

I agree with you. There is a lot of spending that needs to happen in the US. There are a lot of programs that should be re-thought. There are also a lot of Nations receiving US aide that should be re-thought. No argument.

At this point in time, I do not believe Ukrainian support is one that should be slashed. This is money that can actually bring about a result favorable to the US and its allies. I do believe if Obiden had dealt with this and Iran in 2014, we would not be spending these amounts...

---

How long do you expect this to go on? I really only see three outcomes:

1.) It turns into a forever war because Russia mobilization reestablishes stalemate.

2.) Nuclear war because Ukraine counter offensive keeps winning and Russia uses nukes to defend Crimea.

3.) Compromise where the US tells Ukraine it can't have Crimea back.

I'm told #2 is impossible and #3 is off the table. DC would LOVE #1, it would set Russia back, but the financial cost is outrageous and economically dangerous for us. We can't afford it.

If there's another option/scenario, what is it?

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

---

The Domino theory was wrong.

"a Cold War policy that suggested a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos"

The Fall of China to communism did not lead to the fall of Japan to communism. The fall of Vietnam to communism did not lead to the fall of Thailand. The fall of Angola to communism did not lead to the fall of South Africa. The fall of Cuba did not lead to the fall of Colombia or Mexico. The fall of Czechoslovakia to communism did not lead to the fall of Austria.

We were right to resist and assist anti-communist movements world wide. But the idea that every battle for every State had to be won was simply not true. Each country had its own unique internal political and cultural issues that made it more or less susceptible to communist take over.

The Domino theory stuff is why we wasted more than a decade on heavy combat in Vietnam, and 60,000 dead, when we should have cut bait and re-entrenched in a more stable anti-Communist Southeast Asian nation.

---

Hmmm... There are 5 communist Nations left. Sure look like most are around China. Plus Tibet, which ceased to exist...




The domino theory does have credence. Right now, the momentum is with the West. More nations wanting to be in NATO and the west. But, neighbors follow neighbors...

---

Don't forget the fascist/junta style nations that sprung up in the region as well, as they tend to have tacitly friendly relationships with Russia (borderline, basically fascist nation at this juncture) & China (obviously communist). The far ends of the spectrum end up in the same place eventually.

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

Excellent post but such rational thought processes aren't acceptable to keyboard Rambo's .

Meanwhile our dementia afflicted president continues to engage in nuclear 'brinkmanship' with a ruthless ex KGB agent over a country most Americans couldn't even find on a map prior to the beginning of the war .

While our country continues to stagger toward a severe recession.

Insanity .

---

"I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year."

That is a Fallacy of relative privation - that because we have not been willing to spend the necessary to secure our own border, we should not spend what is necessary to help Ukraine defeat Russia.

I firmly believe we should do both. I would further allow that securing the southern border is the more important if the two. But, if offered, I would accept an effective solution on either. I would not hold one hostage to the other. We need to do both.

---

Not saying that we shouldn't give Ukraine assistance. Just saying if we're eager to drop billions on Ukraine, but not to help our own citizens, with our own money, we're huge hypocrites.

---

I agree with you. There is a lot of spending that needs to happen in the US. There are a lot of programs that should be re-thought. There are also a lot of Nations receiving US aide that should be re-thought. No argument.

At this point in time, I do not believe Ukrainian support is one that should be slashed. This is money that can actually bring about a result favorable to the US and its allies. I do believe if Obiden had dealt with this and Iran in 2014, we would not be spending these amounts...

---

How long do you expect this to go on?

I really only see three outcomes:

1.) It turns into a forever war because Russia mobilization reestablishes stalemate.

2.) Nuclear war because Ukraine counter offensive keeps winning and Russia uses nukes to defend Crimea.

3.) Compromise where the US tells Ukraine it can't have Crimea back.

I'm told #2 is impossible and #3 is off the table.

DC would LOVE #1, it would set Russia back, but the financial cost is outrageous and economically dangerous for us. We can't afford it.

---

I think that might be behind well intentioned, reasonable positions that disagree.

I suspect the "Ukraine Victory" POV considers that with enough funding and weapons Ukraine will ultimately wear down Russia to surrender in a "conventional" conflict.

Me and I think other "Negotiated Peace" POV is concerned about what happens if Russia gets desperate and launches a nuclear weapon or ultimately - like it has done in other places - throws so many men and materials at Ukraine it causes more catastrophic damage.

I agree with D.C.
1) After hitching is wagon to Russia, Europe cannot afford a forever war from an energy perspective unless Obiden changes our energy policy. Right now, Obiden is Putin's biggest ally, and the West is paying the price

2) I still think a nuclear weapon is low probability but the impact it will have on the future of the world makes it serious even at low probability

3) A strong U.S. would force a peace - it may not be "fair" to Ukraine but that's the way war go ... France gave up Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s because that's what happens in war ...

I think there is a difference between an optimistic "Ukraine can win" team and a pessimistic "**** could get a lot worse" team.

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Golem said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most probable outcome by far is a horrible war of attrition that destroys Ukraine & severely damages Russia, with massive body count on both sides.

And, in the end, the same outcome.

So why?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2022

---

So the preferred alternative is to have higher Ukrainian body counts and less Russian impact by stopping any further support of Ukraine? Sounds like a great deal….for Russia.

---

The preferred alternative is to force a deal and stop war.

---

There are mentally impaired individuals, in and out of the Biden administration, who are willing to sacrifice any number of innocent Ukrainians in order to achieve regime change in Russia .

That Putin is not going to passively allow this to happen is beyond their comprehension.

Right up until the moment US servicemen are killed .

THEN of course the same morons will demand still another 'response'.

And so it goes…..police action ….after police action .

Generation after generation .

---

Putin isn't passively allowing anything to happen. He is aggressively trying (and bitterly failing) to conquer lands that are not his. No one in the US government is sacrificing Ukrainians, they are willing and able to defend their country from the aforementioned aggressor.

---

And the idea is that Russia/Putin will simply give up and everything will be fine?

---

The Ukrainians want him to pay for every square inch he takes. It's their choice and the least we can do is give them the tools to do it.

In other news, you must be super pissed the French helped us during the revolutionary war.

---

I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year.

Ultimately I'm pissed at Russia, but I don't know that the road to peace is as black and white as I'm being told.

---

Excellent post but such rational thought processes aren't acceptable to keyboard Rambo's .

Meanwhile our dementia afflicted president continues to engage in nuclear 'brinkmanship' with a ruthless ex KGB agent over a country most Americans couldn't even find on a map prior to the beginning of the war .

While our country continues to stagger toward a severe recession.

Insanity .

---

"I'm pissed that domestically we claim to not have money for a border wall for example…but we can give Ukraine over $100B in under a year."

That is a Fallacy of relative privation - that because we have not been willing to spend the necessary to secure our own border, we should not spend what is necessary to help Ukraine defeat Russia.

I firmly believe we should do both. I would further allow that securing the southern border is the more important if the two. But, if offered, I would accept an effective solution on either. I would not hold one hostage to the other. We need to do both.

---

Not saying that we shouldn't give Ukraine assistance. Just saying if we're eager to drop billions on Ukraine, but not to help our own citizens, with our own money, we're huge hypocrites.

---

I agree with you. There is a lot of spending that needs to happen in the US. There are a lot of programs that should be re-thought. There are also a lot of Nations receiving US aide that should be re-thought. No argument.

At this point in time, I do not believe Ukrainian support is one that should be slashed. This is money that can actually bring about a result favorable to the US and its allies. I do believe if Obiden had dealt with this and Iran in 2014, we would not be spending these amounts...

---

How long do you expect this to go on? I really only see three outcomes:

1.) It turns into a forever war because Russia mobilization reestablishes stalemate.

2.) Nuclear war because Ukraine counter offensive keeps winning and Russia uses nukes to defend Crimea.

3.) Compromise where the US tells Ukraine it can't have Crimea back.

I'm told #2 is impossible and #3 is off the table. DC would LOVE #1, it would set Russia back, but the financial cost is outrageous and economically dangerous for us. We can't afford it.

If there's another option/scenario, what is it?

---

Several things

1 - I think it will end when NATO allows Finland and Ukraine in. This basically shows Russia that they cannot strongarm and if they try they get the exact opposite of what they want.

2- I do not think Putin survives this and it will end with the Russian leadership overthrowing Putin before he can do something that is undoable. (Whenever it ends, this is what I believe is the path.)

3 -This has shown that the Russian model does not work. The President before Putin knew this and even said we modernize or perish. Then, Putin did his crap and we are where we are. It may be a closer relationship with China? Or a closer relationship with Europe? Russia has its own inside issues, Siberia and the East relate to Asia. Moscow and the West relate to Europe. How that plays out????

4 - I do believe for NATO membership, Ukraine will give territory in Dombas/Crimea, make reforms, and meet metrics to formalize NATO membership.

Downside. Sadly, I do not think there is anyone competent enough or with credibility to make it happen in the Biden Admin. Maybe Germany? The worse situation, Xi and China step in and end it. That will severely hurt US and Western street cred. So, it will take time.

I think this thing slogs on until 2024. Similar to Iran in 80, when DeSantis wins the Russian leadership will act because they know DeSantis will make tough decisions. How much does it costs? No idea. I do know the Ukranians will have to convince DeSantis is worth it or he will go the other way and not lose a minutes sleep.

That is my sad analysis. I am sure every point is wrong at best and Rambo-ish at worst.

Golem said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

---

The Domino theory was wrong.

"a Cold War policy that suggested a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos"

The Fall of China to communism did not lead to the fall of Japan to communism. The fall of Vietnam to communism did not lead to the fall of Thailand. The fall of Angola to communism did not lead to the fall of South Africa. The fall of Cuba did not lead to the fall of Colombia or Mexico. The fall of Czechoslovakia to communism did not lead to the fall of Austria.

We were right to resist and assist anti-communist movements world wide. But the idea that every battle for every State had to be won was simply not true. Each country had its own unique internal political and cultural issues that made it more or less susceptible to communist take over.

The Domino theory stuff is why we wasted more than a decade on heavy combat in Vietnam, and 60,000 dead, when we should have cut bait and re-entrenched in a more stable anti-Communist Southeast Asian nation.

---

China was not a proselytizing communist nation. They had their own problems. They still managed to make a mess of the Korean Peninsula. Don't forget Laos, Cambodia and Burma. South east Asia was pretty red for quite a while. Thailand always valued the monarchy too much to go red. That may change with the new king.



Vietnam was fought poorly and politically and our media sided with the communists. We should have simply supported our allies with bombing campaigns and let them sort it out. But the domino theory was correct.

---

WHAT?

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/books/article/2188861/maoism-global-history-how-china-exported-revolution

• From the Khmer Rouge to the Red Brigades, the Malayan Emergency, Shining Path, and Nepal, Mao-era China inspired insurgencies across the globe

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

---

The Domino theory was wrong.

"a Cold War policy that suggested a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos"

The Fall of China to communism did not lead to the fall of Japan to communism. The fall of Vietnam to communism did not lead to the fall of Thailand. The fall of Angola to communism did not lead to the fall of South Africa. The fall of Cuba did not lead to the fall of Colombia or Mexico. The fall of Czechoslovakia to communism did not lead to the fall of Austria.

We were right to resist and assist anti-communist movements world wide. But the idea that every battle for every State had to be won was simply not true. Each country had its own unique internal political and cultural issues that made it more or less susceptible to communist take over.

The Domino theory stuff is why we wasted more than a decade on heavy combat in Vietnam, and 60,000 dead, when we should have cut bait and re-entrenched in a more stable anti-Communist Southeast Asian nation.

---

Hmmm... There are 5 communist Nations left. Sure look like most are around China. Plus Tibet, which ceased to exist...




The domino theory does have credence. Right now, the momentum is with the West. More nations wanting to be in NATO and the west. But, neighbors follow neighbors...

---

And yet none today in Eastern Europe where communism fist took over the Russian Empire and had a powerful starting point.

Losing China was a blow but Domino theory said losing one nation would lead to losing the next with each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos.

That did not happen. Half of Europe remained free during the cold war and most of Asia. Today there are just a handful of communist states that have survived. And only one (Venezuela) where leftist Marxian-socialism has taken root in the past 30 years.

Nations, peoples, and cultures are more complex than a set of Dominos.

The theory also tended to be used as a political weapon against any rational politicians at the time who did not see the need to fight ground wars against every communist movement all over the world.

Even more ridiculous that they some times they were accused of "disloyalty" and "appeasement" when many of those politicians in the 50s, 60s, 70s were actual WWII vets and very patriotic...just rational.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

---

The Domino theory was wrong.

"a Cold War policy that suggested a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos"

The Fall of China to communism did not lead to the fall of Japan to communism. The fall of Vietnam to communism did not lead to the fall of Thailand. The fall of Angola to communism did not lead to the fall of South Africa. The fall of Cuba did not lead to the fall of Colombia or Mexico. The fall of Czechoslovakia to communism did not lead to the fall of Austria.

We were right to resist and assist anti-communist movements world wide. But the idea that every battle for every State had to be won was simply not true. Each country had its own unique internal political and cultural issues that made it more or less susceptible to communist take over.

The Domino theory stuff is why we wasted more than a decade on heavy combat in Vietnam, and 60,000 dead, when we should have cut bait and re-entrenched in a more stable anti-Communist Southeast Asian nation.

---

Hmmm... There are 5 communist Nations left. Sure look like most are around China. Plus Tibet, which ceased to exist...




The domino theory does have credence. Right now, the momentum is with the West. More nations wanting to be in NATO and the west. But, neighbors follow neighbors...

---

And yet none today in Eastern Europe where communism fist took over the Russian Empire and had a powerful starting point.

Losing China was a blow but Domino theory said losing one nation would lead to losing the next with each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos.

That did not happen. Half of Europe remained free during the cold war and most of Asia. Today there are just a handful of communist states that have survived. And only one (Venezuela) where leftist Marxian-socialism has taken root in the past 30 years.

Nations, peoples, and cultures are more complex than a set of Dominos.

The theory also tended to be used as a political weapon against any rational politicians at the time who did not see the need to fight ground wars against every communist movement all over the world.

Even more ridiculous that they some times they were accused of "disloyalty" and "appeasement" when many of those politicians in the 50s, 60s, 70s were actual WWII vets and very patriotic...just rational.

---

So, where has the US been the most active in fighting Communism? Europe. The two places that the US has committed to stay since 1949 is Europe and Japan. US reduces commitment and what happens?

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Whiterock makes some real points that are valid, but I'll agree with you at this level. Russia is the target, not Ukraine. As soon as more people realize this, the more the game makes sense. We may get a 2 for 1 with China after they're stuck with worthless rubles and sovereign debt, not to mention the wounding of a world competitor in the energy space. Everyone may not like the game, but there's a reason we are the world's only super power and not watching China or Russia go barbarian horde over Southern and SE Asia. Some of you griping about inflation now would be shocked what would happen if the US lost its primary currency position.

The Afghani's were the last ones to help us bleed out the Russians, and assisted in quickening the demise of the Soviet Union. I have no desire for boots on the ground or pilots in the sky, but this is a bargain approach compared to the future with an emboldened Russia with territorial expansion partnered with China. The small war versus the giant war.

But Russia started the Ukraine situation well before 2014. That's indisputable.

---

Understand. What is our next step if Russia uses a tactical, battlefield nuclear weapon?

It's a straw man to think there is a bifurcated choice between starting World War III and the U.S. losing global supremacy. The line had been drawn since World War II, and it was not at the Ukrainian-Russian border.

---

Most of the "anti" arguments would hold a lot more water if US boys & girls (and I have 1 of each in uniform…..) were engaged in the fighting. But they're not. Because Ukrainian boys & girls are. That's a position with maintaining.

---

What if this position can't be maintained?

I know everyone thinks Russia is losing, but is that 100% factual?

---

Doubt it's 100% factual.

Suspect much of such chatter is merely wishful thinking bouncing among like minded 'news' organizations with 'authenticity' growing with each repeat .

---

It was 100%. That's why Russia mobilized. That might reverse the situation, assuming they can get everyone armed & deployed in a reasonable timeframe. But that'll take 60 more days. until then, UKR will have initiative.

There is no threshold here about NATO supporting UKR. We went they that six months ago. We've emptied out warehouses of all gear old, obsolete, or Soviet. Now we're supplying big fires and sophisticated systems like HIMARS that are having decisive battlefield effect.

Russia escalates, we escalate (by providing weapons systems) in a way that makes the Russian position worse. They escalate again, we go a half step further.

The message to Putin is:
Yes Russia is big and mean.
We are bigger and meaner.
Don't play the escalation game with us.
The last round of that game turns your country into a parking lot.
Your only win is to sue for terms that allow you to go home and keep your navy.

Russia has begun evacuating citizens from Kherson…..

---

Perfect

After we 'turn their country into a parking lot' undoubtedly the Russians will just whimper off to die without launching their nukes from their mobile ground units or dozens of nuclear submarines.

And if they do…so what ?

We will just hit 'replay' on the video game.

Oh wait ……

---

Canada

What is your solution? At what point does it become a US problem? What point is does it impact us enough to help an invaded Nation defend itself?

---

Bingo. The weak underbelly of Canada's position, and that of most of the more vocal power geopolitics school theoreticians who are so critical of our current Ukraine policy, is that it implicitly presumes that Ukraine is for Russia to dispose of as it sees fit. Once we accept the premise that Russia has the right to dominate the shatterzones around it, then there is no competition.....they just drive their tanks up to our border with the shatterzone and start revving engines every time they want something.

If Russia ends up owning the shatterzone, fine. We'll deal with it. But you do not just let them have it for nothing. Make them pay for it. Dearly. Make them take centuries to do it. And the time between then and now is called "peace." It's a time when their kids and our kids are not looking at one another eyeball to eyeball across fields of razor wire. That's the way the power geopolitics game is actually played. It is a "Great Game" and it goes on forever. The only question is on which squares it is played.

Right now, we're playing it on the Ukrainian square, with Ukranian troops, who are begging and pleading for more ammo. Piss-poor gamesmanship not to send them most of what they ask for.

We're not trying to collapse Russia.
We're trying to get Russia to stop.
or pay dearly to keep going.
And if Russia does collapse....
If the Russian Federation as we know it does collapse....
Ukraine's 55m people become the beating heart of the Eastern Slavic world.

That would be a history-changer.
To our benefit.
For a century or three.

Think, boys.
THINK!

---

Think indeed .

Similar propaganda to the old ' Domino Theory ' that we were sold involving Vietnam.

People only realized it was all a lie 50,000 + dead US servicemen later . Billions of dollars wasted .

Ukraine is not worth the death of a single American.
Defending Ukraine is not in the strategic interests of the United States .

Period

---

You are simply wrong here. White Rock and ATL are 100% correct. The Domino theory wasn't wrong either. The Soviet Union fell because it couldn't keep up militarily. Had we sat back and let it continue its march for global communism, it would have had decades longer to gain ground and perhaps figure out the Chinese model.

No one is proposing sending a single live American to the Ukraine. Given that, there will be no single dead ones there either (unless they go themselves). Spending money to bankrupt the violent unprovoked Russian expansion is and always will be money VERY well spent.

---

The Domino theory was wrong.

"a Cold War policy that suggested a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos"

The Fall of China to communism did not lead to the fall of Japan to communism. The fall of Vietnam to communism did not lead to the fall of Thailand. The fall of Angola to communism did not lead to the fall of South Africa. The fall of Cuba did not lead to the fall of Colombia or Mexico. The fall of Czechoslovakia to communism did not lead to the fall of Austria.

We were right to resist and assist anti-communist movements world wide. But the idea that every battle for every State had to be won was simply not true. Each country had its own unique internal political and cultural issues that made it more or less susceptible to communist take over.

The Domino theory stuff is why we wasted more than a decade on heavy combat in Vietnam, and 60,000 dead, when we should have cut bait and re-entrenched in a more stable anti-Communist Southeast Asian nation.

---

Hmmm... There are 5 communist Nations left. Sure look like most are around China. Plus Tibet, which ceased to exist...




The domino theory does have credence. Right now, the momentum is with the West. More nations wanting to be in NATO and the west. But, neighbors follow neighbors...

---

And yet none today in Eastern Europe where communism fist took over the Russian Empire and had a powerful starting point.

Losing China was a blow but Domino theory said losing one nation would lead to losing the next with each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos.

That did not happen. Half of Europe remained free during the cold war and most of Asia. Today there are just a handful of communist states that have survived. And only one (Venezuela) where leftist Marxian-socialism has taken root in the past 30 years.

Nations, peoples, and cultures are more complex than a set of Dominos.

The theory also tended to be used as a political weapon against any rational politicians at the time who did not see the need to fight ground wars against every communist movement all over the world.

Even more ridiculous that they some times they were accused of "disloyalty" and "appeasement" when many of those politicians in the 50s, 60s, 70s were actual WWII vets and very patriotic...just rational.

---

So, where has the US been the most active in fighting Communism? Europe. The two places that the US has committed to stay since 1949 is Europe and Japan. US reduces commitment and what happens?

---

Keeping troops in an area you already fought a war over is certainly acceptable policy.

(Germany & Korea)

And keeping troops in both no doubt helped to contain aggressive rival powers like the USSR and Maoist China.

Putting troops into new conflicts that are basically intractable guerilla wars (Vietnam) because we subscribe to some kind of "Domino theory" is foolish.

The loss of a Vietnam does not equal the loss of all Asia. The loss of Angola does not equal the loss of all of Africa.

I'm guessing some US intel passed on to the Ukrainians helped a bit here

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-720252