Russia mobilizes

188,459 Views | 4259 Replies | Last: 6 mo ago by sombear
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

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


….and don't forget Africa. In Zimbabwe, the PRC supported ZANU-PF came out on top.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

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


….and don't forget Africa. In Zimbabwe, the PRC supported ZANU-PF came out on top.


Yep,

And the first thing Mugabe and the ZANU-PF did was not murder and drive out the Whites (they did eventually)…but commit genocide against the native Blacks of Matabeleland who opposed them.


30,000 to 300,000 killed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukurahundi
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

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

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-720252
Another foreign policy disaster directly traced backed to Obiden. Russia using U.S. technology to fight Ukraine.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/cheney-blasts-obama-for-failure-to-act-on-downed-u-s-drone

Former Vice President Dick Cheney blasted President Obama Monday for his handling of the downed U.S. drone in Iran, saying he should have destroyed the drone immediately to protect U.S. intelligence.

"The right response to that would have been to go in immediately after it had gone down and destroy it," Cheney said told Erin Burnett of CNN's' "OutFront"

Cheney said the president had three options on his desk but rejected all of them. "They involved sending somebody in to try to recover it or, if you can't do that, and admittedly that would be a difficult operation, he certainly could have gone in and destroyed it on the ground with an air strike," he said.

"But he didn't take any of the options. He asked nicely for them to return it. And they aren't going to do that," Cheney said.

The president said Monday that the United States has asked for the drone back. "We'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama said.

Instead of returning the drone, Cheney said the Iranians will likely "send it back in pieces after they've gotten all the intelligence they can out of it."

---
Still not clear to me the love for Russia and Iran by Obiden.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.
so, do you believe the strategy can only be used against one adversary?

By your own admission, "we achieved our goal" against that adversary. We now have a new adversary that grew up from the old. As evidenced by all the internal problems with supplies, desertions, mysterious deaths of Putin allies and enemies alike, the strategy is working…. again.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.
Sam's the kind of guy who writes his book report after reading only Chapter 1.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.


They invaded a sovereign nation they agreed should exist in exchange for nuclear weapons. Twice...
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.


They invaded a sovereign nation they agreed should exist in exchange for nuclear weapons. Twice...
I agree

But still don't understand...is anyone on this thread or site defending Russia illegally invading the sovereign State of Ukraine?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.


They invaded a sovereign nation they agreed should exist in exchange for nuclear weapons. Twice...
I agree

But still don't understand...is anyone on this thread or site defending Russia illegally invading the sovereign State of Ukraine?


Sleepy Joe - Putin didn't give all that 10% to The Big Guy for nothing.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.
so, do you believe the strategy can only be used against one adversary?

By your own admission, "we achieved our goal" against that adversary. We now have a new adversary that grew up from the old. As evidenced by all the internal problems with supplies, desertions, mysterious deaths of Putin allies and enemies alike, the strategy is working…. again.

You and WR talk as if the United States:

A. Won the great ideological battle against Soviet communism; and
B. Is still fighting a great ideological battle against Soviet communism.

Both of those things can't be true. If we caused the Soviet "system" to collapse, as WR argues, that begs the question of what system we're fighting now, whether we're just fighting Russia because they're Russia, and whether that may have been the case all along.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.


They invaded a sovereign nation they agreed should exist in exchange for nuclear weapons. Twice...
I agree

But still don't understand...is anyone on this thread or site defending Russia illegally invading the sovereign State of Ukraine?


Ignoring or letting Putin profit does the same thing. Your position and others is let Ukraine fail, missdion one do not piss off Putin he may get mad. That is not a sustainable position.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.
so, do you believe the strategy can only be used against one adversary?

By your own admission, "we achieved our goal" against that adversary. We now have a new adversary that grew up from the old. As evidenced by all the internal problems with supplies, desertions, mysterious deaths of Putin allies and enemies alike, the strategy is working…. again.

You and WR talk as if the United States:

A. Won the great ideological battle against Soviet communism; and
B. Is still fighting a great ideological battle against Soviet communism.

Both of those things can't be true. If we caused the Soviet "system" to collapse, as WR argues, that begs the question of what system we're fighting now, whether we're just fighting Russia because they're Russia, and whether that may have been the case all along.


Sam this is not ideological, it is physical. He rolled 200k troops into a Nation. Way beyond ideological fight for the hearts and minds
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Because they keep coming.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Redbrickbear said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock 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.

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.


They invaded a sovereign nation they agreed should exist in exchange for nuclear weapons. Twice...
I agree

But still don't understand...is anyone on this thread or site defending Russia illegally invading the sovereign State of Ukraine?


Ignoring or letting Putin profit does the same thing. Your position and others is let Ukraine fail, missdion one do not piss off Putin he may get mad. That is not a sustainable position.


But Ukraine is not failing. They are winning.

And there is a big difference between giving them weapons (that they should pay us back for) vs putting US troops on the ground and getting them into a massive land war in Eurasia against a nuclear armed state.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.
so, do you believe the strategy can only be used against one adversary?

By your own admission, "we achieved our goal" against that adversary. We now have a new adversary that grew up from the old. As evidenced by all the internal problems with supplies, desertions, mysterious deaths of Putin allies and enemies alike, the strategy is working…. again.

You and WR talk as if the United States:

A. Won the great ideological battle against Soviet communism; and
B. Is still fighting a great ideological battle against Soviet communism.

Both of those things can't be true. If we caused the Soviet "system" to collapse, as WR argues, that begs the question of what system we're fighting now, whether we're just fighting Russia because they're Russia, and whether that may have been the case all along.
Both of those are not true because that part in bold is a straw man.

We are not fighting a great ideological battle against Soviet Communism. That collapsed, because we resisted it everywhere and we were stronger than they were. Today, we are fighting plain old Russian imperialism. That, too, will collapse, because we are stronger than they are (assuming we are wise enough to resist them to their end). No question that garden variety Russian imperialism was a constituent part of Soviet world-wide communism. That does not mean we should not resist garden variety Russian imperialism whenever such impacts our security interests.

If Russia wants to win the shatter zone all the way thru Central Asia up to the borders of China and India, fine. It's not really terribly interesting to us, so long as no one has hegemony. We can ally with China or india as needed to ensure balance. But when Russia moves west as part of a stated goal of removing parts of Nato and attaching them to a Russian security zone.....we have a big problem. And we should not cede them an inch on such a policy agendz. Not one. Make them pay for it, and defeat them if we can. That includes inflicting strategic disadvantages from the status quo ante. There must be a Pavlovian lesson to Russian aggression - you invade neutral neighbors, you can expect those neighbors to no longer be neutral.

We have the same overriding goal for the Eurasian land mass that Britain had in the Napoleonic Age: We have no interesting in dominating that space; our interest is to makes sure one one else dominates that space. We ally with whomever we need to ally to keep the balance. And right now, the proper balance is an intact, sovereign, neutral Ukraine. If that cannot be maintained, then fine....find some alternative solution which does not involve Ukraine becoming a Russian puppet state.

Russia does not have a right to be a hegemon.
Countries EARN the right to be a hegemon.
We have.
Russia hasn't.
They need to make peace with that and do a lot of homework.
Until they do, we need to keep reminding them that they have a lot homework to do.


whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.


They invaded a sovereign nation they agreed should exist in exchange for nuclear weapons. Twice...
I agree

But still don't understand...is anyone on this thread or site defending Russia illegally invading the sovereign State of Ukraine?


Ignoring or letting Putin profit does the same thing. Your position and others is let Ukraine fail, missdion one do not piss off Putin he may get mad. That is not a sustainable position.


But Ukraine is not failing. They are winning.

And there is a big difference between giving them weapons (that they should pay us back for) vs putting US troops on the ground and getting them into a massive land war in Eurasia against a nuclear armed state.
The critics of US support for Ukraine blur the distinction you cited there in bold. Their arguments make a ton of sense with respect to sending US troops to the front-line in Ukraine, but such is not a policy option, neither currently nor foreseen. Indeed, the reason to support Ukraine all the way thru to Ukrainian victory is precisely to avoid conflict between US and Russian troops elsewhere in Europe.

Critics should explain how a Ukrainian loss would benefit US interests.
Critics should explain how any form of incremental Russian victory would benefit US interests.

As long as Ukraine is willing to fight for their homeland, we should support them with arms and ammunition right down to the last Ukrainian.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A. When in the last 4 'police actions ' has the United States ever been reimbursed by the country we have spent billions of dollars on ?

B . Our involvement in the Korean War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

C. Our involvement in the Vietnam War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

D. Our involvement with Afghanistan began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

E. Our involvement in WW2 began 'only ' with weapon deliveries .

F. Our involvement with Iraq began with ' only ' weapon deliveries.


Now you internet Rambo's are certainly aware of all this . Just as you simply MUST be aware our current Commander in Chief is hopelessly compromised by dementia and old age .


Yet you blissfully continue play your 'brinkmanship' games


As if all the previous disasters didn't happen and our current 'leadership ' has a fully functional brain .
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

A. When in the last 4 'police actions ' has the United States ever been reimbursed by the country we have spent billions of dollars on ?

B . Our involvement in the Korean War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

C. Our involvement in the Vietnam War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

D. Our involvement with Afghanistan began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

E. Our involvement in WW2 began 'only ' with weapon deliveries .

F. Our involvement with Iraq began with ' only ' weapon deliveries.


Now you internet Rambo's are certainly aware of all this . Just as you simply MUST be aware our current Commander in Chief is hopelessly compromised by dementia and old age .


Yet you blissfully continue play your 'brinkmanship' games


As if all the previous disasters didn't happen and our current 'leadership ' has a fully functional brain .

Selection bias multiplied by slippery slope creates a straw man.

The list of conflicts to which we have provided the full range of assistance which did NOT result in direct involvement of US ground troops is 100x longer than the list you provided.

We have a 100% track record of such policy while avoiding direct conflict with the Russian Army.

Again. You are making an argument which does not fit the circumstances.

Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Canada2017 said:

A. When in the last 4 'police actions ' has the United States ever been reimbursed by the country we have spent billions of dollars on ?

B . Our involvement in the Korean War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

C. Our involvement in the Vietnam War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

D. Our involvement with Afghanistan began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

E. Our involvement in WW2 began 'only ' with weapon deliveries .

F. Our involvement with Iraq began with ' only ' weapon deliveries.


Now you internet Rambo's are certainly aware of all this . Just as you simply MUST be aware our current Commander in Chief is hopelessly compromised by dementia and old age .


Yet you blissfully continue play your 'brinkmanship' games


As if all the previous disasters didn't happen and our current 'leadership ' has a fully functional brain .

Selection bias multiplied by slippery slope creates a straw man.

The list of conflicts to which we have provided the full range of assistance which did NOT result in direct involvement of US ground troops is 100x longer than the list you provided.

We have a 100% track record of such policy while avoiding direct conflict with the Russian Army.

Again. You are making an argument which does not fit the circumstances.




The circumstances are crystal clear .

Our dementia suffering Commander in Chief only recently completely botched the Afghanistan withdrawal leaving BILLIONS worth of weaponry to a terrorist organization.

Our Commander in Chief who simply can not even string together a series of lucid statements called for NATO membership for Ukraine even when Putin put 200,000 troops along the border .

Our Commander in Chief who is utilizing the DOJ and FBI to flagrantly attack political opponents openly threatened to blow up North Sea natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries . THEN DID IT.


And this is the guy you think NOW can successfully walk the thin line between ' supplying weapons ' and yet avoid escalating the war ?


Give me a freaking break .



If he talks like an idiot and acts like an idiot ……he's an idiot .
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

whiterock said:

Canada2017 said:

A. When in the last 4 'police actions ' has the United States ever been reimbursed by the country we have spent billions of dollars on ?

B . Our involvement in the Korean War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

C. Our involvement in the Vietnam War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

D. Our involvement with Afghanistan began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

E. Our involvement in WW2 began 'only ' with weapon deliveries .

F. Our involvement with Iraq began with ' only ' weapon deliveries.


Now you internet Rambo's are certainly aware of all this . Just as you simply MUST be aware our current Commander in Chief is hopelessly compromised by dementia and old age .


Yet you blissfully continue play your 'brinkmanship' games


As if all the previous disasters didn't happen and our current 'leadership ' has a fully functional brain .

Selection bias multiplied by slippery slope creates a straw man.

The list of conflicts to which we have provided the full range of assistance which did NOT result in direct involvement of US ground troops is 100x longer than the list you provided.

We have a 100% track record of such policy while avoiding direct conflict with the Russian Army.

Again. You are making an argument which does not fit the circumstances.




The circumstances are crystal clear .

Our dementia suffering Commander in Chief only recently completely botched the Afghanistan withdrawal leaving BILLIONS worth of weaponry to a terrorist organization.

Our Commander in Chief who simply can not even string together a series of lucid statements called for NATO membership for Ukraine even when Putin put 200,000 troops along the border .

Our Commander in Chief who is utilizing the DOJ and FBI to flagrantly attack political opponents openly threatened to blow up North Sea natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries . THEN DID IT.


And this is the guy you think NOW can successfully walk the thin line between ' supplying weapons ' and yet avoid escalating the war ?


Give me a freaking break .



If he talks like an idiot and acts like an idiot ……he's an idiot .
No argument about Biden. Luckily, he is not calling the shots! No one is saying send in US troops. Keep supplyng what Ukraine asks for, no more, no less. But, you will not see US troops involved.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

whiterock said:

Canada2017 said:

A. When in the last 4 'police actions ' has the United States ever been reimbursed by the country we have spent billions of dollars on ?

B . Our involvement in the Korean War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

C. Our involvement in the Vietnam War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

D. Our involvement with Afghanistan began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

E. Our involvement in WW2 began 'only ' with weapon deliveries .

F. Our involvement with Iraq began with ' only ' weapon deliveries.


Now you internet Rambo's are certainly aware of all this . Just as you simply MUST be aware our current Commander in Chief is hopelessly compromised by dementia and old age .


Yet you blissfully continue play your 'brinkmanship' games


As if all the previous disasters didn't happen and our current 'leadership ' has a fully functional brain .

Selection bias multiplied by slippery slope creates a straw man.

The list of conflicts to which we have provided the full range of assistance which did NOT result in direct involvement of US ground troops is 100x longer than the list you provided.

We have a 100% track record of such policy while avoiding direct conflict with the Russian Army.

Again. You are making an argument which does not fit the circumstances.




The circumstances are crystal clear .

Our dementia suffering Commander in Chief only recently completely botched the Afghanistan withdrawal leaving BILLIONS worth of weaponry to a terrorist organization.

Our Commander in Chief who simply can not even string together a series of lucid statements called for NATO membership for Ukraine even when Putin put 200,000 troops along the border .

Our Commander in Chief who is utilizing the DOJ and FBI to flagrantly attack political opponents openly threatened to blow up North Sea natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries . THEN DID IT.


And this is the guy you think NOW can successfully walk the thin line between ' supplying weapons ' and yet avoid escalating the war ?


Give me a freaking break .



If he talks like an idiot and acts like an idiot ……he's an idiot .
No argument about Biden. Luckily, he is not calling the shots!


Well that is super re assuring .

Then exactly WHO is calling the 'shots ' ?

And did this same mystery guy/gal/it pull these other stunts ?

Good grief people ….connect the freaking dots .
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

whiterock said:

Canada2017 said:

A. When in the last 4 'police actions ' has the United States ever been reimbursed by the country we have spent billions of dollars on ?

B . Our involvement in the Korean War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

C. Our involvement in the Vietnam War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

D. Our involvement with Afghanistan began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

E. Our involvement in WW2 began 'only ' with weapon deliveries .

F. Our involvement with Iraq began with ' only ' weapon deliveries.


Now you internet Rambo's are certainly aware of all this . Just as you simply MUST be aware our current Commander in Chief is hopelessly compromised by dementia and old age .


Yet you blissfully continue play your 'brinkmanship' games


As if all the previous disasters didn't happen and our current 'leadership ' has a fully functional brain .

Selection bias multiplied by slippery slope creates a straw man.

The list of conflicts to which we have provided the full range of assistance which did NOT result in direct involvement of US ground troops is 100x longer than the list you provided.

We have a 100% track record of such policy while avoiding direct conflict with the Russian Army.

Again. You are making an argument which does not fit the circumstances.




The circumstances are crystal clear .

Our dementia suffering Commander in Chief only recently completely botched the Afghanistan withdrawal leaving BILLIONS worth of weaponry to a terrorist organization.

Our Commander in Chief who simply can not even string together a series of lucid statements called for NATO membership for Ukraine even when Putin put 200,000 troops along the border .

Our Commander in Chief who is utilizing the DOJ and FBI to flagrantly attack political opponents openly threatened to blow up North Sea natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries . THEN DID IT.


And this is the guy you think NOW can successfully walk the thin line between ' supplying weapons ' and yet avoid escalating the war ?


Give me a freaking break .



If he talks like an idiot and acts like an idiot ……he's an idiot .
No argument about Biden. Luckily, he is not calling the shots!


Well that is super re assuring .

Then exactly WHO is calling the 'shots ' ?

And did this same mystery guy/gal/it pull these other stunts ?

Good grief people ….connect the freaking dots .
Calm down. It was an Obama joke...


He will have to give final permission. But I doubt he has much input in the strategy. The correct strategy doesn't change because Biden is an idiot. I am sure the Pentagon, NSA and others are being more careful in dealing with him.
BearlySpeaking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The question is how much is it in our national interest to maintain the existence of Ukraine as a buffer state between Russia and five other eastern European countries. If it is, then supplying arms to a people willing to fight is a small price to pay for opposing the advance of a dictator on eastern Europe again.
The practical problem we face is our executive decision-maker for authorizing the use of nuclear weapons is mentally deteriorating and his son is a recipient of millions of dollars from people in both warring countries.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlySpeaking said:

The question is how much is it in our national interest to maintain the existence of Ukraine as a buffer state between Russia and five other eastern European countries. If it is, then supplying arms to a people willing to fight is a small price to pay for opposing the advance of a dictator on eastern Europe again.
The practical problem we face is our executive decision-maker for authorizing the use of nuclear weapons is mentally deteriorating and his son is a recipient of millions of dollars from people in both warring countries.


Buffer? I would say Ukraine has more potential than that. Unlike the Baltics, Ukraine has resources and the ability to be a strong economic partner.
BearlySpeaking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

BearlySpeaking said:

The question is how much is it in our national interest to maintain the existence of Ukraine as a buffer state between Russia and five other eastern European countries. If it is, then supplying arms to a people willing to fight is a small price to pay for opposing the advance of a dictator on eastern Europe again.
The practical problem we face is our executive decision-maker for authorizing the use of nuclear weapons is mentally deteriorating and his son is a recipient of millions of dollars from people in both warring countries.


Buffer? I would say Ukraine has more potential than that. Unlike the Baltics, Ukraine has resources and the ability to be a strong economic partner.
If Ukraine's value as a buffer state makes it worth supplying against Russia's invasion, then having higher value than just being a buffer state doesn't lessen the rationality of supporting Ukraine. You don't have to argue for an optimistic view of the country in order to justify intervening with military supplies.

Ukraine has some serious problems with corruption to the extent that it reached our capital on the other side of the world, and led to an impeachment of an American president for a phone call inquiring about our current president's quid pro quo involving government funds. It has a long way to go before it can become a thriving country, especially now with physical ruin and infrastructure damage on top of corruption, courtesy of the Russians.
A corrupt free Ukraine is still better for our national interest than a corrupt Russian-controlled Ukraine bordering eastern Europe. That is the only bar that has be met for justifying providing military supplies. Anything above that bar is a bonus, and hopefully the evidence we've seen of military reforms since 2014 are indications of reforms in other areas so that long-term it will eventually be doing well as a free nation.

FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlySpeaking said:

RMF5630 said:

BearlySpeaking said:

The question is how much is it in our national interest to maintain the existence of Ukraine as a buffer state between Russia and five other eastern European countries. If it is, then supplying arms to a people willing to fight is a small price to pay for opposing the advance of a dictator on eastern Europe again.
The practical problem we face is our executive decision-maker for authorizing the use of nuclear weapons is mentally deteriorating and his son is a recipient of millions of dollars from people in both warring countries.


Buffer? I would say Ukraine has more potential than that. Unlike the Baltics, Ukraine has resources and the ability to be a strong economic partner.
If Ukraine's value as a buffer state makes it worth supplying against Russia's invasion, then having higher value than just being a buffer state doesn't lessen the rationality of supporting Ukraine. You don't have to argue for an optimistic view of the country in order to justify intervening with military supplies.

Ukraine has some serious problems with corruption to the extent that it reached our capital on the other side of the world, and led to an impeachment of an American president for a phone call inquiring about our current president's quid pro quo involving government funds. It has a long way to go before it can become a thriving country, especially now with physical ruin and infrastructure damage on top of corruption, courtesy of the Russians.
A corrupt free Ukraine is still better for our national interest than a corrupt Russian-controlled Ukraine bordering eastern Europe. That is the only bar that has be met for justifying providing military supplies. Anything above that bar is a bonus, and hopefully the evidence we've seen of military reforms since 2014 are indications of reforms in other areas so that long-term it will eventually be doing well as a free nation.




I agree. I am for supporting Ukraine
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

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


Cool. So why are we still fighting them?
Perhaps you missed the little blurb in the news about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's the point. We achieved our goal.
so, do you believe the strategy can only be used against one adversary?

By your own admission, "we achieved our goal" against that adversary. We now have a new adversary that grew up from the old. As evidenced by all the internal problems with supplies, desertions, mysterious deaths of Putin allies and enemies alike, the strategy is working…. again.

You and WR talk as if the United States:

A. Won the great ideological battle against Soviet communism; and
B. Is still fighting a great ideological battle against Soviet communism.

Both of those things can't be true. If we caused the Soviet "system" to collapse, as WR argues, that begs the question of what system we're fighting now, whether we're just fighting Russia because they're Russia, and whether that may have been the case all along.
Both of those are not true because that part in bold is a straw man.

We are not fighting a great ideological battle against Soviet Communism. That collapsed, because we resisted it everywhere and we were stronger than they were. Today, we are fighting plain old Russian imperialism. That, too, will collapse, because we are stronger than they are (assuming we are wise enough to resist them to their end). No question that garden variety Russian imperialism was a constituent part of Soviet world-wide communism. That does not mean we should not resist garden variety Russian imperialism whenever such impacts our security interests.

If Russia wants to win the shatter zone all the way thru Central Asia up to the borders of China and India, fine. It's not really terribly interesting to us, so long as no one has hegemony. We can ally with China or india as needed to ensure balance. But when Russia moves west as part of a stated goal of removing parts of Nato and attaching them to a Russian security zone.....we have a big problem. And we should not cede them an inch on such a policy agendz. Not one. Make them pay for it, and defeat them if we can. That includes inflicting strategic disadvantages from the status quo ante. There must be a Pavlovian lesson to Russian aggression - you invade neutral neighbors, you can expect those neighbors to no longer be neutral.

We have the same overriding goal for the Eurasian land mass that Britain had in the Napoleonic Age: We have no interesting in dominating that space; our interest is to makes sure one one else dominates that space. We ally with whomever we need to ally to keep the balance. And right now, the proper balance is an intact, sovereign, neutral Ukraine. If that cannot be maintained, then fine....find some alternative solution which does not involve Ukraine becoming a Russian puppet state.

Russia does not have a right to be a hegemon.
Countries EARN the right to be a hegemon.
We have.
Russia hasn't.
They need to make peace with that and do a lot of homework.
Until they do, we need to keep reminding them that they have a lot homework to do.



I don't think Russia ever stated any goal to remove parts of NATO. Maintaining a neutral buffer in Ukraine is a good idea. Unfortunately it's not consistent with our stated goal of admitting Ukraine to NATO.

We didn't fight the Russians in Afghanistan just because they were there. We fought them because we knowingly drew them there, and we justified it as part of an existential struggle. We're doing the same kind of thing in Ukraine, but the rationale is no longer clear. If all we're doing is resisting garden variety imperialism, there are other ways of doing that. There's no need to invite conflict in order to incapacitate the military or change the regime of a country we're not at war with.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

whiterock said:

Canada2017 said:

A. When in the last 4 'police actions ' has the United States ever been reimbursed by the country we have spent billions of dollars on ?

B . Our involvement in the Korean War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

C. Our involvement in the Vietnam War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

D. Our involvement with Afghanistan began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

E. Our involvement in WW2 began 'only ' with weapon deliveries .

F. Our involvement with Iraq began with ' only ' weapon deliveries.


Now you internet Rambo's are certainly aware of all this . Just as you simply MUST be aware our current Commander in Chief is hopelessly compromised by dementia and old age .


Yet you blissfully continue play your 'brinkmanship' games


As if all the previous disasters didn't happen and our current 'leadership ' has a fully functional brain .

Selection bias multiplied by slippery slope creates a straw man.

The list of conflicts to which we have provided the full range of assistance which did NOT result in direct involvement of US ground troops is 100x longer than the list you provided.

We have a 100% track record of such policy while avoiding direct conflict with the Russian Army.

Again. You are making an argument which does not fit the circumstances.




The circumstances are crystal clear .

Our dementia suffering Commander in Chief only recently completely botched the Afghanistan withdrawal leaving BILLIONS worth of weaponry to a terrorist organization.

Our Commander in Chief who simply can not even string together a series of lucid statements called for NATO membership for Ukraine even when Putin put 200,000 troops along the border .

Our Commander in Chief who is utilizing the DOJ and FBI to flagrantly attack political opponents openly threatened to blow up North Sea natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries . THEN DID IT.


And this is the guy you think NOW can successfully walk the thin line between ' supplying weapons ' and yet avoid escalating the war ?


Give me a freaking break .



If he talks like an idiot and acts like an idiot ……he's an idiot .
No argument about Biden. Luckily, he is not calling the shots!


Well that is super re assuring .

Then exactly WHO is calling the 'shots ' ?

And did this same mystery guy/gal/it pull these other stunts ?

Good grief people ….connect the freaking dots .
Calm down. It was an Obama joke...


He will have to give final permission. But I doubt he has much input in the strategy. The correct strategy doesn't change because Biden is an idiot. I am sure the Pentagon, NSA and others are being more careful in dealing with him.
None of which addresses the fundamental point.........

WHOEVER is calling the shots...they have done an incredibly stupid body of work over the last 18 months.

Yet magically NOW we are supposed to blissfully trust this same bunch of cluster ****s to walk a razor thin line between supplying and fighting a proxy war ( against the world's largest owner of hydrogen bombs ) while not letting it escalate into WW3.

Mere weeks after blowing up natural gas pipelines in INTERNATIONAL waters. An act of war Biden literally and PUBLICALLY promised to do only a few months earlier .

Good grief fella ....take a step back ......and exam the insanity of this situation .
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

whiterock said:

Canada2017 said:

A. When in the last 4 'police actions ' has the United States ever been reimbursed by the country we have spent billions of dollars on ?

B . Our involvement in the Korean War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

C. Our involvement in the Vietnam War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

D. Our involvement with Afghanistan began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

E. Our involvement in WW2 began 'only ' with weapon deliveries .

F. Our involvement with Iraq began with ' only ' weapon deliveries.


Now you internet Rambo's are certainly aware of all this . Just as you simply MUST be aware our current Commander in Chief is hopelessly compromised by dementia and old age .


Yet you blissfully continue play your 'brinkmanship' games


As if all the previous disasters didn't happen and our current 'leadership ' has a fully functional brain .

Selection bias multiplied by slippery slope creates a straw man.

The list of conflicts to which we have provided the full range of assistance which did NOT result in direct involvement of US ground troops is 100x longer than the list you provided.

We have a 100% track record of such policy while avoiding direct conflict with the Russian Army.

Again. You are making an argument which does not fit the circumstances.




The circumstances are crystal clear .

Our dementia suffering Commander in Chief only recently completely botched the Afghanistan withdrawal leaving BILLIONS worth of weaponry to a terrorist organization.

Our Commander in Chief who simply can not even string together a series of lucid statements called for NATO membership for Ukraine even when Putin put 200,000 troops along the border .

Our Commander in Chief who is utilizing the DOJ and FBI to flagrantly attack political opponents openly threatened to blow up North Sea natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries . THEN DID IT.


And this is the guy you think NOW can successfully walk the thin line between ' supplying weapons ' and yet avoid escalating the war ?


Give me a freaking break .



If he talks like an idiot and acts like an idiot ……he's an idiot .
No argument about Biden. Luckily, he is not calling the shots!


Well that is super re assuring .

Then exactly WHO is calling the 'shots ' ?

And did this same mystery guy/gal/it pull these other stunts ?

Good grief people ….connect the freaking dots .
Calm down. It was an Obama joke...


He will have to give final permission. But I doubt he has much input in the strategy. The correct strategy doesn't change because Biden is an idiot. I am sure the Pentagon, NSA and others are being more careful in dealing with him.
None of which addresses the fundamental point.........

WHOEVER is calling the shots...they have done an incredibly stupid body of work over the last 18 months.

Yet magically NOW we are supposed to blissfully trust this same bunch of cluster ****s to walk a razor thin line between supplying and fighting a proxy war ( against the world's largest owner of hydrogen bombs ) while not letting it escalate into WW3.

Mere weeks after blowing up natural gas pipelines in INTERNATIONAL waters. An act of war Biden literally and PUBLICALLY promised to do only a few months earlier .

Good grief fella ....take a step back ......and exam the insanity of this situation .


So we blew the Nordstrum line?

So far the only thing we have done is helped Ukraine. No troops, no military action, no air power.

You are freaking out over nothing. You really think Putin is going nuclear against the US over selling weapons?
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

whiterock said:

Canada2017 said:

A. When in the last 4 'police actions ' has the United States ever been reimbursed by the country we have spent billions of dollars on ?

B . Our involvement in the Korean War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

C. Our involvement in the Vietnam War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

D. Our involvement with Afghanistan began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

E. Our involvement in WW2 began 'only ' with weapon deliveries .

F. Our involvement with Iraq began with ' only ' weapon deliveries.


Now you internet Rambo's are certainly aware of all this . Just as you simply MUST be aware our current Commander in Chief is hopelessly compromised by dementia and old age .


Yet you blissfully continue play your 'brinkmanship' games


As if all the previous disasters didn't happen and our current 'leadership ' has a fully functional brain .

Selection bias multiplied by slippery slope creates a straw man.

The list of conflicts to which we have provided the full range of assistance which did NOT result in direct involvement of US ground troops is 100x longer than the list you provided.

We have a 100% track record of such policy while avoiding direct conflict with the Russian Army.

Again. You are making an argument which does not fit the circumstances.




The circumstances are crystal clear .

Our dementia suffering Commander in Chief only recently completely botched the Afghanistan withdrawal leaving BILLIONS worth of weaponry to a terrorist organization.

Our Commander in Chief who simply can not even string together a series of lucid statements called for NATO membership for Ukraine even when Putin put 200,000 troops along the border .

Our Commander in Chief who is utilizing the DOJ and FBI to flagrantly attack political opponents openly threatened to blow up North Sea natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries . THEN DID IT.


And this is the guy you think NOW can successfully walk the thin line between ' supplying weapons ' and yet avoid escalating the war ?


Give me a freaking break .



If he talks like an idiot and acts like an idiot ……he's an idiot .
No argument about Biden. Luckily, he is not calling the shots!


Well that is super re assuring .

Then exactly WHO is calling the 'shots ' ?

And did this same mystery guy/gal/it pull these other stunts ?

Good grief people ….connect the freaking dots .
Calm down. It was an Obama joke...


He will have to give final permission. But I doubt he has much input in the strategy. The correct strategy doesn't change because Biden is an idiot. I am sure the Pentagon, NSA and others are being more careful in dealing with him.
None of which addresses the fundamental point.........

WHOEVER is calling the shots...they have done an incredibly stupid body of work over the last 18 months.

Yet magically NOW we are supposed to blissfully trust this same bunch of cluster ****s to walk a razor thin line between supplying and fighting a proxy war ( against the world's largest owner of hydrogen bombs ) while not letting it escalate into WW3.

Mere weeks after blowing up natural gas pipelines in INTERNATIONAL waters. An act of war Biden literally and PUBLICALLY promised to do only a few months earlier .

Good grief fella ....take a step back ......and exam the insanity of this situation .


So we blew the Nordstrum line?

So far the only thing we have done is helped Ukraine. No troops, no military action, no air power.

You are freaking out over nothing. You really think Putin is going nuclear against the US over selling weapons?
Of course we did .....Biden called his shot and took it .

As pointed out before .....we have gotten sucked in to at least 4-5 wars that all began with 'only' supplies.


No , Putin is just bluffing . Just like the 200,000 troops he placed on the border was a bluff . And of course Putin is so dumb he will passively allow the US to conduct still another regime change ...this time on his ass.

Not as if Putin hasn't publicly commented several times on what happened to Muammar Gaddafi.
Sodomized with a bayonet , severely beaten , then shot.



Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

whiterock said:

Canada2017 said:

A. When in the last 4 'police actions ' has the United States ever been reimbursed by the country we have spent billions of dollars on ?

B . Our involvement in the Korean War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

C. Our involvement in the Vietnam War began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

D. Our involvement with Afghanistan began with 'only' weapon deliveries .

E. Our involvement in WW2 began 'only ' with weapon deliveries .

F. Our involvement with Iraq began with ' only ' weapon deliveries.


Now you internet Rambo's are certainly aware of all this . Just as you simply MUST be aware our current Commander in Chief is hopelessly compromised by dementia and old age .


Yet you blissfully continue play your 'brinkmanship' games


As if all the previous disasters didn't happen and our current 'leadership ' has a fully functional brain .

Selection bias multiplied by slippery slope creates a straw man.

The list of conflicts to which we have provided the full range of assistance which did NOT result in direct involvement of US ground troops is 100x longer than the list you provided.

We have a 100% track record of such policy while avoiding direct conflict with the Russian Army.

Again. You are making an argument which does not fit the circumstances.




The circumstances are crystal clear .

Our dementia suffering Commander in Chief only recently completely botched the Afghanistan withdrawal leaving BILLIONS worth of weaponry to a terrorist organization.

Our Commander in Chief who simply can not even string together a series of lucid statements called for NATO membership for Ukraine even when Putin put 200,000 troops along the border .

Our Commander in Chief who is utilizing the DOJ and FBI to flagrantly attack political opponents openly threatened to blow up North Sea natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries . THEN DID IT.


And this is the guy you think NOW can successfully walk the thin line between ' supplying weapons ' and yet avoid escalating the war ?


Give me a freaking break .



If he talks like an idiot and acts like an idiot ……he's an idiot .
No argument about Biden. Luckily, he is not calling the shots!


Well that is super re assuring .

Then exactly WHO is calling the 'shots ' ?

And did this same mystery guy/gal/it pull these other stunts ?

Good grief people ….connect the freaking dots .
Calm down. It was an Obama joke...


He will have to give final permission. But I doubt he has much input in the strategy. The correct strategy doesn't change because Biden is an idiot. I am sure the Pentagon, NSA and others are being more careful in dealing with him.
None of which addresses the fundamental point.........

WHOEVER is calling the shots...they have done an incredibly stupid body of work over the last 18 months.

Yet magically NOW we are supposed to blissfully trust this same bunch of cluster ****s to walk a razor thin line between supplying and fighting a proxy war ( against the world's largest owner of hydrogen bombs ) while not letting it escalate into WW3.

Mere weeks after blowing up natural gas pipelines in INTERNATIONAL waters. An act of war Biden literally and PUBLICALLY promised to do only a few months earlier .

Good grief fella ....take a step back ......and exam the insanity of this situation .


So we blew the Nordstrum line?

So far the only thing we have done is helped Ukraine. No troops, no military action, no air power.

You are freaking out over nothing. You really think Putin is going nuclear against the US over selling weapons?
Of course we did .....Biden called his shot and took it .

As pointed out before .....we have gotten sucked in to at least 4-5 wars that all began with 'only' supplies.


No , Putin is just bluffing . Just like the 200,000 troops he placed on the border was a bluff .




Bet he would like to take a mulligan on that one. This a strategic defeat for Russia.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can any of the Chicken Hawks on this thread post a picture of their son or grandson's enlistment papers and willingness to die in Ukriane?
First Page Last Page
Page 31 of 122
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.