Doc Holliday said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Again, I understand the reasons why people viscerally want to intervene on behalf of Ukraine. While I do not think it is unreasonable, I disagree. But I always have leaned more isolationist than interventionist. If anything let Europe send lawyers, guns, and money. Let the Germans who laughed at Trump, who advised against getting in bed with Putin, figure it out.

If we had a mildly competent administration, we would be ramping up oil and natural gas production and supporting Europe economically and hurting Putin. Instead, while we've pretended to support Ukraine we've been Russia's biggest ally by lining its pockets with higher fossil fuel prices.

Again - will you sign your kids and grandkids up first to die for Ukraine?

Will you enjoy the global economic damage from World War III for Ukraine?

---

They already told me they don't care about economic hardship as a result of playing Captain America. Most of them are boomers who are already well off enough to not give a *****

We saw them totally approve $8 trillion on the war on terror. They showed no outrage, concern or rhetoric against that, but they'll loudly voice their opinion in support of deeper and prolonged escalation towards Russia to save a deeply racist and corrupt Ukraine.

---

And they'll be the first to keep their kids and grandkids from dying for Ukraine.

It's one thing to bloviate on a message board. Another to say I'll gladly sacrifice my children for Ukraine.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Again, I understand the reasons why people viscerally want to intervene on behalf of Ukraine. While I do not think it is unreasonable, I disagree. But I always have leaned more isolationist than interventionist. If anything let Europe send lawyers, guns, and money. Let the Germans who laughed at Trump, who advised against getting in bed with Putin, figure it out.

If we had a mildly competent administration, we would be ramping up oil and natural gas production and supporting Europe economically and hurting Putin. Instead, while we've pretended to support Ukraine we've been Russia's biggest ally by lining its pockets with higher fossil fuel prices.

Again - will you sign your kids and grandkids up first to die for Ukraine?

Will you enjoy the global economic damage from World War III for Ukraine?

---

They already told me they don't care about economic hardship as a result of playing Captain America. Most of them are boomers who are already well off enough to not give a *****

We saw them totally approve $8 trillion on the war on terror. They showed no outrage, concern or rhetoric against that, but they'll loudly voice their opinion in support of deeper and prolonged escalation towards Russia to save a deeply racist and corrupt Ukraine.

---

And they'll be the first to keep their kids and grandkids from dying for Ukraine.

It's one thing to bloviate on a message board. Another to say I'll gladly sacrifice my children for Ukraine.

---

Yep and we're risking nuclear war despite them telling us it's not an option.

If we were dealing with reasonable people, we wouldn't have war in the first place. They're absolutely crazy enough to use nukes, even it means they destroy themselves and the world in the process.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

Letting Russia subjugate Ukraine, that would support free determination...

We know that for some NOTHING the US does or has done is right, moral or justified. Putin is a much better role model????

---

Your first statement is an argument for permanent world wide war by the United States against any government that is preventing freedom of determination. Its the classic "world police man" stuff that has gotten us involved in conflicts that are not in the vital interest of the American people. There are oppressive governments and bad actors all over the world and there always will be.

"But she [the United States] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom." -John Quincy Adams

The second is just a straw man. No one on here has argued that Putin is anything other than a corrupt autocrat and no one has said the US does nothing right.

---

Not by just US. It has to be a coalition. It just can't be military either. Otherwise, Russia and China will just keep rolling.

You let Taiwan fall, we are really screwed. This is all tied together.

Sorry. I do believe bad things happen when good people say nothing is binding.

---

Russia is a declining regional power (not even world power) with an economy the size of Italy and with a population of 144 million that is set to lose millions of citizens over the next 40 years because its fertility rate is well below replacement, has a high death rate, high alcoholism rate, and has a life expectancy of 65 year old for males (compared to 80 years old for males in the UK and other places). It can't even take over a country next door to them much less keep rolling through Europe.

China will be having even worse demographic problems than Russia. And will have lost a staggering 300-400 million people by 2090. And a full 44% of its overall population will be elderly by 2070. It will most likely remain a economic power but will not be near the threat people make it out to be.

With only two diesel fueled aircraft carriers I doubt China can even take Taiwan...we have seen how Russia failed to take a country it could literally drive to... much less cross a sea for an invasion. China's so called great military power is probably as over hyped as Russia's military power. The corruption in both their military's is extreme.

But lets say China is powerful enough and did take Taiwan...while unfortunate...again the fall of Taiwan would not be an existential threat to the United States. It would be a shot term blow but the fate of the United States is not tied to the fate of a country of just 25 million off the coast of China.

[In 2021, exports to Taiwan accounted for just 1.8 percent of total U.S. exports, and imports from Taiwan accounted for 2.6 percent of total U.S. imports.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

Letting Russia subjugate Ukraine, that would support free determination...

We know that for some NOTHING the US does or has done is right, moral or justified. Putin is a much better role model????

---

Your first statement is an argument for permanent world wide war by the United States against any government that is preventing freedom of determination. Its the classic "world police man" stuff that has gotten us involved in conflicts that are not in the vital interest of the American people. There are oppressive governments and bad actors all over the world and there always will be.

"But she [the United States] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom." -John Quincy Adams

The second is just a straw man. No one on here has argued that Putin is anything other than a corrupt autocrat and no one has said the US does nothing right.

---

Not by just US. It has to be a coalition. It just can't be military either. Otherwise, Russia and China will just keep rolling.

You let Taiwan fall, we are really screwed. This is all tied together.

Sorry. I do believe bad things happen when good people say nothing is binding.

---

Russia is a declining regional power (not even world power) with an economy the size of Italy and with a population of 144 million that is set to lose millions of citizens over the next 40 years because its fertility rate is well below replacement, has a high death rate, high alcoholism rate, and has a life expectancy of 65 year old for males (compared to 80 years old for males in the UK and other places). It can't even take over a country next door to them much less keep rolling through Europe.

China will be having even worse demographic problems than Russia. And will have lost a staggering 300-400 million people by 2090. And a full 44% of its overall population will be elderly by 2070. It will most likely remain a economic power but will not be near the threat people make it out to be.

With only two diesel fueled aircraft carriers I doubt China can even take Taiwan...we have seen how Russia failed to take a country it could literally drive to... much less cross a sea for an invasion. China's so called great military power is probably as over hyped as Russia's military power. The corruption in both their military's is extreme.

But lets say China is powerful enough and did take Taiwan...while unfortunate...again the fall of Taiwan would not be an existential threat to the United States. It would be a shot term blow but the fate of the United States is not tied to the fate of a country of just 25 million off the coast of China.

[In 2021, exports to Taiwan accounted for just 1.8 percent of total U.S. exports, and imports from Taiwan accounted for 2.6 percent of total U.S. imports.]

---

Taiwan has 23.3 million people, of course it isn't going to reflect a big portion of imports or exports. What it produces is very important, as is the location. If you don't see the value of maintaining a free Taiwan I can't help you.

If you can't see how leaving Ukraine to be destroyed and consumed by Russia hurts the US, NATO and our credibility, it does not matter what I say.

You make demographic arguments and how weak Russia is. Yet, if those are true, it should not be a problem to put them back across their borders. And China is not a threat. They will only have 840,000,000 left due to aging, so we don't have to worry about them.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

Letting Russia subjugate Ukraine, that would support free determination...

We know that for some NOTHING the US does or has done is right, moral or justified. Putin is a much better role model????

---

Your first statement is an argument for permanent world wide war by the United States against any government that is preventing freedom of determination. Its the classic "world police man" stuff that has gotten us involved in conflicts that are not in the vital interest of the American people. There are oppressive governments and bad actors all over the world and there always will be.

"But she [the United States] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom." -John Quincy Adams

The second is just a straw man. No one on here has argued that Putin is anything other than a corrupt autocrat and no one has said the US does nothing right.

---

Not by just US. It has to be a coalition. It just can't be military either. Otherwise, Russia and China will just keep rolling.

You let Taiwan fall, we are really screwed. This is all tied together.

Sorry. I do believe bad things happen when good people say nothing is binding.

---

Russia is a declining regional power (not even world power) with an economy the size of Italy and with a population of 144 million that is set to lose millions of citizens over the next 40 years because its fertility rate is well below replacement, has a high death rate, high alcoholism rate, and has a life expectancy of 65 year old for males (compared to 80 years old for males in the UK and other places). It can't even take over a country next door to them much less keep rolling through Europe.

China will be having even worse demographic problems than Russia. And will have lost a staggering 300-400 million people by 2090. And a full 44% of its overall population will be elderly by 2070. It will most likely remain a economic power but will not be near the threat people make it out to be.

With only two diesel fueled aircraft carriers I doubt China can even take Taiwan...we have seen how Russia failed to take a country it could literally drive to... much less cross a sea for an invasion. China's so called great military power is probably as over hyped as Russia's military power. The corruption in both their military's is extreme.

But lets say China is powerful enough and did take Taiwan...while unfortunate...again the fall of Taiwan would not be an existential threat to the United States. It would be a shot term blow but the fate of the United States is not tied to the fate of a country of just 25 million off the coast of China.

[In 2021, exports to Taiwan accounted for just 1.8 percent of total U.S. exports, and imports from Taiwan accounted for 2.6 percent of total U.S. imports.]

---

Taiwan has 23.3 million people, of course it isn't going to reflect a big portion of imports or exports. What it produces is very important, as is the location. If you don't see the value of maintaining a free Taiwan I can't help you.

If you can't see how leaving Ukraine to be destroyed and consumed by Russia hurts the US, NATO and our credibility, it does not matter what I say.

You make demographic arguments and how weak Russia is. Yet, if those are true, it should not be a problem to put them back across their borders. And China is not a threat. They will only have 840,000,000 left due to aging, so we don't have to worry about them.

---

Nobody is asking to see Ukraine destroyed and left alone.

They're asking for compromise in which both Russia and Ukraine lose some, but war stops. Come to an agreement.

You'll save thousands of lives, billions of dollars and not risk extreme escalation.

If we really wanted this redline for Ukraine, prior administrations should have made that a reality.

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

Letting Russia subjugate Ukraine, that would support free determination...

We know that for some NOTHING the US does or has done is right, moral or justified. Putin is a much better role model????

---

Your first statement is an argument for permanent world wide war by the United States against any government that is preventing freedom of determination. Its the classic "world police man" stuff that has gotten us involved in conflicts that are not in the vital interest of the American people. There are oppressive governments and bad actors all over the world and there always will be.

"But she [the United States] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom." -John Quincy Adams

The second is just a straw man. No one on here has argued that Putin is anything other than a corrupt autocrat and no one has said the US does nothing right.

---

Not by just US. It has to be a coalition. It just can't be military either. Otherwise, Russia and China will just keep rolling.

You let Taiwan fall, we are really screwed. This is all tied together.

Sorry. I do believe bad things happen when good people say nothing is binding.

---

Russia is a declining regional power (not even world power) with an economy the size of Italy and with a population of 144 million that is set to lose millions of citizens over the next 40 years because its fertility rate is well below replacement, has a high death rate, high alcoholism rate, and has a life expectancy of 65 year old for males (compared to 80 years old for males in the UK and other places). It can't even take over a country next door to them much less keep rolling through Europe.

China will be having even worse demographic problems than Russia. And will have lost a staggering 300-400 million people by 2090. And a full 44% of its overall population will be elderly by 2070. It will most likely remain a economic power but will not be near the threat people make it out to be.

With only two diesel fueled aircraft carriers I doubt China can even take Taiwan...we have seen how Russia failed to take a country it could literally drive to... much less cross a sea for an invasion. China's so called great military power is probably as over hyped as Russia's military power. The corruption in both their military's is extreme.

But lets say China is powerful enough and did take Taiwan...while unfortunate...again the fall of Taiwan would not be an existential threat to the United States. It would be a shot term blow but the fate of the United States is not tied to the fate of a country of just 25 million off the coast of China.

[In 2021, exports to Taiwan accounted for just 1.8 percent of total U.S. exports, and imports from Taiwan accounted for 2.6 percent of total U.S. imports.]

---

Taiwan has 23.3 million people, of course it isn't going to reflect a big portion of imports or exports. What it produces is very important, as is the location. If you don't see the value of maintaining a free Taiwan I can't help you.

If you can't see how leaving Ukraine to be destroyed and consumed by Russia hurts the US, NATO and our credibility, it does not matter what I say.

You make demographic arguments and how weak Russia is. Yet, if those are true, it should not be a problem to put them back across their borders. And China is not a threat. They will only have 840,000,000 left due to aging, so we don't have to worry about them.

---

Nobody is asking to see Ukraine destroyed and left alone.

They're asking for compromise in which both Russia and Ukraine lose some, but war stops. Come to an agreement.

You'll save thousands of lives, billions of dollars and not risk extreme escalation.

If we really wanted this redline for Ukraine, prior administrations should have made that a reality.

---

Agree with you about past administration. Obama undid the sacrifice and progress made since 1949. If Taiwan is lost, then multiply it.

But, Russia is weak. China is old. Taiwan and Ukraine have no value. All is well...

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

You are overstating. Didn't you see the earlier response.

Russia is weak. China is old. Taiwan and Ukraine have no value. They couldn't go barbarian horde if they wanted. After all, China is 44% old, they only have 400 million, military age population. They are more worried about having enough Metamucil. Their military only has 2 diesel Air Craft Carriers, so they are a non-issue.

This is the industrial-military complex, not Russia or China. All is well...

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

The big difference is that Afghanistan wasn't an existential issue for the Russians. Ukraine is. That makes it a different game.

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

You are overstating. Didn't you see the earlier response.

Russia is weak. China is old. Taiwan and Ukraine have no value. They couldn't go barbarian horde if they wanted. After all, China is 44% old, they only have 400 million, military age population. They are more worried about having enough Metamucil. Their military only has 2 diesel Air Craft Carriers, so they are a non-issue.

This is the industrial-military complex, not Russia or China. All is well...

---

They are getting old but not at 44% yet. Right now they are at 17.9% as of 2018.

So close to the USA elderly rate of 16.9%

They will hit 44% elderly by 2070

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251529/share-of-persons-aged-60-and-older-in-the-chinese-population/

More important than their rate of elderly is the depopulation and fertility rates. Some say by the end of the Century they will have lost 300 million million people. Others like the Professor Yi Fuxian, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, say the real fertility rate is lower than even reported and that China might drop down to a population of 700 million people by 2100...so a loss of 600 million.

https://www.focusonreproduction.eu/article/News-in-Reproduction-China-fertility-rate

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

Not just a sick joke …..an incredibly expensive and potentially fatal one for millions of people .

But just as with Vietnam…the knee jerk response of many people ( at least before the body bags start coming home ) is to blindly believe the rhetoric coming out of Washington DC from individuals who will never have to face the consequences of their actions .

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

The big difference is that Afghanistan wasn't an existential issue for the Russians. Ukraine is. That makes it a different game.

---

Now Ukraine is a existential issue for Russia?

The Russian invasion is an existential issue for Ukraine! Actually, other small strategic, but not necessarily worthy of protection areas consider it existential for them if Russia is allowed to succeed. Look to Singapore, Taiwan, Finland and others. The situation being set up is that even if a negotiated settlement occurs, they can't join NATO or have a protection treaty because it will infuriate Russia or China. So, if you don't have a chair now, you can't and will always be vulnerable to be a Ukraine.

By the way, I disagree the Russian Army is weak. Poorly led, rife with corruption, and incompetent at the highest levels? Yes, but not weak. No army that has those features and still fights after seven months can be considered "weak".

---

Good points. Though Finland is joining NATO already.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

Tac nuke question is easy. We send some capability to Ukraine and the Black Sea Fleet goes away. Or worse.

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.

The worst case outcome is to force a peace before the Ukrainians are ready for it. Make Russia pay for whatever they gain. Dearly. Make them take 20 years to get back to 2022 levels of capability. If we do that, we have an excellent chance to end up with a better outcome than that.

And of course, China is watching…..

Bear8084 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

The big difference is that Afghanistan wasn't an existential issue for the Russians. Ukraine is. That makes it a different game.

---

Now Ukraine is a existential issue for Russia?

The Russian invasion is an existential issue for Ukraine! Actually, other small strategic, but not necessarily worthy of protection areas consider it existential for them if Russia is allowed to succeed. Look to Singapore, Taiwan, Finland and others. The situation being set up is that even if a negotiated settlement occurs, they can't join NATO or have a protection treaty because it will infuriate Russia or China. So, if you don't have a chair now, you can't and will always be vulnerable to be a Ukraine.

By the way, I disagree the Russian Army is weak. Poorly led, rife with corruption, and incompetent at the highest levels? Yes, but not weak. No army that has those features and still fights after seven months can be considered "weak".

---

Good points. Though Finland is joining NATO already.

---

I hope that is not threatened in the name of negotiations.

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

Tac nuke question is easy. We send some capability to Ukraine and the Black Sea Fleet goes away. Or worse.

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.

The worst case outcome is to force a peace before the Ukrainians are ready for it. Make Russia pay for whatever they gain. Dearly. Make them take 20 years to get back to 2022 levels of capability. If we do that, we have an excellent chance to end up with a better outcome than that.

And of course, China is watching…..

---

As soon as that occurs it effectively begins to become a US-Russia war, which quickly escalates into World War III. Once the conflict moves outside of Ukraine the game changes fundamentally.

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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?

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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 .

I think it is fair to say Russia is losing in the sense that most everyone thought the war would be over in February. Ukraine with Trump's weapons and support has performed well despite Russia using sophisticated U.S. drones given to them by Obama.

However, that does not mean Russia may not be winning relatively to a month ago.

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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…..

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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 ……

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

The big difference is that Afghanistan wasn't an existential issue for the Russians. Ukraine is. That makes it a different game.

---

Afghanistan was a different country Pre Soviet invasion. It was a want for the Soviets. Ukraine is the want today. It's a territorial and economic land grab.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

The big difference is that Afghanistan wasn't an existential issue for the Russians. Ukraine is. That makes it a different game.

---

Afghanistan was a different country Pre Soviet invasion. It was a want for the Soviets. Ukraine is the want today. It's a territorial and economic land grab.

---

Why do all you Chicken-Hawks ignore the key questions?
- Who has its son to the recruitment station and pledged to die for Ukraine?
- Who will give its families' economic future for Ukraine?

If it's not a recorded yes for both just glue in your feathers Chicken-Hawks.

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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?

---

The common sense 'solution ' has already past the point of no return .

When Putin deployed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border all insistence on Ukraine joining NATO should have ceased .

Now their are only 4 possible outcomes .

A. A negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine.
B. Putin's assassination
C. Expanded war involving NATO against Russia .
D. Russian conquest of Ukraine.


Ukraine was never a US problem until Obama and Biden made it one.

Now we should attempt to aid in the development of a negotiated solution .

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

The big difference is that Afghanistan wasn't an existential issue for the Russians. Ukraine is. That makes it a different game.

---

Afghanistan was a different country Pre Soviet invasion. It was a want for the Soviets. Ukraine is the want today. It's a territorial and economic land grab.

---

Why do all you Chicken-Hawks ignore the key questions?
- Who has its son to the recruitment station and pledged to die for Ukraine?
- Who will give its families' economic future for Ukraine?

If it's not a recorded yes for both just glue in your feathers Chicken-Hawks.

---

Oh boy…

The Chicken-Hawk line starts here ^^^

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The Chicken-Hawk line starts here ^^^

---

Why don't you patrol your own neighborhood for crime? Why aren't you at the border stopping illegal aliens from crossing? Or are you just a chicken **** and let other people do that for you while you live safely removed from it whining about it?

I can assure you I've been in dangerous situations that you've never dreamt about. I know the tragedy of war and the atrocity mankind is capable of. So you can check your chicken hawk BS. And I specifically said my redline is boots on the ground and pilots in the sky.

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The Chicken-Hawk line starts here ^^^

---

Why don't you patrol your own neighborhood for crime? Why aren't you at the border stopping illegal aliens from crossing? Or are you just a chicken **** and let other people do that for you while you live safely removed from it whining about it?

I can assure you I've been in dangerous situations that you've never dreamt about. I know the tragedy of war and the atrocity mankind is capable of. So you can check your chicken hawk BS. And I specifically said my redline is boots on the ground and pilots in the sky.

---

So you'll ensure your grandkids are first in line to go fight for Ukraine? Is that correct?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The Chicken-Hawk line starts here ^^^

---

Why don't you patrol your own neighborhood for crime? Why aren't you at the border stopping illegal aliens from crossing? Or are you just a chicken **** and let other people do that for you while you live safely removed from it whining about it?

I can assure you I've been in dangerous situations that you've never dreamt about. I know the tragedy of war and the atrocity mankind is capable of. So you can check your chicken hawk BS. And I specifically said my redline is boots on the ground and pilots in the sky.

---

So you'll ensure your grandkids are first in line to go fight for Ukraine? Is that correct?

---

No, only other people's children and grandchildren. I'm a crazy war monger and want to see lots of dead American men and women. I mean that's the only possible outcome of providing moderate field weapons to Ukrainians to defend against an invader. No other scenarios but escalation, nuclear war, WW3, and dead grandchildren.

I think some of you have grown up in the wars against weaklings era that you forgot what it was like to proxy fight a formidable opponent. Some of you are quitting at the bluster stage. We haven't even gotten close to the brinksmanship stage where it starts to get interesting.

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The Chicken-Hawk line starts here ^^^

---

Why don't you patrol your own neighborhood for crime? Why aren't you at the border stopping illegal aliens from crossing? Or are you just a chicken **** and let other people do that for you while you live safely removed from it whining about it?

I can assure you I've been in dangerous situations that you've never dreamt about. I know the tragedy of war and the atrocity mankind is capable of. So you can check your chicken hawk BS. And I specifically said my redline is boots on the ground and pilots in the sky.

---

So you'll ensure your grandkids are first in line to go fight for Ukraine? Is that correct?

---

No, only other people's children and grandchildren. I'm a crazy war monger and want to see lots of dead American men and women.

I think some of you have grown up in the wars against weaklings era that you forgot what it was like to proxy fight a formidable opponent.

We haven't even gotten close to the brinksmanship stage where it starts to get interesting.

---

A. It won't be just other folk's family members being affected by this war if there are further miscalculations . And keep in mind 'our side' is nominally led by an old fool suffering from dementia.

B. Correct, Ukrainians are fighting our proxy war against Putin . Seriously doubt the thousands of Ukrainian families who have had people slaughtered or the millions of Ukrainians forced to become refugees in other countries enjoy being pawns in US foreign policy aims .

C. There is absolutely nothing 'interesting' about war. There is nothing noble about 'brinkmanship'. It's all horribly tragic , dehumanizing, and wasteful . Unfortunately those who are the most indifferent about war……are usually the ones who believe they are most insulated from it .

Till they're not .

And with a dementia riddled president in charge of our nuclear arsenal……we could all be directly affected within an incredibly short amount of time .

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

The big difference is that Afghanistan wasn't an existential issue for the Russians. Ukraine is. That makes it a different game.

---

Afghanistan was a different country Pre Soviet invasion. It was a want for the Soviets. Ukraine is the want today. It's a territorial and economic land grab.

---

Why do all you Chicken-Hawks ignore the key questions?
- Who has its son to the recruitment station and pledged to die for Ukraine?
- Who will give its families' economic future for Ukraine?

If it's not a recorded yes for both just glue in your feathers Chicken-Hawks.

---

A parent can't enlist their child, the person must agree. Been watching too many dystopia movies Harrison.

My view on political policy has no effect on whether my son enlists. I personally belief everyone should serve 2 years, lower enlisted. No straight to Officer. Spent 2 years as a PFC & CPL then talk to me. But if the balloon goes up and there is a call up he will end up in the Navy due to his training and job in Port operations. I have no doubt.

All of this is great bar talk, but has absolutely no impact on public policy. Usually it is the last grasp of someone losing an argument because they know the other side is right. Sort of like, "Well, you go then.". Snappy rebuttal, but has no real teeth to it.... Bottomline you can't let Putin do this and you know it.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. %A0At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. %A0We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

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.

---

The big difference is that Afghanistan wasn't an existential issue for the Russians. Ukraine is. That makes it a different game.

---

Afghanistan was a different country Pre Soviet invasion. It was a want for the Soviets. Ukraine is the want today. It's a territorial and economic land grab.

---

Google up "Great Game"

Central Asia is Russia's shatterzone to its east. Afghanistan may seem like a far away place to us. but it's as important to Russia as anything in Central America would be to us.

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!