Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That last line was a cheap shot on Boomers.

We ain't all like that, not by a long shot.

---

Not all of you, but many of your generation kickstarted us into radical leftism.

---

No more than any other generation, if you pay attention.

---

FDR's generation started US government leftism and boomers pushed it culturally into entertainment and academia.

Every generation since then has become more radical.

---

Short-sighted.

Collectivism began its move in the US in the 19th Century, and one could argue we started the slide when we stopped electing our Senators through the Legislature, instead copying the House method yet somehow imagining we would get different results.

Blaming a generation is sloppy and lazy. There are always individuals at work on both sides, some working to do harm and some working to protect.

In the end, all any of us can do is our best and trust God for the outcome.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There have been around 8000 US deaths in active military/war theaters since 1980. About 20% of those were non combat related deaths. In the 40 years prior to that there were over 500,000 with about 25% being non combat deaths. I'd say we've gotten better at not being "flippant" about sending young men to die. The theory of fighting the small wars so you don't have to fight the big wars has so far held to point. If we could work on not wanting to nation build, we'll likely keep it even lower in the future.

---

What small wars over the past 25 years have prevented big wars?

I would honestly like to know.

---

You wouldn't believe it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There have been around 8000 US deaths in active military/war theaters since 1980. About 20% of those were non combat related deaths. In the 40 years prior to that there were over 500,000 with about 25% being non combat deaths. I'd say we've gotten better at not being "flippant" about sending young men to die. The theory of fighting the small wars so you don't have to fight the big wars has so far held to point. If we could work on not wanting to nation build, we'll likely keep it even lower in the future.

---

The Ukrainian government estimates up to 41k have been killed.

7,068 killed, 11,415 wounded according to UN.

That's quite a bit.

---

Send that memo to the Kremlin.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

So, if Arizona San Diego wants to go to Mexico and can win a vote, it is good? Reconquista California? We are all good with it, because as least there is no fighting. Those areas belong to Ukraine, they can't up and leave. I think a war was fought over that here once.

---

This has nothing to do with your Mexico analogy. The people that live there have been Russians for centuries and the border only changed in the 90s. The people are still Russian and want to be under Russia which is why they voted that way. Maybe whoever drew the lines in the 90s was wrong. Ukraine are not the good guys here bc they have been murdering people in these regions for close to a decade.

---

Sure it does. It is the exact same analogy. Crimea was part of Ukraine when the Soviets broke up their "empire". It is their sovereign land, voting to turn over a 1/3 of the Nation to Russia? Break off the Pacific NW they politically agree with Canada more than Texas, hold a vote. You are throwing all sorts of circumstantial situations to support your position, but the fact remains Russia invaded an independent Nation and took its property there is no rationale validating that. It is Ukrainian land whether from 1400 or 1990 is not relevant.

---

Are you willing to kill people in the Pacific northwest to prevent them from joining Canada?

Are you willing to kill people in San Diego to prevent them joining Mexico?

---

The Civil War was fought over this type of action. I think the question is are you willing to let the American West leave? Throw in Hawaii, because the Hawaiians will sign on to that. Using your logic, we just let 1/3 of our nation walk away.

How do you run an Nation that way? So, my answer is that if those people want to join Mexico or Canada, go. I would even support helping negotiate their emigration. Would I give up the US strategic position and access to the Pacific Ocean? No. Any blood shed would be on their hands, as I would not condone starting it. But, I would be prepared.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

So, if Arizona San Diego wants to go to Mexico and can win a vote, it is good? Reconquista California? We are all good with it, because as least there is no fighting. Those areas belong to Ukraine, they can't up and leave. I think a war was fought over that here once.

---

This has nothing to do with your Mexico analogy. The people that live there have been Russians for centuries and the border only changed in the 90s. The people are still Russian and want to be under Russia which is why they voted that way. Maybe whoever drew the lines in the 90s was wrong. Ukraine are not the good guys here bc they have been murdering people in these regions for close to a decade.

---

Sure it does. It is the exact same analogy. Crimea was part of Ukraine when the Soviets broke up their "empire". It is their sovereign land, voting to turn over a 1/3 of the Nation to Russia? Break off the Pacific NW they politically agree with Canada more than Texas, hold a vote. You are throwing all sorts of circumstantial situations to support your position, but the fact remains Russia invaded an independent Nation and took its property there is no rationale validating that. It is Ukrainian land whether from 1400 or 1990 is not relevant.

---

Are you willing to kill people in the Pacific northwest to prevent them from joining Canada?

Are you willing to kill people in San Diego to prevent them joining Mexico?

---

The Civil War was fought over this type of action. I think the question is are you willing to let the American West leave? Throw in Hawaii, because the Hawaiians will sign on to that. Using your logic, we just let 1/3 of our nation walk away.

How do you run an Nation that way? So, my answer is that if those people want to join Mexico or Canada, go. I would even support helping negotiate their emigration. Would I give up the US strategic position and access to the Pacific Ocean? No. Any blood shed would be on their hands, as I would not condone starting it. But, I would be prepared.

---

Well fundamentally I think the war in 1861 was wrong and Lincoln's view of Presidential powers and war goal was wrong and immoral.

It is wrong to kill people to keep them inside an artificial political union.

If the people of Hawaii want out...it is their right.

As much a right as say the Donbass being free of Ukraine or Ukraine being free of Russia is a right.

I believe in self determination for all people. And that the people who live in a given land are the sovereigns of it.

Simply put. Texas belongs to Texans and Hawaii belongs to Hawaiians

As of last April -- nine months ago! -- 30 percent of Ukraine's infrastructure had been destroyed by the Russians, according to the Ukrainian government. More recently, the Kyiv government estimated that total destruction to Ukraine's economy by the war to be $700 billion. A Brookings report in December said:

Quote:

---

Putin's war has been calamitous for Ukraine. The precise number of military and civilians casualties is unknown but substantial. The Office of the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights estimated that, as of the end of October, some 6,500 Ukrainian civilians had been killed and another 10,000 injured. Those numbers almost certainly understate the reality. U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley on November 10 put the number of civilian dead at 40,000 and indicated that some 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed or wounded (Milley gave a similar number for Russian casualties, a topic addressed later in this paper).
In addition, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees placed the number of Ukrainians who have sought refuge outside of Ukraine at more than 7.8 million as of November 8. As of mid-November, the Russian attacks had caused an estimated 6.5 million more to become internally displaced persons within Ukraine.
Besides the human losses, the war has caused immense material damage. Estimates of the costs of rebuilding Ukraine run from $349 billion to $750 billion, and those appraisals date back to the summer. Finding those funds will not be easy, particularly as the war has resulted in a significant contraction of the Ukrainian economy; the World Bank expects the country's gross domestic product to shrink by 35% this year.

---

It is very difficult to imagine what "winning" would look like for either Russia or Ukraine in this situation. And the big Russian spring offensive is coming.
Note well this recent Foreign Affairs piece about the warnings the late US diplomat George Kennan, the great man of Russian affairs, gave over the decades to the US Government not to involve itself in conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Excerpt from the essay:

Quote:

---

Since the Cold War, however, the United States' military frontier has advanced much farther eastward. Regardless of how Russia's brutal war in Ukraine ends, the United States has committed itself to sustaining a robust military presence on Russia's doorstep. If alive today, Kennan would note the danger of cornering the Russians to the point where they might lash out. He would also gesture toward the United States' multiple problems at home and wonder how this exposed presence in Eastern Europe accorded with the long-term foreign and domestic interests of the American people.

---

In the best possible pie-in-the-sky outcome for the US, the Russians would be pushed out of Ukraine. What then?

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

In case you haven't noticed……the war has turned against Ukraine over the last few weeks .

---

It hasn't.

The Russian information space has yet to determine how to frame tactical advances in #Soledar as operationally significant as of January 17. https://t.co/ll0oKOlv7q https://t.co/NYg6wR4mDt

— ISW (@TheStudyofWar) January 18, 2023

---

But despite the propaganda... Ukraine actually lost the battle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Soledar

[Result:
Russian victory

• Russia captures Bakhmutske and the settlement of Soledar.]

In fact the D.C. ruling class is so worried about the war that it just sent old "white people are full of rage" Gen. Mark Milley to Ukraine to talk one on one with the top level Ukrainian military leaders.

Our vassal state seems to be faltering...


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-ukraine-military-chiefs-meet-in-person-for-1st-time

[The top U.S. military officer, Army Gen. Mark Milley, traveled to a site near the Ukraine-Poland border on Tuesday and talked with his Ukrainian counterpart face to face for the first time a meeting underscoring the growing ties between the two militaries and coming at a critical time... as Ukraine nears the one-year mark.

Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met for a couple of hours with Ukraine's chief military officer, Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, at an undisclosed location in southeastern Poland. The two leaders have talked frequently about Ukraine's military needs and the state of the war over the past year but had never met.

The meeting comes as the international community ramps up the military assistance to Ukraine, including expanded training of Ukrainian troops by the U.S. and the provision of a Patriot missile battery, tanks and increased air defense and other weapons systems by the U.S. and a coalition of European and other nations.]

---

It's not propaganda when their analysis is accurate. No one has said it wasn't a loss. The propaganda is the claim of some big breakthrough or victory when it really wasn't.

---

Take a google look at all the corporate western media trying to claim that maybe its not a loss...or that if it is its not a big deal since its not strategic or important.

Then look back two months ago and read the corporate media about how its super major important strategic battle and Ukraine is gonna win it and then push Russia out of Donetsk Oblast.

You should just come out and say you like your Ukraine war news filtered through the NYC-London lens (controlled narrative).

---

Two different battles, one not even close to ending.

---

And yet the Ukraine is still not even close to winning this war.

But the U.S. establishment is for some reason interesting in fighting to the last dead Ukrainian.

While wasting billions of taxpayer dollars while its own citizens increasing can't afford groceries.

---

DC gets financial kickbacks for pushing taxpayer money into the pockets of weapons manufacturers.

When I say this people think I'm talking formal conspiracy theory, but that's not it. You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities/fraternities, they're on the same board of directors, the same country clubs and they have liked interests. They don't need to call a meeting, they know what's good for them and they're getting it.

It's astonishing and sad that the vast majority of people, even smart people , won't call a spade a spade. They pull the wool over their own eyes because believing the truth is painful. Viewing humanity for what it truly is for the brave.

---

The defense industry is probably the most successful government driven job creation program ever created. You know who isn't at the smoke filled room secret handshake meetings you guys build up in your mind? The thousands of manufacturing employees who work in the industry. A large percentage of whom are veterans. And that doesn't include the extended industry eco system it creates.

I understand the arguments against Ukraine escalation, and frankly we're getting close to my redlines of support for it. But somewhere between your secret cabal of elites managing world domination and everything is on the up and up is reality. Part of that reality is that not everything is nefarious or negative for America and the American people, in fact it's positive.

---

I just stated it's not secret meetings…

The expenditure of tax dollars don't exceed employee profits/benefits to the tune of trillions.

It's not frugal whatsoever. It's downright abuse of tax dollars when the country is on the brink of economic collapse.

Why is the only answer more more more?!

---

First, the country isn't on the brink of economic collapse.

---

How much do we spend servicing the debt? I think it was $800 billion last fiscal year.
It has no chance of being less ... ever.
Debt is now 129% of GDP, an all time high and will not be going down.

Do you see our economic health recovering? Or do you think we will just muddle along?

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Texas belongs to Texans and Hawaii belongs to Hawaiians"

If we're going to be honest, New Jersey belongs to GE, and Massachusetts belongs to the Kennedies. Biden owns Scranton (and China owns Hunter, but that's a different thread), while Walmart owns Arkansas, Coach Saban owns about half of Alabama, various crime families own Chicago and control Illinois by proxy, et cetera.

---

lol well now that is probably true.

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

In case you haven't noticed……the war has turned against Ukraine over the last few weeks .

---

It hasn't.

The Russian information space has yet to determine how to frame tactical advances in #Soledar as operationally significant as of January 17. https://t.co/ll0oKOlv7q https://t.co/NYg6wR4mDt

— ISW (@TheStudyofWar) January 18, 2023

---

But despite the propaganda... Ukraine actually lost the battle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Soledar

[Result:
Russian victory

• Russia captures Bakhmutske and the settlement of Soledar.]

In fact the D.C. ruling class is so worried about the war that it just sent old "white people are full of rage" Gen. Mark Milley to Ukraine to talk one on one with the top level Ukrainian military leaders.

Our vassal state seems to be faltering...


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-ukraine-military-chiefs-meet-in-person-for-1st-time

[The top U.S. military officer, Army Gen. Mark Milley, traveled to a site near the Ukraine-Poland border on Tuesday and talked with his Ukrainian counterpart face to face for the first time a meeting underscoring the growing ties between the two militaries and coming at a critical time... as Ukraine nears the one-year mark.

Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met for a couple of hours with Ukraine's chief military officer, Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, at an undisclosed location in southeastern Poland. The two leaders have talked frequently about Ukraine's military needs and the state of the war over the past year but had never met.

The meeting comes as the international community ramps up the military assistance to Ukraine, including expanded training of Ukrainian troops by the U.S. and the provision of a Patriot missile battery, tanks and increased air defense and other weapons systems by the U.S. and a coalition of European and other nations.]

---

It's not propaganda when their analysis is accurate. No one has said it wasn't a loss. The propaganda is the claim of some big breakthrough or victory when it really wasn't.

---

Take a google look at all the corporate western media trying to claim that maybe its not a loss...or that if it is its not a big deal since its not strategic or important.

Then look back two months ago and read the corporate media about how its super major important strategic battle and Ukraine is gonna win it and then push Russia out of Donetsk Oblast.

You should just come out and say you like your Ukraine war news filtered through the NYC-London lens (controlled narrative).

---

Two different battles, one not even close to ending.

---

And yet the Ukraine is still not even close to winning this war.

But the U.S. establishment is for some reason interesting in fighting to the last dead Ukrainian.

While wasting billions of taxpayer dollars while its own citizens increasing can't afford groceries.

---

DC gets financial kickbacks for pushing taxpayer money into the pockets of weapons manufacturers.

When I say this people think I'm talking formal conspiracy theory, but that's not it. You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities/fraternities, they're on the same board of directors, the same country clubs and they have liked interests. They don't need to call a meeting, they know what's good for them and they're getting it.

It's astonishing and sad that the vast majority of people, even smart people , won't call a spade a spade. They pull the wool over their own eyes because believing the truth is painful. Viewing humanity for what it truly is for the brave.

---

The defense industry is probably the most successful government driven job creation program ever created. You know who isn't at the smoke filled room secret handshake meetings you guys build up in your mind? The thousands of manufacturing employees who work in the industry. A large percentage of whom are veterans. And that doesn't include the extended industry eco system it creates.

I understand the arguments against Ukraine escalation, and frankly we're getting close to my redlines of support for it. But somewhere between your secret cabal of elites managing world domination and everything is on the up and up is reality. Part of that reality is that not everything is nefarious or negative for America and the American people, in fact it's positive.

---

I just stated it's not secret meetings…

The expenditure of tax dollars don't exceed employee profits/benefits to the tune of trillions.

It's not frugal whatsoever. It's downright abuse of tax dollars when the country is on the brink of economic collapse.

Why is the only answer more more more?!

---

First, the country isn't on the brink of economic collapse.

---

How much do we spend servicing the debt? I think it was $800 billion last fiscal year.
It has no chance of being less ... ever.
Debt is now 129% of GDP, an all time high and will not be going down.

Do you see our economic health recovering? Or do you think we will just muddle along?

---

That's the crash no one wants to discuss. The Left imagines there will be a "Great Reset" where all that debt just goes away because we all agree to do that. The level of idiocy required to actively support such a plan is matched only by the brain-dead notion that putting Corporate America ahead of the people is somehow 'Responsible Leadership'.

Every politician kicks the can down the road, hoping it will go away. The only element to this that gives me hope, is that literally every major economic power has been this foolish or worse, so no one nation stands to "win" when this all comes crashing down.

The discipline will come from the bond market. It will start to raise the pain level for borrowing to the point of unsustainability. Then the real reckoning will come.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

The discipline will come from the bond market. It will start to raise the pain level for borrowing to the point of unsustainability. Then the real reckoning will come.

---

I wonder...what happens when that takes place?

OsoCoreyell said:

---

The discipline will come from the bond market. It will start to raise the pain level for borrowing to the point of unsustainability. Then the real reckoning will come.

---

I used to the think this was the case as well. But the unique position of dominant bond and currency with the ability to self fund your pay back requires other factors besides bond rates. I think a significant economic decline (which borrowing costs could induce), a default and/or loss of confidence in the dollar as the currency of choice would be the inflection point. Our inability to slow the growth of government spending as a percentage of GDP (or grow the economy to outpace it) is my biggest concern. Not only is it increasing debt service, it's placing an economic reliance and suffocating private economic activity.

ATL Bear said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

The discipline will come from the bond market. It will start to raise the pain level for borrowing to the point of unsustainability. Then the real reckoning will come.

---

I used to the think this was the case as well. But the unique position of dominant bond and currency with the ability to self fund your pay back requires other factors besides bond rates. I think a significant economic decline (which borrowing costs could induce), a default and/or loss of confidence in the dollar as the currency of choice would be the inflection point. Our inability to slow the growth of government spending as a percentage of GDP (or grow the economy to outpace it) is my biggest concern. Not only is it increasing debt service, it's placing an economic reliance and suffocating private economic activity.

---

Yep

Politico: At the Pentagon, push to send F-16s to Ukraine picks up steam

"I don't think we are opposed," said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision.

A top Ukrainian official said Saturday that Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in "fast-track" talks on possibly sending both long-range missiles and military aircraft.

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Lol I'm 34, take your "boomer" nonsense elsewhere.

You can disclaim support for Russia all you want, but your rhetoric is an exact mirror for their narratives, and I'm not just talking about during this war either. Of course you throw in a token statement of condemnation every now and then...and then the rest of the time you argue that we should step aside and let Ukraine founder while also blaming us for initiating the conflict in the first place. Saying "Russia is wrong" loses some of its bite when you pair it with "but we should not help Ukraine", which is the tightrope you are attempting to stay on.

We are sending Ukraine tanks because stalemate favors Russia. Ukraine isn't losing, but they also can't win or make further gains without help. We should provide that help against our enemy for as long as Ukrainian soldiers are willing to use it. I don't want to hear any whining about money either, we are sending them second rate surplus equipment that was bought and paid for long ago. Not to mention this is is literally the enemy we designed and stockpiled all that stuff in order to counter. The time to counter is now, when they are invading their neighbors and openly meddling in our domestic politics (which you deny the very existence of, another gift from you to Russia), and we don't even have to deploy any of our own soldiers to do it.

Support for Ukraine is the most justifiable and effective use of our bloated defense budget since the second World War, and it has no relation whatsoever to errors of Iraq/Afghan and the war on terror. I get what you are saying about the WoT, it was stuoid should not ever be repeated, but this is not even close to being that.

---

My rhetoric is not supportive of Russia. I'm just calling it how it is.

I want peace deals now, and if that means Ukraine and Russia both don't get exactly as they want, fine.

What I don't want is exactly what its become: a proxy war for the US/NATO to weaken Russia at great cost. We moving in tanks. Next we'll move in our own military and boots on the ground. This escalation of resources doesn't line up with the narrative we've been fed about Russia being an easy opponent.

---

Of note: the Ukrainians don't.
Also of note: our security position is degraded by a Russian victory.

The Russians are indeed a shockingly weak opponent, far less potent than we ever dare assume, and particularly so now after a year of getting mauled by the Ukrainians. They have a third world quality army. The fight wouldn't last long if Nato were to intervene. But Nato won't. There is no evidence, anywhere, that Nato wants to escalate to that level. Everyone, with a remarkable degree of unanimity, agrees that we have limited risk of escalation as long as it remains a proxy war but significant risk of escalation if direct conflict occurs. That's why we see what we see happening. Russia is in a quagmire it cannot win unless the West withdraws support. All it can do is to withdraw, or to endure long enough that western will to continue breaks. Either way, Russia suffers mightily. (which is why the Russo-Ukrainian war is a strategic situation which will be studied by scholars and soldiers for centuries...so many classic lessons be re-learned.)

Neither is there much evidence in the last 50-70 years of proxy wars and small wars in which we are directly engaged inevitably escalate to full-blown direct conflict. The historical record shows that we have been loathe to disengage a few times (Vietnam, Afghanistan) but otherwise have demonstrated a very solid record of avoiding what we need to avoid to pursue overall policy. (notwithstanding non-martial policy errors like China policy of the 1992-2016 period).

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That last line was a cheap shot on Boomers.

We ain't all like that, not by a long shot.

---

Not all of you, but many of your generation kickstarted us into radical leftism.

---

No more than any other generation, if you pay attention.

---

FDR's generation started US government leftism and boomers pushed it culturally into entertainment and academia.

Every generation since then has become more radical.

---

You are shoehorning history to fit your generational animus = Campuses and Entertainment were hotbeds of leftism before FDR took office.

I welcome your call to action though. The Founders' Vision of self-government can use all the help we can get.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

---

You can also fight people and not actually hate them...in that war both sides felt they were fighting to uphold what they saw as important constitutional rights and less outright hate of the other.

"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country & for the welfare and progress of mankind." -Robert E. Lee, 1/23/61

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and I have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." -Robert E. Lee

---

I seriously doubt there is a Russian version of General Lee in this conflict

---

True

---

Indeed, but there is a reasonable facsimile of Lincoln in Kiev.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Lol I'm 34, take your "boomer" nonsense elsewhere.

You can disclaim support for Russia all you want, but your rhetoric is an exact mirror for their narratives, and I'm not just talking about during this war either. Of course you throw in a token statement of condemnation every now and then...and then the rest of the time you argue that we should step aside and let Ukraine founder while also blaming us for initiating the conflict in the first place. Saying "Russia is wrong" loses some of its bite when you pair it with "but we should not help Ukraine", which is the tightrope you are attempting to stay on.

We are sending Ukraine tanks because stalemate favors Russia. Ukraine isn't losing, but they also can't win or make further gains without help. We should provide that help against our enemy for as long as Ukrainian soldiers are willing to use it. I don't want to hear any whining about money either, we are sending them second rate surplus equipment that was bought and paid for long ago. Not to mention this is is literally the enemy we designed and stockpiled all that stuff in order to counter. The time to counter is now, when they are invading their neighbors and openly meddling in our domestic politics (which you deny the very existence of, another gift from you to Russia), and we don't even have to deploy any of our own soldiers to do it.

Support for Ukraine is the most justifiable and effective use of our bloated defense budget since the second World War, and it has no relation whatsoever to errors of Iraq/Afghan and the war on terror. I get what you are saying about the WoT, it was stuoid should not ever be repeated, but this is not even close to being that.

---

My rhetoric is not supportive of Russia. I'm just calling it how it is.

I want peace deals now, and if that means Ukraine and Russia both don't get exactly as they want, fine.

---

I have gotten used to people calling me a "Russian supporting troll" and "Putin lover" to every other name.

It just reminds me how much power the Media and government have.

And it reminds me that the anti-Iraq war side was called every name in the book 20 years ago. From America haters to Saddam Hussein lovers.

Yet fundamentally they were right and the Neo-Cons and Liberal interventionist were wrong.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/iraq-the-march-of-folly/

"Hubris, the ancient Greeks taught, is followed by Nemesis; overbearing presumption always finds the goddess of divine retribution and vengeance baying at its heels. Washington is learning that painful lesson again today and Iraqi civilians and American troops are paying the price for the pride that drove the United States to try to implant democracy on the cheap in the heart of the Arab world."

---

False equivalency: Ukraine is not Iraq.

We are not invading.
We are seeking to defend, not change the regime in the country in question.
We are are not trying to implant democracy - one already exists.

And I have not called you a Russian sympathizer or Putin lover. I have just pointed out the flaws in your analysis which has led to an inferior policy position - chiefly: we will be not just worse off doing nothing than by responding to help a democratically elected government survive an invasion by a more powerful autocratic nation. We will actually face higher odds of direct military conflict with Russia.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

---

You can also fight people and not actually hate them...in that war both sides felt they were fighting to uphold what they saw as important constitutional rights and less outright hate of the other.

"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country & for the welfare and progress of mankind." -Robert E. Lee, 1/23/61

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and I have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." -Robert E. Lee

---

I seriously doubt there is a Russian version of General Lee in this conflict

---

True

---

Indeed, but there is a reasonable facsimile of Lincoln in Kiev.

---

They have a dead bearded guy who built his own log cabin?

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

---

You can also fight people and not actually hate them...in that war both sides felt they were fighting to uphold what they saw as important constitutional rights and less outright hate of the other.

"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country & for the welfare and progress of mankind." -Robert E. Lee, 1/23/61

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and I have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." -Robert E. Lee

---

I seriously doubt there is a Russian version of General Lee in this conflict

---

True

---

Indeed, but there is a reasonable facsimile of Lincoln in Kiev.

---

They have a dead bearded guy who built his own log cabin?

---

well, they each have had to live without electricity and are known for being humorous

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Lol I'm 34, take your "boomer" nonsense elsewhere.

You can disclaim support for Russia all you want, but your rhetoric is an exact mirror for their narratives, and I'm not just talking about during this war either. Of course you throw in a token statement of condemnation every now and then...and then the rest of the time you argue that we should step aside and let Ukraine founder while also blaming us for initiating the conflict in the first place. Saying "Russia is wrong" loses some of its bite when you pair it with "but we should not help Ukraine", which is the tightrope you are attempting to stay on.

We are sending Ukraine tanks because stalemate favors Russia. Ukraine isn't losing, but they also can't win or make further gains without help. We should provide that help against our enemy for as long as Ukrainian soldiers are willing to use it. I don't want to hear any whining about money either, we are sending them second rate surplus equipment that was bought and paid for long ago. Not to mention this is is literally the enemy we designed and stockpiled all that stuff in order to counter. The time to counter is now, when they are invading their neighbors and openly meddling in our domestic politics (which you deny the very existence of, another gift from you to Russia), and we don't even have to deploy any of our own soldiers to do it.

Support for Ukraine is the most justifiable and effective use of our bloated defense budget since the second World War, and it has no relation whatsoever to errors of Iraq/Afghan and the war on terror. I get what you are saying about the WoT, it was stuoid should not ever be repeated, but this is not even close to being that.

---

My rhetoric is not supportive of Russia. I'm just calling it how it is.

I want peace deals now, and if that means Ukraine and Russia both don't get exactly as they want, fine.

What I don't want is exactly what its become: a proxy war for the US/NATO to weaken Russia at great cost. We moving in tanks. Next we'll move in our own military and boots on the ground. This escalation of resources doesn't line up with the narrative we've been fed about Russia being an easy opponent.

---

Of note: the Ukrainians don't.
Also of note: our security position is degraded by a Russian victory.

The Russians are indeed a shockingly weak opponent, far less potent than we ever dare assume, and particularly so now after a year of getting mauled by the Ukrainians. They have a third world quality army. The fight wouldn't last long if Nato were to intervene. But Nato won't. There is no evidence, anywhere, that Nato wants to escalate to that level. Everyone, with a remarkable degree of unanimity, agrees that we have limited risk of escalation as long as it remains a proxy war but significant risk of escalation if direct conflict occurs. That's why we see what we see happening. Russia is in a quagmire it cannot win unless the West withdraws support. All it can do is to withdraw, or to endure long enough that western will to continue breaks. Either way, Russia suffers mightily. (which is why the Russo-Ukrainian war is a strategic situation which will be studied by scholars and soldiers for centuries...so many classic lessons be re-learned.)

Neither is there much evidence in the last 50-70 years of proxy wars and small wars in which we are directly engaged inevitably escalate to full-blown direct conflict. The historical record shows that we have been loathe to disengage a few times (Vietnam, Afghanistan) but otherwise have demonstrated a very solid record of avoiding what we need to avoid to pursue overall policy. (notwithstanding non-martial policy errors like China policy of the 1992-2016 period).

---

The entire western world is sending resources, weapons and technically manpower in the form of mercs against Russia. That is unofficially NATO vs Russia.

Russia being the big bad boogeyman that needs the counterbalancing of the entire western world against them, doesn't coincide with the idea that they're a weak third world quality military power. That narrative doesn't make sense.

Russia still holds a significant chunk of Ukraine.

I see this going like Vietnam/Afghanistan. To the spoils are too good for it not to be planned that way. DC obviously didn't care what US citizens thought about the war on terror, what makes you think they care about how we feel if this turns into a very long expensive proxy war for many years?

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That last line was a cheap shot on Boomers.

We ain't all like that, not by a long shot.

---

Not all of you, but many of your generation kickstarted us into radical leftism.

---

No more than any other generation, if you pay attention.

---

FDR's generation started US government leftism and boomers pushed it culturally into entertainment and academia.

Every generation since then has become more radical.

---

You are shoehorning history to fit your generational animus = Campuses and Entertainment were hotbeds of leftism before FDR took office.

I welcome your call to action though. The Founders' Vision of self-government can use all the help we can get.

---

When/Where did they put their foot down to stop this nonsense?

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

---

You can also fight people and not actually hate them...in that war both sides felt they were fighting to uphold what they saw as important constitutional rights and less outright hate of the other.

"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country & for the welfare and progress of mankind." -Robert E. Lee, 1/23/61

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and I have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." -Robert E. Lee

---

I seriously doubt there is a Russian version of General Lee in this conflict

---

True

---

Indeed, but there is a reasonable facsimile of Lincoln in Kiev.

---

They have a dead bearded guy who built his own log cabin?

---

Actually, in the regions in question they have millions of bearded guys that built their own log cabins.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

---

You can also fight people and not actually hate them...in that war both sides felt they were fighting to uphold what they saw as important constitutional rights and less outright hate of the other.

"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country & for the welfare and progress of mankind." -Robert E. Lee, 1/23/61

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and I have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." -Robert E. Lee

---

I seriously doubt there is a Russian version of General Lee in this conflict

---

True

---

Indeed, but there is a reasonable facsimile of Lincoln in Kiev.

---

Yikes...That is not very flattering to Zelensky


"If I were to describe a tyrant or a despot, a man perfectly regardless of every Constitutional right of the people, whose sworn servant, not ruler, he is, I would paint the hideous form of Abraham Lincoln"
-Sen. Willard Saulsbury (DE 1/1863)

"President Lincoln during his administration, in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, had over 300 newspapers shut down because they disagreed with him. Including more than three papers in New York alone."

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861
"We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves his party better than he loves his country."
-Providence Daily Post

"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it." -Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)

[in 1861 Lincoln illegally and unilaterally suspends the U.S. Constitution's "Writ of Habeas Corpus", without the consent of congress, and declares martial law. As many as 38,000 of his political enemies were imprisoned as estimated by the Columbia Law Review, XXI, 527-28,1921]

"The President (Lincoln) has made himself a legislator. He has enacted penal laws governing citizens of the United States. He has superadded to his rights a commander the power of a usurper. He has established a military despotism. He can now use the authority he has assumed... to make himself master of our lives, our liberties, our properties, with power to delegate his mastership of satraps as he may select." - Supreme Court Justice Robbins Curtis

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Lol I'm 34, take your "boomer" nonsense elsewhere.

You can disclaim support for Russia all you want, but your rhetoric is an exact mirror for their narratives, and I'm not just talking about during this war either. Of course you throw in a token statement of condemnation every now and then...and then the rest of the time you argue that we should step aside and let Ukraine founder while also blaming us for initiating the conflict in the first place. Saying "Russia is wrong" loses some of its bite when you pair it with "but we should not help Ukraine", which is the tightrope you are attempting to stay on.

We are sending Ukraine tanks because stalemate favors Russia. Ukraine isn't losing, but they also can't win or make further gains without help. We should provide that help against our enemy for as long as Ukrainian soldiers are willing to use it. I don't want to hear any whining about money either, we are sending them second rate surplus equipment that was bought and paid for long ago. Not to mention this is is literally the enemy we designed and stockpiled all that stuff in order to counter. The time to counter is now, when they are invading their neighbors and openly meddling in our domestic politics (which you deny the very existence of, another gift from you to Russia), and we don't even have to deploy any of our own soldiers to do it.

Support for Ukraine is the most justifiable and effective use of our bloated defense budget since the second World War, and it has no relation whatsoever to errors of Iraq/Afghan and the war on terror. I get what you are saying about the WoT, it was stuoid should not ever be repeated, but this is not even close to being that.

---

My rhetoric is not supportive of Russia. I'm just calling it how it is.

I want peace deals now, and if that means Ukraine and Russia both don't get exactly as they want, fine.

What I don't want is exactly what its become: a proxy war for the US/NATO to weaken Russia at great cost. We moving in tanks. Next we'll move in our own military and boots on the ground. This escalation of resources doesn't line up with the narrative we've been fed about Russia being an easy opponent.

---

Of note: the Ukrainians don't.
Also of note: our security position is degraded by a Russian victory.

The Russians are indeed a shockingly weak opponent, far less potent than we ever dare assume, and particularly so now after a year of getting mauled by the Ukrainians. They have a third world quality army. The fight wouldn't last long if Nato were to intervene. But Nato won't. There is no evidence, anywhere, that Nato wants to escalate to that level. Everyone, with a remarkable degree of unanimity, agrees that we have limited risk of escalation as long as it remains a proxy war but significant risk of escalation if direct conflict occurs. That's why we see what we see happening. Russia is in a quagmire it cannot win unless the West withdraws support. All it can do is to withdraw, or to endure long enough that western will to continue breaks. Either way, Russia suffers mightily. (which is why the Russo-Ukrainian war is a strategic situation which will be studied by scholars and soldiers for centuries...so many classic lessons be re-learned.)

Neither is there much evidence in the last 50-70 years of proxy wars and small wars in which we are directly engaged inevitably escalate to full-blown direct conflict. The historical record shows that we have been loathe to disengage a few times (Vietnam, Afghanistan) but otherwise have demonstrated a very solid record of avoiding what we need to avoid to pursue overall policy. (notwithstanding non-martial policy errors like China policy of the 1992-2016 period).

---

The entire western world is sending resources, weapons and technically manpower in the form of mercs against Russia. That is unofficially NATO vs Russia.
That we are acting in concert with allies is discordant with the "boomers are responsible for everything" narrative. We are in fact leading NATO, largely against German inertia, and Nato is coming along because they see the obvious.

Russia being the big bad boogeyman that needs the counterbalancing of the entire western world against them, doesn't coincide with the idea that they're a weak third world quality military power. That narrative doesn't make sense.
That is no conflict at all. Russia has a population which outstrips every European country by half, and is multiples of the former WP nations in Eastern Europe. They in fact would have already run over Ukraine had it not been for western support. They would do so against all but 3 other Nato countries, who would be pressed every bit as hard themselves as Ukraine. More to the point: The barbarians were for centuries weaker than the Roman Empire. It was not weight of numbers or technological superiority which caused Rome to fall. It was the burden of sustained assault. Yes, Rome had internal issues as well. But plain fact is...WINNING a war is costly. Ukraine is going to win this one. But look at the cost. Nato will win any conflict with Russia. But it will devastate the nations on whose soil the conflict occurs, and it will cost all the allies dearly in blood and treasure. That is why deterrence is so important. You do not want to have to fight at all. you might lose. And even if you win, the cost is frightful.....decades of Russian poking, prodding, seeping in, sapping our resolve to get us to appease them.....THAT's the only way Russia can win. So now that Russia has spent two decades pushing testing around the margins, trying to influence, intimidate, then finally outright invading a sovereign nation....how do we RESTORE deterrence? Answer: by showing the resolve to stand, right now. On the Dnieper. In the Donbass. The cost doesn't really matter, because at the end of the day it's cheaper than doing it with our own troops on Nato soil in the future, and we can afford it today and Russia cannot.

If we don't stand here and now, then where? This is the best, easiest battlefield we will have. It's not our boys & girls doing the fighting. All we have to do is provide money and munitions. That's pretty easy, compared to my daughter having to dodge incoming ordnance & repair fuel depots and replace parts warehouses and repair maintenance sheds to keep the F-whatevers in the air to defend the other sons & daughters out there on the front lines getting shelled by Russian arty, all while managing the flow of caskets back to Dover (where on her first tour after the Academy she ran the warehouse that received all those caskets from Afghanistan....). Or. We could just let Russia have Ukraine, then a decade or three down when they start the process again in Romania or Hungary or wherever.....we just let Nato crater & we come home & let the chips fall where they may. How will that improve the national security of the American people? The easiest, cheapest, best way to prevent Russia from becoming the hegemon in Europe (and China from becoming the hegemon in Asia) is to deal with Russia right now in Ukraine = Beat up their army so badly their government collapses and will take decades to reform and rebuild an army. (make no mistake. that is the policy aim here.....)

Russia still holds a significant chunk of Ukraine.
Yep. For now. Slightly more than a few weeks ago, and a helluva lot less than they held nine months ago. If we supply Ukraine with what they're asking for, it'll likely start shrinking quickly again. It is not unreasonable for Ukraine to drive Russian troops from all Ukrainian soil within 12 months. But they will not do it if we keep dribbling and drabbling equipment out to them.

I see this going like Vietnam/Afghanistan. To the spoils are too good for it not to be planned that way. DC obviously didn't care what US citizens thought about the war on terror, what makes you think they care about how we feel if this turns into a very long expensive proxy war for many years?
American troops won all the battles but the policy failed in both countries, because our troops were directly involved and we were attempting to stabilize countries that were not viable states as drawn. Pointedly, that is not the dynamic at play here. Ukraine is a sovereign people of one ethnicity, language and most notably one mind, previously engaged successfully in social contract via democratic process. Whatever valid criticisms might be made about the Ukrainian model, and they are not small in number, Ukraine was successful enough that Russia assessed it necessary to invade rather than engage in diplomacy. So unlike your two examples, there IS something to build upon. Most importantly, WE are not doing the fighting. Ukrainians are. We are not trying to create order out of chaos. We are supporting a nation who is trying to honor its voters wishes to permanently join European liberal democracy, against an autocratic nation intent on stopping that policy by force of arms.

---

See bolded above.

Enormous error to compare Ukraine to Afghanistan or Vietnam. As noted above, totally different scenarios. And that's before we realize that both AFG and VIET were always on the ragged periphery of core US interests. Neither of them share a border with a key strategic ally. Not so Ukraine. Ukraine itself is not itself of strategic interest to the USA. But it's neighbors are. And Ukraine itself has resources of value to anyone allied to it. To the degree that Ukraine is incorporated, formally or via alliance, into the Russian sphere, it materially strengthens Russian ability to negatively impact US interests around the world.

not tiddlywinks we're playing here....

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

There’s also a real possibility that things will spiral out of control. In fact, all this pressure will likely lead to some very negative unpredictable consequences. When those emerge as an emergency, those who pushed & pushed will act surprised & pretend they’re blameless. pic.twitter.com/L4MS2D7jwk

— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) January 26, 2023

---

So, what does Max suggest?

---

Negotiations

---

Which rewards Putin for invading another Nation and disregarding past agreements. (Obama already did that once, shrugging off Russia's actions as not a core US concern. So I guess Putin is not to blame to think he could do whatever he wanted with no concern.)

---

Oh the "we never negotiate" position.

Great.

So this ends how? Nuclear war in Eastern Europe?

---

Frankly, we don't want it to end too soon.

---

This is evil

---

This is good policy for the US citizen. This is the only way to destroy Russian war-making capability without escalating to scenarios that actually do risk the use of nuclear weapons.

A political settlement today partitions Ukraine. It' strengthens Russia with more people and more resources. It guarantees that in 3-5 years, there will be another round in either Ukraine or Transnistria. And after that, Russian troops will camp along the Nato borders, and Russia will step up efforts to politically destabilize 1 or more Nato countries for the purpose of causing them to withdraw from Nato. Those scenarios are far riskier than the one we have today. It would be quite naive to think Russian troops on the Hungarian border (for example) will not have greater influence on Hungarian foreign policy than if they were camped on the Ukrainian border 500 miles away.

As long as the Ukrainians want to fight, we supply them with the ordnance to blow the Russian war machine apart, bit by bit. Every round fired decreases the odds the kids we have in military uniform, of which I have two, will have to face Russian troops in the future.

We fight Russia where they are today to prevent us from having to fight them inside Nato a decade from now. And the Ukrainians are willing to do the fighting for us. All we have to do is supply them with the tools to do it.

---

You've acknowledged a couple of times that Russia invading a NATO country unprovoked is about as likely as Saddam Hussein dropping that mushroom cloud on New York. Your alternative scenario (i.e. the motte position) is more believable. It is of course possible that Russia will make some kind of unspecified mischief years or decades in the future. That doesn't justify the wanton destruction of a country today. Many factors have shaped the current situation, including our own choices to isolate Russia and expand NATO. Confrontation is not unavoidable, nor is Putin a madman. I don't trust hypothetical horror stories about the Hitler du jour. We've been lied into war too many times. This time the stakes are too high.

---

Time out, we did not isolate Russia. Russia isolated themselves with their policies and treatment of their citizens and allies (whom they than subjecated). NATO, nor the US forced or forces ANY Nation to join NATO. It is the Nation's choice, a choice they should be allowed to have. Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and now Ukraine all choose to apply to NATO and the EU because it allows a better quality of life for their citizens. Russia did this to themselves and is lashing out to FORCE Ukraine to do what Russia wants, once again. Sending Spetznatz to create unrest and force an election, getting stooge Russian politicians and threats didn't work, so Putin invaded. This is 100% on Putin. .

Don't act like this is NATO or the US's fault, it is a failure of the Russian system of commerce, government and foreign policy. Your response is always the same, it is NATO's fault and Ukraine should just give Donbas and Crimea to Russia, like it or not those are Ukrainian sovereign lands. I am sick of listening to Russia-Apologists act like Putin and his 200k man army is the victim of the big bad Ukraine and NATO.

---

It isn't that black and white, to say the least. In his better moments, Trump saw the wisdom of detente with Russia. Unfortunately the corrupt Russiagate investigation made it all but impossible. Tragic example of our own divisiveness hurting us.

This is correct, and has been for a long time now.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Negotiations

---

Which rewards Putin for invading another Nation and disregarding past agreements. (Obama already did that once, shrugging off Russia's actions as not a core US concern. So I guess Putin is not to blame to think he could do whatever he wanted with no concern.)

---

Oh the "we never negotiate" position.

Great.

So this ends how? Nuclear war in Eastern Europe?

---

Frankly, we don't want it to end too soon.

---

This is evil

---

This is good policy for the US citizen. This is the only way to destroy Russian war-making capability without escalating to scenarios that actually do risk the use of nuclear weapons.

A political settlement today partitions Ukraine. It' strengthens Russia with more people and more resources. It guarantees that in 3-5 years, there will be another round in either Ukraine or Transnistria. And after that, Russian troops will camp along the Nato borders, and Russia will step up efforts to politically destabilize 1 or more Nato countries for the purpose of causing them to withdraw from Nato. Those scenarios are far riskier than the one we have today. It would be quite naive to think Russian troops on the Hungarian border (for example) will not have greater influence on Hungarian foreign policy than if they were camped on the Ukrainian border 500 miles away.

As long as the Ukrainians want to fight, we supply them with the ordnance to blow the Russian war machine apart, bit by bit. Every round fired decreases the odds the kids we have in military uniform, of which I have two, will have to face Russian troops in the future.

We fight Russia where they are today to prevent us from having to fight them inside Nato a decade from now. And the Ukrainians are willing to do the fighting for us. All we have to do is supply them with the tools to do it.

---

You've acknowledged a couple of times that Russia invading a NATO country unprovoked is about as likely as Saddam Hussein dropping that mushroom cloud on New York. Your alternative scenario (i.e. the motte position) is more believable. It is of course possible that Russia will make some kind of unspecified mischief years or decades in the future. That doesn't justify the wanton destruction of a country today. Many factors have shaped the current situation, including our own choice to isolate Russia and expand NATO. Confrontation is not unavoidable, nor is Putin a madman. I don't trust hypothetical horror stories about the latest Hitler du jour. We've been lied into war too many times. This time the stakes are too high.

---

Tedious straw man argument.

Read my posts again and you will see I have talked about Russian efforts to "destabilize" the easternmost NATO nations What that means is (and I've mentioned/alluded to this in other posts as well) political agitation supporting anti-NATO positions, outright support from more pro-Russian foreign policies, construction of more sympathetic if not outright pro-Russian leaders/parties. The goal - to weaken Nato, to cause enough members to freeze, to balk, etc.....with the brass ring being to get one or more outright leave NATO. All such efforts are empowered by encampment of Russian armies on borders....a constant reminder of the threat intensifies fear and empowers the appeasement argument. Right now, only the Baltic states face that kind of gunboat diplomacy. If Ukraine falls, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania are added to the list. All it takes is one of them to falter, in a time of socio-political unrest....a dovish, pro-Slav, anti-European populist movement to break with the west. Today? Not much of a risk. 10-20 years down the road? impossible to dismiss. Issues never go away. They wax & wane. Read the history of the countries I mentioned. They have more in common looking east than west.

Why is that important to understand? There will be a time of far greater tension than today. Where exactly do we want Russian armies to be when that time arrives? What lessons do we want Russia to remember about western responses? What kinds and levels of equipment do we want Russian Armies to have at that time.

We think this way because we must. We are a NATO member. And for NATO members, the most likely scenarios for war involve the collapse of Nato. Eventually, it will. So where do we want Russian armies to be when that happens?

Ergo, what we do in Ukraine is hand the Ukrainians all the arms & ammo they want/need to defend their country, right down to the last Ukrainian if that is their desire. We do this destroy the Russian Army. To make them understand they cannot win. To deplete their stocks of materiel so severely that it will take them many, many decades to rebuild. We do that to push further out into the future the date when the would be able to again make a push westward. Hopefully, by that time, more moderate ideas will guide Russian policy.

Until then, we have to play hardball. And it's pretty easy hardball for us, right now. Battlefield is wildly tipped in Nato's favor. The next one might not be so much.

---

I understand all of that just fine. It makes sense from a military point of view. That doesn't mean it's good policy (on the contrary).

Yes or no: do you approve of us sending Ukraine military aid, or not?

Is it your position that we should have withheld support and let Russia win the war back in late February 2022?

You've spent a lot of time and effort here vaguely advocating against our assistance under various pretenses and against the Ukrainian government, with some token criticism of Russia thrown in when pressed. But, you seem careful not to outright state your position, so what is it? Or are you doing a Tucker Carlson act, "just asking questions"?