warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Russia mobilizes
261,264 Views |
4259 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by sombear
I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
Sam, you keep acting like the US is sticking its nose where not wanted. Ukraine, the sovereign Nation, is asking for our help. Calling the President and asking to help them to defend their borders. This is not the US going looking. Ukriane is allying to NATO, not NATO coming to Ukraine. You seem to discount that part of this as having any value. The right for a sovereign Nation to determine its own allies, alignments, and future. You and RedBear seem to believe that what Putin wants is more important and the US should not help those that ask.Sam Lowry said:And not ours.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.RMF5630 said:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Sam Lowry said:How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.RMF5630 said:The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Sam Lowry said:Our secession dispute was decided by force, not US law. The Texas case confirmed the result, but that only means the United States has the final say. If they wanted to negotiate and make a deal, they could. And in any case, it's not up to Russia or the UN to enforce US law.RMF5630 said:Difference is my answer is US Law. %A0No State can decide unilaterally to leave, period. %A0Been decided, actually it was a Texas lawsuit. US Feds can back it up. %A0 Try to take Houston and the Ports as an independent State, see how that goes. See how much of the Texas National Guard follows the order from the Governor to take Ft Hood...Sam Lowry said:Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. %A0You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? %A0Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation? %A0Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. %A0Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. %A0You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. %A0Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. %A0They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them. %A0
As for Ukraine, people can't just decide to take Sovereign land and join another Nation. They can leave, but to say because I now live in Crimea I can decide to become part of Russia? %A0Show me a precedent that supports that in any World Court. Or, do laws not matter anymore? Which would be a strange position for an Attorney. %A0Iraq tried it with Kuwait. %A0World and UN matter or nothing matters. %A0
For the record, I don't believe there's a right to secession per se. Secession is a remedy. Its legitimacy depends on how severe and how intractable the grievances are. Since the Confederacy's grievances were mostly about slavery, or at least inextricably bound up with it, it's hard to say secession was justified. That doesn't mean it couldn't be justified in another scenario, or in another country on another continent.
But Ukraine wants its port and ag region. Just because somebody wants it to happen doesn't mean it should. It is Ukraines call, not Russia.
There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
New recruitment video for the next wave of Russian cannon fodder...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Nope, nothing to see here.
Some of the advertisements seeking mercenaries and volunteers to join Putin's invasion of Ukraine are now followed by this war promo clip, featuring Putin, Lenin, Stalin and Peter the Great, alongside the visual cacophony of Soviet and religious imagery.https://t.co/LGb6VjpI8m
— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) March 18, 2023
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Yeahhhhhhhh. The Ukrainians aren't the ones burning down cities, raping civilians, and making ruthless war against the people in the Donbas.Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Is it a voluntary government when a large portion of the population is enslaved by those that govern...Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
I remember not long ago you were voicing concerns about the US economy and how we could end up with harsh austerity measures like the IMF imposed on Greece. Did you know that's exactly what the Ukrainians were trying to avoid when they went with Russia's offer instead of ours? They ended up with a new, US-approved government, which failed to resolve the Donbas issue and gobbled up American military aid instead. So of course our clients are asking for our "help." That's why we put them there.RMF5630 said:Sam, you keep acting like the US is sticking its nose where not wanted. Ukraine, the sovereign Nation, is asking for our help. Calling the President and asking to help them to defend their borders. This is not the US going looking. Ukriane is allying to NATO, not NATO coming to Ukraine. You seem to discount that part of this as having any value. The right for a sovereign Nation to determine its own allies, alignments, and future. You and RedBear seem to believe that what Putin wants is more important and the US should not help those that ask.Sam Lowry said:And not ours.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.RMF5630 said:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Sam Lowry said:How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.RMF5630 said:The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Sam Lowry said:Our secession dispute was decided by force, not US law. The Texas case confirmed the result, but that only means the United States has the final say. If they wanted to negotiate and make a deal, they could. And in any case, it's not up to Russia or the UN to enforce US law.RMF5630 said:Difference is my answer is US Law. %A0No State can decide unilaterally to leave, period. %A0Been decided, actually it was a Texas lawsuit. US Feds can back it up. %A0 Try to take Houston and the Ports as an independent State, see how that goes. See how much of the Texas National Guard follows the order from the Governor to take Ft Hood...Sam Lowry said:Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. %A0You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? %A0Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation? %A0Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. %A0Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. %A0You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. %A0Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. %A0They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them. %A0
As for Ukraine, people can't just decide to take Sovereign land and join another Nation. They can leave, but to say because I now live in Crimea I can decide to become part of Russia? %A0Show me a precedent that supports that in any World Court. Or, do laws not matter anymore? Which would be a strange position for an Attorney. %A0Iraq tried it with Kuwait. %A0World and UN matter or nothing matters. %A0
For the record, I don't believe there's a right to secession per se. Secession is a remedy. Its legitimacy depends on how severe and how intractable the grievances are. Since the Confederacy's grievances were mostly about slavery, or at least inextricably bound up with it, it's hard to say secession was justified. That doesn't mean it couldn't be justified in another scenario, or in another country on another continent.
But Ukraine wants its port and ag region. Just because somebody wants it to happen doesn't mean it should. It is Ukraines call, not Russia.
Why have borders? Why have Nations?trey3216 said:Is it a voluntary government when a large portion of the population is enslaved by those that govern...Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
Every group that decides they want to be independent, be part of another country should be able to go, right? So, what level of saturation do you need?
- 1 person?
- A simple majority?
- A super-majority?
- All (100%)?
If it is less than 100% do you force the 49% to go to Russia? Does it even have to be contiguous? Maybe Bell County wants to join Switzerland? They like fondue and Mountains. Should they be able to join? Why not? Why does it have to adjacent? Does Ft Hood go with them? After all every person has to like everything the Govt does or they can leave and the former Nation has no say.
Not sure why you quoted me on this...RMF5630 said:Why have borders? Why have Nations?trey3216 said:Is it a voluntary government when a large portion of the population is enslaved by those that govern...Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
Every group that decides they want to be independent, be part of another country should be able to go, right? So, what level of saturation do you need?
- 1 person?
- A simple majority?
- A super-majority?
- All (100%)?
If it is less than 100% do you force the 49% to go to Russia? Does it even have to be contiguous? Maybe Bell County wants to join Switzerland? They like fondue and Mountains. Should they be able to join? Why not? Why does it have to adjacent? Does Ft Hood go with them? After all every person has to like everything the Govt does or they can leave and the former Nation has no say.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Oh…who's being naive, Kay?trey3216 said:Yeahhhhhhhh. The Ukrainians aren't the ones burning down cities, raping civilians, and making ruthless war against the people in the Donbas.Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
Sorry, last in the chain. Bad habit. Should have posted to one above...trey3216 said:Not sure why you quoted me on this...RMF5630 said:Why have borders? Why have Nations?trey3216 said:Is it a voluntary government when a large portion of the population is enslaved by those that govern...Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
Every group that decides they want to be independent, be part of another country should be able to go, right? So, what level of saturation do you need?
- 1 person?
- A simple majority?
- A super-majority?
- All (100%)?
If it is less than 100% do you force the 49% to go to Russia? Does it even have to be contiguous? Maybe Bell County wants to join Switzerland? They like fondue and Mountains. Should they be able to join? Why not? Why does it have to adjacent? Does Ft Hood go with them? After all every person has to like everything the Govt does or they can leave and the former Nation has no say.
Sam: "who's being naive?"
Sam Lowry,
Sam Lowry,
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win no matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
I agree with almost everything you said. But the EU is lazy and helpless only because it chooses to be...it is certainly not broke.
It is just responding to economic incentives. Why build a large military (and spend lots of money paying for it) when the Americans will protect you for free?
If a private company offered to guard your neighborhood 24-7 would you then say "oh no please let me pay you"
The EU is free riding because its easy to do.
1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
Maybe.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
They are certainly a incompetent force.
But they are digging into trenches in Crimea and Donbas. Hard to see how Ukraine can ever retake those areas (no matter how much aid we give them) without American and NATO ground forces. They just don't have the man power.
Russia (144 million) vs Ukraine (37 million?)
And all the while Russia is calling up more men and building more munitions and weapons capacity.
Yes, we allow them to.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
I agree with almost everything you said. But the EU is lazy and helpless only because it chooses to be...it is certainly not broke.
It is just responding to economic incentives. Why build a large military (and spend lots of money paying for it) when the Americans will protect you for free?
If a private company offered to guard your neighborhood 24-7 would you then say "oh no please let me pay you"
The EU is free riding because its easy to do.
My logic says Ukraine has been corrupt, they haven't gotten their act together and because of that they haven't made a formal alliance/agreement with the west so they are reaping what they sow. The west failing to alter Ukraine is also part of the problem. That in itself empowered Russia. Russia was always a threat.
The logic that Russia taking over Ukraine puts Russian in a position to to attack the west carries no weight.. If Russia benefits from taking over Ukraine and then Russia crosses the line and attacks the west...blow Russia off the ****ing map. If a proxy war through Ukraine can be won...then direct war from the entire west against Russia should be easy to deal with.
I'm tired of the finger being pointed as US taxy payers instead of geopolitics and supranationals who aren't doing their ****ing job. They did nothing to prevent this or demand Ukraine get their **** together.
I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
Do we put troops on the ground?
"Frankly, we don't want it to end too soon. Russia will never give up the idea of reuniting the USSR. Russia has never been 'safer' than during the USSR. It controlled directly or via vassals all 9 historic invasion routes. Russia has always wanted Ukraine, will always want Ukraine.... no matter what are the terms of the peace agreement that ends the current (and any future) war. So our job is to make sure the war ends with Russia so weak that it is logistically incapable of mounting a serious war effort for 20-30 years or more, depleted of materiel, without the industrial and technological capability of rebuilding a major army, so internally weak from dissent that it must focus all its energies on retaining the Russian Federation as it currently stands."whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
Whiterock, 1/28/23
What a mess.
I have stayed out of this debate for the most part, because I don't have enough information to give a good guess on what happens if (a) (b) or (c) scenarios happen.
Last year I would never have expected Russia to invade Ukraine, unless they had a well-planned campaign with plenty of logistical support. Yet it's plain that Russia had neither a good plan, nor proper logistics.
And for all the debate about whether Ukraine had a right to exist without Russian approval (***?), it is plainly obvious that Russia invaded their neighbor, the kind of thing which - historically - the US has always regarded as unacceptable aggression.
Most Americans were somehow unaware that Ukraine was a cesspool of corruption and fraud as recently as 2019, so far gone that even the son of a (at the time) former Vice-President of the United States could not instill confidence in its integrity.
What we have now, is a dilemma in the original sense of the word.
I have stayed out of this debate for the most part, because I don't have enough information to give a good guess on what happens if (a) (b) or (c) scenarios happen.
Last year I would never have expected Russia to invade Ukraine, unless they had a well-planned campaign with plenty of logistical support. Yet it's plain that Russia had neither a good plan, nor proper logistics.
And for all the debate about whether Ukraine had a right to exist without Russian approval (***?), it is plainly obvious that Russia invaded their neighbor, the kind of thing which - historically - the US has always regarded as unacceptable aggression.
Most Americans were somehow unaware that Ukraine was a cesspool of corruption and fraud as recently as 2019, so far gone that even the son of a (at the time) former Vice-President of the United States could not instill confidence in its integrity.
What we have now, is a dilemma in the original sense of the word.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Take a good look. You punt on the EU and say the losers need to defend themselves. Where do you make up that market? Because you just gave up on EU, you can't go to Russia. So, now we are cutting out almost 20% of the world market to save how much?Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Like it or not, we are tied to the EU. They are our one Allie. A small GDP Russia cannot be allowed to kill one of our biggest trading partners. We were always in the mix to defend Europe and Japan. This is nothing new.
That's not what I said.RMF5630 said:Take a good look. You punt on the EU and say the losers need to defend themselves. Where do you make up that market? Because you just gave up on EU, you can't go to Russia. So, now we are cutting out almost 20% of the world market to save how much?Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Like it or not, we are tied to the EU. They are our one Allie. A small GDP Russia cannot be allowed to kill one of our biggest trading partners. We were always in the mix to defend Europe and Japan. This is nothing new.
What I'm saying is we have this idea that if we don't help Ukraine stop Russia that Russia will attack NATO countries. Up against that narrative I'm asking "isn't that what we have NATO for?".
The idea that Russia goes full Nazi-esque expansion on the west is ludicrous.
Stick with the truth which is we're defending Ukraine for financial reasons, that cost US taxpayers dearly, not moral ones.
Yes, but we are part of NATO. We have paid for alot, but that also bought us alot of control and influence. We start backing out, control and influence go down.Doc Holliday said:That's not what I said.RMF5630 said:Take a good look. You punt on the EU and say the losers need to defend themselves. Where do you make up that market? Because you just gave up on EU, you can't go to Russia. So, now we are cutting out almost 20% of the world market to save how much?Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Like it or not, we are tied to the EU. They are our one Allie. A small GDP Russia cannot be allowed to kill one of our biggest trading partners. We were always in the mix to defend Europe and Japan. This is nothing new.
What I'm saying is we have this idea that if we don't help Ukraine stop Russia that Russia will attack NATO countries. Up against that narrative I'm asking "isn't that what we have NATO for?".
So, the strategic question for all these situations is do we want to have control or not pay the money? If we pull out of Korea and Japan, we will have much less influence in that region. We let European nations take on Russia, we lose influence in that region.
You want to leave Middle East, the Hormuz becomes run by Iran.
The money and presence protect our interest and maintain influence, you cannot have standing from across the sea. This spending is within the perevue of the Federal Govt and I have no problem.
If we want to look at something to reduce Federal Spending, look to social programs they are not in the realm of the Fed.
First off, I'm not saying back out. I want a peace deal where Russia and Ukraine neither get exactly what they want. They both concede something and the killing stops and this doesn't escalate further with China involvement.RMF5630 said:Yes, but we are part of NATO. We have paid for alot, but that also bought us alot of control and influence. We start backing out, control and influence go down.Doc Holliday said:That's not what I said.RMF5630 said:Take a good look. You punt on the EU and say the losers need to defend themselves. Where do you make up that market? Because you just gave up on EU, you can't go to Russia. So, now we are cutting out almost 20% of the world market to save how much?Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Like it or not, we are tied to the EU. They are our one Allie. A small GDP Russia cannot be allowed to kill one of our biggest trading partners. We were always in the mix to defend Europe and Japan. This is nothing new.
What I'm saying is we have this idea that if we don't help Ukraine stop Russia that Russia will attack NATO countries. Up against that narrative I'm asking "isn't that what we have NATO for?".
So, the strategic question for all these situations is do we want to have control or not pay the money? If we pull out of Korea and Japan, we will have much less influence in that region. We let European nations take on Russia, we lose influence in that region.
You want to leave Middle East, the Hormuz becomes run by Iran.
The money and presence protect our interest and maintain influence, you cannot have standing from across the sea. This spending is within the perevue of the Federal Govt and I have no problem.
If we want to look at something to reduce Federal Spending, look to social programs they are not in the realm of the Fed.
What type of control and influence are you referring to? Like where we blow through $8 trillion fighting the war on terror based on total bs?
Unbelievably idiotic Western rulers first sold out their own industries to China then antagonized Russia and drove it into China
— Cyberpunk Sense (@napoleon21st) March 21, 2023
Now the Country with the biggest labor force has access to the country with the biggest resources
There has hardly been a bigger self own in history https://t.co/KfRPXJmEIE
Influence is what it's all about. Security, stability, vital interests, national defense even? Not so much.RMF5630 said:Yes, but we are part of NATO. We have paid for alot, but that also bought us alot of control and influence. We start backing out, control and influence go down.Doc Holliday said:That's not what I said.RMF5630 said:Take a good look. You punt on the EU and say the losers need to defend themselves. Where do you make up that market? Because you just gave up on EU, you can't go to Russia. So, now we are cutting out almost 20% of the world market to save how much?Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Like it or not, we are tied to the EU. They are our one Allie. A small GDP Russia cannot be allowed to kill one of our biggest trading partners. We were always in the mix to defend Europe and Japan. This is nothing new.
What I'm saying is we have this idea that if we don't help Ukraine stop Russia that Russia will attack NATO countries. Up against that narrative I'm asking "isn't that what we have NATO for?".
So, the strategic question for all these situations is do we want to have control or not pay the money? If we pull out of Korea and Japan, we will have much less influence in that region. We let European nations take on Russia, we lose influence in that region.
You want to leave Middle East, the Hormuz becomes run by Iran.
The money and presence protect our interest and maintain influence, you cannot have standing from across the sea. This spending is within the perevue of the Federal Govt and I have no problem.
If we want to look at something to reduce Federal Spending, look to social programs they are not in the realm of the Fed.
Sam Lowry said:Influence is what it's all about. Security, stability, vital interests, national defense even? Not so much.RMF5630 said:Yes, but we are part of NATO. We have paid for alot, but that also bought us alot of control and influence. We start backing out, control and influence go down.Doc Holliday said:That's not what I said.RMF5630 said:Take a good look. You punt on the EU and say the losers need to defend themselves. Where do you make up that market? Because you just gave up on EU, you can't go to Russia. So, now we are cutting out almost 20% of the world market to save how much?Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Like it or not, we are tied to the EU. They are our one Allie. A small GDP Russia cannot be allowed to kill one of our biggest trading partners. We were always in the mix to defend Europe and Japan. This is nothing new.
What I'm saying is we have this idea that if we don't help Ukraine stop Russia that Russia will attack NATO countries. Up against that narrative I'm asking "isn't that what we have NATO for?".
So, the strategic question for all these situations is do we want to have control or not pay the money? If we pull out of Korea and Japan, we will have much less influence in that region. We let European nations take on Russia, we lose influence in that region.
You want to leave Middle East, the Hormuz becomes run by Iran.
The money and presence protect our interest and maintain influence, you cannot have standing from across the sea. This spending is within the perevue of the Federal Govt and I have no problem.
If we want to look at something to reduce Federal Spending, look to social programs they are not in the realm of the Fed.
You don't think the two go together? You don't think influence impacts economics? You don't think secure, reliable resources don't come from influence and credibility?
You pull out or go isolationism how much credibility we will have?
Freedom and wealth tend to go together, too. That doesn't mean it's okay to kill for wealth (not even if you say it's for freedom).RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Influence is what it's all about. Security, stability, vital interests, national defense even? Not so much.RMF5630 said:Yes, but we are part of NATO. We have paid for alot, but that also bought us alot of control and influence. We start backing out, control and influence go down.Doc Holliday said:That's not what I said.RMF5630 said:Take a good look. You punt on the EU and say the losers need to defend themselves. Where do you make up that market? Because you just gave up on EU, you can't go to Russia. So, now we are cutting out almost 20% of the world market to save how much?Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Like it or not, we are tied to the EU. They are our one Allie. A small GDP Russia cannot be allowed to kill one of our biggest trading partners. We were always in the mix to defend Europe and Japan. This is nothing new.
What I'm saying is we have this idea that if we don't help Ukraine stop Russia that Russia will attack NATO countries. Up against that narrative I'm asking "isn't that what we have NATO for?".
So, the strategic question for all these situations is do we want to have control or not pay the money? If we pull out of Korea and Japan, we will have much less influence in that region. We let European nations take on Russia, we lose influence in that region.
You want to leave Middle East, the Hormuz becomes run by Iran.
The money and presence protect our interest and maintain influence, you cannot have standing from across the sea. This spending is within the perevue of the Federal Govt and I have no problem.
If we want to look at something to reduce Federal Spending, look to social programs they are not in the realm of the Fed.
You don't think the two go together? You don't think influence impacts economics? You don't think secure, reliable resources don't come from influence and credibility?
You pull out or go isolationism how much credibility we will have?
Focusing on the important stuff…
JOHN KIRBY: "LGBTQ+ rights...are a core part of our foreign policy." pic.twitter.com/hNsVknCc5P
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 21, 2023
Sam Lowry said:Freedom and wealth tend to go together, too. That doesn't mean it's okay to kill for wealth (not even if you say it's for freedom).RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Influence is what it's all about. Security, stability, vital interests, national defense even? Not so much.RMF5630 said:Yes, but we are part of NATO. We have paid for alot, but that also bought us alot of control and influence. We start backing out, control and influence go down.Doc Holliday said:That's not what I said.RMF5630 said:Take a good look. You punt on the EU and say the losers need to defend themselves. Where do you make up that market? Because you just gave up on EU, you can't go to Russia. So, now we are cutting out almost 20% of the world market to save how much?Doc Holliday said:
The main narrative and motivation I'm getting for support of this proxy war is "If the US pulls support for Ukraine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will be pulled into a war in Europe, or in the pacific. We're only emboldening our adversaries if we show weakness".
The actual real problem through this admission is that Europe is lazy, broke, and helpless. That NATO can't fulfill it's objective of protecting the west in the event that the west is directly challenged.
What this means for Americans is you're a wage slave to supply funding the rest of the western world while your ass gets neglected when things turn sour domestically.
Like it or not, we are tied to the EU. They are our one Allie. A small GDP Russia cannot be allowed to kill one of our biggest trading partners. We were always in the mix to defend Europe and Japan. This is nothing new.
What I'm saying is we have this idea that if we don't help Ukraine stop Russia that Russia will attack NATO countries. Up against that narrative I'm asking "isn't that what we have NATO for?".
So, the strategic question for all these situations is do we want to have control or not pay the money? If we pull out of Korea and Japan, we will have much less influence in that region. We let European nations take on Russia, we lose influence in that region.
You want to leave Middle East, the Hormuz becomes run by Iran.
The money and presence protect our interest and maintain influence, you cannot have standing from across the sea. This spending is within the perevue of the Federal Govt and I have no problem.
If we want to look at something to reduce Federal Spending, look to social programs they are not in the realm of the Fed.
You don't think the two go together? You don't think influence impacts economics? You don't think secure, reliable resources don't come from influence and credibility?
You pull out or go isolationism how much credibility we will have?
So, no matter what we say the reason is to support other Nations, it really is for wealth because you say. Nice! What is the point of discussing anything with you? After all you really know and anything said or evidence given is disregarded. Must be nice Sam to have a monopoly on knowing what things really are. Just have SicEm allow you to edit our comments and take the next step to being a Putin...
not hard at all. The way you deal with hard lines of defense (trenches & concrete & wire) is to carefully select a small number of narrow points of attack, pierce them with an armored assault, and drive thru to the rear to cut off lines of supply for the troops in the trenches, ideally encircling large numbers of them. Guderian, Zhukov, Patton, etc.....there are numerous examples of such in WWII.Redbrickbear said:Maybe.whiterock said:1) yes. I would have given the Migs immediately. Ukraine already had them in inventory. Immediately useful. Nato needed to get rid of them. Ultimate win/win. I would have had Ukrainians training in F-16s last summer, ready to deploy early this year. No way they are escalatory. They are a close-air defense weapon, a better one than the Migs, but in the same class. Tanks should have been ready to go back in December. But weather never really froze enough for winter armored warfare, so we were spared a bit of damage from the delay. Will have to wait for the ground to dry out, by which time the Leopards will be ready. The Ahbrams are show pieces, needed to get Germany to part with the leopards. We should be using soft power to organize more Leopards. They're a better fit for the requirement.Redbrickbear said:1. What constitutes aid? Is that even more tanks? Modern fighter jets, with the technical staff to keep them operating? Actual American soldiers on the ground fighting?whiterock said:correct. we should accelerate our aid to ensure victory, not hold it back to manage a stalemate to our advantage. That is not to say defeat is preferable to a stalemate managed to our advantage......Sam Lowry said:There's no legal or moral reason why we should intentionally prolong the war.whiterock said:Except for the minor detail that there is no legal or moral reason why any country should have to surrender the most strategically important and mineral rich parts of their own country just to maintain peace with an avaricious neighbor.Sam Lowry said:I mean there's no reason Ukraine couldn't let go of Crimea and the Donbas.whiterock said:warning: post above contains inconvenient facts reflexively ignored by critics of US policy toward Russo/Ukraine WarSam L said:
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.Quote:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Quote:
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.
Except for the reason that supporting Ukraine to expel the Russians has a number of important foreign policy benefits for the USA.
for starters....
2. Without American (or NATO) soldiers fighting what makes you think Ukraine can win not matter how much aid is given? At some point the manpower difference has to be taken into account.
No, no Americans on the ground fighting.
Yes, contractors as needed for training on maintenance, etc...
You can conflate the arms/ammo support with deployed US combat soldiers all you want, but they are two entirely different things, and the former in no way obligates or otherwise impels us to get directly involved.
2) Because the Russian army is a spent force. They do not have the equipment and logistics to continue offensive operations except for what we are seeing in Bakhmut, which is pitiful. A rested and rearmed Ukrainian division or two with a tank brigade or two will slice thru to the Sea of Azov fairly easily. That will force Russia to withdraw their Kherson front to Crimea. At that point, we are aaaalmost back to where the 2022 war started and the siege of Crimea begins. Possible encirclement of substantial Russian troops.
Yes, Ukraine can win. Should win. As long as we provide them to the means to do so. Russia is in a terrible position, overextended lines, inadequate supplies, poor morale.....and their casualty rate is by some estimates as high as 6-7x that of the Ukrainians.
If you can't see that, you need different sources of information.
They are certainly a incompetent force.
But they are digging into trenches in Crimea and Donbas. Hard to see how Ukraine can ever retake those areas (no matter how much aid we give them) without American and NATO ground forces. They just don't have the man power.
Russia (144 million) vs Ukraine (37 million?)
And all the while Russia is calling up more men and building more munitions and weapons capacity.
What are we supplying to Ukraine? a brigade or better of Leopards, with some additional Challengers and Abrahms, and.......Bradley fighting vehicles. Conceptually, the Leopards will punch the hole, the Bradleys will drive to the Sea of Azov. (Actually, I would suspect the remaining Ukrainian T-72's will punch the hole, the Leopards will widen it....) By the time all that arrives & training is done, the ground will be dry. May-ish.
I would deploy the Challengers and Abrahms in a defensive positions to protect against probing attacks against Kharkov and Kiev. That will mitigate the burden for the larger logistical footprint of those two tank platforms relative to the Leopards.
The war is shaping up quite a bit differently than your sources are telling you. We have the Russians by the nose (mired in trench warfare) surrounding strategically insignificant Bakhmut. Now, it's time to kick them in the ass. The only question is whether the aim would be to collapse the Russian Kherson front (with a push between Donetsk and Zaporizhizha to the Sea of Azov) or a likely harder task of encircling the Russian army at Bakhmut with pincers from east & west to cut off the highway (line of supply) toward Khrustaliny. Loss (surrender) of a 100k or so troops is a strategic event.
Remember Liddell-Hart's dictum about victory. The minimum objective is to push Russia back to its pre-war borders. Cannot allow any reward for the invasion. Pushing back to pre-2014 borders will be a lot harder, but to be successful at the pre-2022 objectives, we must make Russia fear losing the 2014 gains, or they will not negotiate earnestly.