He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How y'all gonna feel in 4 years when this is still ongoing because Joe Biden can get 80+ million votes for term 2 and the tab is a couple trillion dollars?

---

we could speed up the aid and finish it in a lot less time than that for a lot less money than that, and I suspect that's what will happen if we get a Republican president.

---

Lol, you're lying to yourself. A President Trump or DeSantis have made it pretty clear what their position is, and it doesn't favor Ukraine.

---

Now you're projecting onto others the positions you need them to have rather the ones they've stated. Saying you'd end the war in 30 days doesn't say HOW you would do that.

I'd do it the same way Reagan ended the Cold War - making it clear to Russia that we were prepared to engage in a mobilization which Russia had no hope of countering - opening up the floodgates of arms and money to Ukraine.....unless Vlad made an immediate and unconditional commitment to withdraw to 2014 boundaries.

They'll cave.
They can't win.
And they know it.

---

Reagan would never have put us in this situation. Our foreign policy today lacks any vestige of his realism or strategic empathy. It's what Boomer narcissism looks like with a trillion dollar budget and all restraint cast aside.

---

Strategic empathy?

---

The ability to see from your opponent's point of view. Very important.

---

I don't know that I would call that empathy. Empathy has to do with understanding another's feelings/emotions. Gaming out situations and understanding another's motivations may be good diplomacy, but there is a better word than empathy.

---

We can't avoid attributing emotions to the other (e.g. "don't shop at Target, they hate you" or "Putin is crazed with hostility to the West"). Often it's little more than projection. The value of empathizing is that there's a chance you'll get it right.

---

Empathy is still not the right word.

---

I would suggest that your angst over the word is the reason it's the right word. We all have a powerful resistance to seeing the enemy as human. But you're not going to understand him otherwise.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

Good grief, counselor. A jr hi debate squad wouldn't make that kind of error. We entered Iraq to enforce UN sanctions against a rogue regime designated as a state sponsor on terror,* with an international coalition behind us. We did not annex a square inch. We de-Bathified the military, reorganized structures, and promptly facilitated a widely lauded free & fair election. We supported the newly elected government with substantial aid, and when that government asked us to go, we left. promptly.

---

About half of that is true, and none of it is particularly relevant. We were never authorized to enforce sanctions in that manner.

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How y'all gonna feel in 4 years when this is still ongoing because Joe Biden can get 80+ million votes for term 2 and the tab is a couple trillion dollars?

---

we could speed up the aid and finish it in a lot less time than that for a lot less money than that, and I suspect that's what will happen if we get a Republican president.

---

Lol, you're lying to yourself. A President Trump or DeSantis have made it pretty clear what their position is, and it doesn't favor Ukraine.

---

Now you're projecting onto others the positions you need them to have rather the ones they've stated. Saying you'd end the war in 30 days doesn't say HOW you would do that.

I'd do it the same way Reagan ended the Cold War - making it clear to Russia that we were prepared to engage in a mobilization which Russia had no hope of countering - opening up the floodgates of arms and money to Ukraine.....unless Vlad made an immediate and unconditional commitment to withdraw to 2014 boundaries.

They'll cave.
They can't win.
And they know it.

---

Reagan would never have put us in this situation. Our foreign policy today lacks any vestige of his realism or strategic empathy. It's what Boomer narcissism looks like with a trillion dollar budget and all restraint cast aside.

---

Strategic empathy?

---

The ability to see from your opponent's point of view. Very important.

---

I don't know that I would call that empathy. Empathy has to do with understanding another's feelings/emotions. Gaming out situations and understanding another's motivations may be good diplomacy, but there is a better word than empathy.

---

We can't avoid attributing emotions to the other (e.g. "don't shop at Target, they hate you" or "Putin is crazed with hostility to the West"). Often it's little more than projection. The value of empathizing is that there's a chance you'll get it right.

---

Empathy is still not the right word.

---

I would suggest that your angst over the word is the reason it's the right word. We all have a powerful resistance to seeing the enemy as human. But you're not going to understand him otherwise.

---

I don't have angst. I just know that taking into account your opponents motives and goals when engaging in diplomacy and statecraft is not empathy.

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How y'all gonna feel in 4 years when this is still ongoing because Joe Biden can get 80+ million votes for term 2 and the tab is a couple trillion dollars?

---

we could speed up the aid and finish it in a lot less time than that for a lot less money than that, and I suspect that's what will happen if we get a Republican president.

---

Lol, you're lying to yourself. A President Trump or DeSantis have made it pretty clear what their position is, and it doesn't favor Ukraine.

---

Now you're projecting onto others the positions you need them to have rather the ones they've stated. Saying you'd end the war in 30 days doesn't say HOW you would do that.

I'd do it the same way Reagan ended the Cold War - making it clear to Russia that we were prepared to engage in a mobilization which Russia had no hope of countering - opening up the floodgates of arms and money to Ukraine.....unless Vlad made an immediate and unconditional commitment to withdraw to 2014 boundaries.

They'll cave.
They can't win.
And they know it.

---

Reagan would never have put us in this situation. Our foreign policy today lacks any vestige of his realism or strategic empathy. It's what Boomer narcissism looks like with a trillion dollar budget and all restraint cast aside.

---

Strategic empathy?

---

The ability to see from your opponent's point of view. Very important.

---

I don't know that I would call that empathy. Empathy has to do with understanding another's feelings/emotions. Gaming out situations and understanding another's motivations may be good diplomacy, but there is a better word than empathy.

---

We can't avoid attributing emotions to the other (e.g. "don't shop at Target, they hate you" or "Putin is crazed with hostility to the West"). Often it's little more than projection. The value of empathizing is that there's a chance you'll get it right.

---

Empathy is still not the right word.

---

I would suggest that your angst over the word is the reason it's the right word. We all have a powerful resistance to seeing the enemy as human. But you're not going to understand him otherwise.

---

I don't have angst. I just know that taking into account your opponents motives and goals when engaging in diplomacy and statecraft is not empathy.

---

It's a thing. I didn't coin the phrase.

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How y'all gonna feel in 4 years when this is still ongoing because Joe Biden can get 80+ million votes for term 2 and the tab is a couple trillion dollars?

---

we could speed up the aid and finish it in a lot less time than that for a lot less money than that, and I suspect that's what will happen if we get a Republican president.

---

Lol, you're lying to yourself. A President Trump or DeSantis have made it pretty clear what their position is, and it doesn't favor Ukraine.

---

Now you're projecting onto others the positions you need them to have rather the ones they've stated. Saying you'd end the war in 30 days doesn't say HOW you would do that.

I'd do it the same way Reagan ended the Cold War - making it clear to Russia that we were prepared to engage in a mobilization which Russia had no hope of countering - opening up the floodgates of arms and money to Ukraine.....unless Vlad made an immediate and unconditional commitment to withdraw to 2014 boundaries.

They'll cave.
They can't win.
And they know it.

---

Reagan would never have put us in this situation. Our foreign policy today lacks any vestige of his realism or strategic empathy. It's what Boomer narcissism looks like with a trillion dollar budget and all restraint cast aside.

---

Strategic empathy?

---

The ability to see from your opponent's point of view. Very important.

---

I don't know that I would call that empathy. Empathy has to do with understanding another's feelings/emotions. Gaming out situations and understanding another's motivations may be good diplomacy, but there is a better word than empathy.

---

We can't avoid attributing emotions to the other (e.g. "don't shop at Target, they hate you" or "Putin is crazed with hostility to the West"). Often it's little more than projection. The value of empathizing is that there's a chance you'll get it right.

---

Empathy is still not the right word.

---

I would suggest that your angst over the word is the reason it's the right word. We all have a powerful resistance to seeing the enemy as human. But you're not going to understand him otherwise.

---

I don't have angst. I just know that taking into account your opponents motives and goals when engaging in diplomacy and statecraft is not empathy.

---

It's a thing. I didn't coin the phrase.

---

I don't care if Henry Kissinger coined the phrase. Empathy is still not the right word to use.

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How y'all gonna feel in 4 years when this is still ongoing because Joe Biden can get 80+ million votes for term 2 and the tab is a couple trillion dollars?

---

we could speed up the aid and finish it in a lot less time than that for a lot less money than that, and I suspect that's what will happen if we get a Republican president.

---

Lol, you're lying to yourself. A President Trump or DeSantis have made it pretty clear what their position is, and it doesn't favor Ukraine.

---

Now you're projecting onto others the positions you need them to have rather the ones they've stated. Saying you'd end the war in 30 days doesn't say HOW you would do that.

I'd do it the same way Reagan ended the Cold War - making it clear to Russia that we were prepared to engage in a mobilization which Russia had no hope of countering - opening up the floodgates of arms and money to Ukraine.....unless Vlad made an immediate and unconditional commitment to withdraw to 2014 boundaries.

They'll cave.
They can't win.
And they know it.

---

Reagan would never have put us in this situation. Our foreign policy today lacks any vestige of his realism or strategic empathy. It's what Boomer narcissism looks like with a trillion dollar budget and all restraint cast aside.

---

Strategic empathy?

---

The ability to see from your opponent's point of view. Very important.

---

I don't know that I would call that empathy. Empathy has to do with understanding another's feelings/emotions. Gaming out situations and understanding another's motivations may be good diplomacy, but there is a better word than empathy.

---

We can't avoid attributing emotions to the other (e.g. "don't shop at Target, they hate you" or "Putin is crazed with hostility to the West"). Often it's little more than projection. The value of empathizing is that there's a chance you'll get it right.

---

Empathy is still not the right word.

---

I would suggest that your angst over the word is the reason it's the right word. We all have a powerful resistance to seeing the enemy as human. But you're not going to understand him otherwise.

---

I don't have angst. I just know that taking into account your opponents motives and goals when engaging in diplomacy and statecraft is not empathy.

---

It's a thing. I didn't coin the phrase.

---

I don't care if Henry Kissinger coined the phrase. Empathy is still not the right word to use.

---

In any case, Reagan focused on building trust when others had been afraid to do so. Instead of trying to humiliate Russia, he tried to make reform easier. Basically the opposite of everything we're doing. He certainly didn't want to end the Cold War just to start another arms race or go on a crusade in the backwater of Europe.

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

How y'all gonna feel in 4 years when this is still ongoing because Joe Biden can get 80+ million votes for term 2 and the tab is a couple trillion dollars?

---

we could speed up the aid and finish it in a lot less time than that for a lot less money than that, and I suspect that's what will happen if we get a Republican president.

---

Lol, you're lying to yourself. A President Trump or DeSantis have made it pretty clear what their position is, and it doesn't favor Ukraine.

---

Now you're projecting onto others the positions you need them to have rather the ones they've stated. Saying you'd end the war in 30 days doesn't say HOW you would do that.

I'd do it the same way Reagan ended the Cold War - making it clear to Russia that we were prepared to engage in a mobilization which Russia had no hope of countering - opening up the floodgates of arms and money to Ukraine.....unless Vlad made an immediate and unconditional commitment to withdraw to 2014 boundaries.

They'll cave.
They can't win.
And they know it.

---

Reagan would never have put us in this situation. Our foreign policy today lacks any vestige of his realism or strategic empathy. It's what Boomer narcissism looks like with a trillion dollar budget and all restraint cast aside.

---

Strategic empathy?

---

The ability to see from your opponent's point of view. Very important.

---

I don't know that I would call that empathy. Empathy has to do with understanding another's feelings/emotions. Gaming out situations and understanding another's motivations may be good diplomacy, but there is a better word than empathy.

---

We can't avoid attributing emotions to the other (e.g. "don't shop at Target, they hate you" or "Putin is crazed with hostility to the West"). Often it's little more than projection. The value of empathizing is that there's a chance you'll get it right.

---

Empathy is still not the right word.

---

I would suggest that your angst over the word is the reason it's the right word. We all have a powerful resistance to seeing the enemy as human. But you're not going to understand him otherwise.

---

I don't have angst. I just know that taking into account your opponents motives and goals when engaging in diplomacy and statecraft is not empathy.

---

It's a thing. I didn't coin the phrase.

---

I don't care if Henry Kissinger coined the phrase. Empathy is still not the right word to use.

---

In any case, Reagan focused on building trust when others had been afraid to do so. Instead of trying to humiliate Russia, he tried to make reform easier. Basically the opposite of everything we're doing. He certainly didn't want to end the Cold War just to start another arms race or go on a crusade in the backwater of Europe.

---

Not saying that isnt true, but the background context includes the Soviet-Afghan war going on, with our involvement, during the Reagan Presidency.

There's been drone strikes in Moscow, the capitol of Russia has been hit by Ukraine,

I expect a response from Russia within the next 72 hours. I suspect it has something to do with the movement of nuclear platforms (mobile nuclear missiles into Belarus).

So the brinksmanship continues because the western world is incapable of conducting diplomacy. Ukrainian leadership is not taking this seriously at this point by commanding drone strikes or potentially through dissident forces in Russia within the capitol itself.

Its a dangerous game opening yourself up to Russia responding with nukes. I don't think that happens, but what if Russia comes out tomorrow stating "Dear Russian people, we've been attacked on our domestic soil by Ukrainian terrorists...we'll we're going to take care of that" and then they fire a nuke at Kiev? How does the west respond? Russia is already under sanctions, China won't abandon them, there's no military response we can launch because the west isn't going to drop nukes on Russia.

A nuclear threat realizes with impunity its capable of targeting third party nations without any meaningful retaliation because it's already been pariahed to the point where there's nothing further any nation can do. Are we gonna stop Russian planes from flying out of Russian territory by firing sorties? If you fire on them and they fire back, that's direct war. Are you gonna stop their ships? Well that's great for the black sea because the Bosphorus is controlled by Turkey which is under the leadership of someone who talks well of both Putin and the western world.

We've gotten rid of mutually assured destruction. Either a war breaks out directly, or one side feels it can act with impunity with nuclear weapons and war doesn't immediately break out so they use them MORE.

I don't like the fact that Ukraine has been invaded and I feel sorry for them, but we as non Ukrainians need to approach this from a measured manner and conduct diplomacy.

This situation is what happens when the entire globe is run by failed leaders across the board.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's been drone strikes in Moscow, the capitol of Russia has been hit by Ukraine,

I expect a response from Russia within the next 72 hours. I suspect it has something to do with the movement of nuclear platforms (mobile nuclear missiles into Belarus).

So the brinksmanship continues because the western world is incapable of conducting diplomacy. Ukrainian leadership is not taking this seriously at this point by commanding drone strikes or potentially through dissident forces in Russia within the capitol itself.

Its a dangerous game opening yourself up to Russia responding with nukes. I don't think that happens, but what if Russia comes out tomorrow stating "Dear Russian people, we've been attacked on our domestic soil by Ukrainian terrorists...we'll we're going to take care of that" and then they fire a nuke at Kiev? How does the west respond? Russia is already under sanctions, China won't abandon them, there's no military response we can launch because the west isn't going to drop nukes on Russia.

A nuclear threat realizes with impunity its capable of targeting third party nations without any meaningful retaliation because it's already been pariahed to the point where there's nothing further any nation can do. Are we gonna stop Russian planes from flying out of Russian territory by firing sorties? If you fire on them and they fire back, that's direct war. Are you gonna stop their ships? Well that's great for the black sea because the Bosphorus is controlled by Turkey which is under the leadership of someone who talks well of both Putin and the western world.

We've gotten rid of mutually assured destruction. Either a war breaks out directly, or one side feels it can act with impunity with nuclear weapons and war doesn't immediately break out so they use them MORE.

I don't like the fact that Ukraine has been invaded and I feel sorry for them, but we as non Ukrainians need to approach this from a measured manner and conduct diplomacy.

This situation is what happens when the entire globe is run by failed leaders across the board.

---

So allowing Russia the ability to act with impunity because they have nukes is the answer? It's a dangerous game when you invade another nation. Perhaps they should take their ball and go home

---

Without diplomacy we run the risk of them behaving without impunity. If they use nukes and we counter attack in response, it's WW3.

Are you in favor of direct war against Russia instead of a proxy war?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. Why would we do something not in our interest? Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. You seem to think either we help everyone or no one.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. Why would we do something not in our interest? Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. You seem to think either we help everyone or no one.

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. Why would we do something not in our interest? Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. You seem to think either we help everyone or no one.

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

---

Once again, you don't make decisions based on today, you make them on potential. In land strapped Europe adding a Ukraine to one of our top trading partners? Ukraine has all the makings of a quality EU member, highly educated, hard working, natural resources, warm weather port, and a willing defense partner. Even their political system is young enough to change to fit the European model. Ukraine is a great potential addition to NATO. 67 today, means top 20 in twenty years and thankful we helped. What's not to like?

As for China, they are only pissed they are not closer to "annex" themselves...

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. Why would we do something not in our interest? Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. You seem to think either we help everyone or no one.

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

---

Once again, you don't make decisions based on today, you make them on potential. In land strapped Europe adding a Ukraine to one of our top trading partners? Ukraine has all the makings of a quality EU member, highly educated, hard working, natural resources, warm weather port, and a willing defense partner. Even their political system is young enough to change to fit the European model. Ukraine is a great potential addition to NATO. 67 today, means top 20 in twenty years and thankful we helped. What's not to like?

As for China, they are only pissed they are not closer to "annex" themselves...

---

Well thanks to the USA backed coup in 2014 that is what is going to happen.

Ukraine is now going to be a member of the EU and a member of NATO....at some future point.

The question is if we are going to let Moscow keep the consolation prize of Crimea & Donbas or keep funding this war for Kyiv to try and retake those areas.

Many leaders in Europe think we should be happy to have Ukraine and 85% of its territory and tell Kyiv to settle and let Moscow have the ethnic Russian areas in the east.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. Why would we do something not in our interest? Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. You seem to think either we help everyone or no one.

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

---

Once again, you don't make decisions based on today, you make them on potential. In land strapped Europe adding a Ukraine to one of our top trading partners? Ukraine has all the makings of a quality EU member, highly educated, hard working, natural resources, warm weather port, and a willing defense partner. Even their political system is young enough to change to fit the European model. Ukraine is a great potential addition to NATO. 67 today, means top 20 in twenty years and thankful we helped. What's not to like?

As for China, they are only pissed they are not closer to "annex" themselves...

---

Well thanks to the USA backed coup in 2014 that is what is going to happen.

Ukraine is now going to be a member of the EU and a member of NATO....at some future point.

The question is if we are going to let Moscow keep the consolation prize of Crimea & Donbas or keep funding this war for Kyiv to try and retake those areas.

Many leaders in Europe think we should be happy to have Ukraine and 85% of its territory and tell Kyiv to settle and let Moscow have the ethnic Russian areas in the east.

---

That is an interesting thought. Is Crimea alone enough? Maybe a DMZ in Dombas? Sea of Arzov access is an issue, but who knows. The makings of a peace plan, but it would have to include immeadiate NATO inclusion or we are back to 2014.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. Why would we do something not in our interest? Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. You seem to think either we help everyone or no one.

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

---

Once again, you don't make decisions based on today, you make them on potential. In land strapped Europe adding a Ukraine to one of our top trading partners? Ukraine has all the makings of a quality EU member, highly educated, hard working, natural resources, warm weather port, and a willing defense partner. Even their political system is young enough to change to fit the European model. Ukraine is a great potential addition to NATO. 67 today, means top 20 in twenty years and thankful we helped. What's not to like?

As for China, they are only pissed they are not closer to "annex" themselves...

---

Well thanks to the USA backed coup in 2014 that is what is going to happen.

Ukraine is now going to be a member of the EU and a member of NATO....at some future point.

The question is if we are going to let Moscow keep the consolation prize of Crimea & Donbas or keep funding this war for Kyiv to try and retake those areas.

Many leaders in Europe think we should be happy to have Ukraine and 85% of its territory and tell Kyiv to settle and let Moscow have the ethnic Russian areas in the east.

---

There are no ethnic Russian areas in eastern Ukraine. Russia can't even keep to this talking point as they constantly complain about genocide on the minority Russian speakers. Before Russia invaded in 2014 and started their relocation it wasn't even close. Now that Russia has tried to murder most of their friends and families even a lot of Russians don't want Russia at this point.

If Russia is crazy enough to invade Ukraine, they're crazy enough to use small nukes.

In the event that happens, how many of you are for direct war against Russia?

Doc Holliday said:

---

If Russia is crazy enough to invade Ukraine, they're crazy enough to use small nukes.

In the event that happens, how many of you are for direct war against Russia?

---

If they pop a nuke, it will not be just the US it will be everyone. Hell, even China may turn on them. They are not popping a nuke in Ukraine.

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. Why would we do something not in our interest? Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. You seem to think either we help everyone or no one.

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

---

Once again, you don't make decisions based on today, you make them on potential. In land strapped Europe adding a Ukraine to one of our top trading partners? Ukraine has all the makings of a quality EU member, highly educated, hard working, natural resources, warm weather port, and a willing defense partner. Even their political system is young enough to change to fit the European model. Ukraine is a great potential addition to NATO. 67 today, means top 20 in twenty years and thankful we helped. What's not to like?

As for China, they are only pissed they are not closer to "annex" themselves...

---

Well thanks to the USA backed coup in 2014 that is what is going to happen.

Ukraine is now going to be a member of the EU and a member of NATO....at some future point.

The question is if we are going to let Moscow keep the consolation prize of Crimea & Donbas or keep funding this war for Kyiv to try and retake those areas.

Many leaders in Europe think we should be happy to have Ukraine and 85% of its territory and tell Kyiv to settle and let Moscow have the ethnic Russian areas in the east.

---

There are no ethnic Russian areas in eastern Ukraine. Russia can't even keep to this talking point as they constantly complain about genocide on the minority Russian speakers. Before Russia invaded in 2014...

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. Why would we do something not in our interest? Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. You seem to think either we help everyone or no one.

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

---

Once again, you don't make decisions based on today, you make them on potential. In land strapped Europe adding a Ukraine to one of our top trading partners? Ukraine has all the makings of a quality EU member, highly educated, hard working, natural resources, warm weather port, and a willing defense partner. Even their political system is young enough to change to fit the European model. Ukraine is a great potential addition to NATO. 67 today, means top 20 in twenty years and thankful we helped. What's not to like?

As for China, they are only pissed they are not closer to "annex" themselves...

---

Well thanks to the USA backed coup in 2014 that is what is going to happen.

Ukraine is now going to be a member of the EU and a member of NATO....at some future point.

The question is if we are going to let Moscow keep the consolation prize of Crimea & Donbas or keep funding this war for Kyiv to try and retake those areas.

Many leaders in Europe think we should be happy to have Ukraine and 85% of its territory and tell Kyiv to settle and let Moscow have the ethnic Russian areas in the east.

---

There are no ethnic Russian areas in eastern Ukraine. Russia can't even keep to this talking point as they constantly complain about genocide on the minority Russian speakers. Before Russia invaded in 2014...

---

---

Since when does a linguistic map determine whether an area belongs in one country or another. I guess South Texas, CA, AZ, and NM should be mexico? Louisiana Haitian since they speak Creole? South Florida Cuban?

Really, the Russians are down to this to justify invading another Nation? Boundaries they agreed to in 1990's?

---

Well good point…you think the USA is always going to hold onto the Southwest?

Mexico lost Texas for the same reason the USA will probably one day also lose it…demographics

The people who live in a certain area always have the right to self determination.

The ethnic Russians in Donbas and Crimea don't want to be ruled by the regime in Kyiv why should you demand it?

Why should American taxpayers fund a war by the central government to murder people for trying to break off?

Heck the USA usually loves ethnic secessionist movement (Kosovo, South Sudan, East Timor)

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. Why would we do something not in our interest? Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. You seem to think either we help everyone or no one.

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

---

Once again, you don't make decisions based on today, you make them on potential. In land strapped Europe adding a Ukraine to one of our top trading partners? Ukraine has all the makings of a quality EU member, highly educated, hard working, natural resources, warm weather port, and a willing defense partner. Even their political system is young enough to change to fit the European model. Ukraine is a great potential addition to NATO. 67 today, means top 20 in twenty years and thankful we helped. What's not to like?

As for China, they are only pissed they are not closer to "annex" themselves...

---

Well thanks to the USA backed coup in 2014 that is what is going to happen.

Ukraine is now going to be a member of the EU and a member of NATO....at some future point.

The question is if we are going to let Moscow keep the consolation prize of Crimea & Donbas or keep funding this war for Kyiv to try and retake those areas.

Many leaders in Europe think we should be happy to have Ukraine and 85% of its territory and tell Kyiv to settle and let Moscow have the ethnic Russian areas in the east.

---

There are no ethnic Russian areas in eastern Ukraine. Russia can't even keep to this talking point as they constantly complain about genocide on the minority Russian speakers. Before Russia invaded in 2014...

---

---

Since when does a linguistic map determine whether an area belongs in one country or another. I guess South Texas, CA, AZ, and NM should be mexico? Louisiana Haitian since they speak Creole? South Florida Cuban?

Really, the Russians are down to this to justify invading another Nation? Boundaries they agreed to in 1990's?

---

You bring up a good point…you think the USA is always going to rule the Southwest?

Mexico lost Texas for the same reason that the USA will probably lose it…demographics

Are we supposed to make war on people for the crime of joining another political entity?

Heck the USA ruling class usually loves ethnic based secessionist movements (Kosovo, South Sudan, East Timor)

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective %85 The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. Why would we do something not in our interest? Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. You seem to think either we help everyone or no one.

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

---

Once again, you don't make decisions based on today, you make them on potential. In land strapped Europe adding a Ukraine to one of our top trading partners? Ukraine has all the makings of a quality EU member, highly educated, hard working, natural resources, warm weather port, and a willing defense partner. Even their political system is young enough to change to fit the European model. Ukraine is a great potential addition to NATO. 67 today, means top 20 in twenty years and thankful we helped. What's not to like?

As for China, they are only pissed they are not closer to "annex" themselves...

---

Well thanks to the USA backed coup in 2014 that is what is going to happen.

Ukraine is now going to be a member of the EU and a member of NATO....at some future point.

The question is if we are going to let Moscow keep the consolation prize of Crimea & Donbas or keep funding this war for Kyiv to try and retake those areas.

Many leaders in Europe think we should be happy to have Ukraine and 85% of its territory and tell Kyiv to settle and let Moscow have the ethnic Russian areas in the east.

---

There are no ethnic Russian areas in eastern Ukraine. Russia can't even keep to this talking point as they constantly complain about genocide on the minority Russian speakers. Before Russia invaded in 2014...

---

---

Since when does a linguistic map determine whether an area belongs in one country or another. I guess South Texas, CA, AZ, and NM should be mexico? Louisiana Haitian since they speak Creole? South Florida Cuban?

Really, the Russians are down to this to justify invading another Nation? Boundaries they agreed to in 1990's?

---

Well good point%85you think the USA is always going to hold onto the Southwest?

Mexico lost Texas for the same reason the USA will probably one day also lose it%85demographics

The people who live in a certain area always have the right to self determination.

The ethnic Russians in Donbas and Crimea don't want to be ruled by the regime in Kyiv why should you demand it?

Why should American taxpayers fund a war by the central government to murder people for trying to break off?

Heck the USA usually loves ethnic secessionist movement (Kosovo, South Sudan, East Timor)

---

It's almost as if the USA has ulterior motives that never enter the discussion and have nothing to do with saint-like devotion to the rule of international law.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? %A0Indeed. %A0if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective %85 The objective in war is a better state of peace %A0even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. %A0 %A0ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. %A0 If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. %A0Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? %A0 They did pre-WWI. %A0 And it led directly to TWO world wars. %A0 The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. %A0 If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography. %A0 %A0

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. %A0 The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? %A0Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice. %A0

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. %A0Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. %A0Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. %A0I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia. %A0

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

Of course it is up to us whether we get involved. %A0Why would we do something not in our interest? %A0Ukraine, Tawain, and a few other places are in our interest. I don't see what is wrong with that. %A0You seem to think either we help everyone or no one. %A0

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. %A0We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. %A0They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

---

Once again, you don't make decisions based on today, you make them on potential. %A0In land strapped Europe adding a Ukraine to one of our top trading partners? %A0Ukraine has all the makings of a quality EU member, highly educated, hard working, natural resources, warm weather port, and a willing defense partner. %A0 %A0Even their political system is young enough to change to fit the European model. %A0Ukraine is a great potential addition to NATO. 67 today, means top 20 in twenty years and thankful we helped. %A0What's not to like?

As for China, they are only pissed they are not closer to "annex" themselves...

---

Well thanks to the USA backed coup in 2014 that is what is going to happen.

Ukraine is now going to be a member of the EU and a member of NATO....at some future point.

The question is if we are going to let Moscow keep the consolation prize of Crimea & Donbas or keep funding this war for Kyiv to try and retake those areas.

Many leaders in Europe think we should be happy to have Ukraine and 85% of its territory and tell Kyiv to settle and let Moscow have the ethnic Russian areas in the east.

---

There are no ethnic Russian areas in eastern Ukraine. Russia can't even keep to this talking point as they constantly complain about genocide on the minority Russian speakers. Before Russia invaded in 2014...

---

---

Since when does a linguistic map determine whether an area belongs in one country or another. %A0I guess South Texas, CA, AZ, and NM should be mexico? %A0Louisiana Haitian since they speak Creole? %A0South Florida Cuban?

Really, the Russians are down to this to justify invading another Nation? %A0Boundaries they agreed to in 1990's? %A0

---

You bring up a good point%85you think the USA is always going to rule the Southwest?

Mexico lost Texas for the same reason that the USA will probably lose it%85demographics

Are we supposed to make war on people for the crime of joining another political entity?

Heck the USA ruling class usually loves ethnic based secessionist movements (Kosovo, South Sudan, East Timor)

---

40 years in this state and never once met a Texican that wants to join Mexico...

Your primary language is learned at 2 years old. This has literally nothing to do with ethnicity.%A0

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's been drone strikes in Moscow, the capitol of Russia has been hit by Ukraine,

I expect a response from Russia within the next 72 hours. I suspect it has something to do with the movement of nuclear platforms (mobile nuclear missiles into Belarus).

So the brinksmanship continues because the western world is incapable of conducting diplomacy. Ukrainian leadership is not taking this seriously at this point by commanding drone strikes or potentially through dissident forces in Russia within the capitol itself.

Its a dangerous game opening yourself up to Russia responding with nukes. I don't think that happens, but what if Russia comes out tomorrow stating "Dear Russian people, we've been attacked on our domestic soil by Ukrainian terrorists...we'll we're going to take care of that" and then they fire a nuke at Kiev? How does the west respond? Russia is already under sanctions, China won't abandon them, there's no military response we can launch because the west isn't going to drop nukes on Russia.

A nuclear threat realizes with impunity its capable of targeting third party nations without any meaningful retaliation because it's already been pariahed to the point where there's nothing further any nation can do. Are we gonna stop Russian planes from flying out of Russian territory by firing sorties? If you fire on them and they fire back, that's direct war. Are you gonna stop their ships? Well that's great for the black sea because the Bosphorus is controlled by Turkey which is under the leadership of someone who talks well of both Putin and the western world.

We've gotten rid of mutually assured destruction. Either a war breaks out directly, or one side feels it can act with impunity with nuclear weapons and war doesn't immediately break out so they use them MORE.

I don't like the fact that Ukraine has been invaded and I feel sorry for them, but we as non Ukrainians need to approach this from a measured manner and conduct diplomacy.

This situation is what happens when the entire globe is run by failed leaders across the board.

---

So allowing Russia the ability to act with impunity because they have nukes is the answer? It's a dangerous game when you invade another nation. Perhaps they should take their ball and go home

---

Without diplomacy we run the risk of them behaving without impunity. If they use nukes and we counter attack in response, it's WW3.

Are you in favor of direct war against Russia instead of a proxy war?

---

We are engaging in diplomacy. And also diplomacy by other means.

Russia is not going to nuke Ukraine for bombing Moscow, precisely because they know we will counter.

The hysteria over nuclear war here is quite a bit overblown.

---

Why is Russia moving nuclear weapons into Belarus?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Not if you mean risking war with a nuclear power over these places.

Ukraine for instance has never been an enrolled ally of the USA and it was part of the Soviet Union and before that Russian empire for hundreds of years. We have little trade with them and zero historic relations.

"Ukraine is currently our 67th largest goods trading partner"...so we don't even trade much with them.

Taiwan is a country that we have a much longer relationship with (Since the Reds took control of mainland China and the Nationalists fled there) and we do a lot of business with them to this day. They are in the top 10 of our trading partners and produce a lot of high tech goods.

But even then....keeping the status quo in Taiwan should be our goal and not brining them into any formal military alliance or placing troops there...since those actions would spark off a war with Red China.

---

Once again, you don't make decisions based on today, you make them on potential. In land strapped Europe adding a Ukraine to one of our top trading partners? Ukraine has all the makings of a quality EU member, highly educated, hard working, natural resources, warm weather port, and a willing defense partner. Even their political system is young enough to change to fit the European model. Ukraine is a great potential addition to NATO. 67 today, means top 20 in twenty years and thankful we helped. What's not to like?

As for China, they are only pissed they are not closer to "annex" themselves...

---

Well thanks to the USA backed coup in 2014 that is what is going to happen.

Ukraine is now going to be a member of the EU and a member of NATO....at some future point.

The question is if we are going to let Moscow keep the consolation prize of Crimea & Donbas or keep funding this war for Kyiv to try and retake those areas.

Many leaders in Europe think we should be happy to have Ukraine and 85% of its territory and tell Kyiv to settle and let Moscow have the ethnic Russian areas in the east.

---

There are no ethnic Russian areas in eastern Ukraine. Russia can't even keep to this talking point as they constantly complain about genocide on the minority Russian speakers. Before Russia invaded in 2014...

---

---

Since when does a linguistic map determine whether an area belongs in one country or another. I guess South Texas, CA, AZ, and NM should be mexico? Louisiana Haitian since they speak Creole? South Florida Cuban?

Really, the Russians are down to this to justify invading another Nation? Boundaries they agreed to in 1990's?

---

You bring up a good point…you think the USA is always going to rule the Southwest?

Mexico lost Texas for the same reason that the USA will probably lose it…demographics

Are we supposed to make war on people for the crime of joining another political entity?

Heck the USA ruling class usually loves ethnic based secessionist movements (Kosovo, South Sudan, East Timor)

---

the issue you raise is real. but not ironclad. Scotland and England speak the same language, but for reasons few can fully understand Scotland is right on the edge of leaving the union. Seems to be a little more grounds for a divorce in Canada, given the linguistic and cultural differences, but they've always stopped short. Catalonia had to be forcibly restrained by Madrid, recently, for what seem closer to Scottish level differences that Quebecoise. So yeah, it's an issue. But what your argument completely ignores is this: those issues do wax & wane. And in Ukraine, the Russian invasion has galvanized all those Russian speaking Ukrainians your maps cite into fire-breathing Ukrainian nationalists. Multiple polling units put the numbers very, very high. It's a disaster for Russia, in that regard. A broad seedbed of goodwill <<poof>> gone all the way over into insurgency. I mean, if your template was correct, Kharkiv would have met the Russian armies with open arms, right? Mariupol same, right?

It's also quite disingenuous to cite the Donbas as defacto "Russia inside Ukraine." Donbas was just the more valuable part of Ukraine to destabliize with "little green men." (you can google those three words, if you're not familiar with them.)

One of the few things the post colonial order has consistently agreed upon is BORDERS ARE BORDERS. Russia is trying overturn that consensus. It is not in our interest to let them succeed. It will allow them to little green men their way all the way to the Baltic, the Fulda Gap, and the Adriatic. So its decidedly in our interest to maintain the principle of "the borders are the borders." If a nation wants to use might to overturn that, it can expect most of the world to say "no." Because the little guys in the world know they get eaten by somebody if that order falls. And it is not in our interest to stand idly by while that kind of chaos goes metastatic.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's been drone strikes in Moscow, the capitol of Russia has been hit by Ukraine,

I expect a response from Russia within the next 72 hours. I suspect it has something to do with the movement of nuclear platforms (mobile nuclear missiles into Belarus).

So the brinksmanship continues because the western world is incapable of conducting diplomacy. Ukrainian leadership is not taking this seriously at this point by commanding drone strikes or potentially through dissident forces in Russia within the capitol itself.

Its a dangerous game opening yourself up to Russia responding with nukes. I don't think that happens, but what if Russia comes out tomorrow stating "Dear Russian people, we've been attacked on our domestic soil by Ukrainian terrorists...we'll we're going to take care of that" and then they fire a nuke at Kiev? How does the west respond? Russia is already under sanctions, China won't abandon them, there's no military response we can launch because the west isn't going to drop nukes on Russia.

A nuclear threat realizes with impunity its capable of targeting third party nations without any meaningful retaliation because it's already been pariahed to the point where there's nothing further any nation can do. Are we gonna stop Russian planes from flying out of Russian territory by firing sorties? If you fire on them and they fire back, that's direct war. Are you gonna stop their ships? Well that's great for the black sea because the Bosphorus is controlled by Turkey which is under the leadership of someone who talks well of both Putin and the western world.

We've gotten rid of mutually assured destruction. Either a war breaks out directly, or one side feels it can act with impunity with nuclear weapons and war doesn't immediately break out so they use them MORE.

I don't like the fact that Ukraine has been invaded and I feel sorry for them, but we as non Ukrainians need to approach this from a measured manner and conduct diplomacy.

This situation is what happens when the entire globe is run by failed leaders across the board.

---

So allowing Russia the ability to act with impunity because they have nukes is the answer? It's a dangerous game when you invade another nation. Perhaps they should take their ball and go home

---

Without diplomacy we run the risk of them behaving without impunity. If they use nukes and we counter attack in response, it's WW3.

Are you in favor of direct war against Russia instead of a proxy war?

---

We are engaging in diplomacy. And also diplomacy by other means.

Russia is not going to nuke Ukraine for bombing Moscow, precisely because they know we will counter.

The hysteria over nuclear war here is quite a bit overblown.

---

Why is Russia moving nuclear weapons into Belarus?

---

It's called diplomacy. Gunboat diplomacy, to be exact.

Also gives them a reason to intervene if/when the govt falls...."to rescue sensitive materials from chaos....."

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's been drone strikes in Moscow, the capitol of Russia has been hit by Ukraine,

I expect a response from Russia within the next 72 hours. I suspect it has something to do with the movement of nuclear platforms (mobile nuclear missiles into Belarus).

So the brinksmanship continues because the western world is incapable of conducting diplomacy. Ukrainian leadership is not taking this seriously at this point by commanding drone strikes or potentially through dissident forces in Russia within the capitol itself.

Its a dangerous game opening yourself up to Russia responding with nukes. I don't think that happens, but what if Russia comes out tomorrow stating "Dear Russian people, we've been attacked on our domestic soil by Ukrainian terrorists...we'll we're going to take care of that" and then they fire a nuke at Kiev? How does the west respond? Russia is already under sanctions, China won't abandon them, there's no military response we can launch because the west isn't going to drop nukes on Russia.

A nuclear threat realizes with impunity its capable of targeting third party nations without any meaningful retaliation because it's already been pariahed to the point where there's nothing further any nation can do. Are we gonna stop Russian planes from flying out of Russian territory by firing sorties? If you fire on them and they fire back, that's direct war. Are you gonna stop their ships? Well that's great for the black sea because the Bosphorus is controlled by Turkey which is under the leadership of someone who talks well of both Putin and the western world.

We've gotten rid of mutually assured destruction. Either a war breaks out directly, or one side feels it can act with impunity with nuclear weapons and war doesn't immediately break out so they use them MORE.

I don't like the fact that Ukraine has been invaded and I feel sorry for them, but we as non Ukrainians need to approach this from a measured manner and conduct diplomacy.

This situation is what happens when the entire globe is run by failed leaders across the board.

---

So allowing Russia the ability to act with impunity because they have nukes is the answer? It's a dangerous game when you invade another nation. Perhaps they should take their ball and go home

---

Without diplomacy we run the risk of them behaving without impunity. If they use nukes and we counter attack in response, it's WW3.

Are you in favor of direct war against Russia instead of a proxy war?

---

We are engaging in diplomacy. And also diplomacy by other means.

Russia is not going to nuke Ukraine for bombing Moscow, precisely because they know we will counter.

The hysteria over nuclear war here is quite a bit overblown.

---

Why is Russia moving nuclear weapons into Belarus?

---

It's called diplomacy. Gunboat diplomacy, to be exact.

---

And was already planned in 2020.

Bear8084 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's been drone strikes in Moscow, the capitol of Russia has been hit by Ukraine,

I expect a response from Russia within the next 72 hours. I suspect it has something to do with the movement of nuclear platforms (mobile nuclear missiles into Belarus).

So the brinksmanship continues because the western world is incapable of conducting diplomacy. Ukrainian leadership is not taking this seriously at this point by commanding drone strikes or potentially through dissident forces in Russia within the capitol itself.

Its a dangerous game opening yourself up to Russia responding with nukes. I don't think that happens, but what if Russia comes out tomorrow stating "Dear Russian people, we've been attacked on our domestic soil by Ukrainian terrorists...we'll we're going to take care of that" and then they fire a nuke at Kiev? How does the west respond? Russia is already under sanctions, China won't abandon them, there's no military response we can launch because the west isn't going to drop nukes on Russia.

A nuclear threat realizes with impunity its capable of targeting third party nations without any meaningful retaliation because it's already been pariahed to the point where there's nothing further any nation can do. Are we gonna stop Russian planes from flying out of Russian territory by firing sorties? If you fire on them and they fire back, that's direct war. Are you gonna stop their ships? Well that's great for the black sea because the Bosphorus is controlled by Turkey which is under the leadership of someone who talks well of both Putin and the western world.

We've gotten rid of mutually assured destruction. Either a war breaks out directly, or one side feels it can act with impunity with nuclear weapons and war doesn't immediately break out so they use them MORE.

I don't like the fact that Ukraine has been invaded and I feel sorry for them, but we as non Ukrainians need to approach this from a measured manner and conduct diplomacy.

This situation is what happens when the entire globe is run by failed leaders across the board.

---

So allowing Russia the ability to act with impunity because they have nukes is the answer? It's a dangerous game when you invade another nation. Perhaps they should take their ball and go home

---

Without diplomacy we run the risk of them behaving without impunity. If they use nukes and we counter attack in response, it's WW3.

Are you in favor of direct war against Russia instead of a proxy war?

---

We are engaging in diplomacy. And also diplomacy by other means.

Russia is not going to nuke Ukraine for bombing Moscow, precisely because they know we will counter.

The hysteria over nuclear war here is quite a bit overblown.

---

Why is Russia moving nuclear weapons into Belarus?

---

It's called diplomacy. Gunboat diplomacy, to be exact.

Also gives them a reason to intervene if/when the govt falls...."to rescue sensitive materials from chaos....."

---

And was already planned in 2020.

---

Poland has rattled sabers recently about supporting their own "little green men" to foster instability in Belarus. Lukashenko regime is not popular and he is not healthy. borderline house of cards situation - late phase weak regime running on momentum of common man being afraid to take the first step, but first brick or two that falls could fill the streets with protestors.

So if there is a coup, and Lukashenko regime falls, to be replaced by a pro-western faction, or even an avowed "neutral" junta......does Nato enter to offer aid? (no. Russia could also be expected to move quickly to topple a non-pliable regime and replace it with another puppet, so risk of direct conflict too high. The emplacement of tac-nukes would actually be a warning sign for us NOT to get involved.) But do we foment civil unrest, to tie Russia down in a nasty guerilla war while it is simultaneously overextended in Ukraine? Indeed we should. And I suspect the plans & preps have been long and well laid.

Such could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Dare we ask how Ukraine would react to such? (wink). They would not have quite the same "impediments" that a Nato nation would have, now, would they.

Russia is under a lot of stress right now. What a pity it would be for things to get even more "complicated." I doubt Putin does much praying, but if he does, Lukashenko's well-being would be pretty high on the list. Misfortune in Minsk this year would be exceedingly bad timing for Russia.

(odds would seem favor Russia to consolidate Belarus, though. Unless we get some Ukrainian-esque type patriotism. I just don't know enough to assess whether that's in the cards. but by all means make Russia pay dearly.......)

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

For those wondering why Lindsey Graham is so invested in Ukraine winning and Russians dying:@LindseyGrahamSC was with Deep State McCain in Ukraine in 2016, telling the Ukrainians how they are going to get support from Washington so they can go on the “offensive” against Russia… pic.twitter.com/kqEXp8Fdik

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2023

---

Going on the offensive against Russia? Indeed. if we had done more then, helping Ukraine push Russia out of Donbas and Crimea, we might have avoided the war we have now.

"Nations do not wage war for war's sake, but in pursuance of policy. The military objective is only the means to a political end. Hence the military objective should be governed by the political objective … The objective in war is a better state of peace even if only from your own point of view. Hence it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire."
--Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart

Russia must end this war in substantially worse position than it began, or it will simply keep coming back for another bite. ALL of the gains from the 2022 invasion must be reversed and, ideally, one or both of Donbas and Crimea must be returned to Ukrainian control. If you don't punish the small infractions, bigger ones will happen.

This war is about political order, a defense of modernity itself. Do larger nations get to nibble off pieces of what they want in the shatter zone? They did pre-WWI. And it led directly to TWO world wars. The post WWII international order holds that the borders are the borders. If you don't maintain that principle, then it's back to pre-colonial scrambles for geography.

---

America has already rejected the international order. The only way to restore balance is to accept Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas. Otherwise the Lindsey Grahams and Hillary Clintons of the world will keep pushing Russia until we find ourselves in direct conflict.

---

You know, you really should think thru your posts before hitting enter. The international order recognizes Donbas and Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

---

The international order recognized Iraq as sovereign territory too. You really should think through your hypocrisy before lecturing Russia.

---

So now the US is giving Ukrainian territory to the Russians, because we did something wrong 20 years ago? Ok, that makes sense.

By the way, Ukraine doesn't want give Russia that territory, it is their choice.

As for Iraq, Russia supported Sadam with 20 billion in arms sales in the Iran-Iraq War and intel on US military positions in the US-Iraq War. Almost all the military Iraq had was from the Soviets. Basically, Russia did exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine to help Iraq out multiple times. I guess you can say there is a precedent set by Russia.

---

If it's their choice then we don't need to be involved. What you really mean is that it's their choice if we approve it, fund it, and risk war over it. Since you're saying we should do all that, you need to make a case for our interest in it.

---

That part in bold is your straw man. Supporting and funding a state invaded by another is not an act of war. Do you have an example of a proxy war between the US and Russia escalating into a conventional or nuclear war....of either state attacking the other because of military support? Did we attack Russia or China over their support for the Viet Cong? Did Russia attack us over our support for the mujahjdeen in Afghanistan or Syria? Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum....

Dude, there are so many metrics I could post, if only..... suffice to say the west and the east have been poking one another via proxy armies for roughly 100 years or so. It's what major powers do.....

---

Whether it's an act of war is debatable. Certainly not all such acts carry equal risk.