Russia mobilizes

260,143 Views | 4259 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by sombear
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:46p, 6/5/23
Reply Quote
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 7:01a, 6/6/23
Redbrickbear said:
FAFO
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 9:52a, 6/6/23
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
Reply Quote
6
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 10:37a, 6/6/23
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
We are supposed to have no business relationships, get no resources and only be in locations with no strategic value. In other words, for some there can be no benefit to the US for anything we do internationally for it to be considered ok. We should be setting up programs for Nepal as our main allie...
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 10:50a, 6/6/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
We are supposed to have no business relationships, get no resources and only be in locations with no strategic value. In other words, for some there can be no benefit to the US for anything we do internationally for it to be considered ok. We should be setting up programs for Nepal as our main allie...

There are only two regions of the world that have essential economic value to us (the EU and East Asia) and not one has said anything about not doing business in those areas or not having military bases there.

EU: pop. of 446 million and GDP of $25 trillion

East Asia: pop. of 1.6 billion and GDP of $44 trillion

We also have huge business and military relationships with countries in Oceania and Latin America.

Has anyone on this thread (or anywhere else) said we are to pull out of any of those areas?

This is about if the juice is worth the squeeze on places like Ukraine (a demographically declining and corrupt ex-soviet state in eastern Europe that is not even in the top 60 of our trading partners and that we have no military alliance with)

If we can't live with all the the countries in blue on this map and within our sphere of influence…then something is very wrong






p.s.

I don't this this map even shows the true extent of American military, economic, and cultural influence. South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey should all be counted as well within the blue area.
Reply Quote
4 edits
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 11:04a, 6/6/23
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

Second: the proximity of Russian allies, Russian bases, Russian armies, Russian navies, inherently enhances the projection of Russian power. If Ukraine moves into Russian orbit, Molodova will be destabilized in months. In fact, the government there would almost certainly preemptively capitulate to Russian demands in order to retain hold on power. The rest of the NATO frontline states would face the implications of NATO being unable to stop Russia in Ukraine - the possibility/likelihood of facing the same fate. That inevitabily softens pro-Nato/anti-Russian policies.....forces those nations to constantly balance resistance with appeasement of Russian power. That gives oxygen to pro-Russian political forces, and weakens pro-Nato forces, inevitably elevating that into the primary dynamic of domestic politics. Eventually, pro-Russian forces will win an election. Etc......lest you think that will not happen, I would encourage you to look at recent Ukrainian politics. The dynamic I describe is not some pie in the sky...it is EXACTLY what Ukrainian politics look like from its independence to 2014. That dynamic will happen in the states bounding upon Russia as long as there is a Russia, which means the entirety of the question is "Which states bounder on Russia." We really want that number to be no larger than 6 - Finland, Batlics, Belarus, Ukraine.

One must take great pains not to weaken an alliance to which one intends to remain committed. That means, we must do what we can not to let Russia consolidate power in Ukraine, because that would inevitably create 8 mini-Ukraines over the next 10-20 years, SIX OF THEM currently in Nato.

For shin & grits, let's look at how that applies to your argument. On one hand you say Ukraine cannot win, because Russia is too big and too powerful. On the other, you say Russia is no threat to NATO because it too weak. Ironically, Russia can't even defeat Ukraine, yet this thread is full of plaintive bleating about how Ukraine is being destroyed. So, in fact, you do accept the concept I proposed above.....that war is terribly destructive and one is best served by minimizing chances to get drawn into one, even with a plainly inferior adversary, because that plainly inferior adversary might think it can win by just outlasting you and in any even the human and financial costs of victory are so high as to make victory look Pyrrhic.

For Nato, all of that stuff above can be boiled down into one simple imperative: KEEP RUSSIAN ARMIES IN RUSSIA! Make the war happen on their own borders, not ours.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 11:15a, 6/6/23
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

And where would such a hypothetical war be fought? It would be fought in Belarus or Russia.

A long draw on affair (if they are lucky) that destroys much of Belarus of Russia.

Lets no act like Russian armies could get into NATO allied states in Central Europe.

They would be crushed long before they ever got there.

Most importantly they don't want to do it.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 12:36p, 6/6/23
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
We are supposed to have no business relationships, get no resources and only be in locations with no strategic value. In other words, for some there can be no benefit to the US for anything we do internationally for it to be considered ok. We should be setting up programs for Nepal as our main allie...

There are only two regions of the world that have essential economic value to us (the EU and East Asia) and not one has said anything about not doing business in those areas or not having military bases there.

EU: pop. of 446 million and GDP of $25 trillion

East Asia: pop. of 1.6 billion and DGP of $44 trillion

We also have huge business and military relationships with countries in Oceania and Latin America.

Has anyone on this thread (or anywhere else) said we are to pull out of any of those areas?

This is about if the juice is worth the squeeze on places like Ukraine (a demographically declining and corrupt ex-soviet state in eastern Europe that is not even in the top 60 of our trading partners and that we have no military alliance with)

If we can't live with all the the countries in blue on this map and within our sphere of influence…then something is very wrong






p.s.

I don't this this map even shows the true extent of American military, economic, and cultural influence. South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey should all be counted as well within the blue area.
Once again, you guys keep leaving out the wants and desires of the Nations wanting to join US alliances. Nobody is being forced. Hell, even France left NATO once before and no one stopped them. China is trying to get a sphere growing through their Belt and Road Program, but they are too heavy handed. They make it an obvious debt trap. As for Russia, nobody but Belarus wants to be involved with them, there is a reason for that!


By the way, I had to change my name due to a conflict. Was RMF...
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 1:03p, 6/6/23
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
We are supposed to have no business relationships, get no resources and only be in locations with no strategic value. In other words, for some there can be no benefit to the US for anything we do internationally for it to be considered ok. We should be setting up programs for Nepal as our main allie...

There are only two regions of the world that have essential economic value to us (the EU and East Asia) and not one has said anything about not doing business in those areas or not having military bases there.

EU: pop. of 446 million and GDP of $25 trillion

East Asia: pop. of 1.6 billion and DGP of $44 trillion

We also have huge business and military relationships with countries in Oceania and Latin America.

Has anyone on this thread (or anywhere else) said we are to pull out of any of those areas?

This is about if the juice is worth the squeeze on places like Ukraine (a demographically declining and corrupt ex-soviet state in eastern Europe that is not even in the top 60 of our trading partners and that we have no military alliance with)

If we can't live with all the the countries in blue on this map and within our sphere of influence…then something is very wrong






p.s.

I don't this this map even shows the true extent of American military, economic, and cultural influence. South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey should all be counted as well within the blue area.
Once again, you guys keep leaving out the wants and desires of the Nations wanting to join US alliances. Nobody is being forced. Hell, even France left NATO once before and no one stopped them. China is trying to get a sphere growing through their Belt and Road Program, but they are too heavy handed. They make it an obvious debt trap. As for Russia, nobody but Belarus wants to be involved with them, there is a reason for that!


By the way, I had to change my name due to a conflict. Was RMF...

1. You made the statement that "we are supposed to have no business relationships, get no resources and only be in locations with no strategic value"...but as the map shows that is not true and no on has advocated that. We have all the best nations and the most successful ones and the most geo-politically significant and economically key nations in our alliance. We have a two ocean navy and bases in 80+ countries....and none of that is going to change.


2. No one said that others nations views on joining don't matter.

But if Myanmar wants to join the Blue sphere (where the USA is the big economic and military top dog) we would have to seriously weight the pros and cons of possible conflict with China. And ask ourselves if some place like that was potential worth such conflict. hit: its not
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 1:58p, 6/6/23
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
We are supposed to have no business relationships, get no resources and only be in locations with no strategic value. In other words, for some there can be no benefit to the US for anything we do internationally for it to be considered ok. We should be setting up programs for Nepal as our main allie...

There are only two regions of the world that have essential economic value to us (the EU and East Asia) and not one has said anything about not doing business in those areas or not having military bases there.

EU: pop. of 446 million and GDP of $25 trillion

East Asia: pop. of 1.6 billion and DGP of $44 trillion

We also have huge business and military relationships with countries in Oceania and Latin America.

Has anyone on this thread (or anywhere else) said we are to pull out of any of those areas?

This is about if the juice is worth the squeeze on places like Ukraine (a demographically declining and corrupt ex-soviet state in eastern Europe that is not even in the top 60 of our trading partners and that we have no military alliance with)

If we can't live with all the the countries in blue on this map and within our sphere of influence…then something is very wrong






p.s.

I don't this this map even shows the true extent of American military, economic, and cultural influence. South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey should all be counted as well within the blue area.
Once again, you guys keep leaving out the wants and desires of the Nations wanting to join US alliances. Nobody is being forced. Hell, even France left NATO once before and no one stopped them. China is trying to get a sphere growing through their Belt and Road Program, but they are too heavy handed. They make it an obvious debt trap. As for Russia, nobody but Belarus wants to be involved with them, there is a reason for that!


By the way, I had to change my name due to a conflict. Was RMF...

1. You made the statement that "we are supposed to have no business relationships, get no resources and only be in locations with no strategic value"...but as the map shows that is not true and no on has advocated that. We have all the best nations and the most successful ones and the most geo-politically significant and economically key nations in our alliance. We have a two ocean navy and bases in 80+ countries....and none of that is going to change.


2. No one said that others nations views on joining don't matter.

But if Myanmar wants to join the Blue sphere (where the USA is the big economic and military top dog) we would have to seriously weight the pros and cons of possible conflict with China. And ask ourselves if some place like that was potential worth such conflict. hit: its not
It was rhetorical...


No one wants to play with Russia, non-rhetorical...
Reply Quote
1
ATL Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 2:32p, 6/6/23
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
We are supposed to have no business relationships, get no resources and only be in locations with no strategic value. In other words, for some there can be no benefit to the US for anything we do internationally for it to be considered ok. We should be setting up programs for Nepal as our main allie...

There are only two regions of the world that have essential economic value to us (the EU and East Asia) and not one has said anything about not doing business in those areas or not having military bases there.

EU: pop. of 446 million and GDP of $25 trillion

East Asia: pop. of 1.6 billion and GDP of $44 trillion

We also have huge business and military relationships with countries in Oceania and Latin America.

Has anyone on this thread (or anywhere else) said we are to pull out of any of those areas?

This is about if the juice is worth the squeeze on places like Ukraine (a demographically declining and corrupt ex-soviet state in eastern Europe that is not even in the top 60 of our trading partners and that we have no military alliance with)

If we can't live with all the the countries in blue on this map and within our sphere of influence…then something is very wrong






p.s.

I don't this this map even shows the true extent of American military, economic, and cultural influence. South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey should all be counted as well within the blue area.
I just want to point out you, and others, have argued vociferously about Taiwan and our involvement. There is incredible strategic interest there for the US and the world not least of which relates to semiconductors. If you buy into the above, you'd at least agree it's good policy to support the robust market economy and thriving democracy that exists as Taiwan today.
Reply Quote
2
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ATL Bear • 3:43p, 6/6/23
ATL Bear said:
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
We are supposed to have no business relationships, get no resources and only be in locations with no strategic value. In other words, for some there can be no benefit to the US for anything we do internationally for it to be considered ok. We should be setting up programs for Nepal as our main allie...

There are only two regions of the world that have essential economic value to us (the EU and East Asia) and not one has said anything about not doing business in those areas or not having military bases there.

EU: pop. of 446 million and GDP of $25 trillion

East Asia: pop. of 1.6 billion and GDP of $44 trillion

We also have huge business and military relationships with countries in Oceania and Latin America.

Has anyone on this thread (or anywhere else) said we are to pull out of any of those areas?

This is about if the juice is worth the squeeze on places like Ukraine (a demographically declining and corrupt ex-soviet state in eastern Europe that is not even in the top 60 of our trading partners and that we have no military alliance with)

If we can't live with all the the countries in blue on this map and within our sphere of influence…then something is very wrong






p.s.

I don't this this map even shows the true extent of American military, economic, and cultural influence. South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey should all be counted as well within the blue area.
I just want to point out you, and others, have argued vociferously about Taiwan and our involvement. There is incredible strategic interest there for the US and the world not least of which relates to semiconductors. If you buy into the above, you'd at least agree it's good policy to support the robust market economy and thriving democracy that exists as Taiwan today.

We have had a relationship with Taiwan for 70 years. Relationship with the Chinese nationalists (Kuomintang) since the 2nd world war.

That is a lot different than Ukraine (a poor ex-soviet state that did not exist until 1991 and who had a pro-Moscow government until 2014)

But even then....our goal with Taiwan should be keeping the status quo. Taiwan being de-facto independent as Chinese Taipei. We certainly don't want the situation there descending into an outright shooting war like we have seen in Ukraine. And trips by Nancy Pelosi to Taipei don't help.

But if you are looking to a country to protect through a proxy war....Taiwan (long time ally of the USA) and on an island easily defended from the mainland...makes more sense than others.
Reply Quote
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:14p, 6/6/23
The US has no rerason to go to war over Taiwan........none.
Reply Quote
1
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 4:25p, 6/6/23
KaiBear said:
The US has no rerason to go to war over Taiwan........none.
Outside of the fact that our entire modern way of life is dependent on the forges there.....
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
4
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to trey3216 • 6:01p, 6/6/23
trey3216 said:
KaiBear said:
The US has no rerason to go to war over Taiwan........none.
Outside of the fact that our entire modern way of life is dependent on the forges there.....


For now.

One good thing the Federal government has finally done is realize it has to reshore high tech production back to the mainland USA.

It's a real national security issue





Reply Quote
1 edit
ATL Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 6:35p, 6/6/23
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
KaiBear said:
The US has no rerason to go to war over Taiwan........none.
Outside of the fact that our entire modern way of life is dependent on the forges there.....


For now.

One good thing the Federal government has finally done is realize it has to reshore high tech production back to the mainland USA.

It's a real national security issue





TSMC has a production facility here and is building another. They are the ones helping the "reshore". But Americans aren't fans of the intense work culture. Reason 637 why I repeat the reality that we can't do here what they do in China, Taiwan and several other nations. At least not until we have a reset of work expectations, and it's away from the direction we've been heading for awhile, and put on steroids during and post COVID.
Reply Quote
3
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 7:12p, 6/6/23
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
KaiBear said:
The US has no rerason to go to war over Taiwan........none.
Outside of the fact that our entire modern way of life is dependent on the forges there.....


For now.

One good thing the Federal government has finally done is realize it has to reshore high tech production back to the mainland USA.

It's a real national security issue





much of that is 10 years out. Not to mention it's primarily the secondary part of the equation (the chip making, rather than the silicon wafer forging). It will take some years, like 20 (10-15 if on wartime production) to replace just what we need in regards to the wafer forging to get where we'd need to be
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to trey3216 • 9:07p, 6/6/23
trey3216 said:
KaiBear said:
The US has no rerason to go to war over Taiwan........none.
Outside of the fact that our entire modern way of life is dependent on the forges there.....


Wrong, there is nothing in Taiwan we can't do without in the time necessary to develop new sources .

We can not possibly win a war with China in that part of the world.

Our supply lines would be several thousands of miles long and would be impossible to maintain for any appreciable amount of time.

Some of you guys think time has stood still since the 80's both here and in China . Well it hasn't. China has grown stronger and the US significantly weaker .

Besides the American people would NEVER support such a war.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:39p, 6/6/23
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 10:43p, 6/6/23
KaiBear said:
trey3216 said:
KaiBear said:
The US has no rerason to go to war over Taiwan........none.
Outside of the fact that our entire modern way of life is dependent on the forges there.....


Wrong, there is nothing in Taiwan we can't do without in the time necessary to develop new sources .

We can not possibly win a war with China in that part of the world.

Our supply lines would be several thousands of miles long and would be impossible to maintain for any appreciable amount of time.

Some of you guys think time has stood still since the 80's both here and in China . Well it hasn't. China has grown stronger and the US significantly weaker .

Besides the American people would NEVER support such a war.
The situation is far more complicated than many here seem to understand.

First, it's a mistake to think of a nation's power only in terms of linear growth. There are many factors which must be considered before advancing a decision on who would win a confrontation between the US and the PRC.

First, here are my replies to the contentions made:

"We can not possibly win a war with China in that part of the world."

We can win a war, provided that we are prepared for it in both logistical and psychological terms. And yes, we can be so prepared.


"Our supply lines would be several thousands of miles long and would be impossible to maintain for any appreciable amount of time."

That falsely presumes both a conventional war in terms of weapons and targets, and fails to grasp the interests of other Pacific nations. SEATO alone would make a significant impact. China's aggression since 1990 has, for example, been so malignant that nations like Singapore, South Korea and even Vietnam have asked Japan to increase the size and readiness of its Defense Force.


"Some of you guys think time has stood still since the 80's both here and in China . Well it hasn't. China has grown stronger and the US significantly weaker "

That is not strictly true. The US has suffered under some truly poor leadership, but has grown in new technology and still remains the sole power of size to regularly train its military in real-world exercises on a scale suitable for actual war preparation.
.

"Besides the American people would NEVER support such a war."

If explained honestly and with proper context, there would be general support for the effort. I do agree that neither Biden nor Trump would be able to handle that task.

Now, as to why I believe those things. .The United States has weathered all manner of attacks and insidious infiltration over the years, so that - with proper purpose and planning - the US can win any war, anywhere.

This belief is built not only on the known hardware we have, the training regimen, and the access we have to global deployment, but also unparalleled intel on many levels. I cannot openly discuss everything we have, but consider that we were intercepting encrypted satellite communications before the 1991 Gulf War. Consider that and imagine where we have gone since then, using nanotech, quantum VIC, and other new modes of information capture, and you should be able to grasp some of how far we have come.

As for China, it's easy to imagine that the CCP has simply stayed true to their plan all these years, and we are losing out of poor rigor. But that is far from true.

First, after Nixon's trip to China, China realized they had major changes to make. Mao's policies, pretty much all of them, were horrible mistakes. A lot of Americans do not understand what a seismic shift it was for Deng to allow Chinese citizens to grow their own private farms, and private shops to be started.

We know, of course, today being an important reminder, that the CCP then imagined that people could be allowed some economic prosperity while the government retained complete control. That fiction collapsed of course with the Tienamen Square protests.

So, cutting this a little bit shorter, after 1991 Beijing was scared s h i t l e s s . The US victory freeing Kuwait left no doubt that the US was a hyperpower, while China was not even able to make sure Russia could not invade their Northern territory, It was during this time that Chinese authorities risked a gamble and bet on backing Democrats. When Clinton took office in 1993, China gained the opportunity to make deals and gain (that is, steal) industrial and military secrets. Chinese children of high-ranking officials began to attend select US universities, especially engineering and tech colleges.

The plan was to help China's military catch up by stealing tech, and jump the growth of China's own colleges.

The problems began to show up almost right away. To choose an obvious example, China has been trying since 1994 to build a fleet carrier for its PLA Navy. Literally every attempt has been an abject failure up to now.

Yes, China has what they call 'carriers', but they still use the sweep ramp that the Russians made do with, and only STOL aircraft can be used, and even then with only half-fuel and half-weaponry. Even then, common practice for PLAN pilots is to land on ground: Carrier landings are attempted only in daylight, in good weather, and by pilots with at least a year of experience with that specific aircraft.

As for the planes, China's best fighter jet, the Xi'an JH-7, is too heavy for carrier use when outfitted for battle, and only about 5% of China's pilots are qualified to fly it. Even then, the aircraft is dismally outclassed by even 10-year-old American fighters, As for 'stealth', well it also works ... sort of. Unlike US Stealth aircraft, China's Chengdu J-20 is regularly tracked by American networks. It can spoof ground radar (e.g. SAMs) to some degree, and can be hard for fighters to track by in-jet radar in dogfights, but E-2's can help and make all the difference in keeping tabs on them. All in all, Chinese air capabilities are woefully inadequate to a major conflict.

The PLA knows this, of course, and so any plan for a conflict against American forces would be based on asymmetric warfare. The PLA also understands, as Russia does, that if you have enough soldiers, you can overcome almost any technological disadvantage. There is zero chance the CCP worries about having to explain deaths of ordinary soldiers to grieving parents.

That said, there are three very big problems for China, which could prove critical to events.

First, the Chinese culture has always considered family as a prime virtue. This matters because even now, a lot of Chinese families remember that before Pearl Harbor was attacked, only two nations stood alongside China: Britain and America. And Britain was - frankly - only worried about Hong Kong and its other colonies.

The Americans, on the other hand, volunteered to fight Japan, in groups like the Flying Tigers. Chinese eagerly assisted Americans during WW2, because they saw the American actions as honorable.

What's that got to do with Family? Because a lot of Chinese heard stories about the Americans from their grand-parents, and the Chinese youth has always been fascinated with American movies, music, culture.

Thousands of Chinese young adults come to US colleges for their education. And that amplifies the American influence. The Beijing government has tried over and over to drive US influence out of China, but it's embedded as a counter-culture.

China protecting itself against an American attacker? That can work, but China invading other Asian nations and doing so against Americans defending those nations? That would most likely lead to a real insurrection.

In 2011, a series of earthquakes in Southwest China killed thousands, mostly women and children. It got only a brief bit of attention in the West, in part because China quickly suppressed media attention. There were major protests, and those protests swept the nation. Hundreds of local and regional political authorities had to resign to keep the protests from turning into a much more serious threat. A private report by RAND, now removed from public access, says that the chance of a counter-revolution in China reached twelve percent (12%) . That may not impress some, since it had effectively no chance of succeeding, but reports of military bases going on strike, hundreds of factories refusing to ship products to major coastal cities, and other similar uprisings, lacking coordination but reflecting a sort of national rage ... this was unprecedented for the CCP, and revealed several critical fractures in the PRC stability.

In the event of a war, the US would certainly make use of those vulnerabilities, most notably the deep resentment between coastal China and inland China in privilege, freedoms and standard of living.

The third problem is the Endgame. The United States often acts foolishly and gets away with it by not taking ownership of nations it defeats. Our colonial past is just that, our past. While the US wants to exercise influence, it does so on a level far more like equality than nations receive from regimes like Xi's group.

If China invades Taiwan, they have to think about far more than just grabbing the land. The question at hand is whether the US will have the leader in office up to the challenge.
Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 7:31a, 6/7/23
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

And where would such a hypothetical war be fought? It would be fought in Belarus or Russia.
Not exactly. It will be fought on the western side of countries boundering Russian army bases. Right now, that is Baltics, Poland, Ukraine. IF we follow your policy and let Russia have Ukraine, the potential war zone expands to Slovakia, Hungary, Romania.

A long draw on affair (if they are lucky) that destroys much of Belarus of Russia.
GOOD! They shouldn't have started the war. (only that's not exactly the scenario. See above.)

Lets no act like Russian armies could get into NATO allied states in Central Europe.
Yes, Russian armies COULD get into Nato in the future, depending on where they start their invasion, and the scenario which invites it. Political instability and/or a coup in any of the Poland/Slovakia/Hungary/Romania (PSHR) countries would greatly facilitate it. (and that is the likely scenario we face, not direct invasion.)
All Russian armies have to do is fire up the tanks and head west. Nato would then have to wage war to stop them.....on Nato soil. See Ukraine 2022-2023 to assess damage costs to Nato countries. Yes, Russia knows it's weaker than Nato. But as we see in Ukraine, Russia thinks it's tougher than Nato, that Nato will give up rather than seeing a tough war thru to the end. (hate to be harsh, but has to be said: your posts are exactly what feed Russian perceptions....)

They would be crushed long before they ever got there.
Yes, they would be crushed (as they have been in Ukraine), but if they start from Belarus/Ukraine, they will be crushed on NATO soil. That would be frightfully expensive for Nato. Way better to keep Russian armies in Russia, so they have to invade Ukraine (and ideally Belarus) first.

Most importantly they don't want to do it.
Wrong. They are desperate, legitimately desperate, to return Baltics/PSHR countries to Russian orbit, by whatever means possible. They will take risks and miscalculate all along their bumbling way. See Ukraine 2022 for examples. The cost of our inevitable victory is frightful.
Which brings us to the far more likely scenario: Russia seeks to destabilize Baltics/PHSR, promoting pro-Russian factions and weaken pro-Nato factions. (See the last two decades of Ukrainian politics for an example.) The effectiveness of such campaigns are significantly impacted by the proximity of Russian armies. No matter how much you hate Russia, your decision-making gets a lot harder when you can actually see the shadow of a Russian tank touching your border.

More importantly with respect to the proximity factor: The way Nato as we know it ends, and it's a question of when not if, is for a Nato country on the eastern boundary (Baltics/PSHR) to elect a pro-Russian government and announce departure for neutral status. The most alarming scenario of this type is a Maidan-type revolution......an election, followed by riots, followed by coup. What happens when a Baltic/PSHR country with a pro-Nato majority wakes up one day to find pro-Russian factions have seized power in a coup....and unrest starts up. Does Russia intervene to protect the "new" government? Does Nato intervene to protect the "old" government? That is the nightmare scenario of direct Russian/Nato conflict.

The best defense against all that is to let governments come and go but KEEP RUSSIAN ARMIES IN RUSSIA. We can tolerate a pro-Russian govt in Minsk or Kiev (and try to swing them back our direction). That is the great game of geopolitics....let the pendulum of influence swing. What we cannot tolerate is Russian armies in Belarus or Ukraine. That is not geopolitics. That is hegemony. Unacceptable.

Russia must lose their war in Ukraine (and GO HOME).
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
cowboycwr
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 8:12a, 6/7/23
KaiBear said:
trey3216 said:
KaiBear said:
The US has no rerason to go to war over Taiwan........none.
Outside of the fact that our entire modern way of life is dependent on the forges there.....


Wrong, there is nothing in Taiwan we can't do without in the time necessary to develop new sources .

We can not possibly win a war with China in that part of the world.

Our supply lines would be several thousands of miles long and would be impossible to maintain for any appreciable amount of time.

Some of you guys think time has stood still since the 80's both here and in China . Well it hasn't. China has grown stronger and the US significantly weaker .

Besides the American people would NEVER support such a war.
1. is false. Look at everything we get from Taiwan that we have no facilities for here in the US.

2. and 3..... You do realize we have fought wars in that part of the world before?????? We had NO PROBLEM supplying troops in WW2, Korea or Vietnam. China has one aircraft carrier. One. We have 11 active carriers (not counting helo carriers). And many, many more surface ships.

4. Agreed the people would not support a war..... unless the mainstream media is in support of it and pushes it like they do the Ukraine war and how we need to support it. Besides we have seen with so many things that the majority of Americans don't really care enough to do anything other tweet about something. They can't even be bothered to buy some WNBA tickets for the first game BG plays in since being released from prison when soooo many people claimed to "support" her then.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cowboycwr • 8:36a, 6/7/23
cowboycwr said:
KaiBear said:
trey3216 said:
KaiBear said:
The US has no rerason to go to war over Taiwan........none.
Outside of the fact that our entire modern way of life is dependent on the forges there.....


Wrong, there is nothing in Taiwan we can't do without in the time necessary to develop new sources .

We can not possibly win a war with China in that part of the world.

Our supply lines would be several thousands of miles long and would be impossible to maintain for any appreciable amount of time.

Some of you guys think time has stood still since the 80's both here and in China . Well it hasn't. China has grown stronger and the US significantly weaker .

Besides the American people would NEVER support such a war.
1. is false. Look at everything we get from Taiwan that we have no facilities for here in the US.

2. and 3..... You do realize we have fought wars in that part of the world before?????? We had NO PROBLEM supplying troops in WW2, Korea or Vietnam. China has one aircraft carrier. One. We have 11 active carriers (not counting helo carriers). And many, many more surface ships.

4. Agreed the people would not support a war..... unless the mainstream media is in support of it and pushes it like they do the Ukraine war and how we need to support it. Besides we have seen with so many things that the majority of Americans don't really care enough to do anything other tweet about something. They can't even be bothered to buy some WNBA tickets for the first game BG plays in since being released from prison when soooo many people claimed to "support" her then.
Losing Taiwan would be catastrophic to trade. Think of the South China Sea now? Add control of the passes from the Phillipine Sea and the East China Sea? China would control access. The only thing that is keeping these areas open now is the US Navy. China has shown it will use force and intimidation, give them that whole area of control is asking for trouble.

Taiwan has been a steadfast allie since the 1930s
Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cowboycwr • 8:51a, 6/7/23
cowboycwr said:
KaiBear said:
trey3216 said:
KaiBear said:
The US has no rerason to go to war over Taiwan........none.
Outside of the fact that our entire modern way of life is dependent on the forges there.....


Wrong, there is nothing in Taiwan we can't do without in the time necessary to develop new sources .

We can not possibly win a war with China in that part of the world.

Our supply lines would be several thousands of miles long and would be impossible to maintain for any appreciable amount of time.

Some of you guys think time has stood still since the 80's both here and in China . Well it hasn't. China has grown stronger and the US significantly weaker .

Besides the American people would NEVER support such a war.
1. is false. Look at everything we get from Taiwan that we have no facilities for here in the US.

2. and 3..... You do realize we have fought wars in that part of the world before?????? We had NO PROBLEM supplying troops in WW2, Korea or Vietnam. China has one aircraft carrier. One. We have 11 active carriers (not counting helo carriers). And many, many more surface ships.

4. Agreed the people would not support a war..... unless the mainstream media is in support of it and pushes it like they do the Ukraine war and how we need to support it. Besides we have seen with so many things that the majority of Americans don't really care enough to do anything other tweet about something. They can't even be bothered to buy some WNBA tickets for the first game BG plays in since being released from prison when soooo many people claimed to "support" her then.
Good points on both sides.

Offspring is finishing up a tour in the Future Warfare center at DOD. That office does something no other nation on earth really does in a formal way - plan for war scenarios 10-30 years out. We started transitioning from Middle East low-intensity conflicts toward high-intensity "big fires" European conflicts over a decade ago, precisely due to such wargaming done in the Bush Admin and before.

The public reporting on scenario wargaming of China/Taiwan conflict is correct. China wins 99 out of 100 of them. But that is not the point. The reason we do those wargames is to identify strengths (ours/theirs) and weaknesses (ours/theirs), and then work on solutions to fix/exploit as necessary. Reality is, we lose most of the time in most of the scenarios we run anywhere in the world. BUT. Because we ran the wargame 10-20 years ahead of time while nobody else did, we almost invariably show up so much better prepared than our adversaries that we end up winning the real thing every time.

Nothing is perfect in war, no plan survives first contact, etc......but "having the plan is everything" (Ike). We show up better prepared and with more, and execute both better and with fewer mistakes than our adversaries. I expect that will be what makes the difference in any Taiwan conflict. China will be better prepared than any of our adversaries of the last 50 years. But no autocracy can tolerate vigorous levels of creative tension, so they will have some blind spots and bad assumptions. But where they really get into trouble is in battlefield adjustments. Nobody wants to bring bad news to the boss, so bad aspects of the plans rarely get fully fixed in real time.

And we cannot overlook the reality that the Ukraine War has been an eye opener for everyone. Nobody has enough ordnance in stock to meet demands of modern warfare, or the manufacturing capacity to keep pace with demands of modern warfare. The West has stood united, and appears to have the stomach to see the war thru to its conclusion. So I'm sure China has seen many of their assumptions get introduced to rude awakenings. We may have put off the Taiwan War for several years.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:48a, 6/7/23
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

Which brings us to the far more likely scenario: Russia seeks to destabilize Baltics/PHSR, promoting pro-Russian factions and weaken pro-Nato factions. (

The best defense against all that is to let governments come and go but KEEP RUSSIAN ARMIES IN RUSSIA.

Russia must lose their war in Ukraine (and GO HOME).

1. Russian armies have no ability to wage war inside of NATO countries (they can barely wage an incompetent war inside a non-NATO country) and any build up of forces would be seen for months leading up to it...if they did march into a NATO country they would be taking on a 30 nation alliance with more than 780+ million people and some of the largest military-economic powers on earth (USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc.).....Russia would be crushed in a matter of months....more likely a matter of weeks.

These fantasies of possible Russian invasion of NATO countries is designed to make war seem the prudent course.

2. Have you looked at the demographics of the Baltic states? russians are a small minority in all 3...in Lithuania they are not even the 2nd largest minority group (its Poles). So Moscow lacks the ability to create instability by working through a minority group. The Baltic States are not Eastern Ukraine.

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

This is another situation like your supposed invasion of NATO states....we have to make war on Russia now before they engage in "instability" in the Baltics by supposedly working through a small russian minority population (one that probably has no interest in being linked to Moscow at all)

3. And what if Russia does not lose the war? If losing the war means finally be thrown out of the lands they have dug into like Donbas and Crimea. Are we willing to fund a proxy war that goes on for 12 years like in Syria? Is that the end game here? A war that goes on for more than a decade and that basically leaves all of eastern Ukraine a wasteland? When did the people of America get to vote on that.....

Take a cold hard look at the horror that is Syria.....is that what we want happening....how is that good for the Ukrainians or the rest of Western Europe and the USA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war
Reply Quote
2 edits
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 10:10a, 6/7/23
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
I would disagree with your characterization of our policies, but it's beside the point for this reason -- the Founders didn't reject foreign crusading because they thought it was immoral. They rejected it because it wasn't in the national self-interest. Washington's cabinet nearly tore itself apart with feuding between pro-British and pro-French factions. The vital American interest at stake was...nothing. The same usually holds true today. By vital interest, I mean one that Americans are willing to fight and die for. If there was ever a time to fight and die for Ukraine, this would have been it. We're not willing, so we may as well accept the evident truth. No matter how virtuous we feel about stoking this conflict, it's not a vital interest to the United States.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 11:11a, 6/7/23
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

Second: the proximity of Russian allies, Russian bases, Russian armies, Russian navies, inherently enhances the projection of Russian power. If Ukraine moves into Russian orbit, Molodova will be destabilized in months. In fact, the government there would almost certainly preemptively capitulate to Russian demands in order to retain hold on power. The rest of the NATO frontline states would face the implications of NATO being unable to stop Russia in Ukraine - the possibility/likelihood of facing the same fate. That inevitabily softens pro-Nato/anti-Russian policies.....forces those nations to constantly balance resistance with appeasement of Russian power. That gives oxygen to pro-Russian political forces, and weakens pro-Nato forces, inevitably elevating that into the primary dynamic of domestic politics. Eventually, pro-Russian forces will win an election. Etc......lest you think that will not happen, I would encourage you to look at recent Ukrainian politics. The dynamic I describe is not some pie in the sky...it is EXACTLY what Ukrainian politics look like from its independence to 2014. That dynamic will happen in the states bounding upon Russia as long as there is a Russia, which means the entirety of the question is "Which states bounder on Russia." We really want that number to be no larger than 6 - Finland, Batlics, Belarus, Ukraine.

One must take great pains not to weaken an alliance to which one intends to remain committed. That means, we must do what we can not to let Russia consolidate power in Ukraine, because that would inevitably create 8 mini-Ukraines over the next 10-20 years, SIX OF THEM currently in Nato.
As Orwell told us, "Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." The truth is that Putin is no maniac. He's not going to be "enticed" to invade Poland or any part of western Europe without some strategic objective in view.

Your second point is a welcome addition to the debate because it dispenses with any messianic claims about preserving freedom and offers a reasonably good description of what we're actually doing. You're right to say that swings of influence are part of the geopolitical game. That is in the nature of a shatter zone. But despite your protestations that we can tolerate and work with pro-Russian political currents, you admit that that's what we're really fighting against. It's yet another example of our rejecting the normal rules of the game and preaching democracy while lashing out in fear of its results. It's also an apt demonstration of what happens when you recklessly expand an alliance. We have allies facing Russian troops across their borders because we chose to create that situation. It was exactly the wrong move if stability was the goal, and we have the worst international crisis in my lifetime as evidence.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
ATL Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 11:21a, 6/7/23
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
I would disagree with your characterization of our policies, but it's beside the point for this reason -- the Founders didn't reject foreign crusading because they thought it was immoral. They rejected it because it wasn't in the national self-interest. Washington's cabinet nearly tore itself apart with feuding between pro-British and pro-French factions. The vital American interest at stake was...nothing. The same usually holds true today. By vital interest, I mean one that Americans are willing to fight and die for. If there was ever a time to fight and die for Ukraine, this would have been it. We're not willing, so we may as well accept the evident truth. No matter how virtuous we feel about stoking this conflict, it's not a vital interest to the United States.
We fought for trade and international commerce from our founding. So I'm not sure what the moral question is here.
Reply Quote
2
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ATL Bear • 11:30a, 6/7/23
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
trey3216 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:
What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]
It is all about Ukraine! They want to be part of the EU, NATO and the West to achieve a higher quality of life for their citizens.

The only living, and not so living, proof we have of anything is that the Russian system WILL NOT result in a higher quality of life for citizen! Nations that hitch its wagon to Russia end up with less freedom, worse economies and 2nd world level quality of lives. Why would ANY nation prefer Russia to the EU? How about this, let's look at those that do:
  • Belarus
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Cuba
  • Syria
  • Venezula
  • Myanmar

You can say with a straight face that you would prefer that system and quality of life over the EU and NATO membership?
Well after a USA backed coup in 2014 I supposed they do.

At least Western and Central Ukraine do.

Eastern Ukrainians have been fighting for a decade now against the government in Kyiv and against western integration.
Eastern Ukrainians that were bought off and supplied by.....you guessed it...Russia
And who do you think bought off and supplied the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

Come on....lets not even go down this road.

You could even make a strong argument that the French were responsible for the success the America war of independence. They certain paid for it and supplied it with the weapons and cash need for success.
Which is why it's so damn funny you get angry about America now, but we know why it frustrates you.

Hell, Trump is finally getting his goal/wish of everyone in NATO pulling their weight. lol

Why would I be angry about America now?

Are you implying that the D.C. ruling class and its goals are one in the same as America?

Are Nation and State mystically merged?

You seem to think whatever the power players in D.C. decide is what is best for America.
I'm sorry the CSA didn't fully pan out for you.

I'm sorry you think the D.C. ruling class should be unquestionably trusted and supported and that they give a **** about you trey.

In fact they actively dislike people like you
I've never said or thought they are to be ubiquitously trusted. Not by a damn sight. But I'm also capable of knowing when to call a spade a spade, and Russia has been one for nearly its entire existence.

At least there's some sense of hope and optimism in "The Great Experiment", even with Lomax in office.

After 20 years of military failures and trillions in wasted tax payer money you trust them enough for another round of fun.... this time in Eastern Europe.

You trust them enough to get a kick out of the idea of replaying the Cold war.

And you seem to think our experiment in Constitutional Republican government is compatible with a unelected and unaccountable intelligence agencies and a endlessly expanding military-industrial blob in D.C.

Strange that I can't find the CIA in the writings of the Founding Fathers or in the Constitution.

Hell our Founding Fathers did not even want a standing army.


[Two hundred years ago, John Quincy Adams gave one of the most famous speeches in American history. Speaking in the Capitol building to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the secretary of state commemorated the Declaration of Independence and attacked the legitimacy of autocracy and colonialism.

She (United States) has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.]
funny you what you emphasized, because much of that does not equate to what our country stands for with respect to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Exactly. It is not "interfering in the concerns of others" to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion.

And it's not like a brand new nation with war debts to pay doesn't have self-serving reasons for saying the things our founders said about engagement in European alliances. No need for a nascent America fully capable of prosperity in isolation to get involved in alliances leading to wars, the outcome of which would offer no conceivable benefits to us, only possibly invite invasion and interference.

The policy made a ton of sense at the time.
It makes no sense at this time.

No one else projects power globally like we do.

How ironic that our Founders' advice makes sense for everyone except us.
No nation in history has ever projected so much power, so far, so judiciously, on behalf of so many other parties, and refused time and again the temptation to colonize, annex, and otherwise intimidate compliance in an internal order, or otherwise exploit advantage into wealth generation structures. All empires to which we are compared were relentlessly expansionist, incorporating new lands into the core order as provinces or territories or colonies or tributaries, to include conducting military operations to establish the boundaries of suzerainty, and punish anyone who sought to leave or infringe on said suzerainty. THAT is not our business model. Never has been. Doubt it ever will be.

Seriously. We don't ask our "allies" to pay us annual duties. We give aid to encourage positive relations. I mean, at almost every juncture, we are the demonstrable opposite of what the critics of American exceptionalism allege.
I would disagree with your characterization of our policies, but it's beside the point for this reason -- the Founders didn't reject foreign crusading because they thought it was immoral. They rejected it because it wasn't in the national self-interest. Washington's cabinet nearly tore itself apart with feuding between pro-British and pro-French factions. The vital American interest at stake was...nothing. The same usually holds true today. By vital interest, I mean one that Americans are willing to fight and die for. If there was ever a time to fight and die for Ukraine, this would have been it. We're not willing, so we may as well accept the evident truth. No matter how virtuous we feel about stoking this conflict, it's not a vital interest to the United States.
We fought for trade and international commerce from our founding. So I'm not sure what the moral question is here.

Not arguing...just asking how far people want to push this thing...or how far they are willing to let our ruling class push this.

We have all of two whole continents (North America & Australia) and most of Europe (Western, Central, and Southern), along with almost all of South America (outside of Venezuela), and good portions of Asia (certainly the best countries there)...and even good in roads into Africa.

How much more do people want to push this thing? We want to risk all we have over eastern Ukraine or some place right up on the borders of China like poor Myanmar?

You would think we have enough trade and commerce areas to last us forever.


Reply Quote
2 edits
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 7:37a, 6/8/23
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

Which brings us to the far more likely scenario: Russia seeks to destabilize Baltics/PHSR, promoting pro-Russian factions and weaken pro-Nato factions. (

The best defense against all that is to let governments come and go but KEEP RUSSIAN ARMIES IN RUSSIA.

Russia must lose their war in Ukraine (and GO HOME).

1. Russian armies have no ability to wage war inside of NATO countries (they can barely wage an incompetent war inside a non-NATO country) and any build up of forces would be seen for months leading up to it...if they did march into a NATO country they would be taking on a 30 nation alliance with more than 780+ million people and some of the largest military-economic powers on earth (USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc.).....Russia would be crushed in a matter of months....more likely a matter of weeks.

These fantasies of possible Russian invasion of NATO countries is designed to make war seem the prudent course.

2. Have you looked at the demographics of the Baltic states? russians are a small minority in all 3...in Lithuania they are not even the 2nd largest minority group (its Poles). So Moscow lacks the ability to create instability by working through a minority group. The Baltic States are not Eastern Ukraine.

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

This is another situation like your supposed invasion of NATO states....we have to make war on Russia now before they engage in "instability" in the Baltics by supposedly working through a small russian minority population (one that probably has no interest in being linked to Moscow at all)

3. And what if Russia does not lose the war? If losing the war means finally be thrown out of the lands they have dug into like Donbas and Crimea. Are we willing to fund a proxy war that goes on for 12 years like in Syria? Is that the end game here? A war that goes on for more than a decade and that basically leaves all of eastern Ukraine a wasteland? When did the people of America get to vote on that.....

Take a cold hard look at the horror that is Syria.....is that what we want happening....how is that good for the Ukrainians or the rest of Western Europe and the USA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war
1.) You continue to limit your focus on the academic top line, but not the hard core realities of the game. Yes, Nato would crush Russia. But as you noted, it would take a bunch of months. Think it thru......during that "bunch of months," how many billions/trillions of dollars worth of damage......how many lives..... The very waging of a war, the threat of the PSHR countries having to go thru the meat grinder to win the war....gives Russia leverage, empowers appeasement, isolationist factions within Nato......"dear God! we'll all get nuked!"....."..just give them what they want & they'll be quiet." Why does Russia (and why did the USSR, and China now) play all the brinksmanship on air/sea patrols? flirting or doing overflights of territory, dangerous threatening maneuvers of craft? They're trying to puff themselves up to make themselves look scarier than they are (to gain respect and derivatively negotiation advantage). And every. single. time. we let them escalate a war and get some kind of gain from it....it guarantees they will be coming back the next time for another province or three. (dynamic as old as time).

2.) Again, you're not thinking this thru. Who said instability only comes via ethnic group? There is a political left and a political right in most countries. Also pro-Russia and pro-Nato forces at play around the region. Look at this discussion board - there is a sharp divide on this particular questions between people who are otherwise remarkably like-minded, right? All it takes is one contentious election........

3.) That is the scenario Russia is hoping for. And I think you (and the Russians) are correct in assessing the American people will not be down for a decade of trench warfare. All the more reason to get on with winning this one. Send in the ATACMS, the F-16s....keep accelerating the logistics while Russia falters. The Putin regime will either crumble or sue for peace. Either way, Russia loses. Which is what must happen. Russia cannot sustain what they're doing now for another 12-24 months.

I don't want my daughter (whose slated for EUR after CGS School) to have to go to war against Russia.
I don't want my son (ready reserve Marine) to get killed in a war against China.
The surest way to prevent that is to ensure Ukraine wins the damned war Russia started, convincingly, ideally via the fall of the Putin regime. That will put off conflict in Europe for at least 2 decades, probably longer. It will also show China that democracy is quite a bit more resilient than it appears, and is perfectly capable of dispatching dragons, in hand to hand combat if necessary. If we leave that putt short, we will be at it again in Europe in 5 years, and Taiwan in less than that.

you must understand the war between the West and the the Autocratic Axis (Russia, China, Iran, NK) has started. This IS World War III. If we don't recognize that and start squashing toes & limbs when they cross borders, the war will intensify.
Reply Quote
3
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:07a, 6/8/23
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

Second: the proximity of Russian allies, Russian bases, Russian armies, Russian navies, inherently enhances the projection of Russian power. If Ukraine moves into Russian orbit, Molodova will be destabilized in months. In fact, the government there would almost certainly preemptively capitulate to Russian demands in order to retain hold on power. The rest of the NATO frontline states would face the implications of NATO being unable to stop Russia in Ukraine - the possibility/likelihood of facing the same fate. That inevitabily softens pro-Nato/anti-Russian policies.....forces those nations to constantly balance resistance with appeasement of Russian power. That gives oxygen to pro-Russian political forces, and weakens pro-Nato forces, inevitably elevating that into the primary dynamic of domestic politics. Eventually, pro-Russian forces will win an election. Etc......lest you think that will not happen, I would encourage you to look at recent Ukrainian politics. The dynamic I describe is not some pie in the sky...it is EXACTLY what Ukrainian politics look like from its independence to 2014. That dynamic will happen in the states bounding upon Russia as long as there is a Russia, which means the entirety of the question is "Which states bounder on Russia." We really want that number to be no larger than 6 - Finland, Batlics, Belarus, Ukraine.

One must take great pains not to weaken an alliance to which one intends to remain committed. That means, we must do what we can not to let Russia consolidate power in Ukraine, because that would inevitably create 8 mini-Ukraines over the next 10-20 years, SIX OF THEM currently in Nato.
As Orwell told us, "Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." The truth is that Putin is no maniac. He's not going to be "enticed" to invade Poland or any part of western Europe without some strategic objective in view.

Your second point is a welcome addition to the debate because it dispenses with any messianic claims about preserving freedom and offers a reasonably good description of what we're actually doing. You're right to say that swings of influence are part of the geopolitical game. That is in the nature of a shatter zone. But despite your protestations that we can tolerate and work with pro-Russian political currents, you admit that that's what we're really fighting against. It's yet another example of our rejecting the normal rules of the game and preaching democracy while lashing out in fear of its results. It's also an apt demonstration of what happens when you recklessly expand an alliance. We have allies facing Russian troops across their borders because we chose to create that situation. It was exactly the wrong move if stability was the goal, and we have the worst international crisis in my lifetime as evidence.
All too often, the war actually is against a homicidal maniac. That a leader has reverence for family, culture, and at least his part of the human condition does not mean his tireless efforts on behalf of his own social contract cannot generate borderline genocide for other nations. Attila, Canute, Charlemagne, Ghengis, Saladin, Napoleon, Washington, Churchill, etc.....to argue whether they were "good" or "evil" is to plow the ocean. Better to understand what made them great, and try to apply the lessons to today.

The game of thrones will be played for as long as human beings trod the earth. Doesn't matter whether you want to play it or think it should be played at all. It WILL be played. You win, or you die. So....Scouts motto & all that stuff.
Reply Quote
2
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 3:11p, 6/10/23
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

Second: the proximity of Russian allies, Russian bases, Russian armies, Russian navies, inherently enhances the projection of Russian power. If Ukraine moves into Russian orbit, Molodova will be destabilized in months. In fact, the government there would almost certainly preemptively capitulate to Russian demands in order to retain hold on power. The rest of the NATO frontline states would face the implications of NATO being unable to stop Russia in Ukraine - the possibility/likelihood of facing the same fate. That inevitabily softens pro-Nato/anti-Russian policies.....forces those nations to constantly balance resistance with appeasement of Russian power. That gives oxygen to pro-Russian political forces, and weakens pro-Nato forces, inevitably elevating that into the primary dynamic of domestic politics. Eventually, pro-Russian forces will win an election. Etc......lest you think that will not happen, I would encourage you to look at recent Ukrainian politics. The dynamic I describe is not some pie in the sky...it is EXACTLY what Ukrainian politics look like from its independence to 2014. That dynamic will happen in the states bounding upon Russia as long as there is a Russia, which means the entirety of the question is "Which states bounder on Russia." We really want that number to be no larger than 6 - Finland, Batlics, Belarus, Ukraine.

One must take great pains not to weaken an alliance to which one intends to remain committed. That means, we must do what we can not to let Russia consolidate power in Ukraine, because that would inevitably create 8 mini-Ukraines over the next 10-20 years, SIX OF THEM currently in Nato.
As Orwell told us, "Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." The truth is that Putin is no maniac. He's not going to be "enticed" to invade Poland or any part of western Europe without some strategic objective in view.

Your second point is a welcome addition to the debate because it dispenses with any messianic claims about preserving freedom and offers a reasonably good description of what we're actually doing. You're right to say that swings of influence are part of the geopolitical game. That is in the nature of a shatter zone. But despite your protestations that we can tolerate and work with pro-Russian political currents, you admit that that's what we're really fighting against. It's yet another example of our rejecting the normal rules of the game and preaching democracy while lashing out in fear of its results. It's also an apt demonstration of what happens when you recklessly expand an alliance. We have allies facing Russian troops across their borders because we chose to create that situation. It was exactly the wrong move if stability was the goal, and we have the worst international crisis in my lifetime as evidence.
All too often, the war actually is against a homicidal maniac. That a leader has reverence for family, culture, and at least his part of the human condition does not mean his tireless efforts on behalf of his own social contract cannot generate borderline genocide for other nations. Attila, Canute, Charlemagne, Ghengis, Saladin, Napoleon, Washington, Churchill, etc.....to argue whether they were "good" or "evil" is to plow the ocean. Better to understand what made them great, and try to apply the lessons to today.

The game of thrones will be played for as long as human beings trod the earth. Doesn't matter whether you want to play it or think it should be played at all. It WILL be played. You win, or you die. So....Scouts motto & all that stuff.
Washington and Churchill weren't trying to conquer the world. They understood the difference between being prepared and being hostile.
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 6:43a, 6/11/23
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

Second: the proximity of Russian allies, Russian bases, Russian armies, Russian navies, inherently enhances the projection of Russian power. If Ukraine moves into Russian orbit, Molodova will be destabilized in months. In fact, the government there would almost certainly preemptively capitulate to Russian demands in order to retain hold on power. The rest of the NATO frontline states would face the implications of NATO being unable to stop Russia in Ukraine - the possibility/likelihood of facing the same fate. That inevitabily softens pro-Nato/anti-Russian policies.....forces those nations to constantly balance resistance with appeasement of Russian power. That gives oxygen to pro-Russian political forces, and weakens pro-Nato forces, inevitably elevating that into the primary dynamic of domestic politics. Eventually, pro-Russian forces will win an election. Etc......lest you think that will not happen, I would encourage you to look at recent Ukrainian politics. The dynamic I describe is not some pie in the sky...it is EXACTLY what Ukrainian politics look like from its independence to 2014. That dynamic will happen in the states bounding upon Russia as long as there is a Russia, which means the entirety of the question is "Which states bounder on Russia." We really want that number to be no larger than 6 - Finland, Batlics, Belarus, Ukraine.

One must take great pains not to weaken an alliance to which one intends to remain committed. That means, we must do what we can not to let Russia consolidate power in Ukraine, because that would inevitably create 8 mini-Ukraines over the next 10-20 years, SIX OF THEM currently in Nato.
As Orwell told us, "Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." The truth is that Putin is no maniac. He's not going to be "enticed" to invade Poland or any part of western Europe without some strategic objective in view.

Your second point is a welcome addition to the debate because it dispenses with any messianic claims about preserving freedom and offers a reasonably good description of what we're actually doing. You're right to say that swings of influence are part of the geopolitical game. That is in the nature of a shatter zone. But despite your protestations that we can tolerate and work with pro-Russian political currents, you admit that that's what we're really fighting against. It's yet another example of our rejecting the normal rules of the game and preaching democracy while lashing out in fear of its results. It's also an apt demonstration of what happens when you recklessly expand an alliance. We have allies facing Russian troops across their borders because we chose to create that situation. It was exactly the wrong move if stability was the goal, and we have the worst international crisis in my lifetime as evidence.
All too often, the war actually is against a homicidal maniac. That a leader has reverence for family, culture, and at least his part of the human condition does not mean his tireless efforts on behalf of his own social contract cannot generate borderline genocide for other nations. Attila, Canute, Charlemagne, Ghengis, Saladin, Napoleon, Washington, Churchill, etc.....to argue whether they were "good" or "evil" is to plow the ocean. Better to understand what made them great, and try to apply the lessons to today.

The game of thrones will be played for as long as human beings trod the earth. Doesn't matter whether you want to play it or think it should be played at all. It WILL be played. You win, or you die. So....Scouts motto & all that stuff.
Washington and Churchill weren't trying to conquer the world. They understood the difference between being prepared and being hostile.
Oh Sam. Haven't you heard they were each so incorrigibly unrepentant about slavery and/or colonialism?

Reply Quote
2
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 8:23a, 6/11/23
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

Second: the proximity of Russian allies, Russian bases, Russian armies, Russian navies, inherently enhances the projection of Russian power. If Ukraine moves into Russian orbit, Molodova will be destabilized in months. In fact, the government there would almost certainly preemptively capitulate to Russian demands in order to retain hold on power. The rest of the NATO frontline states would face the implications of NATO being unable to stop Russia in Ukraine - the possibility/likelihood of facing the same fate. That inevitabily softens pro-Nato/anti-Russian policies.....forces those nations to constantly balance resistance with appeasement of Russian power. That gives oxygen to pro-Russian political forces, and weakens pro-Nato forces, inevitably elevating that into the primary dynamic of domestic politics. Eventually, pro-Russian forces will win an election. Etc......lest you think that will not happen, I would encourage you to look at recent Ukrainian politics. The dynamic I describe is not some pie in the sky...it is EXACTLY what Ukrainian politics look like from its independence to 2014. That dynamic will happen in the states bounding upon Russia as long as there is a Russia, which means the entirety of the question is "Which states bounder on Russia." We really want that number to be no larger than 6 - Finland, Batlics, Belarus, Ukraine.

One must take great pains not to weaken an alliance to which one intends to remain committed. That means, we must do what we can not to let Russia consolidate power in Ukraine, because that would inevitably create 8 mini-Ukraines over the next 10-20 years, SIX OF THEM currently in Nato.
As Orwell told us, "Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." The truth is that Putin is no maniac. He's not going to be "enticed" to invade Poland or any part of western Europe without some strategic objective in view.

Your second point is a welcome addition to the debate because it dispenses with any messianic claims about preserving freedom and offers a reasonably good description of what we're actually doing. You're right to say that swings of influence are part of the geopolitical game. That is in the nature of a shatter zone. But despite your protestations that we can tolerate and work with pro-Russian political currents, you admit that that's what we're really fighting against. It's yet another example of our rejecting the normal rules of the game and preaching democracy while lashing out in fear of its results. It's also an apt demonstration of what happens when you recklessly expand an alliance. We have allies facing Russian troops across their borders because we chose to create that situation. It was exactly the wrong move if stability was the goal, and we have the worst international crisis in my lifetime as evidence.
All too often, the war actually is against a homicidal maniac. That a leader has reverence for family, culture, and at least his part of the human condition does not mean his tireless efforts on behalf of his own social contract cannot generate borderline genocide for other nations. Attila, Canute, Charlemagne, Ghengis, Saladin, Napoleon, Washington, Churchill, etc.....to argue whether they were "good" or "evil" is to plow the ocean. Better to understand what made them great, and try to apply the lessons to today.

The game of thrones will be played for as long as human beings trod the earth. Doesn't matter whether you want to play it or think it should be played at all. It WILL be played. You win, or you die. So....Scouts motto & all that stuff.
Washington and Churchill weren't trying to conquer the world. They understood the difference between being prepared and being hostile.
Oh Sam. Haven't you heard they were each so incorrigibly unrepentant about slavery and/or colonialism?

Washington was a ruthless conqueror, but within his own sphere. Sort of like Putin, only better at it. Neither he nor his successors dreamed of "democratizing" North Africa in response to the Barbary pirates. You might argue that the world is different now, but is it really? The fruit of Obama's efforts in Libya suggests otherwise. The most important lesson from Churchill in this context was his opposition to the harsh provisions of the Versailles Treaty. We made essentially the same mistake with Russia after the Cold War, humiliating them as a defeated foe and thus renewing the conflict.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:36a, 6/11/23
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
When your mercenaries are skirmishing with your regular military units, you have some serious leadership problems.


No doubt.

The Russian military is a basket case...low morale, low pay, shoddy equipment, economic corruption, leadership incompetence, etc.

So how does that fact the line up with the NATO expansionist idea that we have to fight the russians in Donbas before they roll their unstoppable fighting force into Poland and Germany?

Russia is either a 2nd rate military power (really 3rd rate)...or its a massive threat to the military and economic juggernaut that is the USA-EU.

But it can't be both at the same time.
To correct your premise, I have taken great pains NOT to portray Russian invasion of NATO as the primary threat devolving from Russian consolidation over Ukraine, but rather to portray even the lesser reasons as ample justification for ensuring Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine.

But, more broadly speaking, the dilemma you create is false, for several reasons. First: Russia is indeed no match for NATO. There is no risk of Russia slicing thru the Fulda Gap all the way to Antwerp. But that does not mean there is no risk of war, no risk of Russia TRYING to do exactly that, requiring NATO to slog out a win just like Ukraine is now. The process of winning such a war will destroy a lot of cities. A lot of highways, A lot of bridges. A lot of airfields. A lot of ports. Etc...... And far from recognizing its martial shortcomings as reasons NOT to invade, Russia actually sees weakness of resolve in an opponent as an enticement....Russia wants to create a quagmire its opponents do not have stomach to finish. The reason one prepares to win a war against even an incompetent adversary is because the cost of victory is only exceeded by the cost of defeat. Smoking Russia at the Polish/Belarus border would destroy much of Poland.

Second: the proximity of Russian allies, Russian bases, Russian armies, Russian navies, inherently enhances the projection of Russian power. If Ukraine moves into Russian orbit, Molodova will be destabilized in months. In fact, the government there would almost certainly preemptively capitulate to Russian demands in order to retain hold on power. The rest of the NATO frontline states would face the implications of NATO being unable to stop Russia in Ukraine - the possibility/likelihood of facing the same fate. That inevitabily softens pro-Nato/anti-Russian policies.....forces those nations to constantly balance resistance with appeasement of Russian power. That gives oxygen to pro-Russian political forces, and weakens pro-Nato forces, inevitably elevating that into the primary dynamic of domestic politics. Eventually, pro-Russian forces will win an election. Etc......lest you think that will not happen, I would encourage you to look at recent Ukrainian politics. The dynamic I describe is not some pie in the sky...it is EXACTLY what Ukrainian politics look like from its independence to 2014. That dynamic will happen in the states bounding upon Russia as long as there is a Russia, which means the entirety of the question is "Which states bounder on Russia." We really want that number to be no larger than 6 - Finland, Batlics, Belarus, Ukraine.

One must take great pains not to weaken an alliance to which one intends to remain committed. That means, we must do what we can not to let Russia consolidate power in Ukraine, because that would inevitably create 8 mini-Ukraines over the next 10-20 years, SIX OF THEM currently in Nato.
As Orwell told us, "Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." The truth is that Putin is no maniac. He's not going to be "enticed" to invade Poland or any part of western Europe without some strategic objective in view.

Your second point is a welcome addition to the debate because it dispenses with any messianic claims about preserving freedom and offers a reasonably good description of what we're actually doing. You're right to say that swings of influence are part of the geopolitical game. That is in the nature of a shatter zone. But despite your protestations that we can tolerate and work with pro-Russian political currents, you admit that that's what we're really fighting against. It's yet another example of our rejecting the normal rules of the game and preaching democracy while lashing out in fear of its results. It's also an apt demonstration of what happens when you recklessly expand an alliance. We have allies facing Russian troops across their borders because we chose to create that situation. It was exactly the wrong move if stability was the goal, and we have the worst international crisis in my lifetime as evidence.
All too often, the war actually is against a homicidal maniac. That a leader has reverence for family, culture, and at least his part of the human condition does not mean his tireless efforts on behalf of his own social contract cannot generate borderline genocide for other nations. Attila, Canute, Charlemagne, Ghengis, Saladin, Napoleon, Washington, Churchill, etc.....to argue whether they were "good" or "evil" is to plow the ocean. Better to understand what made them great, and try to apply the lessons to today.

The game of thrones will be played for as long as human beings trod the earth. Doesn't matter whether you want to play it or think it should be played at all. It WILL be played. You win, or you die. So....Scouts motto & all that stuff.
Washington and Churchill weren't trying to conquer the world. They understood the difference between being prepared and being hostile.
Oh Sam. Haven't you heard they were each so incorrigibly unrepentant about slavery and/or colonialism?

Washington was a ruthless conqueror, but within his own sphere. Sort of like Putin, only better at it. Neither he nor his successors dreamed of "democratizing" North Africa in response to the Barbary pirates. You might argue that the world is different now, but is it really? The fruit of Obama's efforts in Libya suggests otherwise. The most important lesson from Churchill in this context was his opposition to the harsh provisions of the Versailles Treaty. We made essentially the same mistake with Russia after the Cold War, humiliating them as a defeated foe and thus renewing the conflict.
I am a power geopolitical type but disagree with the Kissinger/Mearsheimer argument on Nato's post-CW expansion into former WP nations. Yes, Russia is a great power, but no great power is entitled to a "sphere." They have to earn it one way or the other. Lithuania used to be a great power. Poland used to be a great power. Sweden, Austria/Hungary, etc.... Times change.

Russia fails over and over to keep up with the west. There is a reason for that. We should not coddle their incompetence and paleo-thinking by continually treating them as an equal. They want to be great, they need something more than nuclear weapons. An older NSA operative I served with in one capacity or another for most of my time abroad was a Russian specialist. He made a quote back during the Cold War that keeps getting proven true over and over again: "Russia is a third world country with nuclear weapons."

Russia's like the guy who's muscle-bound from the waist up but never does a leg day.
Reply Quote
2
First Page Last Page
Page 96 of 122 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.