trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

non-entity? 2014, maybe. 2022, no way.

They may not have the numbers but the change from 2014 to 2022 is stark.. In 2014, Ukraine asked NATO to help them get to NATO standards, they now have civilian control of military, diversified chain-of-command (Jr staff can make battlefield decisions), volunteer force, NATO quality weapons, and they NATO training (40 battalions trained by NATO). They may not have been a top 5 military, but they were top 20.

---

That was my point. It's been a radical transformation since 2014 (in disregard of Ukrainian popular will and duplicity against Russia, needless to say).

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.

---

Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

Makes it easy when Russia was just able to move a bunch of Russians loyal to Russia into the area, and arm them heavily to fight for a breakaway. Or directly send in Russian special forces units and Russian Paramilitary groups to help the breakaway factions who were getting the crap beat out of them by the Ukrainian military.

Let the circle be unbroken.

---

I won't argue with that...but what do you suggest the West do about that? Use force to expel millions of ethnic russians from Crimea and Donbas?

The Poles (with Stalin's help) were able to expel millions of ethnic Germans from East Prussia after world war II...only took systemic mass murder, industrial scale rape, and several years to ethnically cleansing the area and make sure it would forever remain Polish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)

Are the elite in D.C. planning that? If not then at some point we have to accept that the current citizens of Crimea just don't want to be ruled from Kyiv.

Similar situation would be Tibet....does it belong in a very real sense to the natives of Tibet...absolutely. But lots of Han live there now. At what point in geo-political terms do you have to accept the situation on the ground?

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

Same could be said for Palestine for that matter....once a new population has been established on the ground its hard to change things.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

🚨BREAKING: Prigozhin's Wagner PMC mercenaries have captured a Russian army Lt. Colonel. The embers of civil war in Russia begin to glow brighter. It appears both sides suffered significant casualties in this Russian-on-Russian gun fight. pic.twitter.com/vMCvHxvYEb

— Igor Sushko (@igorsushko) June 4, 2023

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

Ukraine had nukes for goodness sakes

---

Ha, yeah...Russian ones.

whiterock said:

---

S said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

Doesn't mean that at all. It's a corollary of the old adage: "...power cannot be given; it must be taken..." Affording Russia a sphere of influence it cannot support is what makes no sense....it is exactly what you go on to say - "...a status symbol..." which is not a means to stability at all. UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia? Russia is a third world country with nuclear weapons which does not deserve the degree of deference we have afforded to it. It cannot even handle the Donbas, fer crissakes. Time for Russia to come to terms with its situation and start making hard decisions on internal reforms. History of the last 500 years shows over and over that Russia has been poked in the nose and realized it is "behind the times." Time for them to grow up, or suffer the consequences of their backwardness.

---

This is circular reasoning. We intervene because they can't support their sphere of influence, but they could support it just fine if we didn't intervene.

---

We did not start our aid package until AFTER the Ukes stopped the initial Russian invasion. In other words, we were prepared to let Russia have it if they could take it. They couldn't. So here we are.

Nations in the shatterzone will calculate on when/if/how much to step outside traditional influence to see outside aid. And that outside aid will always calculate odds….assess risk…can the traditional power actually hold onto the area?
Russia can't.
They're going to lose.
This is good.
Makes no sense at all to help them consolidate anything when they are trying to disrupt us all over the world. A weak despotic power make be a useful if strange bedfellows in war against a common enemy, but it is no good partner in peace.

---

So it's not that they can't support their sphere of influence, it's that it "makes no sense" to let them. What are they doing to disrupt us all over the world?

---

a very long list of things you well know, to include supporting Iran, NK, allying with China, etc.... That's what the weak have to do - disrupt the existing order.

It indeed makes no sense to prop up an ostensibly great power which really isn't just to....what? To what end? By your logic, we should be helping Russia roll over Ukraine, just so...what? Satisfy romantic Russian visions of the way things should be? I mean, how can you look at what Russia did in Ukraine and make the case they are able to "control their sphere of influence?"

It is your thinking with makes no sense. A better case can be made for helping Ukraine become the dominant power in Eurasia.

---

Then if I understand you, Russia is only entitled to a sphere of influence if they can support it and if they don't act outside of it, even by maintaining informal "alliances" like the one with China.

How does that principle apply to us? If we choose to act in a distant region where Russia has an interest, like Syria for example, do we forfeit our right to security against threats near our own borders?

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

🚨BREAKING: Prigozhin's Wagner PMC mercenaries have captured a Russian army Lt. Colonel. The embers of civil war in Russia begin to glow brighter. It appears both sides suffered significant casualties in this Russian-on-Russian gun fight. pic.twitter.com/vMCvHxvYEb

— Igor Sushko (@igorsushko) June 4, 2023

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

The Russian army (and navy) is a sock puppet. The Ukraine army is pretty damned good. So why are you complaining?

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Joe Biden created for the U.S. a war like no other, one where others die and the U.S. simply sits back and pays the bills on a gargantuan scale. No attempts are made at diplomacy by the Americans, and the diplomatic efforts of others like the Chinese are dismissed as evil attempts to gain influence in the area (similar to the dismissal of Chinese diplomatic work in the Yemen war.) Biden is coming close to achieving 1984's end state of perpetual warfare, while only putting a handful of American lives at risk. He has learned lessons from the Cold War, and has already put them into play. Can we call it the Biden Doctrine yet?

Biden's strategy is clear enough now after well more than a year of conflict; what he has been sending to Ukraine jumped from helmets and uniforms to F-16s in only fifteen months and shows no signs of stopping. The problem is U.S. weapons are never enough for victory and are always "just enough" to allow the battle to go on until the next round. If the Ukrainians think they are playing the U.S. for arms, they best check who is really paying for everything in blood...

The U.S. strategy seems based on creating a ghastly tie of sorts, two sides lined up across a field shooting at each other until one side calls it quits for the day. The same strategy was in play in 1865 and 1914, but the new factor is today those armies face off across those fields with 21st century HIMARS artillery, machine guns, and other tools of killing far more effective than a musket or even a Gatling gun. It is unsustainable, literally chewing up menalbeit not Americans. The question of how many more Ukrainians have to die is answered privately by Biden as 'potentially all of them.' Anything else requires you to cynically believe Biden thinks he can simply purchase victory.

Up until now this has all been the Cold War playbook. Fighting to the last Afghan was a strategy perfected in Soviet-held Afghanistan in the 1980s. What is different now is the scalesince Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States has sent over $40 billion worth of military aid to support Kiev's war effort, the single largest arms transfer in U.S. history and one with no signs of stopping. A single F-16 costs up to $350 million a copy if bought with weapons, maintenance equipment, and spare parts kits.

Yet despite the similarities to Cold War Strategy 101, some lessons have been learned over the intervening years. One of America's failures throughout the Cold War and the War on Terror was the use of puppet governments largely imposed or kept on life support by American money and muscle. Because these governments lacked the support of the people (see Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan), they were non-starters with the lifespan of fruit flies. Ukraine is different; the puppet government is the government, beholden to the U.S. for its very survival but more or less supported directly by the people for now.]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-war-like-no-other/

---

not entirely incorrectly describing the dynamic, but failing completely to explain why the dynamic is bad for the USA.....

Proxy wars have been fought as long as there have been great powers to fund them. And there WILL BE proxy wars fought as long as there are great powers to fund them. The only question is, "where will they be fought?" This one is being fought in the right place, for the right reasons.

---

Your last point is overlooked. It is not a "proxy war" to the Ukrainians defending their Nation from a Russian invader. They are not getting used, as without the US/NATO assistance they would be done. What might be a proxy war to someone with the luxury of not having to worry about invasion, it is anything but a proxy to those that now have the means to fight back.

---

uh ok? But it is a proxy war for the USA...that is the point.

The Syrian civil war is not a "proxy war" for the Syrian people...but it was for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, USA, etc.

The Yemen civil war is not a "proxy war" for the people of Yemen but it is for Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The American war of Independence was not a "proxy war" for the people of the American States...but it was for France.

On and on it goes.

---

Or, it can be a win-win... Glass is half full, to your glass is half empty. : )

---

Well except for the people of Ukraine who get to experience what Syria and Yemen got....

I guess we can check back in 12 years (Syrian civil war ongoing) and see if it worked out for everyone.

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

---

A) the Ukes are not just happy to get a chance to defend their country. They are eager to do it.

B) this war will not last as long as you think. Might not last the year. Former Commander of US Army Europe, Ben Hodges, has consistently stated he expects ya Ukraine to liberate Crimea by August.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

non-entity? 2014, maybe. 2022, no way.

They may not have the numbers but the change from 2014 to 2022 is stark.. In 2014, Ukraine asked NATO to help them get to NATO standards, they now have civilian control of military, diversified chain-of-command (Jr staff can make battlefield decisions), volunteer force, NATO quality weapons, and they NATO training (40 battalions trained by NATO). They may not have been a top 5 military, but they were top 20.

---

That was my point. It's been a radical transformation since 2014 (in disregard of Ukrainian popular will and duplicity against Russia, needless to say).

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.

---

Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

The United States will urgently replace the Bradley armored vehicles lost during the Ukrainian counteroffensive

The U.S. will urgently allocate a new $325 million military aid package tomorrow, a U.S. Defense Department official told the Voice of America on condition of… pic.twitter.com/jYh31Bt8ar

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) June 12, 2023

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Joe Biden created for the U.S. a war like no other, one where others die and the U.S. simply sits back and pays the bills on a gargantuan scale. No attempts are made at diplomacy by the Americans, and the diplomatic efforts of others like the Chinese are dismissed as evil attempts to gain influence in the area (similar to the dismissal of Chinese diplomatic work in the Yemen war.) Biden is coming close to achieving 1984's end state of perpetual warfare, while only putting a handful of American lives at risk. He has learned lessons from the Cold War, and has already put them into play. Can we call it the Biden Doctrine yet?

Biden's strategy is clear enough now after well more than a year of conflict; what he has been sending to Ukraine jumped from helmets and uniforms to F-16s in only fifteen months and shows no signs of stopping. The problem is U.S. weapons are never enough for victory and are always "just enough" to allow the battle to go on until the next round. If the Ukrainians think they are playing the U.S. for arms, they best check who is really paying for everything in blood...

The U.S. strategy seems based on creating a ghastly tie of sorts, two sides lined up across a field shooting at each other until one side calls it quits for the day. The same strategy was in play in 1865 and 1914, but the new factor is today those armies face off across those fields with 21st century HIMARS artillery, machine guns, and other tools of killing far more effective than a musket or even a Gatling gun. It is unsustainable, literally chewing up menalbeit not Americans. The question of how many more Ukrainians have to die is answered privately by Biden as 'potentially all of them.' Anything else requires you to cynically believe Biden thinks he can simply purchase victory.

Up until now this has all been the Cold War playbook. Fighting to the last Afghan was a strategy perfected in Soviet-held Afghanistan in the 1980s. What is different now is the scalesince Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States has sent over $40 billion worth of military aid to support Kiev's war effort, the single largest arms transfer in U.S. history and one with no signs of stopping. A single F-16 costs up to $350 million a copy if bought with weapons, maintenance equipment, and spare parts kits.

Yet despite the similarities to Cold War Strategy 101, some lessons have been learned over the intervening years. One of America's failures throughout the Cold War and the War on Terror was the use of puppet governments largely imposed or kept on life support by American money and muscle. Because these governments lacked the support of the people (see Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan), they were non-starters with the lifespan of fruit flies. Ukraine is different; the puppet government is the government, beholden to the U.S. for its very survival but more or less supported directly by the people for now.]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-war-like-no-other/

---

not entirely incorrectly describing the dynamic, but failing completely to explain why the dynamic is bad for the USA.....

Proxy wars have been fought as long as there have been great powers to fund them. And there WILL BE proxy wars fought as long as there are great powers to fund them. The only question is, "where will they be fought?" This one is being fought in the right place, for the right reasons.

---

Your last point is overlooked. It is not a "proxy war" to the Ukrainians defending their Nation from a Russian invader. They are not getting used, as without the US/NATO assistance they would be done. What might be a proxy war to someone with the luxury of not having to worry about invasion, it is anything but a proxy to those that now have the means to fight back.

---

uh ok? But it is a proxy war for the USA...that is the point.

The Syrian civil war is not a "proxy war" for the Syrian people...but it was for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, USA, etc.

The Yemen civil war is not a "proxy war" for the people of Yemen but it is for Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The American war of Independence was not a "proxy war" for the people of the American States...but it was for France.

On and on it goes.

---

Or, it can be a win-win... Glass is half full, to your glass is half empty. : )

---

Well except for the people of Ukraine who get to experience what Syria and Yemen got....

I guess we can check back in 12 years (Syrian civil war ongoing) and see if it worked out for everyone.

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

---

A) the Ukes are not just happy to get a chance to defend their country. They are eager to do it.

.

---

Narrator: in fact Ukrainian men were paying people to smuggle them out of the country…

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

non-entity? 2014, maybe. 2022, no way.

They may not have the numbers but the change from 2014 to 2022 is stark.. In 2014, Ukraine asked NATO to help them get to NATO standards, they now have civilian control of military, diversified chain-of-command (Jr staff can make battlefield decisions), volunteer force, NATO quality weapons, and they NATO training (40 battalions trained by NATO). They may not have been a top 5 military, but they were top 20.

---

That was my point. It's been a radical transformation since 2014 (in disregard of Ukrainian popular will and duplicity against Russia, needless to say).

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.

---

Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

Huh? Maybe that is your problem, you expect otherwise Nations to be American. Huge difference between requiring a representative Govt and free markets with being American. Maybe if you recalibrate your expectations. Not all allies have to be exactly like us for a successful relationship.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

non-entity? 2014, maybe. 2022, no way.

They may not have the numbers but the change from 2014 to 2022 is stark.. In 2014, Ukraine asked NATO to help them get to NATO standards, they now have civilian control of military, diversified chain-of-command (Jr staff can make battlefield decisions), volunteer force, NATO quality weapons, and they NATO training (40 battalions trained by NATO). They may not have been a top 5 military, but they were top 20.

---

That was my point. It's been a radical transformation since 2014 (in disregard of Ukrainian popular will and duplicity against Russia, needless to say).

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.

---

Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

The polling on this question has been done and it thunders...over 90% identifying as Ukrainian and wanting Russia to GTFO. Yes, it is not possible to poll in a battlezone. It is also true that there are an infinitesimally small number of civilians in the battlezone. And yes, there are 3m or so Ukes in Russia, allegedly as refugees. But even if ALL of them, 100%, poll pro-Russia (which I can guarantee you won't happen.....this is not the first time Russia has "rescued" entire peoples and shipped them off to help populate Siberia), it in simply mathematical terms won't change materially the larger polling universe. This war has galvanized Ukranian citizens to think of themselves as Ukrainian nationalists, regardless of the language they speak.

You appear to have bought hook-line-sinker the Russian narrative that Russian speaking Ukes in Donbass wanted to be part of Russia and started a rebellion. Problem with that narrative is, it's well known NOT to have started that way. It started with "little green men." Google the term. Russia sent in SOF types to destabilize a society that had Uke-speaking Ukes, Russian-speaking Ukes, and flat-out Russians. They succeeded in destabilizing the society. Now, I'm a power geo-political type, so I can appreciate the operation for what it was, being well-designed, well-executed, in pursuance of state power & all that stuff. What I know better than to do is to call it all "the will of the Ukrainian people." That is patently absurd.

---

It is Ukrainian sovereign territory, they either want to be Ukrainian, live as Ukrainians or leave. This is not a unique situation. Many Nations are made up of different ethnic groups, including Mother Russia. There will always be a subset that identifies as something else. You do not cede Cities to other Nations.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.

---

Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

The polling on this question has been done and it thunders...over 90% identifying as Ukrainian and wanting Russia to GTFO. Yes, it is not possible to poll in a battlezone. It is also true that there are an infinitesimally small number of civilians in the battlezone. And yes, there are 3m or so Ukes in Russia, allegedly as refugees. But even if ALL of them, 100%, poll pro-Russia (which I can guarantee you won't happen.....this is not the first time Russia has "rescued" entire peoples and shipped them off to help populate Siberia), it in simply mathematical terms won't change materially the larger polling universe. This war has galvanized Ukranian citizens to think of themselves as Ukrainian nationalists, regardless of the language they speak.

You appear to have bought hook-line-sinker the Russian narrative that Russian speaking Ukes in Donbass wanted to be part of Russia and started a rebellion. Problem with that narrative is, it's well known NOT to have started that way. It started with "little green men." Google the term. Russia sent in SOF types to destabilize a society that had Uke-speaking Ukes, Russian-speaking Ukes, and flat-out Russians. They succeeded in destabilizing the society. Now, I'm a power geo-political type, so I can appreciate the operation for what it was, being well-designed, well-executed, in pursuance of state power & all that stuff. What I know better than to do is to call it all "the will of the Ukrainian people." That is patently absurd.

---

It is Ukrainian sovereign territory, they either want to be Ukrainian, live as Ukrainians or leave. This is not a unique situation. Many Nations are made up of different ethnic groups, including Mother Russia. There will always be a subset that identifies as something else. You do not cede Cities to other Nations.

---

That's a great point of importance for both the Ukrainian state as well as the international community.

Part of the post WWII order was need to uphold the principle that "the borders are the borders." Great wars started because larger powers started carving up the smaller ones. The idea of the strong taking from the weak is a business model as old as the first village. No matter how big the village, or how many villages form together to make a tribe, there's always some horde (in the European context almost always from the east) riding in to take what it wants. So kingdoms formed. Eventually, the kingdoms effectively denied, or shunted off elsewhere, the great hordes pouring out of the steppes. And then those resettled hordes formed their own kingdoms. THEN. the kingdoms started pinching off pieces of the shatterzone for their own. Aquitaine. Alsace. Pomerania. Montenegro. Sicily. Transylvania. and so on and so forth. Eventually, that led to WWI. Then WWII. Only WWII had the added twist of the first truly "ideological" war, which was an obvious template for the mounting Cold War. So it was essential to establish the idea of stability of borders. Great powers nibbling off pieces of what they wanted was the single most destabilizing factor of all. Inevitably, there would be one bite too many.

What Russia is doing to Ukraine is a direct threat to about 800 years of European development, and a good 80+ years of European peace.

It cannot be allowed to stand.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

🚨BREAKING: Prigozhin's Wagner PMC mercenaries have captured a Russian army Lt. Colonel. The embers of civil war in Russia begin to glow brighter. It appears both sides suffered significant casualties in this Russian-on-Russian gun fight. pic.twitter.com/vMCvHxvYEb

— Igor Sushko (@igorsushko) June 4, 2023

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

Ukraine had nukes for goodness sakes

---

Ha, yeah...Russian ones.

---

Well, duh.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

🚨BREAKING: Prigozhin's Wagner PMC mercenaries have captured a Russian army Lt. Colonel. The embers of civil war in Russia begin to glow brighter. It appears both sides suffered significant casualties in this Russian-on-Russian gun fight. pic.twitter.com/vMCvHxvYEb

— Igor Sushko (@igorsushko) June 4, 2023

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

Ukraine had nukes for goodness sakes

---

Ha, yeah...Russian ones.

---

Well, duh.

---

Actually, that is a misnomer. Sam's comment implies that Russia built, installed, and maintained the nukes and the Ukraine and the rest of the Soviet Union provided any resources, capital or territory for their deployment. That is not true, Russia took from the satellite states more than they gave. At least a percentage of those nukes in terms of physical resources, talent and location were Ukrainian.

What percentage of those Nukes were Ukrainian? Maybe about the value of Crimea...

Lets hope Russia doesn't blow up the stockpiles and poison European air.

🚨#Breaking, The US is expected to provide Ukraine with depleted-uranium rounds following weeks of internal debate, The Wall Street Journal writes.💪🏼🇺🇦🍻

-wsj pic.twitter.com/bvZ40hXPea

— WarFrontline (@WarFrontline) June 13, 2023

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

non-entity? 2014, maybe. 2022, no way.

They may not have the numbers but the change from 2014 to 2022 is stark.. In 2014, Ukraine asked NATO to help them get to NATO standards, they now have civilian control of military, diversified chain-of-command (Jr staff can make battlefield decisions), volunteer force, NATO quality weapons, and they NATO training (40 battalions trained by NATO). They may not have been a top 5 military, but they were top 20.

---

That was my point. It's been a radical transformation since 2014 (in disregard of Ukrainian popular will and duplicity against Russia, needless to say).

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.

---

Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

The polling on this question has been done and it thunders...over 90% identifying as Ukrainian and wanting Russia to GTFO. Yes, it is not possible to poll in a battlezone.

---

Maybe you are correct.

Can you show me this polling that confirms that the people of Donbas and Crimea are now MORE likely to identity as Ukrainian than before the war?

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

non-entity? 2014, maybe. 2022, no way.

They may not have the numbers but the change from 2014 to 2022 is stark.. In 2014, Ukraine asked NATO to help them get to NATO standards, they now have civilian control of military, diversified chain-of-command (Jr staff can make battlefield decisions), volunteer force, NATO quality weapons, and they NATO training (40 battalions trained by NATO). They may not have been a top 5 military, but they were top 20.

---

That was my point. It's been a radical transformation since 2014 (in disregard of Ukrainian popular will and duplicity against Russia, needless to say).

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.

---

Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

The polling on this question has been done and it thunders...over 90% identifying as Ukrainian and wanting Russia to GTFO. Yes, it is not possible to poll in a battlezone.

---

Maybe you are correct.

Can you show me this polling that confirms that the people of Donbas and Crimea are now MORE likely to identity as Ukrainian than before the war?

---

It has been posted in one of these threads. I'll have to go dig up the link. The critique of it at the time was as I noted - "well, you can't poll in a warzone...." But first quick google search, top result is here, from an objective poling firm, clearly suggesting that .......Ukrainians want to be Ukrainians.:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/403133/ukrainians-support-fighting-until-victory.aspx

Excellent article. Final paragraph:

"However improbably, what began as a challenge to the American-sponsored global system is causing a revival of it, something a Ukrainian victory would drive home with a vengeance. In Ukraine, the United States is not unilaterally imposing its will on other countries but leading a broad coalition to restore international order. It is not committing war crimes but preventing them. It is not acting as the world's policeman or as a global bully but as the arsenal of democracy. And it has been doing all this effectively and efficiently, without firing a gun or losing a single soldier. The effort to date has been a model of how to blend hard and soft power in a single strategy. Now it's time to finish the job."



https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-winnable-war

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

non-entity? 2014, maybe. 2022, no way.

They may not have the numbers but the change from 2014 to 2022 is stark.. In 2014, Ukraine asked NATO to help them get to NATO standards, they now have civilian control of military, diversified chain-of-command (Jr staff can make battlefield decisions), volunteer force, NATO quality weapons, and they NATO training (40 battalions trained by NATO). They may not have been a top 5 military, but they were top 20.

---

That was my point. It's been a radical transformation since 2014 (in disregard of Ukrainian popular will and duplicity against Russia, needless to say).

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.

---

Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

The polling on this question has been done and it thunders...over 90% identifying as Ukrainian and wanting Russia to GTFO. Yes, it is not possible to poll in a battlezone.

---

Maybe you are correct.

Can you show me this polling that confirms that the people of Donbas and Crimea are now MORE likely to identity as Ukrainian than before the war?

---

It has been posted in one of these threads. I'll have to go dig up the link. The critique of it at the time was as I noted - "well, you can't poll in a warzone...." But first quick google search, top result is here, from an objective poling firm, clearly suggesting that .......Ukrainians want to be Ukrainians.:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/403133/ukrainians-support-fighting-until-victory.aspx

---

Again, where does it show that the people in Donbas or Crimea want to be Ukrainian?

Are you arguing that they were polling in downtown Sevastopol or Donetsk...

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

non-entity? 2014, maybe. 2022, no way.

They may not have the numbers but the change from 2014 to 2022 is stark.. In 2014, Ukraine asked NATO to help them get to NATO standards, they now have civilian control of military, diversified chain-of-command (Jr staff can make battlefield decisions), volunteer force, NATO quality weapons, and they NATO training (40 battalions trained by NATO). They may not have been a top 5 military, but they were top 20.

---

That was my point. It's been a radical transformation since 2014 (in disregard of Ukrainian popular will and duplicity against Russia, needless to say).

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.

---

Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

The polling on this question has been done and it thunders...over 90% identifying as Ukrainian and wanting Russia to GTFO. Yes, it is not possible to poll in a battlezone. It is also true that there are an infinitesimally small number of civilians in the battlezone. And yes, there are 3m or so Ukes in Russia, allegedly as refugees. But even if ALL of them, 100%, poll pro-Russia (which I can guarantee you won't happen.....this is not the first time Russia has "rescued" entire peoples and shipped them off to help populate Siberia), it in simply mathematical terms won't change materially the larger polling universe. This war has galvanized Ukranian citizens to think of themselves as Ukrainian nationalists, regardless of the language they speak.

You appear to have bought hook-line-sinker the Russian narrative that Russian speaking Ukes in Donbass wanted to be part of Russia and started a rebellion. Problem with that narrative is, it's well known NOT to have started that way. It started with "little green men." Google the term. Russia sent in SOF types to destabilize a society that had Uke-speaking Ukes, Russian-speaking Ukes, and flat-out Russians. They succeeded in destabilizing the society. Now, I'm a power geo-political type, so I can appreciate the operation for what it was, being well-designed, well-executed, in pursuance of state power & all that stuff. What I know better than to do is to call it all "the will of the Ukrainian people." That is patently absurd.

---

Of course the US would have us believe that pro-Russian separatism is a fake movement with no real supporters. I'm sure Putin says the same thing about pro-Ukrainian militias supported by the US. Neither is entirely true, but it's to be expected. Both sides meddle, and both sides lie.

There happens to be a good indicator of the popular will, but as usual the US has stubbornly ignored it. That is the peaceful election of 2019, which brought Zelensky to power. Zelensky was elected largely on his promise to implement the Minsk II agreement and grant autonomy to the Donbas. This gained him the support of the eastern and southern regions, without which he would never have won his landslide victory. This agreement would have avoided war and preserved Ukraine as a neutral state between the two powers (which, if you recall, is what you claim to have wanted all along).

Zelensky proceeded to do the exact opposite, and in a way it's understandable. The US was never content with a neutral Ukraine. That's why we supported the armed coup against Yanukovych in 2014 and his illegal replacement by Poroshenko, who abrogated Ukraine's agreements regarding Crimea and threatened Russia's long-standing position there. Likewise, instead of helping to implement Ukraine's agreement in the Donbas, we supported far right militias who opposed autonomy. Zelensky invited foreign troops, in direct violation of Minsk II, and as we now know he cooperated with the US in an unprecedented military build-up. When on the eve of war France and Germany begged Zelensky to hold talks with separatist militias and grant autonomy per the agreement -- which, remember, was his mandate from the Ukrainian people -- he refused. According to Zelensky himself, "Putin insisted on a quick withdrawal of troops. I explained to him how it is done nowadays and estimated that at a current pace we would need 20 more years."

We had options, and those options were there for a long time. Ukraine could have defused the situation by honoring the Minsk agreement and the wishes of its voters. It could have joined the EU without joining NATO. Those opportunities are gone now, but let's not pretend the Ukrainian people wanted it that way. Of all parties concerned, they've been the most ignored and abused, not least by their Western "allies."

whiterock said:

---

Excellent article. Final paragraph:

"However improbably, what began as a challenge to the American-sponsored global system is causing a revival of it, something a Ukrainian victory would drive home with a vengeance. In Ukraine, the United States is not unilaterally imposing its will on other countries but leading a broad coalition to restore international order. It is not committing war crimes but preventing them. It is not acting as the world's policeman or as a global bully but as the arsenal of democracy. And it has been doing all this effectively and efficiently, without firing a gun or losing a single soldier. The effort to date has been a model of how to blend hard and soft power in a single strategy. Now it's time to finish the job."



https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-winnable-war

---

In almost every detail, this is the opposite of the truth. America has been the chief violator of the international order, and it was our own lawless action in Iraq that helped convince Putin we couldn't be trusted.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't understand this kind of thinking, for several reasons. It implies that what Russia is doing would be fine if they just destroyed Ukraine more efficiently, which means all the moral and legal arguments against the invasion are irrelevant. It treats spheres of influence as a status symbol rather than a means to stability. But it's stability that is in our interest; opposing Russia just to put them in their place is petty and pointless. Russia bore the heaviest burden against Germany in WWII and was a party to the division of Europe following the war. This greatly weighs in favor of their inclusion in the club, if that's how you want to think of it. More important, it has implications for Russian security that can't be ignored following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Finally, Russia is one of the few European regimes or cultures that are now resisting wokeness and neo-Marxism.

---

UKRAINE is already Russia's equal in many respects. Why not Ukraine as the stable influence in Eurasia?

---

Ukraine was a military non-entity until we started pouring weapons and advisors into the country. So tell me one thing. When we've used this sock puppet of a military not just as a proxy army but as the new regional hegemon, of all things, will you still maintain that we're not an empire?

---

non-entity? 2014, maybe. 2022, no way.

They may not have the numbers but the change from 2014 to 2022 is stark.. In 2014, Ukraine asked NATO to help them get to NATO standards, they now have civilian control of military, diversified chain-of-command (Jr staff can make battlefield decisions), volunteer force, NATO quality weapons, and they NATO training (40 battalions trained by NATO). They may not have been a top 5 military, but they were top 20.

---

That was my point. It's been a radical transformation since 2014 (in disregard of Ukrainian popular will and duplicity against Russia, needless to say).

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.

---

Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

The polling on this question has been done and it thunders...over 90% identifying as Ukrainian and wanting Russia to GTFO. Yes, it is not possible to poll in a battlezone. It is also true that there are an infinitesimally small number of civilians in the battlezone. And yes, there are 3m or so Ukes in Russia, allegedly as refugees. But even if ALL of them, 100%, poll pro-Russia (which I can guarantee you won't happen.....this is not the first time Russia has "rescued" entire peoples and shipped them off to help populate Siberia), it in simply mathematical terms won't change materially the larger polling universe. This war has galvanized Ukranian citizens to think of themselves as Ukrainian nationalists, regardless of the language they speak.

You appear to have bought hook-line-sinker the Russian narrative that Russian speaking Ukes in Donbass wanted to be part of Russia and started a rebellion. Problem with that narrative is, it's well known NOT to have started that way. It started with "little green men." Google the term. Russia sent in SOF types to destabilize a society that had Uke-speaking Ukes, Russian-speaking Ukes, and flat-out Russians. They succeeded in destabilizing the society. Now, I'm a power geo-political type, so I can appreciate the operation for what it was, being well-designed, well-executed, in pursuance of state power & all that stuff. What I know better than to do is to call it all "the will of the Ukrainian people." That is patently absurd.

---

Of course the US would have us believe that pro-Russian separatism is a fake movement with no real supporters. I'm sure Putin says the same thing about pro-Ukrainian militias supported by the US. Neither is entirely true, but it's to be expected. Both sides meddle, and both sides lie.

There happens to be a good indicator of the popular will, but as usual the US has stubbornly ignored it. That is the peaceful election of 2019, which brought Zelensky to power. Zelensky was elected largely on his promise to implement the Minsk II agreement and grant autonomy to the Donbas. This gained him the support of the eastern and southern regions, without which he would never have won his landslide victory. This agreement would have avoided war and preserved Ukraine as a neutral state between the two powers (which, if you recall, is what you claim to have wanted all along).

Zelensky proceeded to do the exact opposite, and in a way it's understandable. The US was never content with a neutral Ukraine. That's why we supported the armed coup against Yanukovych in 2014 and his illegal replacement by Poroshenko, who abrogated Ukraine's agreements regarding Crimea and threatened Russia's long-standing position there. Likewise, instead of helping to implement Ukraine's agreement in the Donbas, we supported far right militias who opposed autonomy. Zelensky invited foreign troops, in direct violation of Minsk II, and as we now know he cooperated with the US in an unprecedented military build-up. When on the eve of war France and Germany begged Zelensky to hold talks with separatist militias and grant autonomy per the agreement -- which, remember, was his mandate from the Ukrainian people -- he refused. According to Zelensky himself, "Putin insisted on a quick withdrawal of troops. I explained to him how it is done nowadays and estimated that at a current pace we would need 20 more years."

We had options, and those options were there for a long time. Ukraine could have defused the situation by honoring the Minsk agreement and the wishes of its voters. It could have joined the EU without joining NATO. Those opportunities are gone now, but let's not pretend the Ukrainian people wanted it that way. Of all parties concerned, they've been the most ignored and abused, not least by their Western "allies."

---

And what about the Budapest Memorandum. Oh yeah. Not binding.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.
Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

The polling on this question has been done and it thunders...over 90% identifying as Ukrainian and wanting Russia to GTFO. Yes, it is not possible to poll in a battlezone.

---

Maybe you are correct.

Can you show me this polling that confirms that the people of Donbas and Crimea are now MORE likely to identity as Ukrainian than before the war?

---

It has been posted in one of these threads. I'll have to go dig up the link. The critique of it at the time was as I noted - "well, you can't poll in a warzone...." But first quick google search, top result is here, from an objective poling firm, clearly suggesting that .......Ukrainians want to be Ukrainians.:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/403133/ukrainians-support-fighting-until-victory.aspx

---

Again, where does it show that the people in Donbas or Crimea want to be Ukrainian?

Are you arguing that they were polling in downtown Sevastopol or Donetsk...

---

They polled the Donbas. The results are clearly shown. Strong desire to win the war, which would be synonymous with "not be a part ofr Russia," which would be as good an indicator as one could devise for "wanting to be Ukrainian." I mean, seriously, Red. You are not on firm footing contesting this point.

Crimea, on the other hand, is softer ground for both of us. 2.2m people in 2021, about 75/25 Russia vs Ukrainian. That's probably a pretty good indicator of where the polling would be had they polled it. I'd cede it'd be as high as 80/20 wanting to be part of Russia.

But.

As many as 1m Russians moved into Crimea after the 2014 Russian annexation. Link has some numbers, which are admittedly soft but highlight the overall squishiness of the point you're arguing. CLEARLY, Russia had a slight advantage in Crimea, then offered cash payments to Russian citizens who moved there, to do exactly to Crimea what Israel is doing to the West Bank - settle the issue by settlement. You are pretty critical of Israeli policy toward the West Bank, if I recall. (wink).

You will also note that I reject Russia's ethnic/linguistic rationale as grounds for war or basis for peace ENTIRELY. Doesn't matter what are the populations or languages spoken -THE BORDERS ARE THE BORDERS (dammit). Now, if those populations wanted to organize a secession movement and vote on it. That's a different story. I have no problem with Czechoslovakia deciding to sever itself in twain, for example. They did it on their own, without anyone's help, by mutual agreement. Also would not mind if Quebec wanted to go its own way. Same for Scotland. It's their call, and in both cases, the existing state has allowed the issue to come to plebescite (unlike Spain vis-a-vis Catalonia.)

What is completely, flatly on its face unacceptable is to invade a province of a neighboring country with a couple hundred thousand troops, then organize a plebescite to deliver a predictable (favorable) outcome, and expect the world to applaud at the humanity of it. If those are the rules and I'm POTUS, then I'm going for Saskatchewan. Then when that's done, I'm going for British Columbia. (You can rename it "Canadian Columbia" after I'm done, if you want to.) Then, when that's complete, I'm going to pay the Bismarck Elks Club to move to Northwest Territories and legitimately tip the electorate in my favor so I can complete the land bridge to Alaska. Those folks in western Canada would probably legitimately vote to let me do all that anyway and besides, what the hell difference is there between a Canadian and an American, anyway? Far less difference than between a Russian and Ukrainian, for danged sure.

Your policy here is not well thought out. Once we open the door to your justification, NATO is likely done, as the first order of business would out of necessity be to build a Kurdish state out of Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Kurds are widely regarded as the largest nation in the word without its own state. It would be great for stabilizing Syria and Iraq, and poke Iran in the eye. The problem comes with Turkey. It would cut off a REALLY big piece of eastern Turkey and send Istanbul into a blind rage, total genocidal war...and Nato would collapse into supporting/opposing camps.

And that's just for starters.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Excellent article. Final paragraph:

"However improbably, what began as a challenge to the American-sponsored global system is causing a revival of it, something a Ukrainian victory would drive home with a vengeance. In Ukraine, the United States is not unilaterally imposing its will on other countries but leading a broad coalition to restore international order. It is not committing war crimes but preventing them. It is not acting as the world's policeman or as a global bully but as the arsenal of democracy. And it has been doing all this effectively and efficiently, without firing a gun or losing a single soldier. The effort to date has been a model of how to blend hard and soft power in a single strategy. Now it's time to finish the job."



https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-winnable-war

---

In almost every detail, this is the opposite of the truth my own ideologically constructed worldview. America has been the chief violator of the international order, and it was our own lawless action in Iraq that helped convince Putin we couldn't be trusted.

---

FIFY there in bold.

If Putin was look at our efforts in Iraq as a business model, he'd have already gone home at the request of the Ukrainian parliament like we did when the Iraqi parliament asked us to leave.

Crimea voted 90+% for joining the Russian Federation in 2014, before any such resettlement could have happened. Most countries didn't accept it, but Gallup and Pew both conducted independent polls that same year confirming the results in the 80-90% range.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Excellent article. Final paragraph:

"However improbably, what began as a challenge to the American-sponsored global system is causing a revival of it, something a Ukrainian victory would drive home with a vengeance. In Ukraine, the United States is not unilaterally imposing its will on other countries but leading a broad coalition to restore international order. It is not committing war crimes but preventing them. It is not acting as the world's policeman or as a global bully but as the arsenal of democracy. And it has been doing all this effectively and efficiently, without firing a gun or losing a single soldier. The effort to date has been a model of how to blend hard and soft power in a single strategy. Now it's time to finish the job."



https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-winnable-war

---

In almost every detail, this is the opposite of the truth my own ideologically constructed worldview. America has been the chief violator of the international order, and it was our own lawless action in Iraq that helped convince Putin we couldn't be trusted.

---

FIFY there in bold.

If Putin was look at our efforts in Iraq as a business model, he'd have already gone home at the request of the Ukrainian parliament like we did when the Iraqi parliament asked us to leave.

---

We fought in Iraq for almost 9 years.

And when we finally came home it was because the American people demanded it. Iraqi views were basically immaterial

Obama won a landslide election victory in 2008 on the promise of ending the Iraq war and bringing the troops home. And Trump literally blew away his GOP competitors by promising to get us out any more middle eastern quagmire wars (and on securing the border)

But if you are trying to make the argument that the current American political system is at least more representative than the Russian political system....well you will get no argument from me.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.
Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

The polling on this question has been done and it thunders...over 90% identifying as Ukrainian and wanting Russia to GTFO. Yes, it is not possible to poll in a battlezone.

---

Maybe you are correct.

Can you show me this polling that confirms that the people of Donbas and Crimea are now MORE likely to identity as Ukrainian than before the war?

---

It has been posted in one of these threads. I'll have to go dig up the link. The critique of it at the time was as I noted - "well, you can't poll in a warzone...." But first quick google search, top result is here, from an objective poling firm, clearly suggesting that .......Ukrainians want to be Ukrainians.:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/403133/ukrainians-support-fighting-until-victory.aspx

---

Again, where does it show that the people in Donbas or Crimea want to be Ukrainian?

Are you arguing that they were polling in downtown Sevastopol or Donetsk...

---

They polled the Donbas. The results are clearly shown. .

Crimea, on the other hand, is softer ground for both of us. 2.2m people in 2021, about 75/25 Russia vs Ukrainian. That's probably a pretty good indicator of where the polling would be had they polled it. I'd cede it'd be as high as 80/20 wanting to be part of Russia.

But.

As many as 1m Russians moved into Crimea after the 2014 Russian annexation.

---

How could they poll the whole of the Donbas when more than half of it was behind enemy lines at the time?

Military fortifications and trench works manned in large part by Donbas citizen militias by the way....Luhansk and Donetsk (the regional capitals of Donbas) in fact were both under separatist control and centers of separatist political power. These are also the population centers of the region.

And as you say....ethnic russians from other parts of Ukraine & Russia have moved into these areas now (been moved by the government in Moscow?)....so if anything these areas are now MORE russian than they were 10 years ago.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Excellent article. Final paragraph:

"However improbably, what began as a challenge to the American-sponsored global system is causing a revival of it, something a Ukrainian victory would drive home with a vengeance. In Ukraine, the United States is not unilaterally imposing its will on other countries but leading a broad coalition to restore international order. It is not committing war crimes but preventing them. It is not acting as the world's policeman or as a global bully but as the arsenal of democracy. And it has been doing all this effectively and efficiently, without firing a gun or losing a single soldier. The effort to date has been a model of how to blend hard and soft power in a single strategy. Now it's time to finish the job."



https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-winnable-war

---

In almost every detail, this is the opposite of the truth my own ideologically constructed worldview. America has been the chief violator of the international order, and it was our own lawless action in Iraq that helped convince Putin we couldn't be trusted.

---

FIFY there in bold.

If Putin was look at our efforts in Iraq as a business model, he'd have already gone home at the request of the Ukrainian parliament like we did when the Iraqi parliament asked us to leave.

---

We "left" eight years after the invasion, after numerous refusals to accept a timeline, and after engaging in armed combat with factions of the parliament we helped create. Ten years later, we were still refusing demands to withdraw once and for all:

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- The State Department said in a statement Friday that the U.S. will not hold discussions with Iraq regarding American troop withdrawal from the country.

"At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership -- not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East," State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said in a statement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/state-department-tells-iraq-it-will-not-discuss-us-troop-withdrawal.html

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Excellent article. Final paragraph:

"However improbably, what began as a challenge to the American-sponsored global system is causing a revival of it, something a Ukrainian victory would drive home with a vengeance. In Ukraine, the United States is not unilaterally imposing its will on other countries but leading a broad coalition to restore international order. It is not committing war crimes but preventing them. It is not acting as the world's policeman or as a global bully but as the arsenal of democracy. And it has been doing all this effectively and efficiently, without firing a gun or losing a single soldier. The effort to date has been a model of how to blend hard and soft power in a single strategy. Now it's time to finish the job."



https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-winnable-war

---

In almost every detail, this is the opposite of the truth my own ideologically constructed worldview. America has been the chief violator of the international order, and it was our own lawless action in Iraq that helped convince Putin we couldn't be trusted.

---

FIFY there in bold.

If Putin was look at our efforts in Iraq as a business model, he'd have already gone home at the request of the Ukrainian parliament like we did when the Iraqi parliament asked us to leave.

---

We fought in Iraq for almost 9 years.

And when we finally came home it was because the American people demanded it. Iraqi views were basically immaterial

Obama won a landslide election victory in 2008 on the promise of ending the Iraq war and bringing the troops home. And Trump literally blew away his GOP competitors by promising to get us out any more middle eastern quagmire wars (and on securing the border)

But if you are trying to make the argument that the current American political system is at least more representative than the Russian political system....well you will get no argument from me.

---

We are not in Ukraine? Why are you comparing occupying a Nation to provide support? We have no combat troops in Ukraine, I have not even seen advisors.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Excellent article. Final paragraph:

"However improbably, what began as a challenge to the American-sponsored global system is causing a revival of it, something a Ukrainian victory would drive home with a vengeance. In Ukraine, the United States is not unilaterally imposing its will on other countries but leading a broad coalition to restore international order. It is not committing war crimes but preventing them. It is not acting as the world's policeman or as a global bully but as the arsenal of democracy. And it has been doing all this effectively and efficiently, without firing a gun or losing a single soldier. The effort to date has been a model of how to blend hard and soft power in a single strategy. Now it's time to finish the job."



https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-winnable-war

---

In almost every detail, this is the opposite of the truth my own ideologically constructed worldview. America has been the chief violator of the international order, and it was our own lawless action in Iraq that helped convince Putin we couldn't be trusted.

---

FIFY there in bold.

If Putin was look at our efforts in Iraq as a business model, he'd have already gone home at the request of the Ukrainian parliament like we did when the Iraqi parliament asked us to leave.

---

We fought in Iraq for almost 9 years.

And when we finally came home it was because the American people demanded it. Iraqi views were basically immaterial

Obama won a landslide election victory in 2008 on the promise of ending the Iraq war and bringing the troops home. And Trump literally blew away his GOP competitors by promising to get us out any more middle eastern quagmire wars (and on securing the border)

But if you are trying to make the argument that the current American political system is at least more representative than the Russian political system....well you will get no argument from me.

---

We are not in Ukraine? Why are you comparing occupying a Nation to provide support? We have no combat troops in Ukraine, I have not even seen advisors.

---

I did not even bring up Iraq....whiterock did.

I simply pointed out that it was the will of the American people and voters that forced D.C. to give up its obsession with long term occupation of Iraq.

And God bless the American people that they did or else we would still be losing young men and women there.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Lets hope Russia doesn't blow up the stockpiles and poison European air.

🚨#Breaking, The US is expected to provide Ukraine with depleted-uranium rounds following weeks of internal debate, The Wall Street Journal writes.💪🏼🇺🇦🍻

-wsj pic.twitter.com/bvZ40hXPea

— WarFrontline (@WarFrontline) June 13, 2023

---

About as dangerous as blowing up a banana storage

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Lets hope Russia doesn't blow up the stockpiles and poison European air.

🚨#Breaking, The US is expected to provide Ukraine with depleted-uranium rounds following weeks of internal debate, The Wall Street Journal writes.💪🏼🇺🇦🍻

-wsj pic.twitter.com/bvZ40hXPea

— WarFrontline (@WarFrontline) June 13, 2023

---

About as dangerous as blowing up a banana storage

---

Good to know

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I will disagree with you on the last part. I say it has happened because of the Ukrainian popular will after Russia too Crimea and there was nothing Ukraine could do.
Polling shows the invasion overwhelmingly galvanized Ukrainian nationalism

---

In Central & Western Ukraine? Certainly.

No one has any proof that it galvanized any sort of Ukrainian nationalism in Crimea or Donbas....if anything those areas have had substantial uptick in russian ethnic/cultural/national identification...and a corresponding out flight of those who would have considered themselves staunchly Ukrainian in identity.

Would make a good case for an area like Kharkiv or Odessa being more Ukrainian in identity today than it would have been just 2 years ago.

---

ALL of Ukraine. The war has caused Russian speaking Ukrainians to make it plain - they are Ukrainian.

---

Again,

This sounds like propaganda right out of the Harvard faculty lounge or a Pentagon briefing room.

Where is the evidence that after 8 years of deadly war being waged by Kyiv on the people of Donbas that they now feel more "Ukrainian" than they did before?

Is this kind of like how our leaders told us that inside of every Afghan and every Vietnamese there was a hot dog loving, Disney movie watching, American just waiting to get out? lol

---

The polling on this question has been done and it thunders...over 90% identifying as Ukrainian and wanting Russia to GTFO. Yes, it is not possible to poll in a battlezone.

---

Maybe you are correct.

Can you show me this polling that confirms that the people of Donbas and Crimea are now MORE likely to identity as Ukrainian than before the war?

---

It has been posted in one of these threads. I'll have to go dig up the link. The critique of it at the time was as I noted - "well, you can't poll in a warzone...." But first quick google search, top result is here, from an objective poling firm, clearly suggesting that .......Ukrainians want to be Ukrainians.:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/403133/ukrainians-support-fighting-until-victory.aspx

---

Again, where does it show that the people in Donbas or Crimea want to be Ukrainian?

Are you arguing that they were polling in downtown Sevastopol or Donetsk...

---

They polled the Donbas. The results are clearly shown. .

Crimea, on the other hand, is softer ground for both of us. 2.2m people in 2021, about 75/25 Russia vs Ukrainian. That's probably a pretty good indicator of where the polling would be had they polled it. I'd cede it'd be as high as 80/20 wanting to be part of Russia.

But.

As many as 1m Russians moved into Crimea after the 2014 Russian annexation.

---

How could they poll the whole of the Donbas when more than half of it was behind enemy lines at the time?
I'm sure the fine print will tell you how they did it, likely by phone and internet, which are working, even in the battle zone...... (ISW, in fact, uses cellphone location data to confirm unit positions.)

Military fortifications and trench works manned in large part by Donbas citizen militias by the way....Luhansk and Donetsk (the regional capitals of Donbas) in fact were both under separatist control and centers of separatist political power. These are also the population centers of the region.
Well, you SAY they are manned by Donbas citizen militias and imply they are Ukrainians, when in fact they were Russian nationals organized by Russian cadres (the "little green men").

And as you say....ethnic russians from other parts of Ukraine & Russia have moved into these areas now (been moved by the government in Moscow?)....so if anything these areas are now MORE russian than they were 10 years ago.
Read the link again. Russia did not forcibly move people IN to Crimea. It offered a $30k incentive for Russian citizens to resettle there. The demographics today and pre-2014 are easily searchable on the internet AFTER 2014 and AFTER years of those cash incentives, the population of Crimea is, per Wiki, about 75% Russian.

---

Just because these areas we're talking about vote for the pro-Russian candidates/parties does not mean, as your entire argument presumes, those areas would prefer to be part of Russia. Indeed, that's what the war has uncovered. The Donbas and Crimea did not particularly care to move in the direction of the EU, but the Russian invasion was not at all seen as a liberation but rather an oppression.

Think it thru, Red. It's all well & good to have grown up in Texas in a mixed race community, have a wife with a maiden name ending in a vowel, speak passable Spanish, love enchiladas, Modelo Negra, and Tejano music, want closer relations with Mexico and more cross-border economic and noon-day cultural exchange, bounce our Hispanic blood relatives on our knees, even own a home down in Belize, etc..... One who lives like that might find the EU to be a strange foreign idea, Nato to be a genuine bother, and fer crissakes we don't need no navy to fuss about Taiwan. But that doesn't mean one is breathlessly waiting for Central America to invade across the Rio Grande and liberate us from the American Dream. When that happens, normally, people get real focused on things closer to home that matter a lot. An unprofessional army looting your fridge and digging trenches in your back yard gets kinda personal real quick. And when they start shooting your chicken fried steak eating cousins for not looking or acting sufficiently Hispanic, you're gonna start seething.

Man, you have a good point that we're spending a lot of money helping Ukraine, and there's some corruption going on, and suspension of rights in wartime is one of those messy, uncomfortable necessaries, that never gets comfortable. But when you start going way out to the last leaf on the end of the branch to start justifying what Russia did as the natural order of things.....well, it's just not tenable.