Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“Maybe Ukraine gives up the territories Donbass, Luhansk. I think it could be somehow right to give away these territories, because the population of Donbass and Luhansk is completely pro Russian.”
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023

---

My very first comment here about the Russian invasion was that Russia would hold the Donbas and that there was nothing Biden could do about it.

---

Yep.

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.

Your argument assumes the Russian policy is that of territorial expansion for its own sake. It's the same propaganda we hear in every war. "The evil [fill in authoritarian dictator] regime understands nothing but force. He rules the country of [fill in enemy nation] with an iron fist. Diplomacy is weakness, because Hitler." What we're actually seeing is a response to provocation, and a long delayed one at that. I wouldn't expect Russia or anyone else to abandon such a policy. Indeed we were foolish ever to think they would.

---

Three mega-faulty premises:

1) You are advocating, openly, explicitly, that we should abandon Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence in the name of stability. Problem is, Russia is manifestly not strong enough to stabilize a nation of 50m people who want nothing to do with Russia. So the entire premise for your policy is not just flawed, but nonexistent. Nothing could destabilize Eastern Europe more than to facilitate Russian domination of an area they could not otherwise control on their own.

2) Russia has stated, repeatedly, over the last three decades that they desire to rebuild their area of influence to the footprint of the USSR. Everything they've done, consistently and methodically, during that time is in pursuit of that objective. Inasmuch as their clear intent involves 7 current Nato members, we have a duty to thwart their policy.

3) It is not a provocation to refuse to issue statements Russia demands us to make. It is not a provocation to say "Nato will entertain application for membership from anyone; with membership guaranteed for no one." It is completely inconsistent for a liberal democracy to say "this particular topic is off-limits for debate lest we ruffle Russian sensibilities." Russia, in that regard, can go eff itself.

---

Your premises are faulty:

1) Russia hasn't stabilized Ukraine because they're not just fighting Ukraine. Otherwise the war would have ended long ago. You're employing circular reasoning again -- keep Ukraine unstable by fighting a proxy war against Russia, then use the instability to justify a proxy war against Russia.
What you say is factually not true. Congress did not pass the first aid package to Ukraine until 9 March 2022, 14 days after the Russian invasion. That aid package was quite small - $13b - and contained a substantial amount of humanitarian assistance. The major ramp up in military aid did not happen until 2013, when it was obvious that Ukraine had stopped Russia and had a chance to win (because of shocking Russian weakness and incompetence).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts
WE GAVE RUSSIA MONTHS TO GET THE JOB DONE and they couldn't do it.

2) If by "rebuilding their area of influence" you mean rebuilding their empire, this simply isn't true. I've asked for the quotations, and no one can provide them. If you mean preserving a zone of security, this is not just a legitimate goal but a fundamental element of the postwar order. It's the US that has disrupted that order.
Being ignorant of foreign affairs is no defense.

3) We've done a lot more than just say we'll entertain applications. We won the Cold War because Reagan took the opposite attitude from yours. Instead of saying "F the Russians," he talked to them and built trust. He talked from a position of strength, to be sure. Peace through strength was his motto. It wasn't peace through arrogance or needless conflict. In the last 30 years we've almost completely undone his achievements. Russian-American relations are at a historic low. Major arms control agreements are gone. A proxy war is active and ongoing. Policy makers on both sides are talking about lowering thresholds for use of nukes. This is the "stability" that our broken assurances have bought.
Oh I don't mind talking to the Russians. Used to do it for a living. Under Ronaldus Magnus, too.

Know all about "peace thru strength." It is a great big "F/U" in a velvet glove.

---

Russia has had several centuries to reform itself and realize its true potential. But with each disastrous war effort, we find they are no closer to parity with the west than before. It took massive western aid for Russia to repel the Nazis, and they ended the war at apparent parity with the West. But that, too, was a chimera and Russia rode the communist bus to utter internal destruction. Now, after three decades of ostensible market and democratic reforms, we see Russia sliding back into old habits - corruption, oligarcy, autocracy, none of which has actually made Russia stronger. Facts are facts: At this moment in time, Ukraine is a far better partner in peace than Russia and that is not likely to change for decades.

There was a time when Ukraine was a big deal and Russia was a backwater. Looks like things are trending back that direction at this time. It would be wise for Nato and the USA to recognize those trends and set policy accordingly. Russia should do the same - and work diligently to get its house in order and earn the position of respect it desires.

---

If what you say is true then we have no disagreement. Just cut off aid to Ukraine and let them beat Russia on their own. It isn't true, though. We created and equipped the Ukrainian military in its present form, and we had advisors back on the ground within a couple of weeks after the war started.

Marxism of any kind leads to destruction. That shouldn't have been a surprise. The US and Europe are riding the same bus today. Minus the corruption and "oligarchy," of course (lol).

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Quote:

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate desire of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state

---

You misspelled goal. Do you really think Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of neutrality?

Our principles were revolutionary. We began as a small, weak republic. But we survived. Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless. This constitutional republic, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, prospered and grew strong. To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world - nothing more and nothing less. ~ Ronald Reagan

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't think we need direct democracy. We just need to get rid of the shadow government and let our elected government do its work. Abolishing the CIA would go a long way toward restoring accountability and sanity.

---

That's a terrible idea. Their duties would go to the NSA and FBI. Two organizations who regularly spy on Americans.

---

Lets abolish all the unaccountable secret police that infest the U.S. Federal government and routinely violate the rights of the people and the soverginity of the States.

---

The CIA operates outside the US, and basically every country has an intelligence agency. It's critical. You can argue about policy application, but not purpose.

---

Do away with the CIA??? Sure, let's blind ourselves and get rid of any capabilities to operate overseas. Yeah. that makes sense.

---

Then get them, the FBI and all the other alphabet groups out of politics or we're gonna have an out of control unelected bureaucratic state that overrides our republic/votes.

---

No, you have it wrong. It is the Politicians sticking their noses into the day to day operations of Agencies. Agencies have missions, politics and individual agendas have no place in those agencies. Bureaucracies are not a bad thing, it is what Politicians do to them. Let the career public servants that spend their lives in their specialized areas do their job.

---

No. We have agents leaking classified docs, spying on campaigns, running false narratives and hiding information from congress.

They want more power and they're getting it. They spend extraordinary amounts of money and fail to deliver results that amount of money should warrant.

I'm not saying we don't need bureaucracy, but what we have today is unacceptable and dangerous.

---

Trump and his DOJ had four years to pursue this, and found nothing. You're vaunted investigator, Durham, found nothing of consequence that had not already been addressed. Don't you think you might be ingaging in a false narrative? It's hard to accept that the good guys may not be so good anymore.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't think we need direct democracy. We just need to get rid of the shadow government and let our elected government do its work. Abolishing the CIA would go a long way toward restoring accountability and sanity.

---

That's a terrible idea. Their duties would go to the NSA and FBI. Two organizations who regularly spy on Americans.

---

Lets abolish all the unaccountable secret police that infest the U.S. Federal government and routinely violate the rights of the people and the soverginity of the States.

---

The CIA operates outside the US, and basically every country has an intelligence agency. It's critical. You can argue about policy application, but not purpose.

---

Do away with the CIA??? Sure, let's blind ourselves and get rid of any capabilities to operate overseas. Yeah. that makes sense.

---

Then get them, the FBI and all the other alphabet groups out of politics or we're gonna have an out of control unelected bureaucratic state that overrides our republic/votes.

---

No, you have it wrong. It is the Politicians sticking their noses into the day to day operations of Agencies. Agencies have missions, politics and individual agendas have no place in those agencies. Bureaucracies are not a bad thing, it is what Politicians do to them. Let the career public servants that spend their lives in their specialized areas do their job.

---

No. We have agents leaking classified docs, spying on campaigns, running false narratives and hiding information from congress.

They want more power and they're getting it. They spend extraordinary amounts of money and fail to deliver results that amount of money should warrant.

I'm not saying we don't need bureaucracy, but what we have today is unacceptable and dangerous.

---

Trump and his DOJ had four years to pursue this, and found nothing. Your vaunted investigator, Durham, found nothing of consequence that had not already been addressed. Don't you think you might be ingaging in a false narrative? It's hard to accept that the good guys may not be so good anymore.

---

He found that they have absolutely zero corroboration. Don't speak about things you know nothing about.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“Maybe Ukraine gives up the territories Donbass, Luhansk. I think it could be somehow right to give away these territories, because the population of Donbass and Luhansk is completely pro Russian.”
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023

---

My very first comment here about the Russian invasion was that Russia would hold the Donbas and that there was nothing Biden could do about it.

---

Yep.

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.

Your argument assumes the Russian policy is that of territorial expansion for its own sake. It's the same propaganda we hear in every war. "The evil [fill in authoritarian dictator] regime understands nothing but force. He rules the country of [fill in enemy nation] with an iron fist. Diplomacy is weakness, because Hitler." What we're actually seeing is a response to provocation, and a long delayed one at that. I wouldn't expect Russia or anyone else to abandon such a policy. Indeed we were foolish ever to think they would.

---

Three mega-faulty premises:

1) You are advocating, openly, explicitly, that we should abandon Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence in the name of stability. Problem is, Russia is manifestly not strong enough to stabilize a nation of 50m people who want nothing to do with Russia. So the entire premise for your policy is not just flawed, but nonexistent. Nothing could destabilize Eastern Europe more than to facilitate Russian domination of an area they could not otherwise control on their own.

2) Russia has stated, repeatedly, over the last three decades that they desire to rebuild their area of influence to the footprint of the USSR. Everything they've done, consistently and methodically, during that time is in pursuit of that objective. Inasmuch as their clear intent involves 7 current Nato members, we have a duty to thwart their policy.

3) It is not a provocation to refuse to issue statements Russia demands us to make. It is not a provocation to say "Nato will entertain application for membership from anyone; with membership guaranteed for no one." It is completely inconsistent for a liberal democracy to say "this particular topic is off-limits for debate lest we ruffle Russian sensibilities." Russia, in that regard, can go eff itself.

---

Your premises are faulty:

1) Russia hasn't stabilized Ukraine because they're not just fighting Ukraine. Otherwise the war would have ended long ago. You're employing circular reasoning again -- keep Ukraine unstable by fighting a proxy war against Russia, then use the instability to justify a proxy war against Russia.
What you say is factually not true. Congress did not pass the first aid package to Ukraine until 9 March 2022, 14 days after the Russian invasion. That aid package was quite small - $13b - and contained a substantial amount of humanitarian assistance. The major ramp up in military aid did not happen until 2013, when it was obvious that Ukraine had stopped Russia and had a chance to win (because of shocking Russian weakness and incompetence).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts
WE GAVE RUSSIA MONTHS TO GET THE JOB DONE and they couldn't do it.

2) If by "rebuilding their area of influence" you mean rebuilding their empire, this simply isn't true. I've asked for the quotations, and no one can provide them. If you mean preserving a zone of security, this is not just a legitimate goal but a fundamental element of the postwar order. It's the US that has disrupted that order.
Being ignorant of foreign affairs is no defense.

3) We've done a lot more than just say we'll entertain applications. We won the Cold War because Reagan took the opposite attitude from yours. Instead of saying "F the Russians," he talked to them and built trust. He talked from a position of strength, to be sure. Peace through strength was his motto. It wasn't peace through arrogance or needless conflict. In the last 30 years we've almost completely undone his achievements. Russian-American relations are at a historic low. Major arms control agreements are gone. A proxy war is active and ongoing. Policy makers on both sides are talking about lowering thresholds for use of nukes. This is the "stability" that our broken assurances have bought.
Oh I don't mind talking to the Russians. Used to do it for a living. Under Ronaldus Magnus, too.

Know all about "peace thru strength." It is a great big "F/U" in a velvet glove.

---

Russia has had several centuries to reform itself and realize its true potential. But with each disastrous war effort, we find they are no closer to parity with the west than before. It took massive western aid for Russia to repel the Nazis, and they ended the war at apparent parity with the West. But that, too, was a chimera and Russia rode the communist bus to utter internal destruction. Now, after three decades of ostensible market and democratic reforms, we see Russia sliding back into old habits - corruption, oligarcy, autocracy, none of which has actually made Russia stronger. Facts are facts: At this moment in time, Ukraine is a far better partner in peace than Russia and that is not likely to change for decades.

There was a time when Ukraine was a big deal and Russia was a backwater. Looks like things are trending back that direction at this time. It would be wise for Nato and the USA to recognize those trends and set policy accordingly. Russia should do the same - and work diligently to get its house in order and earn the position of respect it desires.

---

If what you say is true then we have no disagreement. Just cut off aid to Ukraine and let them beat Russia on their own. It isn't true, though. We created and equipped the Ukrainian military in its present form, and we had advisors back on the ground within a couple of weeks after the war started.

Marxism of any kind leads to destruction. That shouldn't have been a surprise. The US and Europe are riding the same bus today. Minus the corruption and "oligarchy," of course (lol).

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Quote:

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate desire of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state

---

You misspelled goal. Do you really think Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of neutrality?

Our principles were revolutionary. We began as a small, weak republic. But we survived. Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless. This constitutional republic, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, prospered and grew strong. To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world - nothing more and nothing less. ~ Ronald Reagan

---

They invaded because neutrality was no longer an option. Reagan would never have let it come to that. If such a blunder didn't already have him spinning in his grave, quoting him in support of it surely does.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“Maybe Ukraine gives up the territories Donbass, Luhansk. I think it could be somehow right to give away these territories, because the population of Donbass and Luhansk is completely pro Russian.”
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023

---

My very first comment here about the Russian invasion was that Russia would hold the Donbas and that there was nothing Biden could do about it.

---

Yep.

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.

Your argument assumes the Russian policy is that of territorial expansion for its own sake. It's the same propaganda we hear in every war. "The evil [fill in authoritarian dictator] regime understands nothing but force. He rules the country of [fill in enemy nation] with an iron fist. Diplomacy is weakness, because Hitler." What we're actually seeing is a response to provocation, and a long delayed one at that. I wouldn't expect Russia or anyone else to abandon such a policy. Indeed we were foolish ever to think they would.

---

Three mega-faulty premises:

1) You are advocating, openly, explicitly, that we should abandon Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence in the name of stability. Problem is, Russia is manifestly not strong enough to stabilize a nation of 50m people who want nothing to do with Russia. So the entire premise for your policy is not just flawed, but nonexistent. Nothing could destabilize Eastern Europe more than to facilitate Russian domination of an area they could not otherwise control on their own.

2) Russia has stated, repeatedly, over the last three decades that they desire to rebuild their area of influence to the footprint of the USSR. Everything they've done, consistently and methodically, during that time is in pursuit of that objective. Inasmuch as their clear intent involves 7 current Nato members, we have a duty to thwart their policy.

3) It is not a provocation to refuse to issue statements Russia demands us to make. It is not a provocation to say "Nato will entertain application for membership from anyone; with membership guaranteed for no one." It is completely inconsistent for a liberal democracy to say "this particular topic is off-limits for debate lest we ruffle Russian sensibilities." Russia, in that regard, can go eff itself.

---

Your premises are faulty:

1) Russia hasn't stabilized Ukraine because they're not just fighting Ukraine. Otherwise the war would have ended long ago. You're employing circular reasoning again -- keep Ukraine unstable by fighting a proxy war against Russia, then use the instability to justify a proxy war against Russia.
What you say is factually not true. Congress did not pass the first aid package to Ukraine until 9 March 2022, 14 days after the Russian invasion. That aid package was quite small - $13b - and contained a substantial amount of humanitarian assistance. The major ramp up in military aid did not happen until 2013, when it was obvious that Ukraine had stopped Russia and had a chance to win (because of shocking Russian weakness and incompetence).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts
WE GAVE RUSSIA MONTHS TO GET THE JOB DONE and they couldn't do it.

2) If by "rebuilding their area of influence" you mean rebuilding their empire, this simply isn't true. I've asked for the quotations, and no one can provide them. If you mean preserving a zone of security, this is not just a legitimate goal but a fundamental element of the postwar order. It's the US that has disrupted that order.
Being ignorant of foreign affairs is no defense.

3) We've done a lot more than just say we'll entertain applications. We won the Cold War because Reagan took the opposite attitude from yours. Instead of saying "F the Russians," he talked to them and built trust. He talked from a position of strength, to be sure. Peace through strength was his motto. It wasn't peace through arrogance or needless conflict. In the last 30 years we've almost completely undone his achievements. Russian-American relations are at a historic low. Major arms control agreements are gone. A proxy war is active and ongoing. Policy makers on both sides are talking about lowering thresholds for use of nukes. This is the "stability" that our broken assurances have bought.
Oh I don't mind talking to the Russians. Used to do it for a living. Under Ronaldus Magnus, too.

Know all about "peace thru strength." It is a great big "F/U" in a velvet glove.

---

Russia has had several centuries to reform itself and realize its true potential. But with each disastrous war effort, we find they are no closer to parity with the west than before. It took massive western aid for Russia to repel the Nazis, and they ended the war at apparent parity with the West. But that, too, was a chimera and Russia rode the communist bus to utter internal destruction. Now, after three decades of ostensible market and democratic reforms, we see Russia sliding back into old habits - corruption, oligarcy, autocracy, none of which has actually made Russia stronger. Facts are facts: At this moment in time, Ukraine is a far better partner in peace than Russia and that is not likely to change for decades.

There was a time when Ukraine was a big deal and Russia was a backwater. Looks like things are trending back that direction at this time. It would be wise for Nato and the USA to recognize those trends and set policy accordingly. Russia should do the same - and work diligently to get its house in order and earn the position of respect it desires.

---

If what you say is true then we have no disagreement. Just cut off aid to Ukraine and let them beat Russia on their own. It isn't true, though. We created and equipped the Ukrainian military in its present form, and we had advisors back on the ground within a couple of weeks after the war started.

Marxism of any kind leads to destruction. That shouldn't have been a surprise. The US and Europe are riding the same bus today. Minus the corruption and "oligarchy," of course (lol).

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Quote:

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate desire of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state

---

You misspelled goal. Do you really think Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of neutrality?

---

1. Neither side wants neutrality for Ukraine. Russian wants a pro-Moscow government installed there and America wants a pro-D.C. government installed there. But that does not mean its not in the best interest of the actual Ukrainian people to have tried and be a neutral country vs now becoming a bloody battlefield and proxy war area for the USA-EU and Russia.

The same for Taiwan. China wants it...and the USA wants it....but it probably in the best interest of the Taiwanese to be neutral and try and not get mixed up in a China vs USA proxy war.

Switzerland learned long ago that its better to become a neutral country than to be a battle ground between rival great powers (France-Germany-Italy)

Much better to be Switzerland than be Syria

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.

Your argument assumes the Russian policy is that of territorial expansion for its own sake. It's the same propaganda we hear in every war. "The evil [fill in authoritarian dictator] regime understands nothing but force. He rules the country of [fill in enemy nation] with an iron fist. Diplomacy is weakness, because Hitler." What we're actually seeing is a response to provocation, and a long delayed one at that. I wouldn't expect Russia or anyone else to abandon such a policy. Indeed we were foolish ever to think they would.

---

Three mega-faulty premises:

1) You are advocating, openly, explicitly, that we should abandon Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence in the name of stability. Problem is, Russia is manifestly not strong enough to stabilize a nation of 50m people who want nothing to do with Russia. So the entire premise for your policy is not just flawed, but nonexistent. Nothing could destabilize Eastern Europe more than to facilitate Russian domination of an area they could not otherwise control on their own.

2) Russia has stated, repeatedly, over the last three decades that they desire to rebuild their area of influence to the footprint of the USSR. Everything they've done, consistently and methodically, during that time is in pursuit of that objective. Inasmuch as their clear intent involves 7 current Nato members, we have a duty to thwart their policy.

3) It is not a provocation to refuse to issue statements Russia demands us to make. It is not a provocation to say "Nato will entertain application for membership from anyone; with membership guaranteed for no one." It is completely inconsistent for a liberal democracy to say "this particular topic is off-limits for debate lest we ruffle Russian sensibilities." Russia, in that regard, can go eff itself.

---

Your premises are faulty:

1) Russia hasn't stabilized Ukraine because they're not just fighting Ukraine. Otherwise the war would have ended long ago. You're employing circular reasoning again -- keep Ukraine unstable by fighting a proxy war against Russia, then use the instability to justify a proxy war against Russia.
What you say is factually not true. Congress did not pass the first aid package to Ukraine until 9 March 2022, 14 days after the Russian invasion. That aid package was quite small - $13b - and contained a substantial amount of humanitarian assistance. The major ramp up in military aid did not happen until 2013, when it was obvious that Ukraine had stopped Russia and had a chance to win (because of shocking Russian weakness and incompetence).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts
WE GAVE RUSSIA MONTHS TO GET THE JOB DONE and they couldn't do it.

2) If by "rebuilding their area of influence" you mean rebuilding their empire, this simply isn't true. I've asked for the quotations, and no one can provide them. If you mean preserving a zone of security, this is not just a legitimate goal but a fundamental element of the postwar order. It's the US that has disrupted that order.
Being ignorant of foreign affairs is no defense.

3) We've done a lot more than just say we'll entertain applications. We won the Cold War because Reagan took the opposite attitude from yours. Instead of saying "F the Russians," he talked to them and built trust. He talked from a position of strength, to be sure. Peace through strength was his motto. It wasn't peace through arrogance or needless conflict. In the last 30 years we've almost completely undone his achievements. Russian-American relations are at a historic low. Major arms control agreements are gone. A proxy war is active and ongoing. Policy makers on both sides are talking about lowering thresholds for use of nukes. This is the "stability" that our broken assurances have bought.
Oh I don't mind talking to the Russians. Used to do it for a living. Under Ronaldus Magnus, too.

Know all about "peace thru strength." It is a great big "F/U" in a velvet glove.

---

Russia has had several centuries to reform itself and realize its true potential. But with each disastrous war effort, we find they are no closer to parity with the west than before. It took massive western aid for Russia to repel the Nazis, and they ended the war at apparent parity with the West. But that, too, was a chimera and Russia rode the communist bus to utter internal destruction. Now, after three decades of ostensible market and democratic reforms, we see Russia sliding back into old habits - corruption, oligarcy, autocracy, none of which has actually made Russia stronger. Facts are facts: At this moment in time, Ukraine is a far better partner in peace than Russia and that is not likely to change for decades.

There was a time when Ukraine was a big deal and Russia was a backwater. Looks like things are trending back that direction at this time. It would be wise for Nato and the USA to recognize those trends and set policy accordingly. Russia should do the same - and work diligently to get its house in order and earn the position of respect it desires.

---

If what you say is true then we have no disagreement. Just cut off aid to Ukraine and let them beat Russia on their own. It isn't true, though. We created and equipped the Ukrainian military in its present form, and we had advisors back on the ground within a couple of weeks after the war started.

Marxism of any kind leads to destruction. That shouldn't have been a surprise. The US and Europe are riding the same bus today. Minus the corruption and "oligarchy," of course (lol).

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?

Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.

Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.

---

Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.

---

LOL going back a lot of decades there to fit your narrative....

Putin's regime is only transitional in that it's a transition BACK to traditional Russian oligarchic autocracy.

If we cannot persuade Russia to change policies which are threatening to the world order, we must then evaluate cost/benefit/risk of changing the policy via changing regime. In many cases, one must actually demonstrate both ability and clear intent to change regime as a way to force the existing regime to change policy. But if that doesn't work then you're back to changing regime as a way to change policy.

America did not invent that dynamic.
America has abused that dynamic less than any great power in history.

What Russia did in Ukraine is an existential threat to the modern order which has kept peace in Europe for many decades. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is good policy to force Russia to endure the dilemma of either withdrawing from Ukraine or risking systemic collapse. They can make the choice, but they will have to deal with the consequences, either way. We did not create their current difficulties. We are holding them accountable for terrible policy choices..

---

Oh, you don't have to go back that far. Iraq in 2003 is an equally good example. Even the Ukrainian coup in 2014 had our fingerprints on it. Attacking any regime that doesn't go along with our policy preferences is a threat to the modern order and a violation of international law. Something else to consider, which is perhaps more important from your point of view, is that it fails to create the dilemma you speak of. Putin saw what we did to Saddam Hussein. If he knows we're out to get him no matter what he does, the choice between acting preemptively and not acting is really no choice at all. All stick, no carrot is not the brilliant strategy you think.

I saw an article in Foreign Affairs yesterday that would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. These people admit they have no idea what would happen after Putin was toppled, even admit that failed states or new dictatorships are the typical results, yet they imagine that with Putin gone somehow liberal democracy will magically spring forth in his place. And Ukraine is supposed to be the catalyst for all this. It's not a serious policy. It's daydreaming with no basis in reality. We've proved that over and over again. But it's always going to be different next time...or so they've been telling us for decades.

---

It is horrifying to see how many people in D.C. and in American academia and even on this site just casually play around with the idea of even breaking up the Russia State itself.

Just think how insane that it....we have no idea what that would entail or what that would do or the consequences would be.

Almost 20 years of conflict and several wars took place because of the break up of Yugoslavia.

And Yugoslavia was just a small country no bigger than Colorado and much smaller than Texas.

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

Imagine that but on the scale of the massive Russia Federation...and with nukes to account for.

Back in March I made this prediction for the counter offensive. It was obvious. But they did it anyway… https://t.co/s53zRnEzvo

— Johnny miller (@johnnyjmils) June 23, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Back in March I made this prediction for the counter offensive. It was obvious. But they did it anyway… https://t.co/s53zRnEzvo

— Johnny miller (@johnnyjmils) June 23, 2023

---

That's the point of all of this. You take out Ukrainian men/landowners which frees up investments of billions, potentially trillions that will benefit massive banks and corporations.

Two senators convened a press conference yesterday to explicitly threaten US/NATO war against Russia: "They will be destroyed... they will be eviscerated"

There was once a time, in the very distant past, when this type of thing used to be seen as unhinged Dr. Strangelove lunacy pic.twitter.com/FFyCqxitRe

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 23, 2023

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't think we need direct democracy. We just need to get rid of the shadow government and let our elected government do its work. Abolishing the CIA would go a long way toward restoring accountability and sanity.

---

That's a terrible idea. Their duties would go to the NSA and FBI. Two organizations who regularly spy on Americans.

---

You're telling me this because you think the CIA doesn't? I don't disagree with you about the need for foreign intelligence. I just doubt that most of what they do is even serving their legitimate purpose any more.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Two senators convened a press conference yesterday to explicitly threaten US/NATO war against Russia: "They will be destroyed... they will be eviscerated"

There was once a time, in the very distant past, when this type of thing used to be seen as unhinged Dr. Strangelove lunacy pic.twitter.com/FFyCqxitRe

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 23, 2023

---

He is Dr. Strangelove

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“Maybe Ukraine gives up the territories Donbass, Luhansk. I think it could be somehow right to give away these territories, because the population of Donbass and Luhansk is completely pro Russian.”
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023

---

My very first comment here about the Russian invasion was that Russia would hold the Donbas and that there was nothing Biden could do about it.

---

Yep.

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.

Your argument assumes the Russian policy is that of territorial expansion for its own sake. It's the same propaganda we hear in every war. "The evil [fill in authoritarian dictator] regime understands nothing but force. He rules the country of [fill in enemy nation] with an iron fist. Diplomacy is weakness, because Hitler." What we're actually seeing is a response to provocation, and a long delayed one at that. I wouldn't expect Russia or anyone else to abandon such a policy. Indeed we were foolish ever to think they would.

---

Three mega-faulty premises:

1) You are advocating, openly, explicitly, that we should abandon Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence in the name of stability. Problem is, Russia is manifestly not strong enough to stabilize a nation of 50m people who want nothing to do with Russia. So the entire premise for your policy is not just flawed, but nonexistent. Nothing could destabilize Eastern Europe more than to facilitate Russian domination of an area they could not otherwise control on their own.

2) Russia has stated, repeatedly, over the last three decades that they desire to rebuild their area of influence to the footprint of the USSR. Everything they've done, consistently and methodically, during that time is in pursuit of that objective. Inasmuch as their clear intent involves 7 current Nato members, we have a duty to thwart their policy.

3) It is not a provocation to refuse to issue statements Russia demands us to make. It is not a provocation to say "Nato will entertain application for membership from anyone; with membership guaranteed for no one." It is completely inconsistent for a liberal democracy to say "this particular topic is off-limits for debate lest we ruffle Russian sensibilities." Russia, in that regard, can go eff itself.

---

Your premises are faulty:

1) Russia hasn't stabilized Ukraine because they're not just fighting Ukraine. Otherwise the war would have ended long ago. You're employing circular reasoning again -- keep Ukraine unstable by fighting a proxy war against Russia, then use the instability to justify a proxy war against Russia.
What you say is factually not true. Congress did not pass the first aid package to Ukraine until 9 March 2022, 14 days after the Russian invasion. That aid package was quite small - $13b - and contained a substantial amount of humanitarian assistance. The major ramp up in military aid did not happen until 2013, when it was obvious that Ukraine had stopped Russia and had a chance to win (because of shocking Russian weakness and incompetence).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts
WE GAVE RUSSIA MONTHS TO GET THE JOB DONE and they couldn't do it.

2) If by "rebuilding their area of influence" you mean rebuilding their empire, this simply isn't true. I've asked for the quotations, and no one can provide them. If you mean preserving a zone of security, this is not just a legitimate goal but a fundamental element of the postwar order. It's the US that has disrupted that order.
Being ignorant of foreign affairs is no defense.

3) We've done a lot more than just say we'll entertain applications. We won the Cold War because Reagan took the opposite attitude from yours. Instead of saying "F the Russians," he talked to them and built trust. He talked from a position of strength, to be sure. Peace through strength was his motto. It wasn't peace through arrogance or needless conflict. In the last 30 years we've almost completely undone his achievements. Russian-American relations are at a historic low. Major arms control agreements are gone. A proxy war is active and ongoing. Policy makers on both sides are talking about lowering thresholds for use of nukes. This is the "stability" that our broken assurances have bought.
Oh I don't mind talking to the Russians. Used to do it for a living. Under Ronaldus Magnus, too.

Know all about "peace thru strength." It is a great big "F/U" in a velvet glove.

---

Russia has had several centuries to reform itself and realize its true potential. But with each disastrous war effort, we find they are no closer to parity with the west than before. It took massive western aid for Russia to repel the Nazis, and they ended the war at apparent parity with the West. But that, too, was a chimera and Russia rode the communist bus to utter internal destruction. Now, after three decades of ostensible market and democratic reforms, we see Russia sliding back into old habits - corruption, oligarcy, autocracy, none of which has actually made Russia stronger. Facts are facts: At this moment in time, Ukraine is a far better partner in peace than Russia and that is not likely to change for decades.

There was a time when Ukraine was a big deal and Russia was a backwater. Looks like things are trending back that direction at this time. It would be wise for Nato and the USA to recognize those trends and set policy accordingly. Russia should do the same - and work diligently to get its house in order and earn the position of respect it desires.

---

If what you say is true then we have no disagreement. Just cut off aid to Ukraine and let them beat Russia on their own. It isn't true, though. We created and equipped the Ukrainian military in its present form, and we had advisors back on the ground within a couple of weeks after the war started.

Marxism of any kind leads to destruction. That shouldn't have been a surprise. The US and Europe are riding the same bus today. Minus the corruption and "oligarchy," of course (lol).

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Quote:

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate desire of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state

---

You misspelled goal. Do you really think Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of neutrality?

---

1. Neither side wants neutrality for Ukraine. Russian wants a pro-Moscow government installed there and America wants a pro-D.C. government installed there. But that does not mean its not in the best interest of the actual Ukrainian people to have tried and be a neutral country vs now becoming a bloody battlefield and proxy war area for the USA-EU and Russia.

The same for Taiwan. China wants it...and the USA wants it....but it probably in the best interest of the Taiwanese to be neutral and try and not get mixed up in a China vs USA proxy war.

Switzerland learned long ago that its better to become a neutral country than to be a battle ground between rival great powers (France-Germany-Italy)

Much better to be Switzerland than be Syria

---

Switzerland has never been neutral, they just feign an official position as such. They've been spared the conquerors rod by back-dooring their alliances.

And Ukraine has been a bloody battlefield for Russian intervention since the early 2000s. Every time they tried to get some separation Moscow wouldn't allow it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't think we need direct democracy. We just need to get rid of the shadow government and let our elected government do its work. Abolishing the CIA would go a long way toward restoring accountability and sanity.

---

That's a terrible idea. Their duties would go to the NSA and FBI. Two organizations who regularly spy on Americans.

---

You're telling me this because you think the CIA doesn't? I don't disagree with you about the need for foreign intelligence. I just doubt that most of what they do is even serving their legitimate purpose any more.

---

90%+ of CIA work is information gathering and analysis. It's what the politicians and military administrators do with it is what you and others gripe about. That's not the CIA's fault.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.

Your argument assumes the Russian policy is that of territorial expansion for its own sake. It's the same propaganda we hear in every war. "The evil [fill in authoritarian dictator] regime understands nothing but force. He rules the country of [fill in enemy nation] with an iron fist. Diplomacy is weakness, because Hitler." What we're actually seeing is a response to provocation, and a long delayed one at that. I wouldn't expect Russia or anyone else to abandon such a policy. Indeed we were foolish ever to think they would.

---

Three mega-faulty premises:

1) You are advocating, openly, explicitly, that we should abandon Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence in the name of stability. Problem is, Russia is manifestly not strong enough to stabilize a nation of 50m people who want nothing to do with Russia. So the entire premise for your policy is not just flawed, but nonexistent. Nothing could destabilize Eastern Europe more than to facilitate Russian domination of an area they could not otherwise control on their own.

2) Russia has stated, repeatedly, over the last three decades that they desire to rebuild their area of influence to the footprint of the USSR. Everything they've done, consistently and methodically, during that time is in pursuit of that objective. Inasmuch as their clear intent involves 7 current Nato members, we have a duty to thwart their policy.

3) It is not a provocation to refuse to issue statements Russia demands us to make. It is not a provocation to say "Nato will entertain application for membership from anyone; with membership guaranteed for no one." It is completely inconsistent for a liberal democracy to say "this particular topic is off-limits for debate lest we ruffle Russian sensibilities." Russia, in that regard, can go eff itself.

---

Your premises are faulty:

1) Russia hasn't stabilized Ukraine because they're not just fighting Ukraine. Otherwise the war would have ended long ago. You're employing circular reasoning again -- keep Ukraine unstable by fighting a proxy war against Russia, then use the instability to justify a proxy war against Russia.
What you say is factually not true. Congress did not pass the first aid package to Ukraine until 9 March 2022, 14 days after the Russian invasion. That aid package was quite small - $13b - and contained a substantial amount of humanitarian assistance. The major ramp up in military aid did not happen until 2013, when it was obvious that Ukraine had stopped Russia and had a chance to win (because of shocking Russian weakness and incompetence).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts
WE GAVE RUSSIA MONTHS TO GET THE JOB DONE and they couldn't do it.

2) If by "rebuilding their area of influence" you mean rebuilding their empire, this simply isn't true. I've asked for the quotations, and no one can provide them. If you mean preserving a zone of security, this is not just a legitimate goal but a fundamental element of the postwar order. It's the US that has disrupted that order.
Being ignorant of foreign affairs is no defense.

3) We've done a lot more than just say we'll entertain applications. We won the Cold War because Reagan took the opposite attitude from yours. Instead of saying "F the Russians," he talked to them and built trust. He talked from a position of strength, to be sure. Peace through strength was his motto. It wasn't peace through arrogance or needless conflict. In the last 30 years we've almost completely undone his achievements. Russian-American relations are at a historic low. Major arms control agreements are gone. A proxy war is active and ongoing. Policy makers on both sides are talking about lowering thresholds for use of nukes. This is the "stability" that our broken assurances have bought.
Oh I don't mind talking to the Russians. Used to do it for a living. Under Ronaldus Magnus, too.

Know all about "peace thru strength." It is a great big "F/U" in a velvet glove.

---

Russia has had several centuries to reform itself and realize its true potential. But with each disastrous war effort, we find they are no closer to parity with the west than before. It took massive western aid for Russia to repel the Nazis, and they ended the war at apparent parity with the West. But that, too, was a chimera and Russia rode the communist bus to utter internal destruction. Now, after three decades of ostensible market and democratic reforms, we see Russia sliding back into old habits - corruption, oligarcy, autocracy, none of which has actually made Russia stronger. Facts are facts: At this moment in time, Ukraine is a far better partner in peace than Russia and that is not likely to change for decades.

There was a time when Ukraine was a big deal and Russia was a backwater. Looks like things are trending back that direction at this time. It would be wise for Nato and the USA to recognize those trends and set policy accordingly. Russia should do the same - and work diligently to get its house in order and earn the position of respect it desires.

---

If what you say is true then we have no disagreement. Just cut off aid to Ukraine and let them beat Russia on their own. It isn't true, though. We created and equipped the Ukrainian military in its present form, and we had advisors back on the ground within a couple of weeks after the war started.

Marxism of any kind leads to destruction. That shouldn't have been a surprise. The US and Europe are riding the same bus today. Minus the corruption and "oligarchy," of course (lol).

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?

Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.

Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.

---

Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.

---

LOL going back a lot of decades there to fit your narrative....

Putin's regime is only transitional in that it's a transition BACK to traditional Russian oligarchic autocracy.

If we cannot persuade Russia to change policies which are threatening to the world order, we must then evaluate cost/benefit/risk of changing the policy via changing regime. In many cases, one must actually demonstrate both ability and clear intent to change regime as a way to force the existing regime to change policy. But if that doesn't work then you're back to changing regime as a way to change policy.

America did not invent that dynamic.
America has abused that dynamic less than any great power in history.

What Russia did in Ukraine is an existential threat to the modern order which has kept peace in Europe for many decades. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is good policy to force Russia to endure the dilemma of either withdrawing from Ukraine or risking systemic collapse. They can make the choice, but they will have to deal with the consequences, either way. We did not create their current difficulties. We are holding them accountable for terrible policy choices..

---

Oh, you don't have to go back that far. Iraq in 2003 is an equally good example. Even the Ukrainian coup in 2014 had our fingerprints on it. Attacking any regime that doesn't go along with our policy preferences is a threat to the modern order and a violation of international law. Something else to consider, which is perhaps more important from your point of view, is that it fails to create the dilemma you speak of. Putin saw what we did to Saddam Hussein. If he knows we're out to get him no matter what he does, the choice between acting preemptively and not acting is really no choice at all. All stick, no carrot is not the brilliant strategy you think.

I saw an article in Foreign Affairs yesterday that would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. These people admit they have no idea what would happen after Putin was toppled, even admit that failed states or new dictatorships are the typical results, yet they imagine that with Putin gone somehow liberal democracy will magically spring forth in his place. And Ukraine is supposed to be the catalyst for all this. It's not a serious policy. It's daydreaming with no basis in reality. We've proved that over and over again. But it's always going to be different next time...or so they've been telling us for decades.

---

"fingerprints" does not mean what all of your arguments on the subject imply: that the Maidan movement was a 100% generated out of whole cloth USG puppet that overthrew a popular regime against the will of the Ukrainian people. It's rather the opposite on every single point.

LOL on one hand you say "these fools have no idea what what will happen after Putin falls" only one breath after implying that the USG is an omnipotent, omniscient power running around the world micromanaging the rise and fall of regimes as adroitly as adjusting the thermostat from day to day on our homes.

Your argument is a mess because your worldview is a mess.

methinks the incipient russian civil war deserves its own thread.........

- kkm

{ sipping coffee }

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12229575/Wagner-forces-head-Moscow-Prigozhin-mocks-Putin-call-traitors-up.html

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.

Your argument assumes the Russian policy is that of territorial expansion for its own sake. It's the same propaganda we hear in every war. "The evil [fill in authoritarian dictator] regime understands nothing but force. He rules the country of [fill in enemy nation] with an iron fist. Diplomacy is weakness, because Hitler." What we're actually seeing is a response to provocation, and a long delayed one at that. I wouldn't expect Russia or anyone else to abandon such a policy. Indeed we were foolish ever to think they would.

---

Three mega-faulty premises:

1) You are advocating, openly, explicitly, that we should abandon Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence in the name of stability. Problem is, Russia is manifestly not strong enough to stabilize a nation of 50m people who want nothing to do with Russia. So the entire premise for your policy is not just flawed, but nonexistent. Nothing could destabilize Eastern Europe more than to facilitate Russian domination of an area they could not otherwise control on their own.

2) Russia has stated, repeatedly, over the last three decades that they desire to rebuild their area of influence to the footprint of the USSR. Everything they've done, consistently and methodically, during that time is in pursuit of that objective. Inasmuch as their clear intent involves 7 current Nato members, we have a duty to thwart their policy.

3) It is not a provocation to refuse to issue statements Russia demands us to make. It is not a provocation to say "Nato will entertain application for membership from anyone; with membership guaranteed for no one." It is completely inconsistent for a liberal democracy to say "this particular topic is off-limits for debate lest we ruffle Russian sensibilities." Russia, in that regard, can go eff itself.

---

Your premises are faulty:

1) Russia hasn't stabilized Ukraine because they're not just fighting Ukraine. Otherwise the war would have ended long ago. You're employing circular reasoning again -- keep Ukraine unstable by fighting a proxy war against Russia, then use the instability to justify a proxy war against Russia.
What you say is factually not true. Congress did not pass the first aid package to Ukraine until 9 March 2022, 14 days after the Russian invasion. That aid package was quite small - $13b - and contained a substantial amount of humanitarian assistance. The major ramp up in military aid did not happen until 2013, when it was obvious that Ukraine had stopped Russia and had a chance to win (because of shocking Russian weakness and incompetence).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts
WE GAVE RUSSIA MONTHS TO GET THE JOB DONE and they couldn't do it.

2) If by "rebuilding their area of influence" you mean rebuilding their empire, this simply isn't true. I've asked for the quotations, and no one can provide them. If you mean preserving a zone of security, this is not just a legitimate goal but a fundamental element of the postwar order. It's the US that has disrupted that order.
Being ignorant of foreign affairs is no defense.

3) We've done a lot more than just say we'll entertain applications. We won the Cold War because Reagan took the opposite attitude from yours. Instead of saying "F the Russians," he talked to them and built trust. He talked from a position of strength, to be sure. Peace through strength was his motto. It wasn't peace through arrogance or needless conflict. In the last 30 years we've almost completely undone his achievements. Russian-American relations are at a historic low. Major arms control agreements are gone. A proxy war is active and ongoing. Policy makers on both sides are talking about lowering thresholds for use of nukes. This is the "stability" that our broken assurances have bought.
Oh I don't mind talking to the Russians. Used to do it for a living. Under Ronaldus Magnus, too.

Know all about "peace thru strength." It is a great big "F/U" in a velvet glove.

---

Russia has had several centuries to reform itself and realize its true potential. But with each disastrous war effort, we find they are no closer to parity with the west than before. It took massive western aid for Russia to repel the Nazis, and they ended the war at apparent parity with the West. But that, too, was a chimera and Russia rode the communist bus to utter internal destruction. Now, after three decades of ostensible market and democratic reforms, we see Russia sliding back into old habits - corruption, oligarcy, autocracy, none of which has actually made Russia stronger. Facts are facts: At this moment in time, Ukraine is a far better partner in peace than Russia and that is not likely to change for decades.

There was a time when Ukraine was a big deal and Russia was a backwater. Looks like things are trending back that direction at this time. It would be wise for Nato and the USA to recognize those trends and set policy accordingly. Russia should do the same - and work diligently to get its house in order and earn the position of respect it desires.

---

If what you say is true then we have no disagreement. Just cut off aid to Ukraine and let them beat Russia on their own. It isn't true, though. We created and equipped the Ukrainian military in its present form, and we had advisors back on the ground within a couple of weeks after the war started.

Marxism of any kind leads to destruction. That shouldn't have been a surprise. The US and Europe are riding the same bus today. Minus the corruption and "oligarchy," of course (lol).

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?

Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.

Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.

---

Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.

---

LOL going back a lot of decades there to fit your narrative....

Putin's regime is only transitional in that it's a transition BACK to traditional Russian oligarchic autocracy.

If we cannot persuade Russia to change policies which are threatening to the world order, we must then evaluate cost/benefit/risk of changing the policy via changing regime. In many cases, one must actually demonstrate both ability and clear intent to change regime as a way to force the existing regime to change policy. But if that doesn't work then you're back to changing regime as a way to change policy.

America did not invent that dynamic.
America has abused that dynamic less than any great power in history.

What Russia did in Ukraine is an existential threat to the modern order which has kept peace in Europe for many decades. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is good policy to force Russia to endure the dilemma of either withdrawing from Ukraine or risking systemic collapse. They can make the choice, but they will have to deal with the consequences, either way. We did not create their current difficulties. We are holding them accountable for terrible policy choices..

---

Oh, you don't have to go back that far. Iraq in 2003 is an equally good example. Even the Ukrainian coup in 2014 had our fingerprints on it. Attacking any regime that doesn't go along with our policy preferences is a threat to the modern order and a violation of international law. Something else to consider, which is perhaps more important from your point of view, is that it fails to create the dilemma you speak of. Putin saw what we did to Saddam Hussein. If he knows we're out to get him no matter what he does, the choice between acting preemptively and not acting is really no choice at all. All stick, no carrot is not the brilliant strategy you think.

I saw an article in Foreign Affairs yesterday that would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. These people admit they have no idea what would happen after Putin was toppled, even admit that failed states or new dictatorships are the typical results, yet they imagine that with Putin gone somehow liberal democracy will magically spring forth in his place. And Ukraine is supposed to be the catalyst for all this. It's not a serious policy. It's daydreaming with no basis in reality. We've proved that over and over again. But it's always going to be different next time...or so they've been telling us for decades.

---

"fingerprints" does not mean what all of your arguments on the subject imply: that the Maidan movement was a 100% generated out of whole cloth USG puppet that overthrew a popular regime against the will of the Ukrainian people. It's rather the opposite on every single point.

LOL on one hand you say "these fools have no idea what what will happen after Putin falls" only one breath after implying that the USG is an omnipotent, omniscient power running around the world micromanaging the rise and fall of regimes as adroitly as adjusting the thermostat from day to day on our homes.

Your argument is a mess because your worldview is a mess.

---

This is the most obvious straw man I've seen in a very long time. No one anywhere ever said we were 100 percent responsible or 100 percent in control.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.

Your argument assumes the Russian policy is that of territorial expansion for its own sake. It's the same propaganda we hear in every war. "The evil [fill in authoritarian dictator] regime understands nothing but force. He rules the country of [fill in enemy nation] with an iron fist. Diplomacy is weakness, because Hitler." What we're actually seeing is a response to provocation, and a long delayed one at that. I wouldn't expect Russia or anyone else to abandon such a policy. Indeed we were foolish ever to think they would.

---

Three mega-faulty premises:

1) You are advocating, openly, explicitly, that we should abandon Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence in the name of stability. Problem is, Russia is manifestly not strong enough to stabilize a nation of 50m people who want nothing to do with Russia. So the entire premise for your policy is not just flawed, but nonexistent. Nothing could destabilize Eastern Europe more than to facilitate Russian domination of an area they could not otherwise control on their own.

2) Russia has stated, repeatedly, over the last three decades that they desire to rebuild their area of influence to the footprint of the USSR. Everything they've done, consistently and methodically, during that time is in pursuit of that objective. Inasmuch as their clear intent involves 7 current Nato members, we have a duty to thwart their policy.

3) It is not a provocation to refuse to issue statements Russia demands us to make. It is not a provocation to say "Nato will entertain application for membership from anyone; with membership guaranteed for no one." It is completely inconsistent for a liberal democracy to say "this particular topic is off-limits for debate lest we ruffle Russian sensibilities." Russia, in that regard, can go eff itself.

---

Your premises are faulty:

1) Russia hasn't stabilized Ukraine because they're not just fighting Ukraine. Otherwise the war would have ended long ago. You're employing circular reasoning again -- keep Ukraine unstable by fighting a proxy war against Russia, then use the instability to justify a proxy war against Russia.
What you say is factually not true. Congress did not pass the first aid package to Ukraine until 9 March 2022, 14 days after the Russian invasion. That aid package was quite small - $13b - and contained a substantial amount of humanitarian assistance. The major ramp up in military aid did not happen until 2013, when it was obvious that Ukraine had stopped Russia and had a chance to win (because of shocking Russian weakness and incompetence).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts
WE GAVE RUSSIA MONTHS TO GET THE JOB DONE and they couldn't do it.

2) If by "rebuilding their area of influence" you mean rebuilding their empire, this simply isn't true. I've asked for the quotations, and no one can provide them. If you mean preserving a zone of security, this is not just a legitimate goal but a fundamental element of the postwar order. It's the US that has disrupted that order.
Being ignorant of foreign affairs is no defense.

3) We've done a lot more than just say we'll entertain applications. We won the Cold War because Reagan took the opposite attitude from yours. Instead of saying "F the Russians," he talked to them and built trust. He talked from a position of strength, to be sure. Peace through strength was his motto. It wasn't peace through arrogance or needless conflict. In the last 30 years we've almost completely undone his achievements. Russian-American relations are at a historic low. Major arms control agreements are gone. A proxy war is active and ongoing. Policy makers on both sides are talking about lowering thresholds for use of nukes. This is the "stability" that our broken assurances have bought.
Oh I don't mind talking to the Russians. Used to do it for a living. Under Ronaldus Magnus, too.

Know all about "peace thru strength." It is a great big "F/U" in a velvet glove.

---

Russia has had several centuries to reform itself and realize its true potential. But with each disastrous war effort, we find they are no closer to parity with the west than before. It took massive western aid for Russia to repel the Nazis, and they ended the war at apparent parity with the West. But that, too, was a chimera and Russia rode the communist bus to utter internal destruction. Now, after three decades of ostensible market and democratic reforms, we see Russia sliding back into old habits - corruption, oligarcy, autocracy, none of which has actually made Russia stronger. Facts are facts: At this moment in time, Ukraine is a far better partner in peace than Russia and that is not likely to change for decades.

There was a time when Ukraine was a big deal and Russia was a backwater. Looks like things are trending back that direction at this time. It would be wise for Nato and the USA to recognize those trends and set policy accordingly. Russia should do the same - and work diligently to get its house in order and earn the position of respect it desires.

---

If what you say is true then we have no disagreement. Just cut off aid to Ukraine and let them beat Russia on their own. It isn't true, though. We created and equipped the Ukrainian military in its present form, and we had advisors back on the ground within a couple of weeks after the war started.

Marxism of any kind leads to destruction. That shouldn't have been a surprise. The US and Europe are riding the same bus today. Minus the corruption and "oligarchy," of course (lol).

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?

Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.

Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.

---

Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.

---

LOL going back a lot of decades there to fit your narrative....

Putin's regime is only transitional in that it's a transition BACK to traditional Russian oligarchic autocracy.

If we cannot persuade Russia to change policies which are threatening to the world order, we must then evaluate cost/benefit/risk of changing the policy via changing regime. In many cases, one must actually demonstrate both ability and clear intent to change regime as a way to force the existing regime to change policy. But if that doesn't work then you're back to changing regime as a way to change policy.

America did not invent that dynamic.
America has abused that dynamic less than any great power in history.

What Russia did in Ukraine is an existential threat to the modern order which has kept peace in Europe for many decades. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is good policy to force Russia to endure the dilemma of either withdrawing from Ukraine or risking systemic collapse. They can make the choice, but they will have to deal with the consequences, either way. We did not create their current difficulties. We are holding them accountable for terrible policy choices..

---

Oh, you don't have to go back that far. Iraq in 2003 is an equally good example. Even the Ukrainian coup in 2014 had our fingerprints on it. Attacking any regime that doesn't go along with our policy preferences is a threat to the modern order and a violation of international law. Something else to consider, which is perhaps more important from your point of view, is that it fails to create the dilemma you speak of. Putin saw what we did to Saddam Hussein. If he knows we're out to get him no matter what he does, the choice between acting preemptively and not acting is really no choice at all. All stick, no carrot is not the brilliant strategy you think.

I saw an article in Foreign Affairs yesterday that would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. These people admit they have no idea what would happen after Putin was toppled, even admit that failed states or new dictatorships are the typical results, yet they imagine that with Putin gone somehow liberal democracy will magically spring forth in his place. And Ukraine is supposed to be the catalyst for all this. It's not a serious policy. It's daydreaming with no basis in reality. We've proved that over and over again. But it's always going to be different next time...or so they've been telling us for decades.

---

"fingerprints" does not mean what all of your arguments on the subject imply: that the Maidan movement was a 100% generated out of whole cloth USG puppet that overthrew a popular regime against the will of the Ukrainian people. It's rather the opposite on every single point.

LOL on one hand you say "these fools have no idea what what will happen after Putin falls" only one breath after implying that the USG is an omnipotent, omniscient power running around the world micromanaging the rise and fall of regimes as adroitly as adjusting the thermostat from day to day on our homes.

Your argument is a mess because your worldview is a mess.

---

This is the most obvious straw man I've seen in a very long time. No one anywhere ever said we were 100 percent responsible or 100 percent in control.

---

LOL no, you did not use the words "100% in control" but you have been very consistent in asserting that we the driving force behind the revolution and it's outcome is an example of American imperialism.

You're not saying anything that can't be heard everyday all over the world......everybody blames America for everything. America obviously knows EVERYTHING! America can do ANYTHING! So whatever happens, America knew all about it and either caused or allowed it to happen because it furthered American interests. If I heard that once, I heard it a million times....from the donkey cart driver all the way up to the ambassador of east dumbfudgistan.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.

Your argument assumes the Russian policy is that of territorial expansion for its own sake. It's the same propaganda we hear in every war. "The evil [fill in authoritarian dictator] regime understands nothing but force. He rules the country of [fill in enemy nation] with an iron fist. Diplomacy is weakness, because Hitler." What we're actually seeing is a response to provocation, and a long delayed one at that. I wouldn't expect Russia or anyone else to abandon such a policy. Indeed we were foolish ever to think they would.

---

Three mega-faulty premises:

1) You are advocating, openly, explicitly, that we should abandon Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence in the name of stability. Problem is, Russia is manifestly not strong enough to stabilize a nation of 50m people who want nothing to do with Russia. So the entire premise for your policy is not just flawed, but nonexistent. Nothing could destabilize Eastern Europe more than to facilitate Russian domination of an area they could not otherwise control on their own.

2) Russia has stated, repeatedly, over the last three decades that they desire to rebuild their area of influence to the footprint of the USSR. Everything they've done, consistently and methodically, during that time is in pursuit of that objective. Inasmuch as their clear intent involves 7 current Nato members, we have a duty to thwart their policy.

3) It is not a provocation to refuse to issue statements Russia demands us to make. It is not a provocation to say "Nato will entertain application for membership from anyone; with membership guaranteed for no one." It is completely inconsistent for a liberal democracy to say "this particular topic is off-limits for debate lest we ruffle Russian sensibilities." Russia, in that regard, can go eff itself.

---

Your premises are faulty:

1) Russia hasn't stabilized Ukraine because they're not just fighting Ukraine. Otherwise the war would have ended long ago. You're employing circular reasoning again -- keep Ukraine unstable by fighting a proxy war against Russia, then use the instability to justify a proxy war against Russia.
What you say is factually not true. Congress did not pass the first aid package to Ukraine until 9 March 2022, 14 days after the Russian invasion. That aid package was quite small - $13b - and contained a substantial amount of humanitarian assistance. The major ramp up in military aid did not happen until 2013, when it was obvious that Ukraine had stopped Russia and had a chance to win (because of shocking Russian weakness and incompetence).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts
WE GAVE RUSSIA MONTHS TO GET THE JOB DONE and they couldn't do it.

2) If by "rebuilding their area of influence" you mean rebuilding their empire, this simply isn't true. I've asked for the quotations, and no one can provide them. If you mean preserving a zone of security, this is not just a legitimate goal but a fundamental element of the postwar order. It's the US that has disrupted that order.
Being ignorant of foreign affairs is no defense.

3) We've done a lot more than just say we'll entertain applications. We won the Cold War because Reagan took the opposite attitude from yours. Instead of saying "F the Russians," he talked to them and built trust. He talked from a position of strength, to be sure. Peace through strength was his motto. It wasn't peace through arrogance or needless conflict. In the last 30 years we've almost completely undone his achievements. Russian-American relations are at a historic low. Major arms control agreements are gone. A proxy war is active and ongoing. Policy makers on both sides are talking about lowering thresholds for use of nukes. This is the "stability" that our broken assurances have bought.
Oh I don't mind talking to the Russians. Used to do it for a living. Under Ronaldus Magnus, too.

Know all about "peace thru strength." It is a great big "F/U" in a velvet glove.

---

Russia has had several centuries to reform itself and realize its true potential. But with each disastrous war effort, we find they are no closer to parity with the west than before. It took massive western aid for Russia to repel the Nazis, and they ended the war at apparent parity with the West. But that, too, was a chimera and Russia rode the communist bus to utter internal destruction. Now, after three decades of ostensible market and democratic reforms, we see Russia sliding back into old habits - corruption, oligarcy, autocracy, none of which has actually made Russia stronger. Facts are facts: At this moment in time, Ukraine is a far better partner in peace than Russia and that is not likely to change for decades.

There was a time when Ukraine was a big deal and Russia was a backwater. Looks like things are trending back that direction at this time. It would be wise for Nato and the USA to recognize those trends and set policy accordingly. Russia should do the same - and work diligently to get its house in order and earn the position of respect it desires.

---

If what you say is true then we have no disagreement. Just cut off aid to Ukraine and let them beat Russia on their own. It isn't true, though. We created and equipped the Ukrainian military in its present form, and we had advisors back on the ground within a couple of weeks after the war started.

Marxism of any kind leads to destruction. That shouldn't have been a surprise. The US and Europe are riding the same bus today. Minus the corruption and "oligarchy," of course (lol).

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?

Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.

Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.

---

Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.

---

LOL going back a lot of decades there to fit your narrative....

Putin's regime is only transitional in that it's a transition BACK to traditional Russian oligarchic autocracy.

If we cannot persuade Russia to change policies which are threatening to the world order, we must then evaluate cost/benefit/risk of changing the policy via changing regime. In many cases, one must actually demonstrate both ability and clear intent to change regime as a way to force the existing regime to change policy. But if that doesn't work then you're back to changing regime as a way to change policy.

America did not invent that dynamic.
America has abused that dynamic less than any great power in history.

What Russia did in Ukraine is an existential threat to the modern order which has kept peace in Europe for many decades. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is good policy to force Russia to endure the dilemma of either withdrawing from Ukraine or risking systemic collapse. They can make the choice, but they will have to deal with the consequences, either way. We did not create their current difficulties. We are holding them accountable for terrible policy choices..

---

Oh, you don't have to go back that far. Iraq in 2003 is an equally good example. Even the Ukrainian coup in 2014 had our fingerprints on it. Attacking any regime that doesn't go along with our policy preferences is a threat to the modern order and a violation of international law. Something else to consider, which is perhaps more important from your point of view, is that it fails to create the dilemma you speak of. Putin saw what we did to Saddam Hussein. If he knows we're out to get him no matter what he does, the choice between acting preemptively and not acting is really no choice at all. All stick, no carrot is not the brilliant strategy you think.

I saw an article in Foreign Affairs yesterday that would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. These people admit they have no idea what would happen after Putin was toppled, even admit that failed states or new dictatorships are the typical results, yet they imagine that with Putin gone somehow liberal democracy will magically spring forth in his place. And Ukraine is supposed to be the catalyst for all this. It's not a serious policy. It's daydreaming with no basis in reality. We've proved that over and over again. But it's always going to be different next time...or so they've been telling us for decades.

---

"fingerprints" does not mean what all of your arguments on the subject imply: that the Maidan movement was a 100% generated out of whole cloth USG puppet that overthrew a popular regime against the will of the Ukrainian people. It's rather the opposite on every single point.

LOL on one hand you say "these fools have no idea what what will happen after Putin falls" only one breath after implying that the USG is an omnipotent, omniscient power running around the world micromanaging the rise and fall of regimes as adroitly as adjusting the thermostat from day to day on our homes.

Your argument is a mess because your worldview is a mess.

---

This is the most obvious straw man I've seen in a very long time. No one anywhere ever said we were 100 percent responsible or 100 percent in control.

---

LOL no, you did not use the words "100% in control" but you have been very consistent in asserting that we the driving force behind the revolution and it's outcome is an example of American imperialism.

You're not saying anything that can't be heard everyday all over the world......everybody blames America for everything. America obviously knows EVERYTHING! America can do ANYTHING! So whatever happens, America knew all about it and either caused or allowed it to happen because it furthered American interests. If I heard that once, I heard it a million times....from the donkey cart driver all the way up to the ambassador of east dumbfudgistan.

---

This is a very impassioned non-denial. You know the drill. Find a weakness and exploit it. No one said we had to create it out of thin air.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?

Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.

Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.

---

Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.

---

LOL going back a lot of decades there to fit your narrative....

Putin's regime is only transitional in that it's a transition BACK to traditional Russian oligarchic autocracy.

If we cannot persuade Russia to change policies which are threatening to the world order, we must then evaluate cost/benefit/risk of changing the policy via changing regime. In many cases, one must actually demonstrate both ability and clear intent to change regime as a way to force the existing regime to change policy. But if that doesn't work then you're back to changing regime as a way to change policy.

America did not invent that dynamic.
America has abused that dynamic less than any great power in history.

What Russia did in Ukraine is an existential threat to the modern order which has kept peace in Europe for many decades. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is good policy to force Russia to endure the dilemma of either withdrawing from Ukraine or risking systemic collapse. They can make the choice, but they will have to deal with the consequences, either way. We did not create their current difficulties. We are holding them accountable for terrible policy choices..

---

Oh, you don't have to go back that far. Iraq in 2003 is an equally good example. Even the Ukrainian coup in 2014 had our fingerprints on it. Attacking any regime that doesn't go along with our policy preferences is a threat to the modern order and a violation of international law. Something else to consider, which is perhaps more important from your point of view, is that it fails to create the dilemma you speak of. Putin saw what we did to Saddam Hussein. If he knows we're out to get him no matter what he does, the choice between acting preemptively and not acting is really no choice at all. All stick, no carrot is not the brilliant strategy you think.

I saw an article in Foreign Affairs yesterday that would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. These people admit they have no idea what would happen after Putin was toppled, even admit that failed states or new dictatorships are the typical results, yet they imagine that with Putin gone somehow liberal democracy will magically spring forth in his place. And Ukraine is supposed to be the catalyst for all this. It's not a serious policy. It's daydreaming with no basis in reality. We've proved that over and over again. But it's always going to be different next time...or so they've been telling us for decades.

---

"fingerprints" does not mean what all of your arguments on the subject imply: that the Maidan movement was a 100% generated out of whole cloth USG puppet that overthrew a popular regime against the will of the Ukrainian people. It's rather the opposite on every single point.

LOL on one hand you say "these fools have no idea what what will happen after Putin falls" only one breath after implying that the USG is an omnipotent, omniscient power running around the world micromanaging the rise and fall of regimes as adroitly as adjusting the thermostat from day to day on our homes.

Your argument is a mess because your worldview is a mess.

---

This is the most obvious straw man I've seen in a very long time. No one anywhere ever said we were 100 percent responsible or 100 percent in control.

---

LOL no, you did not use the words "100% in control" but you have been very consistent in asserting that we the driving force behind the revolution and it's outcome is an example of American imperialism.

You're not saying anything that can't be heard everyday all over the world......everybody blames America for everything. America obviously knows EVERYTHING! America can do ANYTHING! So whatever happens, America knew all about it and either caused or allowed it to happen because it furthered American interests. If I heard that once, I heard it a million times....from the donkey cart driver all the way up to the ambassador of east dumbfudgistan.

---

This is a very impassioned non-denial. You know the drill. Find a weakness and exploit it. No one said we had to create it out of thin air.

---

you cannot obscure the fact that you are on record here making the argument that the USG overthrew an elected government for imperial objectives. Numerous times.

I would allow that we did support opposition parties, that we did nothing to help the Yanukovich govt survive, and that we did step up and support the new government bigly as such was in our interests. Your argument, however, goes all the way to genesis. Over and over again. No surprise there. It fits the worldview that underpins your entire foreign policy.

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“Maybe Ukraine gives up the territories Donbass, Luhansk. I think it could be somehow right to give away these territories, because the population of Donbass and Luhansk is completely pro Russian.”
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023

---

My very first comment here about the Russian invasion was that Russia would hold the Donbas and that there was nothing Biden could do about it.

---

Yep.

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.

Your argument assumes the Russian policy is that of territorial expansion for its own sake. It's the same propaganda we hear in every war. "The evil [fill in authoritarian dictator] regime understands nothing but force. He rules the country of [fill in enemy nation] with an iron fist. Diplomacy is weakness, because Hitler." What we're actually seeing is a response to provocation, and a long delayed one at that. I wouldn't expect Russia or anyone else to abandon such a policy. Indeed we were foolish ever to think they would.

---

Three mega-faulty premises:

1) You are advocating, openly, explicitly, that we should abandon Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence in the name of stability. Problem is, Russia is manifestly not strong enough to stabilize a nation of 50m people who want nothing to do with Russia. So the entire premise for your policy is not just flawed, but nonexistent. Nothing could destabilize Eastern Europe more than to facilitate Russian domination of an area they could not otherwise control on their own.

2) Russia has stated, repeatedly, over the last three decades that they desire to rebuild their area of influence to the footprint of the USSR. Everything they've done, consistently and methodically, during that time is in pursuit of that objective. Inasmuch as their clear intent involves 7 current Nato members, we have a duty to thwart their policy.

3) It is not a provocation to refuse to issue statements Russia demands us to make. It is not a provocation to say "Nato will entertain application for membership from anyone; with membership guaranteed for no one." It is completely inconsistent for a liberal democracy to say "this particular topic is off-limits for debate lest we ruffle Russian sensibilities." Russia, in that regard, can go eff itself.

---

Your premises are faulty:

1) Russia hasn't stabilized Ukraine because they're not just fighting Ukraine. Otherwise the war would have ended long ago. You're employing circular reasoning again -- keep Ukraine unstable by fighting a proxy war against Russia, then use the instability to justify a proxy war against Russia.
What you say is factually not true. Congress did not pass the first aid package to Ukraine until 9 March 2022, 14 days after the Russian invasion. That aid package was quite small - $13b - and contained a substantial amount of humanitarian assistance. The major ramp up in military aid did not happen until 2013, when it was obvious that Ukraine had stopped Russia and had a chance to win (because of shocking Russian weakness and incompetence).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-ukraine-explained-six-charts
WE GAVE RUSSIA MONTHS TO GET THE JOB DONE and they couldn't do it.

2) If by "rebuilding their area of influence" you mean rebuilding their empire, this simply isn't true. I've asked for the quotations, and no one can provide them. If you mean preserving a zone of security, this is not just a legitimate goal but a fundamental element of the postwar order. It's the US that has disrupted that order.
Being ignorant of foreign affairs is no defense.

3) We've done a lot more than just say we'll entertain applications. We won the Cold War because Reagan took the opposite attitude from yours. Instead of saying "F the Russians," he talked to them and built trust. He talked from a position of strength, to be sure. Peace through strength was his motto. It wasn't peace through arrogance or needless conflict. In the last 30 years we've almost completely undone his achievements. Russian-American relations are at a historic low. Major arms control agreements are gone. A proxy war is active and ongoing. Policy makers on both sides are talking about lowering thresholds for use of nukes. This is the "stability" that our broken assurances have bought.
Oh I don't mind talking to the Russians. Used to do it for a living. Under Ronaldus Magnus, too.

Know all about "peace thru strength." It is a great big "F/U" in a velvet glove.

---

Russia has had several centuries to reform itself and realize its true potential. But with each disastrous war effort, we find they are no closer to parity with the west than before. It took massive western aid for Russia to repel the Nazis, and they ended the war at apparent parity with the West. But that, too, was a chimera and Russia rode the communist bus to utter internal destruction. Now, after three decades of ostensible market and democratic reforms, we see Russia sliding back into old habits - corruption, oligarcy, autocracy, none of which has actually made Russia stronger. Facts are facts: At this moment in time, Ukraine is a far better partner in peace than Russia and that is not likely to change for decades.

There was a time when Ukraine was a big deal and Russia was a backwater. Looks like things are trending back that direction at this time. It would be wise for Nato and the USA to recognize those trends and set policy accordingly. Russia should do the same - and work diligently to get its house in order and earn the position of respect it desires.

---

If what you say is true then we have no disagreement. Just cut off aid to Ukraine and let them beat Russia on their own. It isn't true, though. We created and equipped the Ukrainian military in its present form, and we had advisors back on the ground within a couple of weeks after the war started.

Marxism of any kind leads to destruction. That shouldn't have been a surprise. The US and Europe are riding the same bus today. Minus the corruption and "oligarchy," of course (lol).

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Quote:

---

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate desire of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state

---

You misspelled goal. Do you really think Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of neutrality?

---

1. Neither side wants neutrality for Ukraine. Russian wants a pro-Moscow government installed there and America wants a pro-D.C. government installed there. But that does not mean its not in the best interest of the actual Ukrainian people to have tried and be a neutral country vs now becoming a bloody battlefield and proxy war area for the USA-EU and Russia.

The same for Taiwan. China wants it...and the USA wants it....but it probably in the best interest of the Taiwanese to be neutral and try and not get mixed up in a China vs USA proxy war.

Switzerland learned long ago that its better to become a neutral country than to be a battle ground between rival great powers (France-Germany-Italy)

Much better to be Switzerland than be Syria

---

You fundamentally misunderstand the strategic picture. Russian wants to own and control Ukraine. China wants to own and control Taiwan. Each for their own financial and political agenda. The US-EU want stability, and to uphold the right of self determination. It's not a proxy war becasue we didn't start it. It is support for those who want to stand up to agression, and violation of international law respecting established borders of recognized countries. Someone has to stand up for enforcement of those laws, or the world become a fee for all to any autocrat to go after anything they want. BTW - Swizerland is not neutral in this conflict. They support Ukraine.

My brother @matthewschmitz's thread, which triggered an Atlanticist pile-on, has been amply vindicated by recent events. https://t.co/QP93v9vQXk

— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) June 24, 2023

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?

Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.

Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.

---

Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.

---

LOL going back a lot of decades there to fit your narrative....

Putin's regime is only transitional in that it's a transition BACK to traditional Russian oligarchic autocracy.

If we cannot persuade Russia to change policies which are threatening to the world order, we must then evaluate cost/benefit/risk of changing the policy via changing regime. In many cases, one must actually demonstrate both ability and clear intent to change regime as a way to force the existing regime to change policy. But if that doesn't work then you're back to changing regime as a way to change policy.

America did not invent that dynamic.
America has abused that dynamic less than any great power in history.

What Russia did in Ukraine is an existential threat to the modern order which has kept peace in Europe for many decades. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is good policy to force Russia to endure the dilemma of either withdrawing from Ukraine or risking systemic collapse. They can make the choice, but they will have to deal with the consequences, either way. We did not create their current difficulties. We are holding them accountable for terrible policy choices..

---

Oh, you don't have to go back that far. Iraq in 2003 is an equally good example. Even the Ukrainian coup in 2014 had our fingerprints on it. Attacking any regime that doesn't go along with our policy preferences is a threat to the modern order and a violation of international law. Something else to consider, which is perhaps more important from your point of view, is that it fails to create the dilemma you speak of. Putin saw what we did to Saddam Hussein. If he knows we're out to get him no matter what he does, the choice between acting preemptively and not acting is really no choice at all. All stick, no carrot is not the brilliant strategy you think.

I saw an article in Foreign Affairs yesterday that would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. These people admit they have no idea what would happen after Putin was toppled, even admit that failed states or new dictatorships are the typical results, yet they imagine that with Putin gone somehow liberal democracy will magically spring forth in his place. And Ukraine is supposed to be the catalyst for all this. It's not a serious policy. It's daydreaming with no basis in reality. We've proved that over and over again. But it's always going to be different next time...or so they've been telling us for decades.

---

"fingerprints" does not mean what all of your arguments on the subject imply: that the Maidan movement was a 100% generated out of whole cloth USG puppet that overthrew a popular regime against the will of the Ukrainian people. It's rather the opposite on every single point.

LOL on one hand you say "these fools have no idea what what will happen after Putin falls" only one breath after implying that the USG is an omnipotent, omniscient power running around the world micromanaging the rise and fall of regimes as adroitly as adjusting the thermostat from day to day on our homes.

Your argument is a mess because your worldview is a mess.

---

This is the most obvious straw man I've seen in a very long time. No one anywhere ever said we were 100 percent responsible or 100 percent in control.

---

LOL no, you did not use the words "100% in control" but you have been very consistent in asserting that we the driving force behind the revolution and it's outcome is an example of American imperialism.

You're not saying anything that can't be heard everyday all over the world......everybody blames America for everything. America obviously knows EVERYTHING! America can do ANYTHING! So whatever happens, America knew all about it and either caused or allowed it to happen because it furthered American interests. If I heard that once, I heard it a million times....from the donkey cart driver all the way up to the ambassador of east dumbfudgistan.

---

This is a very impassioned non-denial. You know the drill. Find a weakness and exploit it. No one said we had to create it out of thin air.

---

you cannot obscure the fact that you are on record here making the argument that the USG overthrew an elected government for imperial objectives. Numerous times.

I would allow that we did support opposition parties, that we did nothing to help the Yanukovich govt survive, and that we did step up and support the new government bigly as such was in our interests. Your argument, however, goes all the way to genesis. Over and over again. No surprise there. It fits the worldview that underpins your entire foreign policy.

---

It's not about "worldview." Do Chomsky and Mearsheimer have the same worldview? No, but they can see the same facts.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?

Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.

---

Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?

Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.

Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.

---

Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.

---

LOL going back a lot of decades there to fit your narrative....

Putin's regime is only transitional in that it's a transition BACK to traditional Russian oligarchic autocracy.

If we cannot persuade Russia to change policies which are threatening to the world order, we must then evaluate cost/benefit/risk of changing the policy via changing regime. In many cases, one must actually demonstrate both ability and clear intent to change regime as a way to force the existing regime to change policy. But if that doesn't work then you're back to changing regime as a way to change policy.

America did not invent that dynamic.
America has abused that dynamic less than any great power in history.

What Russia did in Ukraine is an existential threat to the modern order which has kept peace in Europe for many decades. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is good policy to force Russia to endure the dilemma of either withdrawing from Ukraine or risking systemic collapse. They can make the choice, but they will have to deal with the consequences, either way. We did not create their current difficulties. We are holding them accountable for terrible policy choices..

---

Oh, you don't have to go back that far. Iraq in 2003 is an equally good example. Even the Ukrainian coup in 2014 had our fingerprints on it. Attacking any regime that doesn't go along with our policy preferences is a threat to the modern order and a violation of international law. Something else to consider, which is perhaps more important from your point of view, is that it fails to create the dilemma you speak of. Putin saw what we did to Saddam Hussein. If he knows we're out to get him no matter what he does, the choice between acting preemptively and not acting is really no choice at all. All stick, no carrot is not the brilliant strategy you think.

I saw an article in Foreign Affairs yesterday that would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. These people admit they have no idea what would happen after Putin was toppled, even admit that failed states or new dictatorships are the typical results, yet they imagine that with Putin gone somehow liberal democracy will magically spring forth in his place. And Ukraine is supposed to be the catalyst for all this. It's not a serious policy. It's daydreaming with no basis in reality. We've proved that over and over again. But it's always going to be different next time...or so they've been telling us for decades.

---

"fingerprints" does not mean what all of your arguments on the subject imply: that the Maidan movement was a 100% generated out of whole cloth USG puppet that overthrew a popular regime against the will of the Ukrainian people. It's rather the opposite on every single point.

LOL on one hand you say "these fools have no idea what what will happen after Putin falls" only one breath after implying that the USG is an omnipotent, omniscient power running around the world micromanaging the rise and fall of regimes as adroitly as adjusting the thermostat from day to day on our homes.

Your argument is a mess because your worldview is a mess.

---

This is the most obvious straw man I've seen in a very long time. No one anywhere ever said we were 100 percent responsible or 100 percent in control.

---

LOL no, you did not use the words "100% in control" but you have been very consistent in asserting that we the driving force behind the revolution and it's outcome is an example of American imperialism.

You're not saying anything that can't be heard everyday all over the world......everybody blames America for everything. America obviously knows EVERYTHING! America can do ANYTHING! So whatever happens, America knew all about it and either caused or allowed it to happen because it furthered American interests. If I heard that once, I heard it a million times....from the donkey cart driver all the way up to the ambassador of east dumbfudgistan.

---

This is a very impassioned non-denial. You know the drill. Find a weakness and exploit it. No one said we had to create it out of thin air.

---

you cannot obscure the fact that you are on record here making the argument that the USG overthrew an elected government for imperial objectives. Numerous times.

I would allow that we did support opposition parties, that we did nothing to help the Yanukovich govt survive, and that we did step up and support the new government bigly as such was in our interests. Your argument, however, goes all the way to genesis. Over and over again. No surprise there. It fits the worldview that underpins your entire foreign policy.

---

It's not about "worldview." Do Chomsky and Mearsheimer have the same worldview? No, but they can see the same facts.

---

Mearsheimer has been consistently wrong on this crisis, because he's let his worldview impede his view of facts.

KaiBear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Two senators convened a press conference yesterday to explicitly threaten US/NATO war against Russia: "They will be destroyed... they will be eviscerated"

There was once a time, in the very distant past, when this type of thing used to be seen as unhinged Dr. Strangelove lunacy pic.twitter.com/FFyCqxitRe

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 23, 2023

---

He is Dr. Strangelove

---

He is a dangerous, war mongering idiot .

---

Let's also never forget tat Sen. Graham is also a closeted homosexual and generally strange guy

This is hilarious:

John Kerry is on a tour flamboyantly depicting Russia as a rouge state for invading a sovereign country, only for French journalist @DariusRochebin to remind him the US has invaded multiple countries, and Kerry himself voted to authorize the Iraq War. Watch: https://t.co/i90JH3KAyO

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 26, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

This is hilarious:

John Kerry is on a tour flamboyantly depicting Russia as a rouge state for invading a sovereign country, only for French journalist @DariusRochebin to remind him the US has invaded multiple countries, and Kerry himself voted to authorize the Iraq War. Watch: https://t.co/i90JH3KAyO

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 26, 2023

---

That journalist is awesome for bringing that up.

Isn't it batsh it crazy that we have 20 years of total shenanigans in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria, but somehow we're supposed to believe we've changed and aren't under the same type of leadership?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

This is hilarious:

John Kerry is on a tour flamboyantly depicting Russia as a rouge state for invading a sovereign country, only for French journalist @DariusRochebin to remind him the US has invaded multiple countries, and Kerry himself voted to authorize the Iraq War. Watch: https://t.co/i90JH3KAyO

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 26, 2023

---

That journalist is awesome for bringing that up.

Isn't it batsh it crazy that we have 20 years of total shenanigans in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria, but somehow we're supposed to believe we've changed and aren't under the same type of leadership?

---

It's actually remarkable in general how little political change takes place in the USA (a massive continental spanning state with 330+ million people)

Having only two parties means there is just not many alternative political options available...and both parties leadership also never seems to change much.

Biden being a good example of this...he has been a leader in the Democratic party & Senator for 50 years. Not attacking him for this since it is very common....just pointing out how old and how long our leading Federal officials are in power. Decades and decades

The Bush wing of the GOP is still in power in terms of foreign policy....no matter the disasters they have been involved with.

Very little fundamentally changes in D.C. from decade to decade

[Bureaucracy is a curse for humanity, but in Russia it is a tragedy. Russia started this conflict under a host of misguided assumptions. She tried to take over a country of around forty million people with a force of around 90,000, hoping that they would be greeted as liberators. The planners were Shoigu, the Russian version of an affirmative action hire with no military knowledge, and Gerasimov, the Russian strategist who once thought information warfare is the future rather than hard power. Any military strategist worth his salt knows that logistics is far more important than tactics. Gerasimov's boneheaded plan to take Kiev led to Russia losing the cream of her VDV airborne troops in a matter of weeks.

Here we have two highly credentialed midwit bureaucrats deliberately misleading their countrymen about a war that they thought would be won in three months at maximum with a strategy that did not consider local nationalism and resistance, and who thought postmodernity is all about gray zones, pink-haired people on computers, and utilization of disinformation, unlike those Neanderthal hard men with blood in their eyes. If that sounds familiar, you might be having an attack of noticing things that you shouldn't. ]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/pugachevs-ghost/

McDonalds was kicked out of Russia over a year ago. Look at the results.

🔊 https://t.co/NVLcZRpF66

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) June 26, 2023

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“Maybe Ukraine gives up the territories Donbass, Luhansk. I think it could be somehow right to give away these territories, because the population of Donbass and Luhansk is completely pro Russian.”
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023

---

My very first comment here about the Russian invasion was that Russia would hold the Donbas and that there was nothing Biden could do about it.

---

Yep.

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

Nibble it's way to NATO borders. That's funny.

We're here because of the movement of NATO borders to Russia.

And ****ing Nuland.

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“Maybe Ukraine gives up the territories Donbass, Luhansk. I think it could be somehow right to give away these territories, because the population of Donbass and Luhansk is completely pro Russian.”
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023

---

My very first comment here about the Russian invasion was that Russia would hold the Donbas and that there was nothing Biden could do about it.

---

Yep.

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

Nibble it's way to NATO borders. That's funny.

We're here because of the movement of NATO borders to Russia.

And ****ing Nuland.

---

VIctoria Nuland should be in gitmo.

Geezus how much longer is the damn war gonna continue?!

muddybrazos said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“Maybe Ukraine gives up the territories Donbass, Luhansk. I think it could be somehow right to give away these territories, because the population of Donbass and Luhansk is completely pro Russian.”
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023

---

My very first comment here about the Russian invasion was that Russia would hold the Donbas and that there was nothing Biden could do about it.

---

Yep.

---

Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.

Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.

If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?

---

Nibble it's way to NATO borders. That's funny.

We're here because of the movement of NATO borders to Russia.

And ****ing Nuland.

---

VIctoria Nuland should be in gitmo.

---

If there was any justice on this side of Heaven this would be the case.

God hates warmongers.....I would not trade places with someone like her for all the money in the world.