I don't know if you're a history buff or not, but uhh...whiterock said:
In the last century, Russia has invaded, sent its own troops across the borders of, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Georgia, etc......to expand or protect its borders or influence. During that same time frame, which sovereign nation has Nato (or the US) invaded in Europe, other than to liberate Nazi occupied territory? I anxiously await your response.
Why Are We in Ukraine?
399,742 Views |
6173 Replies |
Last: 19 min ago by Redbrickbear
whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
Agreeing to participate in a common defense alliance isn't what I'd classify as expansionist. Nobody had to give up their borders or sovereignty or was invaded and forced to join, and they are free to leave the agreement at any time.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
ATL Bear said:Agreeing to participate in a common defense alliance isn't what I'd classify as expansionist.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
NATO uses the term "enlargement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
So why an "enlargement"/"expansion" of the military alliance when the USSR is gone?
Certainly why try to expand into Ukraine and Georgia?
DC policy planners and analysts were warning against "enlargement"/"expansion" of NATO past the Bug river for decades.
https://jamestown.org/program/belarus-as-a-pivot-of-polands-grand-strategy/
[In contrast, the United States has never operated east of the Oder River; nor has it ever been engaged in Europe in non-linear, limited warfare (often under the threshold of kinetic war) against a major power that thrives off this type of conflict. In the Northern European Plain]
https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
["Even within the American administration, some thought that NATO should not expand because it would make it less effective, dilute its skills and become a financial burden," explained Zima.]
All of these states relied upon an alliance/association with a larger more powerful nation. When that nation dissolved and was unstable, it presented a problem for the newly independent nation which sought a defense association with NATO.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Agreeing to participate in a common defense alliance isn't what I'd classify as expansionist.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
NATO uses the term "enlargement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
So why an "enlargement"/"expansion" of the military alliance when the USSR is gone?
Certainly why try to expand into Ukraine and Georgia?
DC policy planners and analysts were warning against "enlargement"/"expansion" of NATO past the Bug river for decades.
https://jamestown.org/program/belarus-as-a-pivot-of-polands-grand-strategy/
[In contrast, the United States has never operated east of the Oder River; nor has it ever been engaged in Europe in non-linear, limited warfare (often under the threshold of kinetic war) against a major power that thrives off this type of conflict. In the Northern European Plain]
https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
["Even within the American administration, some thought that NATO should not expand because it would make it less effective, dilute its skills and become a financial burden," explained Zima.]
Welcome to the history of the world of alliances, particularly military ones. Britain and Portugal have had one since the 1300's.
ATL Bear said:All of these states relied upon an alliance/association with a larger more powerful nation. When that nation dissolved and was unstable, it presented a problem for the newly independent nation which sought a defense association with NATO.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Agreeing to participate in a common defense alliance isn't what I'd classify as expansionist.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
NATO uses the term "enlargement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
So why an "enlargement"/"expansion" of the military alliance when the USSR is gone?
Certainly why try to expand into Ukraine and Georgia?
DC policy planners and analysts were warning against "enlargement"/"expansion" of NATO past the Bug river for decades.
https://jamestown.org/program/belarus-as-a-pivot-of-polands-grand-strategy/
[In contrast, the United States has never operated east of the Oder River; nor has it ever been engaged in Europe in non-linear, limited warfare (often under the threshold of kinetic war) against a major power that thrives off this type of conflict. In the Northern European Plain]
https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
["Even within the American administration, some thought that NATO should not expand because it would make it less effective, dilute its skills and become a financial burden," explained Zima.]
Welcome to the history of the world of alliances, particularly military ones. Britain and Portugal have had one since the 1300's.
Interesting...so since London and Lisbon have been allies for 700 years then DC needs to fight proxy wars with Russia over Ukraine and Georgia?
Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia are not vital to the interests of the American people.
Nothing east of the Bug river really is.....
If anything the history of Portugal and England tells us that alliances should be long established, mutually beneficial, and not entered into lightly and for no good reason.
That's a NATO decision as to whether they should or shouldn't allow them in. But it should be up to Ukraine, Georgia, etc. whether they want to seek an alliance. The U.S. can make a decision as to whether NATO is a valuable alliance relationship. But remember there are more members of NATO than the U.S., and they may have interests in relationships with somewhere like Ukraine or Georgia.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:All of these states relied upon an alliance/association with a larger more powerful nation. When that nation dissolved and was unstable, it presented a problem for the newly independent nation which sought a defense association with NATO.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Agreeing to participate in a common defense alliance isn't what I'd classify as expansionist.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
NATO uses the term "enlargement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
So why an "enlargement"/"expansion" of the military alliance when the USSR is gone?
Certainly why try to expand into Ukraine and Georgia?
DC policy planners and analysts were warning against "enlargement"/"expansion" of NATO past the Bug river for decades.
https://jamestown.org/program/belarus-as-a-pivot-of-polands-grand-strategy/
[In contrast, the United States has never operated east of the Oder River; nor has it ever been engaged in Europe in non-linear, limited warfare (often under the threshold of kinetic war) against a major power that thrives off this type of conflict. In the Northern European Plain]
https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
["Even within the American administration, some thought that NATO should not expand because it would make it less effective, dilute its skills and become a financial burden," explained Zima.]
Welcome to the history of the world of alliances, particularly military ones. Britain and Portugal have had one since the 1300's.
Interesting...so since London and Lisbon have been allies for 700 years then DC needs to fight proxy wars with Russia over Ukraine and Georgia?
Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia are not vital to the interests of the American people.
Nothing east of the Bug river really is.....
If anything the history of Portugal and England tells us that alliances should be long established, mutually beneficial, and not entered into lightly and for no good reason.
Russia invading almost proves the geopolitical point.
ATL Bear said:That's a NATO decision as to whether they should or shouldn't allow them in. But it should be up to Ukraine, Georgia, etc. whether they want to seek an alliance…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:All of these states relied upon an alliance/association with a larger more powerful nation. When that nation dissolved and was unstable, it presented a problem for the newly independent nation which sought a defense association with NATO.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Agreeing to participate in a common defense alliance isn't what I'd classify as expansionist.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
NATO uses the term "enlargement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
So why an "enlargement"/"expansion" of the military alliance when the USSR is gone?
Certainly why try to expand into Ukraine and Georgia?
DC policy planners and analysts were warning against "enlargement"/"expansion" of NATO past the Bug river for decades.
https://jamestown.org/program/belarus-as-a-pivot-of-polands-grand-strategy/
[In contrast, the United States has never operated east of the Oder River; nor has it ever been engaged in Europe in non-linear, limited warfare (often under the threshold of kinetic war) against a major power that thrives off this type of conflict. In the Northern European Plain]
https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
["Even within the American administration, some thought that NATO should not expand because it would make it less effective, dilute its skills and become a financial burden," explained Zima.]
Welcome to the history of the world of alliances, particularly military ones. Britain and Portugal have had one since the 1300's.
Interesting...so since London and Lisbon have been allies for 700 years then DC needs to fight proxy wars with Russia over Ukraine and Georgia?
Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia are not vital to the interests of the American people.
Nothing east of the Bug river really is.....
If anything the history of Portugal and England tells us that alliances should be long established, mutually beneficial, and not entered into lightly and for no good reason.
Russia invading almost proves the geopolitical point.
1. Well DC helped launch color revolutions in both countries.
The pervious government of Ukraine agreed to extend Russian naval base rights out to 2040….interesting how we supported violent street protests to replace that government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
[The role of the United States in the colour revolutions has been a matter of significant controversy. British newspaper The Guardian accused the United States government, alongside the Freedom House non-governmental organization and George Soros' Open Society Foundations of organising the Orange Revolution as part of a broader campaign of regime change in Eastern Europe, also involving the overthrow of Miloevi, the Rose Revolution, and unsuccessful attempts to contest the results of the 2001 Belarusian presidential election.]
2. USA invading Iraq (and many other countries) proves that DC disregards international law and tries to impose new governments on people just like Russia is doing right now.
We can't really complain now can we? What's good for the goose and all….
Maybe relax the trigger finger a little with the bullets you instantly fire at the U.S. It's a big complicated world and we aren't always the center of it, positively or negatively.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:That's a NATO decision as to whether they should or shouldn't allow them in. But it should be up to Ukraine, Georgia, etc. whether they want to seek an alliance…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:All of these states relied upon an alliance/association with a larger more powerful nation. When that nation dissolved and was unstable, it presented a problem for the newly independent nation which sought a defense association with NATO.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Agreeing to participate in a common defense alliance isn't what I'd classify as expansionist.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
NATO uses the term "enlargement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
So why an "enlargement"/"expansion" of the military alliance when the USSR is gone?
Certainly why try to expand into Ukraine and Georgia?
DC policy planners and analysts were warning against "enlargement"/"expansion" of NATO past the Bug river for decades.
https://jamestown.org/program/belarus-as-a-pivot-of-polands-grand-strategy/
[In contrast, the United States has never operated east of the Oder River; nor has it ever been engaged in Europe in non-linear, limited warfare (often under the threshold of kinetic war) against a major power that thrives off this type of conflict. In the Northern European Plain]
https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
["Even within the American administration, some thought that NATO should not expand because it would make it less effective, dilute its skills and become a financial burden," explained Zima.]
Welcome to the history of the world of alliances, particularly military ones. Britain and Portugal have had one since the 1300's.
Interesting...so since London and Lisbon have been allies for 700 years then DC needs to fight proxy wars with Russia over Ukraine and Georgia?
Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia are not vital to the interests of the American people.
Nothing east of the Bug river really is.....
If anything the history of Portugal and England tells us that alliances should be long established, mutually beneficial, and not entered into lightly and for no good reason.
Russia invading almost proves the geopolitical point.
1. Well DC helped launch color revolutions in both countries.
The pervious government of Ukraine agreed to extend Russian naval base rights out to 2040….interesting how we supported violent street protests to replace that government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
[The role of the United States in the colour revolutions has been a matter of significant controversy. British newspaper The Guardian accused the United States government, alongside the Freedom House non-governmental organization and George Soros' Open Society Foundations of organising the Orange Revolution as part of a broader campaign of regime change in Eastern Europe, also involving the overthrow of Miloevi, the Rose Revolution, and unsuccessful attempts to contest the results of the 2001 Belarusian presidential election.]
2. USA invading Iraq (and many other countries) proves that DC disregards international law and tries to impose new governments on people just like Russia is doing right now.
We can't really complain now can we? What's good for the goose and all….
ATL Bear said:Maybe relax the trigger finger a little with the bullets you instantly fire at the U.S. It's a big complicated world and we aren't always the center of it, positively or negatively.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:That's a NATO decision as to whether they should or shouldn't allow them in. But it should be up to Ukraine, Georgia, etc. whether they want to seek an alliance…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:All of these states relied upon an alliance/association with a larger more powerful nation. When that nation dissolved and was unstable, it presented a problem for the newly independent nation which sought a defense association with NATO.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Agreeing to participate in a common defense alliance isn't what I'd classify as expansionist.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
NATO uses the term "enlargement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
So why an "enlargement"/"expansion" of the military alliance when the USSR is gone?
Certainly why try to expand into Ukraine and Georgia?
DC policy planners and analysts were warning against "enlargement"/"expansion" of NATO past the Bug river for decades.
https://jamestown.org/program/belarus-as-a-pivot-of-polands-grand-strategy/
[In contrast, the United States has never operated east of the Oder River; nor has it ever been engaged in Europe in non-linear, limited warfare (often under the threshold of kinetic war) against a major power that thrives off this type of conflict. In the Northern European Plain]
https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
["Even within the American administration, some thought that NATO should not expand because it would make it less effective, dilute its skills and become a financial burden," explained Zima.]
Welcome to the history of the world of alliances, particularly military ones. Britain and Portugal have had one since the 1300's.
Interesting...so since London and Lisbon have been allies for 700 years then DC needs to fight proxy wars with Russia over Ukraine and Georgia?
Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia are not vital to the interests of the American people.
Nothing east of the Bug river really is.....
If anything the history of Portugal and England tells us that alliances should be long established, mutually beneficial, and not entered into lightly and for no good reason.
Russia invading almost proves the geopolitical point.
1. Well DC helped launch color revolutions in both countries.
The pervious government of Ukraine agreed to extend Russian naval base rights out to 2040….interesting how we supported violent street protests to replace that government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
[The role of the United States in the colour revolutions has been a matter of significant controversy. British newspaper The Guardian accused the United States government, alongside the Freedom House non-governmental organization and George Soros' Open Society Foundations of organising the Orange Revolution as part of a broader campaign of regime change in Eastern Europe, also involving the overthrow of Miloevi, the Rose Revolution, and unsuccessful attempts to contest the results of the 2001 Belarusian presidential election.]
2. USA invading Iraq (and many other countries) proves that DC disregards international law and tries to impose new governments on people just like Russia is doing right now.
We can't really complain now can we? What's good for the goose and all….
I will agree with that.
And the US has every reason to defend the Western hemisphere, Japan-Korea, and Western Europe.
I still don't know why we are fighting to pull borderlands states around Russia into our alliance…..
Seems foolish that the very least…if not impossible
Exactly. It's quite breathtaking intellectual dishonesty to morally equate 100% voluntary accession to a common defense alliance to protect against Russian invasion with the Russian invasion itself.ATL Bear said:Agreeing to participate in a common defense alliance isn't what I'd classify as expansionist. Nobody had to give up their borders or sovereignty or was invaded and forced to join, and they are free to leave the agreement at any time.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
If your point is that Nato has served as a mechanism to restrain Germany from engaging in territorial expansion, then it has worked perfectly. Not only has Germany not invaded a single neighbor since joining Nato, it has never fully paid its dues and has arguably the most decrepit military in the entire Nato alliance. Certainly it has not gone unnoticed by experienced observers of such things that at least a partial explanation for why the Germans do not pay their full NATO dues or maintain their military readiness to effective levels because they realize they are not going to be able to use those investments to their highest and best use for more traditional German interests (dominating the region).Sam Lowry said:I don't know if you're a history buff or not, but uhh...whiterock said:
In the last century, Russia has invaded, sent its own troops across the borders of, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Georgia, etc......to expand or protect its borders or influence. During that same time frame, which sovereign nation has Nato (or the US) invaded in Europe, other than to liberate Nazi occupied territory? I anxiously await your response.
Thanks for reminding us of that.
please note the part in highlights. The USG did not spin a color revolution out of whole cloth.Redbrickbear said:
1. Well DC helped launch color revolutions in both countries.
The pervious government of Ukraine agreed to extend Russian naval base rights out to 2040….interesting how we supported violent street protests to replace that government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
[The role of the United States in the colour revolutions has been a matter of significant controversy. British newspaper The Guardian accused the United States government, alongside the Freedom House non-governmental organization and George Soros' Open Society Foundations of organising the Orange Revolution as part of a broader campaign of regime change in Eastern Europe, also involving the overthrow of Miloevi, the Rose Revolution, and unsuccessful attempts to contest the results of the 2001 Belarusian presidential election.]
2. USA invading Iraq (and many other countries) proves that DC disregards international law and tries to impose new governments on people just like Russia is doing right now.
We can't really complain now can we? What's good for the goose and all….
I used to be in the business of meeting with opposition party leaders as reporting sources. You can take this one to the bank - Every opposition party in the world asks foreign governments to "help" it take power.
All the time.
Every day.
ALL day long.
It's their business model. Their odds of success are pretty low without "help."
So they beg.
Incessantly.
It. Never. Stops.
The only thing more frequent and plaintive is the begging for a visa to come to America.
They ask the Ambassdor.
They ask the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM)
They ask the Political Officer (chief of the political section POLOFF)
They ask the 3rd secretary in the consular section, the receptionist in the USIS office, the GSA chap managing the motor pool, the USAid contractors, etc....
Not once in ten years handling opposition leaders as reporting sources did a meeting occur (to gather intel) did the source not ask me for "help." Not. Once. You pretty quickly learn to tune it out, say/do nothing that could be interpreted as encouragement, to treat it as a distraction that one cannot allow to cause bad headlines. (because if that happens you spend the rest of your career counting walruses in Alaska.)
Your understanding of events would be substantially improved if you set the conspiracy nonsense aside.
Russia never attacked Poland. But the US selling weapons to Ukraine is going to lead to US troops?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?
1. My reasoning would only be sophomoric if I was actually making the arguments you put in my mouth.
For instance in the above statement....I never said a Patriot missile system deployed to Poland forces Russia to engage in expansionist polices.( And in fact of course Russia has not attacked Poland at all)
I even said right before that statement that NATO has every right to put missiles in any NATO member country.
2. You continue to spin a tale and say that Russia is the one expanding....when it's of course NATO (under the direction of DC) that has been expanding since the 90s towards the Russia border.
Obviously Russia is using force to try and prevent itself from being surrounded by hostile States....the USA would act no differently given its situation.
From the creation of NATO in 1949....over the next 40 years only 4 States would join.
After the fall of the USSR (the entity that NATO existed to defended against) the alliance would for some reason add 15 new States in just under 20 years....even thought the USSR and the Warsaw pact are long gone.
Russia has more of a history of invading Poland than the US does of fighting against Russia. There is no history of the US being in a shooting war with Russia. Actually, the US/Russia history is more of the same, cold war moving chess pieces.
If Putin is such an existential threat to Europe why isn't every European country emptying it armories and its treasury to help Ukraine?whiterock said:If your point is that Nato has served as a mechanism to restrain Germany from engaging in territorial expansion, then it has worked perfectly. Not only has Germany not invaded a single neighbor since joining Nato, it has never fully paid its dues and has arguably the most decrepit military in the entire Nato alliance. Certainly it has not gone unnoticed by experienced observers of such things that at least a partial explanation for why the Germans do not pay their full NATO dues or maintain their military readiness to effective levels because they realize they are not going to be able to use those investments to their highest and best use for more traditional German interests (dominating the region).Sam Lowry said:I don't know if you're a history buff or not, but uhh...whiterock said:
In the last century, Russia has invaded, sent its own troops across the borders of, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Georgia, etc......to expand or protect its borders or influence. During that same time frame, which sovereign nation has Nato (or the US) invaded in Europe, other than to liberate Nazi occupied territory? I anxiously await your response.
Thanks for reminding us of that.
Why are we paying for damn near everything?
It's such a slap in the face to American taxpayers. On top of that elitists snobs, media and cultures in Europe absolutely hate us and think we're stupid and backwards.
It would be different if we had a healthy economy, but the middle class is being destroyed. Borders are wide open.
Does it irk you at all the politicians will act immediately for Ukraine but won't do a damn thing for us?
You may be right about Ukraine…but the manner our politicians are treating us is a MUCH BIGGER threat to our way of living than Russia.
So they can't succeed without our help, and we never help because that would be "conspiracy nonsense." Seems like you're contradicting yourself...unless you're saying the color revolutions failed?whiterock said:please note the part in highlights. The USG did not spin a color revolution out of whole cloth.Redbrickbear said:
1. Well DC helped launch color revolutions in both countries.
The pervious government of Ukraine agreed to extend Russian naval base rights out to 2040….interesting how we supported violent street protests to replace that government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
[The role of the United States in the colour revolutions has been a matter of significant controversy. British newspaper The Guardian accused the United States government, alongside the Freedom House non-governmental organization and George Soros' Open Society Foundations of organising the Orange Revolution as part of a broader campaign of regime change in Eastern Europe, also involving the overthrow of Miloevi, the Rose Revolution, and unsuccessful attempts to contest the results of the 2001 Belarusian presidential election.]
2. USA invading Iraq (and many other countries) proves that DC disregards international law and tries to impose new governments on people just like Russia is doing right now.
We can't really complain now can we? What's good for the goose and all….
I used to be in the business of meeting with opposition party leaders as reporting sources. You can take this one to the bank - Every opposition party in the world asks foreign governments to "help" it take power.
All the time.
Every day.
ALL day long.
It's their business model. Their odds of success are pretty low without "help."
So they beg.
Incessantly.
It. Never. Stops.
The only thing more frequent and plaintive is the begging for a visa to come to America.
They ask the Ambassdor.
They ask the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM)
They ask the Political Officer (chief of the political section POLOFF)
They ask the 3rd secretary in the consular section, the receptionist in the USIS office, the GSA chap managing the motor pool, the USAid contractors, etc....
Not once in ten years handling opposition leaders as reporting sources did a meeting occur (to gather intel) did the source not ask me for "help." Not. Once. You pretty quickly learn to tune it out, say/do nothing that could be interpreted as encouragement, to treat it as a distraction that one cannot allow to cause bad headlines. (because if that happens you spend the rest of your career counting walruses in Alaska.)
Your understanding of events would be substantially improved if you set the conspiracy nonsense aside.
Good news. Avdeeka has fallen to the Russian Army. The Ukrainian Nazi 3rd brigade is trapped in the city and will likely be destroyed. A bloody route to peace and normalcy, but at least there is light at the end of rhe tunnel.
Realitybites said:
Good news. Avdeeka has fallen to the Russian Army. The Ukrainian Nazi 3rd brigade is trapped in the city and will likely be destroyed. A bloody route to peace and normalcy, but at least there is light at the end of rhe tunnel.
Vatnik shill.
(And, no they're not.)
Russia's 7:1 advantage in arms production over combined NATO is a big accomplishment. In part it is due to a reshaping of global trade and finance flows in response to US sanctions. China's exports to Russia tripled, while Turkey and the former Soviet republics are reexporting…
— David P. Goldman (@davidpgoldman) February 18, 2024
Bear8084 said:Realitybites said:
Good news. Avdeeka has fallen to the Russian Army. The Ukrainian Nazi 3rd brigade is trapped in the city and will likely be destroyed. A bloody route to peace and normalcy, but at least there is light at the end of rhe tunnel.
Vatnik shill.
(And, no they're not.)
Russia is playing a bad hand very badly
from kentucky fried russian,,,
— david D. (@secretsqrl123) February 18, 2024
on telegrm...
Russia lost 47,000 soldiers, 364 tanks in Avdiivka sector in four months - Tarnavskyi https://t.co/6evstqOmQV…
All Russia succeeded in doing is straightening out one tiny bump in the frozen front line
Nothing worth killing almost…
Has Russia lost ……YET ?
Has their economy crumbled due to our vaunted sanctions ?
When is the Ukrainian victory parade ?
Has their economy crumbled due to our vaunted sanctions ?
When is the Ukrainian victory parade ?
General Ben Hodges: "We need to body slam Russia".
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) February 18, 2024
Well said.
pic.twitter.com/9cA9zk7ejL
KaiBear said:
Has Russia lost ……YET ?
Has their economy crumbled due to our vaunted sanctions ?
When is the Ukrainian victory parade ?
Thanks to sanctions China and India got richer by trading with Russia.
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) February 19, 2024
Russia was forced to return to manufacturing, and now the U.S. and EU can’t come close to producing weapons at the scale of Russia.
China no longer fears US sanctions.
Biden regime L’s.
Mitt Romney was right
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 18, 2024
pic.twitter.com/XZJrK6aeSC
Ukrainian soldiers, now mostly with only small caliber ammo, no air cover, waiting for promised F-16's that never arrive, artillery shells that never arrive, defending against a coalition of Russia, Iran and North Korea.
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) February 18, 2024
https://t.co/IeerkH5GFO
LOLwhiterock said:Bear8084 said:Realitybites said:
Good news. Avdeeka has fallen to the Russian Army. The Ukrainian Nazi 3rd brigade is trapped in the city and will likely be destroyed. A bloody route to peace and normalcy, but at least there is light at the end of rhe tunnel.
Vatnik shill.
(And, no they're not.)
Russia is playing a bad hand very badlyfrom kentucky fried russian,,,
— david D. (@secretsqrl123) February 18, 2024
on telegrm...
Russia lost 47,000 soldiers, 364 tanks in Avdiivka sector in four months - Tarnavskyi https://t.co/6evstqOmQV…
All Russia succeeded in doing is straightening out one tiny bump in the frozen front line
Nothing worth killing almost…
Avdiivka is a major disaster for the Ukrainian side. It was more heavily fortified and more strategically important than Bakhmut, and it collapsed more precipitously than even pro-Russian analysts expected. The Ukes might have managed an orderly retreat if they'd started weeks ago, but of course Zelensky wouldn't allow it.KaiBear said:
Has Russia lost ……YET ?
Has their economy crumbled due to our vaunted sanctions ?
When is the Ukrainian victory parade ?
Sam Lowry said:Avdiivka is a major disaster for the Ukrainian side. It was more heavily fortified and more strategically important than Bakhmut, and it collapsed more precipitously than even pro-Russian analysts expected. The Ukes might have managed an orderly retreat if they'd started weeks ago, but of course Zelensky wouldn't allow it.KaiBear said:
Has Russia lost ……YET ?
Has their economy crumbled due to our vaunted sanctions ?
When is the Ukrainian victory parade ?
It was orderly, vatnik.
The rest is your usual Russian shilling and bending over.
Since he's never been able to explain why the small city of Bakhmut has any strategic significance, let's see if he can give the considerably easier explanation for why the three-street village of Avdiivka is of such "strategic importance" that it was worth the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.Bear8084 said:Sam Lowry said:Avdiivka is a major disaster for the Ukrainian side. It was more heavily fortified and more strategically important than Bakhmut, and it collapsed more precipitously than even pro-Russian analysts expected. The Ukes might have managed an orderly retreat if they'd started weeks ago, but of course Zelensky wouldn't allow it.KaiBear said:
Has Russia lost ……YET ?
Has their economy crumbled due to our vaunted sanctions ?
When is the Ukrainian victory parade ?
It was orderly, vatnik.
The rest is your usual Russian shilling and bending over.
Better yet, I'd love to see him explain how Russia can sustain 47k losses per village for the next 50 miles of villages, much less all the way thru Ukraine to the Polish border.
Great news
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 19, 2024
Ukrainian Air Forces shot down two Russian aircraft this morning:
1. Su-34
2. Su-35.
In 3 days, Ukraine destroyed 6 Russian jets.
🇺🇦👊
pic.twitter.com/4m9BB1Wsa0
Because?boognish_bear said:General Ben Hodges: "We need to body slam Russia".
— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) February 18, 2024
Well said.
pic.twitter.com/9cA9zk7ejL
Is General Ben Hodges aware that he's talking about body slamming a peer nation with the world's largest nuclear aresenal and hypersonic delivery systems? Is Ben Hodges a general because he's competent, because he's a registered democrat, or because he's a diversity promotion?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but I can tell you this much: General Ben Hodges is a Government-American, part of the inside the beltway vermin class who doesn't really care if Joe in Wichita lives or dies so long as his six figure paycheck (and those of his defense contractor buddies) are protected.
Quote:
Since he's never been able to explain why the small city of Bakhmut has any strategic significance, let's see if he can give the considerably easier explanation for why the three-street village of Avdiivka is of such "strategic importance" that it was worth the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.
Better yet, I'd love to see him explain how Russia can sustain 47k losses per village for the next 50 miles of villages, much less all the way thru Ukraine to the Polish border.
Don't you think that the Russians have done the math on this?
What makes you think that they are going to push all the way to the Polish border when they've basically telegraphed that (1) they don't want to and (2) they're looking for rational negotiating partners in NATO to end this conflict?
Or maybe you've been wrong since the beginning of this conflict and Russian goals are actually to secure Dontesk and Lugansk (and maybe push to the Dniper to create a DMZ if NATO forces this upon them).
Realitybites said:Quote:
Since he's never been able to explain why the small city of Bakhmut has any strategic significance, let's see if he can give the considerably easier explanation for why the three-street village of Avdiivka is of such "strategic importance" that it was worth the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.
Better yet, I'd love to see him explain how Russia can sustain 47k losses per village for the next 50 miles of villages, much less all the way thru Ukraine to the Polish border.
Don't you think that the Russians have done the math on this?
What makes you think that they are going to push all the way to the Polish border when they've basically telegraphed that (1) they don't want to and (2) they're looking for rational negotiating partners in NATO to end this conflict?
Or maybe you've been wrong since the beginning of this conflict and Russian goals are actually to secure Dontesk and Lugansk (and maybe push to the Dniper to create a DMZ if NATO forces this upon them).
LOL! Speaking of being wrong.
boognish_bear said:Mitt Romney was right
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 18, 2024
pic.twitter.com/XZJrK6aeSC
Mitt Romney is never right. The architect of Obamacare before Obama. The governor who legalized gay marriage in his state. Mitt Romney is always wrong. Always? Always.