ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

But my question to you would be where does it stop? Poland? Finland?

BTW, your Cliff Notes on page one make a lot of sense. I tend to agree with your position there but now that we've expanded the war ....

---

100 times we have discussed this…it stops when and if they are foolish enough to attack a NATO country (Poland, Estonia, anyone else)…that would be the end Putin…probably the end of Russia as a large federation.

Until then we have no strategic interest in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Mongolia, or Myanmar…they are less than even peripheral to American security concerns.

---

or, it stops when they are foolish enough to attack Ukraine, fail, causing the collapse of the Putin regime and threatening the stability of the Russian Federation.

That is the actual scenario on the table at the moment. And your move is.....?

---

When did we become treaty allies with Ukraine? When did the American people vote on that? When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?

Our leaders in D.C. have spent $100 billion dollars (and growing) on a corrupt country in eastern Europe right on the doors of Russia without every asking the American people or even bothering to get a treaty....amazing.

---

The applicability to that here in this thread is that you are sputtering about treaties and us being an imperial power and the defense/industrial complex and on and on and on....and as a result are losing the argument because those really are not terribly relevant to the key question: is it in our interest to let Russia have Ukraine, or to support Ukraine to defeat Russia?

---

There's a reason libertarians tend to do this. Every time the case is made against intervention based on the national interest, the debate immediately shifts to things like the Budapest Memorandum and our supposed obligation to support Ukraine's "choice" whatever it may be. The only sure way to get the discussion back to the merits of the policy is to point out the illusory nature of said obligations.

---

I doubt the Budapest Memo has anything to do with this. It's about realpolitik.

---

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

quash said:

---

Someone make the compelling case for supporting an authoritarian thug holding office because we ran off the last guy.

And make it more compelling than "you break it, you buy it."

---

Can any of you guys or gals that voted for Biden provide an explanation?

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

But my question to you would be where does it stop? Poland? Finland?

BTW, your Cliff Notes on page one make a lot of sense. I tend to agree with your position there but now that we've expanded the war ....

---

100 times we have discussed this…it stops when and if they are foolish enough to attack a NATO country (Poland, Estonia, anyone else)…that would be the end Putin…probably the end of Russia as a large federation.

Until then we have no strategic interest in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Mongolia, or Myanmar…they are less than even peripheral to American security concerns.

---

or, it stops when they are foolish enough to attack Ukraine, fail, causing the collapse of the Putin regime and threatening the stability of the Russian Federation.

That is the actual scenario on the table at the moment. And your move is.....?

---

When did we become treaty allies with Ukraine? When did the American people vote on that? When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?

Our leaders in D.C. have spent $100 billion dollars (and growing) on a corrupt country in eastern Europe right on the doors of Russia without every asking the American people or even bothering to get a treaty....amazing.

---

The applicability to that here in this thread is that you are sputtering about treaties and us being an imperial power and the defense/industrial complex and on and on and on....and as a result are losing the argument because those really are not terribly relevant to the key question: is it in our interest to let Russia have Ukraine, or to support Ukraine to defeat Russia?

---

There's a reason libertarians tend to do this. Every time the case is made against intervention based on the national interest, the debate immediately shifts to things like the Budapest Memorandum and our supposed obligation to support Ukraine's "choice" whatever it may be. The only sure way to get the discussion back to the merits of the policy is to point out the illusory nature of said obligations.

---

I doubt the Budapest Memo has anything to do with this. It's about realpolitik.

---

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

---

That's a weird take on a simple statement.

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

But my question to you would be where does it stop? Poland? Finland?

BTW, your Cliff Notes on page one make a lot of sense. I tend to agree with your position there but now that we've expanded the war ....

---

100 times we have discussed this…it stops when and if they are foolish enough to attack a NATO country (Poland, Estonia, anyone else)…that would be the end Putin…probably the end of Russia as a large federation.

Until then we have no strategic interest in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Mongolia, or Myanmar…they are less than even peripheral to American security concerns.

---

or, it stops when they are foolish enough to attack Ukraine, fail, causing the collapse of the Putin regime and threatening the stability of the Russian Federation.

That is the actual scenario on the table at the moment. And your move is.....?

---

When did we become treaty allies with Ukraine? When did the American people vote on that? When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?

Our leaders in D.C. have spent $100 billion dollars (and growing) on a corrupt country in eastern Europe right on the doors of Russia without every asking the American people or even bothering to get a treaty....amazing.

---

The applicability to that here in this thread is that you are sputtering about treaties and us being an imperial power and the defense/industrial complex and on and on and on....and as a result are losing the argument because those really are not terribly relevant to the key question: is it in our interest to let Russia have Ukraine, or to support Ukraine to defeat Russia?

---

There's a reason libertarians tend to do this. Every time the case is made against intervention based on the national interest, the debate immediately shifts to things like the Budapest Memorandum and our supposed obligation to support Ukraine's "choice" whatever it may be. The only sure way to get the discussion back to the merits of the policy is to point out the illusory nature of said obligations.

---

I doubt the Budapest Memo has anything to do with this. It's about realpolitik.

---

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

---

That's a weird take on a simple statement.

---

You use Realpolitik as if that is a negative. Pragmatism is necessary when dealing with the realities of the world. If you didn't mean it as a negative, I apologize. In my experience, most of the time when people use that word, they are idealist that view Realpolitik as disdainful. Example, Saudi Arabian policy. We all agree that their human rights is atrocious, but there are realities that we need to deal with and cannot simply walk away

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

But my question to you would be where does it stop? Poland? Finland?

BTW, your Cliff Notes on page one make a lot of sense. I tend to agree with your position there but now that we've expanded the war ....

---

100 times we have discussed this…it stops when and if they are foolish enough to attack a NATO country (Poland, Estonia, anyone else)…that would be the end Putin…probably the end of Russia as a large federation.

Until then we have no strategic interest in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Mongolia, or Myanmar…they are less than even peripheral to American security concerns.

---

or, it stops when they are foolish enough to attack Ukraine, fail, causing the collapse of the Putin regime and threatening the stability of the Russian Federation.

That is the actual scenario on the table at the moment. And your move is.....?

---

When did we become treaty allies with Ukraine? When did the American people vote on that? When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?

Our leaders in D.C. have spent $100 billion dollars (and growing) on a corrupt country in eastern Europe right on the doors of Russia without every asking the American people or even bothering to get a treaty....amazing.

---

The applicability to that here in this thread is that you are sputtering about treaties and us being an imperial power and the defense/industrial complex and on and on and on....and as a result are losing the argument because those really are not terribly relevant to the key question: is it in our interest to let Russia have Ukraine, or to support Ukraine to defeat Russia?

---

There's a reason libertarians tend to do this. Every time the case is made against intervention based on the national interest, the debate immediately shifts to things like the Budapest Memorandum and our supposed obligation to support Ukraine's "choice" whatever it may be. The only sure way to get the discussion back to the merits of the policy is to point out the illusory nature of said obligations.

---

I doubt the Budapest Memo has anything to do with this. It's about realpolitik.

---

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

---

That's a weird take on a simple statement.

---

You use Realpolitik as if that is a negative. Pragmatism is necessary when dealing with the realities of the world. If you didn't mean it as a negative, I apologize. In my experience, most of the time when people use that word, they are idealist that view Realpolitik as disdainful. Example, Saudi Arabian policy. We all agree that their human rights is atrocious, but there are realities that we need to deal with and cannot simply walk away

---

You'll find I'm about as realpolitik as they come. You jumped too soon here.

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.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

quash said:

---

Someone make the compelling case for supporting an authoritarian thug holding office because we ran off the last guy.

And make it more compelling than "you break it, you buy it."

---

Can any of you guys or gals that voted for Biden provide an explanation?

---

Don't ask me, I voted for Jo.

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.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

But my question to you would be where does it stop? Poland? Finland?

BTW, your Cliff Notes on page one make a lot of sense. I tend to agree with your position there but now that we've expanded the war ....

---

100 times we have discussed this…it stops when and if they are foolish enough to attack a NATO country (Poland, Estonia, anyone else)…that would be the end Putin…probably the end of Russia as a large federation.

Until then we have no strategic interest in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Mongolia, or Myanmar…they are less than even peripheral to American security concerns.

---

or, it stops when they are foolish enough to attack Ukraine, fail, causing the collapse of the Putin regime and threatening the stability of the Russian Federation.

That is the actual scenario on the table at the moment. And your move is.....?

---

When did we become treaty allies with Ukraine? When did the American people vote on that? When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?

Our leaders in D.C. have spent $100 billion dollars (and growing) on a corrupt country in eastern Europe right on the doors of Russia without every asking the American people or even bothering to get a treaty....amazing.

---

The applicability to that here in this thread is that you are sputtering about treaties and us being an imperial power and the defense/industrial complex and on and on and on....and as a result are losing the argument because those really are not terribly relevant to the key question: is it in our interest to let Russia have Ukraine, or to support Ukraine to defeat Russia?

---

There's a reason libertarians tend to do this. Every time the case is made against intervention based on the national interest, the debate immediately shifts to things like the Budapest Memorandum and our supposed obligation to support Ukraine's "choice" whatever it may be. The only sure way to get the discussion back to the merits of the policy is to point out the illusory nature of said obligations.

---

Oh the irony. ..."illusory nature of obligations".... I'll remind you of that next time you offer critique of Trump.

Every time I've pointed out the multi-tiered reasons why our intervention aid program to Ukraine is, in fact, manifestly in pursuit of long-understood and thoroughly bi-partisan national interest, you offer up nonsense about American imperialism.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

But my question to you would be where does it stop? Poland? Finland?

BTW, your Cliff Notes on page one make a lot of sense. I tend to agree with your position there but now that we've expanded the war ....

---

100 times we have discussed this…it stops when and if they are foolish enough to attack a NATO country (Poland, Estonia, anyone else)…that would be the end Putin…probably the end of Russia as a large federation.

Until then we have no strategic interest in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Mongolia, or Myanmar…they are less than even peripheral to American security concerns.

---

or, it stops when they are foolish enough to attack Ukraine, fail, causing the collapse of the Putin regime and threatening the stability of the Russian Federation.

That is the actual scenario on the table at the moment. And your move is.....?

---

When did we become treaty allies with Ukraine? When did the American people vote on that? When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?

Our leaders in D.C. have spent $100 billion dollars (and growing) on a corrupt country in eastern Europe right on the doors of Russia without every asking the American people or even bothering to get a treaty....amazing.

---

The applicability to that here in this thread is that you are sputtering about treaties and us being an imperial power and the defense/industrial complex and on and on and on....and as a result are losing the argument because those really are not terribly relevant to the key question: is it in our interest to let Russia have Ukraine, or to support Ukraine to defeat Russia?

---

There's a reason libertarians tend to do this. Every time the case is made against intervention based on the national interest, the debate immediately shifts to things like the Budapest Memorandum and our supposed obligation to support Ukraine's "choice" whatever it may be. The only sure way to get the discussion back to the merits of the policy is to point out the illusory nature of said obligations.

---

I doubt the Budapest Memo has anything to do with this. It's about realpolitik.

---

It's both. The existence of the BM does put the credibility of the USG on the line, and maintaining the credibility of the word of the USG is a pretty big part of realpolitik. Sure, few such things offer a "red line" that must be defended in extremis, but you have to put in a good faith effort or relationships get a lot harder to maintain.

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

But my question to you would be where does it stop? Poland? Finland?

BTW, your Cliff Notes on page one make a lot of sense. I tend to agree with your position there but now that we've expanded the war ....

---

100 times we have discussed this…it stops when and if they are foolish enough to attack a NATO country (Poland, Estonia, anyone else)…that would be the end Putin…probably the end of Russia as a large federation.

Until then we have no strategic interest in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Mongolia, or Myanmar…they are less than even peripheral to American security concerns.

---

or, it stops when they are foolish enough to attack Ukraine, fail, causing the collapse of the Putin regime and threatening the stability of the Russian Federation.

That is the actual scenario on the table at the moment. And your move is.....?

---

When did we become treaty allies with Ukraine? When did the American people vote on that? When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?

Our leaders in D.C. have spent $100 billion dollars (and growing) on a corrupt country in eastern Europe right on the doors of Russia without every asking the American people or even bothering to get a treaty....amazing.

---

The applicability to that here in this thread is that you are sputtering about treaties and us being an imperial power and the defense/industrial complex and on and on and on....and as a result are losing the argument because those really are not terribly relevant to the key question: is it in our interest to let Russia have Ukraine, or to support Ukraine to defeat Russia?

---

There's a reason libertarians tend to do this. Every time the case is made against intervention based on the national interest, the debate immediately shifts to things like the Budapest Memorandum and our supposed obligation to support Ukraine's "choice" whatever it may be. The only sure way to get the discussion back to the merits of the policy is to point out the illusory nature of said obligations.

---

I doubt the Budapest Memo has anything to do with this. It's about realpolitik.

---

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

---

That's a weird take on a simple statement.

---

You use Realpolitik as if that is a negative. Pragmatism is necessary when dealing with the realities of the world. If you didn't mean it as a negative, I apologize. In my experience, most of the time when people use that word, they are idealist that view Realpolitik as disdainful. Example, Saudi Arabian policy. We all agree that their human rights is atrocious, but there are realities that we need to deal with and cannot simply walk away

---

You'll find I'm about as realpolitik as they come. You jumped too soon here.

---

So, to answer my question, it is not a bad thing...

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

But my question to you would be where does it stop? Poland? Finland?

BTW, your Cliff Notes on page one make a lot of sense. I tend to agree with your position there but now that we've expanded the war ....

---

100 times we have discussed this…it stops when and if they are foolish enough to attack a NATO country (Poland, Estonia, anyone else)…that would be the end Putin…probably the end of Russia as a large federation.

Until then we have no strategic interest in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Mongolia, or Myanmar…they are less than even peripheral to American security concerns.

---

or, it stops when they are foolish enough to attack Ukraine, fail, causing the collapse of the Putin regime and threatening the stability of the Russian Federation.

That is the actual scenario on the table at the moment. And your move is.....?

---

When did we become treaty allies with Ukraine? When did the American people vote on that? When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?

Our leaders in D.C. have spent $100 billion dollars (and growing) on a corrupt country in eastern Europe right on the doors of Russia without every asking the American people or even bothering to get a treaty....amazing.

---

The applicability to that here in this thread is that you are sputtering about treaties and us being an imperial power and the defense/industrial complex and on and on and on....and as a result are losing the argument because those really are not terribly relevant to the key question: is it in our interest to let Russia have Ukraine, or to support Ukraine to defeat Russia?

---

There's a reason libertarians tend to do this. Every time the case is made against intervention based on the national interest, the debate immediately shifts to things like the Budapest Memorandum and our supposed obligation to support Ukraine's "choice" whatever it may be. The only sure way to get the discussion back to the merits of the policy is to point out the illusory nature of said obligations.

---

Oh the irony. ..."illusory nature of obligations".... I'll remind you of that next time you offer critique of Trump.

Every time I've pointed out the multi-tiered reasons why our intervention aid program to Ukraine is, in fact, manifestly in pursuit of long-understood and thoroughly bi-partisan national interest, you offer up nonsense about American imperialism.

---

That's another conversation between you and Red. I have noted America's hypocrisy on the subject, but I'm not really interested in debating semantics. If we spend money like an empire, impose our will like an empire, and make enemies like an empire, that's all that matters.

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.

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.

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.

---

Amen

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.

We support Ukraine independence but not Taiwan.

Geopolitics and war is about money. No matter what you've been told, it's about money.

Biden Sec. of State Antony Blinken: "We do not support Taiwan independence." pic.twitter.com/PYdxjiMt1j

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) June 19, 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.

---

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.

Doc Holliday said:

---

We support Ukraine independence but not Taiwan.

Geopolitics and war is about money. No matter what you've been told, it's about money.

Biden Sec. of State Antony Blinken: "We do not support Taiwan independence." pic.twitter.com/PYdxjiMt1j

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) June 19, 2023

---

Liberals in D.C. continuously show they are more afraid of China than they are of Russia....no mater what they say deep down they just don't fear the military power of Russia like they do China.

One might even suspect they have soft spot in their hearts for all tyrannical Marxist-Leninist controlled countries.

Left wing totalitarianism is just super duper attractive to them.

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.

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.

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.

⚡️ISW: Ukrainian forces may be temporarily pausing counteroffensive operations to reevaluate tactics.

The Institute for the Study of War quoted the head of the Estonian Defense Forces Intelligence Center Colonel Margo Grosberg who said on June 16 that "we won't see an offensive…

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) June 19, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

⚡️ISW: Ukrainian forces may be temporarily pausing counteroffensive operations to reevaluate tactics.

The Institute for the Study of War quoted the head of the Estonian Defense Forces Intelligence Center Colonel Margo Grosberg who said on June 16 that "we won't see an offensive…

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) June 19, 2023

---

From the comments:

Quote:

---

UA Rezident Telegram;

"Our source in the OP said that Zelensky is skeptical about Zaluzhny's proposal to stop the Azov operation in order to prevent the Kremlin from declaring the failure of the counteroffensive. Bankova believes that enemy propaganda uses any operational pause at the front to discredit the ability of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to liberate Ukrainian territories."

---

This is becoming a pattern with Zelensky. It's the same instinct that caused him to disregard advice and roar "Hold Bakhmut!" on American TV at the moment Ukrainian lines were collapsing, and spend months throwing good resources after bad in vain pursuit of a public relations coup. If he were smart he would take time to regroup and replan. But since the counteroffensive is mainly another PR operation, he can't afford to stop without a marketable "victory" to sell Congress and the Western media.

Ukraine pauses counteroffensive in the face of Russian air superiority, heavy losseshttps://t.co/yjqT9KTChy

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 19, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Ukraine pauses counteroffensive in the face of Russian air superiority, heavy losseshttps://t.co/yjqT9KTChy

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 19, 2023

---

Celebrating Juneteenth?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Ukraine pauses counteroffensive in the face of Russian air superiority, heavy losseshttps://t.co/yjqT9KTChy

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 19, 2023

---

Celebrating Juneteenth?

---

More likely Pride Month.

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.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

We support Ukraine independence but not Taiwan.

Geopolitics and war is about money. No matter what you've been told, it's about money.

Biden Sec. of State Antony Blinken: "We do not support Taiwan independence." pic.twitter.com/PYdxjiMt1j

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) June 19, 2023

---

Liberals in D.C. continuously show they are more afraid of China than they are of Russia....no mater what they say deep down they just don't fear the military power of Russia like they do China.

One might even suspect they have soft spot in their hearts for all tyrannical Marxist-Leninist controlled countries.

Left wing totalitarianism is just super duper attractive to them.

---

Your first statement is true, but your reasoning is wrong.

China is a considerably greater power than Russia. China has intent and ability to sharply curtail vital American interests in Asia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).