People of Taiwan will be put under the same or worse conditions that Russia would do to Ukraine if Russia won.whiterock said:Ukraine already IS an independent country.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
Taiwan is not.
I subscribe to DW, but they are spinning this statement up to be more than it is . The one-China policy has been the basis of US/China relations since the Nixon administration. Nothing really new here.
Now, if China wants to go to war to settle the Taiwan issue, all bets are off the table. If they can't take it, they will lose it.
Why Are We in Ukraine?
412,602 Views |
6267 Replies |
Last: 24 min ago by The_barBEARian
No. We have agents leaking classified docs, spying on campaigns, running false narratives and hiding information from congress.FLBear5630 said:No, you have it wrong. It is the Politicians sticking their noses into the day to day operations of Agencies. Agencies have missions, politics and individual agendas have no place in those agencies. Bureaucracies are not a bad thing, it is what Politicians do to them. Let the career public servants that spend their lives in their specialized areas do their job.Doc Holliday said: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.FLBear5630 said:Do away with the CIA??? Sure, let's blind ourselves and get rid of any capabilities to operate overseas. Yeah. that makes sense.ATL Bear said: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.Redbrickbear said: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.ATL Bear said:That's a terrible idea. Their duties would go to the NSA and FBI. Two organizations who regularly spy on Americans.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.
They want more power and they're getting it. They spend extraordinary amounts of money and fail to deliver results that amount of money should warrant.
I'm not saying we don't need bureaucracy, but what we have today is unacceptable and dangerous.
1 - Who said the goal was keeping Ukraine unstable. Russia leaving the sovereign nation THEY INVADED allowing Ukraine to join the EU and stabilizing Europe would be preferable.Sam Lowry said:Your premises are faulty:whiterock said:Three mega-faulty premises:Sam Lowry said:I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.whiterock said: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.Sam Lowry said:Yep.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.”
— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
2 - Russia invaded a Nation they agreed to the borders in the 1990's and got all the former Soviet Unions nuclear weapons. If invading an area that used to be under your control doesn't qualify are "rebuilding their area of influence" I am not sure what does.
3 - No Putin has undone Gorbachev's actions, there is a difference. Read a little about Putin and his thoughts on Gorbachev's Glasnost. Putin is not reacting to the US, he is reacting to Gorbachev's policies he disagrees with whole heartily. He would take back the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Czech, E Germany and every other Nation that left if he could. They were already taken into NATO, so Reagan's policy is working as Putin will not touch them. Ukraine is his only move. This is not about US, it is about Russia.
We heard from a source in the Ukrainian government this was happening last year. "Hundreds" of prisoners of war had been returned, alive, but castrated.
— Jimmy Rushton (@JimmySecUK) June 17, 2023
We didn't report this at the time, as it was deemed it could add to the trauma the men had suffered.https://t.co/Le2jBl2Q0R
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Blackrock gets half a trillion dollar deal to “rebuild” Ukraine.
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) June 20, 2023
What a spontaneous & shocking coincidence. https://t.co/WVJmsfbwUT
Ya, pretty sure this is really why we are there. The globabist plan all along.
Absolutely.muddybrazos said:Blackrock gets half a trillion dollar deal to “rebuild” Ukraine.
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) June 20, 2023
What a spontaneous & shocking coincidence. https://t.co/WVJmsfbwUT
Ya, pretty sure this is really why we are there. The globabist plan all along.
How do you miss $6.2 billion?! These bureaucrats are totally incompetent.
You miss a couple million at a private company and your ass gets fired instantly. A bureaucracy misses $6.2 billion and it's no big deal.
You miss a couple million at a private company and your ass gets fired instantly. A bureaucracy misses $6.2 billion and it's no big deal.
BREAKING: ‘Accounting error’ provides extra $6.2 BILLION for Ukraine pic.twitter.com/xRuhAeLF6S
— Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) June 20, 2023
🧵🧵🧵on Ukranian Counteroffensive:
— Nathan Carson (@ndcarson) June 20, 2023
Operations in Ukraine are currently a Rorschach test. People see what they want to confirm their existing biases.
Truth is it's too soon to tell the outcome. 1/n pic.twitter.com/VxOaww00eP
As the war drags on, many in the US grow increasingly wary of continued support for Ukraine. This is underscored by the fact the US is rapidly depleting its own munition reserves as it faces growing threats from China and Iran. 8/n
— Nathan Carson (@ndcarson) June 20, 2023
We had nazi sympathizers in WW2. Every country has garbage citizens to deal with,
Whoa...comparing the enemy with Hitler puts things in a whole new perspective. Why in the world didn't anyone think of that before.ron.reagan said:
We had nazi sympathizers in WW2. Every country has garbage citizens to deal with,
In March 2022, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett traveled to Moscow to mediate between Putin and Zelensky. He extracted significant concessions from Putin. But then, he said, the U.S. blocked any deal. War was the plan all along. #Kennedy24 https://t.co/nFMtE8zlOX
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 20, 2023
Redbrickbear said:In March 2022, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett traveled to Moscow to mediate between Putin and Zelensky. He extracted significant concessions from Putin. But then, he said, the U.S. blocked any deal. War was the plan all along. #Kennedy24 https://t.co/nFMtE8zlOX
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 20, 2023
Lol. I like RFK2, but thinking Putin was going to give concessions is like asking the stove to not burn your hand.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Your premises are faulty:whiterock said:Three mega-faulty premises:Sam Lowry said:I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.whiterock said: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.Sam Lowry said:Yep.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.”
— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Russia should have been able to easily execute a shock & awe campaign to topple the Ukrainian government, invading from the country from THREE sides. It couldn't. Ukraine, a fledgling democratic system, fought Russia, a recalcitrant autocracy, to a standstill.....a great big corrupt kleptocracy with nuclear weapons willing to use military force to reshape borders for its own enrichment in a way which drastically exposes Nato to greater risk of instability and/or invasion. And yet, you argue that it is in our best interests to let Russia win and Ukraine become a satellite station with Russian army bases and Russian nuclear weapons.
You are certifiably loony.
Note the context of RFKJR's post = Russia is trying to move the conflict to mediation; Ukraine is launching a counter-offensive.trey3216 said:Redbrickbear said:In March 2022, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett traveled to Moscow to mediate between Putin and Zelensky. He extracted significant concessions from Putin. But then, he said, the U.S. blocked any deal. War was the plan all along. #Kennedy24 https://t.co/nFMtE8zlOX
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 20, 2023
Lol. I like RFK2, but thinking Putin was going to give concessions is like asking the stove to not burn your hand.
whiterock said:Note the context of RFKJR's post = Russia is trying to move the conflict to mediation; Ukraine is launching a counter-offensive.trey3216 said:Redbrickbear said:In March 2022, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett traveled to Moscow to mediate between Putin and Zelensky. He extracted significant concessions from Putin. But then, he said, the U.S. blocked any deal. War was the plan all along. #Kennedy24 https://t.co/nFMtE8zlOX
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 20, 2023
Lol. I like RFK2, but thinking Putin was going to give concessions is like asking the stove to not burn your hand.
Of course Russia now wants mediation, they have Crimes and Donbas, what they wanted. They invaded, are giving up nothing and expect Ukraine to settle. This will set them up for the next stage in several years to invade again. Ukraine would be foolish to settle.
The problem with the article and most of the arguments on this thread, is they ingore what we should have learned from history. The same arguments were used to appease Hitler, and to cast doubt on Germany's desire and financial ability to invade its neighbors, much less wage war. The US and its allies have been engaged since WWII in preventing authoritarian, autocratic regimes around the world, in the interest of national security, not just since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nato has been a useful tool, and ally since WWII, including in our response to 9/11. Like it or not, we can't afford to be isolationists, in the face of countries like Russia, China, Iran, etc.
The friendship between Moscow and Tel Aviv is puzzling. I understood it was an agreement concerning Syria but to trust Moscow is like trusting word on these message boards lol.
Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.whiterock said:If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Your premises are faulty:whiterock said:Three mega-faulty premises:Sam Lowry said:I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.whiterock said: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.Sam Lowry said:Yep.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.”
— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
You misspelled "promoting."TexasScientist said:
The problem with the article and most of the arguments on this thread, is they ingore what we should have learned from history. The same arguments were used to appease Hitler, and to cast doubt on Germany's desire and financial ability to invade its neighbors, much less wage war. The US and its allies have been engaged since WWII in preventing authoritarian, autocratic regimes around the world, in the interest of national security, not just since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nato has been a useful tool, and ally since WWII, including in our response to 9/11. Like it or not, we can't afford to be isolationists, in the face of countries like Russia, China, Iran, etc.
Strolling across the landbridge from Marxist Revolutionary State to Authoritarian Socialist State isn't changing a whole lot.Sam Lowry said:Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.whiterock said:If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Your premises are faulty:whiterock said:Three mega-faulty premises:Sam Lowry said:I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.whiterock said: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.Sam Lowry said:Yep.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.”
— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
It changes everything. There are plenty of authoritarian states and always will be. The very foundation of Soviet communism was not just revolution, but worldwide revolution.trey3216 said:Strolling across the landbridge from Marxist Revolutionary State to Authoritarian Socialist State isn't changing a whole lot.Sam Lowry said:Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.whiterock said:If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Your premises are faulty:whiterock said:Three mega-faulty premises:Sam Lowry said:I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.whiterock said: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.Sam Lowry said:Yep.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.”
— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
I told yall.Doc Holliday said:
Russia and US are gonna divvy the spoils of Ukraine and neither wants a bunch of militias and tough guys resisting when they bring in their industries. That's the point of this war.
Blackrock gets half a trillion dollar deal to “rebuild” Ukraine.
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) June 20, 2023
What a spontaneous & shocking coincidence. https://t.co/WVJmsfbwUT
Why?Aliceinbubbleland said:
The friendship between Moscow and Tel Aviv is puzzling. I understood it was an agreement concerning Syria but to trust Moscow is like trusting word on these message boards lol.
They are both highly militarized societies that are engaged in the occupation of a much weaker neighbors against the expressed purpose of the UN charter and various international laws.
Both commit war crimes on a regular basis. Both have nukes.
Both have very powerful intelligence services that interfere within the civilian political process (FSB-Mossad) and both are quickly becoming international pariah states.
One just happens to be poor...and the other far more economically successful. And one is a mulit-ethnic Federation ruled over by a oligarchy while the other is a race based ethno-state.
A bunch of dead Ukrainians delivers no resistance to western monopolization of a huge piece of eastern Europe which will end up benefiting Russia down the road.Redbrickbear said:Why?Aliceinbubbleland said:
The friendship between Moscow and Tel Aviv is puzzling. I understood it was an agreement concerning Syria but to trust Moscow is like trusting word on these message boards lol.
They are both highly militarized societies that are engaged in the occupation of a much weaker neighbors against the expressed purpose of the UN charter and various international laws.
Both commit war crimes on a regular basis. Both have nukes.
Both have very powerful intelligence services that interfere within the civilian political process (FSB-Mossad) and both are quickly becoming international pariah states.
One just happens to be poor...and the other far more economically successful. And one is a mulit-ethnic Federation ruled over by a oligarchy while the other is a race based ethno-state.
Russia will pull back and massive corporations move in. I hate that I keep having to remind people that this world is about money and power. Always has been, but we want to believe in Hollywood fairytales.
I keep thinking about this. https://t.co/EdJWqMdcGi
— Rudy Havenstein, bilaterally netting. (@RudyHavenstein) October 25, 2022
Yep. Eisenhowser was correct.muddybrazos said:Blackrock gets half a trillion dollar deal to “rebuild” Ukraine.
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) June 20, 2023
What a spontaneous & shocking coincidence. https://t.co/WVJmsfbwUT
Ya, pretty sure this is really why we are there. The globabist plan all along.
Yep. Lock in gains now, as time holds greater risk of loss than prospects for gain.FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Note the context of RFKJR's post = Russia is trying to move the conflict to mediation; Ukraine is launching a counter-offensive.trey3216 said:Redbrickbear said:In March 2022, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett traveled to Moscow to mediate between Putin and Zelensky. He extracted significant concessions from Putin. But then, he said, the U.S. blocked any deal. War was the plan all along. #Kennedy24 https://t.co/nFMtE8zlOX
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 20, 2023
Lol. I like RFK2, but thinking Putin was going to give concessions is like asking the stove to not burn your hand.
Of course Russia now wants mediation, they have Crimes and Donbas, what they wanted. They invaded, are giving up nothing and expect Ukraine to settle. This will set them up for the next stage in several years to invade again. Ukraine would be foolish to settle.
Yeah and idiots will give it to him and wonder why he invades again in 3 years.whiterock said:Yep. Lock in gains now, as time holds greater risk of loss than prospects for gain.FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Note the context of RFKJR's post = Russia is trying to move the conflict to mediation; Ukraine is launching a counter-offensive.trey3216 said:Redbrickbear said:In March 2022, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett traveled to Moscow to mediate between Putin and Zelensky. He extracted significant concessions from Putin. But then, he said, the U.S. blocked any deal. War was the plan all along. #Kennedy24 https://t.co/nFMtE8zlOX
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 20, 2023
Lol. I like RFK2, but thinking Putin was going to give concessions is like asking the stove to not burn your hand.
Of course Russia now wants mediation, they have Crimes and Donbas, what they wanted. They invaded, are giving up nothing and expect Ukraine to settle. This will set them up for the next stage in several years to invade again. Ukraine would be foolish to settle.
Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?Sam Lowry said:Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.whiterock said:If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Your premises are faulty:whiterock said:Three mega-faulty premises:Sam Lowry said:I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.whiterock said: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.Sam Lowry said:Yep.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.”
— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.
Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.
LOL. I swear, Red. You are hatin' you some Israel.Redbrickbear said:Why?Aliceinbubbleland said:
The friendship between Moscow and Tel Aviv is puzzling. I understood it was an agreement concerning Syria but to trust Moscow is like trusting word on these message boards lol.
They are both highly militarized societies that are engaged in the occupation of a much weaker neighbors against the expressed purpose of the UN charter and various international laws.
Both commit war crimes on a regular basis. Both have nukes.
Both have very powerful intelligence services that interfere within the civilian political process (FSB-Mossad) and both are quickly becoming international pariah states.
One just happens to be poor...and the other far more economically successful. And one is a mulit-ethnic Federation ruled over by a oligarchy while the other is a race based ethno-state.
Reality is this: Moscow has substantial military presence in Syria as well as de facto control over the Assad regime as well as warm, cooperative relationships with Iran, who in addition to military presence & influence in Syria also controls the Hizballah militias in Lebanon whose areas of control are contiguous with Israel.
Israel is wise not to poke the bear.
Israel can and should take every opportunity to persuade the bear to restrain Iran, Assad, Hizballah, etc....
All of that said, are y'all aware that Israel just sold 200 early-version Merkavas to Poland? (allowing Poland to ship more of its dated inventory to Ukraine.....)
Israel is playing the game adroitly (as it usually does).
Israel understands and uses Realpolitik better than anyone on earth...whiterock said:LOL. I swear, Red. You are hatin' you some Israel.Redbrickbear said:Why?Aliceinbubbleland said:
The friendship between Moscow and Tel Aviv is puzzling. I understood it was an agreement concerning Syria but to trust Moscow is like trusting word on these message boards lol.
They are both highly militarized societies that are engaged in the occupation of a much weaker neighbors against the expressed purpose of the UN charter and various international laws.
Both commit war crimes on a regular basis. Both have nukes.
Both have very powerful intelligence services that interfere within the civilian political process (FSB-Mossad) and both are quickly becoming international pariah states.
One just happens to be poor...and the other far more economically successful. And one is a mulit-ethnic Federation ruled over by a oligarchy while the other is a race based ethno-state.
Reality is this: Moscow has substantial military presence in Syria as well as de facto control over the Assad regime as well as warm, cooperative relationships with Iran, who in addition to military presence & influence in Syria also controls the Hizballah militias in Lebanon whose areas of control are contiguous with Israel.
Israel is wise not to poke the bear.
Israel can and should take every opportunity to persuade the bear to restrain Iran, Assad, Hizballah, etc....
All of that said, are y'all aware that Israel just sold 200 early-version Merkavas to Poland? (allowing Poland to ship more of its dated inventory to Ukraine.....)
Israel is playing the game adroitly (as it usually does).
Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.whiterock said:Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?Sam Lowry said:Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.whiterock said:If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?Sam Lowry said: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.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Your premises are faulty:whiterock said:Three mega-faulty premises:Sam Lowry said:I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.whiterock said: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.Sam Lowry said:Yep.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.”
— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 17, 2023
— Colonel Lieutenant of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Services, Desyatnik pic.twitter.com/2u2aL2pFAM
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.
Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.
LOL going back a lot of decades there to fit your narrative....Quote:Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.Quote:Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?Quote:Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.Quote:If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?Quote: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.Quote:Quote:Your premises are faulty:Quote:Three mega-faulty premises:Quote:I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.Quote:
Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.
Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.
If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.
Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.
Putin's regime is only transitional in that it's a transition BACK to traditional Russian oligarchic autocracy.
If we cannot persuade Russia to change policies which are threatening to the world order, we must then evaluate cost/benefit/risk of changing the policy via changing regime. In many cases, one must actually demonstrate both ability and clear intent to change regime as a way to force the existing regime to change policy. But if that doesn't work then you're back to changing regime as a way to change policy.
America did not invent that dynamic.
America has abused that dynamic less than any great power in history.
What Russia did in Ukraine is an existential threat to the modern order which has kept peace in Europe for many decades. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is good policy to force Russia to endure the dilemma of either withdrawing from Ukraine or risking systemic collapse. They can make the choice, but they will have to deal with the consequences, either way. We did not create their current difficulties. We are holding them accountable for terrible policy choices..
I'll concede we've promoted some over those who were believed to more autocratic and supressive, and not alinged with western ideals and interests.Sam Lowry said:You misspelled "promoting."TexasScientist said:
The problem with the article and most of the arguments on this thread, is they ingore what we should have learned from history. The same arguments were used to appease Hitler, and to cast doubt on Germany's desire and financial ability to invade its neighbors, much less wage war. The US and its allies have been engaged since WWII in preventing authoritarian, autocratic regimes around the world, in the interest of national security, not just since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nato has been a useful tool, and ally since WWII, including in our response to 9/11. Like it or not, we can't afford to be isolationists, in the face of countries like Russia, China, Iran, etc.
Oh, you don't have to go back that far. Iraq in 2003 is an equally good example. Even the Ukrainian coup in 2014 had our fingerprints on it. Attacking any regime that doesn't go along with our policy preferences is a threat to the modern order and a violation of international law. Something else to consider, which is perhaps more important from your point of view, is that it fails to create the dilemma you speak of. Putin saw what we did to Saddam Hussein. If he knows we're out to get him no matter what he does, the choice between acting preemptively and not acting is really no choice at all. All stick, no carrot is not the brilliant strategy you think.whiterock said:LOL going back a lot of decades there to fit your narrative....Quote:Absent some extraordinary threat, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding when regime change is a good or bad thing. If Ukraine can accomplish it, let them. You have to earn it...isn't that what you said? But to answer your question, regime change has proved to be as unpredictable as it is destructive. Starting with Iran in 1953, which led to 1979, which led to state sponsorship of terrorism, etc. I could multiply examples, but you know them already. We've developed an almost wanton obsession with burning down any political establishment that we don't like, and increasingly it applies to our own democracy as well. That's why I've described right-wing foreign and domestic policies as similarly nihilistic. Putin's regime is a product of its time, a transitional regime in many ways, but one that is generally supported by Russians and capable of working with the rest of the world if we'll work with it. That's not something that should be lightly overthrown in favor of who knows what and for the benefit of who knows who.Quote:Why would regime change in Russia be a bad thing for America or Nato? When did you become a Putin supporter?Quote:Because it's the only thing that might deter the USA from its ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. It would have been better for Ukraine to remain neutral, had we been content to allow it, but an alliance with Russia is no more a catastrophe now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It fact it's less so, considering that Russia is no longer a Marxist revolutionary state.Quote:If we don't support Ukraine, Russia will wear them down and win. Why on earth would you want that to happen....to make Russia stronger by allowing them to win?Quote: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.Quote:Quote:Your premises are faulty:Quote:Three mega-faulty premises:Quote:I don't know what you mean by "they couldn't pull it off on their own." I don't see anyone helping them.Quote:
Except they couldn't pull it off on their own. And now we see their attempt has totally changed the perspectives of the peoples living there.
Realpolitik is this: if we let Russia gain the Donbas, they will be back in months-years wanting every thing east of the Dnieper. Then, they'll want Odessa.
If they are able to gain territory thusly, it is a successful policy.
Nations do not abandon successful policies.
Until they are stopped.
Why not now?
Why let this problem nibble its way to Nato borders?
Then start nibbling away at Nato borders?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Ukraine WAS neutral....until Russia invaded! Ukraine had not even applied for Nato-partner status at the time of the invasion. By that particular standard you've erected, Russia would have had more basis for invading Sweden and Finland than Ukraine.
Ukraine alliance with Russia would be the most serious erosion of Nato security since the fall of the USSR. Nato has every right to make good faith efforts to stop that, is doing so, and will likely succeed.
Putin's regime is only transitional in that it's a transition BACK to traditional Russian oligarchic autocracy.
If we cannot persuade Russia to change policies which are threatening to the world order, we must then evaluate cost/benefit/risk of changing the policy via changing regime. In many cases, one must actually demonstrate both ability and clear intent to change regime as a way to force the existing regime to change policy. But if that doesn't work then you're back to changing regime as a way to change policy.
America did not invent that dynamic.
America has abused that dynamic less than any great power in history.
What Russia did in Ukraine is an existential threat to the modern order which has kept peace in Europe for many decades. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is good policy to force Russia to endure the dilemma of either withdrawing from Ukraine or risking systemic collapse. They can make the choice, but they will have to deal with the consequences, either way. We did not create their current difficulties. We are holding them accountable for terrible policy choices..
I saw an article in Foreign Affairs yesterday that would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. These people admit they have no idea what would happen after Putin was toppled, even admit that failed states or new dictatorships are the typical results, yet they imagine that with Putin gone somehow liberal democracy will magically spring forth in his place. And Ukraine is supposed to be the catalyst for all this. It's not a serious policy. It's daydreaming with no basis in reality. We've proved that over and over again. But it's always going to be different next time...or so they've been telling us for decades.