Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
sombear said:
Bizarre response. You are the one disregarding the strong majority of Ukrainians. Obviously nobody can speak for every Ukrainian. Brutal straw man there. Strange that it bothers you so much that they want to fight for their country.
I'd like to think I'd fight to defend my country. Would you?
And what do dodgers have to do with anything. That's the case in all wars. It's as old as time.
You are shilling for a war in Eastern Europe when your own country is being invaded right now.
200,000 illegal invaders over the borders monthly.
A war our own intelligence agencies in large part helped to start by overthrowing the last government in Kyiv and helping to scuttle any peace deals since.
lol give me a freaking break
you give us a freaking break with the freaking false dilemmas. If we shut down the Ukraine show tomorrow, it will have no impact on the border whatsoever.
We have to engage and win on BOTH problems.
One of those issues is a possible existential problem for the USA and its future survival as a nation-state.
At best it will determine if the USA will be ruled by a political coalition of progressive coastal liberals and destitute 3rd worlders for the foreseeable future.
The other is a rusting out ex-Soviet state that has never been an ally of ours or in our sphere of influence.
It's not a problem for Americans at all really.
again, you are just defining away Russia as a non-threat, instead of looking at current realities, history, geo-politics, etc.....
And Russian actions in Ukraine was the galvanizing force. Nato is supporting Ukraine, too, as well as starting to rebuild their armies....because they see exactly what you ignore = Russian expansionism is a current threat…
And yes, Russian expansionism against Nato is every bit as great a threat as what is happening on the Southern border. .
if you had no strawman, you'd have no argument at all.
Russia does not have to invade a Nato nation to destablize it. Slovakia already has a pro-Russian PM (head of a small party leading a coalition govt.
Oh gotta democracy is destabilizing huh?
You really do sound like you work for some DC neo-con
/liberal interventionist outfit.
Democracy is bad in other countries when it comes to conclusions DC does not like
If the Slovaks want to be a good terms with Russia it's not actually "destabilizing" anymore than if a party gets elected that follows an opposite policy
Your arguments basically boils down to "Russia exists so it's a threat"
again, you revert to genetic fallacy rather than deal with facts and geo-political realities.
And those facts are = Nato exists. Voluntarily. Not one nation was forced to join. Not one nation has even been forced to make their pledged annual contribution. But all member nations, including the USA, have agreed to common defense, to include nuclear exchange, should the alliance be attacked. So rising threats to the Nato alliance are relevant. (a point you studiously avoid).
It is true that invasion of Nato by Russia appears neither likely nor imminent at this time, given the limits of Russian abilities on their best day, degraded over time by years of war. But Russia has miscalculated in Ukraine. Badly. How can we blithely assume they would not do so at some point in the future re Nato? (we can't.)
And invasion is not the only threat. I've laid it out many, many times for you. The pendulum swings in democracy. Political coalitions rise and fall. Right now, pro-EU forces are ascendant all across Europe. At some point, forces more favorable to Russia will win an election. The template is partially formed in Slovakia, although barely so (but it does show I'm not contriving unrealities). The proximity of Russian armies to those dynamics is a VERY material factor (yet another one you ignore). Nothing would strengthen pro-Russian dynamics in a European democracy more than a Russian army just across the border. Such would cause pro-EU forces to equivocate, to hedge bets. And it would cause pro-Russia forces to be more confident, aggressive. The scales of influence over time would time more toward Russia...... Just basic geopolitics 101. Gunboat diplomacy has a wiki page, ya know.....
How does Russian victory in Ukraine benefit the USA?
How does Russian victory in Ukraine lead to more rather than less stability?
(i could go on for a while with pertinent questions like that. and the answer for all of them is "it doesn't.")
You have no geopolitical policy at all except to do nothing, particularly where Russia is concerned. yours is the worldview that disengages to let forces find their own equilibrium, sleeps like a baby for a decade or so, then wakes up one morning to news videos of an general in an Eastern Europe Nato member announcing (while flanked by known, plain-clothed Russian military advisors) that he is now the head of state, after weeks of tumultuous and ultimately unsuccessful efforts by various parties to put together a shaky ruling coalition. ("shaky coalitions" are a problem - if do you not think domestic politics in Israel affected the timing of the Hamas decision to launch an attack, you are not thinking clearly). you look down at your desk and see frantic traffic from Foggy Bottom saying that other Nato states area all reporting that their liaison officers in that country have been restricted to house arrest, pending investigations of corruption. And now, your fear is.....will those Russian armies in Ukraine (or Belarus) be invited across the border to help stabilize the new government? And at that moment we will not be able to drive a sixteen-penny nail up your ass with a sledgehammer.
Dude, that is exactly how the next world war is GOING to start. Only questions are when, and WHERE. At this moment in time, we have a lot more influence right now over "where" than we do "when." That question is being argued as we speak on the Black Sea coast east of the Dnieper River. Our policy should be to keep those Russian armies in Russia, and if they step across borders, support anyone who will oppose them. IT is a very limited and cheap policy, even if lightweights refuse to understand it.
Speaking of straw men. Acknowledging a Russian sphere of influence is not "disengagement." It was an integral part of our policy until the unprecedented overreach of the last couple of decades.
There is a consistent theme in your arguments: "Often wrong, never in doubt."
"Sphere of influence" is a thing. But it's not "sphere of influence" when you invade it to subsume it into your state. In such a case, your "sphere of influence" doesn't just go away. It moves further out. It moves into the "sphere of influence" of others. (note your argument is premised on that concept....) And when you try to move your sphere of influence into that of others.......conflict occurs. The conflict in Ukraine is an effort to keep the Russian sphere of influence from becoming the eastern tier of Nato states.
In Political Geography, "spheres of influence" are called "shatter zones." The term itself belies the reality that spheres of influence always overlap. Where they overlap, they conflict. The goal is to keep that conflict political, economic...to seek influence rather than control, as control inherently invites military action. And if military action occurs, the goal is to keep it between proxies. That conflict over time ebbs & flows. If a major power miscalculates, it can expect to see its position in the shatter zone deteriorate, sometimes temporarily, sometimes not.
Nato would have been quite happy to have let Ukraine continue to be Ukraine, a corrupt buffer state between Nato and Russia. But Russia wasn't happy with that. So Russia invaded. And here we are. The appropriate response for Nato is not to say "oh, well. Russia deserves Ukraine. Let 'em have it. Russian armies moving 600mi closer to our capitals will have no impact on our security whatsoever..." because that is a quaintly Pollyanna take on geo-politics.
The fatal flaw in your analysis is stasis = it presumes that Russia is entitled to the sphere of influence it had in 1990. It further assumes a number of things downstream from that - that the events of 1991 are irrelevant, that Nato has a duty to stand back and let Russia reconstitute its former glory, that the states within the shatter zone have no agency in the course of affairs.
Only a Russian nationalist could reasonably expect such to be so. It's just not the way things work....have ever worked or will ever work. The Russian sphere of influence in 1990 was a historic maximum. It was also unsustainable. Patently, as history has demonstrated = Russia had a cataclysmic collapse in 1991. The state itself dissolved and got smaller. That by definition changed the location of the shatterzone. In central Asia, Turkey and Iran and China moved in to contest Russian influence, which is partly or wholly gone, depending on the state in question. Similarly, it's position in eastern Europe also collapsed. The shatterzone moved eastward several hundred miles, to Belarus and Ukraine. Russia was not content with a 600mi buffer between itself and Nato. So it invaded. That was an incredibly foolish thing to do. They are going to pay dearly for it. As they should. If they want their former glory back, they are going to have to earn it.
"Delusions of grandeur"
"Champaign taste on a beer budget"
"Biting off more than one can chew"
"Appetite exceeding arsehole"
Just a few of the ways to describe Russian nationalism.
At some point, they have to reminded that they have a lot of growing up to do.
Same is true for your foreign policy analysis, btw....
