Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They are always ready to fight to the last dead Ukrainian.

All the while telling us victory against Putler is just another $100 billion in US taxpayer cash away from happening.

---

For someone who speaks out so often against meddling, you sure have no problem speaking for the Ukrainian people. As has been the case in most countries throughout history, Ukrainians overwhelmingly want to defend their country. Most are willing to risk their lives.

.

---

Tens of thousands of eastern Ukrainians have been fighting since 2014 to get independence from the U.S. backed government in Kyiv.

And let's not forget the many thousands and thousands fleeing out of the country to avoid fighting in this proxy war.

The Ukrainian people are not of a single mind on this war… you sure as hell don't know what they all think.

You wanna get your balls blown off fighting the big bad russkies then get on a plane buddy and head over.

Zelensky would be happy to have another pawn.

---

and many of those "tens of thousands" were ordered to fight against Ukraine at the barrel of a Russian rifle. Let's not forget the 3mm+ St. Pete and Muscovite men that fled their country so they don't get marched to slaughter in Andiivka and Bakhmut at the orders of their General Major Lieutenant Sergeant

---

Sure, both sides are forcing men to fight who don't want to.

DC and Moscow don't care about their proxy forces. And there are lots of people on both sides who don't want to fight this conflict.

---

The only people forcing Ukrainians to fight are Russians. Not proxies, but actual Russian military regulars.

But I thought you said DC cared too much? Which is it? They don't care so they let them get slaughtered, or they care too much about them and not the American people that they waste Billions of our tax dollars on Ukrainians?

---

You think DC is not getting a huge cut from that money being spent?

You don't think DC is making money by insider trading on defense stocks?


They obviously don't care about dead Ukrainians anymore than they care about dead Iraqis, afghans, or Syrians


Heck they don't even really care about Americans

---

it's not really insider trading when they're literally at war, and when we knew they were going to be at war,

---

Again they…not us


When the heck did Ukraine become a part of the USA or even an enrolled rally of the USA?

You and the rest of the boomers on here act like we are obligated to spend billions on this corrupt falling apart Eastern European State that apparently can't remain on good terms with its larger neighbor.

A corrupt state than could not even beat some separatists in the Donbas.

But yes I agree that DC insides saw the conflict coming, rooted it on, and have profited obscenely on the bloodshed since.

---

boomer?!! lol, I'm like 5 years older than you

---

the genetic fallacy is part of his DNA.

All he can do is whine that Russia is no threat to us, as if the Cold War never happened. As if the last 20 years of Russian aggression never happened..

---

Yea I forgot now Russia has been moving its military alliance closer to our borders and building up bases right on our door step over the last 20 years




In reality is the geopolitical situation is more like:

---

Thank you RedbrickRussianbear, but you forget that the current landscape vis-a-vis Russia is due the Soviet Union callapse under Western policy. The landscape that Putin wants to return to is much different, and far more harsh and repressive on the territories Putin wants to reclaim.

---

NATO and its 31 nations and its 950 million citizens (including some of the richest most economically powerful nations on earth- USA, UK, France, Germany) will never be safe until we get a US military base located inside the Kermlin walls….and another mobile base located in Putin's butt hole.


Only then will we finally be safe

---

That's what it took with Benito and Adolph. The problem is, they didn't have nukes to leverage their aggression.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why don't you move to Russia, post a bunch of stuff critical of the government and report back on which nations are enemies of freedom?

---

Try being an American journalist sentenced to slow death in a Ukrainian prison. Or a Russian blogger blown up in a cafe full of bystanders. Or a family shot to death in their car at a Ukrainian checkpoint. Or a nurse at a hospital in Donetsk, where Ukraine was bombing civilians for a decade until Russia put a stop to it.

---

You mean when Ukraine was fighting Russian soldiers that were running and fighting with Ukrainian citizens for promises of monetary gain in a new breakaway 'state' that would be absorbed into Russia?

---

Let's all just be honest… the whole idea a "Ukraine state" is fake.

The central and western parts (old Ruthenia)..want to be in the West (culturally, economically-EU, militarily-NATO, etc)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenia#:~:text=The%20word%20Ruthenia%20originated%20as,end%20of%20the%2017th%20century.

While the east wants to be aligned to Russia (old new Russia- Novorossiya)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya


It's long since time to divide up this modern entity into a more workable and longer lasting peace deal.


Let the west and central parts join the EU…let the East go with Russia

We can argue about where the lines should be drawn but not that some like of peace deal requires Russia accept that 2/3rds of Ukraine is going to the West. And for DC to accept that 1/3rd of Ukraine is going East.

Its unavoidable









p.s.

I know they misspelled ethnic as ethic…in that 2nd map…point stands

---

Thank you Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Putin.

---

You could have just as well said Napoleon, Hitler, Charles De Gualle


Not even George H W Bush thought Ukraine was a state able to sustain itself if the EU and Russia did not will it

---

Not sure any of your aforementioned had anything to do with the import of ethnic Russians or the starting of rebellions in those specific regions. But you do you.

---

Come on…Russians have been there since Peter the great (in very small numbers)

And in since Catherine the great and other monarchs (in large numbers in the east)


PS

Donetsk was established by a British guy

[The city of Donetsk was founded in 1869 by Welsh businessman John Hughes, who operated a steel plant and several coal mines at Aleksandrovka. The worker's settlement at the plant merged with Aleksandrovka and the place was named Yuzovo, later Yuzovka (Russian: , ), after Hughes.[10][11] In its early period, it received immigrants from Wales, especially from the town of Merthyr Tydfil.[12][13] By the beginning of the 20th century, Yuzovka had approximately 50,000 inhabitants,[14] and attained the status of a city in 1917.[15] The main district of Yuzovka is named English Colony, and the British origin of the city is reflected in its layout and architecture]

---

The Donetsk argument supports the position that this area is was not Russian and has a Western influence since the 1800s. Donetsk shows that this area associated itself with the West as far back as the 1800's. This supports the Ukrainians position that there future is with the west, they obviously have been able to taste both and prefer the West. But I guess Ukraine being under Russia's boot is more to somes liking...

News from Robert Fico.

1. Slovakia will use its veto power to block attempts to admit Ukraine to NATO.
2. Slovakia will no longer supply any weapons to Ukraine.
3. Slovakia does not consider Ukraine an independent country; it is completely controlled and administered by the…

— -- GEROMAN -- time will tell - 👀 -- (@GeromanAT) January 20, 2024

Has Russia surrendered yet ?

No ?


Ok toss in another 80 billion.

Frank Galvin said:

---

I see America as a flawed superpower that generally attempts to make the world freer and a place where market economies can work.

---

Your view of our nation's activities on the world stage is decades out of date.

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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. .

---

Is Russia so weak that it can be defeated by Ukraine or is it so strong it could start and win a direct confrontation with NATO? It can’t be both at once. https://t.co/8JXGZSVVIT

— James Kirkpatrick (@VDAREJamesK) December 30, 2023

---

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....

---

Your analysis begins with a patent falsehood and goes downhill from there. If we'd been content with Ukraine as a buffer state, we never would have tried to bring them into NATO.

Of course moving the line 600 miles to the west is dangerous. This is too obvious to mention. Yet with all your efforts, you cannot begin to fathom that moving it 600 miles to the east might be just as dangerous.

---

LOL the projection. Your first statement is a patent falsehood. At the time Putin invaded, there was neither an offer nor an application for Nato membership, or Nato partner status.

Seriously, dude. Get help.

---

LOL...you know perfectly well that doesn't disprove my point. Bringing Ukraine into NATO has been our stated objective since the George W. Bush administration. You've endorsed it several times yourself. It's laughably dishonest to suggest otherwise.

---

Geez, you can't get anything right. I have not endorsed it at all. I have expressed serious reservations about it, for the same exact reasons I want to keep Russia away from the current eastern flank of Nato - political instability in a NATO country bordering Russia is the scenario most likely to cause a war between Nato and Russia.

"Stated objective" is also a patent misrepresentation. Engaging in dialogue about the possibly of admitting a nation to NATO is not in any way an inevitable plan for membership. Entertaining vigorous debate in a free society on the wisdom of admitting (or not) a nation to NATO is not an irrevocable plan. Rather, you are imputing an irrational conclusion on this question because your argument requires such as its premise.

Your take on this also implies that you view free speech as a threat, just like Vlad.

---

You're obscuring the point with semantics. You said we were happy to let Ukraine continue as it was, a buffer state between NATO and Russia. That's just a plain lie, and we both know it.

Speech is only a threat when you use it to, you know, threaten. We knew bringing Ukraine into NATO was a threat to Russia. We just didn't think they could do anything about it. As is usually the case with our post-Cold War policy, we were wrong.

---

Not a lie at all.

Your argument only makes sense if one believes we have a duty to make public verbal rejections of membership applications which have not been made just to assuage the sensibilities of Russia. You insist that such is the cause of the war, yet no one in the world does such to assuage the sensibilities of the mightiest nation in the world (us).

we were quite happy to have a neutral Sweden and a neutral Finland as Nato partners. We would have been equally content to have a neutral Ukraine as a Nato partner. Only the latter hadn't even applied for partnership status. Because they did not qualify for it. And they knew they wouldn't get in, because they failed to meet a few basic Nato requirements like free/fair elections, lack of territorial disputes with neighbors, etc......

But. Because your opposition to US policy supporting Ukraine's self-defense against Russian invasion requires us to have been the bad guy pushing and goading both sides into a war......you impute exactly that into the argument without any actually factual basis to support it (other than spin).

Reality is, a wise power plays the influence game in the shatter zone to first & foremost deny hegemony to one's adversary. That game ebbs & flows. One decade you're up; the next you're down. Russia found itself down and decided it didn't need to play the long game, that US/Nato/Ukraine would not be able to summon the will to resist. Russia miscalculated. Badly. And now, Russia is paying for that. Dearly.

Redbrickbear said:

---

News from Robert Fico.

1. Slovakia will use its veto power to block attempts to admit Ukraine to NATO.
2. Slovakia will no longer supply any weapons to Ukraine.
3. Slovakia does not consider Ukraine an independent country; it is completely controlled and administered by the…

— -- GEROMAN -- time will tell - 👀 -- (@GeromanAT) January 20, 2024

---

there never has been a viable scenario where Ukraine gets voted into Nato.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

To portray Orthodox Christianity is completely incompatible with Western Civilization is quite a reach, certainly no fatal barrier to military alliance.

The divide between Orthodox and Catholic, in isolation, is no greater than the divide between Catholic and Protestant.

---

Orthodox Christianity is incompatible with what Western Civilization is becoming (a post-Christian, pagan culture). In fact, I suspect a significant amount of the animosity towards Russia that circulates inside the beltway is due to the apostasy of Russia from the socialist faith and its return to its Orthodox roots. Given current trends, it's highly likely that the only Christianity surviving in the west in another 20-40 years will be Orthodoxy.

---

Coulda said the exact opposite about Orthodoxy vs Western Christianity 40 years ago. Few thought the Orthodox Church would survive Communism. Oh, how wrong they were......

whiterock said:

---

Coulda said the exact opposite about Orthodoxy vs Western Christianity 40 years ago. Few thought the Orthodox Church would survive Communism. Oh, how wrong they were......

---

The difference between these things is that in the case of Orthodoxy, the conclusion would be based on persecution. In reality Christ told us that we would be persecuted, and yet the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. So those who drew that conclusion about Orthodoxy were drawing a wrong conclusion from the beginning based on false assumptions.

In the case of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism it is due to its apostasy from Christian morality and good order, not persecution. Given that, its future extinction in the west is as certain as those locations mentioned in Revelation, Sodom, and Gomorrah.

Realitybites said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

I see America as a flawed superpower that generally attempts to make the world freer and a place where market economies can work.

---

Your view of our nation's activities on the world stage is decades out of date.

---

Explanation?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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. .

---

Is Russia so weak that it can be defeated by Ukraine or is it so strong it could start and win a direct confrontation with NATO? It can’t be both at once. https://t.co/8JXGZSVVIT

— James Kirkpatrick (@VDAREJamesK) December 30, 2023

---

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....

---

Your analysis begins with a patent falsehood and goes downhill from there. If we'd been content with Ukraine as a buffer state, we never would have tried to bring them into NATO.

Of course moving the line 600 miles to the west is dangerous. This is too obvious to mention. Yet with all your efforts, you cannot begin to fathom that moving it 600 miles to the east might be just as dangerous.

---

LOL the projection. Your first statement is a patent falsehood. At the time Putin invaded, there was neither an offer nor an application for Nato membership, or Nato partner status.

Seriously, dude. Get help.

---

LOL...you know perfectly well that doesn't disprove my point. Bringing Ukraine into NATO has been our stated objective since the George W. Bush administration. You've endorsed it several times yourself. It's laughably dishonest to suggest otherwise.

---

Geez, you can't get anything right. I have not endorsed it at all. I have expressed serious reservations about it, for the same exact reasons I want to keep Russia away from the current eastern flank of Nato - political instability in a NATO country bordering Russia is the scenario most likely to cause a war between Nato and Russia.

"Stated objective" is also a patent misrepresentation. Engaging in dialogue about the possibly of admitting a nation to NATO is not in any way an inevitable plan for membership. Entertaining vigorous debate in a free society on the wisdom of admitting (or not) a nation to NATO is not an irrevocable plan. Rather, you are imputing an irrational conclusion on this question because your argument requires such as its premise.

Your take on this also implies that you view free speech as a threat, just like Vlad.

---

You're obscuring the point with semantics. You said we were happy to let Ukraine continue as it was, a buffer state between NATO and Russia. That's just a plain lie, and we both know it.

Speech is only a threat when you use it to, you know, threaten. We knew bringing Ukraine into NATO was a threat to Russia. We just didn't think they could do anything about it. As is usually the case with our post-Cold War policy, we were wrong.

---

Not a lie at all.

Your argument only makes sense if one believes we have a duty to make public verbal rejections of membership applications which have not been made just to assuage the sensibilities of Russia. You insist that such is the cause of the war, yet no one in the world does such to assuage the sensibilities of the mightiest nation in the world (us).

we were quite happy to have a neutral Sweden and a neutral Finland as Nato partners. We would have been equally content to have a neutral Ukraine as a Nato partner. Only the latter hadn't even applied for partnership status. Because they did not qualify for it. And they knew they wouldn't get in, because they failed to meet a few basic Nato requirements like free/fair elections, lack of territorial disputes with neighbors, etc......

But. Because your opposition to US policy supporting Ukraine's self-defense against Russian invasion requires us to have been the bad guy pushing and goading both sides into a war......you impute exactly that into the argument without any actually factual basis to support it (other than spin).

Reality is, a wise power plays the influence game in the shatter zone to first & foremost deny hegemony to one's adversary. That game ebbs & flows. One decade you're up; the next you're down. Russia found itself down and decided it didn't need to play the long game, that US/Nato/Ukraine would not be able to summon the will to resist. Russia miscalculated. Badly. And now, Russia is paying for that. Dearly.

---

So we'd be happy with a neutral Ukraine as long as it was a military ally and NATO member in all but name. Brilliant.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

I see America as a flawed superpower that generally attempts to make the world freer and a place where market economies can work.

---

Your view of our nation's activities on the world stage is decades out of date.

---

Explanation?

---

Here's what will happen. When the war ends, the Russian-controlled oblasts will at long last have some peace and security, along with a government that respects their culture, language, and religion.

The rest of Ukraine will have a barely functional puppet government stripped of any real power to act in the interests of its people. It will be held hostage to foreign aid and forced to accept relentless privatization. NGOs will effectively run the country while we snap up property at fire sale prices. What's left of the population will work to extract resources for slave wages on behalf of their Western "benefactors."

This is what we mean when we talk about making the world safe for "free" markets.

It's much like the IMF deal that Ukraine rejected a decade ago. That abominable crime is what prompted us to turn their government into a more or less wholly owned subsidiary of the US State Department (because that is what ultimately happened, regardless of what one chooses to believe about Victoria Nuland and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Convenient Coup).

We did the same kind of thing to Yugoslavia. We would eventually do the same to Russia if they let us. We've been doing it to Slavic people for centuries, in one way or another. We even named our human chattels "slaves" after them.

So, in principle I share your support for market liberalism. The neoliberal reality is very different.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

I see America as a flawed superpower that generally attempts to make the world freer and a place where market economies can work.

---

Your view of our nation's activities on the world stage is decades out of date.

---

Explanation?

---

Here's what will happen. After the war, the Russian-controlled oblasts will at long last have some peace and security, along with a government that respects their culture, language, and religion.

The rest of Ukraine will have a barely functional puppet government stripped of any real power to act in the interests of its people. It will be held hostage to foreign aid and forced to accept relentless privatization. NGOs will effectively run the country while we snap up property at fire sale prices. What's left of the population will work to extract resources for slave wages on behalf of their Western "benefactors."

This is what we mean when we talk about making the world safe for "free" markets.

It's much like the IMF deal that Ukraine rejected a decade ago. That abominable crime is what prompted us to turn their government into a more or less wholly owned subsidiary of the US State Department (because that is what ultimately happened, regardless of what one chooses to believe about Victoria Nuland and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Convenient Coup).

We did the same kind of thing to Yugoslavia. We'd eventually do the same to Russia if they let us. We've been doing it to Slavic people for centuries, in one way or another. We even named our human chattels "slaves" after them.

So, in principle I share your support for market liberalism. The neoliberal reality is very different.

---

Spoken like a RT propaganda piece.

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Coulda said the exact opposite about Orthodoxy vs Western Christianity 40 years ago. Few thought the Orthodox Church would survive Communism. Oh, how wrong they were......

---

The difference between these things is that in the case of Orthodoxy, the conclusion would be based on persecution. In reality Christ told us that we would be persecuted, and yet the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. So those who drew that conclusion about Orthodoxy were drawing a wrong conclusion from the beginning based on false assumptions.

In the case of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism it is due to its apostasy from Christian morality and good order, not persecution. Given that, its future extinction in the west is as certain as those locations mentioned in Revelation, Sodom, and Gomorrah.

---

I think the Orthodox Church before the Marxist revolution was pretty decadent too, as was Russian society in general. The weakness of the Western churches will more likely lead to persecution and eventual renewal. Either that or we destroy each other and life goes on in the global South.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void. The only way that this was not going to turn into what it did is having a US President that is strong enough that the Putin's' of the world won't attack. Trump may have had his faults, but he kept the Barbarians off the borders. (phrase not literally, for the literalist on this Board)

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

---

The map looks that way because we don't follow your advice in foreign policy. If we followed your plan, that map would ge dominated by China and their allies.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

---

The map looks that way because we don't follow your advice in foreign policy…

---

What is my advice on foreign policy?

When have I ever said we can not have alliances with other nations?


Like your claim of "isolationism" this seems like another weak argument

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

---

The map looks that way because we don't follow your advice in foreign policy…

---

What is my advice on foreign policy?

When have I ever said we can not have alliances with other nations?


Like your claim of "isolationism" this seems like another weak argument

---

Your whole posts is that we should not help Ukraine and Nations looking to us for help or we neo-con/Libs. The US became the predominant economy in the world doing just that. Helping other nations and establishing/building markets. Not sitting on our hands.
Your post is anti-Ukraine support:

"Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part."

Supporting the Ukraines of the world is exactly how we did become what we are.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

---

The map looks that way because we don't follow your advice in foreign policy…

---

What is my advice on foreign policy?

When have I ever said we can not have alliances with other nations?


Like your claim of "isolationism" this seems like another weak argument

---

Your whole posts is that we should not help Ukraine and Nations looking to us for help or we neo-con/Libs. The US became the predominant economy in the world doing just that. Helping other nations and establishing/building markets. Not sitting on our hands.
Your post is anti-Ukraine support:

"Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part."

Supporting the Ukraines of the world is exactly how we did become what we are.

---

That was my quote, but Redbrick is right. No one is arguing for isolationism. The way you're using the term, it's just a pejorative way of describing foreign policy realism.

And if you think supporting Ukraine is going to establish our dominance, it's having the opposite effect.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

---

The map looks that way because we don't follow your advice in foreign policy…

---

What is my advice on foreign policy?

When have I ever said we can not have alliances with other nations?


Like your claim of "isolationism" this seems like another weak argument

---

Your whole posts is that we should not help Ukraine and Nations looking to us for help or we neo-con/Libs. The US became the predominant economy in the world doing just that. Helping other nations and establishing/building markets. Not sitting on our hands.
Your post is anti-Ukraine support:

"Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part."

Supporting the Ukraines of the world is exactly how we did become what we are.

---

That was my quote, but Redbrick is right. No one is arguing for isolationism. The way you're using the term, it's just a pejorative way of describing foreign policy realism.

And if you think supporting Ukraine is going to establish our dominance, it's having the opposite effect.

---

Right. That's what it is. What about NATO? How should we handle Europe, Japan, Korea, Israel? You guys are good with our policies? Glad to hear it.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

---

The map looks that way because we don't follow your advice in foreign policy…

---

What is my advice on foreign policy?

When have I ever said we can not have alliances with other nations?


Like your claim of "isolationism" this seems like another weak argument

---

Your whole posts is that we should not help Ukraine and Nations looking to us for help or we neo-con/Libs. The US became the predominant economy in the world doing just that. Helping other nations and establishing/building markets. Not sitting on our hands.
Your post is anti-Ukraine support:

"Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part."

Supporting the Ukraines of the world is exactly how we did become what we are.

---

That was my quote, but Redbrick is right. No one is arguing for isolationism. The way you're using the term, it's just a pejorative way of describing foreign policy realism.

And if you think supporting Ukraine is going to establish our dominance, it's having the opposite effect.

---

Right. That's what it is. What about NATO? How should we handle Europe, Japan, Korea, Israel? You guys are good with our policies? Glad to hear it.

---

You keep asking about NATO as if it's in danger or that Ukraine…a country that has never been in NATO…has any bearing on our military alliance network.


If anything several NATO countries oppose Ukraine ever being a member.

And as for our policies…it depends.

A policy of getting NATO nations to spend their share for defense? Yes

A policy of starting proxy wars in the backyard of a nuclear armed nation? No, Nuland should be hung for putting Americans in danger and getting lots of Ukrainians killed

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

---

The map looks that way because we don't follow your advice in foreign policy…

---

What is my advice on foreign policy?

When have I ever said we can not have alliances with other nations?


Like your claim of "isolationism" this seems like another weak argument

---

Your whole posts is that we should not help Ukraine and Nations looking to us for help or we neo-con/Libs. The US became the predominant economy in the world doing just that. Helping other nations and establishing/building markets. Not sitting on our hands.
Your post is anti-Ukraine support:

"Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part."

Supporting the Ukraines of the world is exactly how we did become what we are.

---

That was my quote, but Redbrick is right. No one is arguing for isolationism. The way you're using the term, it's just a pejorative way of describing foreign policy realism.

And if you think supporting Ukraine is going to establish our dominance, it's having the opposite effect.

---

Right. That's what it is. What about NATO? How should we handle Europe, Japan, Korea, Israel? You guys are good with our policies? Glad to hear it.

---

You keep asking about NATO as if it's in danger or that Ukraine…a country that has never been in NATO…has any bearing on our military alliance network.


If anything several NATO countries oppose Ukraine ever being a member.

And as for our policies…it depends.

A policy of getting NATO nations to spend their share for defense? Yes

A policy of starting proxy wars in the backyard of a nuclear armed nation? No, Nuland should be hung for putting Americans in danger and getting lots of Ukrainians killed

---

You keep missing the invasion part. If this was a diplomatic discussion, I may agree. But Russia invaded twice. If Nations can't exist without the fear of invasion by a stronger neighbor it is not good for the US or anyone else. I understand some can't defend themselves, like Tibet. But the others that can, like Ukraine, Taiwan and Korea, we need to send a message that invaders will not prosper. Russia doesn't invade, none of this happens.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

---

The map looks that way because we don't follow your advice in foreign policy…

---

What is my advice on foreign policy?

When have I ever said we can not have alliances with other nations?


Like your claim of "isolationism" this seems like another weak argument

---

Your whole posts is that we should not help Ukraine and Nations looking to us for help or we neo-con/Libs. The US became the predominant economy in the world doing just that. Helping other nations and establishing/building markets. Not sitting on our hands.
Your post is anti-Ukraine support:

"Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part."

Supporting the Ukraines of the world is exactly how we did become what we are.

---

That was my quote, but Redbrick is right. No one is arguing for isolationism. The way you're using the term, it's just a pejorative way of describing foreign policy realism.

And if you think supporting Ukraine is going to establish our dominance, it's having the opposite effect.

---

Right. That's what it is. What about NATO? How should we handle Europe, Japan, Korea, Israel? You guys are good with our policies? Glad to hear it.

---

You keep asking about NATO as if it's in danger or that Ukraine…a country that has never been in NATO…has any bearing on our military alliance network.


If anything several NATO countries oppose Ukraine ever being a member.

And as for our policies…it depends.

A policy of getting NATO nations to spend their share for defense? Yes

A policy of starting proxy wars in the backyard of a nuclear armed nation? No, Nuland should be hung for putting Americans in danger and getting lots of Ukrainians killed

---

You keep missing the invasion part. If this was a diplomatic discussion, I may agree. But Russia invaded twice. If Nations can't exist without the fear of invasion by a stronger neighbor it is not good for the US or anyone else..

---

1. You keep missing the part where our State department helped over throw the last government. Or where we spent billions influencing them in the years leading up to 2014 (see Nuland interview)


2. Come on with the "invaded twice stuff"…we have invaded Mexico 10 freaking times in the past to impose our will South of the border.


And you are not opposed to that….you just don't like it when Russia does the same.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico: Ukraine is under full control of the United States. pic.twitter.com/0ZVGyjkWhW

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) January 22, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

---

The map looks that way because we don't follow your advice in foreign policy…

---

What is my advice on foreign policy?

When have I ever said we can not have alliances with other nations?


Like your claim of "isolationism" this seems like another weak argument

---

Your whole posts is that we should not help Ukraine and Nations looking to us for help or we neo-con/Libs. The US became the predominant economy in the world doing just that. Helping other nations and establishing/building markets. Not sitting on our hands.
Your post is anti-Ukraine support:

"Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part."

Supporting the Ukraines of the world is exactly how we did become what we are.

---

That was my quote, but Redbrick is right. No one is arguing for isolationism. The way you're using the term, it's just a pejorative way of describing foreign policy realism.

And if you think supporting Ukraine is going to establish our dominance, it's having the opposite effect.

---

Right. That's what it is. What about NATO? How should we handle Europe, Japan, Korea, Israel? You guys are good with our policies? Glad to hear it.

---

You keep asking about NATO as if it's in danger or that Ukraine…a country that has never been in NATO…has any bearing on our military alliance network.


If anything several NATO countries oppose Ukraine ever being a member.

And as for our policies…it depends.

A policy of getting NATO nations to spend their share for defense? Yes

A policy of starting proxy wars in the backyard of a nuclear armed nation? No, Nuland should be hung for putting Americans in danger and getting lots of Ukrainians killed

---

You keep missing the invasion part. If this was a diplomatic discussion, I may agree. But Russia invaded twice. If Nations can't exist without the fear of invasion by a stronger neighbor it is not good for the US or anyone else. I understand some can't defend themselves, like Tibet. But the others that can, like Ukraine, Taiwan and Korea, we need to send a message that invaders will not prosper. Russia doesn't invade, none of this happens.

---

Russia tried diplomatic discussions for years. No one was interested. Given that they only sent a handful of troops in 2022, the initial invasion was most likely intended to force negotiations. Which it did, and we sabotaged them yet again.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thankfully, US foreign policy towards Russia since 1991 been well-steered; mindful of them as a top nuclear power, not motivated by the inter-ethnic peccadilloes of immigrant origin bureaucrats, cognizant of India and China’s own 1:1 relationships, and beneficial to Americans. https://t.co/VDCc7FOmbV pic.twitter.com/VpyngjMJ92

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 20, 2024

---

This is a great point. Russia will have a seasoned military after this mess. They will know what works, what does not, and their leadership will be battle hardened. Sort of like the Germans in Spain.

But, the West should not take part, not notice. There is no binding agreement with Ukraine. I wonder if the 1940's would have gone different with more US involvement in Spain, if nothing else to match Germany and Italy's skill level and intelligence. But, isolationism seems to be the flavor of the day. Was Spain a cautionary tale? Texaco did well by it.

---

Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part.

---

You don't think Ukraine would have fought back without us? Or, if NATO went all in and defended Ukraine from invasion that all those gains that you trumpet Russia won never would have happened? It is the policy of isolationism and NOT showing strength early on that created this mess. Requiring the US to take half ass measures is what will create a stronger, more dangerous Russia. Doves and Isolationist never learn, story as old as time.

---

Fought back with what? Their military is completely dependent on us.

Everything that's happened was predictable and predicted. It's the interventionists who never learn.

---

Look back through history, isolationism is not the key to peace. When a major nation like the US stays out the others fill the void….)

---

No one has called for "isolationism" and no candidate or party has ever said that is what we should do.

We are the largest economy on earth with trade & military alliances all over the planet….none of that is changing.

Are you ever going to drop this sad talking point that NOT fighting proxy wars is the same as "isolationism"?

Neo-Cons and Lib interventionists tried this same tactic of throwing around the term isolationist when we finally made the right call to end the failed war in Afghanistan.


p.s.

I mean look at the map…how can anyone think we are isolationist become we won't fight some stupid proxy war in the 3rd world?

And these are that military alliances of the USA…not even its trade relationships

---

The map looks that way because we don't follow your advice in foreign policy…

---

What is my advice on foreign policy?

When have I ever said we can not have alliances with other nations?


Like your claim of "isolationism" this seems like another weak argument

---

Your whole posts is that we should not help Ukraine and Nations looking to us for help or we neo-con/Libs. The US became the predominant economy in the world doing just that. Helping other nations and establishing/building markets. Not sitting on our hands.
Your post is anti-Ukraine support:

"Russia will have that seasoned military precisely because we did get involved. They'll have a booming economy to go with it. And they'll have a good chunk of Ukraine, whereas they would have settled for negotiated autonomy in the Donbas.

Great strategy on our part."

Supporting the Ukraines of the world is exactly how we did become what we are.

---

That was my quote, but Redbrick is right. No one is arguing for isolationism. The way you're using the term, it's just a pejorative way of describing foreign policy realism.

And if you think supporting Ukraine is going to establish our dominance, it's having the opposite effect.

---

Right. That's what it is. What about NATO? How should we handle Europe, Japan, Korea, Israel? You guys are good with our policies? Glad to hear it.

---

You keep asking about NATO as if it's in danger or that Ukraine…a country that has never been in NATO…has any bearing on our military alliance network.


If anything several NATO countries oppose Ukraine ever being a member.

And as for our policies…it depends.

A policy of getting NATO nations to spend their share for defense? Yes

A policy of starting proxy wars in the backyard of a nuclear armed nation? No, Nuland should be hung for putting Americans in danger and getting lots of Ukrainians killed

---

You keep missing the invasion part. If this was a diplomatic discussion, I may agree. But Russia invaded twice. If Nations can't exist without the fear of invasion by a stronger neighbor it is not good for the US or anyone else. I understand some can't defend themselves, like Tibet. But the others that can, like Ukraine, Taiwan and Korea, we need to send a message that invaders will not prosper. Russia doesn't invade, none of this happens.

---

Russia tried diplomatic discussions for years. No one was interested. Given that they only sent a handful of troops in 2022, the initial invasion was most likely intended to force negotiations. Which it did, and we sabotaged them yet again.

---

"Handful of troops intended to force negotiations." LOL!

Again, I thought folks stopped this theory because it was too stupid, yet here we are.

The rest is BS of course.

A question few are asking or answering: What is the purpose of NATO's expansion decades after the communist military alliance it was fashioned to confront passed into history? The countries being added to the NATO roster bring no meaningful military capability to the alliance. All they really represent are the liability of a war guarantee should their national governments act foolishly (as Ukraine's has done).

The answer, as usual, comes down to money. Every nation that joins NATO has to retrofit their national military to NATO standards...which results in increased sales for defense contractors within alliance nations.

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Coulda said the exact opposite about Orthodoxy vs Western Christianity 40 years ago. Few thought the Orthodox Church would survive Communism. Oh, how wrong they were......

---

The difference between these things is that in the case of Orthodoxy, the conclusion would be based on persecution. In reality Christ told us that we would be persecuted, and yet the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. So those who drew that conclusion about Orthodoxy were drawing a wrong conclusion from the beginning based on false assumptions.

In the case of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism it is due to its apostasy from Christian morality and good order, not persecution. Given that, its future extinction in the west is as certain as those locations mentioned in Revelation, Sodom, and Gomorrah.

---

you moved the debate from secular to theological......

How does a believer become convinced that the Christianity is going to disappear?

whiterock said:

---

you moved the debate from secular to theological......

How does a believer become convinced that the Christianity is going to disappear?

---

You can't really have a secular debate about religious concepts. Christianity isn't going to disappear.