Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Doc Holliday said:
whiterock said:
Doc Holliday said:
whiterock said:
Doc Holliday said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Don't you think that's wise?
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
again, you infantilize Russia. Never does your argument premise, run, or conclude with Russia making any mistakes or having any responsibility whatsoever for the messes they get bogged down in.
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power, bent on subsuming or dominating states which do not want to be subsumed or dominated by Russia.
We are fighting Russia because it perceives the liberal order itself as a mortal threat to the Russian totalitarian political model.
I mean, do you think before you post? The West has a socio-political order that people and countries all over the world wish to emulate. Poland did not join EU/Nato because it feared EU/Nato. It joined to seek protection against Russia. That is true for all the former WP nations. Nobody in Sweden or Finland flipped on a dime to join Nato because they feared Nato. Where is the evidence of arm-twisting to get Georgia to seek NATO membership?
Why is it that everybody in the Russian neighborhood is lining up against Russia? Is Nato really so good at expansionist diplomacy that it can array the whole of Europe (except for Belarus) against poor little Russia?
Good grief, man...at what point will you arguments have no clothes?