Why Are We in Ukraine?

216,390 Views | 4745 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by Sam Lowry
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)
can you not see the faulty premise there?

Ukraine will finish no worse than the current battle lines. Ukraine wins this by simply outlasting Russian logistics. UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs. Yesterday's strikes deep into Russia and sinking of another Russian naval vessel are indicators that Russia is indeed under great strain.

Ukraine is under great strain as well. But Ukraine has the best half of the world's economy behind it, sending financial and military aid sufficient to keep it in the game. Russia has a (poorer) quarter of the world's economy sorta helping out a little bit. It is Russia which cannot last, friend....




There is no false premise in anything that I just posted. Everything that I posted is simple, basic rational thought based on easily obtainable info about Russia and Ukraine. On the contrary, your argument is based on speculation and appealing to American Jingoism.

Google Russia's population.

Google Ukraine's population.

Now Google Russia's GDP.

Now Google Ukraine's GDP. (actually, Russia's military is bigger now than before the war started, but we will ignore that for this argument).
Now Google Nato's GDP.
As long as Nato supports Ukraine, Ukraine will not run out of resources. And Nato can match Russia's output easily (because of the +10x disparity in GDP between Nato and Russia). Russia cannot hope to match Nato's output, and the longer the term of view, the worse it fares for Russia.


Again, this type of stuff doesn't take George S. Patton to figure out. Russia can afford to lose more casualties than Ukraine. Where is the false premise there? Not sure how anybody can argue that unless they are wearing blue and yellow glasses, or they are really really buying into someone's propaganda (denying that there is propaganda coming from the Ukrainian side in this war is itself a piece of propaganda). Whether you like Russia or not, they are a big country with a big population and a lot of expendable oil and gas money. Ukraine is also their neighbor. They are not having to sail around the world to fight, etc.
False premise 1: that Ukraine and Russia are losing soldiers at the same rate. Does not matter that Russia has 3x the population if they are losing soldiers at 3x the rate. (and it's considerably worse than that).
False premise 2: that nations are equally able to bring their available people and industry to bear. Russia has severe constraints Ukraine does not have. A nation at war must divert some number of manpower to industry, which subtracts from available manpower for the military. Ukraine, which is getting a very high percentage of its equipment and ordnance from foreign aid, does not face that constraint to the same degree. (further offseting the 3-1 disadvantage in population.
False premise 3: that other security interests do not exist. Ukraine is dealing with one enemy in one direction, while Russia has an enormous footprint with numerous vulnerabilities. Ukraine does not need to support an Atlantic or Pacific Fleet, or ground & air forces all across the Asian continent. Ukraine has only one theater of operations (eastern Ukraine), while Russia has to defend thousands of miles of borders spread out all across Asia. That means Russia cannot fully exploit a 3x advantage in anything, because it must divert some of those resources elsewhere. And the "elsewhere" component has deteriorated for Russia, given the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, a new front which will require mid-high five-digit numbers of troops to defend.

Lastly, your statement about Ukraine having half of the world's economy on their side is actually a false premise here. People are getting weary of proxy wars, my friend. The US and these other NATO countries are not going to daddy Warbucks this war forever. These countries have given Ukraine a few billion here and there and some older weapons here and there, but acting like Ukraine has got a blank check for "the better half of the world's economy"? Textbook false premise.
You are tired of proxy wars. A near-majority of the GOP is tired of proxy wars. But a majority of American people do not share your desire to disengage from Ukraine (numbers vary from slim majorities to super-majorities depending on how the question is phrased). And Europe is digging in for the long haul. So you are way out over your skis on this one.

There's also the issue I brought up before that is also just a matter of basic logic: that is, there is no cash handout or conventional weapon that is going to make up for Ukraine's depleted manpower.
You make a classic error here. Until a couple of weeks ago, Ukraine had not yet drafted a single citizen below the age of 27, and is only now starting to draft down to age 25. They still have the entire cohort of age 18-25 available to tap, several million people, but are not doing so in order to improve future demography. But they will if they need too. It's what nations do. They fight until the literally run out of manpower or materiel. Nato support could keep Ukraine in this war against Russia indefinitely, certainly long enough for Russia to collapse. Remember, Russia is fully mobilized. Nato is not. Russia is under international sanctions which drive up the cost of everything; Ukraine is not. Etc.....

It will be fun to watch the anti-war bunch react to Trump's Ukraine policy. I predict it will be a great disappointment to you, in no small part because the anti-war position is driven more by isolationism and budget weariness rather than any sound understanding of foreign affairs.

Fact is , with open supply lines from Nato, Ukraine and Russia are peer adversaries. How do we know this? Look at the status of the war = stalemated.


Again, all you are doing in almost every post I've seen you make is speculating and veiling it as fact.
Citing factors you are not aware of is not speculating. It is explaining things you do not understand.

I've posted descriptive statistics and made a basic inference based on those: that a country with a much bigger population can afford to lose more troops than a country with a smaller population.
I haven't disputed that as a factor. I've in fact explained why it is not the only factor, and which other factors prevent it from being dispositive.
You keep saying stuff like "Russia has to defend all these miles of borders." Defend it from what ??????? I'm sure they'd love to have millions of troops stacked up along their border, but they don't actually have to.
No, they actually do have to execute a plan to defend their country. A neutral Finlad/Sweden affords Russia a buffer of time and space. they cannot be invaded from those countries alone (too small to be a threat in/of themselves). They only way those countries pose a threat is if they unite with others to position armies in their territories. Yes, there's lots of lead time on that, but there's even more lead time on building their own new units and supporting infrastructure to cover a threat that had not existed for the prior 80 years. It ups the current AND future costs of defense for Russia. It makes them commit more resources now to prepare to deploy against things that weren't an issue previously. Finland/Sweden accession to Nato will require Russia to deploy a division or two there. Russia has to station troops on its borders with North Korea, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, too. Plus it has to fight in Ukraine. So do they increase the army to cover Finland/Sweden threat? ($$$) or do they simply rob troops from elsewhere to cover it? (incurring greater risk). We have military bases all along our southern border, deployed to meet current anticipated threats. Do you seriously mean to suggest that Mexico could sign a massive alliance treaty with China and it would require no additions/adjustments to our own deployments?
Again, it's decent speculation but it's just speculation. How do you know the whereabouts of Russian troops?
We know EXACTLY where Russian troops are deployed, thanks to satellite imagery. And geography is geography. Any general in uniform anywhere in the world will tell you the same thing I said above - when the geopolitical situation changes, it affects your defense needs. You will find exceedingly few analysts who tell you Finland/Sweden accession to Nato have had ZERO impact on Russian defense needs.
Unless you are sitting in meetings with Zelensky and then teleporting and sitting in meetings with Putin and his war cabinet, you can't deny the premise that Russia has more men to spare and can afford to take a higher rate of casualties than Ukraine.
Again, I haven't denied it. I have acknowledged it as fact, then explained how it's not as impactful as you presume. Just having the manpower is one thing. Recruiting it, training it, equipping it, and deploying it effectively is a wildly larger and more complicated thing. Russia, perpetually backward and corrupt, has never been good at anything requiring any kind of efficiency. Ukraine, which has the exact same military tradition as Russia, has turned to a western model and is getting massive amounts of western aid. As a result, Ukraine is more efficient in most aspects of this war. To quibble with that will require you to explain how else could a nation so small fight the behemoth to a standstill.
You're also assuming that you know the rate of casualties that Ukraine is taking, and that's just more speculation.
We have a pretty good idea. No one is accepting Ukrainian or Russian claims. Western estimates are fairly consistent with each other and the best yardstick we have. We also know what the casualty rates of the attacker typically are - 3x the defender. And lastly we know that with exception for 6 months or so, Russia has been on the offensive, seeking to exploit its manpower advantage by constant pressure and relentless human wave type assaults, incurring tens of thousands of casualties over strategically irrelevant positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Yes, Ukraine has had two brief periods of a few weeks (Kharkiv front) and a few months ("counteroffensive") where it was on the offensive. But the Kharkiv front was a collapse of Russian lines, not at all a grinding offensive. And the "counteroffensive" was for all but the first two weeks a game of small unit infiltration of Russian lines. (Russia copied those tactics in the first few days of the recent advances on the Kharkiv front, but has now returned to the traditional Russian human wave.) Yes, Ukrainian losses are grievous. But they pale compared to the carnage inflicted on the Russian army.

I'm not surprised that the limousine liberals over on White Rock Lake want this war to go on forever.
I don't want the war to go on forever. I want to win it. And we easily can. We just need a better policy, which will require a different POTUS.
I know that people who live in gated communities often fall under the impression that their viewpoints are shared by everyone, but most Americans aren't about this war.
That doesn't mean the outcome of the war doesn't matter. A good leader will understand that a democratic society usually affords a limited amount time to achieve a desirable outcome, and therefore moves with alacrity to secure the victory. Biden's "as long as it takes" policy of scaling down our support to meet Russian efforts and win it over the long haul is incredibly stupid in that regard.
And it's not because we like Russia, it's because I'm sick of paying four dollars for a gallon of milk. I'm glad that your Boeing and Lockheed Martin stocks are doing well. What's a few dead Ukrainians when you've got country club memberships and HOA fees to pay on multiple homes.
and there you have it. almost all isolationist critiques have nothing to do with national security needs. They merely propose to balance the budget by making bad decisions on foreign policy.
You're going to spend the money one way or the other - in Ukraine defeating Russia, or in Europe defending from a Russian Army stationed in Ukraine. Why not just win it in Ukraine?
Ukraine was literally a constituent part of Russia for 300 years and it never effected the American people.
It is amazing that people will float such weak arguments as though they are dispositive. Ukrainian borders has ebbed and flowed and disappeared and reappeared considerably more than you suggest. Ukrainian nationalism is 300 years old, too. So the historical angle would more easily support partition of modern Ukraine among 2-6 other states than Russian control over the entirety of it (an option which has precedent only a few decades old).

Even if Russia was able to take all of Ukraine (which they can't) is that not the point of having the massive NATO alliance? To defend against any attack by an outside force?
It is amazing that you can say such silly things as if they support your case. So if you see a hostile power invading a state adjacent to you, your best option is to let them have it free & clear with no contest and let them roll right up to your border, undeterred and undiminished? Will that not send signals about your resolve to resist them? Will that not make them stronger (more people/resources) and more fool hardy ('we are tougher than they are"). WWII Japan knew they couldn't defeat us straight up. They thought they could run wild throughout the Pacific and that we'd lose interest in taking all back against such ferocious resistance (because Japan thought we were softies). Nations make bad decisions all the time.....pick wars they shouldn't have picked.....because of bad assessments about their own abilities and the abilities of their targets. Just look at Russia & Ukraine!

Plus Russian forces were already stationed in Ukraine back pre-2014! Didn't effect the USA at all.
And we didn't invade, did we? But when the Ukrainian people decided they wanted to be part of the Western Order, we understood the obvious, that this was a good thing for us, and (very modestly & incrementally) supported their transition.

The massive Black sea naval base and other military installations around the Crimea already were in use by the Russians and had been for a long long time.
So? Russia is a malign influence in the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean, too. Why would we not want to limit their influence there, when we have someone else who can do it for us?

Hell there have been Russia troops in Ukraine since at least 1772
See above. Not all of it. and 1772 is not 2022, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base#:~:text=The%20Sevastopol%20Naval%20Base%20(Russian,of%20the%20Black%20Sea%20Fleet.

(Sevastopol Naval Base: The port was renovated in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783)

John Paul Jones even volunteered over there and was station in Ukraine..."Jones became a rear admiral in the Russian Navy in 1788, flying his flag in the Vladimir as he defeated the Turks in an obscure sound at a northern gateway to the Black Sea.")
So what you're saying there is, in fact, that Russian influence in the Black Sea was not uncontested in 1788.


Russia is only entitled to the influence it can impose with hard or soft power. It is not our job to stand back and let them futz around with their overrated hardware until they find a marginal level of competence. If they cannot control Ukraine (and they cannot), then Ukraine gets to control Ukraine. And helping Ukraine control Ukraine will keep the Russians a long way from our allies and our armies.

You have yet to explain how we benefit, geo-strategically, from doing nothing to stop Russia in Ukraine.
The bolded can't be simultaneously true.

If they can't control Ukraine then they can't be a threat to our allies and armies. You can't be weak and strong at the same time. If they're truly that weak...they're never going to be a threat.
Threats don't have to be economic or military equals, or even remotely close to that.

The should be if the entire DC ruling apparatus is going to freak out...spend billions of dollars we don't have....and possibly get us into a nuclear war.


Ask Afghanistan, or Iran or North Korea about that.

Good point... that we over estimated the threat these places actual posed to the USA.

Spending billons on a failed occupation of Afghanistan...and resisted the idea of cutting our losses and pulling out.

Now people in DC want to do the regime change war/long term occupation thing with Iran or Russia.

MADNESS
Taking nation building off the table, which I concur with, doesn't change the reality of being a threat.

All threats have to be kept in rational perspective.

Cuba is no friend of the USA...its not an existential threat for example.

Even China...probably the most realistic peer competitor to the USA is far far from the threat that some make out. Its in an almost unbelievable demographic death spiral. (losing 1 million people from its population every single year) and it has massive internal problems with corruption, graft, and incompetence in its political system.

Even small things like the fact that China still has around 300 million people living on low wages as migrant workers.

[China's almost 300 million migrant workers]

https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1015180

Outside of the coastal cities it is so poor it makes the Mississippi Delta look like Luxembourg.

[According to the China Statistical Yearbook, the average monthly salary for rural incomes in China in 2019 was 3,103 RMB, which is about US$465 or less than $6,000 a year]

[Mississippi: The median household income in the South Delta Region of Mississippi in 2021 was $33,646, which is about three-quarters of the state's average and half of the national average. The per capita income is $21,578,]
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ukrainian men fleeing work to avoid recruiters:
Quote:

Mykhailo, who worked at one of the plant's furnaces before volunteering for the army in late 2022 and asked for his full name not be used, said men avoiding mobilisation were "right to do so". Despite being part of an elite brigade deployed on the southern Ukrainian front, Mykhailo said he had never been given any weapons heavier than a gun and that he often ran out of bullets. "There are more of us dying than them. The [authorities] just don't show it," he said.

https://www.ft.com/content/8880fe18-0830-41e2-a62f-dea64d532b85
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)
can you not see the faulty premise there?

Ukraine will finish no worse than the current battle lines. Ukraine wins this by simply outlasting Russian logistics. UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs. Yesterday's strikes deep into Russia and sinking of another Russian naval vessel are indicators that Russia is indeed under great strain.

Ukraine is under great strain as well. But Ukraine has the best half of the world's economy behind it, sending financial and military aid sufficient to keep it in the game. Russia has a (poorer) quarter of the world's economy sorta helping out a little bit. It is Russia which cannot last, friend....




There is no false premise in anything that I just posted. Everything that I posted is simple, basic rational thought based on easily obtainable info about Russia and Ukraine. On the contrary, your argument is based on speculation and appealing to American Jingoism.

Google Russia's population.

Google Ukraine's population.

Now Google Russia's GDP.

Now Google Ukraine's GDP. (actually, Russia's military is bigger now than before the war started, but we will ignore that for this argument).
Now Google Nato's GDP.
As long as Nato supports Ukraine, Ukraine will not run out of resources. And Nato can match Russia's output easily (because of the +10x disparity in GDP between Nato and Russia). Russia cannot hope to match Nato's output, and the longer the term of view, the worse it fares for Russia.


Again, this type of stuff doesn't take George S. Patton to figure out. Russia can afford to lose more casualties than Ukraine. Where is the false premise there? Not sure how anybody can argue that unless they are wearing blue and yellow glasses, or they are really really buying into someone's propaganda (denying that there is propaganda coming from the Ukrainian side in this war is itself a piece of propaganda). Whether you like Russia or not, they are a big country with a big population and a lot of expendable oil and gas money. Ukraine is also their neighbor. They are not having to sail around the world to fight, etc.
False premise 1: that Ukraine and Russia are losing soldiers at the same rate. Does not matter that Russia has 3x the population if they are losing soldiers at 3x the rate. (and it's considerably worse than that).
False premise 2: that nations are equally able to bring their available people and industry to bear. Russia has severe constraints Ukraine does not have. A nation at war must divert some number of manpower to industry, which subtracts from available manpower for the military. Ukraine, which is getting a very high percentage of its equipment and ordnance from foreign aid, does not face that constraint to the same degree. (further offseting the 3-1 disadvantage in population.
False premise 3: that other security interests do not exist. Ukraine is dealing with one enemy in one direction, while Russia has an enormous footprint with numerous vulnerabilities. Ukraine does not need to support an Atlantic or Pacific Fleet, or ground & air forces all across the Asian continent. Ukraine has only one theater of operations (eastern Ukraine), while Russia has to defend thousands of miles of borders spread out all across Asia. That means Russia cannot fully exploit a 3x advantage in anything, because it must divert some of those resources elsewhere. And the "elsewhere" component has deteriorated for Russia, given the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, a new front which will require mid-high five-digit numbers of troops to defend.

Lastly, your statement about Ukraine having half of the world's economy on their side is actually a false premise here. People are getting weary of proxy wars, my friend. The US and these other NATO countries are not going to daddy Warbucks this war forever. These countries have given Ukraine a few billion here and there and some older weapons here and there, but acting like Ukraine has got a blank check for "the better half of the world's economy"? Textbook false premise.
You are tired of proxy wars. A near-majority of the GOP is tired of proxy wars. But a majority of American people do not share your desire to disengage from Ukraine (numbers vary from slim majorities to super-majorities depending on how the question is phrased). And Europe is digging in for the long haul. So you are way out over your skis on this one.

There's also the issue I brought up before that is also just a matter of basic logic: that is, there is no cash handout or conventional weapon that is going to make up for Ukraine's depleted manpower.
You make a classic error here. Until a couple of weeks ago, Ukraine had not yet drafted a single citizen below the age of 27, and is only now starting to draft down to age 25. They still have the entire cohort of age 18-25 available to tap, several million people, but are not doing so in order to improve future demography. But they will if they need too. It's what nations do. They fight until the literally run out of manpower or materiel. Nato support could keep Ukraine in this war against Russia indefinitely, certainly long enough for Russia to collapse. Remember, Russia is fully mobilized. Nato is not. Russia is under international sanctions which drive up the cost of everything; Ukraine is not. Etc.....

It will be fun to watch the anti-war bunch react to Trump's Ukraine policy. I predict it will be a great disappointment to you, in no small part because the anti-war position is driven more by isolationism and budget weariness rather than any sound understanding of foreign affairs.

Fact is , with open supply lines from Nato, Ukraine and Russia are peer adversaries. How do we know this? Look at the status of the war = stalemated.


Again, all you are doing in almost every post I've seen you make is speculating and veiling it as fact.
Citing factors you are not aware of is not speculating. It is explaining things you do not understand.

I've posted descriptive statistics and made a basic inference based on those: that a country with a much bigger population can afford to lose more troops than a country with a smaller population.
I haven't disputed that as a factor. I've in fact explained why it is not the only factor, and which other factors prevent it from being dispositive.
You keep saying stuff like "Russia has to defend all these miles of borders." Defend it from what ??????? I'm sure they'd love to have millions of troops stacked up along their border, but they don't actually have to.
No, they actually do have to execute a plan to defend their country. A neutral Finlad/Sweden affords Russia a buffer of time and space. they cannot be invaded from those countries alone (too small to be a threat in/of themselves). They only way those countries pose a threat is if they unite with others to position armies in their territories. Yes, there's lots of lead time on that, but there's even more lead time on building their own new units and supporting infrastructure to cover a threat that had not existed for the prior 80 years. It ups the current AND future costs of defense for Russia. It makes them commit more resources now to prepare to deploy against things that weren't an issue previously. Finland/Sweden accession to Nato will require Russia to deploy a division or two there. Russia has to station troops on its borders with North Korea, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, too. Plus it has to fight in Ukraine. So do they increase the army to cover Finland/Sweden threat? ($$$) or do they simply rob troops from elsewhere to cover it? (incurring greater risk). We have military bases all along our southern border, deployed to meet current anticipated threats. Do you seriously mean to suggest that Mexico could sign a massive alliance treaty with China and it would require no additions/adjustments to our own deployments?
Again, it's decent speculation but it's just speculation. How do you know the whereabouts of Russian troops?
We know EXACTLY where Russian troops are deployed, thanks to satellite imagery. And geography is geography. Any general in uniform anywhere in the world will tell you the same thing I said above - when the geopolitical situation changes, it affects your defense needs. You will find exceedingly few analysts who tell you Finland/Sweden accession to Nato have had ZERO impact on Russian defense needs.
Unless you are sitting in meetings with Zelensky and then teleporting and sitting in meetings with Putin and his war cabinet, you can't deny the premise that Russia has more men to spare and can afford to take a higher rate of casualties than Ukraine.
Again, I haven't denied it. I have acknowledged it as fact, then explained how it's not as impactful as you presume. Just having the manpower is one thing. Recruiting it, training it, equipping it, and deploying it effectively is a wildly larger and more complicated thing. Russia, perpetually backward and corrupt, has never been good at anything requiring any kind of efficiency. Ukraine, which has the exact same military tradition as Russia, has turned to a western model and is getting massive amounts of western aid. As a result, Ukraine is more efficient in most aspects of this war. To quibble with that will require you to explain how else could a nation so small fight the behemoth to a standstill.
You're also assuming that you know the rate of casualties that Ukraine is taking, and that's just more speculation.
We have a pretty good idea. No one is accepting Ukrainian or Russian claims. Western estimates are fairly consistent with each other and the best yardstick we have. We also know what the casualty rates of the attacker typically are - 3x the defender. And lastly we know that with exception for 6 months or so, Russia has been on the offensive, seeking to exploit its manpower advantage by constant pressure and relentless human wave type assaults, incurring tens of thousands of casualties over strategically irrelevant positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Yes, Ukraine has had two brief periods of a few weeks (Kharkiv front) and a few months ("counteroffensive") where it was on the offensive. But the Kharkiv front was a collapse of Russian lines, not at all a grinding offensive. And the "counteroffensive" was for all but the first two weeks a game of small unit infiltration of Russian lines. (Russia copied those tactics in the first few days of the recent advances on the Kharkiv front, but has now returned to the traditional Russian human wave.) Yes, Ukrainian losses are grievous. But they pale compared to the carnage inflicted on the Russian army.

I'm not surprised that the limousine liberals over on White Rock Lake want this war to go on forever.
I don't want the war to go on forever. I want to win it. And we easily can. We just need a better policy, which will require a different POTUS.
I know that people who live in gated communities often fall under the impression that their viewpoints are shared by everyone, but most Americans aren't about this war.
That doesn't mean the outcome of the war doesn't matter. A good leader will understand that a democratic society usually affords a limited amount time to achieve a desirable outcome, and therefore moves with alacrity to secure the victory. Biden's "as long as it takes" policy of scaling down our support to meet Russian efforts and win it over the long haul is incredibly stupid in that regard.
And it's not because we like Russia, it's because I'm sick of paying four dollars for a gallon of milk. I'm glad that your Boeing and Lockheed Martin stocks are doing well. What's a few dead Ukrainians when you've got country club memberships and HOA fees to pay on multiple homes.
and there you have it. almost all isolationist critiques have nothing to do with national security needs. They merely propose to balance the budget by making bad decisions on foreign policy.
You're going to spend the money one way or the other - in Ukraine defeating Russia, or in Europe defending from a Russian Army stationed in Ukraine. Why not just win it in Ukraine?
Ukraine was literally a constituent part of Russia for 300 years and it never effected the American people.
It is amazing that people will float such weak arguments as though they are dispositive. Ukrainian borders has ebbed and flowed and disappeared and reappeared considerably more than you suggest. Ukrainian nationalism is 300 years old, too. So the historical angle would more easily support partition of modern Ukraine among 2-6 other states than Russian control over the entirety of it (an option which has precedent only a few decades old).

Even if Russia was able to take all of Ukraine (which they can't) is that not the point of having the massive NATO alliance? To defend against any attack by an outside force?
It is amazing that you can say such silly things as if they support your case. So if you see a hostile power invading a state adjacent to you, your best option is to let them have it free & clear with no contest and let them roll right up to your border, undeterred and undiminished? Will that not send signals about your resolve to resist them? Will that not make them stronger (more people/resources) and more fool hardy ('we are tougher than they are"). WWII Japan knew they couldn't defeat us straight up. They thought they could run wild throughout the Pacific and that we'd lose interest in taking all back against such ferocious resistance (because Japan thought we were softies). Nations make bad decisions all the time.....pick wars they shouldn't have picked.....because of bad assessments about their own abilities and the abilities of their targets. Just look at Russia & Ukraine!

Plus Russian forces were already stationed in Ukraine back pre-2014! Didn't effect the USA at all.
And we didn't invade, did we? But when the Ukrainian people decided they wanted to be part of the Western Order, we understood the obvious, that this was a good thing for us, and (very modestly & incrementally) supported their transition.

The massive Black sea naval base and other military installations around the Crimea already were in use by the Russians and had been for a long long time.
So? Russia is a malign influence in the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean, too. Why would we not want to limit their influence there, when we have someone else who can do it for us?

Hell there have been Russia troops in Ukraine since at least 1772
See above. Not all of it. and 1772 is not 2022, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base#:~:text=The%20Sevastopol%20Naval%20Base%20(Russian,of%20the%20Black%20Sea%20Fleet.

(Sevastopol Naval Base: The port was renovated in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783)

John Paul Jones even volunteered over there and was station in Ukraine..."Jones became a rear admiral in the Russian Navy in 1788, flying his flag in the Vladimir as he defeated the Turks in an obscure sound at a northern gateway to the Black Sea.")
So what you're saying there is, in fact, that Russian influence in the Black Sea was not uncontested in 1788.


Russia is only entitled to the influence it can impose with hard or soft power. It is not our job to stand back and let them futz around with their overrated hardware until they find a marginal level of competence. If they cannot control Ukraine (and they cannot), then Ukraine gets to control Ukraine. And helping Ukraine control Ukraine will keep the Russians a long way from our allies and our armies.

You have yet to explain how we benefit, geo-strategically, from doing nothing to stop Russia in Ukraine.
The bolded can't be simultaneously true.

If they can't control Ukraine then they can't be a threat to our allies and armies. You can't be weak and strong at the same time. If they're truly that weak...they're never going to be a threat.
Threats don't have to be economic or military equals, or even remotely close to that.

The should be if the entire DC ruling apparatus is going to freak out...spend billions of dollars we don't have....and possibly get us into a nuclear war.


Ask Afghanistan, or Iran or North Korea about that.

Good point... that we over estimated the threat these places actual posed to the USA.

Spending billons on a failed occupation of Afghanistan...and resisted the idea of cutting our losses and pulling out.

Now people in DC want to do the regime change war/long term occupation thing with Iran or Russia.

MADNESS
Taking nation building off the table, which I concur with, doesn't change the reality of being a threat.
Lets not pretend like our government won't do something as stupid as nation building when it comes to Ukraine
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)
can you not see the faulty premise there?

Ukraine will finish no worse than the current battle lines. Ukraine wins this by simply outlasting Russian logistics. UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs. Yesterday's strikes deep into Russia and sinking of another Russian naval vessel are indicators that Russia is indeed under great strain.

Ukraine is under great strain as well. But Ukraine has the best half of the world's economy behind it, sending financial and military aid sufficient to keep it in the game. Russia has a (poorer) quarter of the world's economy sorta helping out a little bit. It is Russia which cannot last, friend....




There is no false premise in anything that I just posted. Everything that I posted is simple, basic rational thought based on easily obtainable info about Russia and Ukraine. On the contrary, your argument is based on speculation and appealing to American Jingoism.

Google Russia's population.

Google Ukraine's population.

Now Google Russia's GDP.

Now Google Ukraine's GDP. (actually, Russia's military is bigger now than before the war started, but we will ignore that for this argument).
Now Google Nato's GDP.
As long as Nato supports Ukraine, Ukraine will not run out of resources. And Nato can match Russia's output easily (because of the +10x disparity in GDP between Nato and Russia). Russia cannot hope to match Nato's output, and the longer the term of view, the worse it fares for Russia.


Again, this type of stuff doesn't take George S. Patton to figure out. Russia can afford to lose more casualties than Ukraine. Where is the false premise there? Not sure how anybody can argue that unless they are wearing blue and yellow glasses, or they are really really buying into someone's propaganda (denying that there is propaganda coming from the Ukrainian side in this war is itself a piece of propaganda). Whether you like Russia or not, they are a big country with a big population and a lot of expendable oil and gas money. Ukraine is also their neighbor. They are not having to sail around the world to fight, etc.
False premise 1: that Ukraine and Russia are losing soldiers at the same rate. Does not matter that Russia has 3x the population if they are losing soldiers at 3x the rate. (and it's considerably worse than that).
False premise 2: that nations are equally able to bring their available people and industry to bear. Russia has severe constraints Ukraine does not have. A nation at war must divert some number of manpower to industry, which subtracts from available manpower for the military. Ukraine, which is getting a very high percentage of its equipment and ordnance from foreign aid, does not face that constraint to the same degree. (further offseting the 3-1 disadvantage in population.
False premise 3: that other security interests do not exist. Ukraine is dealing with one enemy in one direction, while Russia has an enormous footprint with numerous vulnerabilities. Ukraine does not need to support an Atlantic or Pacific Fleet, or ground & air forces all across the Asian continent. Ukraine has only one theater of operations (eastern Ukraine), while Russia has to defend thousands of miles of borders spread out all across Asia. That means Russia cannot fully exploit a 3x advantage in anything, because it must divert some of those resources elsewhere. And the "elsewhere" component has deteriorated for Russia, given the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, a new front which will require mid-high five-digit numbers of troops to defend.

Lastly, your statement about Ukraine having half of the world's economy on their side is actually a false premise here. People are getting weary of proxy wars, my friend. The US and these other NATO countries are not going to daddy Warbucks this war forever. These countries have given Ukraine a few billion here and there and some older weapons here and there, but acting like Ukraine has got a blank check for "the better half of the world's economy"? Textbook false premise.
You are tired of proxy wars. A near-majority of the GOP is tired of proxy wars. But a majority of American people do not share your desire to disengage from Ukraine (numbers vary from slim majorities to super-majorities depending on how the question is phrased). And Europe is digging in for the long haul. So you are way out over your skis on this one.

There's also the issue I brought up before that is also just a matter of basic logic: that is, there is no cash handout or conventional weapon that is going to make up for Ukraine's depleted manpower.
You make a classic error here. Until a couple of weeks ago, Ukraine had not yet drafted a single citizen below the age of 27, and is only now starting to draft down to age 25. They still have the entire cohort of age 18-25 available to tap, several million people, but are not doing so in order to improve future demography. But they will if they need too. It's what nations do. They fight until the literally run out of manpower or materiel. Nato support could keep Ukraine in this war against Russia indefinitely, certainly long enough for Russia to collapse. Remember, Russia is fully mobilized. Nato is not. Russia is under international sanctions which drive up the cost of everything; Ukraine is not. Etc.....

It will be fun to watch the anti-war bunch react to Trump's Ukraine policy. I predict it will be a great disappointment to you, in no small part because the anti-war position is driven more by isolationism and budget weariness rather than any sound understanding of foreign affairs.

Fact is , with open supply lines from Nato, Ukraine and Russia are peer adversaries. How do we know this? Look at the status of the war = stalemated.


Again, all you are doing in almost every post I've seen you make is speculating and veiling it as fact.
Citing factors you are not aware of is not speculating. It is explaining things you do not understand.

I've posted descriptive statistics and made a basic inference based on those: that a country with a much bigger population can afford to lose more troops than a country with a smaller population.
I haven't disputed that as a factor. I've in fact explained why it is not the only factor, and which other factors prevent it from being dispositive.
You keep saying stuff like "Russia has to defend all these miles of borders." Defend it from what ??????? I'm sure they'd love to have millions of troops stacked up along their border, but they don't actually have to.
No, they actually do have to execute a plan to defend their country. A neutral Finlad/Sweden affords Russia a buffer of time and space. they cannot be invaded from those countries alone (too small to be a threat in/of themselves). They only way those countries pose a threat is if they unite with others to position armies in their territories. Yes, there's lots of lead time on that, but there's even more lead time on building their own new units and supporting infrastructure to cover a threat that had not existed for the prior 80 years. It ups the current AND future costs of defense for Russia. It makes them commit more resources now to prepare to deploy against things that weren't an issue previously. Finland/Sweden accession to Nato will require Russia to deploy a division or two there. Russia has to station troops on its borders with North Korea, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, too. Plus it has to fight in Ukraine. So do they increase the army to cover Finland/Sweden threat? ($$$) or do they simply rob troops from elsewhere to cover it? (incurring greater risk). We have military bases all along our southern border, deployed to meet current anticipated threats. Do you seriously mean to suggest that Mexico could sign a massive alliance treaty with China and it would require no additions/adjustments to our own deployments?
Again, it's decent speculation but it's just speculation. How do you know the whereabouts of Russian troops?
We know EXACTLY where Russian troops are deployed, thanks to satellite imagery. And geography is geography. Any general in uniform anywhere in the world will tell you the same thing I said above - when the geopolitical situation changes, it affects your defense needs. You will find exceedingly few analysts who tell you Finland/Sweden accession to Nato have had ZERO impact on Russian defense needs.
Unless you are sitting in meetings with Zelensky and then teleporting and sitting in meetings with Putin and his war cabinet, you can't deny the premise that Russia has more men to spare and can afford to take a higher rate of casualties than Ukraine.
Again, I haven't denied it. I have acknowledged it as fact, then explained how it's not as impactful as you presume. Just having the manpower is one thing. Recruiting it, training it, equipping it, and deploying it effectively is a wildly larger and more complicated thing. Russia, perpetually backward and corrupt, has never been good at anything requiring any kind of efficiency. Ukraine, which has the exact same military tradition as Russia, has turned to a western model and is getting massive amounts of western aid. As a result, Ukraine is more efficient in most aspects of this war. To quibble with that will require you to explain how else could a nation so small fight the behemoth to a standstill.
You're also assuming that you know the rate of casualties that Ukraine is taking, and that's just more speculation.
We have a pretty good idea. No one is accepting Ukrainian or Russian claims. Western estimates are fairly consistent with each other and the best yardstick we have. We also know what the casualty rates of the attacker typically are - 3x the defender. And lastly we know that with exception for 6 months or so, Russia has been on the offensive, seeking to exploit its manpower advantage by constant pressure and relentless human wave type assaults, incurring tens of thousands of casualties over strategically irrelevant positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Yes, Ukraine has had two brief periods of a few weeks (Kharkiv front) and a few months ("counteroffensive") where it was on the offensive. But the Kharkiv front was a collapse of Russian lines, not at all a grinding offensive. And the "counteroffensive" was for all but the first two weeks a game of small unit infiltration of Russian lines. (Russia copied those tactics in the first few days of the recent advances on the Kharkiv front, but has now returned to the traditional Russian human wave.) Yes, Ukrainian losses are grievous. But they pale compared to the carnage inflicted on the Russian army.

I'm not surprised that the limousine liberals over on White Rock Lake want this war to go on forever.
I don't want the war to go on forever. I want to win it. And we easily can. We just need a better policy, which will require a different POTUS.
I know that people who live in gated communities often fall under the impression that their viewpoints are shared by everyone, but most Americans aren't about this war.
That doesn't mean the outcome of the war doesn't matter. A good leader will understand that a democratic society usually affords a limited amount time to achieve a desirable outcome, and therefore moves with alacrity to secure the victory. Biden's "as long as it takes" policy of scaling down our support to meet Russian efforts and win it over the long haul is incredibly stupid in that regard.
And it's not because we like Russia, it's because I'm sick of paying four dollars for a gallon of milk. I'm glad that your Boeing and Lockheed Martin stocks are doing well. What's a few dead Ukrainians when you've got country club memberships and HOA fees to pay on multiple homes.
and there you have it. almost all isolationist critiques have nothing to do with national security needs. They merely propose to balance the budget by making bad decisions on foreign policy.
You're going to spend the money one way or the other - in Ukraine defeating Russia, or in Europe defending from a Russian Army stationed in Ukraine. Why not just win it in Ukraine?
Ukraine was literally a constituent part of Russia for 300 years and it never effected the American people.
It is amazing that people will float such weak arguments as though they are dispositive. Ukrainian borders has ebbed and flowed and disappeared and reappeared considerably more than you suggest. Ukrainian nationalism is 300 years old, too. So the historical angle would more easily support partition of modern Ukraine among 2-6 other states than Russian control over the entirety of it (an option which has precedent only a few decades old).

Even if Russia was able to take all of Ukraine (which they can't) is that not the point of having the massive NATO alliance? To defend against any attack by an outside force?
It is amazing that you can say such silly things as if they support your case. So if you see a hostile power invading a state adjacent to you, your best option is to let them have it free & clear with no contest and let them roll right up to your border, undeterred and undiminished? Will that not send signals about your resolve to resist them? Will that not make them stronger (more people/resources) and more fool hardy ('we are tougher than they are"). WWII Japan knew they couldn't defeat us straight up. They thought they could run wild throughout the Pacific and that we'd lose interest in taking all back against such ferocious resistance (because Japan thought we were softies). Nations make bad decisions all the time.....pick wars they shouldn't have picked.....because of bad assessments about their own abilities and the abilities of their targets. Just look at Russia & Ukraine!

Plus Russian forces were already stationed in Ukraine back pre-2014! Didn't effect the USA at all.
And we didn't invade, did we? But when the Ukrainian people decided they wanted to be part of the Western Order, we understood the obvious, that this was a good thing for us, and (very modestly & incrementally) supported their transition.

The massive Black sea naval base and other military installations around the Crimea already were in use by the Russians and had been for a long long time.
So? Russia is a malign influence in the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean, too. Why would we not want to limit their influence there, when we have someone else who can do it for us?

Hell there have been Russia troops in Ukraine since at least 1772
See above. Not all of it. and 1772 is not 2022, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base#:~:text=The%20Sevastopol%20Naval%20Base%20(Russian,of%20the%20Black%20Sea%20Fleet.

(Sevastopol Naval Base: The port was renovated in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783)

John Paul Jones even volunteered over there and was station in Ukraine..."Jones became a rear admiral in the Russian Navy in 1788, flying his flag in the Vladimir as he defeated the Turks in an obscure sound at a northern gateway to the Black Sea.")
So what you're saying there is, in fact, that Russian influence in the Black Sea was not uncontested in 1788.


Russia is only entitled to the influence it can impose with hard or soft power. It is not our job to stand back and let them futz around with their overrated hardware until they find a marginal level of competence. If they cannot control Ukraine (and they cannot), then Ukraine gets to control Ukraine. And helping Ukraine control Ukraine will keep the Russians a long way from our allies and our armies.

You have yet to explain how we benefit, geo-strategically, from doing nothing to stop Russia in Ukraine.
The bolded can't be simultaneously true.

If they can't control Ukraine then they can't be a threat to our allies and armies. You can't be weak and strong at the same time. If they're truly that weak...they're never going to be a threat.
Threats don't have to be economic or military equals, or even remotely close to that.

The should be if the entire DC ruling apparatus is going to freak out...spend billions of dollars we don't have....and possibly get us into a nuclear war.


Ask Afghanistan, or Iran or North Korea about that.

Good point... that we over estimated the threat these places actual posed to the USA.

Spending billons on a failed occupation of Afghanistan...and resisted the idea of cutting our losses and pulling out.

Now people in DC want to do the regime change war/long term occupation thing with Iran or Russia.

MADNESS
Taking nation building off the table, which I concur with, doesn't change the reality of being a threat.

All threats have to be kept in rational perspective.

Cuba is no friend of the USA...its not an existential threat for example.

Even China...probably the most realistic peer competitor to the USA is far far from the threat that some make out. Its in an almost unbelievable demographic death spiral. (losing 1 million people from its population every single year) and it has massive internal problems with corruption, graft, and incompetence in its political system.

Even small things like the fact that China still has around 300 million people living on low wages as migrant workers.

[China's almost 300 million migrant workers]

https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1015180

Outside of the coastal cities it is so poor it makes the Mississippi Delta look like Luxembourg.

[According to the China Statistical Yearbook, the average monthly salary for rural incomes in China in 2019 was 3,103 RMB, which is about US$465 or less than $6,000 a year]

[Mississippi: The median household income in the South Delta Region of Mississippi in 2021 was $33,646, which is about three-quarters of the state's average and half of the national average. The per capita income is $21,578,]

Of course rationality has to play a role. So does perspective. China is a competitive threat, but we also share many intertwined mutual interests making it a unique dynamic.

Some of the things you mention about China are advantages as well as positive trends. China's biggest internal threat has always been food security for mass populations. In fact that's the biggest threat to all regimes. Reduced population and resource pressure was the goal. They likely over did it, primarily because they warped the male/female balance, but their wage and earnings as well as quality of life index has never been higher, and they've left a place like India in the dust on that. India has almost 300 million people surviving on $2 a day or less for perspective. And they've still got population growth problems.

China's worker migration all the way up the socio-economic chain has helped them become the manufacturing and production giant they are now. Look up chunyun and how it's the largest human migration in the world every Chinese new year. China is a country with "company towns" where literally millions of workers live under their employer. Fed, housed, provided for in facilities, going home a couple times a year. It certainly doesn't fit with where American worker values and ideals are, but from a pure utilitarian perspective it is a competitive advantage, and ironically the wage disparity isn't as significant as you'd think from the U.S. The stat you provided is primarily for rural agrarian workers, which make up the bulk of the poverty in China.

But as Darrell Royal said about TCU, most threats to the U.S. are like cockroaches, it's not how much they eat, but what they get into and mess up. Those are more challenging to deal with.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)
can you not see the faulty premise there?

Ukraine will finish no worse than the current battle lines. Ukraine wins this by simply outlasting Russian logistics. UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs. Yesterday's strikes deep into Russia and sinking of another Russian naval vessel are indicators that Russia is indeed under great strain.

Ukraine is under great strain as well. But Ukraine has the best half of the world's economy behind it, sending financial and military aid sufficient to keep it in the game. Russia has a (poorer) quarter of the world's economy sorta helping out a little bit. It is Russia which cannot last, friend....




There is no false premise in anything that I just posted. Everything that I posted is simple, basic rational thought based on easily obtainable info about Russia and Ukraine. On the contrary, your argument is based on speculation and appealing to American Jingoism.

Google Russia's population.

Google Ukraine's population.

Now Google Russia's GDP.

Now Google Ukraine's GDP. (actually, Russia's military is bigger now than before the war started, but we will ignore that for this argument).
Now Google Nato's GDP.
As long as Nato supports Ukraine, Ukraine will not run out of resources. And Nato can match Russia's output easily (because of the +10x disparity in GDP between Nato and Russia). Russia cannot hope to match Nato's output, and the longer the term of view, the worse it fares for Russia.


Again, this type of stuff doesn't take George S. Patton to figure out. Russia can afford to lose more casualties than Ukraine. Where is the false premise there? Not sure how anybody can argue that unless they are wearing blue and yellow glasses, or they are really really buying into someone's propaganda (denying that there is propaganda coming from the Ukrainian side in this war is itself a piece of propaganda). Whether you like Russia or not, they are a big country with a big population and a lot of expendable oil and gas money. Ukraine is also their neighbor. They are not having to sail around the world to fight, etc.
False premise 1: that Ukraine and Russia are losing soldiers at the same rate. Does not matter that Russia has 3x the population if they are losing soldiers at 3x the rate. (and it's considerably worse than that).
False premise 2: that nations are equally able to bring their available people and industry to bear. Russia has severe constraints Ukraine does not have. A nation at war must divert some number of manpower to industry, which subtracts from available manpower for the military. Ukraine, which is getting a very high percentage of its equipment and ordnance from foreign aid, does not face that constraint to the same degree. (further offseting the 3-1 disadvantage in population.
False premise 3: that other security interests do not exist. Ukraine is dealing with one enemy in one direction, while Russia has an enormous footprint with numerous vulnerabilities. Ukraine does not need to support an Atlantic or Pacific Fleet, or ground & air forces all across the Asian continent. Ukraine has only one theater of operations (eastern Ukraine), while Russia has to defend thousands of miles of borders spread out all across Asia. That means Russia cannot fully exploit a 3x advantage in anything, because it must divert some of those resources elsewhere. And the "elsewhere" component has deteriorated for Russia, given the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, a new front which will require mid-high five-digit numbers of troops to defend.

Lastly, your statement about Ukraine having half of the world's economy on their side is actually a false premise here. People are getting weary of proxy wars, my friend. The US and these other NATO countries are not going to daddy Warbucks this war forever. These countries have given Ukraine a few billion here and there and some older weapons here and there, but acting like Ukraine has got a blank check for "the better half of the world's economy"? Textbook false premise.
You are tired of proxy wars. A near-majority of the GOP is tired of proxy wars. But a majority of American people do not share your desire to disengage from Ukraine (numbers vary from slim majorities to super-majorities depending on how the question is phrased). And Europe is digging in for the long haul. So you are way out over your skis on this one.

There's also the issue I brought up before that is also just a matter of basic logic: that is, there is no cash handout or conventional weapon that is going to make up for Ukraine's depleted manpower.
You make a classic error here. Until a couple of weeks ago, Ukraine had not yet drafted a single citizen below the age of 27, and is only now starting to draft down to age 25. They still have the entire cohort of age 18-25 available to tap, several million people, but are not doing so in order to improve future demography. But they will if they need too. It's what nations do. They fight until the literally run out of manpower or materiel. Nato support could keep Ukraine in this war against Russia indefinitely, certainly long enough for Russia to collapse. Remember, Russia is fully mobilized. Nato is not. Russia is under international sanctions which drive up the cost of everything; Ukraine is not. Etc.....

It will be fun to watch the anti-war bunch react to Trump's Ukraine policy. I predict it will be a great disappointment to you, in no small part because the anti-war position is driven more by isolationism and budget weariness rather than any sound understanding of foreign affairs.

Fact is , with open supply lines from Nato, Ukraine and Russia are peer adversaries. How do we know this? Look at the status of the war = stalemated.


Again, all you are doing in almost every post I've seen you make is speculating and veiling it as fact.
Citing factors you are not aware of is not speculating. It is explaining things you do not understand.

I've posted descriptive statistics and made a basic inference based on those: that a country with a much bigger population can afford to lose more troops than a country with a smaller population.
I haven't disputed that as a factor. I've in fact explained why it is not the only factor, and which other factors prevent it from being dispositive.
You keep saying stuff like "Russia has to defend all these miles of borders." Defend it from what ??????? I'm sure they'd love to have millions of troops stacked up along their border, but they don't actually have to.
No, they actually do have to execute a plan to defend their country. A neutral Finlad/Sweden affords Russia a buffer of time and space. they cannot be invaded from those countries alone (too small to be a threat in/of themselves). They only way those countries pose a threat is if they unite with others to position armies in their territories. Yes, there's lots of lead time on that, but there's even more lead time on building their own new units and supporting infrastructure to cover a threat that had not existed for the prior 80 years. It ups the current AND future costs of defense for Russia. It makes them commit more resources now to prepare to deploy against things that weren't an issue previously. Finland/Sweden accession to Nato will require Russia to deploy a division or two there. Russia has to station troops on its borders with North Korea, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, too. Plus it has to fight in Ukraine. So do they increase the army to cover Finland/Sweden threat? ($$$) or do they simply rob troops from elsewhere to cover it? (incurring greater risk). We have military bases all along our southern border, deployed to meet current anticipated threats. Do you seriously mean to suggest that Mexico could sign a massive alliance treaty with China and it would require no additions/adjustments to our own deployments?
Again, it's decent speculation but it's just speculation. How do you know the whereabouts of Russian troops?
We know EXACTLY where Russian troops are deployed, thanks to satellite imagery. And geography is geography. Any general in uniform anywhere in the world will tell you the same thing I said above - when the geopolitical situation changes, it affects your defense needs. You will find exceedingly few analysts who tell you Finland/Sweden accession to Nato have had ZERO impact on Russian defense needs.
Unless you are sitting in meetings with Zelensky and then teleporting and sitting in meetings with Putin and his war cabinet, you can't deny the premise that Russia has more men to spare and can afford to take a higher rate of casualties than Ukraine.
Again, I haven't denied it. I have acknowledged it as fact, then explained how it's not as impactful as you presume. Just having the manpower is one thing. Recruiting it, training it, equipping it, and deploying it effectively is a wildly larger and more complicated thing. Russia, perpetually backward and corrupt, has never been good at anything requiring any kind of efficiency. Ukraine, which has the exact same military tradition as Russia, has turned to a western model and is getting massive amounts of western aid. As a result, Ukraine is more efficient in most aspects of this war. To quibble with that will require you to explain how else could a nation so small fight the behemoth to a standstill.
You're also assuming that you know the rate of casualties that Ukraine is taking, and that's just more speculation.
We have a pretty good idea. No one is accepting Ukrainian or Russian claims. Western estimates are fairly consistent with each other and the best yardstick we have. We also know what the casualty rates of the attacker typically are - 3x the defender. And lastly we know that with exception for 6 months or so, Russia has been on the offensive, seeking to exploit its manpower advantage by constant pressure and relentless human wave type assaults, incurring tens of thousands of casualties over strategically irrelevant positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Yes, Ukraine has had two brief periods of a few weeks (Kharkiv front) and a few months ("counteroffensive") where it was on the offensive. But the Kharkiv front was a collapse of Russian lines, not at all a grinding offensive. And the "counteroffensive" was for all but the first two weeks a game of small unit infiltration of Russian lines. (Russia copied those tactics in the first few days of the recent advances on the Kharkiv front, but has now returned to the traditional Russian human wave.) Yes, Ukrainian losses are grievous. But they pale compared to the carnage inflicted on the Russian army.

I'm not surprised that the limousine liberals over on White Rock Lake want this war to go on forever.
I don't want the war to go on forever. I want to win it. And we easily can. We just need a better policy, which will require a different POTUS.
I know that people who live in gated communities often fall under the impression that their viewpoints are shared by everyone, but most Americans aren't about this war.
That doesn't mean the outcome of the war doesn't matter. A good leader will understand that a democratic society usually affords a limited amount time to achieve a desirable outcome, and therefore moves with alacrity to secure the victory. Biden's "as long as it takes" policy of scaling down our support to meet Russian efforts and win it over the long haul is incredibly stupid in that regard.
And it's not because we like Russia, it's because I'm sick of paying four dollars for a gallon of milk. I'm glad that your Boeing and Lockheed Martin stocks are doing well. What's a few dead Ukrainians when you've got country club memberships and HOA fees to pay on multiple homes.
and there you have it. almost all isolationist critiques have nothing to do with national security needs. They merely propose to balance the budget by making bad decisions on foreign policy.
You're going to spend the money one way or the other - in Ukraine defeating Russia, or in Europe defending from a Russian Army stationed in Ukraine. Why not just win it in Ukraine?
Ukraine was literally a constituent part of Russia for 300 years and it never effected the American people.
It is amazing that people will float such weak arguments as though they are dispositive. Ukrainian borders has ebbed and flowed and disappeared and reappeared considerably more than you suggest. Ukrainian nationalism is 300 years old, too. So the historical angle would more easily support partition of modern Ukraine among 2-6 other states than Russian control over the entirety of it (an option which has precedent only a few decades old).

Even if Russia was able to take all of Ukraine (which they can't) is that not the point of having the massive NATO alliance? To defend against any attack by an outside force?
It is amazing that you can say such silly things as if they support your case. So if you see a hostile power invading a state adjacent to you, your best option is to let them have it free & clear with no contest and let them roll right up to your border, undeterred and undiminished? Will that not send signals about your resolve to resist them? Will that not make them stronger (more people/resources) and more fool hardy ('we are tougher than they are"). WWII Japan knew they couldn't defeat us straight up. They thought they could run wild throughout the Pacific and that we'd lose interest in taking all back against such ferocious resistance (because Japan thought we were softies). Nations make bad decisions all the time.....pick wars they shouldn't have picked.....because of bad assessments about their own abilities and the abilities of their targets. Just look at Russia & Ukraine!

Plus Russian forces were already stationed in Ukraine back pre-2014! Didn't effect the USA at all.
And we didn't invade, did we? But when the Ukrainian people decided they wanted to be part of the Western Order, we understood the obvious, that this was a good thing for us, and (very modestly & incrementally) supported their transition.

The massive Black sea naval base and other military installations around the Crimea already were in use by the Russians and had been for a long long time.
So? Russia is a malign influence in the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean, too. Why would we not want to limit their influence there, when we have someone else who can do it for us?

Hell there have been Russia troops in Ukraine since at least 1772
See above. Not all of it. and 1772 is not 2022, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base#:~:text=The%20Sevastopol%20Naval%20Base%20(Russian,of%20the%20Black%20Sea%20Fleet.

(Sevastopol Naval Base: The port was renovated in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783)

John Paul Jones even volunteered over there and was station in Ukraine..."Jones became a rear admiral in the Russian Navy in 1788, flying his flag in the Vladimir as he defeated the Turks in an obscure sound at a northern gateway to the Black Sea.")
So what you're saying there is, in fact, that Russian influence in the Black Sea was not uncontested in 1788.


Russia is only entitled to the influence it can impose with hard or soft power. It is not our job to stand back and let them futz around with their overrated hardware until they find a marginal level of competence. If they cannot control Ukraine (and they cannot), then Ukraine gets to control Ukraine. And helping Ukraine control Ukraine will keep the Russians a long way from our allies and our armies.

You have yet to explain how we benefit, geo-strategically, from doing nothing to stop Russia in Ukraine.
The bolded can't be simultaneously true.

If they can't control Ukraine then they can't be a threat to our allies and armies. You can't be weak and strong at the same time. If they're truly that weak...they're never going to be a threat.
Threats don't have to be economic or military equals, or even remotely close to that.

The should be if the entire DC ruling apparatus is going to freak out...spend billions of dollars we don't have....and possibly get us into a nuclear war.


Ask Afghanistan, or Iran or North Korea about that.

Good point... that we over estimated the threat these places actual posed to the USA.

Spending billons on a failed occupation of Afghanistan...and resisted the idea of cutting our losses and pulling out.

Now people in DC want to do the regime change war/long term occupation thing with Iran or Russia.

MADNESS
Taking nation building off the table, which I concur with, doesn't change the reality of being a threat.
Lets not pretend like our government won't do something as stupid as nation building when it comes to Ukraine
Russia certainly is and will be doing that.
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between. But in recent history at least, countries typically don't invade their neighbors with the intent to take over in whole or in part.

It is perfectly understandable that Russia has long gone to great lengths to influence Ukraine. That's is how the world works. But when a country doesn't get what it wants from a neighbor, the answer is not to conquer it. To Putin it is.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)
can you not see the faulty premise there?

Ukraine will finish no worse than the current battle lines. Ukraine wins this by simply outlasting Russian logistics. UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs. Yesterday's strikes deep into Russia and sinking of another Russian naval vessel are indicators that Russia is indeed under great strain.

Ukraine is under great strain as well. But Ukraine has the best half of the world's economy behind it, sending financial and military aid sufficient to keep it in the game. Russia has a (poorer) quarter of the world's economy sorta helping out a little bit. It is Russia which cannot last, friend....




There is no false premise in anything that I just posted. Everything that I posted is simple, basic rational thought based on easily obtainable info about Russia and Ukraine. On the contrary, your argument is based on speculation and appealing to American Jingoism.

Google Russia's population.

Google Ukraine's population.

Now Google Russia's GDP.

Now Google Ukraine's GDP. (actually, Russia's military is bigger now than before the war started, but we will ignore that for this argument).
Now Google Nato's GDP.
As long as Nato supports Ukraine, Ukraine will not run out of resources. And Nato can match Russia's output easily (because of the +10x disparity in GDP between Nato and Russia). Russia cannot hope to match Nato's output, and the longer the term of view, the worse it fares for Russia.


Again, this type of stuff doesn't take George S. Patton to figure out. Russia can afford to lose more casualties than Ukraine. Where is the false premise there? Not sure how anybody can argue that unless they are wearing blue and yellow glasses, or they are really really buying into someone's propaganda (denying that there is propaganda coming from the Ukrainian side in this war is itself a piece of propaganda). Whether you like Russia or not, they are a big country with a big population and a lot of expendable oil and gas money. Ukraine is also their neighbor. They are not having to sail around the world to fight, etc.
False premise 1: that Ukraine and Russia are losing soldiers at the same rate. Does not matter that Russia has 3x the population if they are losing soldiers at 3x the rate. (and it's considerably worse than that).
False premise 2: that nations are equally able to bring their available people and industry to bear. Russia has severe constraints Ukraine does not have. A nation at war must divert some number of manpower to industry, which subtracts from available manpower for the military. Ukraine, which is getting a very high percentage of its equipment and ordnance from foreign aid, does not face that constraint to the same degree. (further offseting the 3-1 disadvantage in population.
False premise 3: that other security interests do not exist. Ukraine is dealing with one enemy in one direction, while Russia has an enormous footprint with numerous vulnerabilities. Ukraine does not need to support an Atlantic or Pacific Fleet, or ground & air forces all across the Asian continent. Ukraine has only one theater of operations (eastern Ukraine), while Russia has to defend thousands of miles of borders spread out all across Asia. That means Russia cannot fully exploit a 3x advantage in anything, because it must divert some of those resources elsewhere. And the "elsewhere" component has deteriorated for Russia, given the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, a new front which will require mid-high five-digit numbers of troops to defend.

Lastly, your statement about Ukraine having half of the world's economy on their side is actually a false premise here. People are getting weary of proxy wars, my friend. The US and these other NATO countries are not going to daddy Warbucks this war forever. These countries have given Ukraine a few billion here and there and some older weapons here and there, but acting like Ukraine has got a blank check for "the better half of the world's economy"? Textbook false premise.
You are tired of proxy wars. A near-majority of the GOP is tired of proxy wars. But a majority of American people do not share your desire to disengage from Ukraine (numbers vary from slim majorities to super-majorities depending on how the question is phrased). And Europe is digging in for the long haul. So you are way out over your skis on this one.

There's also the issue I brought up before that is also just a matter of basic logic: that is, there is no cash handout or conventional weapon that is going to make up for Ukraine's depleted manpower.
You make a classic error here. Until a couple of weeks ago, Ukraine had not yet drafted a single citizen below the age of 27, and is only now starting to draft down to age 25. They still have the entire cohort of age 18-25 available to tap, several million people, but are not doing so in order to improve future demography. But they will if they need too. It's what nations do. They fight until the literally run out of manpower or materiel. Nato support could keep Ukraine in this war against Russia indefinitely, certainly long enough for Russia to collapse. Remember, Russia is fully mobilized. Nato is not. Russia is under international sanctions which drive up the cost of everything; Ukraine is not. Etc.....

It will be fun to watch the anti-war bunch react to Trump's Ukraine policy. I predict it will be a great disappointment to you, in no small part because the anti-war position is driven more by isolationism and budget weariness rather than any sound understanding of foreign affairs.

Fact is , with open supply lines from Nato, Ukraine and Russia are peer adversaries. How do we know this? Look at the status of the war = stalemated.


Again, all you are doing in almost every post I've seen you make is speculating and veiling it as fact.
Citing factors you are not aware of is not speculating. It is explaining things you do not understand.

I've posted descriptive statistics and made a basic inference based on those: that a country with a much bigger population can afford to lose more troops than a country with a smaller population.
I haven't disputed that as a factor. I've in fact explained why it is not the only factor, and which other factors prevent it from being dispositive.
You keep saying stuff like "Russia has to defend all these miles of borders." Defend it from what ??????? I'm sure they'd love to have millions of troops stacked up along their border, but they don't actually have to.
No, they actually do have to execute a plan to defend their country. A neutral Finlad/Sweden affords Russia a buffer of time and space. they cannot be invaded from those countries alone (too small to be a threat in/of themselves). They only way those countries pose a threat is if they unite with others to position armies in their territories. Yes, there's lots of lead time on that, but there's even more lead time on building their own new units and supporting infrastructure to cover a threat that had not existed for the prior 80 years. It ups the current AND future costs of defense for Russia. It makes them commit more resources now to prepare to deploy against things that weren't an issue previously. Finland/Sweden accession to Nato will require Russia to deploy a division or two there. Russia has to station troops on its borders with North Korea, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, too. Plus it has to fight in Ukraine. So do they increase the army to cover Finland/Sweden threat? ($$$) or do they simply rob troops from elsewhere to cover it? (incurring greater risk). We have military bases all along our southern border, deployed to meet current anticipated threats. Do you seriously mean to suggest that Mexico could sign a massive alliance treaty with China and it would require no additions/adjustments to our own deployments?
Again, it's decent speculation but it's just speculation. How do you know the whereabouts of Russian troops?
We know EXACTLY where Russian troops are deployed, thanks to satellite imagery. And geography is geography. Any general in uniform anywhere in the world will tell you the same thing I said above - when the geopolitical situation changes, it affects your defense needs. You will find exceedingly few analysts who tell you Finland/Sweden accession to Nato have had ZERO impact on Russian defense needs.
Unless you are sitting in meetings with Zelensky and then teleporting and sitting in meetings with Putin and his war cabinet, you can't deny the premise that Russia has more men to spare and can afford to take a higher rate of casualties than Ukraine.
Again, I haven't denied it. I have acknowledged it as fact, then explained how it's not as impactful as you presume. Just having the manpower is one thing. Recruiting it, training it, equipping it, and deploying it effectively is a wildly larger and more complicated thing. Russia, perpetually backward and corrupt, has never been good at anything requiring any kind of efficiency. Ukraine, which has the exact same military tradition as Russia, has turned to a western model and is getting massive amounts of western aid. As a result, Ukraine is more efficient in most aspects of this war. To quibble with that will require you to explain how else could a nation so small fight the behemoth to a standstill.
You're also assuming that you know the rate of casualties that Ukraine is taking, and that's just more speculation.
We have a pretty good idea. No one is accepting Ukrainian or Russian claims. Western estimates are fairly consistent with each other and the best yardstick we have. We also know what the casualty rates of the attacker typically are - 3x the defender. And lastly we know that with exception for 6 months or so, Russia has been on the offensive, seeking to exploit its manpower advantage by constant pressure and relentless human wave type assaults, incurring tens of thousands of casualties over strategically irrelevant positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Yes, Ukraine has had two brief periods of a few weeks (Kharkiv front) and a few months ("counteroffensive") where it was on the offensive. But the Kharkiv front was a collapse of Russian lines, not at all a grinding offensive. And the "counteroffensive" was for all but the first two weeks a game of small unit infiltration of Russian lines. (Russia copied those tactics in the first few days of the recent advances on the Kharkiv front, but has now returned to the traditional Russian human wave.) Yes, Ukrainian losses are grievous. But they pale compared to the carnage inflicted on the Russian army.

I'm not surprised that the limousine liberals over on White Rock Lake want this war to go on forever.
I don't want the war to go on forever. I want to win it. And we easily can. We just need a better policy, which will require a different POTUS.
I know that people who live in gated communities often fall under the impression that their viewpoints are shared by everyone, but most Americans aren't about this war.
That doesn't mean the outcome of the war doesn't matter. A good leader will understand that a democratic society usually affords a limited amount time to achieve a desirable outcome, and therefore moves with alacrity to secure the victory. Biden's "as long as it takes" policy of scaling down our support to meet Russian efforts and win it over the long haul is incredibly stupid in that regard.
And it's not because we like Russia, it's because I'm sick of paying four dollars for a gallon of milk. I'm glad that your Boeing and Lockheed Martin stocks are doing well. What's a few dead Ukrainians when you've got country club memberships and HOA fees to pay on multiple homes.
and there you have it. almost all isolationist critiques have nothing to do with national security needs. They merely propose to balance the budget by making bad decisions on foreign policy.
You're going to spend the money one way or the other - in Ukraine defeating Russia, or in Europe defending from a Russian Army stationed in Ukraine. Why not just win it in Ukraine?
Ukraine was literally a constituent part of Russia for 300 years and it never effected the American people.
It is amazing that people will float such weak arguments as though they are dispositive. Ukrainian borders has ebbed and flowed and disappeared and reappeared considerably more than you suggest. Ukrainian nationalism is 300 years old, too. So the historical angle would more easily support partition of modern Ukraine among 2-6 other states than Russian control over the entirety of it (an option which has precedent only a few decades old).

Even if Russia was able to take all of Ukraine (which they can't) is that not the point of having the massive NATO alliance? To defend against any attack by an outside force?
It is amazing that you can say such silly things as if they support your case. So if you see a hostile power invading a state adjacent to you, your best option is to let them have it free & clear with no contest and let them roll right up to your border, undeterred and undiminished? Will that not send signals about your resolve to resist them? Will that not make them stronger (more people/resources) and more fool hardy ('we are tougher than they are"). WWII Japan knew they couldn't defeat us straight up. They thought they could run wild throughout the Pacific and that we'd lose interest in taking all back against such ferocious resistance (because Japan thought we were softies). Nations make bad decisions all the time.....pick wars they shouldn't have picked.....because of bad assessments about their own abilities and the abilities of their targets. Just look at Russia & Ukraine!

Plus Russian forces were already stationed in Ukraine back pre-2014! Didn't effect the USA at all.
And we didn't invade, did we? But when the Ukrainian people decided they wanted to be part of the Western Order, we understood the obvious, that this was a good thing for us, and (very modestly & incrementally) supported their transition.

The massive Black sea naval base and other military installations around the Crimea already were in use by the Russians and had been for a long long time.
So? Russia is a malign influence in the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean, too. Why would we not want to limit their influence there, when we have someone else who can do it for us?

Hell there have been Russia troops in Ukraine since at least 1772
See above. Not all of it. and 1772 is not 2022, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base#:~:text=The%20Sevastopol%20Naval%20Base%20(Russian,of%20the%20Black%20Sea%20Fleet.

(Sevastopol Naval Base: The port was renovated in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783)

John Paul Jones even volunteered over there and was station in Ukraine..."Jones became a rear admiral in the Russian Navy in 1788, flying his flag in the Vladimir as he defeated the Turks in an obscure sound at a northern gateway to the Black Sea.")
So what you're saying there is, in fact, that Russian influence in the Black Sea was not uncontested in 1788.


Russia is only entitled to the influence it can impose with hard or soft power. It is not our job to stand back and let them futz around with their overrated hardware until they find a marginal level of competence. If they cannot control Ukraine (and they cannot), then Ukraine gets to control Ukraine. And helping Ukraine control Ukraine will keep the Russians a long way from our allies and our armies.

You have yet to explain how we benefit, geo-strategically, from doing nothing to stop Russia in Ukraine.
The bolded can't be simultaneously true.

If they can't control Ukraine then they can't be a threat to our allies and armies. You can't be weak and strong at the same time. If they're truly that weak...they're never going to be a threat.
Threats don't have to be economic or military equals, or even remotely close to that.

The should be if the entire DC ruling apparatus is going to freak out...spend billions of dollars we don't have....and possibly get us into a nuclear war.


Ask Afghanistan, or Iran or North Korea about that.

Good point... that we over estimated the threat these places actual posed to the USA.

Spending billons on a failed occupation of Afghanistan...and resisted the idea of cutting our losses and pulling out.

Now people in DC want to do the regime change war/long term occupation thing with Iran or Russia.

MADNESS
Taking nation building off the table, which I concur with, doesn't change the reality of being a threat.
Lets not pretend like our government won't do something as stupid as nation building when it comes to Ukraine
Russia certainly is and will be doing that.
So we should let them which will add trillions to their debt and drive down their buying power?
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)
can you not see the faulty premise there?

Ukraine will finish no worse than the current battle lines. Ukraine wins this by simply outlasting Russian logistics. UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs. Yesterday's strikes deep into Russia and sinking of another Russian naval vessel are indicators that Russia is indeed under great strain.

Ukraine is under great strain as well. But Ukraine has the best half of the world's economy behind it, sending financial and military aid sufficient to keep it in the game. Russia has a (poorer) quarter of the world's economy sorta helping out a little bit. It is Russia which cannot last, friend....




There is no false premise in anything that I just posted. Everything that I posted is simple, basic rational thought based on easily obtainable info about Russia and Ukraine. On the contrary, your argument is based on speculation and appealing to American Jingoism.

Google Russia's population.

Google Ukraine's population.

Now Google Russia's GDP.

Now Google Ukraine's GDP. (actually, Russia's military is bigger now than before the war started, but we will ignore that for this argument).
Now Google Nato's GDP.
As long as Nato supports Ukraine, Ukraine will not run out of resources. And Nato can match Russia's output easily (because of the +10x disparity in GDP between Nato and Russia). Russia cannot hope to match Nato's output, and the longer the term of view, the worse it fares for Russia.


Again, this type of stuff doesn't take George S. Patton to figure out. Russia can afford to lose more casualties than Ukraine. Where is the false premise there? Not sure how anybody can argue that unless they are wearing blue and yellow glasses, or they are really really buying into someone's propaganda (denying that there is propaganda coming from the Ukrainian side in this war is itself a piece of propaganda). Whether you like Russia or not, they are a big country with a big population and a lot of expendable oil and gas money. Ukraine is also their neighbor. They are not having to sail around the world to fight, etc.
False premise 1: that Ukraine and Russia are losing soldiers at the same rate. Does not matter that Russia has 3x the population if they are losing soldiers at 3x the rate. (and it's considerably worse than that).
False premise 2: that nations are equally able to bring their available people and industry to bear. Russia has severe constraints Ukraine does not have. A nation at war must divert some number of manpower to industry, which subtracts from available manpower for the military. Ukraine, which is getting a very high percentage of its equipment and ordnance from foreign aid, does not face that constraint to the same degree. (further offseting the 3-1 disadvantage in population.
False premise 3: that other security interests do not exist. Ukraine is dealing with one enemy in one direction, while Russia has an enormous footprint with numerous vulnerabilities. Ukraine does not need to support an Atlantic or Pacific Fleet, or ground & air forces all across the Asian continent. Ukraine has only one theater of operations (eastern Ukraine), while Russia has to defend thousands of miles of borders spread out all across Asia. That means Russia cannot fully exploit a 3x advantage in anything, because it must divert some of those resources elsewhere. And the "elsewhere" component has deteriorated for Russia, given the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, a new front which will require mid-high five-digit numbers of troops to defend.

Lastly, your statement about Ukraine having half of the world's economy on their side is actually a false premise here. People are getting weary of proxy wars, my friend. The US and these other NATO countries are not going to daddy Warbucks this war forever. These countries have given Ukraine a few billion here and there and some older weapons here and there, but acting like Ukraine has got a blank check for "the better half of the world's economy"? Textbook false premise.
You are tired of proxy wars. A near-majority of the GOP is tired of proxy wars. But a majority of American people do not share your desire to disengage from Ukraine (numbers vary from slim majorities to super-majorities depending on how the question is phrased). And Europe is digging in for the long haul. So you are way out over your skis on this one.

There's also the issue I brought up before that is also just a matter of basic logic: that is, there is no cash handout or conventional weapon that is going to make up for Ukraine's depleted manpower.
You make a classic error here. Until a couple of weeks ago, Ukraine had not yet drafted a single citizen below the age of 27, and is only now starting to draft down to age 25. They still have the entire cohort of age 18-25 available to tap, several million people, but are not doing so in order to improve future demography. But they will if they need too. It's what nations do. They fight until the literally run out of manpower or materiel. Nato support could keep Ukraine in this war against Russia indefinitely, certainly long enough for Russia to collapse. Remember, Russia is fully mobilized. Nato is not. Russia is under international sanctions which drive up the cost of everything; Ukraine is not. Etc.....

It will be fun to watch the anti-war bunch react to Trump's Ukraine policy. I predict it will be a great disappointment to you, in no small part because the anti-war position is driven more by isolationism and budget weariness rather than any sound understanding of foreign affairs.

Fact is , with open supply lines from Nato, Ukraine and Russia are peer adversaries. How do we know this? Look at the status of the war = stalemated.


Again, all you are doing in almost every post I've seen you make is speculating and veiling it as fact.
Citing factors you are not aware of is not speculating. It is explaining things you do not understand.

I've posted descriptive statistics and made a basic inference based on those: that a country with a much bigger population can afford to lose more troops than a country with a smaller population.
I haven't disputed that as a factor. I've in fact explained why it is not the only factor, and which other factors prevent it from being dispositive.
You keep saying stuff like "Russia has to defend all these miles of borders." Defend it from what ??????? I'm sure they'd love to have millions of troops stacked up along their border, but they don't actually have to.
No, they actually do have to execute a plan to defend their country. A neutral Finlad/Sweden affords Russia a buffer of time and space. they cannot be invaded from those countries alone (too small to be a threat in/of themselves). They only way those countries pose a threat is if they unite with others to position armies in their territories. Yes, there's lots of lead time on that, but there's even more lead time on building their own new units and supporting infrastructure to cover a threat that had not existed for the prior 80 years. It ups the current AND future costs of defense for Russia. It makes them commit more resources now to prepare to deploy against things that weren't an issue previously. Finland/Sweden accession to Nato will require Russia to deploy a division or two there. Russia has to station troops on its borders with North Korea, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, too. Plus it has to fight in Ukraine. So do they increase the army to cover Finland/Sweden threat? ($$$) or do they simply rob troops from elsewhere to cover it? (incurring greater risk). We have military bases all along our southern border, deployed to meet current anticipated threats. Do you seriously mean to suggest that Mexico could sign a massive alliance treaty with China and it would require no additions/adjustments to our own deployments?
Again, it's decent speculation but it's just speculation. How do you know the whereabouts of Russian troops?
We know EXACTLY where Russian troops are deployed, thanks to satellite imagery. And geography is geography. Any general in uniform anywhere in the world will tell you the same thing I said above - when the geopolitical situation changes, it affects your defense needs. You will find exceedingly few analysts who tell you Finland/Sweden accession to Nato have had ZERO impact on Russian defense needs.
Unless you are sitting in meetings with Zelensky and then teleporting and sitting in meetings with Putin and his war cabinet, you can't deny the premise that Russia has more men to spare and can afford to take a higher rate of casualties than Ukraine.
Again, I haven't denied it. I have acknowledged it as fact, then explained how it's not as impactful as you presume. Just having the manpower is one thing. Recruiting it, training it, equipping it, and deploying it effectively is a wildly larger and more complicated thing. Russia, perpetually backward and corrupt, has never been good at anything requiring any kind of efficiency. Ukraine, which has the exact same military tradition as Russia, has turned to a western model and is getting massive amounts of western aid. As a result, Ukraine is more efficient in most aspects of this war. To quibble with that will require you to explain how else could a nation so small fight the behemoth to a standstill.
You're also assuming that you know the rate of casualties that Ukraine is taking, and that's just more speculation.
We have a pretty good idea. No one is accepting Ukrainian or Russian claims. Western estimates are fairly consistent with each other and the best yardstick we have. We also know what the casualty rates of the attacker typically are - 3x the defender. And lastly we know that with exception for 6 months or so, Russia has been on the offensive, seeking to exploit its manpower advantage by constant pressure and relentless human wave type assaults, incurring tens of thousands of casualties over strategically irrelevant positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Yes, Ukraine has had two brief periods of a few weeks (Kharkiv front) and a few months ("counteroffensive") where it was on the offensive. But the Kharkiv front was a collapse of Russian lines, not at all a grinding offensive. And the "counteroffensive" was for all but the first two weeks a game of small unit infiltration of Russian lines. (Russia copied those tactics in the first few days of the recent advances on the Kharkiv front, but has now returned to the traditional Russian human wave.) Yes, Ukrainian losses are grievous. But they pale compared to the carnage inflicted on the Russian army.

I'm not surprised that the limousine liberals over on White Rock Lake want this war to go on forever.
I don't want the war to go on forever. I want to win it. And we easily can. We just need a better policy, which will require a different POTUS.
I know that people who live in gated communities often fall under the impression that their viewpoints are shared by everyone, but most Americans aren't about this war.
That doesn't mean the outcome of the war doesn't matter. A good leader will understand that a democratic society usually affords a limited amount time to achieve a desirable outcome, and therefore moves with alacrity to secure the victory. Biden's "as long as it takes" policy of scaling down our support to meet Russian efforts and win it over the long haul is incredibly stupid in that regard.
And it's not because we like Russia, it's because I'm sick of paying four dollars for a gallon of milk. I'm glad that your Boeing and Lockheed Martin stocks are doing well. What's a few dead Ukrainians when you've got country club memberships and HOA fees to pay on multiple homes.
and there you have it. almost all isolationist critiques have nothing to do with national security needs. They merely propose to balance the budget by making bad decisions on foreign policy.
You're going to spend the money one way or the other - in Ukraine defeating Russia, or in Europe defending from a Russian Army stationed in Ukraine. Why not just win it in Ukraine?
Ukraine was literally a constituent part of Russia for 300 years and it never effected the American people.
It is amazing that people will float such weak arguments as though they are dispositive. Ukrainian borders has ebbed and flowed and disappeared and reappeared considerably more than you suggest. Ukrainian nationalism is 300 years old, too. So the historical angle would more easily support partition of modern Ukraine among 2-6 other states than Russian control over the entirety of it (an option which has precedent only a few decades old).

Even if Russia was able to take all of Ukraine (which they can't) is that not the point of having the massive NATO alliance? To defend against any attack by an outside force?
It is amazing that you can say such silly things as if they support your case. So if you see a hostile power invading a state adjacent to you, your best option is to let them have it free & clear with no contest and let them roll right up to your border, undeterred and undiminished? Will that not send signals about your resolve to resist them? Will that not make them stronger (more people/resources) and more fool hardy ('we are tougher than they are"). WWII Japan knew they couldn't defeat us straight up. They thought they could run wild throughout the Pacific and that we'd lose interest in taking all back against such ferocious resistance (because Japan thought we were softies). Nations make bad decisions all the time.....pick wars they shouldn't have picked.....because of bad assessments about their own abilities and the abilities of their targets. Just look at Russia & Ukraine!

Plus Russian forces were already stationed in Ukraine back pre-2014! Didn't effect the USA at all.
And we didn't invade, did we? But when the Ukrainian people decided they wanted to be part of the Western Order, we understood the obvious, that this was a good thing for us, and (very modestly & incrementally) supported their transition.

The massive Black sea naval base and other military installations around the Crimea already were in use by the Russians and had been for a long long time.
So? Russia is a malign influence in the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean, too. Why would we not want to limit their influence there, when we have someone else who can do it for us?

Hell there have been Russia troops in Ukraine since at least 1772
See above. Not all of it. and 1772 is not 2022, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base#:~:text=The%20Sevastopol%20Naval%20Base%20(Russian,of%20the%20Black%20Sea%20Fleet.

(Sevastopol Naval Base: The port was renovated in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783)

John Paul Jones even volunteered over there and was station in Ukraine..."Jones became a rear admiral in the Russian Navy in 1788, flying his flag in the Vladimir as he defeated the Turks in an obscure sound at a northern gateway to the Black Sea.")
So what you're saying there is, in fact, that Russian influence in the Black Sea was not uncontested in 1788.


Russia is only entitled to the influence it can impose with hard or soft power. It is not our job to stand back and let them futz around with their overrated hardware until they find a marginal level of competence. If they cannot control Ukraine (and they cannot), then Ukraine gets to control Ukraine. And helping Ukraine control Ukraine will keep the Russians a long way from our allies and our armies.

You have yet to explain how we benefit, geo-strategically, from doing nothing to stop Russia in Ukraine.
The bolded can't be simultaneously true.

If they can't control Ukraine then they can't be a threat to our allies and armies. You can't be weak and strong at the same time. If they're truly that weak...they're never going to be a threat.
Threats don't have to be economic or military equals, or even remotely close to that.

The should be if the entire DC ruling apparatus is going to freak out...spend billions of dollars we don't have....and possibly get us into a nuclear war.


Ask Afghanistan, or Iran or North Korea about that.

Good point... that we over estimated the threat these places actual posed to the USA.

Spending billons on a failed occupation of Afghanistan...and resisted the idea of cutting our losses and pulling out.

Now people in DC want to do the regime change war/long term occupation thing with Iran or Russia.

MADNESS
Taking nation building off the table, which I concur with, doesn't change the reality of being a threat.
Lets not pretend like our government won't do something as stupid as nation building when it comes to Ukraine
Russia certainly is and will be doing that.
So we should let them which will add trillions to their debt and drive down their buying power?
They don't do the expensive version of nation building. It's the cheaper version of despotism, exploitation, and corruption. Then when the people want out we get blamed for the coup and the costs involved to fix it.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing. Mexico and Cuba were long ago and were nothing like Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

And BTW Russia had a healthy economic and trade relationship with Ukraine as it did and does with other NATO countries. If they weee an enemy, it was only because Russia made it one.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between. But in recent history at least, countries typically don't invade their neighbors with the intent to take over in whole or in part.
No, we typically just overthrow their regimes. That's our goal in Russia, and it will lead to direct conflict if it isn't stopped. The best way to prevent that is to do what Putin is doing and draw the line in Ukraine.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Putin is such a reasonable, good guy. Yes, let's follow his lead.

BTW, you still haven't gotten around to pointing out which US politicians want to attack India. Just FYI.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Putin is such a reasonable, good guy. Yes, let's follow his lead.

BTW, you still haven't gotten around to pointing out which US politicians want to attack India. Just FYI.
He could be the most evil guy in the world and it wouldn't change what he's trying to do. Russia's main goal is to avoid war with NATO.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Putin is such a reasonable, good guy. Yes, let's follow his lead.

BTW, you still haven't gotten around to pointing out which US politicians want to attack India. Just FYI.
He could be the most evil guy in the world and it wouldn't change what he's trying to do. Russia's main goal is to avoid war with NATO.
So the way to avoid war with NATO is to put Russia on the precipice of war with NATO?

LOL. Sure.

Putin's got expansionist goals. And we all know you don't think him evil. You think of him as a good guy who supports Christianity. LOL.
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
Uh . . . Canada was not a sovereign nation
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Putin is such a reasonable, good guy. Yes, let's follow his lead.

BTW, you still haven't gotten around to pointing out which US politicians want to attack India. Just FYI.
He could be the most evil guy in the world and it wouldn't change what he's trying to do. Russia's main goal is to avoid war with NATO.
By invading a NATO/EU-friendly country, committing numerous war crimes, and escalating to the point that NATO members have actually discussed sending troops?

That sure is an interesting strategy to avoid NATO confrontation . . . . Then again, Putin is so evil and twisted that he may think that's a wise strategy . . . .
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Putin is such a reasonable, good guy. Yes, let's follow his lead.

BTW, you still haven't gotten around to pointing out which US politicians want to attack India. Just FYI.
He could be the most evil guy in the world and it wouldn't change what he's trying to do. Russia's main goal is to avoid war with NATO.
By invading a NATO/EU-friendly country, committing numerous war crimes, and escalating to the point that NATO members have actually discussed sending troops?

That sure is an interesting strategy to avoid NATO confrontation . . . . Then again, Putin is so evil and twisted that he may think that's a wise strategy . . . .
It's an incredible strategy, apparently, with NATO countries now pushing for committing NATO ground forces to Ukraine.

https://www.newsweek.com/momentum-clearly-building-nato-troops-ukraine-haddad-russia-france-1903092
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.



If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.



If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat
We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion, commit numerous intentional war crimes, and say the country really is ours.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)
can you not see the faulty premise there?

Ukraine will finish no worse than the current battle lines. Ukraine wins this by simply outlasting Russian logistics. UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs. Yesterday's strikes deep into Russia and sinking of another Russian naval vessel are indicators that Russia is indeed under great strain.

Ukraine is under great strain as well. But Ukraine has the best half of the world's economy behind it, sending financial and military aid sufficient to keep it in the game. Russia has a (poorer) quarter of the world's economy sorta helping out a little bit. It is Russia which cannot last, friend....




There is no false premise in anything that I just posted. Everything that I posted is simple, basic rational thought based on easily obtainable info about Russia and Ukraine. On the contrary, your argument is based on speculation and appealing to American Jingoism.

Google Russia's population.

Google Ukraine's population.

Now Google Russia's GDP.

Now Google Ukraine's GDP. (actually, Russia's military is bigger now than before the war started, but we will ignore that for this argument).
Now Google Nato's GDP.
As long as Nato supports Ukraine, Ukraine will not run out of resources. And Nato can match Russia's output easily (because of the +10x disparity in GDP between Nato and Russia). Russia cannot hope to match Nato's output, and the longer the term of view, the worse it fares for Russia.


Again, this type of stuff doesn't take George S. Patton to figure out. Russia can afford to lose more casualties than Ukraine. Where is the false premise there? Not sure how anybody can argue that unless they are wearing blue and yellow glasses, or they are really really buying into someone's propaganda (denying that there is propaganda coming from the Ukrainian side in this war is itself a piece of propaganda). Whether you like Russia or not, they are a big country with a big population and a lot of expendable oil and gas money. Ukraine is also their neighbor. They are not having to sail around the world to fight, etc.
False premise 1: that Ukraine and Russia are losing soldiers at the same rate. Does not matter that Russia has 3x the population if they are losing soldiers at 3x the rate. (and it's considerably worse than that).
False premise 2: that nations are equally able to bring their available people and industry to bear. Russia has severe constraints Ukraine does not have. A nation at war must divert some number of manpower to industry, which subtracts from available manpower for the military. Ukraine, which is getting a very high percentage of its equipment and ordnance from foreign aid, does not face that constraint to the same degree. (further offseting the 3-1 disadvantage in population.
False premise 3: that other security interests do not exist. Ukraine is dealing with one enemy in one direction, while Russia has an enormous footprint with numerous vulnerabilities. Ukraine does not need to support an Atlantic or Pacific Fleet, or ground & air forces all across the Asian continent. Ukraine has only one theater of operations (eastern Ukraine), while Russia has to defend thousands of miles of borders spread out all across Asia. That means Russia cannot fully exploit a 3x advantage in anything, because it must divert some of those resources elsewhere. And the "elsewhere" component has deteriorated for Russia, given the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, a new front which will require mid-high five-digit numbers of troops to defend.

Lastly, your statement about Ukraine having half of the world's economy on their side is actually a false premise here. People are getting weary of proxy wars, my friend. The US and these other NATO countries are not going to daddy Warbucks this war forever. These countries have given Ukraine a few billion here and there and some older weapons here and there, but acting like Ukraine has got a blank check for "the better half of the world's economy"? Textbook false premise.
You are tired of proxy wars. A near-majority of the GOP is tired of proxy wars. But a majority of American people do not share your desire to disengage from Ukraine (numbers vary from slim majorities to super-majorities depending on how the question is phrased). And Europe is digging in for the long haul. So you are way out over your skis on this one.

There's also the issue I brought up before that is also just a matter of basic logic: that is, there is no cash handout or conventional weapon that is going to make up for Ukraine's depleted manpower.
You make a classic error here. Until a couple of weeks ago, Ukraine had not yet drafted a single citizen below the age of 27, and is only now starting to draft down to age 25. They still have the entire cohort of age 18-25 available to tap, several million people, but are not doing so in order to improve future demography. But they will if they need too. It's what nations do. They fight until the literally run out of manpower or materiel. Nato support could keep Ukraine in this war against Russia indefinitely, certainly long enough for Russia to collapse. Remember, Russia is fully mobilized. Nato is not. Russia is under international sanctions which drive up the cost of everything; Ukraine is not. Etc.....

It will be fun to watch the anti-war bunch react to Trump's Ukraine policy. I predict it will be a great disappointment to you, in no small part because the anti-war position is driven more by isolationism and budget weariness rather than any sound understanding of foreign affairs.

Fact is , with open supply lines from Nato, Ukraine and Russia are peer adversaries. How do we know this? Look at the status of the war = stalemated.


Again, all you are doing in almost every post I've seen you make is speculating and veiling it as fact.
Citing factors you are not aware of is not speculating. It is explaining things you do not understand.

I've posted descriptive statistics and made a basic inference based on those: that a country with a much bigger population can afford to lose more troops than a country with a smaller population.
I haven't disputed that as a factor. I've in fact explained why it is not the only factor, and which other factors prevent it from being dispositive.
You keep saying stuff like "Russia has to defend all these miles of borders." Defend it from what ??????? I'm sure they'd love to have millions of troops stacked up along their border, but they don't actually have to.
No, they actually do have to execute a plan to defend their country. A neutral Finlad/Sweden affords Russia a buffer of time and space. they cannot be invaded from those countries alone (too small to be a threat in/of themselves). They only way those countries pose a threat is if they unite with others to position armies in their territories. Yes, there's lots of lead time on that, but there's even more lead time on building their own new units and supporting infrastructure to cover a threat that had not existed for the prior 80 years. It ups the current AND future costs of defense for Russia. It makes them commit more resources now to prepare to deploy against things that weren't an issue previously. Finland/Sweden accession to Nato will require Russia to deploy a division or two there. Russia has to station troops on its borders with North Korea, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, too. Plus it has to fight in Ukraine. So do they increase the army to cover Finland/Sweden threat? ($$$) or do they simply rob troops from elsewhere to cover it? (incurring greater risk). We have military bases all along our southern border, deployed to meet current anticipated threats. Do you seriously mean to suggest that Mexico could sign a massive alliance treaty with China and it would require no additions/adjustments to our own deployments?
Again, it's decent speculation but it's just speculation. How do you know the whereabouts of Russian troops?
We know EXACTLY where Russian troops are deployed, thanks to satellite imagery. And geography is geography. Any general in uniform anywhere in the world will tell you the same thing I said above - when the geopolitical situation changes, it affects your defense needs. You will find exceedingly few analysts who tell you Finland/Sweden accession to Nato have had ZERO impact on Russian defense needs.
Unless you are sitting in meetings with Zelensky and then teleporting and sitting in meetings with Putin and his war cabinet, you can't deny the premise that Russia has more men to spare and can afford to take a higher rate of casualties than Ukraine.
Again, I haven't denied it. I have acknowledged it as fact, then explained how it's not as impactful as you presume. Just having the manpower is one thing. Recruiting it, training it, equipping it, and deploying it effectively is a wildly larger and more complicated thing. Russia, perpetually backward and corrupt, has never been good at anything requiring any kind of efficiency. Ukraine, which has the exact same military tradition as Russia, has turned to a western model and is getting massive amounts of western aid. As a result, Ukraine is more efficient in most aspects of this war. To quibble with that will require you to explain how else could a nation so small fight the behemoth to a standstill.
You're also assuming that you know the rate of casualties that Ukraine is taking, and that's just more speculation.
We have a pretty good idea. No one is accepting Ukrainian or Russian claims. Western estimates are fairly consistent with each other and the best yardstick we have. We also know what the casualty rates of the attacker typically are - 3x the defender. And lastly we know that with exception for 6 months or so, Russia has been on the offensive, seeking to exploit its manpower advantage by constant pressure and relentless human wave type assaults, incurring tens of thousands of casualties over strategically irrelevant positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Yes, Ukraine has had two brief periods of a few weeks (Kharkiv front) and a few months ("counteroffensive") where it was on the offensive. But the Kharkiv front was a collapse of Russian lines, not at all a grinding offensive. And the "counteroffensive" was for all but the first two weeks a game of small unit infiltration of Russian lines. (Russia copied those tactics in the first few days of the recent advances on the Kharkiv front, but has now returned to the traditional Russian human wave.) Yes, Ukrainian losses are grievous. But they pale compared to the carnage inflicted on the Russian army.

I'm not surprised that the limousine liberals over on White Rock Lake want this war to go on forever.
I don't want the war to go on forever. I want to win it. And we easily can. We just need a better policy, which will require a different POTUS.
I know that people who live in gated communities often fall under the impression that their viewpoints are shared by everyone, but most Americans aren't about this war.
That doesn't mean the outcome of the war doesn't matter. A good leader will understand that a democratic society usually affords a limited amount time to achieve a desirable outcome, and therefore moves with alacrity to secure the victory. Biden's "as long as it takes" policy of scaling down our support to meet Russian efforts and win it over the long haul is incredibly stupid in that regard.
And it's not because we like Russia, it's because I'm sick of paying four dollars for a gallon of milk. I'm glad that your Boeing and Lockheed Martin stocks are doing well. What's a few dead Ukrainians when you've got country club memberships and HOA fees to pay on multiple homes.
and there you have it. almost all isolationist critiques have nothing to do with national security needs. They merely propose to balance the budget by making bad decisions on foreign policy.
You're going to spend the money one way or the other - in Ukraine defeating Russia, or in Europe defending from a Russian Army stationed in Ukraine. Why not just win it in Ukraine?
Ukraine was literally a constituent part of Russia for 300 years and it never effected the American people.
It is amazing that people will float such weak arguments as though they are dispositive. Ukrainian borders has ebbed and flowed and disappeared and reappeared considerably more than you suggest. Ukrainian nationalism is 300 years old, too. So the historical angle would more easily support partition of modern Ukraine among 2-6 other states than Russian control over the entirety of it (an option which has precedent only a few decades old).

Even if Russia was able to take all of Ukraine (which they can't) is that not the point of having the massive NATO alliance? To defend against any attack by an outside force?
It is amazing that you can say such silly things as if they support your case. So if you see a hostile power invading a state adjacent to you, your best option is to let them have it free & clear with no contest and let them roll right up to your border, undeterred and undiminished? Will that not send signals about your resolve to resist them? Will that not make them stronger (more people/resources) and more fool hardy ('we are tougher than they are"). WWII Japan knew they couldn't defeat us straight up. They thought they could run wild throughout the Pacific and that we'd lose interest in taking all back against such ferocious resistance (because Japan thought we were softies). Nations make bad decisions all the time.....pick wars they shouldn't have picked.....because of bad assessments about their own abilities and the abilities of their targets. Just look at Russia & Ukraine!

Plus Russian forces were already stationed in Ukraine back pre-2014! Didn't effect the USA at all.
And we didn't invade, did we? But when the Ukrainian people decided they wanted to be part of the Western Order, we understood the obvious, that this was a good thing for us, and (very modestly & incrementally) supported their transition.

The massive Black sea naval base and other military installations around the Crimea already were in use by the Russians and had been for a long long time.
So? Russia is a malign influence in the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean, too. Why would we not want to limit their influence there, when we have someone else who can do it for us?

Hell there have been Russia troops in Ukraine since at least 1772
See above. Not all of it. and 1772 is not 2022, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base#:~:text=The%20Sevastopol%20Naval%20Base%20(Russian,of%20the%20Black%20Sea%20Fleet.

(Sevastopol Naval Base: The port was renovated in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783)

John Paul Jones even volunteered over there and was station in Ukraine..."Jones became a rear admiral in the Russian Navy in 1788, flying his flag in the Vladimir as he defeated the Turks in an obscure sound at a northern gateway to the Black Sea.")
So what you're saying there is, in fact, that Russian influence in the Black Sea was not uncontested in 1788.


Russia is only entitled to the influence it can impose with hard or soft power. It is not our job to stand back and let them futz around with their overrated hardware until they find a marginal level of competence. If they cannot control Ukraine (and they cannot), then Ukraine gets to control Ukraine. And helping Ukraine control Ukraine will keep the Russians a long way from our allies and our armies.

You have yet to explain how we benefit, geo-strategically, from doing nothing to stop Russia in Ukraine.
The bolded can't be simultaneously true.

If they can't control Ukraine then they can't be a threat to our allies and armies. You can't be weak and strong at the same time. If they're truly that weak...they're never going to be a threat.
Threats don't have to be economic or military equals, or even remotely close to that.
Exactly. Japan was neither our military nor economic equal in 1941 but look what it cost to defeat them. Neither was AQ, but look what it cost us to get attacked and then attrit that movement to the point it could not attack us again. History doesn't just abound with lessons like that. History IS a lesson on that. Over and over and over, nations start wars they shouldn't have.

And we did NOT start this one.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.



If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat
Not excusing our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO, but we all know that wasn't close to becoming a reality when Putin invaded. We also know he had empirical ambitions. A lot of the proffered excuses for the invasion were mere pretext.

Giving security excuses would have taken away the pretext. May not have prevented what happened, but we all know Putin was searching for a reason to invade.
trey3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Putin is such a reasonable, good guy. Yes, let's follow his lead.

BTW, you still haven't gotten around to pointing out which US politicians want to attack India. Just FYI.
He could be the most evil guy in the world and it wouldn't change what he's trying to do. Russia's main goal is to avoid war with NATO.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

whiterock said:

Daveisabovereproach said:

I have yet to see an argument from the slava Ukraine side of this of how this war is supposed to end. Even the optimists must be forced to admit that Ukraine is not going to survive on Pyrrhic victories; you must go on the offensive to win a war. Russia can afford to take lot more casualties than Ukraine. They have plenty of peasant hordes to throw into the meat grinder. How does Ukraine win this? If there is no realistic option, then that is tantamount to admitting that this is a miniature repeat of Vietnam/war on terror minus the boots on the ground (unless the plan is to put boots on the ground which I would file under the unrealistic category)
can you not see the faulty premise there?

Ukraine will finish no worse than the current battle lines. Ukraine wins this by simply outlasting Russian logistics. UK MOD on Friday assessed that Russian air defense has been attritted to the point it cannot cover the war and territorial defense needs. Yesterday's strikes deep into Russia and sinking of another Russian naval vessel are indicators that Russia is indeed under great strain.

Ukraine is under great strain as well. But Ukraine has the best half of the world's economy behind it, sending financial and military aid sufficient to keep it in the game. Russia has a (poorer) quarter of the world's economy sorta helping out a little bit. It is Russia which cannot last, friend....




There is no false premise in anything that I just posted. Everything that I posted is simple, basic rational thought based on easily obtainable info about Russia and Ukraine. On the contrary, your argument is based on speculation and appealing to American Jingoism.

Google Russia's population.

Google Ukraine's population.

Now Google Russia's GDP.

Now Google Ukraine's GDP. (actually, Russia's military is bigger now than before the war started, but we will ignore that for this argument).
Now Google Nato's GDP.
As long as Nato supports Ukraine, Ukraine will not run out of resources. And Nato can match Russia's output easily (because of the +10x disparity in GDP between Nato and Russia). Russia cannot hope to match Nato's output, and the longer the term of view, the worse it fares for Russia.


Again, this type of stuff doesn't take George S. Patton to figure out. Russia can afford to lose more casualties than Ukraine. Where is the false premise there? Not sure how anybody can argue that unless they are wearing blue and yellow glasses, or they are really really buying into someone's propaganda (denying that there is propaganda coming from the Ukrainian side in this war is itself a piece of propaganda). Whether you like Russia or not, they are a big country with a big population and a lot of expendable oil and gas money. Ukraine is also their neighbor. They are not having to sail around the world to fight, etc.
False premise 1: that Ukraine and Russia are losing soldiers at the same rate. Does not matter that Russia has 3x the population if they are losing soldiers at 3x the rate. (and it's considerably worse than that).
False premise 2: that nations are equally able to bring their available people and industry to bear. Russia has severe constraints Ukraine does not have. A nation at war must divert some number of manpower to industry, which subtracts from available manpower for the military. Ukraine, which is getting a very high percentage of its equipment and ordnance from foreign aid, does not face that constraint to the same degree. (further offseting the 3-1 disadvantage in population.
False premise 3: that other security interests do not exist. Ukraine is dealing with one enemy in one direction, while Russia has an enormous footprint with numerous vulnerabilities. Ukraine does not need to support an Atlantic or Pacific Fleet, or ground & air forces all across the Asian continent. Ukraine has only one theater of operations (eastern Ukraine), while Russia has to defend thousands of miles of borders spread out all across Asia. That means Russia cannot fully exploit a 3x advantage in anything, because it must divert some of those resources elsewhere. And the "elsewhere" component has deteriorated for Russia, given the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, a new front which will require mid-high five-digit numbers of troops to defend.

Lastly, your statement about Ukraine having half of the world's economy on their side is actually a false premise here. People are getting weary of proxy wars, my friend. The US and these other NATO countries are not going to daddy Warbucks this war forever. These countries have given Ukraine a few billion here and there and some older weapons here and there, but acting like Ukraine has got a blank check for "the better half of the world's economy"? Textbook false premise.
You are tired of proxy wars. A near-majority of the GOP is tired of proxy wars. But a majority of American people do not share your desire to disengage from Ukraine (numbers vary from slim majorities to super-majorities depending on how the question is phrased). And Europe is digging in for the long haul. So you are way out over your skis on this one.

There's also the issue I brought up before that is also just a matter of basic logic: that is, there is no cash handout or conventional weapon that is going to make up for Ukraine's depleted manpower.
You make a classic error here. Until a couple of weeks ago, Ukraine had not yet drafted a single citizen below the age of 27, and is only now starting to draft down to age 25. They still have the entire cohort of age 18-25 available to tap, several million people, but are not doing so in order to improve future demography. But they will if they need too. It's what nations do. They fight until the literally run out of manpower or materiel. Nato support could keep Ukraine in this war against Russia indefinitely, certainly long enough for Russia to collapse. Remember, Russia is fully mobilized. Nato is not. Russia is under international sanctions which drive up the cost of everything; Ukraine is not. Etc.....

It will be fun to watch the anti-war bunch react to Trump's Ukraine policy. I predict it will be a great disappointment to you, in no small part because the anti-war position is driven more by isolationism and budget weariness rather than any sound understanding of foreign affairs.

Fact is , with open supply lines from Nato, Ukraine and Russia are peer adversaries. How do we know this? Look at the status of the war = stalemated.


Again, all you are doing in almost every post I've seen you make is speculating and veiling it as fact.
Citing factors you are not aware of is not speculating. It is explaining things you do not understand.

I've posted descriptive statistics and made a basic inference based on those: that a country with a much bigger population can afford to lose more troops than a country with a smaller population.
I haven't disputed that as a factor. I've in fact explained why it is not the only factor, and which other factors prevent it from being dispositive.
You keep saying stuff like "Russia has to defend all these miles of borders." Defend it from what ??????? I'm sure they'd love to have millions of troops stacked up along their border, but they don't actually have to.
No, they actually do have to execute a plan to defend their country. A neutral Finlad/Sweden affords Russia a buffer of time and space. they cannot be invaded from those countries alone (too small to be a threat in/of themselves). They only way those countries pose a threat is if they unite with others to position armies in their territories. Yes, there's lots of lead time on that, but there's even more lead time on building their own new units and supporting infrastructure to cover a threat that had not existed for the prior 80 years. It ups the current AND future costs of defense for Russia. It makes them commit more resources now to prepare to deploy against things that weren't an issue previously. Finland/Sweden accession to Nato will require Russia to deploy a division or two there. Russia has to station troops on its borders with North Korea, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, too. Plus it has to fight in Ukraine. So do they increase the army to cover Finland/Sweden threat? ($$$) or do they simply rob troops from elsewhere to cover it? (incurring greater risk). We have military bases all along our southern border, deployed to meet current anticipated threats. Do you seriously mean to suggest that Mexico could sign a massive alliance treaty with China and it would require no additions/adjustments to our own deployments?
Again, it's decent speculation but it's just speculation. How do you know the whereabouts of Russian troops?
We know EXACTLY where Russian troops are deployed, thanks to satellite imagery. And geography is geography. Any general in uniform anywhere in the world will tell you the same thing I said above - when the geopolitical situation changes, it affects your defense needs. You will find exceedingly few analysts who tell you Finland/Sweden accession to Nato have had ZERO impact on Russian defense needs.
Unless you are sitting in meetings with Zelensky and then teleporting and sitting in meetings with Putin and his war cabinet, you can't deny the premise that Russia has more men to spare and can afford to take a higher rate of casualties than Ukraine.
Again, I haven't denied it. I have acknowledged it as fact, then explained how it's not as impactful as you presume. Just having the manpower is one thing. Recruiting it, training it, equipping it, and deploying it effectively is a wildly larger and more complicated thing. Russia, perpetually backward and corrupt, has never been good at anything requiring any kind of efficiency. Ukraine, which has the exact same military tradition as Russia, has turned to a western model and is getting massive amounts of western aid. As a result, Ukraine is more efficient in most aspects of this war. To quibble with that will require you to explain how else could a nation so small fight the behemoth to a standstill.
You're also assuming that you know the rate of casualties that Ukraine is taking, and that's just more speculation.
We have a pretty good idea. No one is accepting Ukrainian or Russian claims. Western estimates are fairly consistent with each other and the best yardstick we have. We also know what the casualty rates of the attacker typically are - 3x the defender. And lastly we know that with exception for 6 months or so, Russia has been on the offensive, seeking to exploit its manpower advantage by constant pressure and relentless human wave type assaults, incurring tens of thousands of casualties over strategically irrelevant positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Yes, Ukraine has had two brief periods of a few weeks (Kharkiv front) and a few months ("counteroffensive") where it was on the offensive. But the Kharkiv front was a collapse of Russian lines, not at all a grinding offensive. And the "counteroffensive" was for all but the first two weeks a game of small unit infiltration of Russian lines. (Russia copied those tactics in the first few days of the recent advances on the Kharkiv front, but has now returned to the traditional Russian human wave.) Yes, Ukrainian losses are grievous. But they pale compared to the carnage inflicted on the Russian army.

I'm not surprised that the limousine liberals over on White Rock Lake want this war to go on forever.
I don't want the war to go on forever. I want to win it. And we easily can. We just need a better policy, which will require a different POTUS.
I know that people who live in gated communities often fall under the impression that their viewpoints are shared by everyone, but most Americans aren't about this war.
That doesn't mean the outcome of the war doesn't matter. A good leader will understand that a democratic society usually affords a limited amount time to achieve a desirable outcome, and therefore moves with alacrity to secure the victory. Biden's "as long as it takes" policy of scaling down our support to meet Russian efforts and win it over the long haul is incredibly stupid in that regard.
And it's not because we like Russia, it's because I'm sick of paying four dollars for a gallon of milk. I'm glad that your Boeing and Lockheed Martin stocks are doing well. What's a few dead Ukrainians when you've got country club memberships and HOA fees to pay on multiple homes.
and there you have it. almost all isolationist critiques have nothing to do with national security needs. They merely propose to balance the budget by making bad decisions on foreign policy.
You're going to spend the money one way or the other - in Ukraine defeating Russia, or in Europe defending from a Russian Army stationed in Ukraine. Why not just win it in Ukraine?
Ukraine was literally a constituent part of Russia for 300 years and it never effected the American people.
It is amazing that people will float such weak arguments as though they are dispositive. Ukrainian borders has ebbed and flowed and disappeared and reappeared considerably more than you suggest. Ukrainian nationalism is 300 years old, too. So the historical angle would more easily support partition of modern Ukraine among 2-6 other states than Russian control over the entirety of it (an option which has precedent only a few decades old).

Even if Russia was able to take all of Ukraine (which they can't) is that not the point of having the massive NATO alliance? To defend against any attack by an outside force?
It is amazing that you can say such silly things as if they support your case. So if you see a hostile power invading a state adjacent to you, your best option is to let them have it free & clear with no contest and let them roll right up to your border, undeterred and undiminished? Will that not send signals about your resolve to resist them? Will that not make them stronger (more people/resources) and more fool hardy ('we are tougher than they are"). WWII Japan knew they couldn't defeat us straight up. They thought they could run wild throughout the Pacific and that we'd lose interest in taking all back against such ferocious resistance (because Japan thought we were softies). Nations make bad decisions all the time.....pick wars they shouldn't have picked.....because of bad assessments about their own abilities and the abilities of their targets. Just look at Russia & Ukraine!

Plus Russian forces were already stationed in Ukraine back pre-2014! Didn't effect the USA at all.
And we didn't invade, did we? But when the Ukrainian people decided they wanted to be part of the Western Order, we understood the obvious, that this was a good thing for us, and (very modestly & incrementally) supported their transition.

The massive Black sea naval base and other military installations around the Crimea already were in use by the Russians and had been for a long long time.
So? Russia is a malign influence in the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean, too. Why would we not want to limit their influence there, when we have someone else who can do it for us?

Hell there have been Russia troops in Ukraine since at least 1772
See above. Not all of it. and 1772 is not 2022, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base#:~:text=The%20Sevastopol%20Naval%20Base%20(Russian,of%20the%20Black%20Sea%20Fleet.

(Sevastopol Naval Base: The port was renovated in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783)

John Paul Jones even volunteered over there and was station in Ukraine..."Jones became a rear admiral in the Russian Navy in 1788, flying his flag in the Vladimir as he defeated the Turks in an obscure sound at a northern gateway to the Black Sea.")
So what you're saying there is, in fact, that Russian influence in the Black Sea was not uncontested in 1788.


Russia is only entitled to the influence it can impose with hard or soft power. It is not our job to stand back and let them futz around with their overrated hardware until they find a marginal level of competence. If they cannot control Ukraine (and they cannot), then Ukraine gets to control Ukraine. And helping Ukraine control Ukraine will keep the Russians a long way from our allies and our armies.

You have yet to explain how we benefit, geo-strategically, from doing nothing to stop Russia in Ukraine.


Well I will try...

1. Without actual competent NATO/USA ground forces in this war Ukraine is not going to win.
Regardless of what is your implied definition of the word "win," that's a totally self-serving strawman argument (i.e. likely to happen if you withdraw US support.) Nato engagement is not, however, necessary for a broad range of positive outcomes.

2. Unless we plan on getting rid of the Russian state itself...its ALWAYS going to be involved in Ukraine at some level...its right next door...same goes for Belarus and Kazakhstan.
false dilemma. Being "involved" in the affairs of a neighbor is not synonymous with including that neighbor inside your own polity, which is the now-stated objective of Russian policy toward Ukraine.

Just like the USA (unless someone intends to abolish it) is ALWAY going to be involved in Canada, Mexico, Cuba.
sigh. restating the obvious. We have not invaded any of those places in an awful lot of years, and never invaded them for the purpose of including all of their territory into our own polity.

3. Its a simple fact that countries that surround a larger neighbor have to find ways to get along with it. There is just no other choice. Mongolia has to get along with China, Sri Lanka has to work with India. Etc.
line of sight is reciprocal. Ukraine is also a neighbor of Nato and the EU, is it not?

As of right now we are funding a war in Ukraine that can not end with a complete Ukrainian victory and will at best end up as a frozen conflict....or worse.
Why is a frozen conflict bad? Who can withstand a frozen conflict longer.....Russia, or Nato? (hint: not Russia).

4. The USA does not have much strategic interests on the line in Ukraine....Germany probably stands more to gain from Ukraine in the EU than does the USA.
Flat wrong. Nato has an existential strategic interest in Ukraine. We are part of Nato.

In fact, the implicit premise of your argument is that the US has no interest in belonging to Nato which would make no sense unless one also believes that we have no interest in anything that happens in Europe.


https://www.hoover.org/research/what-americas-strategic-interest-ukraine

[A generation of American diplomats, including Henry Kissinger and former Ambassador to Russia William Burns, warned that expanding NATO to Ukraine was a tripwire for Russia. German documents published by Der Spiegel in February 2022 confirm that Western powers gave Russia written assurance in 1990 against NATO expansion. Russia's prostration after its 1998 debt default, though, allowed NATO to ignore these assurances. Under Clinton, NATO's mission morphed into a nebulous human rights and social welfare agenda. NATO added Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1999, and another seven former Soviet-zone countries in 2004. Meanwhile the Bundeswehr shrank to five ill-equipped divisions from the twelve combat-ready, heavily armed divisions of 1990. NATO degraded its military function as it padded its membership.

Ukraine is another matter. Russia regards its inclusion in NATO as an existential threat. Putin stated on the eve of the invasion on February 23...]
LOL misdirection. Nato did not include Ukraine as a member! In fact, Ukraine did not formally apply for Nato membership until AFTER it was invaded by Russia. And it's application has not even been voted on, because it does not meet the requirements for admission. Nato in fact did not even deploy combat units to any of its former WP members in Eastern Europe, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. Russia invaded anyway. Now it has to deal with Finland and Sweden as Nato members and combat troops stationed in the Baltics.
you reflexively avoid the actual issue on the table. Russia invaded the largest country in Europe for the purpose of annexing it in entirety into Russian polity. It did not do that because of any imminent threat from Nato. It did it because it thought it could. It thought Ukraine would collapse upon first contact with the Russian Army. It was on multiple levels an enormous, historic miscalculation for which it should pay dearly, and is. Nato jawboning about who is/isn't, should or shouldn't be in Nato is not a justification for an all out war to totally subjugate a neighbor. In fact, the closest thing to proximate cause would be Ukrainian accession to the EU, which is NOT a military alliance.

If we follow your lead on Ukraine and withdraw funding, how will that affect Russian geostrategic planning? Will it not tell them that It can outlast the far mightier Nato? Will it not not persuade a lot of Russian nationalist hawks that Nato would have no stomach for incurring a hot war over the fate of the Baltics?
(yes, and yes....and much more)
How could Russia not suspect that Secretary Redbrick would just keep redefining American interests inward at each Russian encroachment?
(they will conclude that to be fact, and it will make them reckless).
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:


Threats don't have to be economic or military equals, or even remotely close to that.

The should be if the entire DC ruling apparatus is going to freak out...spend billions of dollars we don't have....and possibly get us into a nuclear war.


Ask Afghanistan, or Iran or North Korea about that.

Good point... that we over estimated the threat these places actual posed to the USA.

Spending billons on a failed occupation of Afghanistan...and resisted the idea of cutting our losses and pulling out.

Now people in DC want to do the regime change war/long term occupation thing with Iran or Russia.

MADNESS
Taking nation building off the table, which I concur with, doesn't change the reality of being a threat.
Lets not pretend like our government won't do something as stupid as nation building when it comes to Ukraine
Nation-building worked out great with Japan, Germany, and most of Europe.
Nation-building worked out poorly with Afghanistan, Iran, NK, because we did not engage in it anywhere remotely in the sense we did in post WWII rebuilding.

One other big difference: Private Sector contributions. We could have expected none in the latter examples, but we got a lot in Japan, Genrmany, most of Europe. We will likely get a lot of it in Ukraine.

Different places. Different factors. Different outcomes. Ukraine looks quite a bit more promising than the examples cited, with are not terribly good examples.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.



If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat
We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.



If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat
We would not conduct a mass invasion, commit numerous intentional war crimes, and say the country really is ours.
Mexico, Canada, the Philippines. Panama. Columbia, Haita, and a host of other countries say otherwise.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
Uh . . . Canada was not a sovereign nation
It was part of the UK (a sovereign nation)

And the purpose of the invasions was to pull it into the American orbit (even completely take it over)

Lets just be honest....the USA does what it wants in North and South America...areas we consider our sphere of influence. And if anyone does differently they might just get invaded by some U.S. marines

Russia considers places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan its sphere of influence.

If we would consider it ridiculous for them to fight us over our areas...why should we fight them over theirs?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
a valid military target in a war of independence in which the borders of the entire British presence in the Americas were an open question.
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
again, a valid military target in a war we did not start.
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
note the words "American rebels" are not synonymous with "US Government."
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]
War planning is an act of war?
Are you not aware of how robustly we war plan every conceivable scenario 20+ years out into the future? We actually use war planning to guide weapons development and budgeting needs decades out into the future. "War planning" is not actually a plan to launch a war. It's how to assess your force structure, your weapons capabilities....to find your own weaknesses in given scenarios. And "war planning" is not just limited to strictly military issues. Implicit in the exercise is running the scenarios about you opponents, to assess what they are likely to do, how their thinking will affect their planning, given geopolitical realities. We spend a LOT of money war planning and are very, very good at it. We started retooling for contests in Eastern Europe (against Russia) and East Asia (against China) over a decade ago, because open source assessments, intel, historical analogies, and war gaming indicated high likelihood that's where the coming challenges would be. (Daughter did a stint in that office. Hated it....)


[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]
you are using the word "invaded" very loosely. America has never invaded to include it in its entirety into the USA (as Russia has done frequently in its history, most recently in Ukraine 2022).

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
LOL so why is Cuba not a state already? We actually gained it as territory when we won the Spanish/American war, yet gave them their independence without being forced to do so.
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.
He is prone to cite examples that weaken and occasionally undermine his position.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
a valid military target in a war of independence in which the borders of the entire British presence in the Americas were an open question.
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
again, a valid military target in a war we did not start.
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
note the words "American rebels" are not synonymous with "US Government."
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]
War planning is an act of war?
Are you not aware of how robustly we war plan every conceivable scenario 20+ years out into the future? We actually use war planning to guide weapons development and budgeting needs decades out into the future. "War planning" is not actually a plan to launch a war. It's how to assess your force structure, your weapons capabilities....to find your own weaknesses in given scenarios. And "war planning" is not just limited to strictly military issues. Implicit in the exercise is running the scenarios about you opponents, to assess what they are likely to do, how their thinking will affect their planning, given geopolitical realities. We spend a LOT of money war planning and are very, very good at it. We started retooling for contests in Eastern Europe (against Russia) and East Asia (against China) over a decade ago, because open source assessments, intel, historical analogies, and war gaming indicated high likelihood that's where the coming challenges would be. (Daughter did a stint in that office. Hated it....)


[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]
you are using the word "invaded" very loosely. America has never invaded to include it in its entirety into the USA (as Russia has done frequently in its history, most recently in Ukraine 2022).

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
LOL so why is Cuba not a state already? We actually gained it as territory when we won the Spanish/American war, yet gave them their independence without being forced to do so.
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.
He is prone to cite examples that weaken and occasionally undermine his position.

The USA invading its neighbors on multiple occasions over its history is of course fact.

How does that undermine my position?

If anything it undermines your position that the US leadership is upholding some kind of "international norm" in Ukraine.

DC repeatedly violates international norms when it feels like it.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-countries-has-the-us-invaded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America

sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
Uh . . . Canada was not a sovereign nation
It was part of the UK (a sovereign nation)

And the purpose of the invasions was to pull it into the American orbit (even completely take it over)

Lets just be honest....the USA does what it wants in North and South America...areas we consider our sphere of influence. And if anyone does differently they might just get invaded by some U.S. marines

Russia considers places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan its sphere of influence.

If we would consider it ridiculous for them to fight us over our areas...why should we fight them over theirs?


Correct, and we were at war or anticipating war with Britain. So using Canada as one of your examples makes no sense even aside from how long ago it was.

U.S. and Russia both meddle in each others backyards.

If we invaded Cuba or Venezuela, you bet your a _ _ Russia would support them.
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
a valid military target in a war of independence in which the borders of the entire British presence in the Americas were an open question.
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
again, a valid military target in a war we did not start.
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
note the words "American rebels" are not synonymous with "US Government."
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]
War planning is an act of war?
Are you not aware of how robustly we war plan every conceivable scenario 20+ years out into the future? We actually use war planning to guide weapons development and budgeting needs decades out into the future. "War planning" is not actually a plan to launch a war. It's how to assess your force structure, your weapons capabilities....to find your own weaknesses in given scenarios. And "war planning" is not just limited to strictly military issues. Implicit in the exercise is running the scenarios about you opponents, to assess what they are likely to do, how their thinking will affect their planning, given geopolitical realities. We spend a LOT of money war planning and are very, very good at it. We started retooling for contests in Eastern Europe (against Russia) and East Asia (against China) over a decade ago, because open source assessments, intel, historical analogies, and war gaming indicated high likelihood that's where the coming challenges would be. (Daughter did a stint in that office. Hated it....)


[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]
you are using the word "invaded" very loosely. America has never invaded to include it in its entirety into the USA (as Russia has done frequently in its history, most recently in Ukraine 2022).

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
LOL so why is Cuba not a state already? We actually gained it as territory when we won the Spanish/American war, yet gave them their independence without being forced to do so.
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.
He is prone to cite examples that weaken and occasionally undermine his position.

The USA invading its neighbors on multiple occasions over its history is of course fact.

How does that undermine my position?

If anything it undermines your position that the US leadership is upholding some kind of "international norm" in Ukraine.

DC repeatedly violates international norms when it feels like it.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-countries-has-the-us-invaded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America




Only if invasion means supporting a side. None of these examples is anything even approaching what Russia did to Ukraine.
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.



If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat
We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.


That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…


Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.


Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..


Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.



If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat
We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.


That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.


I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

The idea that what we did is equivalent to Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the true absurdity. You guys have been reading too much Noam Chomsky.
First Page Last Page
Page 116 of 136
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.