Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

But Putin is a 1960's Soviet Premier. He is not a 21st century leader. That is your problem, you think you are dealing with an enlightened Obams globalist. He is not, he is a 20th Century KGB thug.

---

No one thinks Putin is an Obama globalist. The baffling question is why anyone would expect him to be.

Even during the Cold War, no one said WW3 was inevitable. Much less that it had already started. We did our best to avoid it. We dealt with the Russians whether we liked them or not. We made agreements. We respected certain boundaries.

We're now told that Russia is relentlessly hostile by nature and can never be redeemed. If that's true, why did we ever try to make peace with them? Were we lying and intending to fight them all along?

My question to all the Russophobes is, what changed?

I've explained what I think it was. America got caught up in the idea of a unipolar world, full spectrum dominance, the end of history, etc. There's a ton of literature and conversation about it, but you don't believe it.

Something must have happened to Russia to make it even more of a threat than it was during the height of Cold War tensions, when Khrushchev was putting missiles in Cuba and ranting about burying the capitalist states. So much of a threat that we can no longer negotiate or cooperate with them in any way, lest the world be plunged into tyranny and suffering.

So, what happened? I think that's your burden to explain.

---

The 2012 re-establishment of Putin back into power is likely the seminal moment. He spent his Prime Ministerial period consolidating power and rolled back much of the progress Medvedev had established. Medvedev was willing to entertain the U.S. as the unipolar global power. Putin was not, and his actions showed. It regressed even faster since their Crimean invasion.

---

I can't believe you said that, but I knew you were going to say that. I almost said, "Don't just tell me it's Putin." The lord of all demons and source of ultimate evil.

So you're telling me that of all the blustering fanatics we've dealt since WW2, Putin is the worst one and the only one we can't trust or reason with. I just want to get you on the record with that.

---

You asked what happened with Russia. I told you the likely seminal moment. I'm not comparing and contrasting anyone. But you can track the expansion of tyranny, political, economic, and social inter Russia from that point forward, and also coincides with the chilling of relations with the US.

Of course you bring up an interesting consideration. After Vietnam, the USSR never threatened us and the West as boldly and directly as in Ukraine.

---

The problem is that your explanation tracks with mine. I agree that relations chilled because Putin's government wouldn't accept the US as a unipolar power. No previous government would have either, nor would we ever have expected them to. So it was the US that changed, not Russia.

Welcome to cuck status, Russian shill.

---

Aside from China, most of the world did/does accept it. At least a bipolar world now. It isn't some diplomatic platitude. It's a practical reality of the global economic, political and military situation. I embrace and am not ashamed of it like some of you other guys.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

But Putin is a 1960's Soviet Premier. He is not a 21st century leader. That is your problem, you think you are dealing with an enlightened Obams globalist. He is not, he is a 20th Century KGB thug.

---

No one thinks Putin is an Obama globalist. The baffling question is why anyone would expect him to be.

Even during the Cold War, no one said WW3 was inevitable. Much less that it had already started. We did our best to avoid it. We dealt with the Russians whether we liked them or not. We made agreements. We respected certain boundaries.

We're now told that Russia is relentlessly hostile by nature and can never be redeemed. If that's true, why did we ever try to make peace with them? Were we lying and intending to fight them all along?

My question to all the Russophobes is, what changed?

I've explained what I think it was. America got caught up in the idea of a unipolar world, full spectrum dominance, the end of history, etc. There's a ton of literature and conversation about it, but you don't believe it.

Something must have happened to Russia to make it even more of a threat than it was during the height of Cold War tensions, when Khrushchev was putting missiles in Cuba and ranting about burying the capitalist states. So much of a threat that we can no longer negotiate or cooperate with them in any way, lest the world be plunged into tyranny and suffering.

So, what happened? I think that's your burden to explain.

---

The 2012 re-establishment of Putin back into power is likely the seminal moment. He spent his Prime Ministerial period consolidating power and rolled back much of the progress Medvedev had established. Medvedev was willing to entertain the U.S. as the unipolar global power. Putin was not, and his actions showed. It regressed even faster since their Crimean invasion.

---

I can't believe you said that, but I knew you were going to say that. I almost said, "Don't just tell me it's Putin." The lord of all demons and source of ultimate evil.

So you're telling me that of all the blustering fanatics we've dealt since WW2, Putin is the worst one and the only one we can't trust or reason with. I just want to get you on the record with that.

---

You asked what happened with Russia. I told you the likely seminal moment. I'm not comparing and contrasting anyone. But you can track the expansion of tyranny, political, economic, and social inter Russia from that point forward, and also coincides with the chilling of relations with the US.

Of course you bring up an interesting consideration. After Vietnam, the USSR never threatened us and the West as boldly and directly as in Ukraine.

---

The problem is that your explanation tracks with mine. I agree that relations chilled because Putin's government wouldn't accept the US as a unipolar power. No previous government would have either, nor would we ever have expected them to. So it was the US that changed, not Russia.

Welcome to cuck status, Russian shill.

---

Aside from China, most of the world did/does accept it. At least a bipolar world now. It isn't some diplomatic platitude. It's a practical reality of the global economic, political and military situation. I embrace and am not ashamed of it like some of you other guys.

---

The 21st century says "hi."

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

But Putin is a 1960's Soviet Premier. He is not a 21st century leader. That is your problem, you think you are dealing with an enlightened Obams globalist. He is not, he is a 20th Century KGB thug.

---

No one thinks Putin is an Obama globalist. The baffling question is why anyone would expect him to be.

Even during the Cold War, no one said WW3 was inevitable. Much less that it had already started. We did our best to avoid it. We dealt with the Russians whether we liked them or not. We made agreements. We respected certain boundaries.

We're now told that Russia is relentlessly hostile by nature and can never be redeemed. If that's true, why did we ever try to make peace with them? Were we lying and intending to fight them all along?

My question to all the Russophobes is, what changed?

I've explained what I think it was. America got caught up in the idea of a unipolar world, full spectrum dominance, the end of history, etc. There's a ton of literature and conversation about it, but you don't believe it.

Something must have happened to Russia to make it even more of a threat than it was during the height of Cold War tensions, when Khrushchev was putting missiles in Cuba and ranting about burying the capitalist states. So much of a threat that we can no longer negotiate or cooperate with them in any way, lest the world be plunged into tyranny and suffering.

So, what happened? I think that's your burden to explain.

---

The 2012 re-establishment of Putin back into power is likely the seminal moment. He spent his Prime Ministerial period consolidating power and rolled back much of the progress Medvedev had established. Medvedev was willing to entertain the U.S. as the unipolar global power. Putin was not, and his actions showed. It regressed even faster since their Crimean invasion.

---

I can't believe you said that, but I knew you were going to say that. I almost said, "Don't just tell me it's Putin." The lord of all demons and source of ultimate evil.

So you're telling me that of all the blustering fanatics we've dealt since WW2, Putin is the worst one and the only one we can't trust or reason with. I just want to get you on the record with that.

---

You asked what happened with Russia. I told you the likely seminal moment. I'm not comparing and contrasting anyone. But you can track the expansion of tyranny, political, economic, and social inter Russia from that point forward, and also coincides with the chilling of relations with the US.

Of course you bring up an interesting consideration. After Vietnam, the USSR never threatened us and the West as boldly and directly as in Ukraine.

---

The problem is that your explanation tracks with mine. I agree that relations chilled because Putin's government wouldn't accept the US as a unipolar power. No previous government would have either, nor would we ever have expected them to. So it was the US that changed, not Russia.

Welcome to cuck status, Russian shill.

---

Aside from China, most of the world did/does accept it. At least a bipolar world now. It isn't some diplomatic platitude. It's a practical reality of the global economic, political and military situation. I embrace and am not ashamed of it like some of you other guys.

---

The 21st century says "hi."

---

Yes, hello! Speaking of 21st Century, your boy is hanging out with Kim Jong-un. The future is now!!!

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

But Putin is a 1960's Soviet Premier. He is not a 21st century leader. That is your problem, you think you are dealing with an enlightened Obams globalist. He is not, he is a 20th Century KGB thug.

---

No one thinks Putin is an Obama globalist. The baffling question is why anyone would expect him to be.

Even during the Cold War, no one said WW3 was inevitable. Much less that it had already started. We did our best to avoid it. We dealt with the Russians whether we liked them or not. We made agreements. We respected certain boundaries.

We're now told that Russia is relentlessly hostile by nature and can never be redeemed. If that's true, why did we ever try to make peace with them? Were we lying and intending to fight them all along?

My question to all the Russophobes is, what changed?

I've explained what I think it was. America got caught up in the idea of a unipolar world, full spectrum dominance, the end of history, etc. There's a ton of literature and conversation about it, but you don't believe it.

Something must have happened to Russia to make it even more of a threat than it was during the height of Cold War tensions, when Khrushchev was putting missiles in Cuba and ranting about burying the capitalist states. So much of a threat that we can no longer negotiate or cooperate with them in any way, lest the world be plunged into tyranny and suffering.

So, what happened? I think that's your burden to explain.

---

The 2012 re-establishment of Putin back into power is likely the seminal moment. He spent his Prime Ministerial period consolidating power and rolled back much of the progress Medvedev had established. Medvedev was willing to entertain the U.S. as the unipolar global power. Putin was not, and his actions showed. It regressed even faster since their Crimean invasion.

---

I can't believe you said that, but I knew you were going to say that. I almost said, "Don't just tell me it's Putin." The lord of all demons and source of ultimate evil.

So you're telling me that of all the blustering fanatics we've dealt since WW2, Putin is the worst one and the only one we can't trust or reason with. I just want to get you on the record with that.

---

You asked what happened with Russia. I told you the likely seminal moment. I'm not comparing and contrasting anyone. But you can track the expansion of tyranny, political, economic, and social inter Russia from that point forward, and also coincides with the chilling of relations with the US.

Of course you bring up an interesting consideration. After Vietnam, the USSR never threatened us and the West as boldly and directly as in Ukraine.

---

The problem is that your explanation tracks with mine. I agree that relations chilled because Putin's government wouldn't accept the US as a unipolar power. No previous government would have either, nor would we ever have expected them to. So it was the US that changed, not Russia.

Welcome to cuck status, Russian shill.

---

Aside from China, most of the world did/does accept it. At least a bipolar world now. It isn't some diplomatic platitude. It's a practical reality of the global economic, political and military situation. I embrace and am not ashamed of it like some of you other guys.

---

The 21st century says "hi."

---

Yes, hello! Speaking of 21st Century, your boy is hanging out with Kim Jong-un. The future is now!!!

---

20th Century thug knows a 20th Century thug when he sees him. Yeah, this is modern 21st Century diplomacy at its best. Sam, I like you, but Putin, Xi, Iran and N Korea are counting on people with your view being in power. The Obama apology tour phase 2. "The US is wrong how can we get out of your way.,."

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

But Putin is a 1960's Soviet Premier. He is not a 21st century leader. That is your problem, you think you are dealing with an enlightened Obams globalist. He is not, he is a 20th Century KGB thug.

---

No one thinks Putin is an Obama globalist. The baffling question is why anyone would expect him to be.

Even during the Cold War, no one said WW3 was inevitable. Much less that it had already started. We did our best to avoid it. We dealt with the Russians whether we liked them or not. We made agreements. We respected certain boundaries.

We're now told that Russia is relentlessly hostile by nature and can never be redeemed. If that's true, why did we ever try to make peace with them? Were we lying and intending to fight them all along?

My question to all the Russophobes is, what changed?

I've explained what I think it was. America got caught up in the idea of a unipolar world, full spectrum dominance, the end of history, etc. There's a ton of literature and conversation about it, but you don't believe it.

Something must have happened to Russia to make it even more of a threat than it was during the height of Cold War tensions, when Khrushchev was putting missiles in Cuba and ranting about burying the capitalist states. So much of a threat that we can no longer negotiate or cooperate with them in any way, lest the world be plunged into tyranny and suffering.

So, what happened? I think that's your burden to explain.

---

The 2012 re-establishment of Putin back into power is likely the seminal moment. He spent his Prime Ministerial period consolidating power and rolled back much of the progress Medvedev had established. Medvedev was willing to entertain the U.S. as the unipolar global power. Putin was not, and his actions showed. It regressed even faster since their Crimean invasion.

---

I can't believe you said that, but I knew you were going to say that. I almost said, "Don't just tell me it's Putin." The lord of all demons and source of ultimate evil.

So you're telling me that of all the blustering fanatics we've dealt since WW2, Putin is the worst one and the only one we can't trust or reason with. I just want to get you on the record with that.

---

You asked what happened with Russia. I told you the likely seminal moment. I'm not comparing and contrasting anyone. But you can track the expansion of tyranny, political, economic, and social inter Russia from that point forward, and also coincides with the chilling of relations with the US.

Of course you bring up an interesting consideration. After Vietnam, the USSR never threatened us and the West as boldly and directly as in Ukraine.

---

The problem is that your explanation tracks with mine. I agree that relations chilled because Putin's government wouldn't accept the US as a unipolar power. No previous government would have either, nor would we ever have expected them to. So it was the US that changed, not Russia.

Welcome to cuck status, Russian shill.

---

Aside from China, most of the world did/does accept it. At least a bipolar world now. It isn't some diplomatic platitude. It's a practical reality of the global economic, political and military situation. I embrace and am not ashamed of it like some of you other guys.

---

The 21st century says "hi."

---

Yes, hello! Speaking of 21st Century, your boy is hanging out with Kim Jong-un. The future is now!!!

---

Shouldn't that be Kim Jong Il? I thought he was still ruling in Nineties Fantasy Land. Speaking of which, I'm a little surprised to see you on the "world wide web." Check out the early adopter, everyone!

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

But Putin is a 1960's Soviet Premier. He is not a 21st century leader. That is your problem, you think you are dealing with an enlightened Obams globalist. He is not, he is a 20th Century KGB thug.

---

No one thinks Putin is an Obama globalist. The baffling question is why anyone would expect him to be.

Even during the Cold War, no one said WW3 was inevitable. Much less that it had already started. We did our best to avoid it. We dealt with the Russians whether we liked them or not. We made agreements. We respected certain boundaries.

We're now told that Russia is relentlessly hostile by nature and can never be redeemed. If that's true, why did we ever try to make peace with them? Were we lying and intending to fight them all along?

My question to all the Russophobes is, what changed?

I've explained what I think it was. America got caught up in the idea of a unipolar world, full spectrum dominance, the end of history, etc. There's a ton of literature and conversation about it, but you don't believe it.

Something must have happened to Russia to make it even more of a threat than it was during the height of Cold War tensions, when Khrushchev was putting missiles in Cuba and ranting about burying the capitalist states. So much of a threat that we can no longer negotiate or cooperate with them in any way, lest the world be plunged into tyranny and suffering.

So, what happened? I think that's your burden to explain.

---

The 2012 re-establishment of Putin back into power is likely the seminal moment. He spent his Prime Ministerial period consolidating power and rolled back much of the progress Medvedev had established. Medvedev was willing to entertain the U.S. as the unipolar global power. Putin was not, and his actions showed. It regressed even faster since their Crimean invasion.

---

I can't believe you said that, but I knew you were going to say that. I almost said, "Don't just tell me it's Putin." The lord of all demons and source of ultimate evil.

So you're telling me that of all the blustering fanatics we've dealt since WW2, Putin is the worst one and the only one we can't trust or reason with. I just want to get you on the record with that.

---

You asked what happened with Russia. I told you the likely seminal moment. I'm not comparing and contrasting anyone. But you can track the expansion of tyranny, political, economic, and social inter Russia from that point forward, and also coincides with the chilling of relations with the US.

Of course you bring up an interesting consideration. After Vietnam, the USSR never threatened us and the West as boldly and directly as in Ukraine.

---

The problem is that your explanation tracks with mine. I agree that relations chilled because Putin's government wouldn't accept the US as a unipolar power. No previous government would have either, nor would we ever have expected them to. So it was the US that changed, not Russia.

Welcome to cuck status, Russian shill.

---

Aside from China, most of the world did/does accept it. At least a bipolar world now. It isn't some diplomatic platitude. It's a practical reality of the global economic, political and military situation. I embrace and am not ashamed of it like some of you other guys.

---

The 21st century says "hi."

---

Yes, hello! Speaking of 21st Century, your boy is hanging out with Kim Jong-un. The future is now!!!

---

20th Century thug knows a 20th Century thug when he sees him. Yeah, this is modern 21st Century diplomacy at its best. Sam, I like you, but Putin, Xi, Iran and N Korea are counting on people with your view being in power. The Obama apology tour phase 2. "The US is wrong how can we get out of your way.,."

---

If only there were some middle ground between weakness and hubris.

sombear said:

---

I'm 55 and have never voted for a Dem. I do plan on leaving my Pres ballot blank.

And I was just making the point that nobody really knows what Trump will do about Ukraine if he wins. He's been all over the place and back.

---

strategic ambiguity works in politics as well as in war.

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

These guys get it.

Polish President Duda speaking at Zelensky’s peace summit in 🇨🇭:

“Russia, called the ‘prison of nations,’ is home to 200+ ethnic groups, most acquired through colonial methods.

Unlike European powers, Russia never decolonized and remains the world's largest colonial empire” pic.twitter.com/tJEHTYC4dW

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 15, 2024

---

---

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...

---

Remember how some of us have talked about the American goal of weakening and breaking up Russia? You'd probably call it a conspiracy theory. Sombear's sources call it "decolonization." It's the same thing. They're just bringing it out in the open now with a catchy new brand name.

In reality it's the rough equivalent of saying the US should be made to divide itself along ethnic lines and give up parts of its territory to Hispanics, American Indians, and so on. What makes it spit take-worthy is the blatant hypocrisy. Obviously we would never agree to anything like that.

---

Ok, this is where you are off base. It is already done and they did agree to it. You are making an argument that should have been made in 1992ish. This is not a conversation of HOW should the Soviet Union break apart, that ship has sailed. The borders were agreed upon and a lease cut for the port.

Now, 40 years later you are saying renegotiate or be invaded. And then actually invading. Saying this is what we think the borders should be now. So, basically there is NO discussion, NO renegotiation just do what we want or we attack you. And in 10 years if we decide we like something else, give it to us or you know what we will do. AND you are good with it.

---

No, you don't understand. We're not talking about the breakup of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the breakup of Russia itself. That's the threat that Putin believes he's fighting when he draws the line in Ukraine. This talk of decolonization only confirms what he's been saying.

---

Than why did they agree?

Putin draws the line? What makes anyone think Putin draws the line at Ukraine? When has Russia stood by anything they say? Remember, they agreed to Ukraine. Until they didn't.

---

Why did they agree to what?

---

The creation of Ukraine. They agreed. Ukraine was not some breakaway Republic. There was a lot of negotiation. Now it is unacceptable?? 40 years later? Now as you say it is existential to Russia? BS.

---

They don't consider Ukraine's existence to be a threat. They consider Ukraine's military alliance with the West to be a threat, and that's why there was a neutrality agreement when Ukraine became independent. They've been very clear about this.

---

That was AFTER Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 they voted to abandon neutrality. You think taking Crimea changed things s bit?

I really don't get the benefit of being a Putin surrogate. He took Crimea and invaded a neighboring Nation. You and Red have been going through months of mental/historic gymnastics to make thst not only OK, but the US\NATO/Ukraines fault.

He doesn't invade, no US/NATO weapons.

---

Blinken told Putin in January 2022 that we reserved the right to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine. The only thing up for discussion was how many.

It's more likely that without the prospect of US/NATO weapons, Russia doesn't invade.

---

The eventual placement of NATO nuclear weapons in Ukraine was completely unacceptable to the security of Russia.

The United States bares a significant amount of responsibility for the Russian response and the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Possibly the worst foreign policy blunder since US troops invaded North Korea while ignoring China's warnings that they would respond with a million troops.

---

The US was not going to put Nuclear weapons in Ukraine. There's no need to do so. Where the hell do y'all come up with this shlt?

---

Threatening to do it is wise negotiation tactic. It's talking about the price of peace = how close the Nato nukes are to Russia means "if Ukraine isn't defensible, we'll have to station nukes there, and possibly Finland and Estonia, and Latvia, and Lithuania, etc......" Russia of course knows this and will not be alarmed by the subject at all.

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm 55 and have never voted for a Dem. I do plan on leaving my Pres ballot blank.

And I was just making the point that nobody really knows what Trump will do about Ukraine if he wins. He's been all over the place and back.

---

strategic ambiguity works in politics as well as in war.

---

No doubt. Do you really think that's what Trump is doing though?

I mean, one day Zelensky is a "hero," the next he's a "fraud."

One day, "we must stop Russia in Ukraine, the next, "why are we sending $ to Ukraine?"

One day, send U.S. troops, the next "I will stop all funding."

One day, "Crimea is really Russia anyway." the next "we cannot allow Putin to expand."

I mean, it never ends. The heroic Ukrainian troops deserve more than this brilliant strategic ambiguity . . . .

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

If you do not show strength and mean it, it doesn't matter how the chessboard changes. You'll get skunked.

But let's keep sending money to Ukraine

Dr. Kendall doesn’t do hyperbole, he’s not partisan

“Today the intelligence couldn't be clearer. Whatever its actual intentions may be I could not say but China is preparing for a war and specifically for a war with the U.S.” - Air Force Secretary Kendall https://t.co/C99q4RZfSJ

— Alex Plitsas 🇺🇸 (@alexplitsas) June 19, 2024

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A governing majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU.

---

So did Yanukovych. Just not on the predatory terms that we the Ukrainian parliament tried to dictate.

---

FIFY

---

It was the Ukrainian parliament that had failed to pass the necessary legislation on the day Yanukovych suspended the deal.

---

LOL your historical revisionism has achieved full inversion of truth.

It was not just Yanukovych's refusal to sign the bill already passed by Parliament that caused his fall. It was his rejection of it in favor of a similar pact with Russia.

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

Ukraine rejects Tymoshenko bills
Hopes of trade and political agreements with the EU are evaporating.
NOVEMBER 21, 2013 5:10 AM CET

The Ukrainian parliament has rejected a set of laws that would enable the jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to receive medical treatment in Germany.

The vote -- the second time that the Verkhovna Rada has turned down the bills -- substantially reduces the prospects of Ukraine signing political and trade deals with the European Union next week.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-rejects-tymoshenko-bills/#:~:text=Hopes%20of%20trade%20and%20political%20agreements%20with%20the%20EU%20are%20evaporating.&text=The%20Ukrainian%20parliament%20has%20rejected,receive%20medical%20treatment%20in%20Germany.

---

---

Good grief, man. If you'd bothered to read the link, you'd seek the elementary cause/effect problem with your point.

---

The point is that VY was entirely within his rights. It was the mob that acted lawlessly, with our help.

---

The mob was an organic response to VYs violation of his years-long promise to sign the EU agreement and instead make a last-minute U-turn to Russia.

that is not to insist VY was the bad guy in this story. More likely it was simply lack of fortitude and judgment on his part. Russia told him that they'd invade if he signed the EU document and he caved to the pressure (unlike his successors). But it does illustrate that in any conceivable scenario, RUSSIA is responsible for the mess in Ukraine. They meddled against the clear will of the Ukrainian people, then when that didn't work out, they invaded, which then galvanized Ukrainian nationalism against Russia.

---

What a bizarre distortion of history. Putin never threatened to invade Ukraine over the trade agreement.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A governing majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU.

---

So did Yanukovych. Just not on the predatory terms that we the Ukrainian parliament tried to dictate.

---

FIFY

---

It was the Ukrainian parliament that had failed to pass the necessary legislation on the day Yanukovych suspended the deal.

---

LOL your historical revisionism has achieved full inversion of truth.

It was not just Yanukovych's refusal to sign the bill already passed by Parliament that caused his fall. It was his rejection of it in favor of a similar pact with Russia.

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

Ukraine rejects Tymoshenko bills
Hopes of trade and political agreements with the EU are evaporating.
NOVEMBER 21, 2013 5:10 AM CET

The Ukrainian parliament has rejected a set of laws that would enable the jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to receive medical treatment in Germany.

The vote -- the second time that the Verkhovna Rada has turned down the bills -- substantially reduces the prospects of Ukraine signing political and trade deals with the European Union next week.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-rejects-tymoshenko-bills/#:~:text=Hopes%20of%20trade%20and%20political%20agreements%20with%20the%20EU%20are%20evaporating.&text=The%20Ukrainian%20parliament%20has%20rejected,receive%20medical%20treatment%20in%20Germany.

---

---

Good grief, man. If you'd bothered to read the link, you'd seek the elementary cause/effect problem with your point.

---

The point is that VY was entirely within his rights. It was the mob that acted lawlessly, with our help.

---

The mob was an organic response to VYs violation of his years-long promise to sign the EU agreement and instead make a last-minute U-turn to Russia.

that is not to insist VY was the bad guy in this story. More likely it was simply lack of fortitude and judgment on his part. Russia told him that they'd invade if he signed the EU document and he caved to the pressure (unlike his successors). But it does illustrate that in any conceivable scenario, RUSSIA is responsible for the mess in Ukraine. They meddled against the clear will of the Ukrainian people, then when that didn't work out, they invaded, which then galvanized Ukrainian nationalism against Russia.

---

What a bizarre distortion of history. Putin never threatened to invade Ukraine over the trade agreement.

---

LOL. So you're saying he went to war without an ultimatum, despite constant provocation from NATO?

Your reasoning makes less sense than progressive pronoun regimes.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A governing majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU.

---

So did Yanukovych. Just not on the predatory terms that we the Ukrainian parliament tried to dictate.

---

FIFY

---

It was the Ukrainian parliament that had failed to pass the necessary legislation on the day Yanukovych suspended the deal.

---

LOL your historical revisionism has achieved full inversion of truth.

It was not just Yanukovych's refusal to sign the bill already passed by Parliament that caused his fall. It was his rejection of it in favor of a similar pact with Russia.

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

Ukraine rejects Tymoshenko bills
Hopes of trade and political agreements with the EU are evaporating.
NOVEMBER 21, 2013 5:10 AM CET

The Ukrainian parliament has rejected a set of laws that would enable the jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to receive medical treatment in Germany.

The vote -- the second time that the Verkhovna Rada has turned down the bills -- substantially reduces the prospects of Ukraine signing political and trade deals with the European Union next week.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-rejects-tymoshenko-bills/#:~:text=Hopes%20of%20trade%20and%20political%20agreements%20with%20the%20EU%20are%20evaporating.&text=The%20Ukrainian%20parliament%20has%20rejected,receive%20medical%20treatment%20in%20Germany.

---

---

Good grief, man. If you'd bothered to read the link, you'd seek the elementary cause/effect problem with your point.

---

The point is that VY was entirely within his rights. It was the mob that acted lawlessly, with our help.

---

The mob was an organic response to VYs violation of his years-long promise to sign the EU agreement and instead make a last-minute U-turn to Russia.

that is not to insist VY was the bad guy in this story. More likely it was simply lack of fortitude and judgment on his part. Russia told him that they'd invade if he signed the EU document and he caved to the pressure (unlike his successors). But it does illustrate that in any conceivable scenario, RUSSIA is responsible for the mess in Ukraine. They meddled against the clear will of the Ukrainian people, then when that didn't work out, they invaded, which then galvanized Ukrainian nationalism against Russia.

---

What a bizarre distortion of history. Putin never threatened to invade Ukraine over the trade agreement.

---

LOL. So you're saying he went to war without an ultimatum, despite constant provocation from NATO?

Your reasoning makes less sense than progressive pronoun regimes.

---

What on earth are you talking about? Russia didn't go to war until 2022. Their demands had nothing to do with the trade deal, which was signed in 2014. As Putin said time and again, they wanted security guarantees and an agreement to keep Ukraine out of NATO.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A governing majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU.

---

So did Yanukovych. Just not on the predatory terms that we the Ukrainian parliament tried to dictate.

---

FIFY

---

It was the Ukrainian parliament that had failed to pass the necessary legislation on the day Yanukovych suspended the deal.

---

LOL your historical revisionism has achieved full inversion of truth.

It was not just Yanukovych's refusal to sign the bill already passed by Parliament that caused his fall. It was his rejection of it in favor of a similar pact with Russia.

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

Ukraine rejects Tymoshenko bills
Hopes of trade and political agreements with the EU are evaporating.
NOVEMBER 21, 2013 5:10 AM CET

The Ukrainian parliament has rejected a set of laws that would enable the jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to receive medical treatment in Germany.

The vote -- the second time that the Verkhovna Rada has turned down the bills -- substantially reduces the prospects of Ukraine signing political and trade deals with the European Union next week.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-rejects-tymoshenko-bills/#:~:text=Hopes%20of%20trade%20and%20political%20agreements%20with%20the%20EU%20are%20evaporating.&text=The%20Ukrainian%20parliament%20has%20rejected,receive%20medical%20treatment%20in%20Germany.

---

---

Good grief, man. If you'd bothered to read the link, you'd seek the elementary cause/effect problem with your point.

---

The point is that VY was entirely within his rights. It was the mob that acted lawlessly, with our help.

---

The mob was an organic response to VYs violation of his years-long promise to sign the EU agreement and instead make a last-minute U-turn to Russia.

that is not to insist VY was the bad guy in this story. More likely it was simply lack of fortitude and judgment on his part. Russia told him that they'd invade if he signed the EU document and he caved to the pressure (unlike his successors). But it does illustrate that in any conceivable scenario, RUSSIA is responsible for the mess in Ukraine. They meddled against the clear will of the Ukrainian people, then when that didn't work out, they invaded, which then galvanized Ukrainian nationalism against Russia.

---

What a bizarre distortion of history. Putin never threatened to invade Ukraine over the trade agreement.

---

LOL. So you're saying he went to war without an ultimatum, despite constant provocation from NATO?

Your reasoning makes less sense than progressive pronoun regimes.

---

What on earth are you talking about? Russia didn't go to war until 2022. Their demands had nothing to do with the trade deal, which was signed in 2014. As Putin said time and again, they wanted security guarantees and an agreement to keep Ukraine out of NATO.

---

Lol! They were already in Ukraine in 2014.

sombear said:

---

Russia would support China in a war against us.

---

We aren't going to have a war with China. If you doubt me, go to your local Walmart and spend a couple of hours picking up random products and looking at the made in labels. Even our dog toothpaste is made there...and forget about getting antibiotics or your blood pressure medicine refilled. If we have a hot war with China and the supply lines get cut the quality of life here will devolve to Somalian standards within a matter of weeks.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

These guys get it.

Polish President Duda speaking at Zelensky’s peace summit in 🇨🇭:

“Russia, called the ‘prison of nations,’ is home to 200+ ethnic groups, most acquired through colonial methods.

Unlike European powers, Russia never decolonized and remains the world's largest colonial empire” pic.twitter.com/tJEHTYC4dW

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 15, 2024

---

---

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...

---

They want the US to be more like Russia.

---

What puzzles me is that I see Russia literally forcing Nations to do what they want, with tanks, and that is fine. I see China literally occupying Tibet, Hong Kong, and trying to get Taiwan with force.

I don't see NATO or the US forcing anyone to apply, you have to apply and be accepted into NATO. Yet, according to some on this Board, the US is the bad guy... Poor Putin is being forced to invade Ukraine.

If the US WAS like Putin's Russia, the US would invade and hold Ukraine, invade and hold Cuba, and not allow navigation around the US. But, poor Putin. He is the real victim in this.

Just don't get it. Only thing that makes sense is that they are Attorneys and are trying to see if they can defend the indefensible. Some legal training exercise.

---

I think they just equate the West/NATO with leftist progressives and see Russia as a force against that.

I think they would rather live in a dictatorship of their party than a democracy involving opposing views.

---

I'd rather live, period. I don't need to dictate how Russians and Ukrainians live if it means WW3.

How many American cities are you willing to trade for Kharkiv?

---

WW3 is probably inevitable no matter what we do. Why let our enemies get stronger beforehand?

America shouldn't let Russia bully the world under a threat they have no interest in following up on.

---

WWIII has already started.......

---

After WW2, has both sides learned that total destruction doesn't really accomplish goals? I believe the NATO and China believe that. But, Russia, N Korea and Iran? I think they are the real issues, as they have leaders that will go total destruction, as we have seen with the enlightened, only acting in defense Putin as he totally destroys Cities...

---

How many pages on this very thread were devoted to justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Putin shells some buildings containing enemy troops, as happens in war, and he is become the Destroyer of Worlds. You guys crack me up sometimes.

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russia would support China in a war against us.

---

We aren't going to have a war with China. If you doubt me, go to your local Walmart and spend a couple of hours picking up random products and looking at the made in labels. Even our dog toothpaste is made there...and forget about getting antibiotics or your blood pressure medicine refilled. If we have a hot war with China and the supply lines get cut the quality of life here will devolve to Somalian standards within a matter of weeks.

---

Senator Graham just called. He wants to know if there's a downside.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

These guys get it.

Polish President Duda speaking at Zelensky’s peace summit in 🇨🇭:

“Russia, called the ‘prison of nations,’ is home to 200+ ethnic groups, most acquired through colonial methods.

Unlike European powers, Russia never decolonized and remains the world's largest colonial empire” pic.twitter.com/tJEHTYC4dW

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 15, 2024

---

---

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...

---

They want the US to be more like Russia.

---

What puzzles me is that I see Russia literally forcing Nations to do what they want, with tanks, and that is fine. I see China literally occupying Tibet, Hong Kong, and trying to get Taiwan with force.

I don't see NATO or the US forcing anyone to apply, you have to apply and be accepted into NATO. Yet, according to some on this Board, the US is the bad guy... Poor Putin is being forced to invade Ukraine.

If the US WAS like Putin's Russia, the US would invade and hold Ukraine, invade and hold Cuba, and not allow navigation around the US. But, poor Putin. He is the real victim in this.

Just don't get it. Only thing that makes sense is that they are Attorneys and are trying to see if they can defend the indefensible. Some legal training exercise.

---

I think they just equate the West/NATO with leftist progressives and see Russia as a force against that.

I think they would rather live in a dictatorship of their party than a democracy involving opposing views.

---

I'd rather live, period. I don't need to dictate how Russians and Ukrainians live if it means WW3.

How many American cities are you willing to trade for Kharkiv?

---

WW3 is probably inevitable no matter what we do. Why let our enemies get stronger beforehand?

America shouldn't let Russia bully the world under a threat they have no interest in following up on.

---

WWIII has already started.......

---

After WW2, has both sides learned that total destruction doesn't really accomplish goals? I believe the NATO and China believe that. But, Russia, N Korea and Iran? I think they are the real issues, as they have leaders that will go total destruction, as we have seen with the enlightened, only acting in defense Putin as he totally destroys Cities...

---

How many pages on this very thread were devoted to justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Putin shells some buildings containing enemy troops, as happens in war, and he is become the Destroyer of Worlds. You guys crack me up sometimes.

---

Good grief.....

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russia would support China in a war against us.

---

We aren't going to have a war with China. If you doubt me, go to your local Walmart and spend a couple of hours picking up random products and looking at the made in labels. Even our dog toothpaste is made there...and forget about getting antibiotics or your blood pressure medicine refilled. If we have a hot war with China and the supply lines get cut the quality of life here will devolve to Somalian standards within a matter of weeks.

---

I 100% agree. I've posted multiple times that predictions of WWIII over Ukraine are absurd, and the same with a China war.

I was responding to the "what if" scenario given the tweet.

...

I'm much more concerned about our meddling in Ukraine inadvertently setting off WW3 than a war with China. I say inadvertently because a lot of bad things can be blundered into and our esteemed leaders already have a history of ignoring Russian red lines.

History says that negotiations between Kennedy and Khrushchev defused the Cuban Missile Crisis but in reality it came down to two junior officers: a USAF captain in Okinawa and a Russian political officer onboard a Russian sub.

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/28/how-one-air-force-captain-saved-the-world-from-accidental-nuclear-war-53-years-ago-today/

https://allthatsinteresting.com/vasili-arkhipov

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

These guys get it.

Polish President Duda speaking at Zelensky’s peace summit in 🇨🇭:

“Russia, called the ‘prison of nations,’ is home to 200+ ethnic groups, most acquired through colonial methods.

Unlike European powers, Russia never decolonized and remains the world's largest colonial empire” pic.twitter.com/tJEHTYC4dW

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 15, 2024

---

---

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...

---

They want the US to be more like Russia.

---

What puzzles me is that I see Russia literally forcing Nations to do what they want, with tanks, and that is fine. I see China literally occupying Tibet, Hong Kong, and trying to get Taiwan with force.

I don't see NATO or the US forcing anyone to apply, you have to apply and be accepted into NATO. Yet, according to some on this Board, the US is the bad guy... Poor Putin is being forced to invade Ukraine.

If the US WAS like Putin's Russia, the US would invade and hold Ukraine, invade and hold Cuba, and not allow navigation around the US. But, poor Putin. He is the real victim in this.

Just don't get it. Only thing that makes sense is that they are Attorneys and are trying to see if they can defend the indefensible. Some legal training exercise.

---

I think they just equate the West/NATO with leftist progressives and see Russia as a force against that.

I think they would rather live in a dictatorship of their party than a democracy involving opposing views.

---

I'd rather live, period. I don't need to dictate how Russians and Ukrainians live if it means WW3.

How many American cities are you willing to trade for Kharkiv?

---

WW3 is probably inevitable no matter what we do. Why let our enemies get stronger beforehand?

America shouldn't let Russia bully the world under a threat they have no interest in following up on.

---

WWIII has already started.......

---

After WW2, has both sides learned that total destruction doesn't really accomplish goals? I believe the NATO and China believe that. But, Russia, N Korea and Iran? I think they are the real issues, as they have leaders that will go total destruction, as we have seen with the enlightened, only acting in defense Putin as he totally destroys Cities...

---

How many pages on this very thread were devoted to justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Putin shells some buildings containing enemy troops, as happens in war, and he is become the Destroyer of Worlds. You guys crack me up sometimes.

---

How many nuclear bombs were dropped? 2. Were they ever used before? No. Have they been since? No. How long ago were they used? 80 years. 80 years and we have not used them again. They have become a deterrent.

You see no difference between using something the first time and saying, we will not do that again after seeing the results. And, the systematic destruction of a Nation over time?? We are not talking a few months here like the US actions, we are talking years. Putin is a thug, plain and simple. Keep defending him.

War talk involving China or Russia is stupid talk.

Past time to get out of 'World's Policeman ' thought processes.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

But Putin is a 1960's Soviet Premier. He is not a 21st century leader. That is your problem, you think you are dealing with an enlightened Obams globalist. He is not, he is a 20th Century KGB thug.

---

No one thinks Putin is an Obama globalist. The baffling question is why anyone would expect him to be.

Even during the Cold War, no one said WW3 was inevitable. Much less that it had already started. We did our best to avoid it. We dealt with the Russians whether we liked them or not. We made agreements. We respected certain boundaries.

We're now told that Russia is relentlessly hostile by nature and can never be redeemed. If that's true, why did we ever try to make peace with them? Were we lying and intending to fight them all along?

My question to all the Russophobes is, what changed?

I've explained what I think it was. America got caught up in the idea of a unipolar world, full spectrum dominance, the end of history, etc. There's a ton of literature and conversation about it, but you don't believe it.

Something must have happened to Russia to make it even more of a threat than it was during the height of Cold War tensions, when Khrushchev was putting missiles in Cuba and ranting about burying the capitalist states. So much of a threat that we can no longer negotiate or cooperate with them in any way, lest the world be plunged into tyranny and suffering.

So, what happened? I think that's your burden to explain.

---

The 2012 re-establishment of Putin back into power is likely the seminal moment. He spent his Prime Ministerial period consolidating power and rolled back much of the progress Medvedev had established. Medvedev was willing to entertain the U.S. as the unipolar global power. Putin was not, and his actions showed. It regressed even faster since their Crimean invasion.

---

I can't believe you said that, but I knew you were going to say that. I almost said, "Don't just tell me it's Putin." The lord of all demons and source of ultimate evil.

So you're telling me that of all the blustering fanatics we've dealt since WW2, Putin is the worst one and the only one we can't trust or reason with. I just want to get you on the record with that.

---

You asked what happened with Russia. I told you the likely seminal moment. I'm not comparing and contrasting anyone. But you can track the expansion of tyranny, political, economic, and social inter Russia from that point forward, and also coincides with the chilling of relations with the US.

Of course you bring up an interesting consideration. After Vietnam, the USSR never threatened us and the West as boldly and directly as in Ukraine.

---

The problem is that your explanation tracks with mine. I agree that relations chilled because Putin's government wouldn't accept the US as a unipolar power. No previous government would have either, nor would we ever have expected them to. So it was the US that changed, not Russia.

Welcome to cuck status, Russian shill.

---

Aside from China, most of the world did/does accept it. At least a bipolar world now. It isn't some diplomatic platitude. It's a practical reality of the global economic, political and military situation. I embrace and am not ashamed of it like some of you other guys.

---

The 21st century says "hi."

---

Yes, hello! Speaking of 21st Century, your boy is hanging out with Kim Jong-un. The future is now!!!

---

Shouldn't that be Kim Jong Il? I thought he was still ruling in Nineties Fantasy Land. Speaking of which, I'm a little surprised to see you on the "world wide web." Check out the early adopter, everyone!

---

From your perspective, it's Catherine the Great and King Yeongjo.

KaiBear said:

---

War talk involving China or Russia is stupid talk.

Past time to get out of 'World's Policeman ' thought processes.

---

Don't disagree. Iraq's and Afghanistan's, were ridiculous.

But at what level do we pull back?

For example, Freedom of Navigation and Anti-Piracy. Both are in our national interest to take part. But, you are having a robust Navy AND you are going to be in the Horn of Africa, that is just the nature of the beast. To some extent we are going to continue to be the World's Policeman with Great Britain and others.

Cybersecurity? I am all for having National resources for this. IMO, it is now a "State" function.

Space Force? Another that you can't rely on the private sector to protect the US and its infrastructure, satellites, space access and potential commercial needs State level attention.

Anti-Terrorism? All for Delta and the NSA staying in this.

Arctic - Another environment that is beyond State resources that is international.

Monroe Doctrine? Do we care that China is setting up house in South America? I would not mind pulling back to our holding and hemisphere.

Serious question, not politicking for any war or spending. But what is the level that is appropriate? And what activities? These are a few I have off the top of my head.

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russia would support China in a war against us.

---

We aren't going to have a war with China. If you doubt me, go to your local Walmart and spend a couple of hours picking up random products and looking at the made in labels. Even our dog toothpaste is made there...and forget about getting antibiotics or your blood pressure medicine refilled. If we have a hot war with China and the supply lines get cut the quality of life here will devolve to Somalian standards within a matter of weeks.

---

Agree. There is mutually assured economic destruction between us and China. We're both playing a power game. China has the invisible leash on Russia, and the U.S. doesn't want broader war in Europe. If you want to know where the real diplomacy should occur, it's between DC and Beijing. Biden doesn't seem to be ready to do that. Maybe a Trump admin would. China's use of Putin as a thorn in our side only goes so far before it back fires. That point is approaching.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

These guys get it.

Polish President Duda speaking at Zelensky’s peace summit in 🇨🇭:

“Russia, called the ‘prison of nations,’ is home to 200+ ethnic groups, most acquired through colonial methods.

Unlike European powers, Russia never decolonized and remains the world's largest colonial empire” pic.twitter.com/tJEHTYC4dW

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 15, 2024

---

---

You guys sure like Russia. Or maybe just dislike the US??? I don't know but there really seems to be support for Putin's Special Military Operation among a group. Really, struggling to see why invading another Nation is a "good thing", yet selling weapons to a Nation to defend itself is evil. Really puzzled...

---

They want the US to be more like Russia.

---

What puzzles me is that I see Russia literally forcing Nations to do what they want, with tanks, and that is fine. I see China literally occupying Tibet, Hong Kong, and trying to get Taiwan with force.

I don't see NATO or the US forcing anyone to apply, you have to apply and be accepted into NATO. Yet, according to some on this Board, the US is the bad guy... Poor Putin is being forced to invade Ukraine.

If the US WAS like Putin's Russia, the US would invade and hold Ukraine, invade and hold Cuba, and not allow navigation around the US. But, poor Putin. He is the real victim in this.

Just don't get it. Only thing that makes sense is that they are Attorneys and are trying to see if they can defend the indefensible. Some legal training exercise.

---

I think they just equate the West/NATO with leftist progressives and see Russia as a force against that.

I think they would rather live in a dictatorship of their party than a democracy involving opposing views.

---

I'd rather live, period. I don't need to dictate how Russians and Ukrainians live if it means WW3.

How many American cities are you willing to trade for Kharkiv?

---

WW3 is probably inevitable no matter what we do. Why let our enemies get stronger beforehand?

America shouldn't let Russia bully the world under a threat they have no interest in following up on.

---

WWIII has already started.......

---

After WW2, has both sides learned that total destruction doesn't really accomplish goals? I believe the NATO and China believe that. But, Russia, N Korea and Iran? I think they are the real issues, as they have leaders that will go total destruction, as we have seen with the enlightened, only acting in defense Putin as he totally destroys Cities...

---

How many pages on this very thread were devoted to justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Putin shells some buildings containing enemy troops, as happens in war, and he is become the Destroyer of Worlds. You guys crack me up sometimes.

---

How many nuclear bombs were dropped? 2. Were they ever used before? No. Have they been since? No. How long ago were they used? 80 years. 80 years and we have not used them again. They have become a deterrent.

You see no difference between using something the first time and saying, we will not do that again after seeing the results. And, the systematic destruction of a Nation over time?? We are not talking a few months here like the US actions, we are talking years. Putin is a thug, plain and simple. Keep defending him.

---

You said we had learned that total destruction doesn't accomplish goals. My point is that most of us seem to have learned the opposite.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Easy the same strategy that worked from 1949 to 1990, show strength and mean it.

---

This is not the same world that existed in the previous century.

The USSR is gone.

America is not the same country.

Adapting to a constantly changing chess board is critical to a successful foreign policy.

---

But Putin is a 1960's Soviet Premier. He is not a 21st century leader. That is your problem, you think you are dealing with an enlightened Obams globalist. He is not, he is a 20th Century KGB thug.

---

No one thinks Putin is an Obama globalist. The baffling question is why anyone would expect him to be.

Even during the Cold War, no one said WW3 was inevitable. Much less that it had already started. We did our best to avoid it. We dealt with the Russians whether we liked them or not. We made agreements. We respected certain boundaries.

We're now told that Russia is relentlessly hostile by nature and can never be redeemed. If that's true, why did we ever try to make peace with them? Were we lying and intending to fight them all along?

My question to all the Russophobes is, what changed?

I've explained what I think it was. America got caught up in the idea of a unipolar world, full spectrum dominance, the end of history, etc. There's a ton of literature and conversation about it, but you don't believe it.

Something must have happened to Russia to make it even more of a threat than it was during the height of Cold War tensions, when Khrushchev was putting missiles in Cuba and ranting about burying the capitalist states. So much of a threat that we can no longer negotiate or cooperate with them in any way, lest the world be plunged into tyranny and suffering.

So, what happened? I think that's your burden to explain.

---

The 2012 re-establishment of Putin back into power is likely the seminal moment. He spent his Prime Ministerial period consolidating power and rolled back much of the progress Medvedev had established. Medvedev was willing to entertain the U.S. as the unipolar global power. Putin was not, and his actions showed. It regressed even faster since their Crimean invasion.

---

I can't believe you said that, but I knew you were going to say that. I almost said, "Don't just tell me it's Putin." The lord of all demons and source of ultimate evil.

So you're telling me that of all the blustering fanatics we've dealt since WW2, Putin is the worst one and the only one we can't trust or reason with. I just want to get you on the record with that.

---

You asked what happened with Russia. I told you the likely seminal moment. I'm not comparing and contrasting anyone. But you can track the expansion of tyranny, political, economic, and social inter Russia from that point forward, and also coincides with the chilling of relations with the US.

Of course you bring up an interesting consideration. After Vietnam, the USSR never threatened us and the West as boldly and directly as in Ukraine.

---

The problem is that your explanation tracks with mine. I agree that relations chilled because Putin's government wouldn't accept the US as a unipolar power. No previous government would have either, nor would we ever have expected them to. So it was the US that changed, not Russia.

Welcome to cuck status, Russian shill.

---

Aside from China, most of the world did/does accept it. At least a bipolar world now. It isn't some diplomatic platitude. It's a practical reality of the global economic, political and military situation. I embrace and am not ashamed of it like some of you other guys.

---

The 21st century says "hi."

---

Yes, hello! Speaking of 21st Century, your boy is hanging out with Kim Jong-un. The future is now!!!

---

Shouldn't that be Kim Jong Il? I thought he was still ruling in Nineties Fantasy Land. Speaking of which, I'm a little surprised to see you on the "world wide web." Check out the early adopter, everyone!

---

From your perspective, it's Catherine the Great and King Yeongjo.

---

A literate, realist Russian leader who sought peace and friendship with the West? I can see why you don't like her.

Its not that I want to allow Russia to take Ukraine.

I want a peace deal and I want Russia to adapt to the west without war through diplomacy. You guys want to annihilate Russia because its simpler or because you have fears about Russia. Honestly if that's your position then logically you should advocate for a direct hot war with Russia so that this never becomes a problem again...but for whatever reason, you don't agree and you're perfectly aligned with a forever war mentality.

The risks of this war is too much money being spent, we don't have the ammunitions or development to handle it. It goes on far too long. It gets out of control and ultimately because war is evil and not the only avenue to pursue.