Give me a break Sam.Sam Lowry said:They've already beaten NATO, and not against modest support. The US doesn't even produce ATACMS missiles any more. Ukraine has about 50 of them left, and we couldn't give them many more if we wanted to. Lloyd Austin has said outright that they won't make any difference.ATL Bear said:Their inability to beat NATO or the West isn't stopping them from picking on weaklings. The fact they have difficulty doing so with only modest low end support from the West only exemplifies that, but doesn't change the reasons why they should be stopped from doing so.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They're 0-2 in the last 50 years on that.KaiBear said:ATL Bear said:Yes, against the cartels, in Mexico. Stopping supply chains is a military move. Russia hasn't been effective doing so,KaiBear said:ATL Bear said:They would invade Mexico and blockade the country until the threat was subdued.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
We would invade Mexico and use every weapon at our disposal
Russia has been effective bleeding out their adversaries for centuries.
Doing the same in Ukraine.
You guys have to get your stories straight
Is Russia this great military threat that we should all be scared of that could conquer Poland and all of Europe?
Or is it a joke military that has not won a war in 50 years?
Stick to a narrative
Why Are We in Ukraine?
517,984 Views |
6871 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by Redbrickbear
It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
I'm quoting foreign policy realists to argue exactly what they were arguing. What's ironic is that you call yourself a realist while promoting what Mearsheimer would call racist pseudo-history in order to justify a neoliberal crusade.whiterock said:nothing is more amusingly ironic than to see someone quoting foreign policy realists to make an argument for a foreign policy idealism which asserts that the current Russian autocrat whose armies are on campaign in Ukraine has rejected the aggressive foreign policy agenda of prior Russian autocrats.Sam Lowry said:What changed? That's the question that needs to be asked.sombear said:Russia invaded, period. Russia was always going to invade. Russia was always going to try to take over Ukraine. Russia has never, in its heart of hearts, recognize Ukraine as a sovereign.Sam Lowry said:Or so they thought. Now they're learning otherwise. They're one of many peoples who have bought into the "freedom vs. tyranny" narrative and suffered the consequences. Israel is another one.sombear said:Probably a good idea to join forces with someone when your neighbor invades and kills your people.Sam Lowry said:They were in a state of civil war in 2014. By 2022 they were a de facto US "ally" (although "pawn" might be a better description).sombear said:Really, how were they not neutral in 2014?Sam Lowry said:And they would be sovereign today had they kept their agreement to remain neutral.sombear said:What part of 1991 do y'all not understand. Overwhelming majorities supported breaking away from Russia. Even Crimea - which most of y'all basically deem "Russia" - was over 50%.Redbrickbear said:trey3216 said:It is absolutely not an artificial fake country,The_barBEARian said:Redbrickbear said:The_barBEARian said:Ireland is a deeply sick country.
— MichaeloKeeffe (@Mick_O_Keeffe) November 21, 2024
Kids are being taught to see themselves as less than foreigners and to feel a sense of shame just for existing.
This is not how a healthy society operates. pic.twitter.com/CyZpOYdkvE
She is an African speaking the English language, wearing Western clothing, and living in Ireland
It's her who is engaging in cultural appropriation
PS
Russia does similar (if not quite as lame) multicultural/ multiracial propaganda
At least with the Russian video all those groups have long historic, ancestral ties to Russia.
Although the Slavs are the majority and rule Russia, its never been a homogenous country.
Most European countries... but most especially Ireland, were nearly completely homogenous until this post-WW2 period but obviously over the last 20 years it has accelerated into insanity.
Which brings us back to what started all this in the first place, Ukraine is an artificial, fake country created by the communist methuselah Vladimir Lenin.
These lands are historically Polish and Russian.
Its always been a split country at the least
Parts of it obviously want to be aligned with the West and away from Moscow
And parts obviously want to be aligned with Moscow
The West vs East dynamic was the major fault line of their domestic politics for the entire 30 year history of independent Ukraine.
And since then, not one measly area ever voted to leave Ukraine before Russia invaded.
Putin (and some of you) may not like it, but Ukraine has always been a sovereign nation.
Who invaded whom in 2014 depends on which point of view you take. I would argue it was Ukraine and not Russia that invaded the Donbas. The people of the Donbas would agree, for what little that's worth to Americans. But it doesn't really matter in terms of your larger question. Ukraine's status was uncertain at the time. Its neutrality or allegiance was one of the things that would be decided by the civil war.
The West knew better than to officially invite Ukraine into NATO and then start building up its army. We did things the other way around, hoping that by the time Russia reacted it would be too late. That was where things stood when Russia finally invaded in 2022.
Ukraine and the West were naive to lose sight of that. Ukraine gave up its nukes. The West left Ukraine on its own, sending only token support until it was far too late.
It was all right there, in Putin's and his cronies' speeches and writings. It's still there today because they just can't hide it. I mean, of all things, idiot Putin led his Tucker interview with that silly history lesson. He actually thought he could convince the world Ukraine wasn't a real country or real people. Were it not so dire, that would have been one of more comedic moments in geopolitical history.
Russia and the US were on the path to a long and peaceful coexistence after the Cold War. Yet the idea of NATO expansion reared its ugly head very early on:Quote:
Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, a chorus of government officials, academics, commentators, and retired bureaucrats and diplomats has dismissed any link between the crisis and NATO's decades-long expansion. Moscow's aggression, we are told, is all about Vladimir Putin's imperial impulse--his desire to recreate the Russian empire. Yet three decades ago we had some warning of Russia's strategic sensibilities about NATO expansion. During the 1990s campaign to bring Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, many leading military and foreign-policy thinkers argued that the enlargement of NATO would lead to trouble with Russia. Expansion would create the very danger it was supposed to prevent: Russian aggression in reaction to what the Kremlin would deem a provocative and threatening Western policy.
The list of opponents of NATO enlargement from three decades ago reads like a who's who of that generation's wise men. It included the architects of the Cold War containment doctrine George Kennan and Paul Nitze; the former senior Reagan defense officials Fred Ikl and Admiral James Watkins; president Jimmy Carter's CIA director Stansfield Turner; the Nixon-era diplomats Robert Bowie and Robert Ellsworth; the Reagan-era ambassadors to Moscow Arthur Hartman and Jack Matlock; the intellectuals Ronald Steel, Edward Luttwak, and the Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter; the magazine editors Owen Harries (the National Interest) and Charles Maynes (Foreign Policy); and, not least, the distinguished historians Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes, John Lewis Gaddis, and Britain's foremost military historian, Sir Michael Howard.
Officials in the State and Defense departments also opposed NATO plans to expand eastward, including the Polish-born chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili and Defense Secretary Les Aspin, as well as his successor William Perry, who considered resignation in late 1994 when the policy proposal moved forward. Former defense secretaries Robert McNamara and James Schlesinger also aired their concerns that NATO enlargement would decrease allied security and unsettle European stability.
In the lead-up to the Senate's ratification of expansion in 1998, the New York Times editorial board said that it was "the most important foreign policy decision America has faced since the end of the Cold War" and could "prove to be a mistake of historic proportions. . . . It is delusional to believe that NATO expansion is not at its core an act that Russia will regard as hostile."
Although the Times opposed NATO enlargement, it was not the case, as Poland's president, Aleksander Kwaniewski, joked to the columnist William Safire in 1997, that "the only ones against us are the Russians and the New York Times."
In fact, the opponents represented an ideologically diverse group across America's political spectrum--from the unreconstructed accommodationists Noam Chomsky and the Nation on the left to the America First "isolationists" Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly on the right. In between, there was opposition from legislators on both sides of the political aisle: from the Republican senator John Warner and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher to the Democrat senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the former senators Sam Nunn and Gary Hart.
Virtually all opponents were primarily concerned about upsetting Russia's strategic sensibilities in a "new world order"--or what the leading neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer dubbed "the unipolar moment." For Washington, that meant not just the triumph of Western principles and influence, but a pax Americana. For Moscow, though, it no longer meant a security arrangement between equals.
Three critics of NATO expansion distinguished themselves during this period: Pat Buchanan, George Kennan, and Owen Harries. Although they expressed themselves in different ways, all highlighted not only the folly of rubbing Russia's nose in its Cold War defeat but also the ominous consequences of giving security guarantees to the former captive nations of Eastern and Central Europe.
A past and future Republican presidential candidate, Buchanan used his nationally syndicated column to rail against a new cold war with Russia. In 1994, he noted that if the Cold War presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson backed away from confrontation with the Soviet Union over Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, "why would we risk a clash with Moscow when the Cold War is over?" NATO expansion, Buchanan warned, "is a prescription for a NATO-Russia clash, as soon as the nationalists come to power." Three years later, in 1997, he lamented that "antagonizing Moscow" meant "driving her toward China and Iran."
George Kennan--the author of the containment doctrine of 1947, a former ambassador to the USSR, and one of America's wisest students of Russian affairs--spoke for the many dissenters in 1997 when he warned that NATO expansion "would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era." It would weaken Russian reformers, embolden hard-liners, undermine strategic arms agreements, and escalate East--West tensions when Russia got back on its feet and began acting like a great power.
In the 1990s, Russia was no threat to the West and was incapable of serious military action. But "if humiliated further and made desperate," as Owen Harries warned in 1996, "it could be dangerous in a way that a wounded animal can be dangerous." Its potential to be a troublemaker was huge. A sick Russia with a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons would one day get well and declare its own Monroe Doctrine.
Harries--a Welsh-born conservative academic and cold warrior who became an Australian diplomat-policymaker and editor of the National Interest (from 19852001)--argued: "Expanding NATO violates the wise principle enunciated by Winston Churchill: 'In victory, magnanimity.' Churchill was no softy, but he recognized the stupidity of grinding the face of a defeated foe in the dirt."
As early as 1993, in a widely quoted essay in Foreign Affairs, Harries warned of the perils of any proposal to intrude U.S. military power into Russia's sphere of influence. It would greatly annoy the Russians, but it would have little credibility, create splits within the alliance, and require much in blood and treasure.
The forty-five-year interlude of the Soviet bloc was merely an episode in a much larger history, Harries said, and its demise did not necessarily mark the end of Moscow's involvement in the region. He cited "strategic interests, traditional motives of prestige, the 'historic mission' of freeing the Greek Orthodox population from infidel rule, and the pan-Slavism that had a very real impact on policy" as reasons to take into account Russian sensibilities and interests beyond its own borders.
"To ignore all this history and to incorporate Eastern Europe into NATO's sphere of influence, and at a time when Russia is in dangerous turmoil and when that nation's prestige and self-confidence are badly damaged, would surely be an act of outstanding folly." Harries warned that in such circumstances, NATO expansion could provide a "catalyst that would enable extreme chauvinistic elements in Russia to exploit frustrations, resentments and wounded national pride in ways that would have unpleasant consequences both internally and internationally."
Another central tenet of the HarriesKennanBuchanan critique was that NATO expansion could suffer a massive credibility problem. Ends and means, Walter Lippmann famously warned in 1943, ought to be brought into balance, and aspirations should match resources in foreign-policy deliberations. Yet here was the U.S. cashing in on the so-called peace dividend by cutting defense spending and army and naval troop levels even as it added security commitments in a part of the world where Cold War presidents felt America had no vital interest justifying a risk of war. Meanwhile, European allies were slashing their own defense budgets and downsizing their own militaries. The irresponsibility of such conduct raised the question of the seriousness of the new commitments being undertaken.
Harries, Kennan and Buchanan were also among the opponents of NATO expansion to draw attention to the assurances the U.S. and Germany gave to Moscow during the early 1990s: that if Russia withdrew from its Warsaw Pact client states and accepted German unification, NATO would not move "one inch eastwards." By expanding NATO to the frontiers of the former Soviet Union, they warned, Washington had repudiated an implicit agreement with Mikhail Gorbachev thanks to which the demise of the Soviet Union did not unleash the kind of chaos and brute force that had characterized the collapse of other empires. As the English foreign-policy realist Martin Wight once put it: "Great Power status is lost, as it is won, by violence. A Great Power does not die in its bed."
What happened in the case of the Soviet Union's collapse was the exception to the rule. From 1989 to 1991, the Kremlin turned loose all of its satellites, allowed the Berlin Wall to fall and Germany to be united, and dissolved the USSR into fifteen independent nations--all with virtually no bloodshed. This political miracle took place in no small part because the George H. W. Bush administration refused to exploit Russia's security vulnerabilities. There was, to be sure, no formal treaty to codify any casual agreement that Washington would not expand its security reach into what Moscow had long viewed as its near abroad. But America had given Russia its word, and then suddenly broken it. As Kennan lamented in 1998: "We did not, I am sure, intend to trick the Russians, but the actual determinants of our later behavior . . . would scarcely have been more creditable on our part than a real intention to deceive."
It was around this time when the eminent historian John Lewis Gaddis said he "had difficulty finding any colleagues who think NATO expansion is a good idea." Gaddis, who later wrote Kennan's biography, observed in the New York Times: "I can recall no other moment when there was less support in our profession for a government policy."
The distinguished Oxford historian Michael Howard illustrated Gaddis's point. "If NATO were to be extended eastward, we would see the beginning of a familiar pattern of aggression," he wrote in the Times of London in 1996. "Russia, seeing herself threatened by her traditional enemies, would once again set about establishing her dominance over Ukraine, Belarus and probably the Baltic states."
"NATO would have to respond by improving its military ties with the Visegrad states and perhaps offering guarantees in the Baltics, which the Russians could only see as further threats to their own security." Sir Michael concluded: "Within a few years, we would be back to a military confrontation in which the security of the Visegrad states would really be threatened, and the whole merry-go-round would begin again."
https://modernagejournal.com/natos-prophetic-critics/240359/
Notice one argument that was glaringly absent from the debate at the time. That is the argument you're making now, that the dirty Russkies were always going to invade Ukraine or Eastern Europe no matter what.
No doubt there were some troglodytes embedded in the military and intelligence who thought so, but they weren't taken seriously. If anything, the expansionists' argument was exactly the opposite--we could push Russia as far as we wanted with no fear of resistance. On the very eve of the war in 2022, Jake Sullivan was promising that Russia would never invade Ukraine.
So I'll ask you...who's being naive, Kay? The ones who saw all of this coming, or the ones who denied it and are now frantically re-writing history to pretend we had no part in it?
As for Putin's interview, it was misrepresented in the West as usual. He was essentially saying the same thing Owen Harries said in the 1990s, as mentioned in the article above. Russia has legitimate interests beyond its own borders, including a long history with Ukraine. That doesn't mean they can't recognize Ukraine's independence. They recognized it in 1991, on a basis of Ukrainian neutrality, and Putin reaffirms that in the 2024 interview.
The problem is that the West in recent years has taken a completely different view. Now Ukraine must be "aligned" with the West and only the West. Russia can have no say in trade negotiations, despite its deep interconnection with the Ukrainian economy. It can have no say in NATO expansion, despite the long recognized principle of indivisible security.
That is what changed. All based on a rewriting of history, wherein the Russians fought tooth and nail to hold on to their empire and have stubbornly refused cooperation ever since.
A long list of luminaries who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War--and it was negotiated--will tell you that's just not true. The troglodytes tell you otherwise, and they are increasingly loud as the whole unipolar project falls apart. That's the real revisionism. Don't fall for it. It's part of the same hubristic agenda that has failed in the Middle East and will continue to fail wherever it's tried.
Stop gaslighting yourself. Russia had no grounds for war with Ukraine. Ukraine had not taken any hostile action toward Russia. Ukraine was in the exact same status on D-Day as Finland and Sweden (UN member/Nato partner). Ukraine had not even requested Nato membership. Ukraine was/is not eligible for Nato membership due to it's many border disputes with Russia.
Failure to promise NOT to do something is not grounds for war.
NATO has bent the rules for membership before and can do it again. If anything, your argument is a reason for Russia to keep pressing the dispute.
RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Sept 6 (Reuters) - The use of donated U.S. weapons for long-range strikes into Russia would not turn the tide of the war for Ukraine, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Friday, gently pushing back against Kyiv's wishes for arms restrictions to be lifted.ATL Bear said:Give me a break Sam.Sam Lowry said:They've already beaten NATO, and not against modest support. The US doesn't even produce ATACMS missiles any more. Ukraine has about 50 of them left, and we couldn't give them many more if we wanted to. Lloyd Austin has said outright that they won't make any difference.ATL Bear said:Their inability to beat NATO or the West isn't stopping them from picking on weaklings. The fact they have difficulty doing so with only modest low end support from the West only exemplifies that, but doesn't change the reasons why they should be stopped from doing so.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They're 0-2 in the last 50 years on that.KaiBear said:ATL Bear said:Yes, against the cartels, in Mexico. Stopping supply chains is a military move. Russia hasn't been effective doing so,KaiBear said:ATL Bear said:They would invade Mexico and blockade the country until the threat was subdued.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
We would invade Mexico and use every weapon at our disposal
Russia has been effective bleeding out their adversaries for centuries.
Doing the same in Ukraine.
You guys have to get your stories straight
Is Russia this great military threat that we should all be scared of that could conquer Poland and all of Europe?
Or is it a joke military that has not won a war in 50 years?
Stick to a narrative
https://www.reuters.com/world/using-us-arms-long-range-strikes-into-russia-no-game-changer-says-austin-2024-09-06/
Clearly NATO has been beaten…Sam Lowry said:RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Sept 6 (Reuters) - The use of donated U.S. weapons for long-range strikes into Russia would not turn the tide of the war for Ukraine, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Friday, gently pushing back against Kyiv's wishes for arms restrictions to be lifted.ATL Bear said:Give me a break Sam.Sam Lowry said:They've already beaten NATO, and not against modest support. The US doesn't even produce ATACMS missiles any more. Ukraine has about 50 of them left, and we couldn't give them many more if we wanted to. Lloyd Austin has said outright that they won't make any difference.ATL Bear said:Their inability to beat NATO or the West isn't stopping them from picking on weaklings. The fact they have difficulty doing so with only modest low end support from the West only exemplifies that, but doesn't change the reasons why they should be stopped from doing so.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They're 0-2 in the last 50 years on that.KaiBear said:ATL Bear said:Yes, against the cartels, in Mexico. Stopping supply chains is a military move. Russia hasn't been effective doing so,KaiBear said:ATL Bear said:They would invade Mexico and blockade the country until the threat was subdued.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
We would invade Mexico and use every weapon at our disposal
Russia has been effective bleeding out their adversaries for centuries.
Doing the same in Ukraine.
You guys have to get your stories straight
Is Russia this great military threat that we should all be scared of that could conquer Poland and all of Europe?
Or is it a joke military that has not won a war in 50 years?
Stick to a narrative
https://www.reuters.com/world/using-us-arms-long-range-strikes-into-russia-no-game-changer-says-austin-2024-09-06/
Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.
Their demand is for Ukrainian neutrality. That's what we've been talking about.ATL Bear said:"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.
Yes, Russia worked for its own interest hiding behind the false premise of neutrality of Ukraine.Sam Lowry said:Their demand is for Ukrainian neutrality. That's what we've been talking about.ATL Bear said:"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.
You're still not making any sense. The "false premise" was one that Ukraine agreed to.ATL Bear said:Yes, Russia worked for its own interest hiding behind the false premise of neutrality of Ukraine.Sam Lowry said:Their demand is for Ukrainian neutrality. That's what we've been talking about.ATL Bear said:"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.
After being invaded?Sam Lowry said:You're still not making any sense. The "false premise" was one that Ukraine agreed to.ATL Bear said:Yes, Russia worked for its own interest hiding behind the false premise of neutrality of Ukraine.Sam Lowry said:Their demand is for Ukrainian neutrality. That's what we've been talking about.ATL Bear said:"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.
No, in 1991.ATL Bear said:After being invaded?Sam Lowry said:You're still not making any sense. The "false premise" was one that Ukraine agreed to.ATL Bear said:Yes, Russia worked for its own interest hiding behind the false premise of neutrality of Ukraine.Sam Lowry said:Their demand is for Ukrainian neutrality. That's what we've been talking about.ATL Bear said:"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.
Times changed. Both in Russia and the U.S.'s view. We played soft, Russia went progressively hard.Sam Lowry said:No, in 1991.ATL Bear said:After being invaded?Sam Lowry said:You're still not making any sense. The "false premise" was one that Ukraine agreed to.ATL Bear said:Yes, Russia worked for its own interest hiding behind the false premise of neutrality of Ukraine.Sam Lowry said:Their demand is for Ukrainian neutrality. That's what we've been talking about.ATL Bear said:"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.
Not really, but that's beside the point. The demands were clear and didn't change.ATL Bear said:Times changed. Both in Russia and the U.S.'s view. We played soft, Russia went progressively hard.Sam Lowry said:No, in 1991.ATL Bear said:After being invaded?Sam Lowry said:You're still not making any sense. The "false premise" was one that Ukraine agreed to.ATL Bear said:Yes, Russia worked for its own interest hiding behind the false premise of neutrality of Ukraine.Sam Lowry said:Their demand is for Ukrainian neutrality. That's what we've been talking about.ATL Bear said:"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.
By the way, Russia has responded to our abrogation of arms control treaties by developing the new Oreshnik missile that it just used to attack Dnipro. It can strike anywhere in Europe and cannot be countered in any way. So much for improving our defenses by reneging on agreements.
"New".
https://kyivindependent.com/what-is-russias-oreshnik-missile-and-what-happens-next/
"I'd be extremely shocked if this missile system had more than 10% new parts," Fabian Hoffmann, a defense expert and doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo, told the Kyiv Independent.
"I think basically they just took apart the RS-26 or just cannibalized it, and then put together this new missile with a couple of upgrades, and a new paint job."
"I think it's really important that we don't overreact," Hoffman said, adding the missile itself isn't anything particularly new despite what Putin said on Nov. 21.
"I like his 'hypersonic' comment of course he had to put that in, but every medium-range ballistic missile will reach hypersonic velocity at one point, so this is just nothing," he adds.
https://kyivindependent.com/what-is-russias-oreshnik-missile-and-what-happens-next/
"I'd be extremely shocked if this missile system had more than 10% new parts," Fabian Hoffmann, a defense expert and doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo, told the Kyiv Independent.
"I think basically they just took apart the RS-26 or just cannibalized it, and then put together this new missile with a couple of upgrades, and a new paint job."
"I think it's really important that we don't overreact," Hoffman said, adding the missile itself isn't anything particularly new despite what Putin said on Nov. 21.
"I like his 'hypersonic' comment of course he had to put that in, but every medium-range ballistic missile will reach hypersonic velocity at one point, so this is just nothing," he adds.
It's the only point, and goes back to my original statement you didn't understand. Actions belied neutral intent. And there probably isn't any more of a stark culmination of that than the fact that 33 years since 1991 Ukraine is still not in the EU or NATO, yet the Russian military is trying to take over the country now, took over Crimea and started a war in Donbas 10 years ago, and attempted to assassinate the President 10 years before that.Sam Lowry said:Not really, but that's beside the point. The demands were clear and didn't change.ATL Bear said:Times changed. Both in Russia and the U.S.'s view. We played soft, Russia went progressively hard.Sam Lowry said:No, in 1991.ATL Bear said:After being invaded?Sam Lowry said:You're still not making any sense. The "false premise" was one that Ukraine agreed to.ATL Bear said:Yes, Russia worked for its own interest hiding behind the false premise of neutrality of Ukraine.Sam Lowry said:Their demand is for Ukrainian neutrality. That's what we've been talking about.ATL Bear said:"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.
Yay Russia…Sam Lowry said:
By the way, Russia has responded to our abrogation of arms control treaties by developing the new Oreshnik missile that it just used to attack Dnipro. It can strike anywhere in Europe and cannot be countered in any way. So much for improving our defenses by reneging on agreements.
So Russia has recruited (via Hezbollah) fighters from Yemen to fight against Ukraine. Seems to be pushing for another world war. If they do some sort of global attacks, it would be before Biden leaves office as they consider him a pushover
Facebook Groups at; Memories of... Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Memories From a Texas Window and Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
So Hoffman doesn't know what a hypersonic weapon is? Interesting.Bear8084 said:
"New".
https://kyivindependent.com/what-is-russias-oreshnik-missile-and-what-happens-next/
"I'd be extremely shocked if this missile system had more than 10% new parts," Fabian Hoffmann, a defense expert and doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo, told the Kyiv Independent.
"I think basically they just took apart the RS-26 or just cannibalized it, and then put together this new missile with a couple of upgrades, and a new paint job."
"I think it's really important that we don't overreact," Hoffman said, adding the missile itself isn't anything particularly new despite what Putin said on Nov. 21.
"I like his 'hypersonic' comment of course he had to put that in, but every medium-range ballistic missile will reach hypersonic velocity at one point, so this is just nothing," he adds.
Let's just put it this way. When Ukraine promised to remain neutral, exiling its legitimate neutral leadership and kicking the Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea wasn't what the Russians or anyone else thought they were talking about. Russia is acting at the last minute to prevent NATO membership, just as it did to prevent the loss of Sevastopol.ATL Bear said:It's the only point, and goes back to my original statement you didn't understand. Actions belied neutral intent. And there probably isn't any more of a stark culmination of that than the fact that 33 years since 1991 Ukraine is still not in the EU or NATO, yet the Russian military is trying to take over the country now, took over Crimea and started a war in Donbas 10 years ago, and attempted to assassinate the President 10 years before that.Sam Lowry said:Not really, but that's beside the point. The demands were clear and didn't change.ATL Bear said:Times changed. Both in Russia and the U.S.'s view. We played soft, Russia went progressively hard.Sam Lowry said:No, in 1991.ATL Bear said:After being invaded?Sam Lowry said:You're still not making any sense. The "false premise" was one that Ukraine agreed to.ATL Bear said:Yes, Russia worked for its own interest hiding behind the false premise of neutrality of Ukraine.Sam Lowry said:Their demand is for Ukrainian neutrality. That's what we've been talking about.ATL Bear said:"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.
Trump’s newly appointed counterterrorism adviser Sebastian Gorka calls Putin a “thug” and says Trump plans to end the Ukraine war by threatening to flood Ukraine with military aid, making current U.S. support look like “peanuts” pic.twitter.com/jKkfmmzvoK
— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) November 25, 2024
Laughable.
We've never been more in need of serious leadership, and it's nowhere to be found.
We've never been more in need of serious leadership, and it's nowhere to be found.
you misapply the domino theory concept. Ukraine is not a domino. Neither was Afghanistan. Neither have any direct impact on the strategic situation in Taiwan.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:whiterock said:I think current policy opponents are going to be disappointed in what they see from the Trump administration. Look at the relevant policy appointments........Doc Holliday said:
I got a feeling the pro warhawks and neocons here are going to be against the Trump administration over this war.
Someone is disappointed every day about any administration.
However Trump is going to put America First and has repeatedly stated his intention to end the Russia - Ukraine war.
I believe he will.
I do, too. But how?
And many different factions will be angry with the terms.
But that is normal.
Trump knows that Taiwan policy is being written right now. In Ukraine. We cut & run, China will test us in the first island chain.
Every conflict is not necessarily tied into other ones on the globe.
And China-Iran-Russia are not able and don't coordinate activities that closely
Plus Domino theory has long been discredited
[The domino theory was a popular belief among US politicians from the 1940s to the 1970s. It suggested that if one country in Southeast Asia fell to communism, it would quickly lead to other countries falling as well. The US used the domino theory to justify its involvement in the Vietnam War. However, the theory failed to accurately predict the spread of communism in Southeast Asia]
The idea that we should keep a costly proxy war going in Ukraine....to prevent China from trying to take Taiwan is a stretch
BOTH are, however, a clear & present test of our will and ability to respond to significant infringements of our interests. We failed badly in Afghanistan - botched the exit (horribly), showing poor judgment and incompetence (weakness). It had a direct impact on Russian assessments about our likely response to their invasion of Ukraine. Then Biden botched Ukraine by executing the proper policy (supporting Ukraine) in the worst way possible (escalating with too little, way too late), turning it into a neverWar, which I am not fan of. The American public rightly are not fond of neverWars and will not support them forever. Authoritarian states know this and plan for it. They propagandize for it, often effectively. Breaking the will of the American people is their best chance of success. It's certainly worked on a number of people here. Trump knows that if pulls the rug out from under Ukraine, then China will assess there will be no rug at all under Taiwan = Taiwan will be on its own. And then all of Asia will see us wane while China waxes. A lot of countries that don't like China will see the handwriting and start hedging their bets...appeasing China to keep China from focusing their might on them (because America cannot be counted upon to help).
So China is watching what we do in Ukraine, keenly. They can see Biden's chosen policy in Ukraine will take more time than the American people are willing to support. They can see neither Biden nor Europe have increased production of big fires and missile systems to match the timeline they have chosen to pursue. Nato could easily afford to do so. But they dither. And China can count. They know that what we use in Ukraine cannot be used in Taiwan. So they think time is on their side....every day that goes forward while Ukraine fires our obsolete weapons faster than we can replace them.
Trump is going to rearm. Watch & see. He has to do it. Biden has left him no choice.
Trump is not going to let Russia have it's way with Ukraine. Watch & see. Biden has left him no choice.
Trump wants to win so much we all get tired of winning, not open his administration with a loss that increases the likelihood of an ensuing loss.
Making missiles and arty rounds creates manufacturing jobs, ya know.....
Trump is a hawk who hates neverWars.
That's me, too.
(again, look at his foreign policy team).
Biden shoving all approved aid into Ukraine before the end of his term is a tremendous help to Trump. Gives him more time to maneuver. You can take it to the bank it was discussed when the two met a few days ago. Wouldn't be surprised at all if Trump asked him to do it.
earth to Kai. come back out of the wormhole.KaiBear said:Don't be confused.whiterock said:we're going to see here in a couple of months. Prepare to be disappointed.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Trump is not going to pull the plug on aid for Ukraine.KaiBear said:whiterock said:I think current policy opponents are going to be disappointed in what they see from the Trump administration. Look at the relevant policy appointments........Doc Holliday said:
I got a feeling the pro warhawks and neocons here are going to be against the Trump administration over this war.
Someone is disappointed every day about any administration.
However Trump is going to put America First and has repeatedly stated his intention to end the Russia - Ukraine war.
I believe he will.
I do, too. But how?
And many different factions will be angry with the terms.
But that is normal.
Trump knows that Taiwan policy is being written right now. In Ukraine. We cut & run, China will test us in the first island chain.
Trump is going to threaten Putin with katy-bar-the-door levels of aid to Ukraine, and crushing ROE & sanctions.
Trump is going to threaten Zelensky with total abandonment.
Neither of them can afford to call his bluff.
Biden's decision to deliver all currently approved aid will significantly strengthen Trump's hand.
(guarantee you those two discussed & concurred on that in their meeting last week).
Look at Trump's foreign policy appointments. No isolationists there. Stone cold hawks.
Don't let your desires lead your logic.
Taiwan is going the way of Hong Kong and the American people will not support a war with China to stop it.
Trump is smart enough to step aside .
The American people are fed up with providing billions of dollars for Ukraine.
Trump will pull the plug.
However Trump will continue to pressure Iran. That needs to be done. Israel will be grateful yet American Jews will continue to support the Democrats.
Have never understood their reasoning.
Zero chance Trump opens his administration waving two white flags. He's going to force an end to Ukraine, one way or the other, in order to get focused on China.
Again. LOOK AT HIS FOREIGN POLICY TEAM.
Trump's first priority was LOYALTY.
He will serve as his own foreign policy team.
And Trump wants peace, because its what the American people want. The days of CIA led police actions are over.
Trump is smart enough to know that showing weakness in Ukraine will increase the likelihood of war with China.KaiBear said:Time will tell.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:Don't be confused.whiterock said:we're going to see here in a couple of months. Prepare to be disappointed.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Trump is not going to pull the plug on aid for Ukraine.KaiBear said:whiterock said:I think current policy opponents are going to be disappointed in what they see from the Trump administration. Look at the relevant policy appointments........Doc Holliday said:
I got a feeling the pro warhawks and neocons here are going to be against the Trump administration over this war.
Someone is disappointed every day about any administration.
However Trump is going to put America First and has repeatedly stated his intention to end the Russia - Ukraine war.
I believe he will.
I do, too. But how?
And many different factions will be angry with the terms.
But that is normal.
Trump knows that Taiwan policy is being written right now. In Ukraine. We cut & run, China will test us in the first island chain.
Trump is going to threaten Putin with katy-bar-the-door levels of aid to Ukraine, and crushing ROE & sanctions.
Trump is going to threaten Zelensky with total abandonment.
Neither of them can afford to call his bluff.
Biden's decision to deliver all currently approved aid will significantly strengthen Trump's hand.
(guarantee you those two discussed & concurred on that in their meeting last week).
Look at Trump's foreign policy appointments. No isolationists there. Stone cold hawks.
Don't let your desires lead your logic.
Taiwan is going the way of Hong Kong and the American people will not support a war with China to stop it.
Trump is smart enough to step aside .
The American people are fed up with providing billions of dollars for Ukraine.
Trump will pull the plug.
However Trump will continue to pressure Iran. That needs to be done. Israel will be grateful yet American Jews will continue to support the Democrats.
Have never understood their reasoning.
Zero chance Trump opens his administration waving two white flags. He's going to force an end to Ukraine, one way or the other, in order to get focused on China.
Again. LOOK AT HIS FOREIGN POLICY TEAM.
Trump's first priority was LOYALTY.
He will serve as his own foreign policy team.
And Trump wants peace, because its what the American people want. The days of CIA led police actions are over.
I don't know
I think Whiterock is right....his foreign policy team is very Hawkish
But war ruined LBJ and Bush's administrations.
Trump is smart enough to avoid the same mistakes.
There is truth in that. Biden launched off on an "as long as it takes" policy rather than stating that we wanted Ukraine to WIN, thereby making the process more important than the objective.Redbrickbear said:
It is not in our interest for Russia to defeat and subsume Ukraine.
It is not in our interest for Russia to launch campaigns every 6-8 years to lop of pieces of Ukraine.
It is in our interest for Russia to LOSE in Ukraine, to force them to withdraw from most/all of Ukraine to forestall collapse of the Putin regime.
Biden has been predictably bone-headed in foreign policy, just as Gates predicted. He took the right action (supporting Ukraine) in the worst possible way (neverWar).
whiterock said:Trump is smart enough to know that showing weakness in Ukraine will increase the likelihood of war with China.KaiBear said:Time will tell.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:Don't be confused.whiterock said:we're going to see here in a couple of months. Prepare to be disappointed.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Trump is not going to pull the plug on aid for Ukraine.KaiBear said:whiterock said:I think current policy opponents are going to be disappointed in what they see from the Trump administration. Look at the relevant policy appointments........Doc Holliday said:
I got a feeling the pro warhawks and neocons here are going to be against the Trump administration over this war.
Someone is disappointed every day about any administration.
However Trump is going to put America First and has repeatedly stated his intention to end the Russia - Ukraine war.
I believe he will.
I do, too. But how?
And many different factions will be angry with the terms.
But that is normal.
Trump knows that Taiwan policy is being written right now. In Ukraine. We cut & run, China will test us in the first island chain.
Trump is going to threaten Putin with katy-bar-the-door levels of aid to Ukraine, and crushing ROE & sanctions.
Trump is going to threaten Zelensky with total abandonment.
Neither of them can afford to call his bluff.
Biden's decision to deliver all currently approved aid will significantly strengthen Trump's hand.
(guarantee you those two discussed & concurred on that in their meeting last week).
Look at Trump's foreign policy appointments. No isolationists there. Stone cold hawks.
Don't let your desires lead your logic.
Taiwan is going the way of Hong Kong and the American people will not support a war with China to stop it.
Trump is smart enough to step aside .
The American people are fed up with providing billions of dollars for Ukraine.
Trump will pull the plug.
However Trump will continue to pressure Iran. That needs to be done. Israel will be grateful yet American Jews will continue to support the Democrats.
Have never understood their reasoning.
Zero chance Trump opens his administration waving two white flags. He's going to force an end to Ukraine, one way or the other, in order to get focused on China.
Again. LOOK AT HIS FOREIGN POLICY TEAM.
Trump's first priority was LOYALTY.
He will serve as his own foreign policy team.
And Trump wants peace, because its what the American people want. The days of CIA led police actions are over.
I don't know
I think Whiterock is right....his foreign policy team is very Hawkish
But war ruined LBJ and Bush's administrations.
Trump is smart enough to avoid the same mistakes.
If the only issue is Taiwan ; there will be no war with China.
As anyone who can look at a globe realizes our supply lines would be far too long to win .
You are really not very good at this.Sam Lowry said:I'm quoting foreign policy realists to argue exactly what they were arguing. What's ironic is that you call yourself a realist while promoting what Mearsheimer would call racist pseudo-history in order to justify a neoliberal crusade.whiterock said:nothing is more amusingly ironic than to see someone quoting foreign policy realists to make an argument for a foreign policy idealism which asserts that the current Russian autocrat whose armies are on campaign in Ukraine has rejected the aggressive foreign policy agenda of prior Russian autocrats.Sam Lowry said:What changed? That's the question that needs to be asked.sombear said:Russia invaded, period. Russia was always going to invade. Russia was always going to try to take over Ukraine. Russia has never, in its heart of hearts, recognize Ukraine as a sovereign.Sam Lowry said:Or so they thought. Now they're learning otherwise. They're one of many peoples who have bought into the "freedom vs. tyranny" narrative and suffered the consequences. Israel is another one.sombear said:Probably a good idea to join forces with someone when your neighbor invades and kills your people.Sam Lowry said:They were in a state of civil war in 2014. By 2022 they were a de facto US "ally" (although "pawn" might be a better description).sombear said:
Really, how were they not neutral in 2014?
Who invaded whom in 2014 depends on which point of view you take. I would argue it was Ukraine and not Russia that invaded the Donbas. The people of the Donbas would agree, for what little that's worth to Americans. But it doesn't really matter in terms of your larger question. Ukraine's status was uncertain at the time. Its neutrality or allegiance was one of the things that would be decided by the civil war.
The West knew better than to officially invite Ukraine into NATO and then start building up its army. We did things the other way around, hoping that by the time Russia reacted it would be too late. That was where things stood when Russia finally invaded in 2022.
Ukraine and the West were naive to lose sight of that. Ukraine gave up its nukes. The West left Ukraine on its own, sending only token support until it was far too late.
It was all right there, in Putin's and his cronies' speeches and writings. It's still there today because they just can't hide it. I mean, of all things, idiot Putin led his Tucker interview with that silly history lesson. He actually thought he could convince the world Ukraine wasn't a real country or real people. Were it not so dire, that would have been one of more comedic moments in geopolitical history.
Russia and the US were on the path to a long and peaceful coexistence after the Cold War. Yet the idea of NATO expansion reared its ugly head very early on:Quote:
Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, a chorus of government officials, academics, commentators, and retired bureaucrats and diplomats has dismissed any link between the crisis and NATO's decades-long expansion. Moscow's aggression, we are told, is all about Vladimir Putin's imperial impulse--his desire to recreate the Russian empire. Yet three decades ago we had some warning of Russia's strategic sensibilities about NATO expansion. During the 1990s campaign to bring Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, many leading military and foreign-policy thinkers argued that the enlargement of NATO would lead to trouble with Russia. Expansion would create the very danger it was supposed to prevent: Russian aggression in reaction to what the Kremlin would deem a provocative and threatening Western policy.
The list of opponents of NATO enlargement from three decades ago reads like a who's who of that generation's wise men. It included the architects of the Cold War containment doctrine George Kennan and Paul Nitze; the former senior Reagan defense officials Fred Ikl and Admiral James Watkins; president Jimmy Carter's CIA director Stansfield Turner; the Nixon-era diplomats Robert Bowie and Robert Ellsworth; the Reagan-era ambassadors to Moscow Arthur Hartman and Jack Matlock; the intellectuals Ronald Steel, Edward Luttwak, and the Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter; the magazine editors Owen Harries (the National Interest) and Charles Maynes (Foreign Policy); and, not least, the distinguished historians Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes, John Lewis Gaddis, and Britain's foremost military historian, Sir Michael Howard.
Officials in the State and Defense departments also opposed NATO plans to expand eastward, including the Polish-born chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili and Defense Secretary Les Aspin, as well as his successor William Perry, who considered resignation in late 1994 when the policy proposal moved forward. Former defense secretaries Robert McNamara and James Schlesinger also aired their concerns that NATO enlargement would decrease allied security and unsettle European stability.
In the lead-up to the Senate's ratification of expansion in 1998, the New York Times editorial board said that it was "the most important foreign policy decision America has faced since the end of the Cold War" and could "prove to be a mistake of historic proportions. . . . It is delusional to believe that NATO expansion is not at its core an act that Russia will regard as hostile."
Although the Times opposed NATO enlargement, it was not the case, as Poland's president, Aleksander Kwaniewski, joked to the columnist William Safire in 1997, that "the only ones against us are the Russians and the New York Times."
In fact, the opponents represented an ideologically diverse group across America's political spectrum--from the unreconstructed accommodationists Noam Chomsky and the Nation on the left to the America First "isolationists" Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly on the right. In between, there was opposition from legislators on both sides of the political aisle: from the Republican senator John Warner and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher to the Democrat senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the former senators Sam Nunn and Gary Hart.
Virtually all opponents were primarily concerned about upsetting Russia's strategic sensibilities in a "new world order"--or what the leading neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer dubbed "the unipolar moment." For Washington, that meant not just the triumph of Western principles and influence, but a pax Americana. For Moscow, though, it no longer meant a security arrangement between equals.
Three critics of NATO expansion distinguished themselves during this period: Pat Buchanan, George Kennan, and Owen Harries. Although they expressed themselves in different ways, all highlighted not only the folly of rubbing Russia's nose in its Cold War defeat but also the ominous consequences of giving security guarantees to the former captive nations of Eastern and Central Europe.
A past and future Republican presidential candidate, Buchanan used his nationally syndicated column to rail against a new cold war with Russia. In 1994, he noted that if the Cold War presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson backed away from confrontation with the Soviet Union over Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, "why would we risk a clash with Moscow when the Cold War is over?" NATO expansion, Buchanan warned, "is a prescription for a NATO-Russia clash, as soon as the nationalists come to power." Three years later, in 1997, he lamented that "antagonizing Moscow" meant "driving her toward China and Iran."
George Kennan--the author of the containment doctrine of 1947, a former ambassador to the USSR, and one of America's wisest students of Russian affairs--spoke for the many dissenters in 1997 when he warned that NATO expansion "would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era." It would weaken Russian reformers, embolden hard-liners, undermine strategic arms agreements, and escalate East--West tensions when Russia got back on its feet and began acting like a great power.
In the 1990s, Russia was no threat to the West and was incapable of serious military action. But "if humiliated further and made desperate," as Owen Harries warned in 1996, "it could be dangerous in a way that a wounded animal can be dangerous." Its potential to be a troublemaker was huge. A sick Russia with a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons would one day get well and declare its own Monroe Doctrine.
Harries--a Welsh-born conservative academic and cold warrior who became an Australian diplomat-policymaker and editor of the National Interest (from 19852001)--argued: "Expanding NATO violates the wise principle enunciated by Winston Churchill: 'In victory, magnanimity.' Churchill was no softy, but he recognized the stupidity of grinding the face of a defeated foe in the dirt."
As early as 1993, in a widely quoted essay in Foreign Affairs, Harries warned of the perils of any proposal to intrude U.S. military power into Russia's sphere of influence. It would greatly annoy the Russians, but it would have little credibility, create splits within the alliance, and require much in blood and treasure.
The forty-five-year interlude of the Soviet bloc was merely an episode in a much larger history, Harries said, and its demise did not necessarily mark the end of Moscow's involvement in the region. He cited "strategic interests, traditional motives of prestige, the 'historic mission' of freeing the Greek Orthodox population from infidel rule, and the pan-Slavism that had a very real impact on policy" as reasons to take into account Russian sensibilities and interests beyond its own borders.
"To ignore all this history and to incorporate Eastern Europe into NATO's sphere of influence, and at a time when Russia is in dangerous turmoil and when that nation's prestige and self-confidence are badly damaged, would surely be an act of outstanding folly." Harries warned that in such circumstances, NATO expansion could provide a "catalyst that would enable extreme chauvinistic elements in Russia to exploit frustrations, resentments and wounded national pride in ways that would have unpleasant consequences both internally and internationally."
Another central tenet of the HarriesKennanBuchanan critique was that NATO expansion could suffer a massive credibility problem. Ends and means, Walter Lippmann famously warned in 1943, ought to be brought into balance, and aspirations should match resources in foreign-policy deliberations. Yet here was the U.S. cashing in on the so-called peace dividend by cutting defense spending and army and naval troop levels even as it added security commitments in a part of the world where Cold War presidents felt America had no vital interest justifying a risk of war. Meanwhile, European allies were slashing their own defense budgets and downsizing their own militaries. The irresponsibility of such conduct raised the question of the seriousness of the new commitments being undertaken.
Harries, Kennan and Buchanan were also among the opponents of NATO expansion to draw attention to the assurances the U.S. and Germany gave to Moscow during the early 1990s: that if Russia withdrew from its Warsaw Pact client states and accepted German unification, NATO would not move "one inch eastwards." By expanding NATO to the frontiers of the former Soviet Union, they warned, Washington had repudiated an implicit agreement with Mikhail Gorbachev thanks to which the demise of the Soviet Union did not unleash the kind of chaos and brute force that had characterized the collapse of other empires. As the English foreign-policy realist Martin Wight once put it: "Great Power status is lost, as it is won, by violence. A Great Power does not die in its bed."
What happened in the case of the Soviet Union's collapse was the exception to the rule. From 1989 to 1991, the Kremlin turned loose all of its satellites, allowed the Berlin Wall to fall and Germany to be united, and dissolved the USSR into fifteen independent nations--all with virtually no bloodshed. This political miracle took place in no small part because the George H. W. Bush administration refused to exploit Russia's security vulnerabilities. There was, to be sure, no formal treaty to codify any casual agreement that Washington would not expand its security reach into what Moscow had long viewed as its near abroad. But America had given Russia its word, and then suddenly broken it. As Kennan lamented in 1998: "We did not, I am sure, intend to trick the Russians, but the actual determinants of our later behavior . . . would scarcely have been more creditable on our part than a real intention to deceive."
It was around this time when the eminent historian John Lewis Gaddis said he "had difficulty finding any colleagues who think NATO expansion is a good idea." Gaddis, who later wrote Kennan's biography, observed in the New York Times: "I can recall no other moment when there was less support in our profession for a government policy."
The distinguished Oxford historian Michael Howard illustrated Gaddis's point. "If NATO were to be extended eastward, we would see the beginning of a familiar pattern of aggression," he wrote in the Times of London in 1996. "Russia, seeing herself threatened by her traditional enemies, would once again set about establishing her dominance over Ukraine, Belarus and probably the Baltic states."
"NATO would have to respond by improving its military ties with the Visegrad states and perhaps offering guarantees in the Baltics, which the Russians could only see as further threats to their own security." Sir Michael concluded: "Within a few years, we would be back to a military confrontation in which the security of the Visegrad states would really be threatened, and the whole merry-go-round would begin again."
https://modernagejournal.com/natos-prophetic-critics/240359/
Notice one argument that was glaringly absent from the debate at the time. That is the argument you're making now, that the dirty Russkies were always going to invade Ukraine or Eastern Europe no matter what.
No doubt there were some troglodytes embedded in the military and intelligence who thought so, but they weren't taken seriously. If anything, the expansionists' argument was exactly the opposite--we could push Russia as far as we wanted with no fear of resistance. On the very eve of the war in 2022, Jake Sullivan was promising that Russia would never invade Ukraine.
So I'll ask you...who's being naive, Kay? The ones who saw all of this coming, or the ones who denied it and are now frantically re-writing history to pretend we had no part in it?
As for Putin's interview, it was misrepresented in the West as usual. He was essentially saying the same thing Owen Harries said in the 1990s, as mentioned in the article above. Russia has legitimate interests beyond its own borders, including a long history with Ukraine. That doesn't mean they can't recognize Ukraine's independence. They recognized it in 1991, on a basis of Ukrainian neutrality, and Putin reaffirms that in the 2024 interview.
The problem is that the West in recent years has taken a completely different view. Now Ukraine must be "aligned" with the West and only the West. Russia can have no say in trade negotiations, despite its deep interconnection with the Ukrainian economy. It can have no say in NATO expansion, despite the long recognized principle of indivisible security.
That is what changed. All based on a rewriting of history, wherein the Russians fought tooth and nail to hold on to their empire and have stubbornly refused cooperation ever since.
A long list of luminaries who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War--and it was negotiated--will tell you that's just not true. The troglodytes tell you otherwise, and they are increasingly loud as the whole unipolar project falls apart. That's the real revisionism. Don't fall for it. It's part of the same hubristic agenda that has failed in the Middle East and will continue to fail wherever it's tried.
Stop gaslighting yourself. Russia had no grounds for war with Ukraine. Ukraine had not taken any hostile action toward Russia. Ukraine was in the exact same status on D-Day as Finland and Sweden (UN member/Nato partner). Ukraine had not even requested Nato membership. Ukraine was/is not eligible for Nato membership due to it's many border disputes with Russia.
Failure to promise NOT to do something is not grounds for war.
No, you are making an "end of history" argument that Russia isn't Russia anymore, that they are a trustworthy partner in peace who has no territorial ambitions and only invaded Ukraine out of necessity to stop (contrived) great provocations (as opposed to what it patently was - romantic irredentism). Never mind the fact that Ukraine had the EXACT same relationship with Nato and EU as Sweden and Finland did at the exact same time.
NATO has bent the rules for membership before and can do it again. If anything, your argument is a reason for Russia to keep pressing the dispute.
Can you cite an instance where Nato admitted a state with a hot, ongoing border conflict with a nuclear powered rival?
The tyranny of distance is a factor. Fortunately, we have bases quite a bit closer to the theater than the West Coast.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Trump is smart enough to know that showing weakness in Ukraine will increase the likelihood of war with China.KaiBear said:Time will tell.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:Don't be confused.whiterock said:we're going to see here in a couple of months. Prepare to be disappointed.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Trump is not going to pull the plug on aid for Ukraine.KaiBear said:whiterock said:I think current policy opponents are going to be disappointed in what they see from the Trump administration. Look at the relevant policy appointments........Doc Holliday said:
I got a feeling the pro warhawks and neocons here are going to be against the Trump administration over this war.
Someone is disappointed every day about any administration.
However Trump is going to put America First and has repeatedly stated his intention to end the Russia - Ukraine war.
I believe he will.
I do, too. But how?
And many different factions will be angry with the terms.
But that is normal.
Trump knows that Taiwan policy is being written right now. In Ukraine. We cut & run, China will test us in the first island chain.
Trump is going to threaten Putin with katy-bar-the-door levels of aid to Ukraine, and crushing ROE & sanctions.
Trump is going to threaten Zelensky with total abandonment.
Neither of them can afford to call his bluff.
Biden's decision to deliver all currently approved aid will significantly strengthen Trump's hand.
(guarantee you those two discussed & concurred on that in their meeting last week).
Look at Trump's foreign policy appointments. No isolationists there. Stone cold hawks.
Don't let your desires lead your logic.
Taiwan is going the way of Hong Kong and the American people will not support a war with China to stop it.
Trump is smart enough to step aside .
The American people are fed up with providing billions of dollars for Ukraine.
Trump will pull the plug.
However Trump will continue to pressure Iran. That needs to be done. Israel will be grateful yet American Jews will continue to support the Democrats.
Have never understood their reasoning.
Zero chance Trump opens his administration waving two white flags. He's going to force an end to Ukraine, one way or the other, in order to get focused on China.
Again. LOOK AT HIS FOREIGN POLICY TEAM.
Trump's first priority was LOYALTY.
He will serve as his own foreign policy team.
And Trump wants peace, because its what the American people want. The days of CIA led police actions are over.
I don't know
I think Whiterock is right....his foreign policy team is very Hawkish
But war ruined LBJ and Bush's administrations.
Trump is smart enough to avoid the same mistakes.
If the only issue is Taiwan ; there will be no war with China.
As anyone who can look at a globe realizes our supply lines would be far too long to win .
Not too many years ago, my son rode on a training mission from Hawaii to Guam....fully loaded combat units....whole cans of whoop-ass.....landed on Guam, assaulted a designated location, then loaded back up on the Ospreys and went straight home. China can't do that. We can.
He of course was the cameraman, not an infantryman, but they let him shoot a few thousand holes in the Pacific with the machine gun mounted on the rear deck. boys will be boys.
it was all about sending a signal to China not to get cute in the South China Sea (or anywhere else).
The game will be played whether you like it or not, and it does matter whether we win or lose.
whiterock said:Trump is smart enough to know that showing weakness in Ukraine will increase the likelihood of war with China.KaiBear said:Time will tell.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:Don't be confused.whiterock said:we're going to see here in a couple of months. Prepare to be disappointed.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Trump is not going to pull the plug on aid for Ukraine.KaiBear said:whiterock said:I think current policy opponents are going to be disappointed in what they see from the Trump administration. Look at the relevant policy appointments........Doc Holliday said:
I got a feeling the pro warhawks and neocons here are going to be against the Trump administration over this war.
Someone is disappointed every day about any administration.
However Trump is going to put America First and has repeatedly stated his intention to end the Russia - Ukraine war.
I believe he will.
I do, too. But how?
And many different factions will be angry with the terms.
But that is normal.
Trump knows that Taiwan policy is being written right now. In Ukraine. We cut & run, China will test us in the first island chain.
Trump is going to threaten Putin with katy-bar-the-door levels of aid to Ukraine, and crushing ROE & sanctions.
Trump is going to threaten Zelensky with total abandonment.
Neither of them can afford to call his bluff.
Biden's decision to deliver all currently approved aid will significantly strengthen Trump's hand.
(guarantee you those two discussed & concurred on that in their meeting last week).
Look at Trump's foreign policy appointments. No isolationists there. Stone cold hawks.
Don't let your desires lead your logic.
Taiwan is going the way of Hong Kong and the American people will not support a war with China to stop it.
Trump is smart enough to step aside .
The American people are fed up with providing billions of dollars for Ukraine.
Trump will pull the plug.
However Trump will continue to pressure Iran. That needs to be done. Israel will be grateful yet American Jews will continue to support the Democrats.
Have never understood their reasoning.
Zero chance Trump opens his administration waving two white flags. He's going to force an end to Ukraine, one way or the other, in order to get focused on China.
Again. LOOK AT HIS FOREIGN POLICY TEAM.
Trump's first priority was LOYALTY.
He will serve as his own foreign policy team.
And Trump wants peace, because its what the American people want. The days of CIA led police actions are over.
I don't know
I think Whiterock is right....his foreign policy team is very Hawkish
But war ruined LBJ and Bush's administrations.
Trump is smart enough to avoid the same mistakes.
I'm really not sure that matters much
Iran does not invade Israel because America is "showing weakness" in Ukraine
China is not invading Taiwan because America is "showing weakness" in Ukraine.
In both cases Iran and China don't do it because they can't pull it off given their military and budget constraints.
(Not to mention Iran is afraid of getting nuked by Israel as well)
We often put far to much emphasis on one conflict somewhere having a large effect on a totally different theatre
whiterock said:KaiBear said:whiterock said:Trump is smart enough to know that showing weakness in Ukraine will increase the likelihood of war with China.KaiBear said:Time will tell.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:Don't be confused.whiterock said:we're going to see here in a couple of months. Prepare to be disappointed.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Trump is not going to pull the plug on aid for Ukraine.KaiBear said:whiterock said:I think current policy opponents are going to be disappointed in what they see from the Trump administration. Look at the relevant policy appointments........Doc Holliday said:
I got a feeling the pro warhawks and neocons here are going to be against the Trump administration over this war.
Someone is disappointed every day about any administration.
However Trump is going to put America First and has repeatedly stated his intention to end the Russia - Ukraine war.
I believe he will.
I do, too. But how?
And many different factions will be angry with the terms.
But that is normal.
Trump knows that Taiwan policy is being written right now. In Ukraine. We cut & run, China will test us in the first island chain.
Trump is going to threaten Putin with katy-bar-the-door levels of aid to Ukraine, and crushing ROE & sanctions.
Trump is going to threaten Zelensky with total abandonment.
Neither of them can afford to call his bluff.
Biden's decision to deliver all currently approved aid will significantly strengthen Trump's hand.
(guarantee you those two discussed & concurred on that in their meeting last week).
Look at Trump's foreign policy appointments. No isolationists there. Stone cold hawks.
Don't let your desires lead your logic.
Taiwan is going the way of Hong Kong and the American people will not support a war with China to stop it.
Trump is smart enough to step aside .
The American people are fed up with providing billions of dollars for Ukraine.
Trump will pull the plug.
However Trump will continue to pressure Iran. That needs to be done. Israel will be grateful yet American Jews will continue to support the Democrats.
Have never understood their reasoning.
Zero chance Trump opens his administration waving two white flags. He's going to force an end to Ukraine, one way or the other, in order to get focused on China.
Again. LOOK AT HIS FOREIGN POLICY TEAM.
Trump's first priority was LOYALTY.
He will serve as his own foreign policy team.
And Trump wants peace, because its what the American people want. The days of CIA led police actions are over.
I don't know
I think Whiterock is right....his foreign policy team is very Hawkish
But war ruined LBJ and Bush's administrations.
Trump is smart enough to avoid the same mistakes.
If the only issue is Taiwan ; there will be no war with China.
As anyone who can look at a globe realizes our supply lines would be far too long to win .
The game will be played whether you like it or not, and it does matter whether we win or lose.
Hopefully you are not referring to any war as a 'game'.
BREAKING: France and England reportedly now in talks to deploy troops to Ukraine if Trump withdraws military aid.
— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) November 25, 2024
JUST IN: Preemptive strike against Russia should be considered, NATO Military Committee Chairman says. pic.twitter.com/R2oQTKQaTU
— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) November 25, 2024
Ya'll claimed you wouldn't support a hot war and now we're well on our way to a hot war…and you fully support it
You're missing a few relevant events along the way. But I know it doesn't matter to you.Sam Lowry said:Let's just put it this way. When Ukraine promised to remain neutral, exiling its legitimate neutral leadership and kicking the Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea wasn't what the Russians or anyone else thought they were talking about. Russia is acting at the last minute to prevent NATO membership, just as it did to prevent the loss of Sevastopol.ATL Bear said:It's the only point, and goes back to my original statement you didn't understand. Actions belied neutral intent. And there probably isn't any more of a stark culmination of that than the fact that 33 years since 1991 Ukraine is still not in the EU or NATO, yet the Russian military is trying to take over the country now, took over Crimea and started a war in Donbas 10 years ago, and attempted to assassinate the President 10 years before that.Sam Lowry said:Not really, but that's beside the point. The demands were clear and didn't change.ATL Bear said:Times changed. Both in Russia and the U.S.'s view. We played soft, Russia went progressively hard.Sam Lowry said:No, in 1991.ATL Bear said:After being invaded?Sam Lowry said:You're still not making any sense. The "false premise" was one that Ukraine agreed to.ATL Bear said:Yes, Russia worked for its own interest hiding behind the false premise of neutrality of Ukraine.Sam Lowry said:Their demand is for Ukrainian neutrality. That's what we've been talking about.ATL Bear said:"The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day."Sam Lowry said:Neutral with respect to what? Russia never claimed to be neutral.ATL Bear said:It's pretty self explanatory. Russia initiates a conflict in Eastern Ukraine forcing an agreement to be negotiated that weakens Ukraine, and that's "neutral" in your book.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.ATL Bear said:Russia's actions including forced agreements like Minsk are the examples of their lack of neutrality, not a signal of it.Sam Lowry said:I know that's an article of faith to you. The truth is that from 1991, to 2014, to the Minsk Agreements, to Istanbul and Istanbul Plus, neutrality has been Russia's constant demand and has remained so to this day.ATL Bear said:Russia never wanted neutrality in Ukraine, and was the first nefarious actor.Sam Lowry said:All of Ukraine voted for independence and neutrality in 1991. No region voted to rejoin Russia until after the neutral government of Ukraine was overthrown.sombear said:All of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted for independence in 1991. Ukraine has been a free and sovereign nation since then. It has had all sorts of different alliances, but never once did any region vote to be taken over again by Russia. In fact, when given a clear choice at the federal and regional levels, Ukrainians chose the free world. Russia wouldn't accept that, so it invaded in 2014.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:it is a free sovereign nation aligned with the free world.KaiBear said:trey3216 said:Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to attack military targets that used to target Ukrainian military and civilian targets??? Interesting angle....Doc Holliday said:So Ukraine should use the long range missiles that would be launched from Ukraine and are targeted and controlled by NATO?whiterock said:Catturd misses on that one.historian said:The fact that the Biden regime is trying to start WWIII right before Trump, who just won a historic landslide victory who ran on ending the Russia/Ukraine war, just shows how evil these POS treasonous traitors scumbags really are.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 17, 2024
Biden and Trump met a couple of days ago. Do we think Ukraine was discussed? Did Trump comment on any of that about Ukraine? One could reasonably read between the lines that Trump wanted all the aid delivered so he would not have to spend his own political capital to get it done.....to give him time to work his own plan.
Trump is in a little bit of a bind here. He pandered to anti-war sentiment to get elected, knowing full well that abandoning Ukraine would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. i don't blame him at all for the pander. Pandering is an essential part of politics and those who think they're too good to do it aren't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. But now he has to figure out a way to avoid doing what a really big and noisy chunk of his base wants him to do - cut & run from Ukraine. For sure he has a plan for how to walk the tightrope, and pushing all that aid into Ukraine before he takes over will give him some room to maneuver.
Keep your eye on the ball here:
Trump does not want Ukraine to become Afghanistan 2.0
Trump wants to win so much that America gets tired of winning.
As far as I know, they did just that today and fired them at a military facility in the Bryansk border region.
Good grief dude……exactly what do you think any US administration would do if Russia was openly supplying long range missiles to Mexican Drug cartels and they were actively using them to attack targets in various US cities and states ?
Just once at least attempt to provide an honest / specific answer and not just some generic Rambo bull*****
Russia invaded it, knowing Ukraine had the support of the free world and knowing we would supply weapons.
1. It was not aligned to the West until a political coup in 2014 overthrew the old government.
Very strong evidence the CIA and State Department were involved in that coup.
2. Why would Moscow know that DC would spend billions to help Ukraine fight a proxy war?
Did Moscow send billions in weaponry to Iraq & Afghanistan after DC sent in troops in 2001 and 2003
Maybe they expected that DC would act like they did and largely stay out of it.
Putin had no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he supplies weapons to many of our adversaries.
We and the Euros were clear about what we'd do if Putin invaded Ukraine. And we had been supplying Ukraine weapons forever.
Yanukovych ran on what the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted -- a fair deal with the EU and a balanced relationship with the EU and Russia. He was never allowed to deliver on that.
Your words, but I'm glad you agree that neutrality was never an interest for Russia.