I and others have addressed it multiple times. You keep circling back to the same debunked tropes, and ignoring the evidence to the contrary.Sam Lowry said:You said "proximity spheres." Whatever you want to call it, proximity is still plenty relevant for the reasons I explained (among others).ATL Bear said:That would be called a non response response. You're running out of strands of credibility in your blind Russian defense. And once again, I didn't say spheres of influence don't matter. I said proximity isn't as relevant.Sam Lowry said:You haven't debunked anything. You've bought into a narrative, just like the rest of the sheeple. Just like you did with Iraq WMD.ATL Bear said:Who is "we"? This has been debunked so many times it's honestly beyond tiresome. You guys think some NGO with pamphlets and a YouTube account is the destruction of Ukraine. Russia showed up with special forces, tanks, and the FSB. And that was before the war was really escalated.Sam Lowry said:They are stating no such thing. I've asked you and others to provide these statements many times, and no one has ever been able to do so. Nor did Russia invade Ukraine for pursuing EU membership.whiterock said:LOL they're not denying they want their old treaty and polity borders back. They're stating it out loud!Sam Lowry said:Actually that fact is highly inconvenient to your argument. The Russians have always denied that they were trying to reconstitute their old borders. They didn't invade Ukraine because it was once Russian or because it was tied to the West. They invaded it because of the specific threat that it posed.whiterock said:At every point, you excuse Russian escalation and scream that our prudent responses are unnecessarily provocative.Redbrickbear said:Getting our NATO allies to meet their spending commitments or raise them slightly....and building bases inside current NATO territory is not "escalation"whiterock said:Trump has, technically, already escalated - he's called for increasing NATO defense spending to 5% of GDP. The Poles have already announced they will do so. There's also strategic escalation ongoing, and you can take it to the bank Trump will continue it (i.e. he flirted with it in his admin) - putting permanent Nato military installations in former WP countries. The Romanians have already approved building a major NATO joint base (Ramstein equivalent) at an existing Romania air base = 10k troops & squadrons of aircraft. In 2027, A German brigade will be stationed in Lithuania, to guard the Suwalki Gap. Also public statements about NATO bases in Finland.Doc Holliday said:You're correct that Biden took half-measures. We don't even have any signed military data sharing agreements with Ukraine, No geospatial data, nothing. The same clowns that prolonged war in Afghanistan/Iraq and spent damn near $8 trillion doing so are in charge of this war. That leads me to believe they want to make this a prolonged proxy war for as long as possible. After personally visiting NATO in Brussels and seeing CNN on every TV in their building...I think they're also clowns.whiterock said:Doesn't sit right with me at all, but when you pair the two things together in an argument, there is an implied "we have to stop doing X abroad so we can do Y at home." Certainly that is the construction of many who argue here and most of the arguments on the matter in the public square. Fact is, we have to do both.Doc Holliday said:I'm not asking to change foreign policy to benefit domestic policy. I'm not stating a cause-effect relationship.whiterock said:yes, it's exactly what you are getting at. You are (along with millions of others) suggesting a cause-effect relationship - that we are not responding adequately to disasters, or canceling opposing views, or tolerating illegal immigration, or mismanaging big pharma/healthcare to facilitate policies abroad because we are obsessed with foreign affairs. That is just not so. There is nothing about fixing any of those domestic issues which would require a single change in foreign policy. In fact stopping everything we're doing abroad, closing all the bases, shutting off all the aid, bringing our entire diplomatic corps home.....would not come remotely close to balancing the budget. Those problems you cited are easily fixable with good policy, which will require negligible expense (and in many cases save us money).Doc Holliday said:Again, that's not what I'm getting at. There's TWO wars. One domestic and one abroad.whiterock said:Your comment above reflects the faulty premise running thru the vast majority of isolationist arguments - that disengaging from world affairs will help fix our domestic problems. It's the opposite. Disengagement will make those problems worse. How many new bases do you want to build in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria? Do you want to have to build a 600 ship navy again? Maintain a 3m soldier army again? How is letting China bully the rest of Asia going to benefit our economy? (and on and on....)Doc Holliday said:Yeah but that's not what I'm saying. Elite corporate and banking interests are running the country much like oligarchs do in the east.whiterock said:bad foreign policy decisions will not solve our fiscal problems. it will make them worse.Doc Holliday said:Taxpayer aid, provided by a collective populace that has over $1.4 trillion in credit card debt compounding.whiterock said:
Multiple outlets now reporting what I predicted - US aid to Ukraine will continue under Trump adminand there it is.... pic.twitter.com/5WX6WNiG5S
— david D. (@secretsqrl123) December 20, 2024
Maybe it helps us to crush Russia in the long term, but if the long term is to fleece taxpayers and have our government increasingly behave like a cartel, then what the fu c k is the point? Is the end point where the US ironically starts behaving like an eastern country?
As I correctly predicted, this war is going to be another forever war. It's already gone on too long.
Is the west really going to achieve complete world dominance, only to sink their teeth into their own middle class? Are we supposed to cheer that on and be happy about it? The WEF, EU and our politicians blatantly claim that we'll own nothing and be happy about it and they're the biggest cheerleaders of this war.
Nothing is more expensive than getting directly involved in a hot war.Trump Reportedly Plans To Continue Aid To Ukraine But Will Raise NATO Spending To 5% https://t.co/0XiNQMQzGg
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 21, 2024
The difference is, we have a system where ordinary people can organize and speak and push back against oligarchy to elect a guy like Donald Trump. (a lot of people voted for Obama for the same (mistaken) reasons.)
We're prioritizing foreign policy over domestic and have been for quite some time. We'll spend trillions on war and allow the middle class to hollow out.
Well, sorta. Foreign policy on national security is not causing that. Foreign policy on trade is.
Cutting all foreign aid does not balance the budget.
Closing DOD and disbanding our military does not balance the budget.
DOING BOTH DOES NOT BALANCE OUR BUDGET.
Close down Dept of Education. States can handle the role just fine.
But if you want to make a really big impact = end the Green Energy nonsense, all $93T of it.
Repeat after me: We cannot balance our budget with a series of bad foreign policy decisions.
DC is super supportive of war in Ukraine or war anywhere. They jump through the hoops for financial support, weapons etc. When it comes to putting American's first, they're silent. They don't have the same sense of urgency that they do with war. When we have major weather disasters, they'll let people die, especially if they have certain political views. They let millions of illegals in. They allow big pharma and healthcare to let us die in order for those groups to be insanely greedy.
If we keep the current status quo together for the next several decades, our country won't even be recognizable and the freedom you and I would fight for, won't even exist. That's what I'm getting at.
The people in favor of the war in Ukraine have to understand that if we don't win the war at home, then the war in Ukraine doesn't matter. I want you to be pissed off that they're enthusiastic about war in Ukraine and against American First.
If we lose the war in Ukraine (i.e. let Russia have as much of it as it wants), we will in a worse position no matter how much improvement we make on those other things.
Don't take the false dilemma. BOTH Ukraine and the border (et al...) are important. We have to win on BOTH. Failure on either one is bad, and cannot be offset by victory on the other.
There is no number of bad foreign policy decisions which will balance our budget. In fact, each bad foreign policy decision will saddle us with ever greater future costs.
I'm asking to treat both equally and we're not.
It pisses me off that we send hundreds of billions in aid to Ukraine and simultaneously don't give a damn about hurricane victims. $5 billion for the border is too much, but hundreds of billions to Ukraine is urgent.
Surely that doesn't sit right with you guys?
What are your red lines?
Are you ok if this war proceeds for a decade or so?
Are you ok if it costs us a few trillion?
What end goal do you have in mind?
The end is simple: stop Russia, up to and including causing a collapse of the current regime. We do have it in our power to do that. quite easily. Nato GDP dwarfs Russia. Zero chance Russia can last longer than Nato. Biden has simply been taking half-measures.
Why is that end so important? See sombear's comments above. Russia will always have the ability to rebuild armies and airforces, which makes them an existential threat if not robustly resisted. For centuries they have looked west and seen they need to modernize, but the corruption always wins. As a result, throughout the centuries, they have over and over and over demonstrated a lack of maturity to know their limits. Their move against Ukraine was a frickin' comedy of errors, from intelligence assessments, to operational planning, to strategic & tactical execution. But look what it's costing to stop them......
History is abundantly clear on this: Russia is a bully. If you don't knock them flat on their asses when they get out of line, they will keep coming.
US and Western intel liaison with Ukraine is robust. We helped Ukraine literally rebuilt its agencies from scratch to rid them of Russian infiltration. And, of course, we trained trained trained, in classical FI/CI operations as well as paramilitary operations. Had it not been for all this "covert" investment going back to 2015-2016 timeframe, the Russian plan for a 72-hour operation to take down Ukraine would almost certainly have been successful.
I don't trust them. Our intelligence community and military leaders have largely claimed that Trump is a Russian asset as well. I don't know how you feel good about this war considering those people are in charge.
The Russian asset meme has run its course. You will hear some of the die-hards on the left still parrot it because they believe it, but it's clearly not an election winner so it will die a natural death.
This is what DC believes. This is the belief of the military industrial complex, national security, NATO and DC.The only explanation for today’s appalling performance by @realDonaldTrump is the Russians have high value compromising intel on POTUS. Something that would have been discovered during any serviceman’s background investigation. @realDonaldTrump is unfit to command our troops.
— Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) July 16, 2018
Trump will deliver peace either through major aggression or pulling funds. Our leaders very clearly don't want that. How do you reconcile this?
That is pure projection by his political opponents. He and his team are making all the right statements and, as I predicted, Trump is not going to pull funds. Has very clearly signaled such to the Ukrainians.
It most certainly is.
Its building up a strong defense in our already established sphere of influence.
Mobilizing for war has many times in history been a cause of war.
Its also amazing how your side sees that as "escalation"
Because it is. Just like NOT putting bases in former WP countries was an effort NOT to escalate tensions.
But some how sponsoring coups in Russia's back yard or funding proxy wars against them using corrupt states we never had a relationship with is not escalation.....
We did not sponsor a coup. We supported a new government that came to power by constitutional processes.
Yes, sponsoring proxy wars is an escalation. Others do it to us. We respond accordingly, to include direct strikes against proxies, to include taking them out.
I am always stunned by neo-con/neo-liberal logic
because you do not understand the subject material very well
another fact inconvenient to your arguments: on the day Russia invaded it, Ukraine was less tied to the West, diplomatically, economically, and militarily, than was Sweden or Finland. The Finnish border is a mortar round away from St. Petersburg. So why did Russia instead invade Ukraine? Finland was once a part of Russia, too.
They didn't invade Ukraine for gaining Nato Partner status in 1994. They invaded it for moving forward with EU membership, which "neutral" Finland and Sweden already had. So why invade Ukraine and not Finland?
(answer: Nato and EU issues had nothing to do with the invasion.)
Propagandists gonna propaganda......
There are plenty of reasons not to invade Finland. First among them is that the West didn't choose Finland as the main platform for its regime change ambitions in Russia. We didn't overthrow Finland's legitimate government. We didn't make them the second largest military power in Europe. We didn't cause Finland to be infested with neo-Nazi militias who persecuted the Russian population (which is a tiny population in Finland anyway). We didn't sell Finland weapons to attack its own civilians. Added to which Finland has wretched terrain for an invading army, a mere handful of decent roads leading into Russia, and a people that, unlike the Ukrainians, would almost universally resent and resist such a move. About the only reason Russia would invade Finland is if you were right about their imperial ambitions.
You really have demonstrated my point rather well.
I posted this in the Bear Cave several days ago, and it applies here.
DC didn't stage a coup. The people of Ukraine tried to oust the same Russian puppet…twice. The first time Russia tried to poison his opponent (Yushchenko), then when they got him back to power they gave him (manufactured) the goods on his opponent who their puppet imprisoned (Tymoshenko), then when he was ousted again Russia started a war.
Proximity spheres are irrelevant in an interconnected world with the ability to instantly connect, exchange goods, transact business, and be anywhere in less than a day, not to mention strike militarily within hours anywhere in the world. Influencing peace broadly, and/or addressing conflict is a global not regional concern, especially when it impacts the U.S. or its allies directly. That does equate to a benefit for America and the American people from a security and economic perspective. Alignment matters. Do you know how much military and nuclear might we have in proximity to Beijing, China, or even already in proximity to Moscow? NATO military threat has been the biggest con job by Russian propaganda possibly ever due to the scale of their invasion. It's their Iraq WMD moment.
It's easy to say spheres of influence don't matter when your country has unrivaled ability to project power and you've never lived with a hostile neighbor on your border. Of course you're still all in favor of swallowing up Greenland, Panama, and anything else we can to keep Russia and China out of our hemisphere. Even you don't really believe what you're saying.
I've made a credible case for my position. You've substantially ignored it or dismissed it out of hand, which of course you're free to do. But ignoring and debunking ain't the same thing.
Why Are We in Ukraine?
543,217 Views |
7071 Replies |
Last: 5 hrs ago by sombear
Sure… Don't you have some ZOG propaganda to push?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You're running out of strands of credibility in your blind Russian. ..Sam Lowry said:You haven't debunked anything. You've bought into a narrative, just like the rest of the sheeple. Just like you did with Iraq WMD.ATL Bear said:Who is "we"? This has been debunked so many times it's honestly beyond tiresome. You guys think some NGO with pamphlets and a YouTube account is the destruction of Ukraine. Russia showed up with special forces, tanks, and the FSB. And that was before the war was really escalated.Sam Lowry said:They are stating no such thing. I've asked you and others to provide these statements many times, and no one has ever been able to do so. Nor did Russia invade Ukraine for pursuing EU membership.whiterock said:LOL they're not denying they want their old treaty and polity borders back. They're stating it out loud!Sam Lowry said:Actually that fact is highly inconvenient to your argument. The Russians have always denied that they were trying to reconstitute their old borders. They didn't invade Ukraine because it was once Russian or because it was tied to the West. They invaded it because of the specific threat that it posed.whiterock said:At every point, you excuse Russian escalation and scream that our prudent responses are unnecessarily provocative.Redbrickbear said:Getting our NATO allies to meet their spending commitments or raise them slightly....and building bases inside current NATO territory is not "escalation"whiterock said:Trump has, technically, already escalated - he's called for increasing NATO defense spending to 5% of GDP. The Poles have already announced they will do so. There's also strategic escalation ongoing, and you can take it to the bank Trump will continue it (i.e. he flirted with it in his admin) - putting permanent Nato military installations in former WP countries. The Romanians have already approved building a major NATO joint base (Ramstein equivalent) at an existing Romania air base = 10k troops & squadrons of aircraft. In 2027, A German brigade will be stationed in Lithuania, to guard the Suwalki Gap. Also public statements about NATO bases in Finland.Doc Holliday said:You're correct that Biden took half-measures. We don't even have any signed military data sharing agreements with Ukraine, No geospatial data, nothing. The same clowns that prolonged war in Afghanistan/Iraq and spent damn near $8 trillion doing so are in charge of this war. That leads me to believe they want to make this a prolonged proxy war for as long as possible. After personally visiting NATO in Brussels and seeing CNN on every TV in their building...I think they're also clowns.whiterock said:Doesn't sit right with me at all, but when you pair the two things together in an argument, there is an implied "we have to stop doing X abroad so we can do Y at home." Certainly that is the construction of many who argue here and most of the arguments on the matter in the public square. Fact is, we have to do both.Doc Holliday said:I'm not asking to change foreign policy to benefit domestic policy. I'm not stating a cause-effect relationship.whiterock said:yes, it's exactly what you are getting at. You are (along with millions of others) suggesting a cause-effect relationship - that we are not responding adequately to disasters, or canceling opposing views, or tolerating illegal immigration, or mismanaging big pharma/healthcare to facilitate policies abroad because we are obsessed with foreign affairs. That is just not so. There is nothing about fixing any of those domestic issues which would require a single change in foreign policy. In fact stopping everything we're doing abroad, closing all the bases, shutting off all the aid, bringing our entire diplomatic corps home.....would not come remotely close to balancing the budget. Those problems you cited are easily fixable with good policy, which will require negligible expense (and in many cases save us money).Doc Holliday said:Again, that's not what I'm getting at. There's TWO wars. One domestic and one abroad.whiterock said:Your comment above reflects the faulty premise running thru the vast majority of isolationist arguments - that disengaging from world affairs will help fix our domestic problems. It's the opposite. Disengagement will make those problems worse. How many new bases do you want to build in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria? Do you want to have to build a 600 ship navy again? Maintain a 3m soldier army again? How is letting China bully the rest of Asia going to benefit our economy? (and on and on....)Doc Holliday said:Yeah but that's not what I'm saying. Elite corporate and banking interests are running the country much like oligarchs do in the east.whiterock said:bad foreign policy decisions will not solve our fiscal problems. it will make them worse.Doc Holliday said:Taxpayer aid, provided by a collective populace that has over $1.4 trillion in credit card debt compounding.whiterock said:
Multiple outlets now reporting what I predicted - US aid to Ukraine will continue under Trump adminand there it is.... pic.twitter.com/5WX6WNiG5S
— david D. (@secretsqrl123) December 20, 2024
Maybe it helps us to crush Russia in the long term, but if the long term is to fleece taxpayers and have our government increasingly behave like a cartel, then what the fu c k is the point? Is the end point where the US ironically starts behaving like an eastern country?
As I correctly predicted, this war is going to be another forever war. It's already gone on too long.
Is the west really going to achieve complete world dominance, only to sink their teeth into their own middle class? Are we supposed to cheer that on and be happy about it? The WEF, EU and our politicians blatantly claim that we'll own nothing and be happy about it and they're the biggest cheerleaders of this war.
Nothing is more expensive than getting directly involved in a hot war.Trump Reportedly Plans To Continue Aid To Ukraine But Will Raise NATO Spending To 5% https://t.co/0XiNQMQzGg
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 21, 2024
The difference is, we have a system where ordinary people can organize and speak and push back against oligarchy to elect a guy like Donald Trump. (a lot of people voted for Obama for the same (mistaken) reasons.)
We're prioritizing foreign policy over domestic and have been for quite some time. We'll spend trillions on war and allow the middle class to hollow out.
Well, sorta. Foreign policy on national security is not causing that. Foreign policy on trade is.
Cutting all foreign aid does not balance the budget.
Closing DOD and disbanding our military does not balance the budget.
DOING BOTH DOES NOT BALANCE OUR BUDGET.
Close down Dept of Education. States can handle the role just fine.
But if you want to make a really big impact = end the Green Energy nonsense, all $93T of it.
Repeat after me: We cannot balance our budget with a series of bad foreign policy decisions.
DC is super supportive of war in Ukraine or war anywhere. They jump through the hoops for financial support, weapons etc. When it comes to putting American's first, they're silent. They don't have the same sense of urgency that they do with war. When we have major weather disasters, they'll let people die, especially if they have certain political views. They let millions of illegals in. They allow big pharma and healthcare to let us die in order for those groups to be insanely greedy.
If we keep the current status quo together for the next several decades, our country won't even be recognizable and the freedom you and I would fight for, won't even exist. That's what I'm getting at.
The people in favor of the war in Ukraine have to understand that if we don't win the war at home, then the war in Ukraine doesn't matter. I want you to be pissed off that they're enthusiastic about war in Ukraine and against American First.
If we lose the war in Ukraine (i.e. let Russia have as much of it as it wants), we will in a worse position no matter how much improvement we make on those other things.
Don't take the false dilemma. BOTH Ukraine and the border (et al...) are important. We have to win on BOTH. Failure on either one is bad, and cannot be offset by victory on the other.
There is no number of bad foreign policy decisions which will balance our budget. In fact, each bad foreign policy decision will saddle us with ever greater future costs.
I'm asking to treat both equally and we're not.
It pisses me off that we send hundreds of billions in aid to Ukraine and simultaneously don't give a damn about hurricane victims. $5 billion for the border is too much, but hundreds of billions to Ukraine is urgent.
Surely that doesn't sit right with you guys?
What are your red lines?
Are you ok if this war proceeds for a decade or so?
Are you ok if it costs us a few trillion?
What end goal do you have in mind?
The end is simple: stop Russia, up to and including causing a collapse of the current regime. We do have it in our power to do that. quite easily. Nato GDP dwarfs Russia. Zero chance Russia can last longer than Nato. Biden has simply been taking half-measures.
Why is that end so important? See sombear's comments above. Russia will always have the ability to rebuild armies and airforces, which makes them an existential threat if not robustly resisted. For centuries they have looked west and seen they need to modernize, but the corruption always wins. As a result, throughout the centuries, they have over and over and over demonstrated a lack of maturity to know their limits. Their move against Ukraine was a frickin' comedy of errors, from intelligence assessments, to operational planning, to strategic & tactical execution. But look what it's costing to stop them......
History is abundantly clear on this: Russia is a bully. If you don't knock them flat on their asses when they get out of line, they will keep coming.
US and Western intel liaison with Ukraine is robust. We helped Ukraine literally rebuilt its agencies from scratch to rid them of Russian infiltration. And, of course, we trained trained trained, in classical FI/CI operations as well as paramilitary operations. Had it not been for all this "covert" investment going back to 2015-2016 timeframe, the Russian plan for a 72-hour operation to take down Ukraine would almost certainly have been successful.
I don't trust them. Our intelligence community and military leaders have largely claimed that Trump is a Russian asset as well. I don't know how you feel good about this war considering those people are in charge.
The Russian asset meme has run its course. You will hear some of the die-hards on the left still parrot it because they believe it, but it's clearly not an election winner so it will die a natural death.
This is what DC believes. This is the belief of the military industrial complex, national security, NATO and DC.The only explanation for today’s appalling performance by @realDonaldTrump is the Russians have high value compromising intel on POTUS. Something that would have been discovered during any serviceman’s background investigation. @realDonaldTrump is unfit to command our troops.
— Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) July 16, 2018
Trump will deliver peace either through major aggression or pulling funds. Our leaders very clearly don't want that. How do you reconcile this?
That is pure projection by his political opponents. He and his team are making all the right statements and, as I predicted, Trump is not going to pull funds. Has very clearly signaled such to the Ukrainians.
It most certainly is.
Its building up a strong defense in our already established sphere of influence.
Mobilizing for war has many times in history been a cause of war.
Its also amazing how your side sees that as "escalation"
Because it is. Just like NOT putting bases in former WP countries was an effort NOT to escalate tensions.
But some how sponsoring coups in Russia's back yard or funding proxy wars against them using corrupt states we never had a relationship with is not escalation.....
We did not sponsor a coup. We supported a new government that came to power by constitutional processes.
Yes, sponsoring proxy wars is an escalation. Others do it to us. We respond accordingly, to include direct strikes against proxies, to include taking them out.
I am always stunned by neo-con/neo-liberal logic
because you do not understand the subject material very well
another fact inconvenient to your arguments: on the day Russia invaded it, Ukraine was less tied to the West, diplomatically, economically, and militarily, than was Sweden or Finland. The Finnish border is a mortar round away from St. Petersburg. So why did Russia instead invade Ukraine? Finland was once a part of Russia, too.
They didn't invade Ukraine for gaining Nato Partner status in 1994. They invaded it for moving forward with EU membership, which "neutral" Finland and Sweden already had. So why invade Ukraine and not Finland?
(answer: Nato and EU issues had nothing to do with the invasion.)
Propagandists gonna propaganda......
There are plenty of reasons not to invade Finland. First among them is that the West didn't choose Finland as the main platform for its regime change ambitions in Russia. We didn't overthrow Finland's legitimate government. We didn't make them the second largest military power in Europe. We didn't cause Finland to be infested with neo-Nazi militias who persecuted the Russian population (which is a tiny population in Finland anyway). We didn't sell Finland weapons to attack its own civilians. Added to which Finland has wretched terrain for an invading army, a mere handful of decent roads leading into Russia, and a people that, unlike the Ukrainians, would almost universally resent and resist such a move. About the only reason Russia would invade Finland is if you were right about their imperial ambitions.
You really have demonstrated my point rather well.
I posted this in the Bear Cave several days ago, and it applies here.
DC didn't stage a coup. The people of Ukraine tried to oust the same Russian puppet…twice. The first time Russia tried to poison his opponent (Yushchenko), then when they got him back to power they gave him (manufactured) the goods on his opponent who their puppet imprisoned (Tymoshenko), then when he was ousted again Russia started a war.
Proximity spheres are irrelevant in an interconnected world with the ability to instantly connect, exchange goods, transact business, and be anywhere in less than a day, not to mention strike militarily within hours anywhere in the world. Influencing peace broadly, and/or addressing conflict is a global not regional concern, especially when it impacts the U.S. or its allies directly. That does equate to a benefit for America and the American people from a security and economic perspective. Alignment matters. Do you know how much military and nuclear might we have in proximity to Beijing, China, or even already in proximity to Moscow? NATO military threat has been the biggest con job by Russian propaganda possibly ever due to the scale of their invasion. It's their Iraq WMD moment.
It's easy to say spheres of influence don't matter when your country has unrivaled ability to project power and you've never lived with a hostile neighbor on your border. Of course you're still all in favor of swallowing up Greenland, Panama, and anything else we can to keep Russia and China out of our hemisphere. Even you don't really believe what you're saying.
No one on this forum defends Russia as much as you defend the mistake prone and failure ridden DC foreign policy blob
No coup or failed regime change war you will not not defend
ATL Bear said:Sure… Don't you have some ZOG propaganda to push?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You're running out of strands of credibility in your blind Russian. ..Sam Lowry said:You haven't debunked anything. You've bought into a narrative, just like the rest of the sheeple. Just like you did with Iraq WMD.ATL Bear said:Who is "we"? This has been debunked so many times it's honestly beyond tiresome. You guys think some NGO with pamphlets and a YouTube account is the destruction of Ukraine. Russia showed up with special forces, tanks, and the FSB. And that was before the war was really escalated.Sam Lowry said:They are stating no such thing. I've asked you and others to provide these statements many times, and no one has ever been able to do so. Nor did Russia invade Ukraine for pursuing EU membership.whiterock said:LOL they're not denying they want their old treaty and polity borders back. They're stating it out loud!Sam Lowry said:Actually that fact is highly inconvenient to your argument. The Russians have always denied that they were trying to reconstitute their old borders. They didn't invade Ukraine because it was once Russian or because it was tied to the West. They invaded it because of the specific threat that it posed.whiterock said:At every point, you excuse Russian escalation and scream that our prudent responses are unnecessarily provocative.Redbrickbear said:Getting our NATO allies to meet their spending commitments or raise them slightly....and building bases inside current NATO territory is not "escalation"whiterock said:Trump has, technically, already escalated - he's called for increasing NATO defense spending to 5% of GDP. The Poles have already announced they will do so. There's also strategic escalation ongoing, and you can take it to the bank Trump will continue it (i.e. he flirted with it in his admin) - putting permanent Nato military installations in former WP countries. The Romanians have already approved building a major NATO joint base (Ramstein equivalent) at an existing Romania air base = 10k troops & squadrons of aircraft. In 2027, A German brigade will be stationed in Lithuania, to guard the Suwalki Gap. Also public statements about NATO bases in Finland.Doc Holliday said:You're correct that Biden took half-measures. We don't even have any signed military data sharing agreements with Ukraine, No geospatial data, nothing. The same clowns that prolonged war in Afghanistan/Iraq and spent damn near $8 trillion doing so are in charge of this war. That leads me to believe they want to make this a prolonged proxy war for as long as possible. After personally visiting NATO in Brussels and seeing CNN on every TV in their building...I think they're also clowns.whiterock said:Doesn't sit right with me at all, but when you pair the two things together in an argument, there is an implied "we have to stop doing X abroad so we can do Y at home." Certainly that is the construction of many who argue here and most of the arguments on the matter in the public square. Fact is, we have to do both.Doc Holliday said:I'm not asking to change foreign policy to benefit domestic policy. I'm not stating a cause-effect relationship.whiterock said:yes, it's exactly what you are getting at. You are (along with millions of others) suggesting a cause-effect relationship - that we are not responding adequately to disasters, or canceling opposing views, or tolerating illegal immigration, or mismanaging big pharma/healthcare to facilitate policies abroad because we are obsessed with foreign affairs. That is just not so. There is nothing about fixing any of those domestic issues which would require a single change in foreign policy. In fact stopping everything we're doing abroad, closing all the bases, shutting off all the aid, bringing our entire diplomatic corps home.....would not come remotely close to balancing the budget. Those problems you cited are easily fixable with good policy, which will require negligible expense (and in many cases save us money).Doc Holliday said:Again, that's not what I'm getting at. There's TWO wars. One domestic and one abroad.whiterock said:Your comment above reflects the faulty premise running thru the vast majority of isolationist arguments - that disengaging from world affairs will help fix our domestic problems. It's the opposite. Disengagement will make those problems worse. How many new bases do you want to build in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria? Do you want to have to build a 600 ship navy again? Maintain a 3m soldier army again? How is letting China bully the rest of Asia going to benefit our economy? (and on and on....)Doc Holliday said:Yeah but that's not what I'm saying. Elite corporate and banking interests are running the country much like oligarchs do in the east.whiterock said:bad foreign policy decisions will not solve our fiscal problems. it will make them worse.Doc Holliday said:Taxpayer aid, provided by a collective populace that has over $1.4 trillion in credit card debt compounding.whiterock said:
Multiple outlets now reporting what I predicted - US aid to Ukraine will continue under Trump adminand there it is.... pic.twitter.com/5WX6WNiG5S
— david D. (@secretsqrl123) December 20, 2024
Maybe it helps us to crush Russia in the long term, but if the long term is to fleece taxpayers and have our government increasingly behave like a cartel, then what the fu c k is the point? Is the end point where the US ironically starts behaving like an eastern country?
As I correctly predicted, this war is going to be another forever war. It's already gone on too long.
Is the west really going to achieve complete world dominance, only to sink their teeth into their own middle class? Are we supposed to cheer that on and be happy about it? The WEF, EU and our politicians blatantly claim that we'll own nothing and be happy about it and they're the biggest cheerleaders of this war.
Nothing is more expensive than getting directly involved in a hot war.Trump Reportedly Plans To Continue Aid To Ukraine But Will Raise NATO Spending To 5% https://t.co/0XiNQMQzGg
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 21, 2024
The difference is, we have a system where ordinary people can organize and speak and push back against oligarchy to elect a guy like Donald Trump. (a lot of people voted for Obama for the same (mistaken) reasons.)
We're prioritizing foreign policy over domestic and have been for quite some time. We'll spend trillions on war and allow the middle class to hollow out.
Well, sorta. Foreign policy on national security is not causing that. Foreign policy on trade is.
Cutting all foreign aid does not balance the budget.
Closing DOD and disbanding our military does not balance the budget.
DOING BOTH DOES NOT BALANCE OUR BUDGET.
Close down Dept of Education. States can handle the role just fine.
But if you want to make a really big impact = end the Green Energy nonsense, all $93T of it.
Repeat after me: We cannot balance our budget with a series of bad foreign policy decisions.
DC is super supportive of war in Ukraine or war anywhere. They jump through the hoops for financial support, weapons etc. When it comes to putting American's first, they're silent. They don't have the same sense of urgency that they do with war. When we have major weather disasters, they'll let people die, especially if they have certain political views. They let millions of illegals in. They allow big pharma and healthcare to let us die in order for those groups to be insanely greedy.
If we keep the current status quo together for the next several decades, our country won't even be recognizable and the freedom you and I would fight for, won't even exist. That's what I'm getting at.
The people in favor of the war in Ukraine have to understand that if we don't win the war at home, then the war in Ukraine doesn't matter. I want you to be pissed off that they're enthusiastic about war in Ukraine and against American First.
If we lose the war in Ukraine (i.e. let Russia have as much of it as it wants), we will in a worse position no matter how much improvement we make on those other things.
Don't take the false dilemma. BOTH Ukraine and the border (et al...) are important. We have to win on BOTH. Failure on either one is bad, and cannot be offset by victory on the other.
There is no number of bad foreign policy decisions which will balance our budget. In fact, each bad foreign policy decision will saddle us with ever greater future costs.
I'm asking to treat both equally and we're not.
It pisses me off that we send hundreds of billions in aid to Ukraine and simultaneously don't give a damn about hurricane victims. $5 billion for the border is too much, but hundreds of billions to Ukraine is urgent.
Surely that doesn't sit right with you guys?
What are your red lines?
Are you ok if this war proceeds for a decade or so?
Are you ok if it costs us a few trillion?
What end goal do you have in mind?
The end is simple: stop Russia, up to and including causing a collapse of the current regime. We do have it in our power to do that. quite easily. Nato GDP dwarfs Russia. Zero chance Russia can last longer than Nato. Biden has simply been taking half-measures.
Why is that end so important? See sombear's comments above. Russia will always have the ability to rebuild armies and airforces, which makes them an existential threat if not robustly resisted. For centuries they have looked west and seen they need to modernize, but the corruption always wins. As a result, throughout the centuries, they have over and over and over demonstrated a lack of maturity to know their limits. Their move against Ukraine was a frickin' comedy of errors, from intelligence assessments, to operational planning, to strategic & tactical execution. But look what it's costing to stop them......
History is abundantly clear on this: Russia is a bully. If you don't knock them flat on their asses when they get out of line, they will keep coming.
US and Western intel liaison with Ukraine is robust. We helped Ukraine literally rebuilt its agencies from scratch to rid them of Russian infiltration. And, of course, we trained trained trained, in classical FI/CI operations as well as paramilitary operations. Had it not been for all this "covert" investment going back to 2015-2016 timeframe, the Russian plan for a 72-hour operation to take down Ukraine would almost certainly have been successful.
I don't trust them. Our intelligence community and military leaders have largely claimed that Trump is a Russian asset as well. I don't know how you feel good about this war considering those people are in charge.
The Russian asset meme has run its course. You will hear some of the die-hards on the left still parrot it because they believe it, but it's clearly not an election winner so it will die a natural death.
This is what DC believes. This is the belief of the military industrial complex, national security, NATO and DC.The only explanation for today’s appalling performance by @realDonaldTrump is the Russians have high value compromising intel on POTUS. Something that would have been discovered during any serviceman’s background investigation. @realDonaldTrump is unfit to command our troops.
— Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) July 16, 2018
Trump will deliver peace either through major aggression or pulling funds. Our leaders very clearly don't want that. How do you reconcile this?
That is pure projection by his political opponents. He and his team are making all the right statements and, as I predicted, Trump is not going to pull funds. Has very clearly signaled such to the Ukrainians.
It most certainly is.
Its building up a strong defense in our already established sphere of influence.
Mobilizing for war has many times in history been a cause of war.
Its also amazing how your side sees that as "escalation"
Because it is. Just like NOT putting bases in former WP countries was an effort NOT to escalate tensions.
But some how sponsoring coups in Russia's back yard or funding proxy wars against them using corrupt states we never had a relationship with is not escalation.....
We did not sponsor a coup. We supported a new government that came to power by constitutional processes.
Yes, sponsoring proxy wars is an escalation. Others do it to us. We respond accordingly, to include direct strikes against proxies, to include taking them out.
I am always stunned by neo-con/neo-liberal logic
because you do not understand the subject material very well
another fact inconvenient to your arguments: on the day Russia invaded it, Ukraine was less tied to the West, diplomatically, economically, and militarily, than was Sweden or Finland. The Finnish border is a mortar round away from St. Petersburg. So why did Russia instead invade Ukraine? Finland was once a part of Russia, too.
They didn't invade Ukraine for gaining Nato Partner status in 1994. They invaded it for moving forward with EU membership, which "neutral" Finland and Sweden already had. So why invade Ukraine and not Finland?
(answer: Nato and EU issues had nothing to do with the invasion.)
Propagandists gonna propaganda......
There are plenty of reasons not to invade Finland. First among them is that the West didn't choose Finland as the main platform for its regime change ambitions in Russia. We didn't overthrow Finland's legitimate government. We didn't make them the second largest military power in Europe. We didn't cause Finland to be infested with neo-Nazi militias who persecuted the Russian population (which is a tiny population in Finland anyway). We didn't sell Finland weapons to attack its own civilians. Added to which Finland has wretched terrain for an invading army, a mere handful of decent roads leading into Russia, and a people that, unlike the Ukrainians, would almost universally resent and resist such a move. About the only reason Russia would invade Finland is if you were right about their imperial ambitions.
You really have demonstrated my point rather well.
I posted this in the Bear Cave several days ago, and it applies here.
DC didn't stage a coup. The people of Ukraine tried to oust the same Russian puppet…twice. The first time Russia tried to poison his opponent (Yushchenko), then when they got him back to power they gave him (manufactured) the goods on his opponent who their puppet imprisoned (Tymoshenko), then when he was ousted again Russia started a war.
Proximity spheres are irrelevant in an interconnected world with the ability to instantly connect, exchange goods, transact business, and be anywhere in less than a day, not to mention strike militarily within hours anywhere in the world. Influencing peace broadly, and/or addressing conflict is a global not regional concern, especially when it impacts the U.S. or its allies directly. That does equate to a benefit for America and the American people from a security and economic perspective. Alignment matters. Do you know how much military and nuclear might we have in proximity to Beijing, China, or even already in proximity to Moscow? NATO military threat has been the biggest con job by Russian propaganda possibly ever due to the scale of their invasion. It's their Iraq WMD moment.
It's easy to say spheres of influence don't matter when your country has unrivaled ability to project power and you've never lived with a hostile neighbor on your border. Of course you're still all in favor of swallowing up Greenland, Panama, and anything else we can to keep Russia and China out of our hemisphere. Even you don't really believe what you're saying.
No one on this forum defends Russia as much as you defend the mistake prone and failure ridden DC foreign policy blob
No coup or failed regime change war you will not not defend
You're the guy who can't go a single thread without mentioning Jews
You're such a strange person and really obsessed with the subject
BREAKING: Zelensky asked President-elect Trump to invite him to the inauguration several times but was consistently snubbed, Donald Trump Jr. has claimed. pic.twitter.com/gOvBwQtbdc
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 19, 2025
who gives a chit what little Donnie thinks? He's a ****** of the highest order.Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Zelensky asked President-elect Trump to invite him to the inauguration several times but was consistently snubbed, Donald Trump Jr. has claimed. pic.twitter.com/gOvBwQtbdc
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 19, 2025
J.R. said:who gives a chit what little Donnie thinks? He's a ****** of the highest order.Doc Holliday said:BREAKING: Zelensky asked President-elect Trump to invite him to the inauguration several times but was consistently snubbed, Donald Trump Jr. has claimed. pic.twitter.com/gOvBwQtbdc
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 19, 2025
Brave new MAGA world: China a friend, Ukraine an enemy.
Pro-Kremlin Russian channels have recently published numerous skeptical assessments regarding Russia-China cooperation, claiming that China seeks to prolong the confrontation between Russia and the US/EU to strengthen its own position and maximize the exploitation of Russia's… pic.twitter.com/1aSfKSqXfb
— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) January 19, 2025
Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks
— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025
Not to worry, the Ukraine Russia war will be over by COB tomorrow as Trumpy Bear promised. lol
J.R. said:
Not to worry, the Ukraine Russia war will be over by COB tomorrow as Trumpy Bear promised. lol
Cut off the hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars going to the regime in Kyiv and you will in fact see the war end very quickly
Ukraine can't sustain a war that America is not paying for
The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth. Big on feeling, small on reality. I know why Sam buys into it. Not sure why others do.Redbrickbear said:Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks
— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025
Yep. Russia was always going to be a pawn for China. If oil prices start declining further, it could get really ugly for them.Redbrickbear said:Pro-Kremlin Russian channels have recently published numerous skeptical assessments regarding Russia-China cooperation, claiming that China seeks to prolong the confrontation between Russia and the US/EU to strengthen its own position and maximize the exploitation of Russia's… pic.twitter.com/1aSfKSqXfb
— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) January 19, 2025
ATL Bear said:The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth. Big on feeling, small on reality. I know why Sam buys into it. Not sure why others do.Redbrickbear said:Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks
— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025
Sure the CIA had nothing to do with the coup in Kyiv
**eye roll**
Yes, the CIA got much more involved once Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth. Big on feeling, small on reality. I know why Sam buys into it. Not sure why others do.Redbrickbear said:Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks
— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025
Sure the CIA had nothing to do with the coup in Kyiv
**eye roll**
ATL Bear said:Yes, the CIA got much more involved once Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth. Big on feeling, small on reality. I know why Sam buys into it. Not sure why others do.Redbrickbear said:Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks
— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025
Sure the CIA had nothing to do with the coup in Kyiv
**eye roll**
Don't kid yourself
They were there long before that…lol
“We overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014.
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) June 1, 2024
We helped and funded a coup of $5 billion that the CIA put in through USAID.” pic.twitter.com/dRugcBzYtg
Russian President Vladimir Putin says he's ready to talk peace in Ukraine with Trump, per AP
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) January 20, 2025
He's never been known for crackpot takes…ever…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Yes, the CIA got much more involved once Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth. Big on feeling, small on reality. I know why Sam buys into it. Not sure why others do.Redbrickbear said:Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks
— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025
Sure the CIA had nothing to do with the coup in Kyiv
**eye roll**
Don't kid yourself
They were there long before that…lol“We overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014.
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) June 1, 2024
We helped and funded a coup of $5 billion that the CIA put in through USAID.” pic.twitter.com/dRugcBzYtg
ATL Bear said:He's never been known for crackpot takes…ever…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Yes, the CIA got much more involved once Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth. Big on feeling, small on reality. I know why Sam buys into it. Not sure why others do.Redbrickbear said:Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks
— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025
Sure the CIA had nothing to do with the coup in Kyiv
**eye roll**
Don't kid yourself
They were there long before that…lol“We overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014.
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) June 1, 2024
We helped and funded a coup of $5 billion that the CIA put in through USAID.” pic.twitter.com/dRugcBzYtg
Attack the messenger…ignore the message
I thought we had moved beyond Nuland but evidently not. Serious question for you. What exactly did Nuland say that bothers you, and what about that call bothers you and/or in any way suggests a coup? Not a link. I'm truly interested in your take on this.
I'll start. It was a total nothingburger. We were very openly involved in trying to broker a deal. In fact, as you and I discussed last week before I was out for a bit, we and our Euro allies helped craft and openly supported the final deal with VY. Part of those negotiations involved who from the opposition would be involved post-deal. That was widely reported. And for those who did not follow the events, it should be common sense. Heck, we were openly attending negotiation meetings in Kyiv.
I'd also add that, if we were caught recording and releasing Russian diplomatic conversations, the Grenwald types would go crazy!
I'll start. It was a total nothingburger. We were very openly involved in trying to broker a deal. In fact, as you and I discussed last week before I was out for a bit, we and our Euro allies helped craft and openly supported the final deal with VY. Part of those negotiations involved who from the opposition would be involved post-deal. That was widely reported. And for those who did not follow the events, it should be common sense. Heck, we were openly attending negotiation meetings in Kyiv.
I'd also add that, if we were caught recording and releasing Russian diplomatic conversations, the Grenwald types would go crazy!
sombear said:
I thought we had moved beyond Nuland but evidently not. Serious question for you. What exactly did Nuland say that bothers you, and what about that call bothers you and/or in any way suggests a coup? Not a link. I'm truly interested in your take on this.
Well Nuland admitted on tape that the U.S. spent billions on influencing the politics of Ukraine in the decade leading up to the Maidan coup/protest of dignity in 2014
That is a fact….not an opinion
In other tapes we have her (and other leaders) discussing who they should install in power in Kyiv….including the famous "f-the EU" line
This would all be strong evidence that DC was involved deeply in regime change in Ukraine long before the current war broke out.
Neocons not gonna be happy about that.boognish_bear said:Russian President Vladimir Putin says he's ready to talk peace in Ukraine with Trump, per AP
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) January 20, 2025
Also Zelensky is never going to cede power. That's going to turn into a problem
It was public knowledge we gave billions to Ukraine starting when they left the Soviets. We do that with all nascent democracies. What does that have to do with a "coup" two decades later?Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
I thought we had moved beyond Nuland but evidently not. Serious question for you. What exactly did Nuland say that bothers you, and what about that call bothers you and/or in any way suggests a coup? Not a link. I'm truly interested in your take on this.
Well Nuland admitted on tape that the U.S. spent billions on influencing the politics of Ukraine in the decade leaving up to the Maidan coup/protest of dignity in 2014
That is a fact….not an opinion
In other tapes we have her (and other leaders) discussing who they should install in power in Kyiv….including the famous "f-the EU" line
This would all be strong evidence that DC was involved deeply in regime change in Ukraine long before the current war broke out.
Install? How about our thoughts on leadership instead. That, too, was public knowledge. There were rival opposition parties competing.
And as I've asked multiple times on this thread, how were we to know VY would do a 180 on core issues? And why would help broker the deal that kept him and power and "allow" the Euros to sign it?
sombear said:It was public knowledge we gave billions to Ukraine starting when they left the Soviets. We do that with all nascent democracies. What does that have to do with a "coup" two decades later?Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
I thought we had moved beyond Nuland but evidently not. Serious question for you. What exactly did Nuland say that bothers you, and what about that call bothers you and/or in any way suggests a coup? Not a link. I'm truly interested in your take on this.
Well Nuland admitted on tape that the U.S. spent billions on influencing the politics of Ukraine in the decade leaving up to the Maidan coup/protest of dignity in 2014
That is a fact….not an opinion
In other tapes we have her (and other leaders) discussing who they should install in power in Kyiv….including the famous "f-the EU" line
This would all be strong evidence that DC was involved deeply in regime change in Ukraine long before the current war broke out.
Making the argument that DC spends billions of tax payer money buying influence around the world….does not mean Ukraine was not a different kind of animal
The DC foreign policy establishment decided without consulting the American people to try and pull a major border state of Moscow into the U.S. orbit
A policy that even long term DC experts like Kissinger said would be a disaster and a major mistake.
Did CIA or State Department officials direct the coup? Or did they simply come along side and take advantage of an organic revolution?
We won't know the truth until a few decades from now when the files get declassified
But we one day will find out the truth…it always comes out
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Russia always did - and still does - the same all over the world, including in Cuba and South and Central America and even supporting communist activists in the U.S.,
Russia always did - and still does - the same all over the world, including in Cuba and South and Central America and even supporting communist activists in the U.S.,
sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?
And you're changing the subject to current support of Ukraine. You and I have been there and done that. We were discussing Nuland the Conqueror and whether what she said was anything new, unknown, or crossing some imagjnary line.
sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade..
Not an arbitrary distinction…it's a major one
Moscow was willing to fight to keep Ukraine (just like DC would fight for Canada or Mexico)
Trying to pull it out of their orbit guaranteed a war
A war that currently goes on and on with no sign of ending…and very little change of success of DC and Kyiv
Nuland (along with others) were the point people in Kyiv on this attempted regime change
[As the U.S. representative at NATO at the 2008 Bucharest summit, she pressed allies to grant Membership Action Plans (MAPs) to Ukraine and Georgia. When the German and French governments balked at that idea, she was involved in the blunder in which the alliance promised that Ukraine and Georgia would one day be admitted to NATO. The promise at Bucharest contributed to the August war later that year between Russia and Georgia, and it laid the foundation for the later tensions between Russia and Ukraine.]
sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?
.
Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times
And we had every right to do so
Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence
And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that
In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR
"Attempted regime change" [We negotiated and supported signed agreement keeping VY in office.]Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade..
Not an arbitrary distinction…it's a major one
Moscow was willing to fight to keep Ukraine (just like DC would fight for Canada or Mexico)
Trying to pull it out of their orbit guaranteed a war
A war that currently goes on and on with no sign of ending…and very little change of success of DC and Kyiv
Nuland (along with others) were the point people in Kyiv on this attempted regime change
[As the U.S. representative at NATO at the 2008 Bucharest summit, she pressed allies to grant Membership Action Plans (MAPs) to Ukraine and Georgia. When the German and French governments balked at that idea, she was involved in the blunder in which the alliance promised that Ukraine and Georgia would one day be admitted to NATO. The promise at Bucharest contributed to the August war later that year between Russia and Georgia, and it laid the foundation for the later tensions between Russia and Ukraine.]
sombear said:"Attempted regime change" [We negotiated and supported signed agreement keeping VY in office.]Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade..
Not an arbitrary distinction…it's a major one
Moscow was willing to fight to keep Ukraine (just like DC would fight for Canada or Mexico)
Trying to pull it out of their orbit guaranteed a war
A war that currently goes on and on with no sign of ending…and very little change of success of DC and Kyiv
Nuland (along with others) were the point people in Kyiv on this attempted regime change
[As the U.S. representative at NATO at the 2008 Bucharest summit, she pressed allies to grant Membership Action Plans (MAPs) to Ukraine and Georgia. When the German and French governments balked at that idea, she was involved in the blunder in which the alliance promised that Ukraine and Georgia would one day be admitted to NATO. The promise at Bucharest contributed to the August war later that year between Russia and Georgia, and it laid the foundation for the later tensions between Russia and Ukraine.]
DC supported the move in the Rada to remove him from his office (something not spelled out by the plain language of the Ukrainian Constitution and something many claim was illegal)
[On February 21, that deal was signed by the President, by three senior members of the anti-Yanukovych opposition and witnessed by the three EU ministers.
Yanukovych offered a rewrite of the constitution to suit the opposition; a new government; early presidential elections (no later than December 2014); and an impartial probe into the violence (which there has never been). All sides renounced the use of force.
But that Friday evening, the deal was put to the crowd in the Maidan, an unelected body with no constitutional or democratic authority. They certainly did not represent the eastern part of the country.
Their chieftains rejected it and threatened to 'take arms and go' to Yanukovych's residence if he did not step down by the next morning. The opposition leaders who had signed the deal crumbled, and made no effort to defend it against the yelling anger of the crowd.]
It's not a message. It's a tiresome misguided narrative.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:He's never been known for crackpot takes…ever…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Yes, the CIA got much more involved once Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth. Big on feeling, small on reality. I know why Sam buys into it. Not sure why others do.Redbrickbear said:Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks
— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025
Sure the CIA had nothing to do with the coup in Kyiv
**eye roll**
Don't kid yourself
They were there long before that…lol“We overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014.
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) June 1, 2024
We helped and funded a coup of $5 billion that the CIA put in through USAID.” pic.twitter.com/dRugcBzYtg
Attack the messenger…ignore the message
You'd think Putin would have learned. Especially since then like now we opposed them in Europe, The Middle East, Far East, and Africa.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?
.
Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times
And we had every right to do so
Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence
And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that
In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR
Redbrickbear said:sombear said:"Attempted regime change" [We negotiated and supported signed agreement keeping VY in office.]Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade..
Not an arbitrary distinction…it's a major one
Moscow was willing to fight to keep Ukraine (just like DC would fight for Canada or Mexico)
Trying to pull it out of their orbit guaranteed a war
A war that currently goes on and on with no sign of ending…and very little change of success of DC and Kyiv
Nuland (along with others) were the point people in Kyiv on this attempted regime change
[As the U.S. representative at NATO at the 2008 Bucharest summit, she pressed allies to grant Membership Action Plans (MAPs) to Ukraine and Georgia. When the German and French governments balked at that idea, she was involved in the blunder in which the alliance promised that Ukraine and Georgia would one day be admitted to NATO. The promise at Bucharest contributed to the August war later that year between Russia and Georgia, and it laid the foundation for the later tensions between Russia and Ukraine.]
DC supported the move in the Rada to remove him from his office (something not spelled out by the plain language of the Ukrainian Constitution and something many claim was illegal)
[On February 21, that deal was signed by the President, by three senior members of the anti-Yanukovych opposition and witnessed by the three EU ministers.
Yanukovych offered a rewrite of the constitution to suit the opposition; a new government; early presidential elections (no later than December 2014); and an impartial probe into the violence (which there has never been). All sides renounced the use of force.
But that Friday evening, the deal was put to the crowd in the Maidan, an unelected body with no constitutional or democratic authority. They certainly did not represent the eastern part of the country.
Their chieftains rejected it and threatened to 'take arms and go' to Yanukovych's residence if he did not step down by the next morning. The opposition leaders who had signed the deal crumbled, and made no effort to defend it against the yelling anger of the crowd.]
Lie. As I posted last week, this was j the Ronald misleading as if it'll the protestors had to approve it. Everyone involved knew the protestors would it support the deal right away. Less than 2 days earlier their people had been murdered.
So now, we have to assume we somehow knew that (1) VY would do his 180s and (2) he would dart to Russia. These conspiracy theories just get better and better.
Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?
.
Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times
And we had every right to do so
Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence
And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that
In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR
Who did we ever invade with intent to take over?
When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"
In 1898 the US invaded Cuba during the Spanish-American War. Congress passed a resolution insisting we did not want to keep the island (no doubt some on the imperialist side did) and we only got Gitmo out of it. Later, in the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, the US reserved for ourselves the right to intervene in any country in Latin America that could not effectively govern themselves. And we intervened often in many countries for multiple reasons. Some would describe this as a form of imperialism, and it certainly looks that way, but we did not gain any territories since defeating Spain when we got Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, the Philippines, & other islands in the Pacific. It was a different era.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36