Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Western civilization wasn't built around the Bible.

It was built around the Greek philosophers and scientists. Greece was the birthplace of western civilization, not Israel.

I think Islam and the Arab world is as big a threat to our way of life as you do. Unfortunately our imbecilic leaders want to go to war with Russia and Serbia when they should be our shared allies against a common enemy.

I believe the post-soviet, Russian speaking world would be a much better ally to us than Israel ever was.

---

Western Civilization is built on Judeo-Christian philosophical values about the rights & wrongs of social contract, of which the list of examples is quite long. I mean, what European war was fought over Plato vs Socrates? Athens vs. Sparta?

When islamic armies besiege the next Vienna, I have no doubt Russia and Serbia will be there to help. Perhaps the next Sobieski will even speak Russian as his native tongue. In the meantime, the Russians hold some very old and quite nakedly revanchist geopolitical notions that are at odds with modern constructions. And THEY invaded a neighbor to take what they thought they were entitled to, not us.

Russia should, indeed, be more worried about its neighbors to its south and west. That they irrationally chose to attack westwards only proves the point I've been making about the costs of ignoring reality - powers make bad decisions, and dealing with the consequences are frightfully expensive, win or lose. Best course of action is to respond quickly and forcefully, to send Pavlovian lessons that will shape future decision-making in a more productive direction.

---

This may sound odd, but not everyone's policy is controlled by Pavlovian responses.

---

Yeah, a dog can get numbed to electric collar stimulation. Particularly a tough one. Find one that barks the batteries out of a bark collar., and very often, they become immune to levels of training stimulation that would crumple the average dog. But the vast majority of dogs submit to the collar so thoroughly all you have to do is put the collar on them and they become uber compliant.

MOST nations bombed back to the stone age will remember it for a good long while, and calibrate their actions to avoid it.

---

Did you forget you were talking about Russia, or do you really thinking bombing them back to the Stone Age is a good plan?

---

I just want to bomb them back to Russia.

---

Then it sounds like a peace treaty right now that lets Russian have the 20% ethnic Russian lands in the east would be smart.

The rest can be Ukrainian and join the EU

Win win

---

They want Russia wiped off the map and are trying to hoodwink you into believing this is about saving Ukraine.

If you press them hard enough they'll admit it.

---

Nobody is going to wipe Russia off the map. But we can cause it to collapse and significantly curtail their ability to wage war for a generation or three.

---

But at an expense to us.

We could spend way too much money on this for far too long and financially screw a generation or three.

---

And also, we can't cause it to collapse.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Western civilization wasn't built around the Bible.

It was built around the Greek philosophers and scientists. Greece was the birthplace of western civilization, not Israel.

I think Islam and the Arab world is as big a threat to our way of life as you do. Unfortunately our imbecilic leaders want to go to war with Russia and Serbia when they should be our shared allies against a common enemy.

I believe the post-soviet, Russian speaking world would be a much better ally to us than Israel ever was.

---

Western Civilization is built on Judeo-Christian philosophical values about the rights & wrongs of social contract, of which the list of examples is quite long. I mean, what European war was fought over Plato vs Socrates? Athens vs. Sparta?

When islamic armies besiege the next Vienna, I have no doubt Russia and Serbia will be there to help. Perhaps the next Sobieski will even speak Russian as his native tongue. In the meantime, the Russians hold some very old and quite nakedly revanchist geopolitical notions that are at odds with modern constructions. And THEY invaded a neighbor to take what they thought they were entitled to, not us.

Russia should, indeed, be more worried about its neighbors to its south and west. That they irrationally chose to attack westwards only proves the point I've been making about the costs of ignoring reality - powers make bad decisions, and dealing with the consequences are frightfully expensive, win or lose. Best course of action is to respond quickly and forcefully, to send Pavlovian lessons that will shape future decision-making in a more productive direction.

---

This may sound odd, but not everyone's policy is controlled by Pavlovian responses.

---

Yeah, a dog can get numbed to electric collar stimulation. Particularly a tough one. Find one that barks the batteries out of a bark collar., and very often, they become immune to levels of training stimulation that would crumple the average dog. But the vast majority of dogs submit to the collar so thoroughly all you have to do is put the collar on them and they become uber compliant.

MOST nations bombed back to the stone age will remember it for a good long while, and calibrate their actions to avoid it.

---

Did you forget you were talking about Russia, or do you really thinking bombing them back to the Stone Age is a good plan?

---

I just want to bomb them back to Russia.

---

Then it sounds like a peace treaty right now that lets Russian have the 20% ethnic Russian lands in the east would be smart.

The rest can be Ukrainian and join the EU

Win win

---

They want Russia wiped off the map and are trying to hoodwink you into believing this is about saving Ukraine.

If you press them hard enough they'll admit it.

---

Nobody is going to wipe Russia off the map. But we can cause it to collapse and significantly curtail their ability to wage war for a generation or three.

---

But at an expense to us.

We could spend way too much money on this for far too long and financially screw a generation or three.

---

The cost of a direct war with Russia in Europe, even if it stays conventional, will make the proxy war costs look like chicken feed. Plus, we will have to help Europe rebuild, for the exact same reasons we did after WWII.

The cheapest and safest way out of this situation is to win it. All other options are worse, more expensive, more risk. Ceding Ukraine to Russia is not going to allow us to turn off the production of arty rounds. It's going to cause more and larger Purchase Orders. Neither will it cause the size of our army and navy to decrease. It's going to lead to a rebuilding phase. Our aid levels will not go down. They will go up.

It is very difficult to understand how the fiscal hawks can possibly think letting Russia have Ukraine is going to save us money.

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Western civilization wasn't built around the Bible.

It was built around the Greek philosophers and scientists. Greece was the birthplace of western civilization, not Israel.

I think Islam and the Arab world is as big a threat to our way of life as you do. Unfortunately our imbecilic leaders want to go to war with Russia and Serbia when they should be our shared allies against a common enemy.

I believe the post-soviet, Russian speaking world would be a much better ally to us than Israel ever was.

---

Western Civilization is built on Judeo-Christian philosophical values about the rights & wrongs of social contract, of which the list of examples is quite long. I mean, what European war was fought over Plato vs Socrates? Athens vs. Sparta?

When islamic armies besiege the next Vienna, I have no doubt Russia and Serbia will be there to help. Perhaps the next Sobieski will even speak Russian as his native tongue. In the meantime, the Russians hold some very old and quite nakedly revanchist geopolitical notions that are at odds with modern constructions. And THEY invaded a neighbor to take what they thought they were entitled to, not us.

Russia should, indeed, be more worried about its neighbors to its south and west. That they irrationally chose to attack westwards only proves the point I've been making about the costs of ignoring reality - powers make bad decisions, and dealing with the consequences are frightfully expensive, win or lose. Best course of action is to respond quickly and forcefully, to send Pavlovian lessons that will shape future decision-making in a more productive direction.

---

This may sound odd, but not everyone's policy is controlled by Pavlovian responses.

---

Yeah, a dog can get numbed to electric collar stimulation. Particularly a tough one. Find one that barks the batteries out of a bark collar., and very often, they become immune to levels of training stimulation that would crumple the average dog. But the vast majority of dogs submit to the collar so thoroughly all you have to do is put the collar on them and they become uber compliant.

MOST nations bombed back to the stone age will remember it for a good long while, and calibrate their actions to avoid it.

---

Did you forget you were talking about Russia, or do you really thinking bombing them back to the Stone Age is a good plan?

---

I just want to bomb them back to Russia.

---

Then it sounds like a peace treaty right now that lets Russian have the 20% ethnic Russian lands in the east would be smart.

The rest can be Ukrainian and join the EU

Win win

---

They want Russia wiped off the map and are trying to hoodwink you into believing this is about saving Ukraine.

If you press them hard enough they'll admit it.

---

Nobody is going to wipe Russia off the map. But we can cause it to collapse and significantly curtail their ability to wage war for a generation or three.

---

But at an expense to us.

We could spend way too much money on this for far too long and financially screw a generation or three.

---

The cost of a direct war with Russia in Europe, even if it stays conventional, will make the proxy war costs look like chicken feed. Plus, we will have to help Europe rebuild, for the exact same reasons we did after WWII.

The cheapest and safest way out of this situation is to win it. All other options are worse, more expensive, more risk. Ceding Ukraine to Russia is not going to allow us to turn off the production of arty rounds. It's going to cause more and larger Purchase Orders. Neither will it cause the size of our army and navy to decrease. It's going to lead to a rebuilding phase. Our aid levels will not go down. They will go up.

It is very difficult to understand how the fiscal hawks can possibly think letting Russia have Ukraine is going to save us money.

---

Why do you believe Russia would attack Europe? That's a suicide mission for Russia. Where does that belief come from?

They would get absolutely destroyed and they know they would so why would they even try?

I don't understand how they can supposedly barely fight off Ukraine but will eventually attack all of Europe and be a major threat. But if you believe they are that crazy then surely you believe this proxy war will result in Russia panicking and potentially resorting to small nukes?

I don't think any of the foreign aid provided Israel is framed as a loan. So, no it is not theft.

To be honest, it's ludicrous to talk about foreign aid as a drag in the U.S. economy. Our total foreign aid to everyone who gets it is a few billion dollars, if I'm not mistaken. I'm going from memory and don't think it's changed significantly over the past several years. Whatever the amount, it's a tiny fraction of our $20 trillion economy snd even of our $4 trillion annual budget. Discretionary spending, which includes foreign aid and a whole bunch of other things, is a small fraction of the budget.

The real drain on our economy is the insane levels of spending by Congress the vast majority of which goes to entitlements, defense, & interest on the $34 trillion debt. The budget absolutely needs to be balanced sooner rather than later, not that there is anyone in Congress with enough courage, intelligence, determination, & grit to do anything about it. Cutting or even eliminating foreign aid won't do it. It wouldn't even be noticeable. It would require major reforms of entitlements & defense spending to be more efficient & cost effective. To be honest, it would require an entire new mindset about the federal government and it's role in the economy. That's not going to happen any time soon.

Foreign aid is a red herring when it comes to the economy and silly sniping about Israel, an ally literally fighting for survival, reeks of antisemitism. If you don't care what happens to Israel then you are effectively pro-Hamas and thus seeking genocide gif Jews. Whether intended or not, that is the logical outcome.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Western civilization wasn't built around the Bible.

It was built around the Greek philosophers and scientists. Greece was the birthplace of western civilization, not Israel.

I think Islam and the Arab world is as big a threat to our way of life as you do. Unfortunately our imbecilic leaders want to go to war with Russia and Serbia when they should be our shared allies against a common enemy.

I believe the post-soviet, Russian speaking world would be a much better ally to us than Israel ever was.

---

Western Civilization is built on Judeo-Christian philosophical values about the rights & wrongs of social contract, of which the list of examples is quite long. I mean, what European war was fought over Plato vs Socrates? Athens vs. Sparta?

When islamic armies besiege the next Vienna, I have no doubt Russia and Serbia will be there to help. Perhaps the next Sobieski will even speak Russian as his native tongue. In the meantime, the Russians hold some very old and quite nakedly revanchist geopolitical notions that are at odds with modern constructions. And THEY invaded a neighbor to take what they thought they were entitled to, not us.

Russia should, indeed, be more worried about its neighbors to its south and west. That they irrationally chose to attack westwards only proves the point I've been making about the costs of ignoring reality - powers make bad decisions, and dealing with the consequences are frightfully expensive, win or lose. Best course of action is to respond quickly and forcefully, to send Pavlovian lessons that will shape future decision-making in a more productive direction.

---

This may sound odd, but not everyone's policy is controlled by Pavlovian responses.

---

Yeah, a dog can get numbed to electric collar stimulation. Particularly a tough one. Find one that barks the batteries out of a bark collar., and very often, they become immune to levels of training stimulation that would crumple the average dog. But the vast majority of dogs submit to the collar so thoroughly all you have to do is put the collar on them and they become uber compliant.

MOST nations bombed back to the stone age will remember it for a good long while, and calibrate their actions to avoid it.

---

Did you forget you were talking about Russia, or do you really thinking bombing them back to the Stone Age is a good plan?

---

I just want to bomb them back to Russia.

---

Then it sounds like a peace treaty right now that lets Russian have the 20% ethnic Russian lands in the east would be smart.

The rest can be Ukrainian and join the EU

Win win

---

They want Russia wiped off the map and are trying to hoodwink you into believing this is about saving Ukraine.

If you press them hard enough they'll admit it.

---

Nobody is going to wipe Russia off the map. But we can cause it to collapse and significantly curtail their ability to wage war for a generation or three.

---

But at an expense to us.

We could spend way too much money on this for far too long and financially screw a generation or three.

---

The cost of a direct war with Russia in Europe, even if it stays conventional, will make the proxy war costs look like chicken feed. Plus, we will have to help Europe rebuild, for the exact same reasons we did after WWII.

The cheapest and safest way out of this situation is to win it. All other options are worse, more expensive, more risk. Ceding Ukraine to Russia is not going to allow us to turn off the production of arty rounds. It's going to cause more and larger Purchase Orders. Neither will it cause the size of our army and navy to decrease. It's going to lead to a rebuilding phase. Our aid levels will not go down. They will go up.

It is very difficult to understand how the fiscal hawks can possibly think letting Russia have Ukraine is going to save us money.

---

Why do you believe Russia would attack Europe? That's a suicide mission for Russia. Where does that belief come from?

They would get absolutely destroyed and they know they would so why would they even try?

I don't understand how they can supposedly barely fight off Ukraine but will eventually attack all of Europe and be a major threat. But if you believe they are that crazy then surely you believe this proxy war will result in Russia panicking and potentially resorting to small nukes?

---

why do you (and others) keep using that straw man as the premise for your responses to my posts?

I have numerous times indicated the scenario which is most likely to spark direct conflict between Russia and Nato. It will involve political instability in a Nato country, coups & counter-coups, with first one faction then another announcing intention to leave Nato. Finally little green men led take over the capital led by some general nobody knows much about who quickly asks the Russians to come help them stabilize the situation. Russia responds with "peacekeepers." Nato hesitates. What is really happening? Don't overreact against a nuclear capable adversary, now. Will the French really risk Paris to save Prague? Will the Germans really risk Berlin for Bucharest? Lest you think that sounds outlandish, just look at what Russia did in Ukraine - little green men to destabilize the Donbas, forcing Ukraine to engage, then Russia alleging all kinds of atrocities.....little green men to subvert Crimea. You have looked at what Sweden is saying/doing, right?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

Here's one thing you can count on: Russia will underestimate Nato resolve, again, just like they did on Ukraine. Russians do not take Europeans very seriously = weak, wishy-washy people who enter an alliance then fail to pay their dues to said alliance. Is Russia going to invade Poland? Not likely. Would Russia invade Estonia then dare Nato to do anything about it? Maybe. The Brits might well trade Edinburgh for Estonia, but can we count on Italy to offer up Rome in exchange for Riga?

Russia also will underestimate the power of American institutions, focusing instead on the feebleness of our President. They don't realize that our system is so well supported with institutions that we can easily defeat Russia even with an enfeebled POTUS. Particularly if we spend a few hundred billion more to bleed Russia white. In Ukraine. Before Russia can rebuild and start the whole little green men game all over again.

historian said:

---

Foreign aid is a red herring when it comes to the economy and silly sniping about Israel, an ally literally fighting for survival, reeks of antisemitism. If you don't care what happens to Israel then you are effectively pro-Hamas and thus seeking genocide gif Jews. Whether intended or not, that is the logical outcome.

---

This goes back to sombear's original posts with the emotional blackmail and preying upon on people's consciences. Playing the victim Olympics on people who just want their government to put their interests and the interests of their families first with the tax dollars they are giving their blood, sweat, and tears to produce

Its deplorable and sick.

**** Israel and **** You for actually typing that. You are a sycophant... a zealot... a cultist

The only thing ending foreign aid to Israel and all other countries reeks of is self-preservation and prioritizing your family and the people in your community over people half the world away who dont give a **** about you and arent grateful or appreciative for your help, they act like they are entitled to it.

The fact that they got away with killing Americans on the USS Liberty and that doesnt bother people like you makes me want a national divorce so I can separate myself with all the other decent, rational people

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Western civilization wasn't built around the Bible.

It was built around the Greek philosophers and scientists. Greece was the birthplace of western civilization, not Israel.

I think Islam and the Arab world is as big a threat to our way of life as you do. Unfortunately our imbecilic leaders want to go to war with Russia and Serbia when they should be our shared allies against a common enemy.

I believe the post-soviet, Russian speaking world would be a much better ally to us than Israel ever was.

---

Western Civilization is built on Judeo-Christian philosophical values about the rights & wrongs of social contract, of which the list of examples is quite long. I mean, what European war was fought over Plato vs Socrates? Athens vs. Sparta?

When islamic armies besiege the next Vienna, I have no doubt Russia and Serbia will be there to help. Perhaps the next Sobieski will even speak Russian as his native tongue. In the meantime, the Russians hold some very old and quite nakedly revanchist geopolitical notions that are at odds with modern constructions. And THEY invaded a neighbor to take what they thought they were entitled to, not us.

Russia should, indeed, be more worried about its neighbors to its south and west. That they irrationally chose to attack westwards only proves the point I've been making about the costs of ignoring reality - powers make bad decisions, and dealing with the consequences are frightfully expensive, win or lose. Best course of action is to respond quickly and forcefully, to send Pavlovian lessons that will shape future decision-making in a more productive direction.

---

This may sound odd, but not everyone's policy is controlled by Pavlovian responses.

---

Yeah, a dog can get numbed to electric collar stimulation. Particularly a tough one. Find one that barks the batteries out of a bark collar., and very often, they become immune to levels of training stimulation that would crumple the average dog. But the vast majority of dogs submit to the collar so thoroughly all you have to do is put the collar on them and they become uber compliant.

MOST nations bombed back to the stone age will remember it for a good long while, and calibrate their actions to avoid it.

---

Did you forget you were talking about Russia, or do you really thinking bombing them back to the Stone Age is a good plan?

---

I just want to bomb them back to Russia.

---

Then it sounds like a peace treaty right now that lets Russian have the 20% ethnic Russian lands in the east would be smart.

The rest can be Ukrainian and join the EU

Win win

---

They want Russia wiped off the map and are trying to hoodwink you into believing this is about saving Ukraine.

If you press them hard enough they'll admit it.

---

Nobody is going to wipe Russia off the map. But we can cause it to collapse and significantly curtail their ability to wage war for a generation or three.

---

But at an expense to us.

We could spend way too much money on this for far too long and financially screw a generation or three.

---

The cost of a direct war with Russia in Europe, even if it stays conventional, will make the proxy war costs look like chicken feed. Plus, we will have to help Europe rebuild, for the exact same reasons we did after WWII.

The cheapest and safest way out of this situation is to win it. All other options are worse, more expensive, more risk. Ceding Ukraine to Russia is not going to allow us to turn off the production of arty rounds. It's going to cause more and larger Purchase Orders. Neither will it cause the size of our army and navy to decrease. It's going to lead to a rebuilding phase. Our aid levels will not go down. They will go up.

It is very difficult to understand how the fiscal hawks can possibly think letting Russia have Ukraine is going to save us money.

---

Why do you believe Russia would attack Europe? That's a suicide mission for Russia. Where does that belief come from?

They would get absolutely destroyed and they know they would so why would they even try?

I don't understand how they can supposedly barely fight off Ukraine but will eventually attack all of Europe and be a major threat. But if you believe they are that crazy then surely you believe this proxy war will result in Russia panicking and potentially resorting to small nukes?

---

why do you (and others) keep using that straw man as the premise for your responses to my posts?

I have numerous times indicated the scenario which is most likely to spark direct conflict between Russia and Nato. It will involve political instability in a Nato country, coups & counter-coups, with first one faction then another announcing intention to leave Nato. Finally little green men led take over the capital led by some general nobody knows much about who quickly asks the Russians to come help them stabilize the situation. Russia responds with "peacekeepers." Nato hesitates. What is really happening? Don't overreact against a nuclear capable adversary, now. Will the French really risk Paris to save Prague? Will the Germans really risk Berlin for Bucharest? Lest you think that sounds outlandish, just look at what Russia did in Ukraine - little green men to destabilize the Donbas, forcing Ukraine to engage, then Russia alleging all kinds of atrocities.....little green men to subvert Crimea. You have looked at what Sweden is saying/doing, right?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

Here's one thing you can count on: Russia will underestimate Nato resolve, again, just like they did on Ukraine. Russians do not take Europeans very seriously = weak, wishy-washy people who enter an alliance then fail to pay their dues to said alliance. Is Russia going to invade Poland? Not likely. Would Russia invade Estonia then dare Nato to do anything about it? Maybe. The Brits might well trade Edinburgh for Estonia, but can we count on Rome to offer up Rome?

Russia also will underestimate the power of American institutions, focusing instead on the feebleness of our President. They don't realize that our system is so well supported with institutions that we can easily defeat Russia even with an enfeebled POTUS. Particularly if we spend a few hundred billion more to bleed Russia white. In Ukraine. Before Russia can rebuild and start the whole little green men game all over again.

---

So when there was political instability in Ukraine, and Russia intervened, you'd have us believe this was an unprovoked aggression and a gross violation of international law. Surely you're not suggesting that we'd do the same thing in their position?

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Western civilization wasn't built around the Bible.

It was built around the Greek philosophers and scientists. Greece was the birthplace of western civilization, not Israel.

I think Islam and the Arab world is as big a threat to our way of life as you do. Unfortunately our imbecilic leaders want to go to war with Russia and Serbia when they should be our shared allies against a common enemy.

I believe the post-soviet, Russian speaking world would be a much better ally to us than Israel ever was.

---

Western Civilization is built on Judeo-Christian philosophical values about the rights & wrongs of social contract, of which the list of examples is quite long. I mean, what European war was fought over Plato vs Socrates? Athens vs. Sparta?

When islamic armies besiege the next Vienna, I have no doubt Russia and Serbia will be there to help. Perhaps the next Sobieski will even speak Russian as his native tongue. In the meantime, the Russians hold some very old and quite nakedly revanchist geopolitical notions that are at odds with modern constructions. And THEY invaded a neighbor to take what they thought they were entitled to, not us.

Russia should, indeed, be more worried about its neighbors to its south and west. That they irrationally chose to attack westwards only proves the point I've been making about the costs of ignoring reality - powers make bad decisions, and dealing with the consequences are frightfully expensive, win or lose. Best course of action is to respond quickly and forcefully, to send Pavlovian lessons that will shape future decision-making in a more productive direction.

---

This may sound odd, but not everyone's policy is controlled by Pavlovian responses.

---

Yeah, a dog can get numbed to electric collar stimulation. Particularly a tough one. Find one that barks the batteries out of a bark collar., and very often, they become immune to levels of training stimulation that would crumple the average dog. But the vast majority of dogs submit to the collar so thoroughly all you have to do is put the collar on them and they become uber compliant.

MOST nations bombed back to the stone age will remember it for a good long while, and calibrate their actions to avoid it.

---

Did you forget you were talking about Russia, or do you really thinking bombing them back to the Stone Age is a good plan?

---

I just want to bomb them back to Russia.

---

Then it sounds like a peace treaty right now that lets Russian have the 20% ethnic Russian lands in the east would be smart.

The rest can be Ukrainian and join the EU

Win win

---

They want Russia wiped off the map and are trying to hoodwink you into believing this is about saving Ukraine.

If you press them hard enough they'll admit it.

---

Nobody is going to wipe Russia off the map. But we can cause it to collapse and significantly curtail their ability to wage war for a generation or three.

---

But at an expense to us.

We could spend way too much money on this for far too long and financially screw a generation or three.

---

The cost of a direct war with Russia in Europe, even if it stays conventional, will make the proxy war costs look like chicken feed. Plus, we will have to help Europe rebuild, for the exact same reasons we did after WWII.

The cheapest and safest way out of this situation is to win it. All other options are worse, more expensive, more risk. Ceding Ukraine to Russia is not going to allow us to turn off the production of arty rounds. It's going to cause more and larger Purchase Orders. Neither will it cause the size of our army and navy to decrease. It's going to lead to a rebuilding phase. Our aid levels will not go down. They will go up.

It is very difficult to understand how the fiscal hawks can possibly think letting Russia have Ukraine is going to save us money.

---

Why do you believe Russia would attack Europe? That's a suicide mission for Russia. Where does that belief come from?

They would get absolutely destroyed and they know they would so why would they even try?

I don't understand how they can supposedly barely fight off Ukraine but will eventually attack all of Europe and be a major threat. But if you believe they are that crazy then surely you believe this proxy war will result in Russia panicking and potentially resorting to small nukes?

---

why do you (and others) keep using that straw man as the premise for your responses to my posts?

I have numerous times indicated the scenario which is most likely to spark direct conflict between Russia and Nato. It will involve political instability in a Nato country, coups & counter-coups, with first one faction then another announcing intention to leave Nato. Finally little green men led take over the capital led by some general nobody knows much about who quickly asks the Russians to come help them stabilize the situation. Russia responds with "peacekeepers." Nato hesitates. What is really happening? Don't overreact against a nuclear capable adversary, now. Will the French really risk Paris to save Prague? Will the Germans really risk Berlin for Bucharest? Lest you think that sounds outlandish, just look at what Russia did in Ukraine - little green men to destabilize the Donbas, forcing Ukraine to engage, then Russia alleging all kinds of atrocities.....little green men to subvert Crimea. You have looked at what Sweden is saying/doing, right?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

Here's one thing you can count on: Russia will underestimate Nato resolve, again, just like they did on Ukraine. Russians do not take Europeans very seriously = weak, wishy-washy people who enter an alliance then fail to pay their dues to said alliance. Is Russia going to invade Poland? Not likely. Would Russia invade Estonia then dare Nato to do anything about it? Maybe. The Brits might well trade Edinburgh for Estonia, but can we count on Rome to offer up Rome?

Russia also will underestimate the power of American institutions, focusing instead on the feebleness of our President. They don't realize that our system is so well supported with institutions that we can easily defeat Russia even with an enfeebled POTUS. Particularly if we spend a few hundred billion more to bleed Russia white. In Ukraine. Before Russia can rebuild and start the whole little green men game all over again.

---

So when there was political instability in Ukraine, and Russia intervened, you'd have us believe this was an unprovoked aggression and a gross violation of international law. Surely you're not suggesting that we'd do the same thing in their position?

---

If you had paused to ponder European history of the last 70 years, you would not have made that statement. Russia has invaded neighboring countries for territorial expansion and/or to maintain hegemony at least five times. And that's before we get to Ukraine, which they have invaded 3 times in the last decade.

Our number is zero. ZERO.

I didn't say the Russians offering "aid" to a new military junta seeking to leave Nato was a gross violation of international law, did I? In fact, I showed you how Russia has, and will, use subterfuge and proximity to destabilize things it cannot outright invade, under scenarios which do not fit conventional templates.

There is no assertion more flatly at odds with patent historical events than the idea that Nato FORCED Russia to invade Ukraine, that we tied their hands, left them no option, etc.....

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Western civilization wasn't built around the Bible.

It was built around the Greek philosophers and scientists. Greece was the birthplace of western civilization, not Israel.

I think Islam and the Arab world is as big a threat to our way of life as you do. Unfortunately our imbecilic leaders want to go to war with Russia and Serbia when they should be our shared allies against a common enemy.

I believe the post-soviet, Russian speaking world would be a much better ally to us than Israel ever was.

---

Western Civilization is built on Judeo-Christian philosophical values about the rights & wrongs of social contract, of which the list of examples is quite long. I mean, what European war was fought over Plato vs Socrates? Athens vs. Sparta?

When islamic armies besiege the next Vienna, I have no doubt Russia and Serbia will be there to help. Perhaps the next Sobieski will even speak Russian as his native tongue. In the meantime, the Russians hold some very old and quite nakedly revanchist geopolitical notions that are at odds with modern constructions. And THEY invaded a neighbor to take what they thought they were entitled to, not us.

Russia should, indeed, be more worried about its neighbors to its south and west. That they irrationally chose to attack westwards only proves the point I've been making about the costs of ignoring reality - powers make bad decisions, and dealing with the consequences are frightfully expensive, win or lose. Best course of action is to respond quickly and forcefully, to send Pavlovian lessons that will shape future decision-making in a more productive direction.

---

This may sound odd, but not everyone's policy is controlled by Pavlovian responses.

---

Yeah, a dog can get numbed to electric collar stimulation. Particularly a tough one. Find one that barks the batteries out of a bark collar., and very often, they become immune to levels of training stimulation that would crumple the average dog. But the vast majority of dogs submit to the collar so thoroughly all you have to do is put the collar on them and they become uber compliant.

MOST nations bombed back to the stone age will remember it for a good long while, and calibrate their actions to avoid it.

---

Did you forget you were talking about Russia, or do you really thinking bombing them back to the Stone Age is a good plan?

---

I just want to bomb them back to Russia.

---

Then it sounds like a peace treaty right now that lets Russian have the 20% ethnic Russian lands in the east would be smart.

The rest can be Ukrainian and join the EU

Win win

---

They want Russia wiped off the map and are trying to hoodwink you into believing this is about saving Ukraine.

If you press them hard enough they'll admit it.

---

Nobody is going to wipe Russia off the map. But we can cause it to collapse and significantly curtail their ability to wage war for a generation or three.

---

But at an expense to us.

We could spend way too much money on this for far too long and financially screw a generation or three.

---

The cost of a direct war with Russia in Europe, even if it stays conventional, will make the proxy war costs look like chicken feed. Plus, we will have to help Europe rebuild, for the exact same reasons we did after WWII.

The cheapest and safest way out of this situation is to win it. All other options are worse, more expensive, more risk. Ceding Ukraine to Russia is not going to allow us to turn off the production of arty rounds. It's going to cause more and larger Purchase Orders. Neither will it cause the size of our army and navy to decrease. It's going to lead to a rebuilding phase. Our aid levels will not go down. They will go up.

It is very difficult to understand how the fiscal hawks can possibly think letting Russia have Ukraine is going to save us money.

---

Why do you believe Russia would attack Europe? That's a suicide mission for Russia. Where does that belief come from?

They would get absolutely destroyed and they know they would so why would they even try?

I don't understand how they can supposedly barely fight off Ukraine but will eventually attack all of Europe and be a major threat. But if you believe they are that crazy then surely you believe this proxy war will result in Russia panicking and potentially resorting to small nukes?

---

Well, Russian tanks got into Ukraine somehow. You say Ukraine doesn't count, they were a Soviet possession. So, was Poland, the Baltics, Czech, Romania, Hungary and even half of Germany. Russia has shown they will invade if they think they can.

Finland and Sweden joined NATO for a reason after 70 years. Russia has a history of invading it's neighbors for the past 300 years. Betting on Russian restraint has never been a good bet.

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

You keep missing the point. You act like this is a US action, that the US is behind the Ukranian War.

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade. Ukraine made choices as a sovereign nation to try to join Europe, which would be in Ukraine's best interest (a little tidbit that seems irrelevant.)

Ukraine gave back the Nukes, with no issues.

Ukraine didn't expand since the 90's when they were allowed Independence, an agreement that Russia signed.

Ukraine didn't attack Russia or do ANYTHING outside their borders that was Russia's business.

Ukraine didn't prevent ANYONE from leaving, any Russian's feeling persecuted or didn't like living in Ukraine could have gone to Russia, no one stopped them. Just like any European Nation.

There is NO Argument that anybody started this war but Putin. He wanted the deep water port of Crimean, he took it. Now he wants the coal fields and industrial capabilities (20 billion Euros a year pre-war) of the Dombas, so he took it.

But that is ok, why should we care?

---

There's no war if we don't fund it, either. What's your point?

The agreement allowing independence also provided that Ukraine would remain neutral.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"Putin continued to claim that NATO's 2008 Bucharest Declaration, which promised Ukraine and Georgia paths to membership but took no concrete steps towards opening such paths, violated Ukraine's 1991 Declaration of Independence that declared that Ukraine is a neutral state. The Russian Federation, however, had committed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," which include Crimea and Donbas, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for Ukraine's return of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons on its territory to Russia.[12] The Budapest Memorandum guarantees Ukraine all sovereign rights, which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

Bear8084 said:

---

The Budapest Memorandum guarantees Ukraine all sovereign rights, which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

It also includes the right to choose neutrality, which they did. I don't know of any reason to believe the Budapest Memorandum supersedes that agreement.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

You keep missing the point. You act like this is a US action, that the US is behind the Ukranian War.

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade. Ukraine made choices as a sovereign nation to try to join Europe, which would be in Ukraine's best interest (a little tidbit that seems irrelevant.)

Ukraine gave back the Nukes, with no issues.

Ukraine didn't expand since the 90's when they were allowed Independence, an agreement that Russia signed.

Ukraine didn't attack Russia or do ANYTHING outside their borders that was Russia's business.

Ukraine didn't prevent ANYONE from leaving, any Russian's feeling persecuted or didn't like living in Ukraine could have gone to Russia, no one stopped them. Just like any European Nation.

There is NO Argument that anybody started this war but Putin. He wanted the deep water port of Crimean, he took it. Now he wants the coal fields and industrial capabilities (20 billion Euros a year pre-war) of the Dombas, so he took it.

But that is ok, why should we care?

---

There's no war if we don't fund it, either. What's your point?

The agreement allowing independence also provided that Ukraine would remain neutral.

---

No war if we don't give Ukraine support to defend themselves from invasion? That is your bar?

A potential allie asks for help after being invaded, your response for peace is let them lose?

You have a client that is accused of murder and need to do it pro-bono, the easiest way is let him lose?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

You keep missing the point. You act like this is a US action, that the US is behind the Ukranian War.

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade. Ukraine made choices as a sovereign nation to try to join Europe, which would be in Ukraine's best interest (a little tidbit that seems irrelevant.)

Ukraine gave back the Nukes, with no issues.

Ukraine didn't expand since the 90's when they were allowed Independence, an agreement that Russia signed.

Ukraine didn't attack Russia or do ANYTHING outside their borders that was Russia's business.

Ukraine didn't prevent ANYONE from leaving, any Russian's feeling persecuted or didn't like living in Ukraine could have gone to Russia, no one stopped them. Just like any European Nation.

There is NO Argument that anybody started this war but Putin. He wanted the deep water port of Crimean, he took it. Now he wants the coal fields and industrial capabilities (20 billion Euros a year pre-war) of the Dombas, so he took it.

But that is ok, why should we care?

---

There's no war if we don't fund it, either. What's your point?

The agreement allowing independence also provided that Ukraine would remain neutral.

---

No war if we don't give Ukraine support to defend themselves from invasion? That is your bar?

---

How about if we did not help overthrow the last government of Ukraine back in 2014?

Ukraine was a peace before that....

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Russia invaded there too and have just now stopped pretending they weren't there leading everything.

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Russia invaded there too and have just now stopped pretending they weren't there leading everything.

---

So a coup in 2014 sparked off a separatist war...now enlarged to a regional war.

You think anyone in DC is looking back on our foreign policy strategy and starting to ask questions?

Were coups and proxy wars the way to relate to Eastern Europe

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Russia invaded there too and have just now stopped pretending they weren't there leading everything.

---

So a coup in 2014 sparked off a separatist war...now enlarged to a regional war.

You think anyone in DC is looking back on our foreign policy strategy and starting to ask questions?

Were coups and proxy wars the way to relate to Eastern Europe

---

Too bad it wasn't a coup and the "sepratists" were mostly RU soldiers, ex-cons, and FSB agents stirring up everything. But I'm sure you'll just keep on shilling that RU position.

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Russia invaded there too and have just now stopped pretending they weren't there leading everything.

---

So a coup in 2014 sparked off a separatist war...now enlarged to a regional war.

You think anyone in DC is looking back on our foreign policy strategy and starting to ask questions?

Were coups and proxy wars the way to relate to Eastern Europe

---

Too bad it wasn't a coup and the "sepratists" were mostly RU soldiers, ex-cons, and FSB agents stirring up everything. But I'm sure you'll just keep on shilling that RU position.

---

Certainly those separatists were given money and weapons by Moscow.

But the bulk of the fighting was done by the common ethnic russians of the eastern regions....who did not want to be under the rule of Kyiv.

VICE did some excellent videos on the conflict.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Of course they think they are justified! Invaders always do, Hitler and Napolean thought they were justified.

Let's be clear, this is not a war of independence fought on the homeland like the Revolutionary War or some revolution like the French Revolution, this is a neighboring Nation rolling 200k troops over a recognized border because they thought it was their right.

As for the "2014 US overthrow", where did Viktor Yanukovych go after he was ousted? In addition, Zelensky is the third President since then. You make it sound like Zelensky took over power, he was elected 4 years later.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Russia invaded there too and have just now stopped pretending they weren't there leading everything.

---

So a coup in 2014 sparked off a separatist war...now enlarged to a regional war.

You think anyone in DC is looking back on our foreign policy strategy and starting to ask questions?

Were coups and proxy wars the way to relate to Eastern Europe

---

Too bad it wasn't a coup and the "sepratists" were mostly RU soldiers, ex-cons, and FSB agents stirring up everything. But I'm sure you'll just keep on shilling that RU position.

---

Certainly those separatists were given money and weapons by Moscow.

But the bulk of the fighting was done by the common ethnic russians of the eastern regions....who did not want to be under the rule of Kyiv.

VICE did some excellent videos on the conflict.

---

They did at the time. Watched them all. Now they are outdated vids when it came to light there was a large influx of RU army units. It's also very recently showing up on the obits of dead Russian officers and soldiers these days.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Of course they think they are justified! Invaders always do, Hitler and Napolean thought they were justified.

Let's be clear, this is not a war of independence fought on the homeland like the Revolutionary War or some revolution like the French Revolution, this is a neighboring Nation rolling 200k troops over a recognized border because they thought it was their right.

As for the "2014 US overthrow", where did Viktor Yanukovych go after he was ousted? In addition, Zelensky is the third President since then. You make it sound like Zelensky took over power, he was elected 4 years later.

---

1. To the ethnic russians in Donbas it absolutely is a "war of independence"

You might not agree....but you are also not living there and fighting are you?

2. And of course DC rolled 200,000 troops into Iraq...you really think you're standing on high ground complaining about Moscow rolling 200,000 troops over a country next door?

We did it to a independent country 6,000 miles away.

And that got about 1 million Iraqis kiled in that conflict.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Of course they think they are justified! Invaders always do, Hitler and Napolean thought they were justified.

Let's be clear, this is not a war of independence fought on the homeland like the Revolutionary War or some revolution like the French Revolution, this is a neighboring Nation rolling 200k troops over a recognized border because they thought it was their right.

As for the "2014 US overthrow", where did Viktor Yanukovych go after he was ousted? In addition, Zelensky is the third President since then. You make it sound like Zelensky took over power, he was elected 4 years later.

---

1. To the ethnic russians in Donbas it absolutely is a "war of independence"

You might not agree....but you are also not living there and fighting are you?

2. And of course DC rolled 200,000 troops into Iraq...you really think you're standing on high ground complaining about Moscow rolling 200,000 troops over a country next door?

We did it to a independent country 6,000 miles away.

And that got about 1 million Iraqis kiled in that conflict.

---

It was a part of sovereign Ukriane that their beloved Russia GAVE to Ukraine because it was too much trouble. Just like someone not liking a Central American country, middle eastern OR the US, they were free to migrate to mother Russia (if Russia would have taken them since Russia spend millions moving them to Crimea and Donbas.)

Hey, I never said Iraq was a smart or right move. I was on Bush Sr's side (remember I am a NeoCon Haley backer) he knew once you got rid of Sadaam all hell would break lose. That was "W"'s thing, not mine. It was one of the things I disagreed with him (I was never a fan of "W" as President. Didn't like Cheney and couldn't stand Rumsfeld)

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Of course they think they are justified! Invaders always do, Hitler and Napolean thought they were justified.

Let's be clear, this is not a war of independence fought on the homeland like the Revolutionary War or some revolution like the French Revolution, this is a neighboring Nation rolling 200k troops over a recognized border because they thought it was their right.

As for the "2014 US overthrow", where did Viktor Yanukovych go after he was ousted? In addition, Zelensky is the third President since then. You make it sound like Zelensky took over power, he was elected 4 years later.

---

1. To the ethnic russians in Donbas it absolutely is a "war of independence"

You might not agree....but you are also not living there and fighting are you?

2. And of course DC rolled 200,000 troops into Iraq...you really think you're standing on high ground complaining about Moscow rolling 200,000 troops over a country next door?

We did it to a independent country 6,000 miles away.

And that got about 1 million Iraqis kiled in that conflict.

---

It was a part of sovereign Ukriane that their beloved Russia GAVE to Ukraine because it was too much trouble. Just like someone not liking a Central American country...

---

Russia did not exist as a sovereign nation until June of 1990

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

The borders of the old soviet republics (including transferring Crimea from Russia to Ukraine) were determined by a radical atheistic communist totalitarian party that dominated the USSR.


You seem to think that the Russian Federation of today is the same as Lenin's USSR


The modern Federal Republic of Germany is of course not Nazi Germany under Hitler.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Of course they think they are justified! Invaders always do, Hitler and Napolean thought they were justified.

Let's be clear, this is not a war of independence fought on the homeland like the Revolutionary War or some revolution like the French Revolution, this is a neighboring Nation rolling 200k troops over a recognized border because they thought it was their right.

As for the "2014 US overthrow", where did Viktor Yanukovych go after he was ousted? In addition, Zelensky is the third President since then. You make it sound like Zelensky took over power, he was elected 4 years later.

---

1. To the ethnic russians in Donbas it absolutely is a "war of independence"

You might not agree....but you are also not living there and fighting are you?

2. And of course DC rolled 200,000 troops into Iraq...you really think you're standing on high ground complaining about Moscow rolling 200,000 troops over a country next door?

We did it to a independent country 6,000 miles away.

And that got about 1 million Iraqis kiled in that conflict.

---

It was a part of sovereign Ukriane that their beloved Russia GAVE to Ukraine because it was too much trouble. Just like someone not liking a Central American country...

---

Russia did not exist as a sovereign nation until June of 1990

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

The borders of the old soviet republics (including transferring Crimea from Russia to Ukraine) were determined by a radical atheistic communist totalitarian party that dominated the USSR.


You seem to think that the Russian Federation of today is the same as Lenin's USSR


The modern Federal Republic of Germany is of course not Nazi Germany under Hitler.

---

You can really say that with a straight face? Russia is not the Soviet Union? in Russia's 33 year history Putin has been in control 21 years. The same KGB Officer that said the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century? Under Putin, it is pretty damn close to being the Supreme Soviet...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Of course they think they are justified! Invaders always do, Hitler and Napolean thought they were justified.

Let's be clear, this is not a war of independence fought on the homeland like the Revolutionary War or some revolution like the French Revolution, this is a neighboring Nation rolling 200k troops over a recognized border because they thought it was their right.

As for the "2014 US overthrow", where did Viktor Yanukovych go after he was ousted? In addition, Zelensky is the third President since then. You make it sound like Zelensky took over power, he was elected 4 years later.

---

1. To the ethnic russians in Donbas it absolutely is a "war of independence"

You might not agree....but you are also not living there and fighting are you?

2. And of course DC rolled 200,000 troops into Iraq...you really think you're standing on high ground complaining about Moscow rolling 200,000 troops over a country next door?

We did it to a independent country 6,000 miles away.

And that got about 1 million Iraqis kiled in that conflict.

---

It was a part of sovereign Ukriane that their beloved Russia GAVE to Ukraine because it was too much trouble. Just like someone not liking a Central American country...

---

Russia did not exist as a sovereign nation until June of 1990

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

The borders of the old soviet republics (including transferring Crimea from Russia to Ukraine) were determined by a radical atheistic communist totalitarian party that dominated the USSR.


You seem to think that the Russian Federation of today is the same as Lenin's USSR


The modern Federal Republic of Germany is of course not Nazi Germany under Hitler.

---

You can really say that with a straight face? Russia is not the Soviet Union? in Russia's 33 year history Putin has been in control 21 years.

---

https://www.cato.org/commentary/russia-not-soviet-union

[The bottom line is that Russia is a conventional, somewhat conservative, power, whereas the Soviet Union was a messianic, totalitarian power.

The American public and U.S. policymakers both have an unfortunate tendency to conflate Russia with the Soviet Union. That habit emerged again with the media and political reaction to the Helsinki summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin...]


The modern Russian Federation is most certainly NOT the old USSR.

Two completely different entities.

Now if you want to make an argument that the security services of the old USSR have heavy influence over the new Russian Federation...that is a different argument and one I might agree with.

The new FSB is in some ways just a rebranding of the old KGB....they even share the same old building/headquarters at Lubyanskaya Square

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

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

"Different rules for different people". The Democrats operate on that principle every day. Their Gestapo (FBI) & SS (antifa, BLM, etc) can do anything they like, break any law without consequence. Trump is being harassed constantly without having committed any crimes. The U.S. has become a banana republic under our fascist regime.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Of course they think they are justified! Invaders always do, Hitler and Napolean thought they were justified.

Let's be clear, this is not a war of independence fought on the homeland like the Revolutionary War or some revolution like the French Revolution, this is a neighboring Nation rolling 200k troops over a recognized border because they thought it was their right.

As for the "2014 US overthrow", where did Viktor Yanukovych go after he was ousted? In addition, Zelensky is the third President since then. You make it sound like Zelensky took over power, he was elected 4 years later.

---

1. To the ethnic russians in Donbas it absolutely is a "war of independence"

You might not agree....but you are also not living there and fighting are you?

2. And of course DC rolled 200,000 troops into Iraq...you really think you're standing on high ground complaining about Moscow rolling 200,000 troops over a country next door?

We did it to a independent country 6,000 miles away.

And that got about 1 million Iraqis kiled in that conflict.

---

It was a part of sovereign Ukriane that their beloved Russia GAVE to Ukraine because it was too much trouble. Just like someone not liking a Central American country...

---

Russia did not exist as a sovereign nation until June of 1990

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

The borders of the old soviet republics (including transferring Crimea from Russia to Ukraine) were determined by a radical atheistic communist totalitarian party that dominated the USSR.


You seem to think that the Russian Federation of today is the same as Lenin's USSR


The modern Federal Republic of Germany is of course not Nazi Germany under Hitler.

---

Russia as a sovereign nation did not exist until 1990 in its current form. There has been a sovereign Russian state continually for centuries: Muscovy, the Tsars, the Soviet Union, & now the current Russian Federation. The current nation is the culmination of all the previous ones. And if you think the current nation is radically different than its immediate predecessor you should remember that Vladimir Putin was a KGB officer under that regime. There are too many similarities for us to be complacent or very comfortable.

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You may have misunderstood my question. Aiding a new junta is analogous to what we did in Ukraine, so that's not the issue. It was Russia's intervention, or our hypothetical intervention in a NATO country, that would be a violation according to your reasoning.

Simply put, if we can accomplish regime change by unconventional means, we expect Russia to take it and like it. Apparently that's how things work under the "rules-based order." Why shouldn't they expect the same from us, or are there different rules for different people?

---

THERE IS NO WAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T INVADE. There is no reason for Russia to invade.

---

There had already been a war in the Donbas since April of 2014

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


Let's just be clear and admit that YOU don't think Russia had reason to invade.....the Russians have told you 100 times their reasons for intervention and certainly think they are justified.

---

Of course they think they are justified! Invaders always do, Hitler and Napolean thought they were justified.

Let's be clear, this is not a war of independence fought on the homeland like the Revolutionary War or some revolution like the French Revolution, this is a neighboring Nation rolling 200k troops over a recognized border because they thought it was their right.

As for the "2014 US overthrow", where did Viktor Yanukovych go after he was ousted? In addition, Zelensky is the third President since then. You make it sound like Zelensky took over power, he was elected 4 years later.

---

1. To the ethnic russians in Donbas it absolutely is a "war of independence"

You might not agree....but you are also not living there and fighting are you?

2. And of course DC rolled 200,000 troops into Iraq...you really think you're standing on high ground complaining about Moscow rolling 200,000 troops over a country next door?

We did it to a independent country 6,000 miles away.

And that got about 1 million Iraqis kiled in that conflict.

---

It was a part of sovereign Ukriane that their beloved Russia GAVE to Ukraine because it was too much trouble. Just like someone not liking a Central American country...

---

Russia did not exist as a sovereign nation until June of 1990

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

The borders of the old soviet republics (including transferring Crimea from Russia to Ukraine) were determined by a radical atheistic communist totalitarian party that dominated the USSR.


You seem to think that the Russian Federation of today is the same as Lenin's USSR


The modern Federal Republic of Germany is of course not Nazi Germany under Hitler.

---

Russia as a sovereign nation did not exist until 1990 in its current form. There has been a sovereign Russian state continually for centuries: Muscovy, the Tsars, the Soviet Union, & now the current Russian Federation. The current nation is the culmination of all the previous ones. And if you think the current nation is radically different than its immediate predecessor you should remember that Vladimir Putin was a KGB officer under that regime. There are too many similarities for us to be complacent or very comfortable.

---

There has been a French state since the Franks crossed the Rhine going west.

You don't think there was a significant difference between the Royal France of Louis IVX and the jacobin terror state of Maximilien Robespierre?


Or the later French Empire under Napoleon?

Or the late French republics?

2nd French Empire?

Including Vichy France?


All of them just France?

Lots of similarities & lots of differences. That's not the point, though. It was a question of the existence of a sovereign state, not any particulars about it. France, England, & Russia are all the same in the sense of being that, a sovereign state, for several centuries. Each had multiple changes in government, periods of instability & violence, and revolutions or civil war. Germany & Italy, in contrast, are only 150 years old (established in the 1860s & 70s) and yet each has been through quite a few serious upheavals & dramatic changes in government.

On a side note, you left out a few details of French history:

an absolute monarchy (in theory) under Louis XVI
a constitutional monarchy
the First Republic
a dictatorship under the Committee of Public Safety
a dictatorship under the Directory
a dictatorship under Napoleon
an empire under Napoleon
a constitutional monarchy under Louis XVIII & Charles X
a different constitutional monarchy under Louis Philippe after the Revolution of 1830
the Second Republic after the Revolution of 1848
the Second Empire under Napoleon III after a coup
the Third Republic after losing the Franco-Prussian War
Nazi occupation & the collaborationist Vichy regime
the Fourth Republic after WWII
the Fifth Republic after DeGaulle insisted they needed a new constitution

This is all since 1789, the year America's current government began under the constitution & Pres. George Washington.

I always found the drama & chaos in French political history to be fascinating.

historian said:

---

On a side note, you left out a few details of French history:

an absolute monarchy (in theory) under Louis XVI
a constitutional monarchy
the First Republic
a dictatorship under the Committee of Public Safety
a dictatorship under the Directory
a dictatorship under Napoleon
an empire under Napoleon
a constitutional monarchy under Louis XVIII & Charles X
a different constitutional monarchy under Louis Philippe after the Revolution of 1830
the Second Republic after the Revolution of 1848
the Second Empire under Napoleon III after a coup
the Third Republic after losing the Franco-Prussian War
Nazi occupation & the collaborationist Vichy regime
the Fourth Republic after WWII
the Fifth Republic after DeGaulle insisted they needed a new constitution

This is all since 1789, the year America's current government began under the constitution & Pres. George Washington.

---

I didn't know we wanted to go deep into all of them.

Needless to say the Revolutionary France of the 1st Republic and Napoleon's Empire had an ideological aim to spread the ideals of the Revolution throughout Europe.


The USSR of the communists was similar in that revolutionary ideological drive.


The 3rd French Republic or the 4th French Republic of Charles de Gaulle was a different kind of animal.

Putinist Russia is just as different from the old communist empire of the USSR