Several things disgust me this week (and it's only Tuesday)

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... When Trump was on - He knew how to handle Putin.
#### Salty

Yes, he did...on his knees and mouth open!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Yes, he did...on his knees and mouth open!

if you say so

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

You wrecked your own argument. You called Putin a "murdering [goul]" and he wants no NATO for Ukraine. NATO is for self defense and that is the way it has always been used.



Let's see, we invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya to some extent all under the umbrella of our "national interest" and we are surprised that Putin has a "national interest" in not seeing their 'enemy" on their border? You want to seriously make the argument that invading Iraq with our NATO allies, was in our national interest?

Your comparison so China/Mexico/Canada...we're not "murdering ghouls" and XI is so it is not an apt comparison.


So you say. It is an exact comparison in the opinion of many


I wish that sanctions had been put in place sooner but I believe is too late to back off Putin.



So not letting Ukraine join NATO is backing off Putin if he says his only interest in Eastern Ukraine is not seeing NATO forces train there? Sounds like you believe if we had put those severe sanctions on Putin in 2014, things might have been different. Why wouldn't that be the same today?



He sees an opportunity. As much as I hate the idea, putting American (and other countries) troops in the line of fire might dissuade Putin from moving forward without giving it some more thought. If Putin moves, I'm pretty sure that China will move. There has even been talk of Pakistan moving on India and, coincidentally, one of India's top generals was just killed.
If we folded our hand and told Putin and China to take what they want, I'm sure that they will both take the win.
The hard part is to get Putin to believe that we are serious about going to war to protect another country whether we are or not. With Milley running around looking for white supremacy instead of looking overseas, it doesn't look good.
If they both take what they want, history will show that this is truly the time that the United States went into decline.

Just heard some Republican, can't remember his name, say that nuclear missiles to defend Ukraine, are not off the table. So we are going to take the chance of plunging the entire world into nuclear war so that Putin doesn't take eastern Ukraine? Have we learned nothing from these stupid military incursions?


And you want to talk about the US going into decline? Think using nukes on Russia and Russia using nukes on us won't put us in decline? If we can't get our allies to join us in dissuading Russia and China with sanctions, we have already lost this battle.


And how many soldiers lost in this war that all the Generals are saying ( the honest ones ) we can't possibly win any more than we could win a war with China over Taiwan which 12 practice war games all said we couldn't win.



Got any idea how many tanks we would have to move into Ukraine to win a land war against an adversary with more tanks than we have? If they throw 175,000 troops at Ukraine, are we going to more than match that number to even have a chance of winning?

According to Globalfirepower.com, Russia’s 12,000-strong fleet of tanks is twice that of the U.S. 6,000 tanks, raising an interesting question about the prospects of a lengthy ground war.

No, the American people having just got out of two of the longest wars in our history, will not support this action. I'd bet my life on it.

https://thehill.com/opinion/internat...ion-of-ukraine


The problem is that there is no commitment that the U.S. can credibly make to Kyiv that will raise the costs of invasion to the point where Russia will back off. Moscow’s interests in Ukraine are effectively existential. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia’s leaders came to believe that the eastward expansion of NATO posed a serious security threat to the Russian state.
Moreover, Moscow came to view the eastward expansion of the EU as a threat to its vision of a post-Soviet economic space — a Eurasian Economic Union centered on Russia but including other former Soviet republics in Europe as well. As a result, they sought assurances that Ukraine in particular would be incorporated into neither NATO nor the EU.


But such assurances as were forthcoming were hollow. NATO was ultimately expanded eastward to include not merely former Warsaw Pact countries such as Poland and Hungary but also the former Soviet republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Similarly, the EU came to include several eastern European countries that had formerly been in Moscow’s political and economic orbit.


Faced with this, and the prospect that the process would continue right up to Russia’s doorstep, Moscow drew a bright red line on the map: NATO and the EU could not be allowed to expand beyond Ukraine’s western border. Efforts to expand either manifestation of “the West” beyond this line would be considered a threat to Russia’s core national security interests and treated as a casus belli, an act justifying war.
And so, when it seemed as if that warning would not be heeded and Ukraine might enter into an Association Agreement with the EU, Russia struck out, first invading Crimea in 2014 then intervening in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Moscow’s goal both times was nothing more or less than preventing Ukraine from falling further into the Western orbit or, failing that, to carve out a buffer zone along Russia’s western frontier.



Having acted once before, there is no reason to believe that Moscow would not take military action again if it felt that the situation on that frontier were deteriorating once again. For Russia, the stakes are existential — Ukraine must be kept from becoming part of the West or Russia’s very existence will be threatened. As far as we can reasonably infer from its words and actions, Moscow is therefore willing to tolerate and risk war – even war with the U.S. – over Ukraine in a way that it wouldn’t over any other territory on its periphery. Simply put, if Russia is to be deterred from attacking Ukraine, the costs of such an attack would have to be made very high indeed.


And there is no way that the U.S. will impose such costs. To be sure, Washington may threaten economic sanctions and various acts of political censure in response to a Russian attack on Ukraine. But Russia has endured such costs since its annexation of Crimea and has learned to live with them. The U.S. may be able to impose an additional modicum of economic pain on Russia. But given Moscow’s resolve in this matter, such an incremental increase in economic suffering is hardly likely to prove decisive.


That leaves the military costs. In order to deter Moscow, the U.S. must have the military capability to defeat Russia swiftly and decisively and the political resolve to do so. Despite the persistent myth of Russian military decline, however, it is not clear that U.S. forces would be able to win a swift and decisive victory in Ukraine. The Russian military is a well-equipped, experienced combat force with a proven ability to fight conventional and hybrid wars. No one doubts that, at a minimum, it could inflict substantial casualties on the U.S military should it enter the conflict. It might even emerge victorious.


And such a conflict would be complicated by geography. Given the proximity of Russia to the likely theater of conflict, it would be impossible for the United States to prevail without suppressing Russian missiles and other assets positioned in Russia. As any such efforts might be mistaken for a first-strike intended to degrade Moscow’s nuclear deterrent (and in any case would be considered an attack on the homeland), the prospects for escalation to nuclear war cannot be discounted.


Similarly, if Moscow felt itself on the verge of defeat in a conflict considered existential, it might resort, in extemis, to the use of nuclear weapons. Either way, the risks of escalation to nuclear war are real.

Washington, of course, might well run such risks in a confrontation where its core security interests were at stake. But no such interests are at stake in Ukraine. A neutralized Kyiv – or even one firmly in Russia’s geopolitical orbit – poses no threat to American prosperity, security or freedom. Indeed, to the extent that it addressed Russian insecurities, such an outcome might actually reduce tensions between the two powers.


In sum, Russian resolve to neutralize Ukraine – by military means if necessary – will always exceed Washington’s resolve to secure Ukraine. This means that the U.S. can’t deter Russia. And that in turn means that the Biden administration would be well advised to stop making promises it can’t keep to Kyiv, to accept that Ukraine will never be fully incorporated into the West and to be a little more restrained in its geopolitical aspirations in a part of the world that is simply not of great importance to U.S. national security.


Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn. and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

As if the insurrection wasn't enough to say that was "truly the time the United States went into decline."

I think Milley is tending his own garden there. Sir.

Voltaire and Candide Background

https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/candide/context/

And it's only Wednesday.

impish rouge-smith!

[HedonistForever]

How many dead Americans are worth preserving the so called "democracy" of eastern Ukraine"? Where Russia already has a lot of support? Not one I say.

[NoirMan]

Then we are ok with authoritarians the world over expanding their influence? China into Taiwan and further expansion into the Pacific.

Ok, engaging Russian and China may not be in our immediate best interest. But it will be not soon after. If these countries can expand without repercussions they will expand again because it’s in their interest to do so.

I’ve not read up on Russo-Ukrainian geopolitics in some time but if I recall, part of the reason Ukraine I’d vulnerable to Russia is that we had them demilitarize and give up their nuclear arsenal. Were that not the case, Ukraine would be in a much better position to defend themselves. Or at least prove a deterrent to Russia.

US blood and treasure are our most valuable resource. Unfortunately, allowing China to take more of Asia and Russia to take more of Eastern Europe would likely be near impossible for us fix later.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

I must have missed that insurrection that you spoke of but think about this; what if the world or one strong power had stood up to Hitler when he went after Czechoslovakia. France had a bigger army than Hitler did but it's true, they didn't want to fight, so what happened? They had to fight for their lives and lost to Hitler two years later. Ask them if it was worth it. Maybe you don't want to fight right now but you have to make the other guy think that you are willing and able to do so. I'm sure that Russia doesn't want to fight since they only put 180,000 on the border. If they were willing to go balls to the walls, then they would have put 500,000 on the border. Like in poker, go all in and run everyone off the table.
Taiwan is more strategically important to the world than Ukraine is with their electronic chip industry. Losing Taiwan to the Chinese would, in may ways, cripple our auto industry, technological development, and our military. We need to give Taiwan the ability to strike back at mainland China hard as a means of self defense.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

Then we are ok with authoritarians the world over expanding their influence.


China into Taiwan and further expansion into the Pacific.



No, I'm not. Maybe you missed the part I wrote about really crippling sanctions not nibbling around the edges, I'm talking about kicking them out of the West's banking system, "no credit for you". I'm saying that we must exhaust ALL economic solutions before we decide to go to war, a military war that we can not win. And what if we did WIN a war with Russia or should I say it looked like we were going to defeat Russia on the battle field and Russia decides if they are going to be defeated and "enslaved" ( I'm sure that's what Putin would tell his people ) what might Russia do? Go out with a bang? There simply is no winning a military conflict with Russia or China. The sooner we and our allies come to terms with that idea, the better off we'll be.


Ok, engaging Russian and China may not be in our immediate best interest.



Engaging in a military conflict with either will never be in our best interest. It's hard to believe that anybody could believe that. Hell, we couldn't beat a rag tag group of men living in the 14th century and we are going to defeat Russia and China? Please.


But it will be not soon after. If these countries can expand without repercussions they will expand again because it’s in their interest to do so.


In the words of Ronald Reagan "there he goes again". Nobody is saying there shouldn't be any repercussions, a price to pay, but military conflict is not the answer.


I’ve not read up on Russo-Ukrainian geopolitics in some time but if I recall, part of the reason Ukraine I’d vulnerable to Russia is that we had them demilitarize and give up their nuclear arsenal. Were that not the case, Ukraine would be in a much better position to defend themselves. Or at least prove a deterrent to Russia.

US blood and treasure are our most valuable resource.


If that were true, we wouldn't have stayed in Afghanistan for 20 years and would never have gone into Iraq. For some politicians, US blood and treasure comes in second to whatever drove us to lose so much blood and treasure in the last couple of decades.


Unfortunately, allowing China to take more of Asia and Russia to take more of Eastern Europe would likely be near impossible for us fix later.

We seem to have "adjusted" to losing Crimea and Hong Kong. Granted it takes believing what Putin is saying, which is hardly ever a good thing but what Putin is asking for is for the West not to allow Ukraine into NATO guaranteeing the Wests military response. So we say that Ukraine will get military assistance but no NATO or American boots on the ground for training and Putin pulls back. Would that be so hard to swallow if that is really what he wants and if he breaks that promise, then we can all die on that hill. Putin says he wants a buffer on his border. I say take him at his word until he proves other wise.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I must have missed that insurrection that you spoke of but think about this; what if the world or one strong power had stood up to Hitler when he went after Czechoslovakia. France had a bigger army than Hitler did but it's true, they didn't want to fight, so what happened? They had to fight for their lives and lost to Hitler two years later. Ask them if it was worth it. Maybe you don't want to fight right now but you have to make the other guy think that you are willing and able to do so. I'm sure that Russia doesn't want to fight since they only put 180,000 on the border. If they were willing to go balls to the walls, then they would have put 500,000 on the border. Like in poker, go all in and run everyone off the table.
Taiwan is more strategically important to the world than Ukraine is with their electronic chip industry. Losing Taiwan to the Chinese would, in may ways, cripple our auto industry, technological development, and our military. We need to give Taiwan the ability to strike back at mainland China hard as a means of self defense.

Agree and we need to do the same with Ukraine but no American boots on the ground, period.