Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[DirkDiggler]

13 hours ago, Prozac said:

I’m sure a lot of us will be watching in fascinated horror if this thing turns hot. As interesting as it would be, I wouldn’t wish that kind of hell on the Ukrainian population, their service members, or anyone really (including the poor Russian grunts who will be digging foxholes in the Chernobyl contaminated zone). I hope the only concrete takeaway is how to de-escalate a potential modern conflict of developed nations. 

I would agree with most of what you wrote above with the following exception.  If the Russian Federation (really Putin) decides to go high order with an invasion of the Ukraine, I sincerely hope that the Ukrainians stack up as many Russian bodies as they possibly can before they're either overrun or are forced into some shitty settlement.  And I don't care if some Russian private inhales radioactive dust and gets cancer 20 years from now due to a completely avoidable nuclear disaster and war of their own choosing. 

[hockeydork]

13 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

I would agree with most of what you wrote above with the following exception.  If the Russian Federation (really Putin) decides to go high order with an invasion of the Ukraine, I sincerely hope that the Ukrainians stack up as many Russian bodies as they possibly can before they're either overrun or are forced into some shitty settlement.  And I don't care if some Russian private inhales radioactive dust and gets cancer 20 years from now due to a completely avoidable nuclear disaster and war of their own choosing. 

We wasted time on diplomatic solutions that were never gunna happen. He already took part of the country a few years ago, how can anybody not see that he ain't leaving without more of it? What people fail to understand, is that there is no reasoning/logic when it comes to dealing with individuals who mentally have departed orbit and are hell bent on their own narcissistic self-fulfillment. War IS bad and should ALWAYS be avoided, but as civilized as humanity may become, underneath it we're all still animals. And every once in awhile you get an animal with killer predator instincts (Putin) who ends up in charge of a metric f*ck ton of tanks, artillery and surface to air missiles, and who wants to go bully the shit out of a little democracy and crush it because it feels good. Ukraine should have been flooded with defensive weapons, instead he's got Europe by the balls with his natural gas so they're to puss to do anything. And we sent 200 million of weapons, when it should have been 2 billion. It's like trying to reason with the serial killer as he tapes your hands to put you in the trunk of a car. You don't reason, you bite his damn ear off first chance you get.

 

I'm with you. I am an incredibly empathetic person, think war is terrible, but if this goes down I hope Russian casualties are high enough that maybe somebody turns on him/the Russian people say WTF. This is another free world vs non free world battle. Hard for me to have empathy for the other side when it comes to the principle that is being fought over. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by hockeydork

[FLEA]

18 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

We wasted time on diplomatic solutions that were never gunna happen. He already took part of the country a few years ago, how can anybody not see that he ain't leaving without more of it? What people fail to understand, is that there is no reasoning/logic when it comes to dealing with individuals who mentally have departed orbit and are hell bent on their own narcissistic self-fulfillment. War IS bad and should ALWAYS be avoided, but as civilized as humanity may become, underneath it we're all still animals. And every once in awhile you get an animal with killer predator instincts (Putin) who ends up in charge of a metric f*ck ton of tanks, artillery and surface to air missiles, and who wants to go bully the shit out of a little democracy and crush it because it feels good. Ukraine should have been flooded with defensive weapons, instead he's got Europe by the balls with his natural gas so they're to puss to do anything. And we sent 200 million of weapons, when it should have been 2 billion. It's like trying to reason with the serial killer as he tapes your hands to put you in the trunk of a car. You don't reason, you bite his damn ear off first chance you get.

 

I'm with you. I am an incredibly empathetic person, think war is terrible, but if this goes down I hope Russian casualties are high enough that maybe somebody turns on him/the Russian people say WTF. This is another free world vs non free world battle. Hard for me to have empathy for the other side when it comes to the principle that is being fought over. 

Honestly, I think dealing with Russia is more nuanced than that. One of the things I've heard talked about among senior staff is its not enough to beat Russia or win against Russia. Victory for the US requires coming to a mutual win for Russia and the US. What they're getting at is that the only thing more dangerous than a strong and aggressive Russia is a weak and timid Russia, and it will always be that way so long as they own stockpiles of thousands of nuclear weapons (that likely wont go anywhere). The US strategy with Russia is to keep them regionally influential but deny ambitions to become globally influential. This is really a thin line to tow and requires a good compromise of firmness followed by appeasement. 

[hockeydork]

32 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Honestly, I think dealing with Russia is more nuanced than that. One of the things I've heard talked about among senior staff is its not enough to beat Russia or win against Russia. Victory for the US requires coming to a mutual win for Russia and the US. What they're getting at is that the only thing more dangerous than a strong and aggressive Russia is a weak and timid Russia, and it will always be that way so long as they own stockpiles of thousands of nuclear weapons (that likely wont go anywhere). The US strategy with Russia is to keep them regionally influential but deny ambitions to become globally influential. This is really a thin line to tow and requires a good compromise of firmness followed by appeasement. 

That all makes sense. Like anybody else Putin cannot escape the clock, his time will end eventually. The question is once he's gone, will a clone just replace him? Or will the Russian people want to evolve into the modern way of doing things? Why should Ukrainians be subjected to another 100 years of  Russia's fake democracy way of doing things just because Russia has a Nuke button. Plenty of other people have the Nuke button, they know that is a card they themselves don't want to play.

I am not advocating for antagonizing him, or to put our forces on his border with Ukraine. Just advocating for a very strong defensive Ukrainian response to any incursion into their territory. I think they have a right to defend their airspace as well. If Putin wants regional influence he should try doing it through amicable means.

Its amazing how many kids will want to play with you at the playground if you stop throwing rocks at them. 

[BashiChuni]

I say let Ukraine stand on their own and see what happens. Not our war or our interest. 

[FLEA]

22 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

I say let Ukraine stand on their own and see what happens. Not our war or our interest. 

Only two days ago I had the feeling that France and the UK were close to brokering a peace in secret where Ukraine would publicly withdrawal interest from NATO indefinitely and succeed the contested territories. But now it doesn't seem so sure. (That's all just speculation based on what's being said publicly and what's not, no data to back any of it) 

Edited February 17, 2022 by FLEA

[Clark Griswold]

Another worthwhile pod from Angry Planet on Ukraine

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/angry-planet/id1023774600?i=1000551080666


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danger41]

Can we get involved because all this non-deploying, at home shit is super boring.

[ClearedHot]

5 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

I say let Ukraine stand on their own and see what happens. Not our war or our interest. 

I am not saying I disagree with you but what does that say overall about the United States.  When the FSU fell apart we convinced Ukraine to give up their nukes (which most certainly would have deterred Putin), in hopes of providing more stability.  In convincing them to give up the nukes we made assurances with regard to their security.

A few months ago we sent a strong message to the world about our resolve when we left Afghanistan and screwed all those who helped us for so many years.  If we stand by and watch Russia take Ukraine what does that say about us?  Horrible game to be playing.

[Blue]

Some insight on the Ukraine situation I haven't seen elsewhere, from Karl Denninger's Market Ticker blog.  Highlights below.

In 1994 we signed the Budapest Memorandum in which we committed to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.  Russia signed it as well.  But that agreement was broken -- by Ukraine itself when they threatened to cut off a key Russian 12-month deep-water port, a critical naval asset.  We could no more expect Russia to sit for that than we would be expected to sit for San Diego and Newport News being encompassed in a seceding set of States in the US.

But let's cut the crap on any claim that we did not "interfere"; we most-certainly did.  Indeed John McCain, a sitting US Senator, traveled to the Ukraine during Maiden Square and he met with the opposition leaders, including appearing on stage during a rally!  It didn't end there; Obama's administration actively worked with the opposition to agree on successors to the elected Ukraine government, essentially attempting to install a US-chosen government.

Oh, by the way, the name of one of the people to do said leading?

Then Vice-President Biden.

[Bigred]

41 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Can we get involved because all this non-deploying, at home shit is super boring.

 

[Dirty Herky]

2 hours ago, Bigred said:

 

 

Coming up on a decade old but....

https://www.duffelblog.com/p/ukraine-invades-russia?utm_source=url

[BashiChuni]

7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I am not saying I disagree with you but what does that say overall about the United States.  When the FSU fell apart we convinced Ukraine to give up their nukes (which most certainly would have deterred Putin), in hopes of providing more stability.  In convincing them to give up the nukes we made assurances with regard to their security.

A few months ago we sent a strong message to the world about our resolve when we left Afghanistan and screwed all those who helped us for so many years.  If we stand by and watch Russia take Ukraine what does that say about us?  Horrible game to be playing.

You know exactly what it says. So do I. But that’s the state of who is in the WH I’m afraid. Everyone on the planet will call the 79 year olds bluff. 

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

 If we stand by and watch Russia take Ukraine what does that say about us?  

That we are unworthy of being the leader of the supposedly free and advanced world.  Not sure there is one if we do nothing if an invasion occurs and we navel gaze.  Goodbye post WW2 world order, goodbye Pax Americana world order.

That's not a call to aggression or trying to humiliate Russia in this situation, I think the public comments for years on Ukraine joining NATO have been unhelpful but we have stupidly over decades painted ourselves into a corner by setting ourselves up for an inevitable conflict with Russia as they feel threatened (the "they" being the authoritarian government in power at whatever time in Moscow) by the expansion of security, political and economic organizations that would undermine said authoritarian government in Moscow.

Unless you are willing to risk disaster in poking the bear, then don't poke the bear.  Our "leaders" want to chastise Russia, expand alliances to their near abroad and former/current client states but then balk and dismiss at actually risking and sacrificing to execute this strategy.  If the Neo-cons and Interventionists were real about this they would look back at what we did after WW2 to prevent a fait accompli of the Soviets/Communists taking over Europe.  We put 5% of our GDP into the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and get the democracies back on their feet, we spent the money, kept West Berlin from falling and here's the line no further and we will bear any burden and pay any cost.  That's 180 out from where we are now.

FWIW I've argued here for supporting Ukraine to resist Russia if she invades them, I hope that doesn't happen but what I really want is for us to get our shit together and realize this is a new Cold War, we can't trade with our enemies and let them economically prosper because that funds their aggression against us and our allies and that engagement really doesn't change them but isolation can weaken or topple them.  Rant complete.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Clark Griswold

[BashiChuni]

was the post WW2 pax americana really all that great?

korea, vietnam, iran, panama, GW1, bosnia, GWOT etc...

seems to me we kept putting our pecker where it didn't belong. not too many great things to show from any of those places.

maybe we need to sit some out

[MCO]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

was the post WW2 pax americana really all that great?

korea, vietnam, iran, panama, GW1, bosnia, GWOT etc...

seems to me we kept putting our pecker where it didn't belong. not too many great things to show from any of those places.

maybe we need to sit some out

Good points. There also hasn’t been a WWIII and war casualties worldwide have been relatively minimal post 1945 compared to pre 1945.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

was the post WW2 pax americana really all that great?

korea, vietnam, iran, panama, GW1, bosnia, GWOT etc...

seems to me we kept putting our pecker where it didn't belong. not too many great things to show from any of those places.

maybe we need to sit some out

Yeah, it's been fucking incredible for nearly every demographic compared to any other period in history. 

 

Seriously.

[ClearedHot]

5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah, it's been fucking incredible for nearly every demographic compared to any other period in history. 

Seriously.

100%

Not to derail the thread but the post WWII period is one of the "safest" in human history.  The video below illustrates the staggering impact of World War.  We tend to view things through our "USA" lens, if you take a slightly more worldly view you can see some horrific things that happen when there are world wars.  One small example, when Japan invaded China in WWII the Chinese Nationalist opened the dike at the Yellow River hoping it would slow the advance of the Japanese Army.  In doing so they knowingly sacrificed 500,000 Chinese civilians.  Yes there has been chaos and conflict and the news instantaneously beams it to our homes, but in relation to times past, the post WWII world order has been very favorable to the human race.

 

[Prozac]

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

was the post WW2 pax americana really all that great?

korea, vietnam, iran, panama, GW1, bosnia, GWOT etc...

seems to me we kept putting our pecker where it didn't belong. not too many great things to show from any of those places.

maybe we need to sit some out

This is what happens when we have generations of people who have experienced nothing but a long period of relative peace, which is historically not the MO of the human race. The U.S. is certainly far from perfect, but under our post WWII leadership, the world has most certainly become a better place. Abdicating our position will give countries like China and Russia far greater influence worldwide. Do you think a world order led by China would be better or worse for the world than a U.S. led one? Not trying to pick on you personally & I understand the point you’re trying to make, but this kind of attitude is part of what I’m talking about when I argue that our education system is failing. 

[BashiChuni]

i understand what you're saying as well, however this "domino theory" seems to have done more harm than good. our own founding fathers warned us to not get involved in European alliances and conflicts.

our education system is certainly failing, but this aint it my friend.

the globalists who run this country love being involved in over 150+ other countries. i argue that our national security is not enhanced by being in 99% of them.

[Prozac]

10 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

i understand what you're saying as well, however this "domino theory" seems to have done more harm than good. our own founding fathers warned us to not get involved in European alliances and conflicts.

our education system is certainly failing, but this aint it my friend.

the globalists who run this country love being involved in over 150+ other countries. i argue that our national security is not enhanced by being in 99% of them.

I think it’s quite the opposite. A rising tide lifts all boats. We have a vested interest in the security and prosperity of virtually every country on the globe. Why? Because less war, famine, poverty, etc creates reliable, stable global partners which is a good thing from economic, security, and moral perspectives (to name a few) for every citizen of the United States. 

[FLEA]

11 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I think it’s quite the opposite. A rising tide lifts all boats. We have a vested interest in the security and prosperity of virtually every country on the globe. Why? Because less war, famine, poverty, etc creates reliable, stable global partners which is a good thing from economic, security, and moral perspectives (to name a few) for every citizen of the United States. 

I think you give too much credit to the US for it's role in world peace. Let's not forget about nuclear weapons making war too costly, globalism, capitalism, decline of monarchies and mercantilism, rise in telecommunications making the cost of war more visible to civilians. There's a lot to attribute to peace. 3000 years ago tyrant kings would cross an ocean because some dude on the other side stole his bottom bitched and walled her in a city. Today you need some moral justification for war even if you're a dictator. 

[Prozac]

22 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I think you give too much credit to the US for it's role in world peace. Let's not forget about nuclear weapons making war too costly, globalism, capitalism, decline of monarchies and mercantilism, rise in telecommunications making the cost of war more visible to civilians. There's a lot to attribute to peace. 3000 years ago tyrant kings would cross an ocean because some dude on the other side stole his bottom bitched and walled her in a city. Today you need some moral justification for war even if you're a dictator. 

It's interesting that you think I give our country too much credit yet literally every single example you give originated here.  We are an exceptional society in human history, even with our many faults.  Don't sell your country short.

[nsplayr]

37 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I think you give too much credit to the US for it's role in world peace. Let's not forget about nuclear weapons making war too costly, globalism, capitalism, decline of monarchies and mercantilism, rise in telecommunications making the cost of war more visible to civilians.

🤣 who exactly do you think led the way on nuclear weapons, globalized capitalism, the decline of monarchies and the rise of telecommunications??

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

I think it’s quite the opposite. A rising tide lifts all boats. We have a vested interest in the security and prosperity of virtually every country on the globe. Why? Because less war, famine, poverty, etc creates reliable, stable global partners which is a good thing from economic, security, and moral perspectives (to name a few) for every citizen of the United States. 

this is exactly the viewpoint of the globalists. i do not believe we have a vested interest in virtually every country on the globe. we might have to agree to disagree.

point taken that global peace and prosperity is a good thing for most humans though.