Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[hockeydork]

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

Would you blame the French for that? 

No, but I respect them for stepping up as opposed to letting us fight the biritsh with sticks in our underwear.

[brickhistory]

8 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

... fight the biritsh with sticks in our underwear.

Interesting Slavic phrase...

[pawnman]

31 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Looks like the Ukrainians have been able to shoot down some helos and jets as well with the MANPADs. Awful, suffering on both sides.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I hope we see more blasted BTRs and helos in the next few days. 

[hockeydork]

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Would you blame the French for that? 

I don’t know Lloyd, the French are assholes.

[Lord Ratner]

23 hours ago, FLEA said:

But that's not how Putin, or anyone in Russian governance sees it. And they continue to see NATO aggressively because NATO refuses to accept olive branches. 

It doesn't matter that you know NATO is a defensive organization. Russia doesn't and they aren't privy to the insider baseball that would make them think that way. 

They fully know it. It's just incompatible with their desire for empire building. The Russian/Chinese conception of world affairs is incompatible with the West. Either they adapt, or there will be war. My bet is the latter. But the longer we navel gaze, as you are doing, the longer they have to prepare for the fight.

 

This is the epitome of "don't dress like a slut if you don't want to be raped." 

 

Does that mean we strike first? No. But it does mean we don't allow for any trade or economic interaction with countries that won't follow the rules, and we definitely put our full economic weight behind innocent countries (West aligned) that are attacked. We have, and continue to finance our enemies.

22 hours ago, FLEA said:

Because your actual truth is not the actual truth either Prozac, its your perceived truth as well. 

And its not about giving a dictator what he wants, its about understanding and addressing his security concerns without escalating conflict. Just because a foreign government has an autocrat, does not mean there can't be trust or cooperation. We've done it with other autocrats, why are we so resistant to do it with Russia? I'm not saying make Russia the next South Korea (autocratic government until the late 80s) but I am saying when their head of state says he is concerned about infringement on his country's sovereignty, why do we dismiss that as a non issue? 

You're dangerously close to relativism here, and relativism is always a losing philosophy, both in geopolitical outcomes and in general. There *is* a right and wrong. 

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

Academics won WW2. Yes, Academics. Turing, Einstein, etc.... Academics and industry. Get something straight, US military never won a war. US industry backed by academia won every one from the 20th century on. 

This is wildly illogical. America won the war. Turing and Einstein wouldn't have gotten much done without Patton and Macarthur, who wouldn't have gotten much done without Ford and Kaiser.

Only an academic with major insecurities (i.e., academics) would make such an absurd claim.

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-agreement-expected-european-diplomat

 

Another tie-in to how a failure to attempt diplomacy complicates things. 

Did anyone stop to think for a second that we might need Russia's cooperation to secure other interests? 

You have to be pants-on-head stupid to think we are going to negotiate Iran out of nukes. But you also thought we would be able to negotiate Russia and Putin out of imperialistic ambitions, so I guess that's consistent.

 

The parallels between the appeasement of Hitler and the appeasement of Putin are getting clearer by the day. I fear the progression of conflict will follow a similar path. If not with Russia, assuredly with China.

 

How do you appease a regime that identifies your downfall as a precondition to their success?

[FLEA]

11 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

They fully know it. It's just incompatible with their desire for empire building. The Russian/Chinese conception of world affairs is incompatible with the West. Either they adapt, or there will be war. My bet is the latter. But the longer we navel gaze, as you are doing, the longer they have to prepare for the fight.

 

This is the epitome of "don't dress like a slut if you don't want to be raped." 

 

Does that mean we strike first? No. But it does mean we don't allow for any trade or economic interaction with countries that won't follow the rules, and we definitely put our full economic weight behind innocent countries (West aligned) that are attacked. We have, and continue to finance our enemies.

You're dangerously close to relativism here, and relativism is always a losing philosophy, both in geopolitical outcomes and in general. There *is* a right and wrong. 

This is wildly illogical. America won the war. Turing and Einstein wouldn't have gotten much done without Patton and Macarthur, who wouldn't have gotten much done without Ford and Kaiser.

Only an academic with major insecurities (i.e., academics) would make such an absurd claim.

You have to be pants-on-head stupid to think we are going to negotiate Iran out of nukes. But you also thought we would be able to negotiate Russia and Putin out of imperialistic ambitions, so I guess that's consistent.

 

The parallels between the appeasement of Hitler and the appeasement of Putin are getting clearer by the day. I fear the progression of conflict will follow a similar path. If not with Russia, assuredly with China.

 

How do you appease a regime that identifies your downfall as a precondition to their success?

For fuck sake we've already argued through all of this. Nothing you have said above holds water to anything. Either go with evidence for any of your claims or just admit they are your biased opinions you learned on your 18th rewatch of Red Dawn. I don't really care to debate people who deliberately remain uninformed about an issue. 

[SurelySerious]

For sake we've already argued through all of this. Nothing you have said above holds water to anything. Either go with evidence for any of your claims or just admit they are your biased opinions you learned on your 18th rewatch of Red Dawn. I don't really care to debate people who deliberately remain uninformed about an issue. 

Or, hear me out here, YOUR opinions are based on a similarly perilous theory.

[FLEA]

Just now, SurelySerious said:

Or, hear me out here, YOUR opinions are based on a similarly perilous theory.

Nope. I've cited academic articles, policy, history and shit tons of evidence. You just said "Russia bad because I learned it in Top Gun 'Merica!". 

Either back your claims or get off the adult table and go eat your Mac and cheese with the kids. 

[FLEA]

Hell, I even directed you to a DoD written course syllabus that you can take for free, but my guess is you won't do that because you're too busy watching Firefox and whatever else you get your policy from. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by FLEA

[HeloDude]

30 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Does that mean we strike first? No. But it does mean we don't allow for any trade or economic interaction with countries that won't follow the rules, and we definitely put our full economic weight behind innocent countries (West aligned) that are attacked. We have, and continue to finance our enemies.

So you’re suggesting that when China invades Taiwan that we end all economic interaction with China?  China doesn’t “follow the rules” now (assuming the rules involve not being tyrannical to your own population and not threatening Taiwan) and yet I’d be willing to bet you have bought something made in China within the last few months.

[SurelySerious]

Nope. I've cited academic articles, policy, history and shit tons of evidence. You just said "Russia bad because I learned it in Top Gun 'Merica!". 
Either back your claims or get off the adult table and go eat your Mac and cheese with the kids. 

Bro, some opinion pieces aren’t solid evidence for why we should believe that Putin’s persona is justified for seeing every country around him as a threat.

[FLEA]

7 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Bro, some opinion pieces aren’t solid evidence for why we should believe that Putin’s persona is a justified for seeing every country around him as a threat.

Back your claims, or get off the adult table. I'm done argueing. You have offered nothing to support your claims. I literally regurgitated the entire Soviet policy textbook answer on why they see the west as the aggressive one on here and all you offered was "your insane to believe that." But you have offered nothing otherwise. Back your claims, or go eat your chicken nuggets. If you don't want to be a big kid in these decisions, that's fine. But don't sit there and pout when people who spend a lot of time on this stuff and have arguments that actually have merit disagree with you. Go back to your flying planes and let people who are focused on avoiding nuclear miscalculation figure this out for you. 

[Lord Ratner]

22 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So you’re suggesting that when China invades Taiwan that we end all economic interaction with China?  China doesn’t “follow the rules” now (assuming the rules involve not being tyrannical to your own population and not threatening Taiwan) and yet I’d be willing to bet you have bought something made in China within the last few months.

Yes absolutely. We should have stopped a while ago.

 

We are literally funding our destruction. And the cheap tvs and phones of the past 30 years let the government run rampant with spending that is going to wipe out all the benefits of the three decades of globalization. So what the fuck was the point, besides the destruction of the American middle class?

 

And you're incessantly quoting a class of people who have been obsessed with a cosmopolitan conception of the world for the past century. Yet every time they are proven wrong by reality, they have a new theory for why they were actually right and will get it right next time.

 

Yes, your cherished academics told us that Ukraine could never be a part of NATO. That Russia would attack. And the Russian cherished academics explicitly call for the reincorporation of Ukraine. Not just if Ukraine joined NATO. You are clearly okay with that. The rest of us believe in a fundamental right, of humans, to freedom *if they want it*. And there is a direct correlation between the flourishing of free societies and the increase in the percentage of people across the globe that are part of free societies. 

 

A lot of brilliant academics told us that if we just embraced China they would turn into sitcom loving fast food eating freedomphiles. They had some pretty hilarious takes on Stalin too. And the academics were pretty gung ho about the democratization of the Middle East. Let's not forget how much they nailed the covid pandemic. Or that time they told us that carbohydrates were better for you than fat. 

 

There is a huge difference between forcing freedom and democracy on a people, protecting their right to pursue it themselves. You're trying to make your opinion more than what it is. But at the end of the day your opinion is that it is worth avoiding a war if it costs denying 40 million people the pursuit of freedom. I disagree. My opinion is that war with belligerent nations is inevitable, and allowing more people into the Free world has the long-term effects of reducing the likelihood of war. 

[hockeydork]

FLEA, I get your point about Russia having legitimate security concerns. And that we should understand them and incorporate them into our strategy. But you have to see man that sooner or later, freedom was going to clash with tyranny. This war was unavoidable, it was going to happen eventually somewhere because Russia is a totalitarian police state wearing a "we have free elections" sticky note on its forhead. Dictators are never safe unless they control everything and everyone. 

Let's run a hypothetical, which I agree is a hypothetical and pure speculation. But hear me out. Russia invades Ukraine, they take it fast, minimal bloodshed because the Ukrainians were too scared to fight. Now the Russian border is jammed right next to Poland. Is Russia going to disarm and chill because it has a buffer now? No, their regime will always be threatened when a democracy is on their doorstep. And unless they can stretch all the way to the Atlantic, they'll be threatened. They're going to continue on the path of military strength until they think they can contest the next country. This conflict was going to happen, now or in 10 years, there were no off ramps. The only off ramp was the Russians installing a government that didn't lie to its people constantly, deal in deception, oppression and assassination, and basically ensure the rest of the world could never trust it. 

If you wouldn't turn your back to Putin in an elevator, that tells it all. 

[SurelySerious]

Back your claims, or get off the adult table. I'm done argueing. You have offered nothing to support your claims. I literally regurgitated the entire Soviet policy textbook answer on why they see the west as the aggressive one on here and all you offered was "your insane to believe that." But you have offered nothing otherwise. Back your claims, or go eat your chicken nuggets. If you don't want to be a big kid in these decisions, that's fine. But don't sit there and pout when people who spend a lot of time on this stuff and have arguments that actually have merit disagree with you. Go back to your flying planes and let people who are focused on avoiding nuclear miscalculation figure this out for you. 

You’re done not being able to back your opinions, copy.

[Lord Ratner]

24 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I literally regurgitated the entire Soviet policy textbook answer on why they see the west as the aggressive one on here and all you offered was "your insane to believe that."

Is anyone disagreeing with what Putin believes? We get it. He views the West as aggressive. Cool. Who didn't know that?

 

Prove to me that if we didn't entertain the idea of Ukraine in NATO, Russia would have been content to maintain their present borders forever. You can't, which is why, despite your exhaustive repetition, you are merely repeating a theory. And you are using a class of people (who you hilariously claimed "win wars") who are wrong *constantly* when they make concrete predictions. 

 

I'm 100% positive there are idiots in Washington who believed we can invite anyone we want into NATO and Russia would do nothing. But I don't think you're arguing with any of those people here. I've expected Russia to do this everyday since they made their intentions clear with crimea. And I decided long ago that should they proceed, we should stop them. That is an opinion, much like yours.

[FLEA]

6 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Is anyone disagreeing with what Putin believes? We get it. He views the West as aggressive. Cool. Who didn't know that?

 

Prove to me that if we didn't entertain the idea of Ukraine in NATO, Russia would have been content to maintain their present borders forever. You can't, which is why, despite your exhaustive repetition, you are merely repeating a theory. Its the fact we never tried. Heres a thought experiment; say we appeased Russia. Said "you know what Ukraine, we like what you're doing, but it would be escalatory to entertain your admission to NATO, and probably in the longer term wouldn't be good for you, or for us. We will continue to supply aid to you, arm you, and train you though." Then Russia says, "hahaha, we are so evil, we don't care, we are going to take the Ukraine anyway." Where are we? Spoiler alert, exactly where we are today, but we have the recognition that we at least tried to make diplomacy work. We didn't owe Ukraine NATO membership, and the US got very little out of their participation. 

And you are using a class of people (who you hilariously claimed "win wars") who are wrong *constantly* when they make concrete predictions. So Turing and Einstein did nothing? Copy. Guess academics also didnt identify strategic centers of gravity in Germany either. Oh yeah, they also didn't get the DoD to recognize there were different sects of Islam and a civil war was likely to happen in Iraq if we ignored that. Look man, I get that you don't like these people, but believe it or not, they are really fucking smart about some shit. Many of the people who advise the DoD are or were military officers at one point. But I guess you think our SrA have the means to develop advanced AI algorithms capable of identifying potential civilian collateral on a targeting pod image. Oh wait, no, that was the AI labs at Google. 

I'm 100% positive there are idiots in Washington who believed we can invite anyone we want into NATO and Russia would do nothing. But I don't think you're arguing with any of those people here. I've expected Russia to do this everyday since they made their intentions clear with crimea. And I decided long ago that should they proceed, we should stop them. That is an opinion, much like yours. But how are you going to write that check? That's what I want to hear about your plan. You are basically saying you think Russians are evil and just need wiped off the planet, so fuck yeah, lets go to war and blow them up a bit. Are you cool when Putin presses the button on your hometown? And since you don't believe in diplomatic solutions to anyone who disagrees with America, should we just go all in and build our own empire? 

 

[FLEA]

8 minutes ago, FLEA said:

 

Also, what are you going to do when we oust Putin and Russia popularly votes for another Anti-American dictator? Because mainstream Russians don't really like the US or US foreign policy. Are you just going to keep warring with Russia until every single person in that country agrees to vote for someone who is pro-US? 

[Sua Sponte]

People are confusing Putin and his regime with all Russians by including them together. That couldn’t be further from the truth. One could see that by watching the current protests throughout Russia against the invasion. 

[FLEA]

4 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

People are confusing Putin and his regime with all Russians by including them together. That couldn’t be further from the truth. One could see that by watching the current protests throughout Russia against the invasion. 

Thats fine but I quantified my argument as mainstream which is backed by evidence. Yeah there are protest in Moscow, that probably does not represent the majority though. Russia is known for having a very vocal minority that is usually stage lit by Western media. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/04/6-charts-on-how-russians-and-americans-see-each-other/

 

[Prozac]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-jordan-b-peterson-podcast/id1184022695?i=1000552617590

Just listened to Jordan Peterson’s recent podcast on the situation in Ukraine. Apologies if it’s already been posted…this thread has become a bit onerous to sift through. In this piece, Peterson interviews Dr Frederick W. Kagan who is eminently knowledgeable on the subject. While I often disagree with Peterson, he asks pointed questions in the interview that address a lot of what we’ve been discussing here. It’s a bit long, but an excellent discussion. Recommend anyone with a real interest in understanding the situation better give it a listen. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Prozac
Autocorrect 😡

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, Prozac said:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-jordan-b-peterson-podcast/id1184022695?i=1000552617590

Just listened to Jordan Paterson’s recent podcast on the situation in Ukraine. Apologies if it’s already been posted…this thread has become a bit onerous to sift through. In this piece, Peterson interviews Dr Frederick W. Kagan who is eminently knowledgeable on the subject. While I often disagree with Peterson, he asks pointed questions in the interview that address a lot of what we’ve been discussing here. It’s a bit long, but an excellent discussion. Recommend anyone with a real interest in understanding the situation better give it a listen. 

I actually really like JP, and will definitely give this a listen. 

[fire4effect]

Russia Vows Prosecution of Foreign Fighters After 16K Join Ukraine (newsweek.com)

Not that volunteering was ever a safe endeavor and certainly not surprised. 

[jazzdude]

We shouldn't limit our thinking to only military means to achieve our strategic objectives, which can be hard for us as military officers to consider seriously (when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). We seem to have done very well controlling the narrative internationally on what Russia is doing, and leveraged that into widespread support for significant economic sanctions on Russia. Even to the point that historically neutral countries were convinced it to be in their interests to follow suit on sanctions.

One downside of the American way of life is that we generally are not patient and want big actions and fast results. Use of military force can be a way to get quick results, and often works much faster than the other instruments of power. But the quick response isn't always the best response.

Sanctions take time to build that pressure on the target to change behavior, but allows us to deny Russia a reason or justification to expand the fighting and drag the western world into WW3.

In the meantime, we need Ukraine to keep fighting Russia to buy time for the sanctions to work, so the western world has been funneling arms and supplies to them to support Ukraine's fight to remain independent. The cynic in me says this is also good for American defense contractors to make a good deal of money selling those arms... And furthers our goal to be the partner of choice when it comes to military equipment sales and strengthening economic ties.

The sad truth is that as a nuclear power, if and how Russia is engaged militarily matters because nukes are on the table, and they have too many for us to target and neutralize to take nuke off the table. It pushes military action to being a last resort, and only to be once the other instrument of power have failed to achieve our objectives. Even if Russia didn't maintain it's nuclear force well, there would still likely be enough useable nukes to act as a credible deterrent