Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, dream big said:

The same people in EUCOM who are currently running humanitarian relief efforts in Turkey had to deal with a PR distraction so Biden could get his photo op in Ukraine..don’t see a problem with that? Oh and later this week FLOTUS is taking a Safari to Kenya that precious resources get to be wasted on. You probably don’t see a problem with that either. 

It's almost like part of the president's job is engaging foreign leaders...

[08Dawg]

I do seriously think Putin invading Ukraine, porking it away massively, and doing more for NATO unity than any western leader in the last 20 years…

…staved off China invading Taiwan.  If I was a Chinese general, circa right after our Afghan debacle, I would’ve been screaming that there was no better time than right freakin’ now to cross the Straight in force. The US just took a massive black eye, had very little national unity, and was sapped militarily. Conditions were ripe for national “reunion”.  

Then Putin goes full retard, invades and galvanizes world opinion against him, gets a tremendous economic bitch slap, and makes himself a pariah on the world stage. I don’t think anyone expected the unified response we saw, and I think that made China sit up and recalculate whether invasion was worth it or not. 

[Hugo Stiglitz]

4 hours ago, dream big said:

The same people in EUCOM who are currently running humanitarian relief efforts in Turkey had to deal with a PR distraction so Biden could get his photo op in Ukraine..don’t see a problem with that? Oh and later this week FLOTUS is taking a Safari to Kenya that precious resources get to be wasted on. You probably don’t see a problem with that either. 

Sucks, right? Military much?

[dream big]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sucks, right? Military much?

My point is there was a huge time and resource cost for Biden to go into Ukraine, where no US troops are stationed, so he could get a photo op. I’m glad we are supporting Ukraine but this stunt did nothing to advance Ukrainian defense objectives. No one in Ukraine gives a shit that Biden shows up for theatrics. So let’s stop sitting around and acting like this is such a huge strategic deal because it’s not. In no way shape or form does this change Russia’s calculus. They probably would’ve never invaded Ukraine had Biden not been President. 

[dream big]

5 hours ago, pawnman said:

It's almost like part of the president's job is engaging foreign leaders...

It was a photo op, nothing else. Stop pretending otherwise. 

[pawnman]

5 hours ago, dream big said:

It was a photo op, nothing else. Stop pretending otherwise. 

Did you pitch the same fit when Trump visited Israel and the West Bank? No US troops there either. 

I didn't know a US military presence was a prerequisite for diplomatic visits...

[Stoker]

7 hours ago, dream big said:

It was a photo op, nothing else. Stop pretending otherwise. 

You don't think it might strengthen Ukrainian troops' resolve? Their are still areas of the world where the words "US president" has meaning and respect. 

[VigilanteNav]

A bit of a distraction from the POTUS visit back and forth:   I found this an interesting read both in terms of some analysis of the past Russian Military failures so far and prognosis going forward.  Some highlights on how the huge convoy north of Kyiv came to be are the use of maps from the 60's and 70's for land navigation, carrying maps showing the plan in metal boxes labeled secret, and having the wrong tires on the vehicles for the season.  How Russia's 35-mile armoured convoy ended in failure - BBC News    Going forward, it may seem logical to think that Russia still has plenty of "mass" to pour into this that will eventually overwhelm the Ukrainian forces. A counterpoint to this is that the Lend-Lease program in WW2 was a big reason why the Soviets won (even Stalin and Krushchev seemed to agree). 'We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany? (rferl.org)         

[ClearedHot]

14 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

That’s what it’s all about.

The Great Power game, don't play checkers when others are playing chess.

14 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

also those weren’t Ukrainian nukes 

And?  Possession is 9/10ths...The FSU was in disarray and the agreement took them out of play, a HUGE win.

[BashiChuni]

21 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Respect your opinion but I think you are wrong for a host of reasons. 

1.  While not a treaty, in 1994 we negotiated and signed the Budapest Agreement.  We promised to provide security for Ukraine in exchange for them giving up the third largest nuclear weapons stockpile in the world.  This agreement made the world safer for almost 30 years.  Were you upset when we threw our promise to Afghanistan away and fled in the middle of the night?  We gave our word and at some point if we want to be respected as a world leader we have to honor our word. 

2.  For pennies on the dollar of our annual DoD budget we have enabled Ukraine to bleed a near-peer Superpower and relegate them to chump status.  Russia has taken STAGGERING losses.  Putin's grand plan to rebuild the Soviet Union died on the battlefield of Ukraine.  A lot of independent agencies have validated Russian losses.  Russia started the war with 3,000 operational tanks, in just over a year over 1,000 have been destroyed and a further 500 captured.  Half of their armor gone...HALF.  The UK Defense ministry estimates Russia has lost 200,000 soldiers in the war with Ukraine, with 60-80,000 of those being KIA.  I almost feel guilty for the average Russian soldier who was lied to by a despot dictator.  My sympathy ended when they started murdering civilians.  This conflict and our $113B investment has humbled Russia for generations to come.

I can't stand this administration for breaking our word to the Afghans and running away during the night but I applaud them for holding the line against Russia.  I think this also sends a strong message to China.

Again, all of pennies on the dollar and no blood from American soldiers (minus people who volunteered to go fight).

 

1. We provided "security assurances". I'll quote from wiki:

"Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons."

"It [the agreement] gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms." 

     so because the senate wouldn't ratify a treaty they watered down the language to skirt congress. i see a problem with that. basically its a unconstitutional way to backdoor into a treaty. there is no iron clad commitment to the defense of ukraine...and we used the treaty to eliminate the stockpile of soviet nukes under ukraine control. playing chess a la great power games as you say.

"Until Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on its soil, it had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical but no operational control. Russia controlled the codes needed to operate the nuclear weapons through electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system"

 

 

[Prozac]

19 hours ago, Blue said:

It's difficult to take your posts seriously when you start off with juvenile nonsense like "Putin simps," and then proceed to categorize every disagreement into some bullshit "red vs blue" narrative.

Be better.

Here’s the thing though: There is a good chunk of conservative media (and therefore a good chunk of conservatives) that are eager to paint everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) the Biden Administration does as a misstep. They are so blind in their desire to demonize the current president that they would rather see him fail than the United States win. Incredibly, there has arisen a contingent of self professed Reagan loving conservatives who are now willing to spread Russian propaganda and misinformation in order to to discredit the current president. 
 

Look, no one is saying you have to like the Biden Administration or vote Democrat. There are plenty of valid criticisms. But the narrative that Joe is somehow the world’s biggest criminal and that every single decision he’s made in office has been an abject disaster is a bit hyperbolic, no?  Worse than that, this attitude is damaging to our nation in numerous ways, not the least of which is letting the camel’s nose that is Russian misinformation under the tent. 

[BashiChuni]

24 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Here’s the thing though: There is a good chunk of liberal media (and therefore a good chunk of liberals) that are eager to paint everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) the trump Administration does as a misstep. They are so blind in their desire to demonize the current president that they would rather see him fail than the United States win. Incredibly, there has arisen a contingent of self professed Clinton loving liberals who are now willing to spread Russian propaganda and misinformation in order to to discredit the current president. 
 

works both ways. wasn't the democrat phrase during trump "RESIST!"

and didn't democrats falsify the steele dossier to hamstring trump with investigations of his alleged "russian ties" that turned out to be false allegations? a lot of "blind desire" to destroy the trump administration from the left.

TDS...liberals lost their minds during the entire trump administration...when a lot of his foreign policy (if you can ignore his childish theatrics) was sound. biden has been an abject disaster. afghanistan, inflation, mandatory vax still to enter the country, fighting in court to bring back travel mask mandate, ukraine escalation...etc etc etc

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by BashiChuni

[Prozac]

2 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

works both ways. wasn't the democrat phrase during trump "RESIST!"

and didn't democrats falsify the steele dossier to hamstring trump with investigations of his alleged "russian ties" that turned out to be false allegations? a lot of "blind desire" to destroy the trump administration from the left.

TDS...liberals lost their minds during the entire trump administration...when a lot of his foreign policy (if you can ignore his childish theatrics) was sound. biden has been an abject disaster. afghanistan, inflation, mandatory vax still to enter the country, fighting in court to bring back travel mask mandate, ukraine escalation...etc etc etc

 

Ahh yes. The old “Two wrongs make a right” argument. 

[FourFans]

42 minutes ago, Prozac said:

There are plenty of valid criticisms. But the narrative that Joe is somehow the world’s biggest criminal and that every single decision he’s made in office has been an abject disaster is a bit hyperbolic, no?

You make it sound as if the good outweighs the bad.  So, let's get specific.  What are you criticisms and what are you praises of the Biden administration?  Make it simple, like a pros vs cons bullet list.  I'm curious to hear how Biden supporters validate that he's been a good president with specific unemotional examples and a wholistic view.  I'll kick off your list with a pro: Micro chip production brought back to the US.  

Please make your case.

Edited February 22, 2023 by FourFans130

[BashiChuni]

29 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Ahh yes. The old “Two wrongs make a right” argument. 

do you have a rebuttal? its politics.

[Prozac]

26 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

You make it sound as if the good outweighs the bad.  So, let's get specific.  What are you criticisms and what are you praises of the Biden administration?  Make it simple, like a pros vs cons bullet list.  I'm curious to hear how Biden supporters validate that he's been a good president with specific unemotional examples and a wholistic view.  I'll kick off your list with a pro: Micro chip production brought back to the US.  

Please make your case.

No, you completely miss the point. You may make a compelling argument that the bad outweighs the good. That is not the same as saying there is zero good. That’s the crux of my criticism: certain pundits are indeed making the claim that there is zero good, and it is to the detriment of our country as a whole. 

[BashiChuni]

Just now, Prozac said:

No, you completely miss the point. You may make a compelling argument that the bad outweighs the good. That is not the same as saying there is zero good. That’s the crux of my criticism: certain pundits are indeed making the claim that there is zero good, and it is to the detriment of our country as a whole. 

i agree the msnbc/foxnews polarization is not good for the country.

but you miss the point that your side spent 4 years ripping apart the trump administration with zero concern for the country. you have no moral ground to stand on.

trump literally preached "America First" and liberals lost their minds. so please spare me the pearl clutching

[Prozac]

15 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

do you have a rebuttal? its politics.

Yeah, my rebuttal is: be an adult. Take the high ground and don’t torpedo the whole fucking country just because you don’t like who happens to be in power at the moment. 

[Prozac]

Just now, BashiChuni said:

but you miss the point that your side

Also, don’t paint with such a broad brush. While I certainly thought Trump was awful, I was never in the “not my president” camp. Our checks and balances largely worked to stem Trump’s worst impulses and at the end of the day, we were still the USA. Quit identifying yourself and others as belonging to a “side” and start recognizing that we are all still Americans. 

[DirkDiggler]

Anybody remember the days when every thread on Baseops didn’t turn into a left versus right political pissing contest?….was kinda nice.

[StoleIt]

20 hours ago, dream big said:

The same people in EUCOM who are currently running humanitarian relief efforts in Turkey had to deal with a PR distraction so Biden could get his photo op in Ukraine..don’t see a problem with that? Oh and later this week FLOTUS is taking a Safari to Kenya that precious resources get to be wasted on. You probably don’t see a problem with that either. 

It was planned months in advance. Sadly, shit happens. If we cancelled every DV movement because something else was happening in the world nobody would ever go anywhere.

Considering I'm one of those resources that gets wasted for all this travel, you'd be correct, I don't see a problem with FLOTUS going to Africa. Countering China's advances/influence in the African continent is a huge priority.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

1. We provided "security assurances". I'll quote from wiki:

"Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons."

"It [the agreement] gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms." 

Yes, we signed and gave security assurances. 

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

so because the senate wouldn't ratify a treaty they watered down the language to skirt congress. i see a problem with that. basically its a unconstitutional way to backdoor into a treaty. there is no iron clad commitment to the defense of ukraine...and we used the treaty to eliminate the stockpile of soviet nukes under ukraine control. playing chess a la great power games as you say.

We should not examine what happened using today's optic.  Rather, we should consider the environmental conditions at the time.  The FSU crumbled rapidly and there was great concern over what would happen to those nukes.  Of course there was fear the Senate wouldn't ratify a treaty to defend a former FSU territory and new country...they had just declared their independence in 1991!  Regardless, we gave our word we would provide security assurances and without put American boot on soil in front of Russian soldiers I think we have done just that.

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

"Until Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on its soil, it had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical but no operational control. Russia controlled the codes needed to operate the nuclear weapons through electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system"

I don't believe there was ever concern over the codes and operational control.  It was about physical control as the Soviet Union fell apart.  As you know there were many efforts (some that never made the press), to get custody  of the weapons (and nuclear cores), to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands i.e Iran, North Korea, the black market. 

Bottomline, much like Afghanistan if we fail to keep our word with Ukraine, why would anyone ever trust us again.

[Blue]

3 hours ago, Prozac said:

Here’s the thing though: There is a good chunk of conservative media (and therefore a good chunk of conservatives) that are eager to paint everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) the Biden Administration does as a misstep. They are so blind in their desire to demonize the current president that they would rather see him fail than the United States win. Incredibly, there has arisen a contingent of self professed Reagan loving conservatives who are now willing to spread Russian propaganda and misinformation in order to to discredit the current president.

Dunno what to tell you.  This board isn't "a good chunk of conservative media," or "a good chunk of conservatives."

3 hours ago, Prozac said:

Look, no one is saying you have to like the Biden Administration or vote Democrat. There are plenty of valid criticisms. But the narrative that Joe is somehow the world’s biggest criminal and that every single decision he’s made in office has been an abject disaster is a bit hyperbolic, no?  Worse than that, this attitude is damaging to our nation in numerous ways, not the least of which is letting the camel’s nose that is Russian misinformation under the tent. 

The only person saying any of this in this thread is you.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Blue

[FourFans]

50 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Bottomline, much like Afghanistan if we fail to keep our word with Ukraine, why would anyone ever trust us again.

Thoroughly agree.  Unfortunately do you see a realistic outcome, under this administration's policies, where we don't fail to keep our word to Ukraine?  I am of the belief that "keeping our word to Ukraine" entails restoring the entirety of Ukraine's sovereign borders.  That's definitely how they see it.  I don't see any outcome where that happens with our current leadership.

[FourFans]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

No, you completely miss the point. You may make a compelling argument that the bad outweighs the good. That is not the same as saying there is zero good. That’s the crux of my criticism: certain pundits are indeed making the claim that there is zero good, and it is to the detriment of our country as a whole. 

Pundits only have the power you give them through your attention.  Our media has been a shit throwing fest since the 1800's.  Stop blaming them for, well, anything.  In any case, you've done a horrible job of supporting your point with facts, and you've not even attempted to explain how and why you support this administration....just like EVERY SINGLE LIBERAL I ASK.  Without fail whenever I ask for facts and logic the response is "you don't understand" or "I don't want to talk about it" UNSAT.

I misunderstood nothing.  Exact words you said:

Quote

There are plenty of valid criticisms. But the narrative that Joe is somehow the world’s biggest criminal and that every single decision he’s made in office has been an abject disaster is a bit hyperbolic, no?

Please go find some rational and factual support for your statement.

Claiming that what Biden is doing with relation to Ukraine is potentially disastrous on a thermonuclear scale is not understating the facts.  He is currently acting like a little kid with his daddy's shotgun, flexing his muscles, only he's doing so with a nuclear armed country who is increasingly backed into a corner.  Meanwhile our OTHER major rival is hinting at helping Russia out of that corner.  All the while there is very real mounting evidence that our sitting president's immediate family members may well have been working with both the Chinese and Ukrainians as a useful idiots (I severely doubt they're some kind of knowing spies...they are dupes at best).  How is following those facts to it's logical conclusion a "hyperbolic narrative"? 

Edited February 22, 2023 by FourFans130