Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Prosuper]

I see most everybody is talking about Article 5 and if Putin gets desperate, he goes full CBN. What nobody is talking about is that Ukrainian farmers should be planting soon their number one cash crop of wheat and sunflowers. They are too busy now picking up scrap metal. If this war prevents them of getting into the field, we will be looking at a mass famine in countries totally dependent on them. Most of the world have 90-day supplies on hand but after that is exhausted, 3 weeks we are into famine. That will kill more thousands of miles from the Ukrainian battlefield, governments will fall, think 1993 Somalia on steroids. Start packing your pantries and turning your backyard lawn into a garden.

[DirkDiggler]

59 minutes ago, FLEA said:

To my second point, I dont think we'll ever know. I think its very possible. I believe in the west we tend to discount security concerns for other countries fairly often. Culturally, I think we are shorter sighted than other powers and I think we are willing to ignore future problems for immediate gains. 

It wasn't just the question of Ukraine joining the alliance but the amalgamation of several nuances about the alliance that admittedly, even by NATO's own standards, didn't make sense. The biggest and most obvious one being "why?" In the Cold War that question was obvious. "Keep Russia out, America in, and Germany down." But I think once the Berlin wall fell Russia really believed there was going to be a new era of parlay that would remove the necessity of the alliance. Its lack of clear purpose and continued growth would certainly send mixed signals and while the alliance forthright is for collective defense, in war, "collective defense" is just ambiguous enough to mean so many things.

I was explaining this to friends the other day. There are so many justifications a country could use for article 5. Say Russia had a missile misguide into Poland, was Poland attacked? What if a Russian aircraft accidentally cut Polands airspace? What if Poland shot that aircraft down? What if the aircraft never crossed Polish airspace but got close enough Polish authorities got skittish and said they were being attacked? What if its not kinetics? What if Russia jams all of eastern Poland while combating Ukraine? What if its a cyber attack? What if Russia detonates a nuke and the EMP wipes out most of Poland but otherwise no damage? Its so fricken nebulous NATO isn't even always sure what constitutes article 5, and the only thing that is for certain is if all 30 members agree its an article 5, then NATO will go to war as an alliance.

From Russia's standpoint, being boxed in by a massive conglomerate of military power like that seems risky. What if he can't police his own borders when newly ascended Finland breaks out into civil war and munitions start accidentally falling within 75nm of St Petersburg. Or Turkey and Greece finally decide to go at it, blocking Russia's access to the Dardanelles. Maybe Russia has a legit interest in that but can't act because of the risk of entangling the rest of the alliance. 

I think Russia's standpoint was largely this: If you aren't going to bring me in, then we need to keep a gray zone between us, because I need the room to breath without the worry that your 30+ countries with all their political baggage, aren't going to go starting crap in my back yard that seriously threatens my interests and I have no recourse to intervene. 

One last note, there would have been value in just entertaining his pitch on those demands. For one, sometimes people just like to think they are being heard. But more so than that, it would have stalled time and back in February, time was something Ukraine needed as much of as possible. So even if those pitches had absolutely not probability to go anywhere, spinning them on a yard long enough to delay invasion a month or two would have been invaluable. 

Fair enough, agree to disagree on your previous second point then.  I do not believe that Putin was ever serious about negotiating and I believe the final decision to invade was made weeks, if not months before the actual invasion date.

  I don’t necessarily have a problem with Article 5 being nebulous; it gives us flexibility.  I think anything that gives Putin doubt or makes him hesitate to escalate against NATO because he’s unsure of the response can be positive at times.  

  If an armed Russian military aircraft violates Polish airspace then it should be intercepted and forced to turn back across the border or forced to land.  If it doesn’t comply then the Poles should take whatever measures they deem to necessary defend themselves, including shooting it down.  If Russia has a missile malfunction and hit Poland, they’d better apologize and demonstrate real quick measures on how they’ll avoid future fuck ups or NATO should be free to shoot down any missiles approaching a NATO border.  If Russia jams all of Eastern Poland (very hypothetical) then that’s an act of war and the jammer locations should be targeted and destroyed if the Russians refuse to cease buzzer.  Cyber attacks should be responded to in kind.  If Russia detonates a nuclear warhead for the express purpose of EMP damage to a NATO country that’s an act of war and we should respond in kind.

  Russia isn’t “boxed in” by NATO.  Russia enjoys large water bodies on its northern and eastern flanks.  It has largely neutral or friendly states on its southern borders.  NATO is not organizing to invade or attack Russia; Putin is using Russia’s history/fear of invasion as a cudgel/excuse to reestablish a greater Russian empire.  Hitler, Napoleon, and Ghengis Khan are no longer in charge of their respective countries.  If anything, this invasion is rapidly making Russia less secure due to Putin’s gross miscalculation.

  Generally I agree that talking is always preferable to fighting.  But we and the Ukrainians have no obligations to listen to absurd demands just for the sake of listening.  Putin was in the driver’s seat with regards to the invasion timeline, I don’t believe us stringing him along would’ve pushed D-Day to the right much, if at all.

[DirkDiggler]

  Another good video of Russians cooking.

[hockeydork]

4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Tell me once where I have disagreed with anything you have said?  I have repeatedly said Putin is a bad guy and Russia is in the wrong for the invasion.  But we can still discuss what motivates them without discounting it as just straight tyranny…something about being able to better understand your enemy?  And just because I don’t want to see our economy further suffer with what’s going on with Europe doesn’t make me pro-Putin or pro-Russia…it does though make me pro-USA. Oh and tell me where I am wrong with the media bias?  And tel me where I’m wrong by not fully trusting the media after the lies they intentionally told to push an ideological narrative?

Progressives love the binary Ukraine is good and is doing well (vice versa for Russia) because they were against Russia well before the invasion and are still upset that Mueller couldn’t find any evidence of Trump Russian collusion.  The left also needs a scapegoat for how bad things are going with the economy, and Russia is their best bet.  And as I’ve said before, the Lyndsey Graham warhawk types on the right have always loved a good war.  
 

Remember when Bush was labeled by the left as a war criminal for invading Iraq…well, it’s not like Saddam was good, so why wasn’t the left on board?

 

I like that you play devils advocate a lot, it forces me and others to defend my/their positions. But if you're going to point out whats wrong with someone else's plan of action you need to provide a solution. 

So what is your plan? You want to keep trading with the Russians and Chinese? I get your anti left, trump wanted to bring manufacturing back home and this was before the Chinese (yet?)/Russians started redrawing borders, but now your saying we shouldn't because it'll damage the American economy and things will get more expensive? You know that's exactly what would have happend with the "America first" plan right? Do you know how much a computer will cost for the average American if its made here and not China? In hindsight Trump was right IMO. We tried to play ball with these bad actors, hoping they would see the light. It failed, was worth trying no doubt, but failed. 

The world is variable. Prior to the Russians invading, the East hadn't done anything "that" bad, and I understand "that bad" is subjective. But now we have an actual smoking gun reason to detach our economy and your saying we should't because its in the best interest of America.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, hockeydork said:

So what is your plan? You want to keep trading with the Russians and Chinese? I get your anti left, trump wanted to bring manufacturing back home and this was before the Chinese (yet?)/Russians started redrawing borders, but now your saying we shouldn't because it'll damage the American economy and things will get more expensive? You know that's exactly what would have happend with the "America first" plan right? Do you know how much a computer will cost for the average American if its made here and not China? In hindsight Trump was right IMO. We tried to play ball with these bad actors, hoping they would see the light. It failed, was worth trying no doubt, but failed. 

I’m actually very left on a lot of issues (I’m for legalizing all drugs, prostitution, thinks you should be able to marry whatever consenting adult(s) you want, doesn’t want religion in public sectors, etc).  What I am not is progressive or pro-big government (synonymous).  I’m also against the conservatives who love big government as well…they’re the Lyndsey Graham warhawk types.

As for China, I’m all for trade, just like I am with Russia.  But when we pick and choose what forms of tyranny/bad government we will accept vs not-accept, then it’s makes future arguments meaningless when not wanting trade for those same reasons.  Does anyone else think it’s hilarious that we find what Russia does horrible but accept Iran and their tyranny?  Iran has literally said they don’t believe Israel should be able to exist and yet we want some “Iran Nuclear Deal”?  Just be consistent for crying out loud.  Or is it because Iran hasn’t done anything perhaps?…other than attack our consulate in Iraq, for recent examples.

But the US loves to control what happens outside of our borders, even when we often make things worse.  Trade with Cuba is bad but trade with Vietnam is ok.  Blows my mind.

[ViperMan]

10 hours ago, Blue said:

Because Russia's invasion wasn't "unprovoked."  We've been "poking the bear" by advocating for Ukrainian entrance to NATO, along with our covert support of revolutions in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014.  None of that is an excuse for Putin to invade another sovereign country of course, but shows that the invasion was anything but "unprovoked."

Dude, this invasion is the definition of totally premeditated and unprovoked - there is no middle ground here. Provoking something necessarily involves you doing something illegitimate. Ukraine determining their own destiny is fully legitimate. "NATO expansion" is a pretext to BS foreign policy goals Russia has long held.

Quote

"But once again, the ability of countries to choose their foreign policy and their alliances voluntarily is written into the UN Charter. It's written into the 1975 Helsinki Act. It's written into the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe. And it's written into the 1997 NATO Russia Founding Act. Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Moscow signed the UN Charter, it signed the Helsinki Final Act in 75. It signed the Charter of Paris in 1990. It signed the NATO Russia Founding Act, which puts no limits on NATO expansion and Boris Yeltsin's signature is on that. And so, you know, Peter, international obligations and freedom and the defensive freedom are on one side and Vladimir Putin and his gangster regime and his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is on the other side."

So regardless of the total lack of moral logic required to suggest that a country executing their own ambitions is justification for a hostile invasion, you've got Russia who has knowingly, and legally, signed agreements that have disallowed nothing the West has done. So this notion that NATO expansion is somehow responsible or culpable for Russia's current actions is fully hollow.

Worth about eight minutes of your time from this mark.

On 3/26/2022 at 3:37 PM, Sprkt69 said:

You mean like how everyone deals with China?

For real? Sorry, did I miss the major news story that China has invaded a sovereign country (unprovokedly) and is shelling civilians in a criminal manner? I get China ain't our friend, but this comparison exemplifies "specious." Call me when China starts dropping cluster munitions in Taipai...I'll get on board with your theme.

[FLEA]

I've listened to this. On a side note, I sometimes wonder if academics and analyst flex by just trying to put as many books on their backwall as possible. Like... I seriously doubt this dude has read all or even half of those in their entirety.

Anyway, he makes some credible arguments and some that are problematic. His biggest problem is he simultaneously acknowledges that it was irresponsible for NATO to offer membership to Ukraine in 2008 while also saying Russia is solely responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. That is sort of a logical fallacy. You can't be irresponsible for something but then at the same time not be responsible for it and I think it shows the black and white thinking so many people possess in terms of IR and geopolitics, that there must be a right and must be a wrong. 

I don't think anyone wouldn't argue that Putin is "more" responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. But the question is how much more and how responsible was the US and NATO with their needless growth and lack of clear purpose. 49%? 30%? 5%? 0%? Obviously its difficult to put a number on it. 

[MCO]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

I've listened to this. On a side note, I sometimes wonder if academics and analyst flex by just trying to put as many books on their backwall as possible. Like... I seriously doubt this dude has read all or even half of those in their entirety.

Anyway, he makes some credible arguments and some that are problematic. His biggest problem is he simultaneously acknowledges that it was irresponsible for NATO to offer membership to Ukraine in 2008 while also saying Russia is solely responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. That is sort of a logical fallacy. You can't be irresponsible for something but then at the same time not be responsible for it and I think it shows the black and white thinking so many people possess in terms of IR and geopolitics, that there must be a right and must be a wrong. 

I don't think anyone wouldn't argue that Putin is "more" responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. But the question is how much more and how responsible was the US and NATO with their needless growth and lack of clear purpose. 49%? 30%? 5%? 0%? Obviously its difficult to put a number on it. 

I think Ukraine is showing the purpose of the growth. Countries should be allowed to self determine. If Ukraine had wanted to be Russia’s bestie like Belarus, more power to them. But they didn’t want that, and it’s not Putin’s decision to force them to align the way he wants.

[Clark Griswold]

Second order effects coming

Ukraine War Causing Food Shortages In Fragile Middle East
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/03/28/ukraine-war-causing-food-shortages-fragile-middle-east/

Cold War 2 / Turbulent 20s needs a strategy for recognition & management
Good thing we have an august group at the helm to lead us…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danger41]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

I've listened to this. On a side note, I sometimes wonder if academics and analyst flex by just trying to put as many books on their backwall as possible. Like... I seriously doubt this dude has read all or even half of those in their entirety.

I always ensure that my collection of R.L. Stine’s Goosebumps is prominently displayed in the background of my video conferences to flex on people.

[Prozac]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

I don't think anyone wouldn't argue that Putin is "more" responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. But the question is how much more and how responsible was the US and NATO with their needless growth and lack of clear purpose. 49%? 30%? 5%? 0%? Obviously its difficult to put a number on it. 

I wonder if some of you guys have ever been to places like Poland or Latvia or Georgia, or ever spoken with people from those places? I spent a fair amount of time in former Warsaw Pact countries as they were in the process of joining NATO. For them, NATO’s purpose has always been very clear. A decade or two free of the Soviets was not nearly enough time to convince them that the Russians had changed their ways. In fact, the former client states knew very well (vs much of “old” NATO) that the Russians would be a threat for generations to come. For them, NATO “expansion” was far from needless. It was absolutely necessary if they were to survive as independent and free nations.  I always respected this position but admit that I just didn’t share quite the same anti-Russian zeal for a long time. Then Putin invaded and occupied parts of Georgia. Then he did the same in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Now that he has outrightly invaded Ukraine, I can see that my Polish and Latvian friends were not exaggerating the threat at all. NATO’s purpose has never been more clear & the West bears ZERO responsibility for Russian aggression. If the Russians are truly concerned about Western expansion, it’s only because they know their system is broken and backwards and they cannot possibly offer their neighbors the same kinds of fruitful and healthy relationships that the West can. 

[hockeydork]

12 hours ago, HeloDude said:

What I am not is progressive or pro-big government (synonymous).

As for China, I’m all for trade, just like I am with Russia.  

I guess this is what I am struggling with. I am fine with you thinking our government is too big in its current state. But to than justify trading with Russia and China? You think our government is too big? Look at them, we ain't got sh*t on those governments. I guess one could shrug their shoulders and say Ukrainians/Russians/Taiwanese/Chinese are not my problem because they aren't Americans. But for me if they have two eyeballs, a forehead and opposable thumbs and don't want to live on their knees, the last thing I am going to do is keep helping the aggressor wreck 40 million people. 

I am with you on the need for consistency in the US. But it's usually a trade off between doing what is right and doing what is in the best interest of ones self and that situation is constantly changing. What was a good idea yesterday can become a terrible idea in an instant, and vice versa. I was against Trumps war on China. I thought it would isolate us, hurts us economically(it will), and make the Chinese even less likely to westenrize, and even more likely to militarize. I was wrong, they're going down that path anyways. 

Trading ipods, picture frames, camping chairs and TVs with someone is one thing. Trading essentials, like water, fuel, food and other vital items is another. I don't care if we have to drill in the short term, or push hard to accelerate renewables, or find some middle ground solution, all I know is I don't want the US having its hands tied because we need to buy X from sh*tty country Z. And often only the government has the ability to react rapidly and move the US toward a unified goal, just like only the government had the means to push to put people on the moon in the 60s. So we need a cohesive team plan, even if it may not be our first choice, and regardless of who is in office, we need to just support each other and push towards ensuring the American way of life isn't going anywhere. 

[FLEA]

44 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I wonder if some of you guys have ever been to places like Poland or Latvia or Georgia, or ever spoken with people from those places? I spent a fair amount of time in former Warsaw Pact countries as they were in the process of joining NATO. For them, NATO’s purpose has always been very clear. A decade or two free of the Soviets was not nearly enough time to convince them that the Russians had changed their ways. In fact, the former client states knew very well (vs much of “old” NATO) that the Russians would be a threat for generations to come. For them, NATO “expansion” was far from needless. It was absolutely necessary if they were to survive as independent and free nations.  I always respected this position but admit that I just didn’t share quite the same anti-Russian zeal for a long time. Then Putin invaded and occupied parts of Georgia. Then he did the same in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Now that he has outrightly invaded Ukraine, I can see that my Polish and Latvian friends were not exaggerating the threat at all. NATO’s purpose has never been more clear & the West bears ZERO responsibility for Russian aggression. If the Russians are truly concerned about Western expansion, it’s only because they know their system is broken and backwards and they cannot possibly offer their neighbors the same kinds of fruitful and healthy relationships that the West can. 

Yeah man I currently work extensively in those countries. I get why they joined NATO. It's in their interests. Was it in ours? 

However, it was a bit dishonest or in bad faith for us to agree to parlay with Russia after the Cold War when all along we still believed we needed a military alliance to overcome them. Russia was, in their mind, actively trying to deescalate the world, and the US was not. If you truly believe the US bears no responsibility, then you need to accept that we made a tremendous mistake in agreeing to end the Cold War, establish normal ties, and introduce Russia into the global markets. 

Oh by the way, remember, Russia allowed EVERY single former Soviet state to hold free elections to decide secession on their own. So what changed the geopolitical picture? 

Edited March 28, 2022 by FLEA

[SurelySerious]

. So what changed the geopolitical picture? 

Putin

[GrndPndr]

I guess we're going to put troops into Ukraine after all...

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1507386975753494533

[Prozac]

12 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I get why they joined NATO. It's in their interests. Was it in ours? 

Absolutely. Any nation that truly wants to join the free world deserves our support. The more countries that want to participate in the civilized world, the better off we all are. 

 

15 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Oh by the way, remember, Russia allowed EVERY single former Soviet state to hold free elections to decide secession on their own. So what changed the geopolitical picture? 

They did. I think Boris Yeltsin honestly wanted to liberalize and modernize Russia. If the West made a mistake, it was by not engaging further with Russia when there was an actual window of good will open. That lack of engagement probably helped open the window for someone like Putin to ascend to power. But as stated above, once Putin took power, the geopolitical picture absolutely changed & all bets were off. 

[BashiChuni]

17 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Absolutely. Any nation that truly wants to join the free world deserves our support. The more countries that want to participate in the civilized world, the better off we all are. 

 

 

ok Taiwan wants to join the free world and completely cut off China. They want a seat at the UN and full, independent recognition from the West.

Ready?

In a perfect world i dont disagree with you, but the complexities of international politics don't fix so nicely into your idealistic box.

Edited March 28, 2022 by BashiChuni

[Prozac]

27 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

ok Taiwan wants to join the free world and completely cut off China. They want a seat at the UN and full, independent recognition from the West.

Ready?

In a perfect world i dont disagree with you, but the complexities of international politics don't fix so nicely into your idealistic box.

Yeah. Absolutely. Taiwan is for all intents and purposes an independent country & one of the most successful and thriving democracies in Asia at that. The One China policy & Chinese claims to the island are demonstrably absurd to any informed observer & it’s long past time to call a spade a spade. But your point is taken. I get that nuance and sensitivity are often required when it comes to international politics. Sometimes though, directness and strength are the correct approach. The current situation in Ukraine is one of those times. And if we’re honest, it’s probably just about time for the same tack when it comes to Taiwan. 

[FLEA]

Just now, Prozac said:

Yeah. Absolutely. Taiwan is for all intents and purposes an independent country & one of the most successful and thriving democracies in Asia at that. The One China policy & Chinese claims to the island are demonstrably absurd to any informed observer & it’s long past time to call a spade a spade. But your point is taken. I get that nuance and sensitivity are often required when it comes to international politics. Sometimes though, directness and strength are the correct approach. The current situation in Ukraine is one of those times. And if we’re honest, it’s probably just about time for the same tack when it comes to Taiwan. 

Prozac just curious how powerful do you think the US is? Do you think we possess the outright capability to uphold some of these claims without significant and permenant damage to the US and it's interests.... Because that's a big part of all of this. We have the greatest military on the globe but not the greatest military on anyone one spot in the globe, and the logistics Kung Fu required to make that isn't really achievable without significant exposure and vulnerability of our country's strategic centers of gravity. I think that's a huge piece people misunderstand. 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

The more countries that want to participate in the civilized world, the better off we all are.

I think this is the sticking point for a lot of the isolationists. They suggest we will demonstrably harm our economic interests by "taking sides," in this case, the side of defending sovereignty, but they forget that the very wealth they seek to protect was gained explicitly through the stability provided by a world that respects sovereignty.

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

In a perfect world i dont disagree with you, but the complexities of international politics don't fix so nicely into your idealistic box.

You make it sound like there are only two choices, but obviously there are not. We aren't launching cruise missiles into Russia. There are many steps between unrestricted interaction and nuclear war. But we should not be supporting a country (and trading with the US is absolutely a form of support) that does not acknowledge sovereignty at a minimum.

We are also providing material support to the Ukrainians, which we should. We do this because we hope it will lead to a Russian failure, which would be a win for the concept of sovereignty. 

The isolationists (FLEA being the most breathless example here. Similar to Tucker Carlson, who I also frequently agree with) keep asking what we are willing to sacrifice for Ukrainians. Not much, honestly. Ukrainians should sacrifice for Ukrainians, and they are. But for the geopolitical norm (sovereign borders) that has yielded unfathomable wealth and human flourishing for Americans and foreigners alike? Yes, for that we should sacrifice a lot.

 

And that concept of sovereignty came from the enlightenment-era moral revelation of the sovereignty of the individual. Turns out when you base your society around that morality, wealth and growth follow. We should not be so quick to let it wither.

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[FLEA]

Definitely not an isolationist, more of a money baller. Looking for the biggest interests for the smallest investment. 

Your history on sovereignty is a bit off. Sovereignty came from the peace of Westphalia (hence its often called Westphalian sovereignty) and was one of many rules instituted by belligerents to protect larger states who were seen as more capable of governance. The other common rules were embracing standing armies, rules against political assassination, and the beggining concepts of balance of power. All of these conclusions were reach in Europe first but not by accident. Europe balkanized after the fall of Rome which caused it to develop hard political boundaries far earlier than the rest of the world. It's one of the reasons that makes discussing issues of historic sovereignty difficult with China. The eastern empires of China and India didn't really have hard boundaries. They just expanded into new territory until their power faded from its capital centers of gravity. So China did control some contested territories at some historical points in history but not in the same sense of control we think of. More so that those areas were just close enough to Chinese influence that it made accepting governance more beneficial for them. 

In all of the above mentioned rules (sovereignty, balance of power, no assassination, standing armies) there was an underlying theme to remove international power from smaller states and embody it in larger states. The whole idea of great powers and their satellites. It was believed that a few great powers could negotiate security more effectively that a conglomerate of states with straying interests. 

In any case, none of that is really important today. What is important is the recognition that sovereignty is relatively new in geopolitics, and like other political constructs, it will eventually fade to be replaced by something else. There is already emerging evidence to show that human networks that are transgeographic are beginning to erode sovereign power on global affairs. (Think anonymous) Now is that something that happens in our lifetime? Probably not. Is it something that happens in a few hundred years, probably. 

Personally, I see sovereignty for what it is. A temporary political construct that does the bare minimum to prevent descent from chaos but has little upholding it from being a hard and fast rule. Very few people on here are arguing to make the US a pariah state after violating Iraqs sovereignty over WMDs, a charter of war most of the world saw as an excuse to get oil. 

Also noone upheld sovereignty when we went into Syria to eliminate ISIS. And we certainly aren't offering to pay reparations for damages caused there. 

If I go back even further we can talk about Iran, Cuba, Guatamala, or the dozen other times we deliberately ignored sovereignty to meet state ends. 

So while it sounds all rainbows and unicorns to uphold this crusade to defend sovereignty I think it's a bit misguided because in reality we want to maintain the capability to "interpret sovereignty differently" when it meets our needs as well. Or so I presume. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by FLEA

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Prozac just curious how powerful do you think the US is? Do you think we possess the outright capability to uphold some of these claims without significant and permenant damage to the US and it's interests.... Because that's a big part of all of this. We have the greatest military on the globe but not the greatest military on anyone one spot in the globe, and the logistics Kung Fu required to make that isn't really achievable without significant exposure and vulnerability of our country's strategic centers of gravity. I think that's a huge piece people misunderstand. 

We've already pledged to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression.

Although we also gave guarantees to Ukraine...so maybe there will be a bunch of politicians and military officers willing to say Taiwan "invited" the Chinese to invade by "being provocative".

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

 

 

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1508525310295351298?s=21&t=IJhwbxrBFTHBB-2d4oLuVA

Edited March 28, 2022 by BashiChuni

[Sua Sponte]

5 hours ago, GrndPndr said:

I guess we're going to put troops into Ukraine after all...

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1507386975753494533

What was the whole video context before that propaganda site edited their hot take and took his comment out of context?

[BashiChuni]

You guys keep calling it propaganda when they’re actually quotes the President said. 
 

Quotes. Not made up. Quoted on video.