Upset are we now VV? Does that explain your juvenile us versus them rhetoric?
Of course the Russians are willing to kill a large number of Ukrainians and ultimately others if you and your fellow Americans back them into a corner. Whether you agree or understand, the Russians view pushy NATO as an existential threat.
Personally, I would have kept NATO out of the former Warsaw Pact Treaty countries. But you already know that don't you?
Given US-lead NATO's blunders to date, I would have sat down and negotiated seriously with the Russians in the spring of 2022. You support President Biden's hawish stance and rhetoric on Ukraine; I do not.
Quite frankly, I see your policy stance as self-loathing assuming that you genuinely care about American economic and strategic outcomes and welfare. The USA is coming out of this conflict weaker, not stronger.
Spring of 2022? Why wait so long? Why not negotiate with Putin in 2014, when he first invaded - you do remember that, no?
Interesting that you can't call it a war. Seems you should be asked the same questions. How many men's lives does the fool Putin want to sacrifice to try and save face in the context of a losing conflict: 200,000? 1/4 million? 1/2 million? More? Should we put you down for 2 million and more? How much additional damage does he want to inflict on his economy and his people in the face of a losing proposition?.,...
Upset are we now VV? Does that explain your juvenile us versus them rhetoric?
Of course the Russians are willing to kill a large number of Ukrainians and ultimately others if you and your fellow Americans back them into a corner. Whether you agree or understand, the Russians view pushy NATO as an existential threat.
Personally, I would have kept NATO out of the former Warsaw Pact Treaty countries. But you already know that don't you?
Given US-lead NATO's blunders to date, I would have sat down and negotiated seriously with the Russians in the spring of 2022. You support President Biden's hawish stance and rhetoric on Ukraine; I do not.
Quite frankly, I see your policy stance as self-loathing assuming that you genuinely care about American economic and strategic outcomes and welfare. The USA is coming out of this conflict weaker, not stronger.
Allow me to come clean: I worry every time Max Boot vents enthusiastically about a prospective military action. Whenever that Washington Post columnist professes optimism about some upcoming bloodletting, misfortune tends to follow. And as it happens, heâs positively bullish about the prospect of Ukraine handing Russia a decisive defeat in its upcoming, widely anticipated, sure-to-happen-any-day-now spring counteroffensive. (...)
As astute readers will already know, apart from a few staged forays near
the front linesâofficially controlled and monitored, never at the front
linesâcorrespondents from The New York Times, the other big dailies,
the wire services, and the broadcast networks have accepted without
protest the Kyiv regimeâs refusal to allow them to see the war as it is.
Content these professional slovens have been to sit in Kyiv hotel rooms
and file stories based on the regimeâs transparently unreliable
accounts of events, all the while pretending their stories are properly
reported and factual.
Even for well-reported 20th century wars, decades later, historians are still seeking to improve our understanding of them. With the Ukraine conflict, weâre in the midst of the unprecedented experience of being able to discern a remarkably high proportion of what is afoot, albeit with a great deal of noise in the signal between aggressive propagandizing and issues of sourcing with various purported close-to-the-action accounts. (...)
Here's some background and context. Mearsheimer was interviewed in November 2022 by the New Yorker. He pontificated then about Putin's motives: Putin didn't have imperialist intentions before the last invasion because...he said so. The fact that he had since annexed large chunks of Ukraine doesn't matter because...well, it just doesn't.
In the speech above he seems remarkably confident that Russia will win, defined as conquering and controlling certain territory. The facts on the ground don't support this, but whatever. Russia's cheerleaders in this conflict seem oblivious to reality on many levels. Like Putin, Mearsheimer made a seriously bad call and he's doubling down on it.
He also makes it clear that he doesn't want to talk about his visit with Victor Orban. At all.
Well, then NATO should stop arming Ukraine and slowly escalating the conflict. This is your proxy war whether you like it or not.
So kcar, how many additional Ukrainian lives are you hoping and willing to sacrifice for this expected great military victory? 200,000? 1/4 million? 1/2 million? More?
Should we put you down for 2 million and more?
How much additional damage are you willing to impose on the US economy near-term and US hegemony longer term in order to achieve this great military victory over the Russians?
You do realize that regardless of how much resources the Rich West pours into post-conflict Ukraine that the country will never fully recover. Most Ukrainian refugees will choose not to return to Ukraine.
Or is strategic cost-benefit analysis the sole purview of the evil and nasty people?
Interesting that you can't call it a war. Seems you should be asked the same questions. How many men's lives does the fool Putin want to sacrifice to try and save face in the context of a losing conflict: 200,000? 1/4 million? 1/2 million? More? Should we put you down for 2 million and more? How much additional damage does he want to inflict on his economy and his people in the face of a losing proposition? How many more people need to be thrown off balconies to appease the Russian tyrant? How many more Ukranian civilians need to be tortured, raped and killed by Russian soldiers in the name of Denazification? How many more Ukranian children need to be ripped from their families and sent to Russia for re-education and forced adoption?
It's lose/lose any way you look at it but seems Putin certainly doesn't seem prepared to cut his losses... only increase them.
Once the war ends, it will be a decade or longer before Russia will be able to recover its economy and military to a pre-war status. The damage is done and Putin is learning a very hard lesson at the expense of his people & country.
Most have underestimated the Ukrainians and been very wrong. The only thing I can see standing in their way is Biden. His streak of being on the wrong side of every US foreign policy decision is intact. He should have let the Ukrainians have the Migs when Poland offered them up way back when. The Ukrainians already knew how to fly them. Joe was the one who blocked that from happening. Better late than never, but those F - 16's are still not approved by Joe. He has yet to even approve of the flight training. He's just talking about talking about talking about them. He's dragging his feet with this like everything else he does. It will be months, maybe a year from now before the Ukrainians start flying them, if ever. By - den it won't matter.
Negative. Training planning has already begun. The F-16 is the most popular fighter among western countries. Training will be carried out in multiple countries.
Denmark, Netherlands to lead F-16 training coalition for Ukrainian pilots “Norway, Belgium, Portugal and Poland have already offered to contribute to training and we expect more countries to join.” Training likely to be 4 months, or less. Expect to see F-16s in the air over Ukraine during the summer.
Neither NATO nor Western powers are forcing Ukraine to fight against Russia's invasion. The Ukrainians are fighting for their lives, their freedom, their country and their culture. Putin and the Russian army have amply demonstrated that it wants to destroy all four. Russia started this war and has shown no interest in seeking peace or a cease-fire.
You wrote
"How much additional damage are you willing to impose on the US economy near-term and US hegemony longer term in order to achieve this great military victory over the Russians?"
Please, provide evidence that the US's support of Ukraine is damaging the US economy or "US hegemony." Provide hard data, sources and any reputable supporting analysis.
"You do realize that regardless of how much resources the Rich West pours into post-conflict Ukraine that the country will never fully recover. Most Ukrainian refugees will choose not to return to Ukraine."
I've read your recommendations for peace or in general alternatives to war. As I wrote before, your proposed settlement plan was so lopsided in Russia's favor that it would practically guarantee another outbreak of was much like the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. You also repeatedly fail to assign any responsibility to Russia for the deaths and destruction in Ukraine.
Over and over again, you majickly blame the US for prolonging this conflict—so much so that I think you're either paid to shill for Putin or are suffering from dementia.
Discussing this matter with you is largely a waste of time because you fail to respond intelligently to the posts rebutting your claims.
Most have underestimated the Ukrainians and been very wrong.
The only thing I can see standing in their way is Biden. His streak of being on the wrong side of every US foreign policy decision is intact. He should have let the Ukrainians have the Migs when Poland offered them up way back when. The Ukrainians already knew how to fly them. Joe was the one who blocked that from happening.
Better late than never, but those F - 16's are still not approved by Joe. He has yet to even approve of the flight training. He's just talking about talking about talking about them. He's dragging his feet with this like everything else he does. It will be months, maybe a year from now before the Ukrainians start flying them, if ever. By - den it won't matter.
Negative. Training planning has already begun. The F-16 is the most popular fighter among western countries. Training will be carried out in multiple countries.
Most Ukrainian refugees will choose not to return to Ukraine.
Most have underestimated the Ukrainians and been very wrong.
The only thing I can see standing in their way is Biden. His streak of being on the wrong side of every US foreign policy decision is intact. He should have let the Ukrainians have the Migs when Poland offered them up way back when. The Ukrainians already knew how to fly them. Joe was the one who blocked that from happening.
Better late than never, but those F - 16's are still not approved by Joe. He has yet to even approve of the flight training. He's just talking about talking about talking about them. He's dragging his feet with this like everything else he does. It will be months, maybe a year from now before the Ukrainians start flying them, if ever. By - den it won't matter.
Well, then NATO should stop arming Ukraine and slowly escalating the conflict. This is your proxy war whether you like it or not.
So kcar, how many additional Ukrainian lives are you hoping and willing to sacrifice for this expected great military victory? 200,000? 1/4 million? 1/2 million? More?
Should we put you down for 2 million and more?
How much additional damage are you willing to impose on the US economy near-term and US hegemony longer term in order to achieve this great military victory over the Russians?
You do realize that regardless of how much resources the Rich West pours into post-conflict Ukraine that the country will never fully recover. Most Ukrainian refugees will choose not to return to Ukraine.
Or is strategic cost-benefit analysis the sole purview of the evil and nasty people?
It's posts like these that make me question your sanity and/or your financial motivations.
I don't think I'll ever fully understand why you think Russia was justified in invading Ukraine and trying to completely destroy its democratic government. IIRC you keep claiming that Russia felt threatened by NATO and/or encircled isolation at its borders; therefore, Russia's invasion is something like a pre-emptive defensive strike against Western aggression and encroachment.
This is BS. Russia is trying to keep Ukraine a vassal state despite the deposal of the puppet Yanukovich in 2014. Consider the excellent points made in this op-ed piece by a Seven Pifer, a senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation.
Ironically, Russia had a neutral Ukraine in 2013. A 2010 Ukrainian law enshrined non-bloc status for the country, and then-Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych showed no desire to join NATO. He was interested in concluding an association agreement with the European Union, but he came under massive pressure from Moscow not to do so in late 2013. He succumbed to that pressure, and the announcement that Kyiv would not sign the completed association agreement triggered protests that same evening that began the Maidan Revolution.
Putinâs decision to launch a new attack on Ukraine appears to have several motivations.One is geopolitical, the Kremlinâs desire to have a Russian sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space and its fear that Ukraine was invariably moving away from Moscow. This is a broader question than Ukraineâs relationship with NATO. But nothing has done more than Russian policy and actions since 2014 to push Ukraine away from Russia and toward the West.
Pifer also believes that Putin is concerned that a democratic, open-economy Ukraine allied with the West would cause envy amongst Russians, leading to unrest and agitation against his iron rule. He also points to Putin's vision of a new Russian empire as motivation.
However, Pifer also points out that before and after the invasion, NATO member nations were not enthusiastic about Ukrainian membership in the alliance since it could have and could lead to an open NATO-Russia conflict.
Some history from Pifer:
In July 1997, NATO invited Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to begin accession negotiations â but only after first laying the basis for a cooperative relationship with Russia. In May 1997, NATO and Russia concluded the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, which set up a permanent body for consultation and coordination. From 1997 to early 2014, NATO deployed virtually no combat forces on the territory of its new members. That changed following Russiaâs use of military force to seize Crimea and its involvement in the conflict in Donbas in eastern Ukraine in March and April 2014. Even then, NATO moved to deploy, on a rotating basis, multinational battlegroups numbering 1,000-1,600 troops in each of the three Baltic states and Polandâno more than tripwire forces.
As for advancing the Alliance to Russiaâs borders, five current NATO members border on Russia or the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad (this does not include Finland, which requested membership only in May 2022). Of the five current members, the last to join the Alliance, the three Baltic states, did so in 2004. That was 18 years ago. Putin did not raise a fuss then.
In fact, in May 2002, Putin met NATO leaders in Rome and agreed to a joint declaration on deepening and giving a new quality to NATO-Russia relations. In his address at that NATO-Russia summit, Putin expressed no concern about NATO enlargement, even though the Alliance planned a second summit later that year, and the Russian president had to know that NATO then would invite additional countries, quite probably including the Baltic states, to join.
Putin has in recent years played up grievances against NATO enlargement in ways that he did not when NATO was enlarging in Russiaâs neighborhood. The four countries that joined the Alliance after 2004 are all in the Balkans, quite distant from Russiaâs borders. The Russian president reacted calmly to this yearâs Finnish and Swedish decisions to apply to join â even though Finlandâs addition will more than double the length of Russiaâs borders with NATO.
What makes you think decision isn't primarily one that the Ukrainians get to make?
Well, then NATO should stop arming Ukraine and slowly escalating the conflict. This is your proxy war whether you like it or not.
So kcar, how many additional Ukrainian lives are you hoping and willing to sacrifice for this expected great military victory? 200,000? 1/4 million? 1/2 million? More?
Should we put you down for 2 million and more?
How much additional damage are you willing to impose on the US economy near-term and US hegemony longer term in order to achieve this great military victory over the Russians?
You do realize that regardless of how much resources the Rich West pours into post-conflict Ukraine that the country will never fully recover. Most Ukrainian refugees will choose not to return to Ukraine.
Or is strategic cost-benefit analysis the sole purview of the evil and nasty people?
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
May 29, 2023 - 4:50pm
Beaker wrote:
The long-feared Russian bear has been exposed as the second best army fighting in Ukraine. Their reliance on a Soviet-era command structure, riddled with corruption, is their downfall, along with the many lies told to Putin.
Most surprising to me is how many prominent folks are still shouting Ukraine will lose, that the funding to Ukraine must cease (not our fight etc) - as they don't understand this fight isn't just some regional skirmish over a chunk of land.
From Sweden & Finland joining NATO, to the resilient backing of western govts, to European countries even leading past America, with their contributions of advanced weaponry, and ongoing training of Ukrainian forces on the new equipment, this is a critical fight of our lifetimes. Putin and his advisors couldn't (or wouldn't) see any of this coming.
Putin's Russia must be defeated so that a better Russia can emerge and rejoin the world community.
I feel sorry for the Russian/ Ukraine citizens.
I would be good if this conflict ends quickly.
Oh no, wait, yer just a sofa-warmonger.. just like a majority of posters in this thread. Hey it's just TV to us Umricanz, just like Counter-Strike on my Playstation...
