Ukraine War

[wildcat09 29,213]

12 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Yes, I do. If you have not followed my posts I would direct you to the realist school of IR as espoused by Dr John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. "Why Ukraine Is the west's fault" has an inflammatory headline but it was not so inflammatory in 2014 when he gave the talk as it is now. Check him out on Youtube. 

Why do you think realism is a good foreign policy model for the left to adopt?

I bet soon you'll be posting something in support of Henry Kissinger.

[Brisketexan 104,537]

Also, to MAC….not a single person on this board has said that Ukraine shouldn’t be negotiating with Russia or otherwise be trying to reach a peace agreement (the “draw” of which you speak).
What some of us HAVE observed, including some of us who manage conflict for a living, is that a cessation of hostilities often and regularly cannot happen until the aggressor has he his nose sufficiently bloodied. And further, it’s negation 101: negotiate from your position of maximum strength.
Thus, Ukraine will continue to fight, and should, until Russia is ready to accept something that is also acceptable to Ukraine.

And we’ll just set aside the intentional, genocidal war crimes for a moment. Which, yes, are different than America’s recent forays (and you MIGHT recall the fact that in recent memory, we have actually prosecuted individual soldiers who intentionally killed civilians; those haven’t gone perfectly, but we’ve at least got the mechanism and are using it). But we’ll be coming back to these, no matter how inconvenient you find them.

You’re only looking worse with each post you make. That you’re doing it with a giant straw man is killing your credibility. Again, none of us want this war (only Putin does). None of us don’t want this to end in some sort of peace agreement (again, so far, only Putin is on the other side of that issue). We are just realistic enough to understand what it will take to get there. And that includes a lot more dead Russians and a state of hatred between Russia and Ukraine that will last for generations. You cannot undo what has been done.

[aggie08 21,414]

Anastasis trying to carry MAC's water would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

[Hermanator 6,928]

How does appeasement for Putin work? This guy said we should disarm Ukraine, make them neutral, but give them article 5 protection? 

How do we disarm Ukraine? After what's happening there they aren't going to agree to be disarmed. We'd have to threaten to remove military support from them but then that's just handing them over to be overrun by Russia. So that's obviously not a threat we'd ever follow through on. 

Secondly, how do you give Ukraine a NATO enforced Article 5 protection but keep them neutral? That article 5 protection is the benefit of being in NATO. That's not remaining neutral. So at this point if we tell Putin once he leaves Ukraine it gets Article 5 protection he isn't leaving. He won't agree to that because it isn't neutrality. This guy's proposal for appeasement isn't even possible as it's requirements are contradictory to each other and impossible to implement together. 

Mearsheimer's argument has the flaw of removing responsibility for these actions from Russia. It presupposes that Russia's motivations are purely strategic from a defense standpoint, and their actions in this war have shown that to be completely false. 

I do believe that peace talks and a line of communication should remain open but it's Putin who's dug himself into a hole and is being pushed back. He's the one having to sacrifice his troops and fight a war of attrition and not NATO. He's in a catch 22 situation as the only avenue he has left to win would also destroy his country and himself. Now is not the time to concede, and even if NATO wanted to it would be impossible to convince Ukraine to do so as they know they're winning their land back and force is the only thing keeping Russia from destroying the entire country at this point. 

[Anastasis 23,390]

29 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Mearsheimer's argument has the flaw of removing responsibility for these actions from Russia.

I don't believe this to be true.  And it is not just Mearsheimer's argument, although that seems to be one common recurring example used here and elsewhere. There were lots of people raising the flag 25+ years ago. They lost the debate wrt how to proceed in the post-Cold War world and here we are. Anyhow, that does not absolve Russia or Putin in any way for what is taking place in Ukraine. Just like OBL was not absolved for 9/11 by people who sought to understand the various influences and factors related to the emergence of OBL and the Taliban.     

Edited April 3, 2022 by Anastasis

[cactusflinthead 27,594]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

What is your source for this info?

Will the Washington Post do? They confirmed it yesterday.

Comparing what we did in Nicaragua a century ago doesn't mean a thing to that dead guy in the street of Bucha.

 

[Hefeweizen 5,307]

 

Here is the playbook.

 

[cactusflinthead 27,594]

I guess he's just playing to the base

 

[cactusflinthead 27,594]

 

[cactusflinthead 27,594]

If the WaPo isn't good enough how about Human Rights Watch?

Those six guys are gonna get lost in the pile of bodies. 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

It's a damn good thing we've invited the baltic and eastern euro nations into NATO, otherwise we're have a much bigger shit show with Putin than we do now.  He is only corralled by the knowledge he can't take on NATO directly.  

That Chicago prof. whose a smart man of course..... his conclusions are all wrong, Putin acted stupidly......

[bolverk 29,394]

3 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

What is your source for this info?

 

How about you jump over to my post with a strong reportage from the BBC and an article from The Sunday Times?

Or you could check out any number of other sources if you bothered to look.

 

[Sawbonz 27,392]

6 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

inability to accept draws

Describe the “draw”

[Hefeweizen 5,307]

You guys, that’s just a natural reaction to accepting Poland into NATO.  You can’t blame Russia for executing people and destroying civilization in this part of Ukraine because the US basically made them do it!

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2,059]

5 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Because I know that any citation of civilian deaths at the hands of the American military will be dismissed out of hand as "whataboutism," I will only put forth a token effort to make the argument. And to say, "yeah what about Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam? And by proxy, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras? And The Phillippines circa 1900? (Read Mark Twain's diaries on our atrocities there.) Of all people, who are we to pontificate about the civilian casualties inflicted by others? Of course, we have had the decency to confine most of ours to brown people, so we didn't rip the fart in church Putin has in that regard. And we always believe we have learned our lesson and won't do the same in the next war, and then the next war rolls around, and it's the same ol' same ol'. "The enemy was using them as human shields." "We acted off bad intel." 

"what, you think we're so innocent?"

[956 Worldwide 34,410]

18 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

You guys, that’s just a natural reaction to accepting Poland into NATO.  You can’t blame Russia for executing people and destroying civilization in this part of Ukraine because the US basically made them do it!

As I saw somewhere on Twitter, Russia brought tens of thousands of bodybags and mobile crematoria to a war it expected to win easily.

ThIs Is AlL aBoUt NaTo ExPaNsIoN!@$

[Kyrie Eleison 9,312]

15 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Why not try? Y'all attribute so much to Putin, you'd think he was your dad. 

As for the appeasement thing, lol. He knows he can't take and hold Ukraine; that's why he is pulling back now. The idea that he can sack all the nations of the old Warsaw Pact is as laughable as the idea Todd Orlando could stop a [b]decent offense[/b] on 3rd and 17. 

“decent offense”…?   we were so much more than that.   

[bolverk 29,394]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

As I saw somewhere on Twitter, Russia brought tens of thousands of bodybags and mobile crematoria to a war it expected to win easily.

ThIs Is AlL aBoUt NaTo ExPaNsIoN!@$

Putin himself said before the invasion something to the effect that Ukraine wasn't a real country that didn't deserve to exist. Those statements, coupled with previous well-documented planning to create a "Novorossiya," previous take-overs of Donbas/Crimea, the current invasion and attempt at toppling the Ukrainian government, and genocidal actions including the systematic murder of civilians in Bucha and forced evacuations of Ukrainians from their land to Russia, all point to one goal: an ethnic cleansing of Ukraine to erase their identity as a separate people and nation.

This isn't about the EU, NATO, or neutrality. This is about the elimination of Ukraine as an independent country, distinct from Russia.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,144]

Between this guy and Milton Friedman, I’m thinking the University of Chicago is overrated as fuck. 

[Brisketexan 104,537]

Between this guy and Milton Friedman, I’m thinking the University of Chicago is overrated as fuck. 

They shouldn’t have hired Tom Herman as their dean.

[956 Worldwide 34,410]

24 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Putin himself said before the invasion something to the effect that Ukraine wasn't a real country that didn't deserve to exist. Those statements, coupled with previous well-documented planning to create a "Novorossiya," previous take-overs of Donbas/Crimea, the current invasion and attempt at toppling the Ukrainian government, and genocidal actions including the systematic murder of civilians in Bucha and forced evacuations of Ukrainians from their land to Russia, all point to one goal: an ethnic cleansing of Ukraine to erase their identity as a separate people and nation.

This isn't about the EU, NATO, or neutrality. This is about the elimination of Ukraine as an independent country, distinct from Russia.

Putin’s issue with Ukraine in NATO or Ukraine with weapons was always-always- about wanting to reserve the right to kill a bunch of people in Ukraine, or topple their government, or take away bits and pieces.  That’s always what Ukrainian neutrality means in Russia’s eyes, too.  People lose sight of this when they make the “backed into a corner” argument.  That’s the corner he felt backed into. 

[UDontKnow 10,439]

23 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Putin himself said before the invasion something to the effect that Ukraine wasn't a real country that didn't deserve to exist. Those statements, coupled with previous well-documented planning to create a "Novorossiya," previous take-overs of Donbas/Crimea, the current invasion and attempt at toppling the Ukrainian government, and genocidal actions including the systematic murder of civilians in Bucha and forced evacuations of Ukrainians from their land to Russia, all point to one goal: an ethnic cleansing of Ukraine to erase their identity as a separate people and nation.

This isn't about the EU, NATO, or neutrality. This is about the elimination of Ukraine as an independent country, distinct from Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/19/ukraines-not-a-country-putin-told-bush-whatd-he-tell-trump-about-montenegro/

He told Dubya that in 2008 at the NATO Summit in Bucharest. The same Dubya that looked Putin in the eye, saw his soul, and found him to be straightforward and trustworthy. In all fairness, Obama wanted to "appeal to his [Putin's] brain."

[UDontKnow 10,439]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Putin’s issue with Ukraine in NATO or Ukraine with weapons was always-always- about wanting to reserve the right to kill a bunch of people in Ukraine, or topple their government, or take away bits and pieces.  That’s always what Ukrainian neutrality means in Russia’s eyes, too.  People lose sight of this when they make the “backed into a corner” argument.  That’s the corner he felt backed into. 

Who is making this argument besides Trumplicans (domestically) and authoritarian governments and their supporters (internationally)?

[Hermanator 6,928]

10 minutes ago, UDontKnow said:

Who is making this argument besides Trumplicans (domestically) and authoritarian governments and their supporters (internationally)?

University of Chicago professor and someone on this thread who's parroting him. 

[Nivek 16,843]

15 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I am still for appeasement in that appeasement means peace. 

All I hear from the pro-war crowd is "moar bombs" but what is the fucking end goal? Do we really think we can just end Russia here? Without them hunking a few nukes around? The more we pour into there the likelier this is going to quickly escalate into nuclear war. Some of you believe that Putin wouldn't be able to carry out that order, or that Russia's nukes are decrepit and probably don't work, but I think y'all are a bunch of Anton Chigurhs and it doesn't matter much. Those are not bets I want to be forced to take. 

Again -- let's get to the peace table and work out a truly neutral Ukraine. Why is that such an offensive concept for y'all to accept?

 

Again, you are looking at this for a short term solution.   The goal of ending hostilities favors Russia, who can recover, revamp their military, reload, and redeploy when they are in a better position.   The horror stories out of Ukraine is consistent with their barbaric actions of nearly 100 years ago and shows a lack of moral progression for the last century.   I see no reason to trust the Russian regime that has continued expansionist rhetoric and actions that any ending in hostilities will alter the mission.   

Your characterization of people opposing your idea is rather simplistic and doesn't really impact the nuances of conflict or the people who oppose you.   Yes, arming Ukraine is our duty.   Russia and the Soviet Union have meddled with our governments elections, our infrastructure, and on the world stage they supplied weapons and ammo to our adversaries.   It is our duty to respond in kind, especially when there is a direct opportunity to severely harm their war machine again.  Isolating them on the world stage, also is fantastic.  They have been getting away with murder of people in other nations violating their sovereignty for decades with little repercussions.  Even when we did put sanctions up for harming them, their puppet representatives made sure to mitigate the impact.   The prestige of Russia has been exposed.  Their meddling likely didn't just stop here.   This is a fantastic opportunity to repair the damage of Trump/GOP did, to reaffirm our commitment to our allies and our ideals, and to support democracies.   This is a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate the weakness of the Russian police state, to demonstrate how this type of society is both weak, poor, barbaric, and cruel.   Aligning with the West is a path to prosperity.  

I actually think the attacks inside Russia are necessary for Ukraine.   They need these largely symbolic attacks to boost morale.   They just cannot exist on mass graves, rape victims, kids shot for sport.  They need to hurt Russian society and they need to secure ALL of the land stolen from them.   

If Russia wants to use Nukes then that is the path they are going to take.  We cannot stop that from happening.   We also cannot let them dictate terms just because they have Nukes to the rest of the world.   They also know that they can still live relatively well inside Russia right now, and in about 10 years the sanctions will fall, and the rich will have world access again.   But going nuclear invites a response removes that option as well.  There will be no safe haven.  They are asking themselves right now, was this worth it?  Was mass murdering people in Ukraine worth this?  Will using nukes be worth it?   If Russia demands Alaska back or they will nuke us would you give it?   

 

[RomaVicta 29,769]

MaybeACoordinator conflates a lot of different stuff that do not belong in the same argument. He also fails to see that war in Ukraine outside of a strange American proxy arrangement with Ukrainians on puppet strings.

I was at first confused at how MAC's arguments for finding a peaceful solution were under such heavy attack. I don't see anything inherently wrong with protected Ukrainian neutrality if that's what they want.

As for "fighting to the last man," I don't think any country makes such a decision at the behest of another country. As 956 Worldwide pointed out earlier, this isn't an American proxy war. It's an existential crisis for Ukraine, and they follow their own leaders. It's pretty much insulting to the courage and proven fighting ability of Ukrainians to suggest that they're puppets.

I've often criticized the way we (the US) enter wars without recognizing that we will be killing large numbers of civilians. Our record of manipulating Latin American countries and even providing education for brutal oppression in the School of the Americas is a black mark of shame that we don't even teach in schools.

That said, if my brother commits a brutal murder, does that mean I don't have the standing to decry and attempt to stop someone else committing a brutal murder? No. This conflict is about Ukraine. Don't try to fit it, again, into some America-centric international strategy past and present. 

On the other side of the argument, I'm not comfortable with the insistence that an effective agreement can be made with Russia to restore Ukraine. Dismissing it as something that absolutely cannot happen becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not insisting that such an agreement is likely or even probable, but I'm not going to exclude an option based on the horrors of appeasement. (There are actually arguments that the appeasement of Chamberlain bought England time to better prepare for the war they eventually won.)

I hadn't read or heard about the atrocity stories and Russian retreat stories until I opened this thread. I share the horror. I also see the devastation that Ukrainians have done to Russia's army. This factor should not be ignored as an incentive for Russia to cut its its losses. War is expensive. Losing a war is hugely expensive. Would Russia even have the capability to continue expansion through military might? That's a pretty big chip on the table.

I guess my initial puzzlement is the vehemence of the attitude towards MAC. I think he's generally wrong, but I don't see his ideas as crazy or insincere. Of course, maybe there's history I don't know about.

Okay, I've bloviated enough.

[Hornius Emeritus 12,408]

[956 Worldwide 34,410]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Why do you think realism is a good foreign policy model for the left to adopt?

I bet soon you'll be posting something in support of Henry Kissinger.

This is where I remind folks that realism is a theory of how states behave and interact, and that there’s plenty of diversity in realist thought. It’s not realpolitik and it isn’t a prescriptive policy framework, you can get to different places within a realist model.  There’s also a whole universe of international relations theory beyond the realist-neocon binary, although your more insecure realists and dilettantes like to pretend there isn’t. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

Bucha has every hallmark of an atrocity but we need a third party to come in there and figure out what really happened. And we need to see if it's part of larger pattern during the brief occupation of these towns across Ukraine so that we can see if it was the work of shitty commanders of individual units or part of the overall design of the war plan, so that the scope of the international war crimes investigation can be cast as wide or narrowly as necessary. If this pattern is repeated in each city the Russians withdraw from, the international indictments should go higher and higher up to and including Putin himself. 

But again -- what is y'all's endgame here? How does Ukraine "win"?

And in the event of the collapse of Putin's government....be careful what you wish for. The assumption is that we get a kindly, corrupt, drunk old Boris. We re just as liable to end up with a true monster like Stalin.

As for the question about liberalism vs realism, 1. Mearsheimer is a Sanders voter; 2. Liberalism at home and abroad are two different things. Our attempts to install liberal democracies on our model have failed time and time again. At some point you have to accept the facts on the ground and adjust accordingly. I think back to a line from Dunkirk: the RAF squadron leader was bitching to his commander back at their base about how this rescue mission was taking place at Dunkirk and not Calais, which is most closer. "I am afraid the enemy had something to say about that," the commander said. 

Or for The Wire fans: "You want it to be one way, but it's the other way." It sucks but the world is a cruel place and no amount of idealism can change that sometimes. I wish it could but it cannot. 

We can't always get what we want, so we have to make the best of what is. That is bedrock realism.

[jimmyjazz 45,538]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

As for the question about liberalism vs realism, 1. Mearsheimer is a Sanders voter;

Of course he is.  It explains your fawning support, too.

 

Quote

I think back to a line from Dunkirk: the RAF squadron leader was bitching to his commander back at their base about how this rescue mission was taking place at Dunkirk and not Calais, which is most closer. "I am afraid the enemy had something to say about that," the commander said. 

Or for The Wire fans: "You want it to be one way, but it's the other way." It sucks but the world is a cruel place and no amount of idealism can change that sometimes. I wish it could but it cannot. 

We can't always get what we want, so we have to make the best of what is. That is bedrock realism.

It's as if you don't even read what you write.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Why do you think realism is a good foreign policy model for the left to adopt?

I bet soon you'll be posting something in support of Henry Kissinger.

I just finished the Behind The Bastards series on Kissinger and will now probably always associate him with the moniker "The Forrest Gump of War Crimes" or the more concise "Fuckinger".

[956 Worldwide 34,410]

28 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

MaybeACoordinator conflates a lot of different stuff that do not belong in the same argument. He also fails to see that war in Ukraine outside of a strange American proxy arrangement with Ukrainians on puppet strings.

I was at first confused at how MAC's arguments for finding a peaceful solution were under such heavy attack. I don't see anything inherently wrong with protected Ukrainian neutrality if that's what they want.

As for "fighting to the last man," I don't think any country makes such a decision at the behest of another country. As 956 Worldwide pointed out earlier, this isn't an American proxy war. It's an existential crisis for Ukraine, and they follow their own leaders. It's pretty much insulting to the courage and proven fighting ability of Ukrainians to suggest that they're puppets.

I've often criticized the way we (the US) enter wars without recognizing that we will be killing large numbers of civilians. Our record of manipulating Latin American countries and even providing education for brutal oppression in the School of the Americas is a black mark of shame that we don't even teach in schools.

That said, if my brother commits a brutal murder, does that mean I don't have the standing to decry and attempt to stop someone else committing a brutal murder? No. This conflict is about Ukraine. Don't try to fit it, again, into some America-centric international strategy past and present. 

On the other side of the argument, I'm not comfortable with the insistence that an effective agreement can be made with Russia to restore Ukraine. Dismissing it as something that absolutely cannot happen becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not insisting that such an agreement is likely or even probable, but I'm not going to exclude an option based on the horrors of appeasement. (There are actually arguments that the appeasement of Chamberlain bought England time to better prepare for the war they eventually won.)

I hadn't read or heard about the atrocity stories and Russian retreat stories until I opened this thread. I share the horror. I also see the devastation that Ukrainians have done to Russia's army. This factor should not be ignored as an incentive for Russia to cut its its losses. War is expensive. Losing a war is hugely expensive. Would Russia even have the capability to continue expansion through military might? That's a pretty big chip on the table.

I guess my initial puzzlement is the vehemence of the attitude towards MAC. I think he's generally wrong, but I don't see his ideas as crazy or insincere. Of course, maybe there's history I don't know about.

Okay, I've bloviated enough.

I think the vehemence is coming from the fact that his theories and ideas might once have been reasonable, but a rational person would be willing to climb down once they all became OBE. Because they really are OBE, nothing in Putin’s rhetoric or conduct of the war suggests this was really about Ukraine in NATO, its clear this is something else entirely.  I’ve seen that fucking Mearsheimer clip posted at least four times.  No matter how erudite the dude is, a lecture from 2014 from a person who is NOT a Russia or Eastern Europe expert is going to be lacking in explanatory power or a prescriptive course of action as a war unfolds in 2022. Its  oddly reminiscent of people whose every answer to a social ill is a monologue from Atlas Shrugged. It’s just hunkering down with what makes you comfortable. 

[Gatorubet 30,083]

33 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I guess my initial puzzlement is the vehemence of the attitude towards MAC. I think he's generally wrong, but I don't see his ideas as crazy or insincere. Of course, maybe there's history I don't know about

He has not retreated from his original premise that he does not care if Putin takes all of Ukraine so long as he does not attack others in Europe.   Given what Russia is doing in Ukraine, you’d think that he might reconsider some.

And his response about our century-ago colonial era transgresssions being somehow relevant to Putin’s troops current war crimes in Ukraine makes as much sense as 1914 MAC saying, “Why should we help Britain in this war - they burned the White House a century ago!”

Surly suffers fools poorly. 

 

[Mdhorn 5,910]

4 hours ago, Hermanator said:

How does appeasement for Putin work? This guy said we should disarm Ukraine, make them neutral, but give them article 5 protection? 

How do we disarm Ukraine? After what's happening there they aren't going to agree to be disarmed. We'd have to threaten to remove military support from them but then that's just handing them over to be overrun by Russia. So that's obviously not a threat we'd ever follow through on. 

Secondly, how do you give Ukraine a NATO enforced Article 5 protection but keep them neutral? That article 5 protection is the benefit of being in NATO. That's not remaining neutral. So at this point if we tell Putin once he leaves Ukraine it gets Article 5 protection he isn't leaving. He won't agree to that because it isn't neutrality. This guy's proposal for appeasement isn't even possible as it's requirements are contradictory to each other and impossible to implement together. 

Mearsheimer's argument has the flaw of removing responsibility for these actions from Russia. It presupposes that Russia's motivations are purely strategic from a defense standpoint, and their actions in this war have shown that to be completely false. 

I do believe that peace talks and a line of communication should remain open but it's Putin who's dug himself into a hole and is being pushed back. He's the one having to sacrifice his troops and fight a war of attrition and not NATO. He's in a catch 22 situation as the only avenue he has left to win would also destroy his country and himself. Now is not the time to concede, and even if NATO wanted to it would be impossible to convince Ukraine to do so as they know they're winning their land back and force is the only thing keeping Russia from destroying the entire country at this point. 

Of course the right would support this since they're all about gun control.  Right?  

 

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Putin’s issue with Ukraine in NATO or Ukraine with weapons was always-always- about wanting to reserve the right to kill a bunch of people in Ukraine, or topple their government, or take away bits and pieces.  That’s always what Ukrainian neutrality means in Russia’s eyes, too.  People lose sight of this when they make the “backed into a corner” argument.  That’s the corner he felt backed into. 

Putin feeling backed in a corner in somebody else's house sounds all kinds of stupid.  Especially when the door is wide open for him to leave. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Mdhorn

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

MaybeACoordinator conflates a lot of different stuff that do not belong in the same argument. He also fails to see that war in Ukraine outside of a strange American proxy arrangement with Ukrainians on puppet strings.

I was at first confused at how MAC's arguments for finding a peaceful solution were under such heavy attack. I don't see anything inherently wrong with protected Ukrainian neutrality if that's what they want.

As for "fighting to the last man," I don't think any country makes such a decision at the behest of another country. As 956 Worldwide pointed out earlier, this isn't an American proxy war. It's an existential crisis for Ukraine, and they follow their own leaders. It's pretty much insulting to the courage and proven fighting ability of Ukrainians to suggest that they're puppets.

I've often criticized the way we (the US) enter wars without recognizing that we will be killing large numbers of civilians. Our record of manipulating Latin American countries and even providing education for brutal oppression in the School of the Americas is a black mark of shame that we don't even teach in schools.

That said, if my brother commits a brutal murder, does that mean I don't have the standing to decry and attempt to stop someone else committing a brutal murder? No. This conflict is about Ukraine. Don't try to fit it, again, into some America-centric international strategy past and present. 

On the other side of the argument, I'm not comfortable with the insistence that an effective agreement can be made with Russia to restore Ukraine. Dismissing it as something that absolutely cannot happen becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not insisting that such an agreement is likely or even probable, but I'm not going to exclude an option based on the horrors of appeasement. (There are actually arguments that the appeasement of Chamberlain bought England time to better prepare for the war they eventually won.)

I hadn't read or heard about the atrocity stories and Russian retreat stories until I opened this thread. I share the horror. I also see the devastation that Ukrainians have done to Russia's army. This factor should not be ignored as an incentive for Russia to cut its its losses. War is expensive. Losing a war is hugely expensive. Would Russia even have the capability to continue expansion through military might? That's a pretty big chip on the table.

I guess my initial puzzlement is the vehemence of the attitude towards MAC. I think he's generally wrong, but I don't see his ideas as crazy or insincere. Of course, maybe there's history I don't know about.

Okay, I've bloviated enough.

Basically I'd like people to try to disconnect from the emotional imagery and the pure uncut dope of Ukrainian propaganda and think logically about this. Poland and a large swath of Ukrainians DGAF if this results in WW3. They hate the Russians that much. 

I agree with Brisket's contention that bloodying the Russians' noses is good leverage at the peace table. But there's a fine line between providing for leverage and becoming a hostile combatant, and I fear far too many of y'all are willing to cross that line without a thought in your heads. Damn fool thing in the Balkans logic, and now that the atrocity stories are coming in, and can be presented in a way they never have been before, it's ever more intoxicating...Just remember -- the Ukrainians are just as capable of committing war crimes as the Russians. Maybe more so, because they are defending their land, and I'd be less willing to obey the Geneva Convention in some foreign country than I would in front of my house. We've seen how sadistic they can get with the soldiers taunting the parents of dead Russians on their cellphones. It's understandable but it's horrible. War is hell. 

And the dude found dead with his hands bound and shot in the mouth sounds like a reprisal on an informer to me. Not that there is anything strange about that in a country that has been invaded. Which is why we need a UN investigation of what happened before we accept every word of the Ukrainian gov't as gospel truth. 

As for the idea Putin simply wants to exterminate Ukrainians by the millions, well, then why hasn't he? He could have done that by simply launching thermobaric missiles from Russia straight at population centers. Again, Mearsheimer said it eight years ago -- he knows he can't occupy Ukraine so he wants to break it. And he has broken it, and so he's pulling back.

This is exactly how things played out in Georgia. We egged them on. Russia went down there and smacked them in the mouth. They appealed to us for more helo than we were willing to give. So either we are willing to get in this thing whole hog or we've just led another country into a proxy war costing tremendous loss of life and devastation while we reap more defense contracts and inflate our military budget. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by MaybeACoordinator

[jimmyjazz 45,538]

Good lord, you have a pathological need to get the entire fucking thing wrong.  I can't even begin to parse that bullshit.

[Huckleberry 32,694]

37 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Bucha has every hallmark of an atrocity but we need a third party to come in there and figure out what really happened. And we need to see if it's part of larger pattern during the brief occupation of these towns across Ukraine so that we can see if it was the work of shitty commanders of individual units or part of the overall design of the war plan, so that the scope of the international war crimes investigation can be cast as wide or narrowly as necessary. If this pattern is repeated in each city the Russians withdraw from, the international indictments should go higher and higher up to and including Putin himself. 

This is disgusting. So wartime atrocity is committed and your conclusion is that if and only if it has happened in each city the Russians withdraw from the international indictments shuld go up to Putin. Way to take a stand, man. Very courageous.

9 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

...or we've just led another country into a proxy war costing tremendous loss of life and devastation while we reap more defense contracts and inflate our military budget. 

Thoroughly unsurprising to see that you are still basing everything on a complete disrespect toward Ukraine.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Ukraine has been invaded by a hostile enemy. And you still can't imagine the fact that they actually want to fight off the invaders for themselves, you can only view the entire situation through an America-centric prism. You are one big bag of internally contradictory viewpoints. Let's review your stellar input to this thread.

"I hate imperialism, also we should let Russia have Ukraine if necessary."

"I hate countries telling other countries what to do, also the UN should dictate foreign policy for Ukraine by force if necessary."

"I hate you war hawks that are only concerned with Ukraine for selfish reasons, also Ukraine should surrender so that the world is stable and my life isn't affected."

"I hate war because bad things happen, but let's not be hasty about these documented atrocities maybe they're not that bad and Putin shouldn't be held responsible unless there's a bigger pattern."

[956 Worldwide 34,410]

11 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Basically I'd like people to try to disconnect from the emotional imagery and the pure uncut dope of Ukrainian propaganda and think logically about this. Poland and a large swath of Ukrainians DGAF if this results in WW3. They hate the Russians that much. 

I agree with Brisket's contention that bloodying the Russians' noses is good leverage at the peace table. But there's a fine line between providing for leverage and becoming a hostile combatant, and I fear far too many of y'all are willing to cross that line without a thought in your heads. Damn fool thing in the Balkans logic, and now that the atrocity stories are coming in, and can be presented in a way they never have been before, it's ever more intoxicating...Just remember -- the Ukrainians are just as capable of committing war crimes as the Russians. Maybe more so, because they are defending their land, and I'd be less willing to obey the Geneva Convention in some foreign country than I would in front of my house. We've seen how sadistic they can get with the soldiers taunting the parents of dead Russians on their cellphones. It's understandable but it's horrible. War is hell. 

And the dude found dead with his hands bound and shot in the mouth sounds like a reprisal on an informer to me. Not that there is anything strange about that in a country that has been invaded. Which is why we need a UN investigation of what happened before we accept every word of the Ukrainian gov't as gospel truth. 

As for the idea Putin simply wants to exterminate Ukrainians by the millions, well, then why hasn't he? He could have done that by simply launching thermobaric missiles from Russia straight at population centers. Again, Mearsheimer said it eight years ago -- he knows he can't occupy Ukraine so he wants to break it. And he has broken it, and so he's pulling back.

This is exactly how things played out in Georgia. We egged them all. Russia went down there and smacked them in the mouth. They appealed to us for more helo than we were willing to give. So either we are willing to get in this thing whole hog or we've just led another country into a proxy war costing tremendous loss of life and devastation while we reap more defense contracts and inflate our military budget. 

This is another reason you get such vehement pushback— you may not be a Russian troll, but you act just like one.  Calling for a UN investigation you know can’t happen because Russia has refused the idea of letting in peacekeepers and pointing to something else Ukrainians did is textbook Kremlin troll shit. 

As far as Bucha being real, the surest evidence it is real and that Russia did it is that Kremlin info channels have already pushed out two completely conflicting versions:

V1. Fake! Crisis actors that are really alive. Never happened! If anyone did die, it was in shelling. 

 

2. Ukrainian Nazis killed Russia sympathizers and that’s what you’re seeing!  I note you went for this one):

[cactusflinthead 27,594]

Yeah, Crisis actors. 

[RomaVicta 29,769]

14 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

He has not retreated from his original premise that he does not care if Putin takes all of Ukraine so long as he does not attack others in Europe.   Given what Russia is doing in Ukraine, you’d think that he might reconsider some.

And his response about our century-ago colonial era transgresssions being somehow relevant to Putin’s troops current war crimes in Ukraine makes as much sense as 1914 MAC saying, “Why should we help Britain in this war - they burned the White House a century ago!”

Surly suffers fools poorly. 

 

I see. Your point is proved by the below. I lacked more context of this argument. 

12 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Basically I'd like people to try to disconnect from the emotional imagery and the pure uncut dope of Ukrainian propaganda and think logically about this. Poland and a large swath of Ukrainians DGAF if this results in WW3. They hate the Russians that much. 

...Just remember -- the Ukrainians are just as capable of committing war crimes as the Russians. Maybe more so, because they are defending their land, and I'd be less willing to obey the Geneva Convention in some foreign country than I would in front of my house. We've seen how sadistic they can get with the soldiers taunting the parents of dead Russians on their cellphones. It's understandable but it's horrible. War is hell. 

And the dude found dead with his hands bound and shot in the mouth sounds like a reprisal on an informer to me. Not that there is anything strange about that in a country that has been invaded. Which is why we need a UN investigation of what happened before we accept every word of the Ukrainian gov't as gospel truth. 

As for the idea Putin simply wants to exterminate Ukrainians by the millions, well, then why hasn't he? He could have done that by simply launching thermobaric missiles from Russia straight at population centers. Again, Mearsheimer said it eight years ago -- he knows he can't occupy Ukraine so he wants to break it. And he has broken it, and so he's pulling back.

This is exactly how things played out in Georgia. We egged them all. Russia went down there and smacked them in the mouth. They appealed to us for more helo than we were willing to give. So either we are willing to get in this thing whole hog or we've just led another country into a proxy war costing tremendous loss of life and devastation while we reap more defense contracts and inflate our military budget. 

Uncut dope of photographs and foreign journalists present at many of the scenes?

I don't know that you can commit a war crime against someone slaughtering your civilian friends, neighbors and family. Ukraine made a point of treating Russian captive soldiers humanely. 

Putin has thermobaric weapons in Ukraine, some of which we saw destroyed by Ukrainian forces. The argument about why he hasn't used them cannot include the odd assertion that he simply chose restraint. Your quibble over extermination has to do with numbers: Well, if he wanted to exterminate millions, he would have. So far it's only maybe a few hundred thousand civilians. WTF?

The benefit of the doubt for you, MAC, is revoked.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,092]

22 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Basically I'd like people to try to disconnect from the emotional imagery and the pure uncut dope of Ukrainian propaganda and think logically about this. Poland and a large swath of Ukrainians DGAF if this results in WW3. They hate the Russians that much. 

I agree with Brisket's contention that bloodying the Russians' noses is good leverage at the peace table. But there's a fine line between providing for leverage and becoming a hostile combatant, and I fear far too many of y'all are willing to cross that line without a thought in your heads. Damn fool thing in the Balkans logic, and now that the atrocity stories are coming in, and can be presented in a way they never have been before, it's ever more intoxicating...Just remember -- the Ukrainians are just as capable of committing war crimes as the Russians. Maybe more so, because they are defending their land, and I'd be less willing to obey the Geneva Convention in some foreign country than I would in front of my house. We've seen how sadistic they can get with the soldiers taunting the parents of dead Russians on their cellphones. It's understandable but it's horrible. War is hell. 

And the dude found dead with his hands bound and shot in the mouth sounds like a reprisal on an informer to me. Not that there is anything strange about that in a country that has been invaded. Which is why we need a UN investigation of what happened before we accept every word of the Ukrainian gov't as gospel truth. 

As for the idea Putin simply wants to exterminate Ukrainians by the millions, well, then why hasn't he? He could have done that by simply launching thermobaric missiles from Russia straight at population centers. Again, Mearsheimer said it eight years ago -- he knows he can't occupy Ukraine so he wants to break it. And he has broken it, and so he's pulling back.

This is exactly how things played out in Georgia. We egged them all. Russia went down there and smacked them in the mouth. They appealed to us for more helo than we were willing to give. So either we are willing to get in this thing whole hog or we've just led another country into a proxy war costing tremendous loss of life and devastation while we reap more defense contracts and inflate our military budget. 

You are an idiot.  You and Ana have completely fucked up this thread with really bad takes.  Post less.

[Dahobbs 17,420]

32 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Basically I'd like people to try to disconnect from the emotional imagery and the pure uncut dope of Ukrainian propaganda and think logically about this. Poland and a large swath of Ukrainians DGAF if this results in WW3. They hate the Russians that much. 

I agree with Brisket's contention that bloodying the Russians' noses is good leverage at the peace table. But there's a fine line between providing for leverage and becoming a hostile combatant, and I fear far too many of y'all are willing to cross that line without a thought in your heads. Damn fool thing in the Balkans logic, and now that the atrocity stories are coming in, and can be presented in a way they never have been before, it's ever more intoxicating...Just remember -- the Ukrainians are just as capable of committing war crimes as the Russians. Maybe more so, because they are defending their land, and I'd be less willing to obey the Geneva Convention in some foreign country than I would in front of my house. We've seen how sadistic they can get with the soldiers taunting the parents of dead Russians on their cellphones. It's understandable but it's horrible. War is hell. 

And the dude found dead with his hands bound and shot in the mouth sounds like a reprisal on an informer to me. Not that there is anything strange about that in a country that has been invaded. Which is why we need a UN investigation of what happened before we accept every word of the Ukrainian gov't as gospel truth. 

As for the idea Putin simply wants to exterminate Ukrainians by the millions, well, then why hasn't he? He could have done that by simply launching thermobaric missiles from Russia straight at population centers. Again, Mearsheimer said it eight years ago -- he knows he can't occupy Ukraine so he wants to break it. And he has broken it, and so he's pulling back.

This is exactly how things played out in Georgia. We egged them on. Russia went down there and smacked them in the mouth. They appealed to us for more helo than we were willing to give. So either we are willing to get in this thing whole hog or we've just led another country into a proxy war costing tremendous loss of life and devastation while we reap more defense contracts and inflate our military budget. 

I continue to invite you to go to Ukraine and tell them to stop fighting. Explain to them that they are only fighting because of manipulation by the west. Let us know how it goes. Maybe the Russians will not execute you. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Dahobbs

[David Dennison 18,646]

30 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Basically I'd like people to try to disconnect from the emotional imagery and the pure uncut dope of Ukrainian propaganda and think logically about this. Poland and a large swath of Ukrainians DGAF if this results in WW3. They hate the Russians that much.

Gee, I wonder why.

[956 Worldwide 34,410]

[cactusflinthead 27,594]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-accuses-russian-troops-committing-atrocities-ukrainian-town-bucha-2022-04-03/

Yeah. I don't think it's Ukraine that's broken. How many phone calls from prisoners to equal a dead person? Is the exchange rate less for a kid or old person?

How about the livestock?

Dogs? Surely the big happy lab is worth a few phone calls.

Pic is from r/ukraine

[Gatorubet 30,083]

33 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Ukraine has been invaded by a hostile enemy. And you still can't imagine the fact that they actually want to fight off the invaders for themselves, you can only view the entire situation through an America-centric prism. 

 

“The Orcs have bombed the city and taken the Mariopol Zoo…I’m thinking let’s wait for the US to direct our response.”

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,342]

I don't want to get involved in whataboutism and I'm not here to defend Maybe a Coordinator, but all of you who are condemning his takes would be well-served to read "Anything that Moves"  by Nick Turse or at least listen to the interview with him on NPR's Fresh Air:


https://www.npr.org/2013/01/28/169076259/anything-that-moves-civilians-and-the-vietnam-war

Trump is stupid and immoral and --- as I've made abundantly clear on countless occasions ----- I hate him with the white hot intensity of ten thousand suns, but he hit on something very real when he asked "you think we're so innocent?" We're not. Within my lifetime we did the same thing that we're accusing the Russians of in Ukraine only on a much larger scale.  The U.S. military incentivized high body counts and it didn't matter whether those bodies belonged to combatants or civilians.  

 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

42 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I don't want to get involved in whataboutism and I'm not here to defend Maybe a Coordinator, but all of you who are condemning his takes would be well-served to read "Anything that Moves"  by Nick Turse or at least listen to the interview with him on NPR's Fresh Air:


https://www.npr.org/2013/01/28/169076259/anything-that-moves-civilians-and-the-vietnam-war

Trump is stupid and immoral and --- as I've made abundantly clear on countless occasions ----- I hate him with the white hot intensity of ten thousand suns, but he hit on something very real when he asked "you think we're so innocent?" We're not. Within my lifetime we did the same thing that we're accusing the Russians of in Ukraine only on a much larger scale.  The U.S. military incentivized high body counts and it didn't matter whether those bodies belonged to combatants or civilians.  

 

Hey guys, I'm not here to do ___________. Now, let me go ahead and do that. His point is stupid. So is yours. I doubt you'll find a bunch of defenders of our war Vietnam here. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12,408]

 

[Hornius Emeritus 12,408]

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I don't want to get involved in whataboutism and I'm not here to defend Maybe a Coordinator, but all of you who are condemning his takes would be well-served to read "Anything that Moves"  by Nick Turse or at least listen to the interview with him on NPR's Fresh Air:


https://www.npr.org/2013/01/28/169076259/anything-that-moves-civilians-and-the-vietnam-war

Trump is stupid and immoral and --- as I've made abundantly clear on countless occasions ----- I hate him with the white hot intensity of ten thousand suns, but he hit on something very real when he asked "you think we're so innocent?" We're not. Within my lifetime we did the same thing that we're accusing the Russians of in Ukraine only on a much larger scale.  The U.S. military incentivized high body counts and it didn't matter whether those bodies belonged to combatants or civilians.  

 

That was a very interesting listen.

My father verified casualties on his second tour of duty in Vietnam.  Part of his job was to fly over battle scenes in a helicopter in the aftermath of battles and say "okay there's one, two, three, four ... "  and so on.  He's only talked to me about this on one occasion and that was when we were fishing. He told me that he flew with a batshit crazy major who he was pretty sure was beginning to lose it. They were hovering over a battle scene, which my dad hated because they were basically sitting ducks.  Two people --- he didn't know if they were combatants or civilians ---- ran from something like barn or shed into or behind some grains (perhaps hay) that were stacked up pretty high.  This major tried to destroy the haystacks with whatever guns they had onboard but something happened (they ran out of ammunition, the machine guns jammed etc...) so he angled the helicopter in such a fashion that he could lean out and started shooting flares from his flare gun toward the haystacks, trying to set them on fire. My father, who was only a captain, was yelling at him to get the fuck out of there but this guy was batshit.   They finally succeeded in catching at least one on fire and that seemed to satisfy the major. They never saw anybody run from the haystacks but it could be that there was nobody in them. The light wasn't so great.  When they got back my dad told their commanding officer what had happened and this major was going to get himself and my dad killed or, even if that didn't happen, they could very well lose an expensive helicopter.  The major was transferred out within days. And, to this day, my dad still has bad dreams about what he saw over there. It's not so much PTSD as he returned and led a successful life after retiring, but really bad dreams when he sleeps.

According to my dad, the higher-ups in Washington wanted statistics so that's what they got. He also told me that he was certain that others simply went out on this helicopter runs, flew around as far away from danger as could be, then came back with made-up statistics. They knew that there was nobody who could verify any of it.

I thought a lot about what my dad had said while watching "The Fog of War,"  the documentary about Robert McNamara. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Hornius Emeritus