Ukraine War

[Anastasis 23445]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

It is what youve implied. And you know it. But, if you didn't intend to, maybe you just suck at expressing yourself. 

You criticize me for not answering your questions or laying out positions. I have done so repeatedly and tried to have an exchange with you. You ignore most of the responses, go schizo, start strawmanning and calling everything Russian propaganda, rolling out negs to my responses while you bumble about trying to keep track of the different exchanges. Can back and read the last few pages of this thread fresh and you will appreciate what a dipshit you have been acting like. 

[atomheartbevo 89603]

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Maybe he believes that  VVP is one of two goblins sitting at a crossroads.  One road leads to paradise, the other to hell. One goblin may only lie and the other may only tell the truth, so what question must we ask? 

You ask what road the other goblin would say to take and then take the opposite.

[956 Worldwide 34676]

40 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

More baseless and dishonest rhetoric. But you are right about one thing, the neocon foreign policy strategy is bad. This use to not be a very hard thing for most posters here to acknowledge, given the objective evidence and outcomes. I guess some of you will have to learn the lesson again. 

Can you explain how U.S. support for Ukraine is “neoconservative.” Use small words for us small-brains to be able to understand. Bonus points for being able to explain why without referencing David Frum. 

[Dahobbs 17511]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You criticize me for not answering your questions or laying out positions. I have done so repeatedly and tried to have an exchange with you. You ignore most of the responses, go schizo, start strawmanning and calling everything Russian propaganda, rolling out negs to my responses while you bumble about trying to keep track of the different exchanges. Can back and read the last few pages of this thread fresh and you will appreciate what a dipshit you have been acting like. 

Have you ever tried to read your own posts? It is clearly all a game to you. You aren't interested in discussion. You don't state your opinions. You state bland banalities. Yes, everyone agrees that unintended consequences are thing. Yes, everyone agrees that history affects the present. Yes, everyone agrees that war is bad. You parrot arguments that you know lead to one conclusion (Russia keeps Ukraine) but take offense when anyone suggests that is your aim. You of course never concretely state what you believe should happen. You never explain why we wouldn't shouldn't believe Putin when he says he has always wanted to take Ukraine. You just jab about nonsense and neocons because that is all you really care about.  It is sad and pathetic. 

Edited February 10 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 104940]

You criticize me for not answering your questions or laying out positions. I have done so repeatedly and tried to have an exchange with you. You ignore most of the responses, go schizo, start strawmanning and calling everything Russian propaganda, rolling out negs to my responses while you bumble about trying to keep track of the different exchanges. Can back and read the last few pages of this thread fresh and you will appreciate what a dipshit you have been acting like. 

Answer my two questions above, maybe?

There’s a reason that people around here - most of us, in fact - repeatedly challenge you to state your position plainly and clearly, and when you don’t, you accuse US of twisting your vague positions that intentionally avoid direct statements. The same exercise, over and over. We ask you to answer, including the expected final outcome/result of your positions, and your response is always that we are doing you dirty.
You know the saying: run into an asshole, you ran into an asshole. Run into assholes all day, YOU’RE the asshole.
Nobody else here has the problem that you do with “you guys just twist my obvious and clear positions!” Nobody. Not one person.
You’re the asshole.

[Anastasis 23445]

10 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

How, precisely, did I misrepresent what you have said?  You said that we are close or past the point where the “taxpayer spigot should be turned off. “ You’ve whiner a lot about not tracking weapons we give Ukraine enough. And you’ve said you want negotiations “like at Istanbul” to end hostilities along with those things, and you’ve said that the US/partners sabotaged  those talks and shouldn’t do it again. 

What, EXACTLY, am I missing. 

This is great. Your propaganda artistry is so ingrained, that even when you give some effort to "quote" me, misrepresent it to further your rhetorical objective. 

Here is what I said:

Do you think that there is a point where we can reasonably turn down the spigot of taxpayer money and try to find a path forward? Yes.

[956 Worldwide 34676]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is great. Your propaganda artistry is so ingrained, that even when you give some effort to "quote" me, misrepresent it to further your rhetorical objective. 

Here is what I said:

Do you think that there is a point where we can reasonably turn down the spigot of taxpayer money and try to find a path forward? Yes.

I almost never neg but I’m doing it on this one because you selectively quoted yourself and accused me of being a propaganda artist. Your full quote is below.  

Quote

? Do you think that there is a point where we can reasonably turn down the spigot of taxpayer money and try to find a path forward? Do you think that we are past or close to that point?

My answers are no, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Oh, I’m sorry. You said we are close or past the point where the taxpayer spigot should be turned “down” not “off.” Sorry for not fully capturing your total nuance. 
 

I quoted your entire take and you didn’t like what it said and then offered your own pull quote. 

Edited February 10 by 956 Worldwide

[Dahobbs 17511]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I almost never neg but I’m doing it on this one because you selectively quoted yourself and accused me of being a propaganda artist. Your full quote is below.  

Oh, I’m sorry. You said we are close or past the point where the taxpayer spigot should be turned “down” not “off.” Sorry for not fully capturing your total nuance. 
 

I quoted your entire take and you didn’t like what it said and then offered your own pull quote. 

Here is the follow on to this: why does he believe we are near or past the point where the money spigot should be turned down? What is it about the current state of affairs that makes that reasonable? What exactly does he think will happen if we do so? 

His answer to all these will be: American neoconservative policy has unintended and bad consequences and all of you simply don't want to recognize that. 

[DDD Dad 14313]

On 2/8/2024 at 5:36 PM, Dahobbs said:

To be fair, I don't think @Anastasis has any real principles on this board other than being a contrarian ass. He has generally been better outside of the cloakroom and that's cause here he just likes to troll. 

 

[bolverk 29637]

 

@Anastasis I'm just getting caught up and would prefer not to get into a back-and-forth pissing match because I don't really have that in me today. I'm just tired, is all, so can we engage on a civil conversational level?

To your earlier point, yes, many predicted there'd be blowback for NATO expansion back in 1999 and later again in the mid-2000s. And, to be honest, I had some hesitant/mixed feelings about it at the time. At that point, my mindset was much more gunshy about pissing off Russia and bringing back the Cold War, as I'd spent a significant amount of time during the early part of that decade studying and living with and among locals in France and the former East Germany just after reunification. I kind of felt we were taking advantage of Russia's weakness to expand our military footprint, and I'd seen what was left of the Russian army from my time in eastern Germany when it still had a few bases, and it was a spent, decrepit force who couldn't even keep their old Ural trucks running. But still, it was a large country that I felt would somehow get its shit together eventually, and I knew that it was unhappy about it. So, believe me. I'm no hawk, and I certainly understand your point of view regarding NATO expansion. I had zero qualms about the EU expanding toward the east, though.

Even though I didn't look favorably on Putin, especially because of his bombing of an apartment building and his bitching about the Color revolutions, I still didn't see him as a huge threat to the West, that is, until his invasion of Georgia. Yes, I understand that Georgia's desire to align with the West, including NATO and the EU, along with minority groups who had some autonomy but sought independence, were precipitating factors. But the outright invasion of Georgia, I thought, was unacceptable. Then, I had a close friend who joined the State Department in the late aughts and was assigned to the US Embassy in Moscow. She's by no means a hawk (super liberal librarian type), and she told me about constantly being followed and having been sure someone had gotten into her flat at some point. She also talked about how "scary" Putin seemed in everything she'd seen. All of this smacked of serious backsliding and showed a desire not to join the ranks of free nations.

Yes, I understand Putin wants to have some degree of control over its sphere of influence for security reasons. That's all quite natural. But recall what really pissed off Russia about Ukraine: they wanted to position themselves to join the EU. That was what triggered the initial invasion under the pretense of a secession movement in Donbas that was backed by the Kremlin. And, then, there was no pretense for the capture and annexation of Crimea. That was just a land grab, pure and simple. Moreover, in Russia's world, there began a discussion of Novorossiya, which so happens to be almost exactly the same territory that Russia is occupying right now.

Since then, we've had Putin talk about taking over all of Ukraine, declaring it an illegitimate country. We've also seen plans for the eventual unification of Belarus with Russia. Basically, what seems to be the plan is the recreation of the Russian Empire, uniting all Eastern Slavic-speaking peoples against their will. That would be akin to Germany saying that Austria, Switzerland, and the Netherlands should all be part of Germany since they speak languages/dialects from the same branch of German. I dunno, man. That sounds all too familiar.

So, let's say we're scared of World War 3 and to let Putin have what he wants: a greater Russia that has swallowed up Belarus and Ukraine. How does that improve the situation? There's still a long militarized border with NATO on one side from Finland down to Romania and Greater Russia on the other, with no buffer in between.

If Putin were really worried about NATO aggression, wouldn't he prefer to have some buffers in between? I mean, to be quite honest, I could live in a world where Sweden, Finland, the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine were all neutral but with rock-solid guarantees of never being invaded. Sure, okay, that makes sense, I guess. But that's not the world Putin wants to live in. He's made claims on Ukraine. He's made Belarus a puppet. There are threats against the Baltics because they have Russian minority populations, which would give him the same rationale to invade as he had in Ukraine. If those tiny little nations weren't already in NATO, I'd bet he'd have been on the warpath there too.

So, thinking back to the 1990s and 2000s when I was a little more gunshy and maybe didn't fully appreciate the feelings of insecurity people felt living in those countries, I can see why Poland, Czechia, Hungary, and the Baltics wanted the security of NATO. Poland had been invaded by Russia in 1939. The Baltics were invaded by Russia in 1940. Hungary had been invaded by Russia in 1958. Czechoslovakia had been invaded by Russia in 1968 (31 years prior to joining NATO). These small countries all had a fairly recent history with their much bigger, aggressive neighbor to the east, and it wasn't all that pleasant. I mean, from their perspective, it made all the sense in the world to seek shelter under the Western umbrella for security (NATO) and prosperity (EU).

Well, here we are. The past can't be changed, and it's 2024. How do we move forward? I don't think we can unilaterally kick out countries that have joined NATO (though I've given some consideration to Hungary), and the EU stuff isn't really our thing. Ukraine, at this point, probably wouldn't accept neutrality because who'd guarantee their security? They certainly don't feel they can trust Russia on that. And is it in our interest to let fall under Putin's boot being part of an enlarged and strengthened empire? I can't think of an argument where that would be to our advantage, so why not support them? They certainly seem like they want to be one of us (the "West").

So, anyway, that's pretty much my perspective on this whole matter. In light of all that blah blah blah, cool story bro, what do you think, specifically, we should do? 

[Neonmoon 38129]

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3: Profit??

[atomheartbevo 89603]

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Yes, I understand Putin wants to have some degree of control over its sphere of influence for security reasons. That's all quite natural. But recall what really pissed off Russia about Ukraine: they wanted to position themselves to join the EU. That was what triggered the initial invasion under the pretense of a secession movement in Donbas that was backed by the Kremlin. And, then, there was no pretense for the capture and annexation of Crimea. That was just a land grab, pure and simple. Moreover, in Russia's world, there began a discussion of Novorossiya, which so happens to be almost exactly the same territory that Russia is occupying right now.

If there could be a guarantee of Russia leaving all of Ukraine alone in exchange for Ukraine not joining NATO, I could almost see that working.

Almost is the key word, because the only way to guarantee Ukraine’s safety is if other countries come to Ukraine’s aid if Russia invades again, a security agreement of sorts if you will. In other words, NATO.  Putin creates the need for the very thing he hates.

To this day, Putin continues to order missiles to be launched at civilian buildings - apartments, restaurants, schools, hospitals. That tells you everything you need to know about his mindset towards Ukraine.  Sure, he says they are Russians by another name, but his actions show otherwise.  Ukrainians are as disposable to Putin as his own troops.

[956 Worldwide 34676]

16 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

@Anastasis I'm just getting caught up and would prefer not to get into a back-and-forth pissing match because I don't really have that in me today. I'm just tired, is all, so can we engage on a civil conversational level?

To your earlier point, yes, many predicted there'd be blowback for NATO expansion back in 1999 and later again in the mid-2000s. And, to be honest, I had some hesitant/mixed feelings about it at the time. At that point, my mindset was much more gunshy about pissing off Russia and bringing back the Cold War, as I'd spent a significant amount of time during the early part of that decade studying and living with and among locals in France and the former East Germany just after reunification. I kind of felt we were taking advantage of Russia's weakness to expand our military footprint, and I'd seen what was left of the Russian army from my time in eastern Germany when it still had a few bases, and it was a spent, decrepit force who couldn't even keep their old Ural trucks running. But still, it was a large country that I felt would somehow get its shit together eventually, and I knew that it was unhappy about it. So, believe me. I'm no hawk, and I certainly understand your point of view regarding NATO expansion. I had zero qualms about the EU expanding toward the east, though.

Even though I didn't look favorably on Putin, especially because of his bombing of an apartment building and his bitching about the Color revolutions, I still didn't see him as a huge threat to the West, that is, until his invasion of Georgia. Yes, I understand that Georgia's desire to align with the West, including NATO and the EU, along with minority groups who had some autonomy but sought independence, were precipitating factors. But the outright invasion of Georgia, I thought, was unacceptable. Then, I had a close friend who joined the State Department in the late aughts and was assigned to the US Embassy in Moscow. She's by no means a hawk (super liberal librarian type), and she told me about constantly being followed and having been sure someone had gotten into her flat at some point. She also talked about how "scary" Putin seemed in everything she'd seen. All of this smacked of serious backsliding and showed a desire not to join the ranks of free nations.

Yes, I understand Putin wants to have some degree of control over its sphere of influence for security reasons. That's all quite natural. But recall what really pissed off Russia about Ukraine: they wanted to position themselves to join the EU. That was what triggered the initial invasion under the pretense of a secession movement in Donbas that was backed by the Kremlin. And, then, there was no pretense for the capture and annexation of Crimea. That was just a land grab, pure and simple. Moreover, in Russia's world, there began a discussion of Novorossiya, which so happens to be almost exactly the same territory that Russia is occupying right now.

Since then, we've had Putin talk about taking over all of Ukraine, declaring it an illegitimate country. We've also seen plans for the eventual unification of Belarus with Russia. Basically, what seems to be the plan is the recreation of the Russian Empire, uniting all Eastern Slavic-speaking peoples against their will. That would be akin to Germany saying that Austria, Switzerland, and the Netherlands should all be part of Germany since they speak languages/dialects from the same branch of German. I dunno, man. That sounds all too familiar.

So, let's say we're scared of World War 3 and to let Putin have what he wants: a greater Russia that has swallowed up Belarus and Ukraine. How does that improve the situation? There's still a long militarized border with NATO on one side from Finland down to Romania and Greater Russia on the other, with no buffer in between.

If Putin were really worried about NATO aggression, wouldn't he prefer to have some buffers in between? I mean, to be quite honest, I could live in a world where Sweden, Finland, the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine were all neutral but with rock-solid guarantees of never being invaded. Sure, okay, that makes sense, I guess. But that's not the world Putin wants to live in. He's made claims on Ukraine. He's made Belarus a puppet. There are threats against the Baltics because they have Russian minority populations, which would give him the same rationale to invade as he had in Ukraine. If those tiny little nations weren't already in NATO, I'd bet he'd have been on the warpath there too.

So, thinking back to the 1990s and 2000s when I was a little more gunshy and maybe didn't fully appreciate the feelings of insecurity people felt living in those countries, I can see why Poland, Czechia, Hungary, and the Baltics wanted the security of NATO. Poland had been invaded by Russia in 1939. The Baltics were invaded by Russia in 1940. Hungary had been invaded by Russia in 1958. Czechoslovakia had been invaded by Russia in 1968 (31 years prior to joining NATO). These small countries all had a fairly recent history with their much bigger, aggressive neighbor to the east, and it wasn't all that pleasant. I mean, from their perspective, it made all the sense in the world to seek shelter under the Western umbrella for security (NATO) and prosperity (EU).

Well, here we are. The past can't be changed, and it's 2024. How do we move forward? I don't think we can unilaterally kick out countries that have joined NATO (though I've given some consideration to Hungary), and the EU stuff isn't really our thing. Ukraine, at this point, probably wouldn't accept neutrality because who'd guarantee their security? They certainly don't feel they can trust Russia on that. And is it in our interest to let fall under Putin's boot being part of an enlarged and strengthened empire? I can't think of an argument where that would be to our advantage, so why not support them? They certainly seem like they want to be one of us (the "West").

So, anyway, that's pretty much my perspective on this whole matter. In light of all that blah blah blah, cool story bro, what do you think, specifically, we should do? 

A lot of people went through this progression, and it’s understandable.  One of the real gaps that we’ve started to close because of the war is letting Central and Eastern Europeans speak for themselves. Both Westerners and Russians conceived as them as essentially a grey zone where the big countries that got to have foreign policy played. Any conversation about NATO expansion needs to begin with a conversation about how Russia behaves to the countries inside its sphere of influence.  And second, an admission that the NATO umbrella has paradoxically mean more freedom and sovereignty for its small members, not less.  Viktor Orban is a great example,  Moscow invaded multiple satellites for far less uppitiness.  The best repression NATO and the EU can come up with is maybe not sending him hundreds of millions of dollars. 
 

And the thing is I actually do see neocon mistakes.  It was probably worse to promise Ukraine and Georgia membership and then drag out the process than never promising it at all.  The correct path would have been to rapidly let them in, then figure out the reforms later, as we did with most of CEE. And (again ironically), that didn’t happen because some Allies objected and because America really can’t just bully NATO into doing what it wants. 

For all the talk about NATO as a threat and destabilizing, the historical record is clear: NATO and Russia have never shot at each other and neither have two NATO nations shot at each other.  Good fences really do make good neighbors and that’s especially true if Russia is your neighbor. It’s the ambiguous status that got us here, not clear and well-decisive actions. 

[bolverk 29637]

21 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If there could be a guarantee of Russia leaving all of Ukraine alone in exchange for Ukraine not joining NATO, I could almost see that working.

Almost is the key word, because the only way to guarantee Ukraine’s safety is if other countries come to Ukraine’s aid if Russia invades again, a security agreement of sorts if you will. In other words, NATO.  Putin creates the need for the very thing he hates.

To this day, Putin continues to order missiles to be launched at civilian buildings - apartments, restaurants, schools, hospitals. That tells you everything you need to know about his mindset towards Ukraine.  Sure, he says they are Russians by another name, but his actions show otherwise.  Ukrainians are as disposable to Putin as his own troops.

Unfortunately, we did have some pretty strong security guarantees for Ukraine, signed by Russia and the US, that convinced them to give up their nukes. It turns out Russia, under Putin, wiped its ass with that piece of paper and has now invaded Ukraine three times since 2014 1) Donbas, 2) Crimea, and 3) the shit doing on today. Maybe it would've worked out if Yeltsin hadn't drunkenly chosen Putin as his successor. Maybe it could work out in the future without Putin, but I have strong doubts about that after all the years of propaganda where Russians are being told that Ukraine is an illegitimate state that's a threat to their security. I'm sure there's a pretty deep well of ill-will now that wasn't there before the war.

 

9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

A lot of people went through this progression, and it’s understandable.  One of the real gaps that we’ve started to close because of the war is letting Central and Eastern Europeans speak for themselves. Both Westerners and Russians conceived as them as essentially a grey zone where the big countries that got to have foreign policy played. Any conversation about NATO expansion needs to begin with a conversation about how Russia behaves to the countries inside its sphere of influence.  And second, an admission that the NATO umbrella has paradoxically mean more freedom and sovereignty for its small members, not less.  Viktor Orban is a great example,  Moscow invaded multiple satellites for far less uppitiness.  The best repression NATO and the EU can come up with is maybe not sending him hundreds of millions of dollars. 
 

And the thing is I actually do see neocon mistakes.  It was probably worse to promise Ukraine and Georgia membership and then drag out the process than never promising it at all.  The correct path would have been to rapidly let them in, then figure out the reforms later, as we did with most of CEE. And (again ironically), that didn’t happen because some Allies objected and because America really can’t just bully NATO into doing what it wants. 

For all the talk about NATO as a threat and destabilizing, the historical record is clear: NATO and Russia have never shot at each other and neither have two NATO nations shot at each other.  Good fences really do make good neighbors and that’s especially true if Russia is your neighbor. It’s the ambiguous status that got us here, not clear and well-decisive actions. 

 

That's pretty much how I see it in the most simple terms. You've got a bunch of mid to small-sized guys agreeing to join a gang with that one giant douche who said he'd help be their bodyguard against a raging asshole who has a history of beating up the small guys in the schoolyard.

[Anastasis 23445]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I almost never neg but I’m doing it on this one because you selectively quoted yourself and accused me of being a propaganda artist. Your full quote is below.  

Oh, I’m sorry. You said we are close or past the point where the taxpayer spigot should be turned “down” not “off.” Sorry for not fully capturing your total nuance. 
 

I quoted your entire take and you didn’t like what it said and then offered your own pull quote. 

Lol. You not only lie to us, you lie to yourself. That’s a not a failure to capture nuance. It is straight up misrepresenting what was said. Adding the second question changes that not at all. 

Edited February 10 by Anastasis

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20387]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3: Profit??

I'm out on him, too. First poster I've ever put on ignore.  The twisted, convoluted-for-the-sake-of-being-contrarian nonsense is more than I can take. It would be one thing if he had a coherent set of principals or point of view that hasn't vascillated over time.  

Dollars spent in Ukraine have a far better ROI than any defense dollars we spend.  Sign me up for another 80 billion. 

[bolverk 29637]

Cross-posting from the presidential election thread.

 

[Anastasis 23445]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

There’s a reason that people around here - most of us, in fact - repeatedly challenge you to state your position plainly and clearly, and when you don’t, you accuse US of twisting your vague positions that intentionally avoid direct statements.

I’ve stated plenty of positions in black and white by quoting and responding over the last few pages. You guys ignore the answers and positions put forth, engage in misrepresenting my responses, jump into imagination land to fill in the gaps as you see them, and then act like you aren’t the ones engaging in bad faith discussion. Look I understand that y’all are all ok with this shit. Y’all are increasingly out of step with a sizable number of Americans that recognize this can’t go on for ever in the current state. 

[956 Worldwide 34676]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Lol. You not only lie to us, you lie to yourself. That’s a not a failure to capture nuance. It is straight up misrepresenting what was said. Adding the second question changes that not at all. 

Please explain specifically how I misrepresented you and what you actually meant. I’ll start:

”I don’t think you accurately captures what I meant when I said that we are close to or past the time to turn down the taxpayer spigot and look for a path forward. What I mean is….”

Try using words that mean things instead of vagaries like “turn down the spigot” and “path forward” that do all the heavy lifting and can mean whatever you want at the moment, then whining when they’re taken a different way.  It’s exhausting and bad faith.  
 

Here’s a statement that means something: I think we should pass 60 billion in aid that’s currently in the Senate. I think we should focus on long-range fires, air defense, and a sustainable supply of 155 for future assistance packages. I want Ukraine to destroy Russian equipment and kill Russian soldiers until Putin feels forced to the table, not the other way around. And I want them to use American arms to do it. 
 

Try clearly articulating a position. Just try it on. 

[Anastasis 23445]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Well, here we are. The past can't be changed, and it's 2024. How do we move forward? I don't think we can unilaterally kick out countries that have joined NATO (though I've given some consideration to Hungary), and the EU stuff isn't really our thing. Ukraine, at this point, probably wouldn't accept neutrality because who'd guarantee their security? They certainly don't feel they can trust Russia on that. And is it in our interest to let fall under Putin's boot being part of an enlarged and strengthened empire? I can't think of an argument where that would be to our advantage, so why not support them? They certainly seem like they want to be one of us (the "West").

So, anyway, that's pretty much my perspective on this whole matter. In light of all that blah blah blah, cool story bro, what do you think, specifically, we should do? 

Thanks for typing that all out. I enjoyed reading it. I don’t find anything to disagree with in your take as reflected here, other than I would let the Ukrainians determine for themselves their stance regarding neutrality and what assurances they would need. I’ve already articulated my position wrt support, both financial and military. 
 

The reality is that our policy wrt Russia in the unipolar moment after the fall of the USSR was a failure. It’s been discussed here before at length, and you allude to I think some aspects of that in your post. The reality at this point is that nothing will change until Putin is dead and hopefully replaced by someone who is able to lay aside their grievances with the west, whether imagined or reality based. And that is no guarantee. 

[bolverk 29637]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Thanks for typing that all out. I enjoyed reading it. I don’t find anything to disagree with in your take as reflected here, other than I would let the Ukrainians determine for themselves their stance regarding neutrality and what assurances they would need. I’ve already articulated my position wrt support, both financial and military. 
 

The reality is that our policy wrt Russia in the unipolar moment after the fall of the USSR was a failure. It’s been discussed here before at length, and you allude to I think some aspects of that in your post. The reality at this point is that nothing will change until Putin is dead and hopefully replaced by someone who is able to lay aside their grievances with the west, whether imagined or reality based. And that is no guarantee. 

I agree that it's not our call whether Ukraine determines the best path forward is neutrality. But if they choose to go the NATO route they say they'd like to pursue, I'm all for welcoming them and helping their defense in the meantime. They seem to have chosen to hitch their wagon with the West (NATO & EU), and I feel like it's in the best interests of our Eastern European allies, Europe as a whole, and, therefore, the US to let them into the fold.

As for the conflict's status quo, things aren't looking great with Republicans in Congress blocking aid. With assistance, the war would still be a grind, but I think Ukraine could outlast Russia's already weakened army and make substantial gains. Without it, I fear Ukraine will have to bargain away 20% of its land for a short-term ceasefire, and Putin's war machine will only rebuild and be at it again in a couple of years.

Either way, the decision is up to the Ukrainians, not us. It's their country they're fighting for.

[Anastasis 23445]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I agree that it's not our call whether Ukraine determines the best path forward is neutrality. But if they choose to go the NATO route they say they'd like to pursue, I'm all for welcoming them and helping their defense in the meantime. They seem to have chosen to hitch their wagon with the West (NATO & EU), and I feel like it's in the best interests of our Eastern European allies, Europe as a whole, and, therefore, the US to let them into the fold.

 

I don't think that bringing them into NATO is a great idea in the near term. Maybe there is a time and place for that some point in the future. 

8 minutes ago, bolverk said:

As for the conflict's status quo, things aren't looking great with Republicans in Congress blocking aid.

I think that the aid packages should be put up as standalone bills. This bullshit of wrapping up Ukraine aid with aid to Israel and the border is fucking bullshit. Put up stand alone bills. Debate them in congress. Let the representatives vote, and then we have elections to hold them accountable. That is how this shit is supposed to work. I also think that aid, whether to Israel as they conduct their ethnic cleansing exercise, or to Ukraine as they defend themselves from Russian invasion, needs to be tied to clear and measurable objectives and key results. And we need a roadmap and timeline for how this shit is supposed to wind down. I know that the latter is tricky, but we need to learn from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

[Born to Run 6569]

If there could be a guarantee of Russia leaving all of Ukraine alone in exchange for Ukraine not joining NATO, I could almost see that working.
Almost is the key word, because the only way to guarantee Ukraine’s safety is if other countries come to Ukraine’s aid if Russia invades again, a security agreement of sorts if you will. In other words, NATO.  Putin creates the need for the very thing he hates.
To this day, Putin continues to order missiles to be launched at civilian buildings - apartments, restaurants, schools, hospitals. That tells you everything you need to know about his mindset towards Ukraine.  Sure, he says they are Russians by another name, but his actions show otherwise.  Ukrainians are as disposable to Putin as his own troops.

To be fair, Putin treats Ukranians the same as he treats Russians.

[Anastasis 23445]

31 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Please explain specifically how I misrepresented you

Because you put words into quotes and attributed them to me that were not my actual words. You did so to try to achieve some rhetorical advantage, but it achieves no such thing and just demonstrates how dishonest you are.  I already explained this to you up page. 

[956 Worldwide 34676]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Because you put words into quotes and attributed them to me that were not my actual words. You did so to try to achieve some rhetorical advantage, but it achieves no such thing and just demonstrates how dishonest you are.  I already explained this to you up page. 

Then what did you actually mean. Try it, you’re almost getting there.

[956 Worldwide 34676]

30 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I agree that it's not our call whether Ukraine determines the best path forward is neutrality. But if they choose to go the NATO route they say they'd like to pursue, I'm all for welcoming them and helping their defense in the meantime. They seem to have chosen to hitch their wagon with the West (NATO & EU), and I feel like it's in the best interests of our Eastern European allies, Europe as a whole, and, therefore, the US to let them into the fold.

As for the conflict's status quo, things aren't looking great with Republicans in Congress blocking aid. With assistance, the war would still be a grind, but I think Ukraine could outlast Russia's already weakened army and make substantial gains. Without it, I fear Ukraine will have to bargain away 20% of its land for a short-term ceasefire, and Putin's war machine will only rebuild and be at it again in a couple of years.

Either way, the decision is up to the Ukrainians, not us. It's their country they're fighting for.

Ukraine has already chosen many times what it wants vis neutrality. It may at some time in the future decide it wants NATO less that it wants hundreds of thousands of Russians killing Ukrainians and cruise missiles falling on their heads.  But that’s negotiating in the sense that I’m negotiating with a mugger whether I want my wallet less than I want my wife to be shot in the face.

[956 Worldwide 34676]

“Before we do anything, Congress has to be functional and not play politics with national security” is really such an amazing take, something that everyone can agree on but that is completely divorced from reality. 
 

If Mike and Chuck announced tomorrow “we’re going to do two bills, one for Ukraine and one for Israel. Up or down vote, no games” they would both easily pass and you know that. And you also know why it will never happen and neocons have fuck all to do with it. 

[Anastasis 23445]

You just can’t help yourself can you. It’s just intrinsic to your nature. 

[Anastasis 23445]

10 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Why is giving arms to Ukraine so they can defend against Russia a neoconservative folly like actually invading Afghanistan and Iraq ourselves and occupying them for decade(s) in the 2000s? 

I think my words were clear. Obviously the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan involved the invasion of American troops is a meaningful distinction. The lessons learned however wrt articulating and communicating to the American people clear goals and the unwind strategy are transferable to other situations, such as Ukraine. 
 

56 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

. I also think that aid, whether to Israel as they conduct their ethnic cleansing exercise, or to Ukraine as they defend themselves from Russian invasion, needs to be tied to clear and measurable objectives and key results. And we need a roadmap and timeline for how this shit is supposed to wind down. I know that the latter is tricky, but we need to learn from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Edited February 11 by Anastasis

[tx 3 putt 76801]

 

[Goredho 17388]

9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

If only the Allies were smart enough to do this in WWII, we’d all be driving a Mercedes 

[956 Worldwide 34676]

It might seem like it’s helpful to Putin to give him the date that we will give up and let him have Ukraine. But in fact, it’s all about accountability to the American people. 

[Smax 3800]

6 hours ago, Anastasis said:

.But you are right about one thing, the Russian/Soviet foreign policy strategy is bad. This use to not be a very hard thing for most posters here to acknowledge, given the objective evidence and outcomes. I guess some of you will have to learn the lesson again. 

 

FIFY

[troph 24767]

We can’t serve the greater purpose because our methods aren’t perfect.  He’s argued that before. It’s how he determines Liberal (classic not political party) policies should be stalled, diminished or flatly rejected all while claiming to be a classical Liberal. 
 

Ukraine’s property has been stolen, individual rights are being annihilated by Russia. It’s within the Ukrainian’s rights and their allies rights to support them. There are few decisions as clear as supporting Ukraine for the classical Liberals than this.  I mean I can digress and think of a few domestic issues like abortion and LBGTQ rights for which he fails to champion a true classical Liberal philosophy as well but this is the Ukraine thread. 
 

Edited February 11 by troph

[Smax 3800]

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 

For all the talk about NATO as a threat and destabilizing, the historical record is clear: NATO and Russia have never shot at each other and neither have two NATO nations shot at each other.  Good fences really do make good neighbors and that’s especially true if Russia is your neighbor. It’s the ambiguous status that got us here, not clear and well-decisive actions. 

 

 

Wont happen but Putin/Russia and all the Russian apologist need to look in the mirror and ask themselves, why do all of Russia's neighbors want to join Nato...

[DDD Dad 14313]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I think my words were clear. Obviously the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan involved the invasion of American troops is a meaningful distinction. The lessons learned however wrt articulating and communicating to the American people clear goals and the unwind strategy are transferable to other situations, such as Ukraine. 
 

 

[troph 24767]

Here is the strategy: support Ukraine until Russia retreats from Ukraine, completely, or until Ukraine says they have had enough and will accept less than full territorial restitution. 
 

the lesson isn’t Afghanistan or Iraq. In both those cases not only did the US occupy but the occupied did not want the US there.

here the US is not an occupying force and the Ukrainian President has visited every liberal democracy explicitly asking for help. 
 

the better historical equivalent to learn from truly is hitler. He is the last European leader to invade and kill because of who a people are while espousing plans to invade other neighboring countries once he’s completed his first. 
 

except during hitlers time good men did nothing for a while, this time Putin is going to FAFO.
 

fucking obtuse man, just a disingenuous … I don’t know, disingenuous something. 

Edited February 11 by troph

[Boss Hogg 808]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

“Before we do anything, Congress has to be functional and not play politics with national security” is really such an amazing take, something that everyone can agree on but that is completely divorced from reality. 
 

If Mike and Chuck announced tomorrow “we’re going to do two bills, one for Ukraine and one for Israel. Up or down vote, no games” they would both easily pass and you know that. And you also know why it will never happen and neocons have fuck all to do with it. 

Because Rs know their voters prioritize the border over Ukraine and Israel?

[Dahobbs 17511]

29 minutes ago, Boss Hogg said:

Because Rs know their voters prioritize the border over Ukraine and Israel?

Obviously why they torpedoed their own bill. 

[956 Worldwide 34676]

14 hours ago, bolverk said:

Cross-posting from the presidential election thread.

 

You know who I bet doesn’t think we should encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they want to the deadbeat Euros? David Frum and the neocons. 

[Bojack 2073]

52 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You know who I bet doesn’t think we should encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they want to the deadbeat Euros? David Frum and the neocons. 

On the other hand, among the idiots cheering those remarks, you likely won't find anyone that was against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure they all still hate Natalie Means and are mourning Toby Keith. Several are dressed as Scooby Doo. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13562]

Like a dog!

[troph 24767]

2 hours ago, Bojack said:

 I'm sure they all still hate Natalie Means and are mourning Toby Keith. 

Ain’t no body got time for that, I’m still celebrating Tracy Chapman and Luke Combs doing it the right way. 

[F250 28757]

Toby Keith is dead?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33857]

38 minutes ago, F250 said:

Toby Keith is dead?

yeah, that was the wet fart you felt in the universe a few days ago

[hookemATL 11671]

51 minutes ago, F250 said:

Toby Keith is dead?

Dead Solo Cup

[Born to Run 6569]

yeah, that was the wet fart you felt in the universe a few days ago

Shouldn't have been an asshole, shouldn't done whatever assholes dooo

[Nivek 16913]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

Toby Keith is dead?

We still got Willie Nelson

[cactusflinthead 27597]

29 Rs

 

[wildcat09 29325]

Pretty fucking disappointed in Merkley and Sanders.