Posted on 08/01/2015 5:10:41 PM PDT by conservative98
You and your mother’s personal lives aren’t my business. TMI. Seriously, a hundred posts and I can’t get you to say squat in defense of your own argument, and now you want to open up about “whatever it takes to get through the night” with your mom.
That’s just sick, consider this my last post. I didn’t need that visual.
Your twisting American history is sick. Whats sicker is you twisting a simple phrase into something only a whackjob would think of.
I don’t know how you got there from here.
Mujahideen didn’t turn into al-Qaeda. This claim is one of those silly myths that just doesn’t die.
It’s far from nil. If the situation in Ukraine escalates to the point where regular Russian forces are losing conventionally, Russia WILL use tactical nuclear weapons. Everyone in the world of international politics and diplomacy knows this, which is why there is such a lack of enthusiasm for the neocon push for escalation.
The much more likely scenario is that Russia will take more parts of Ukraine if there is escalation against its proxies in southeast Ukraine or in the Transnistria region of Moldova. In that scenario, Russia will fully mobilize its armed forces and sweep across the southern half of Ukraine to Transnistria. That whole region will then be annexed into Russia. There are more than enough pro-Russian people in these regions to suppress any insurgency.
The best way to make that happen starts with giving more weapons and training to Ukraine that can be used to attack the separatist regions.
I’d like Sample Man to explain what exactly the USA’s vital interests are in Ukraine. Please, be specific and detailed. Explain how Ukraine signing a trade deal with the Eurasian Union instead of the EU was a good reason for the DC FedGov to back a coup.
Remember, elections were just months away when the coup happened. Yanukovich had ALREADY lost an election and left office, only to be reelected later. There is NO reason to believe he would have refused to leave office if he lost the 2014 election.
The real question is why did the DC FedGov back the coup instead of just waiting for the election? If the narrative that the DC FedGov and big media promoted was accurate, the election should have been a landslide for the pro-EU faction. Why did they lose their cool and push for a coup?
There are several things to consider here. One of which is that the neocons who were crafting and implementing DC FedGov policy slipped their chain. These people are fanatics who always seek to escalate conflict and see everything in black and white terms. The DC FedGov may not have planned things to go the way they did, but just went with it.
Another possibility is that DC had information that the enthusiastic protesters did not have as much support as many thought and that Yanukovich could still win the election. They didn’t want to run the risk that the public mood could have changed by the time of the election. They saw a chance at a coup and decided to take it...a bird in the hand and all that.
I think the real motive behind DC backing the coup was to shape the post-coup Ukraine in a globalist/cultural Marxist direction. The protests were lead by militant nationalist groups who don’t like the EU or NATO anymore than they like Russia or the USSR. The danger of allowing the protests to go on until the election was that non-NWO friendly folks might have won the election.
Remember Nuland nixing support for Vitaly Klitcshko to lead the post-coup Ukraine. Klitschko is seen by DC as being a populist and patriot motivated by idealism. They want people who are malleable — career politicians and oligarchs.
The people running Ukraine now are a mix of leftovers from the corrupt Timochenko mafia and defectors from the corrupt Yanokuvich mafia. The coup and snap elections called shortly after were designed to keep these professional politicians and oligarchs in power and to keep nationalists and populists in a subordinate role.
IMO, the best policy for the USA to have pursued here was to not instigate or support any coup and support the normal elections to have gone forward in 2014. The worst case scenario would have been Yanukovich wins reelection and Ukraine signs a trade deal with the Eurasian Union(and gets tens of billions of Russian aid money). Crimea is still part of Ukraine, no civil war, no cultural Marxist/globalist regime in Kiev pushing gay rights.
The most likely scenario is that Yanukovich would have lost or been so weakened that he would have had to change course. Ukrainians would have eventually worked out a compromise among themselves that allowed trade with both the EU and the EAU, Crimea is still Ukraine, no civil war, no cultural Marxist/globalist regime in Kiev pushing gay rights.
An actual argument with some specific assertions, if not facts. But something to actually discuss. Good, I can address those comments. We may not agree about what is in our interest and the risk-reward matrix, but we can discuss it.
Two things for now, one is I’m on my phone, so a detailed answer must wait. Second, I’ve had a stomach full of Norm Lenhart’s mindless drivel, personal attacks, and general petulant behavior. So if I see that crap again, I’ll be done with this thread for good.
Waiting.
I’ve done my best to answer your questions and assertions without just shooting questions back at you. I’m certain I won’t change your mind, but at least now, you will know mine.
It’s far from nil. If the situation in Ukraine escalates to the point where regular Russian forces are losing conventionally, Russia WILL use tactical nuclear weapons. Everyone in the world of international politics and diplomacy knows this, which is why there is such a lack of enthusiasm for the neocon push for escalation.
If the Ukrainian army were pushing on Moscow, perhaps, but that isn’t even within the realm of possibility. Would the Russians openly commit their regular Army troops to fighting in Ukraine? There is no indication that they have any desire to do that, quite the opposite, they want to deny direct involvement. So would the Russians use tactical nuclear weapons to support their proxy fighters or their own regular troops inside of Ukraine? To what end? They would be nuking the very area of Ukraine they say is Russian. They would turn world opinion massively against them and invite a huge NATO buildup and presence in Eastern Europe.
Perhaps you mean tac nuke in the yield sense and not the application sense. Hitting Kiev or some such strategic target with nuclear attack would eliminate the fratricide issue, but would still be a huge stinking mess for the Russians going forward. I really can’t fathom that they would be that stupid.
And as for the Russians hitting us with a nuclear strike in response to a Western armed Ukraine regaining its own territory from proxy fighters that the Russians are openly insisting are independent from Russia? I really do think that is nil.
I’ve neither read nor heard a single person from within the world of international politics and diplomacy voice the concerns you attribute to all of them concerning nuclear war. Putin is not suicidal and he isn’t going to burn down his house when his expansionist plans go south on him.
As for using the term “neo con” to describe those who want to help Ukraine and frustrate Russian expansion, I don’t find it particularly useful. I’m a pragmatist and hold fairly steady with the concept that freedom should be defended where it exists and promoted where it has potential to take seed. South Korea and Taiwan are both examples of regimes that were worth supporting that became freer and freer over time due to U.S. involvement, despite highly questionable early governments.
The much more likely scenario is that Russia will take more parts of Ukraine if there is escalation against its proxies in southeast Ukraine or in the Transnistria region of Moldova. In that scenario, Russia will fully mobilize its armed forces and sweep across the southern half of Ukraine to Transnistria. That whole region will then be annexed into Russia. There are more than enough pro-Russian people in these regions to suppress any insurgency.
Well, giving up the Sudetland didn’t appease Hitler’s expansionist aims, and I don’t think such a tactic would appease Putin either. Your scenario could play out, but the historical norm for acquiescence to an expansionist power is ultimate absorption, so it’s more a question of whether Ukraine resists now, fights from a weaker position later, or just surrenders its sovereignty.
The best way to make that happen starts with giving more weapons and training to Ukraine that can be used to attack the separatist regions.
As with the above, the same general assertion could be made of most all historical aggressor situations. Would China have been better off not resisting the Japanese acquisitions? The historical model is that an aggressor who is not challenged on their initial acquisition, quickly moves to take more or all of what they desire. They don’t stop of their own accord.
I’d like Sample Man to explain what exactly the USA’s vital interests are in Ukraine. Please, be specific and detailed. Explain how Ukraine signing a trade deal with the Eurasian Union instead of the EU was a good reason for the DC FedGov to back a coup.
Risk-reward matrix issue for sure. Vital interest? What is vital? Will the U.S. cease to exist tomorrow if Ukraine is absorbed into Russia? Nope. So if that is your definition of vital and you further believe we should only ever act if something is vital, then clearly you are against helping Ukraine and trying to frustrate Russian expansion. I think that is a naïve position, but it is a clear position. If that is the case, we will simply be in disagreement.
Instead of trying to objectively define the very subjective “vital interest” I think it is more useful to simply address it as a risk-reward matrix issue.
- Is Russian expansion a threat to our interests and safety? I believe it is. Although I had hoped Russia would emerge from the Soviet era as a friendly power, its historical introverted self-identity and xenophobia has proven more powerful than the allure of prosperity. Russia gives every indication of wanting to recreate it empire, controlling its neighboring countries in Asia and Eastern Europe. Should Russia achieve those goals, it will be more hostile and more strategically, economically, and militarily capable. That matters, because Russia also views power as a zero sum game, which makes us their perpetual target. Ultimately, I think stopping Russian expansion might lead to positive changes in Russia too.
- Like South Korea and Taiwan, I think Ukraine has potential to become a freer country. Is this in our interests? Well, we have fought two world wars in the last century with autocratic Germany and one with autocratic Japan, but our prospects for war with the representative democracies of Germany and Japan are zero. So in the big picture, I find the spread of freedom to be a sound policy. It’s not an all or nothing approach, that requires us to be the world cop, fighting every fight, it’s a general policy to move forward with, doing what we can when it makes sense. i.e. worth the risk.
- Russia has been involved heavily in Ukrainian politics since they split and with a heavy hand, assassinating leaders, and pouring bribes into an already fragile system. That the Ukrainians tire of this is not surprising, and that they moved against what they determined was a Russian Quisling government is not surprising. All revolts are by nature questionable (generally a sizeable percentage of people think it was done in haste and without sufficient cause) and by definition treasonous, as was ours in 1776.
Remember, elections were just months away when the coup happened. Yanukovich had ALREADY lost an election and left office, only to be reelected later. There is NO reason to believe he would have refused to leave office if he lost the 2014 election.
There is always reason to believe that people who are consolidating power and working to subvert a system will refuse to hand over the reins, but as I said above, revolts are always suspected of coming too soon. Of course the people who wait too long end up living multiple generations under the totalitarian yoke.
The real question is why did the DC FedGov back the coup instead of just waiting for the election? If the narrative that the DC FedGov and big media promoted was accurate, the election should have been a landslide for the pro-EU faction. Why did they lose their cool and push for a coup?
I can only answer as to why I would have backed the coup. Yanukovich was making moves to consolidate power with Russian backing and the quick move to give Russia exclusionary trading positions gave the inherent message that a quid pro quo was at work. I think the coming referendum would have been Ukraine’s last.
There are several things to consider here. One of which is that the neocons who were crafting and implementing DC FedGov policy slipped their chain. These people are fanatics who always seek to escalate conflict and see everything in black and white terms. The DC FedGov may not have planned things to go the way they did, but just went with it.
Yea, I’m not buying that. There are logical reasons, as I’ve given than the “neo cons” whoever that might be, are not the only ones seeing things the way I do.
Another possibility is that DC had information that the enthusiastic protesters did not have as much support as many thought and that Yanukovich could still win the election. They didn’t want to run the risk that the public mood could have changed by the time of the election. They saw a chance at a coup and decided to take it...a bird in the hand and all that.
I think, as I stated above, the question was the nature of the coming election/referendum. As the Ukrainian Quisling Yanukovich spun tighter into the Russian power circle, the chance of seeing a free election was disappearing.
I think the real motive behind DC backing the coup was to shape the post-coup Ukraine in a globalist/cultural Marxist direction. The protests were lead by militant nationalist groups who don’t like the EU or NATO anymore than they like Russia or the USSR. The danger of allowing the protests to go on until the election was that non-NWO friendly folks might have won the election.
Simply don’t concur with your reading of the situation. When it comes to economics, fascism appears to be the rule of the day worldwide, that being a system where the government is far too involved in picking economic winners and losers. I’d like to see that change, but Russia is far more so than Western Europe or the U.S.
Remember Nuland nixing support for Vitaly Klitcshko to lead the post-coup Ukraine. Klitschko is seen by DC as being a populist and patriot motivated by idealism. They want people who are malleable — career politicians and oligarchs.
Probably a good time to state that my support for Ukraine does not translate into cart blanc support for U.S. (Obama’s) policy with regard to Ukraine. Vitali Klitcshko withdrew and endorsed Petro Poroshenko. I’m unaware of how Nuland effected that. Not to say it didn’t happen, but I’m not familiar with it.
The people running Ukraine now are a mix of leftovers from the corrupt Timochenko mafia and defectors from the corrupt Yanokuvich mafia. The coup and snap elections called shortly after were designed to keep these professional politicians and oligarchs in power and to keep nationalists and populists in a subordinate role.
Corrupt people populate corrupt countries. The Philippines had Marcos and Taiwan had Chang Kai-Sheck. Not ideal free minded thinkers, but the Philippines and Taiwan moved forward, not back. If we only support perfect people, we’ll never be able to act in our interests. Do you have a point? Absolutely, look at South Vietnam and many Latin American countries. It can and does go bad. I think it’s worth the risk, as dictatorial Chile and South Korea were still better than Cuba and North Korea, meanwhile, they’ve improved greatly, while Cuba and NK still suck. Usually it’s a slow generational progression.
IMO, the best policy for the USA to have pursued here was to not instigate or support any coup and support the normal elections to have gone forward in 2014. The worst case scenario would have been Yanukovich wins reelection and Ukraine signs a trade deal with the Eurasian Union (and gets tens of billions of Russian aid money). Crimea is still part of Ukraine, no civil war, no cultural Marxist/globalist regime in Kiev pushing gay rights.
Crimea being part of Ukraine isn’t much of a win, if Ukraine isn’t sovereign. The worst case scenario is far worse, which is Ukraine being effectively and ultimately physically absorbed into Russia after subverting its government and helping it to maintain unpopular power.
There is no good reason, except for Russia’s expansionist aims, that Ukraine could not trade with whomever it wishes, as a sovereign country. Making trade exclusionary is an act of aggression. Ukraine would have clearly been better off having trade with the EU and with Russia. Why was that not possible? Germany has trade with the EU and Russia. The United States has trade with the EU and Russia. So why not Ukraine.
I have no delusion that I’ve swayed you in any way. I’m sure you still see a high risk, low reward situation where I see a low risk, high reward situation. Fair enough, but what I do hope is that you can accept that my differing opinion on Ukraine, does not require that I also advocate for intervention in every situation around the world, nor that involvement in foreign matters is de facto unconstitutional or contrary to our founding principles, both of which, I’ve had to repeatedly deal with on this thread, from someone who would not provide the benefit of their own position, as you have done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.