Replies

Red6: "This is for MOST not about being pro-Ukraine or pro-Russian, that is you."

When you are watching a murder and rape in progress, to claim "neutrality" is to defacto support the murderer and rapist.
That is a fact that we ignore to our great peril.

So, it's not about Russia specifically, it's about any Axis of Evil Dictators (China, NoKo, Iran & others) threatening and invading their neighbors for empire-building purposes.

Red6: "This is about a stupid war that was not necessary.
There was no need for this:"

"Biden assures Zelenskiy that NATO membership in Ukraine's hands, Kyiv says"

Your article is dated December 8, 2021, but that was far from the first time NATO membership was discussed.
Here is a abbreviated time-line:

1994 -- Ukraine became a NATO Partner For Peace member, as did Russia.
1997 -- Ukraine joined the NATO-Ukraine Commission, Russia joined a similar plan.
2002 -- Ukraine began the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan
2005 -- Ukraine began NATO Intensified Dialog program
2008 -- NATO summit in Bucharest invited Ukraine and several others to join, but without issuing a Membership Action Plan (MAP) for Ukraine.
2010 -- Pro-Putin stooge-traitor Viktor Yanukovich elected Ukraine's president, begins prosecution of political opponents and announces Ukraine's neutrality towards NATO.
2014 -- Maidan Revolt, Yanukovich removed from office by Ukraine's parliament voting 328-0, Yanukovich fled to Russia and was later convicted of treason in absentia.
In early 2014, ~80% of Ukrainians had opposed NATO membership.
2014 -- Vlad the Invader seized and annexed Crimea then invaded and launched alleged "civil war" in the Donbas.
So Ukrainian attitudes toward NATO made a dramatic reversal, to now a vast majority supporting membership.
2017 -- Russia's annual military exercises held in western Russia and Belarus near Ukraine.
2018 -- Ukraine enshrined future NATO membership in Ukraine's Constitution.
2019 -- Russia's annual military exercises grew larger and more ominous, all the while denying any intentions to re-invade Ukraine.
2021 -- Russia's exercises grew enormous in scale and closer to Ukraine's borders, all the while continuing to deny intentions to re-invade Ukraine.
2021 -- NATO's June summit reaffirmed Ukraine's eventual membership, but still did not provide a MAP or membership date.
2021 -- On December 1, NATO's Secretary General Stoltenberg said, "Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence" regarding Ukraine.
2021 -- December 9, US Pres. Biden assures Ukraine Pres Zelenskyy of American support.
2021 -- December 10, Vlad the Invader issues his war-ultimatum demanding:
- "A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states.
- A revision of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, which regulates the military activities and cooperation between NATO and Russia, and a withdrawal of NATO's infrastructure and capabilities from the territories that were not part of NATO as of 1997.
- A moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe, and a dialogue on strategic stability and arms control.
- A reform of the OSCE to make it more representative, inclusive, and effective in addressing the security challenges and conflicts in Europe."
NATO's response, in short, was: "Up yours, Vlad"

Red6: "This is about a war that was predictable."

Of course, to anyone who understands that Russia's government must always respond to weakness with aggression, because that is how it has always existed.
Vlad the Invader saw strength in Pres. Trump and that kept the peace.
But he saw weakness in Presidents Obama and Biden and the results were inevitable invasions of Ukraine.

Red6: "This is about a war with nearly a pre-determined outcome."

That obviously depends on who, exactly, is making the determinations.
If you and Vlad make the determinations, then Russia will win and the sooner the better.
But if Ukrainians and Europeans determine it, then Russia will fail and justly so.

Red6: "This is a war not benefiting Ukraine, Western or Central Europe, the US, or Russia."

War is always h*ll and doesn't "benefit" anybody.
But the outcomes of wars can be of huge benefits to both the winners and losers, as, for example WWII.
Likewise, had the wrong side won, the world today would be a vastly different place.

Red6: "The only winner here is a small group of folks in the financial (example: Black Rock, JPMC) and defense industries.
The rest of the people, the average citizen in Germany, the US, Ukraine or Russia, are (((ALL))) losers.
Yes, we are losers since in the grand scheme of things, I am less wealthy and less safe because of this conflict.
I am forced to be a loser because I also sit in the same boat and the morons Aspen, Blinken, Nuland, Biden, Sullivan are at the wheel, which steered us into this mess."

All that is pure babbling nonsense and only shows you as a brain-dead sponge for Russian propaganda.

The real truth is certainly plenty bad enough -- Pres. Trump's defeat in the 2020 election was a disaster beyond our imaginations, it put in an administration that is not just brain-dead, it's rock-brained, meaning there's nothing there except corruption and weakness.
Corruption and weakness have the predictable results of enabling bad people to do bad things, notably the dictators of Russia, China, Iran and NoKo.

The Biden administration committed the unpardonable sin of destroying America's First Line of Defense, namely our military deterrence against evil actors.
With deterrence now gone, we are forced to defend what strong leadership, as in Trump, could have prevented.

But none of this makes Russia right or justified in murdering and raping its way through Ukraine.
It only makes us weak and stupid until the next election.

Red6: "For you, this might be about choosing sides and some deep instilled hatred/distrust for Russia."

No! There's no "choosing sides" between a criminal and his victims, that's insane.
If you ignore the crimes, you simply encourage the criminal to repeat and enlarge them the next time.

As for your allegations of "deep instilled hatred/distrust for Russia" -- that would be any human being on Planet Earth who's ever suffered enslavement in the Old Tsarist or Soviet Empires.
No sane person would ever want to repeat that, which is why all of Russia's neighbors who can, want to become NATO members.

You would too, wouldn't you?

Red6: "However, for most against this war, it is about a senseless destruction of wealth and life, the infliction of pain and fear that was entirely avoidable."

It's only senseless if you support Vlad the Invader's revanchism for the Old Tsarist and Soviet Empires.
But if you believe in any of the ideals of freedom, democracy, constitutional republics, national sovereignty, international law, criminal law... the Ten Commandments, then Ukrainians have just as much natural right to fight for their independence from Russia as Americans had in 1776 to declare our own independence.

Red6: "Now, we are in the odd situation of pretending like we have a moral high ground and are winning (although the winning myth is fading)."

Ukraine has absolutely the same high moral ground as any victim of murder or rape would, and Russia today represents the depths of Old Time empire-building moral depravity.

Those are facts, not just opinions.

Red6: "This is the result of a colossal policy failure, no different than the withdraw from Afghanistan and how that unfolded."

None of which would excuse our own moral depravity if we allow Ukrainians to be re-enslaved by Russians.

Red6: "The only difference here, is that because of the nature of this conflict, the average layperson will lay blame for this conflict on who shot first, i.e. Russia.
The lead up to the war and what really caused it is intentionally ignored (pointless in having a debate with people that are insincere - they are not interested in truth)."

I'm sorry, but so far, I've seen nothing truthful from you, FRiend, it's all just Russian propaganda lies & nonsense.
Seriously, why do you do it?

Red6: "The MSM that is favorable to the Democrats and Biden, a foreign (European) MSM which is on board with this conflict (same interests which were driving them), causes us to have a near one sided message with little to no dissent in the MSM.
Here on the FR, where a few folks actually think on their own and don’t just regurgitate what they read in the MSM and social media, you will find some differing viewpoints."

Naw... what you "just regurgitate" are Russian propaganda lies & nonsense -- you have no real facts or reasons, it's only whatever they concoct in the basements of the Kremlin's Ministry for Agitation and Propaganda.

Red6: "Sorry you feel threatened by people that have different view points.
If you feel it’s a problem that you’re outnumbered 2:1 according to you, then simply go to the MSM or Social media outlets where except for a small minority like TCN which actually are off the beaten path, you will see a massage in agreement with yours. "

Naw... still you don't understand.
I don't feel "threatened" by just two-to-one odds because those are good odds -- Ukrainians face three-to-one on the battlefield and Donald Trump will face at least three-to-one in his "debate" with Biden on Thursday.
In fact, it won't even be a debate between Trump and Biden, it'll be between Trump and the Democrats' media, in which his media will declare Biden the winner.
Which, when you think about it, is not necessarily entirely bad for Trump, since it means Biden will be renominated by Democrats...

So, two-to-one odds are not that bad, but the real problem is that you people disgrace yourselves and Free Republic with your insane unbridled personal attacks, insults, mocking & ridicule.
I don't think it can help your case, or Free Republic, when anti-Ukers drive away posters who disagree with your benign opinions of Russia's Vlad the Invader.

Red6: "Traditionally, the conservative view is not that expeditionary, expansionist, globalist (supra national), for profit or politically motivated military campaigns are a good thing.
Traditionally, from the very beginning, the idea is that the US should keep out of European affairs, be nearly neutral and what we today would describe with the pejorative: “isolationist.”
If you were to time-travel, you’d see that the views of Rand and Ron Paul are pretty much what our Founding Fathers espoused."

I see that you have no real understanding of American history, and I blame our public schools for that, many of them can be just awful in teaching the basics of American history and the values it represents.

The truth is that none of our Founders were "isolationists", though some were more focused on internal issues than others.
Pres. Washington, for example, was more concerned about the Northwest Indian War (Brits & Indians vs. US settlers) -- with US Army's annihilation at the Battle of the Wabash in 1791 -- than he was about British or French impressment of American sailors.
But other Founders were more concerned about the French (Adams: Quazi War), Mediterranean Pirates (Jefferson & Madison: Barbary Wars), the Brits (Madison: War of 1812), the Spanish (Monroe: Florida), and many others -- the total list is hundreds of military operations in dozens of foreign countries some in almost every administration.

Red6: "From the very beginning:

Washington's Farwell Address"

You have some very interesting ideas of what it means to be “conservative.”"

Naw... but I do have a much clearer-eyed vision of history than your very limited perspective.
I know that during the US Revolutionary War our Founders formed several alliances, including with France, Spain, the Netherlands and various Indian Tribes which fought battles in or near dozens of countries in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, North Sea and Canada.
Just from Pres. Washington's time to Pres. Jackson's -- 1789 to 1837, they fought four wars (Northwest Indian, Quazi, Barbary and 1812) plus launched dozens of military operations in Central and South America, the Caribbean, to Africa (against the slave trade) and Mediterranean to the Pacific Islands and Asia.

They were the opposite of "stay at home" isolationists.
They formed alliances and trade agreements as they felt necessary -- one of particular note under Pres. John Q. Adams resulted in a joint US-British naval and marine landing in Cuba in 1825, against pirates.

That's "conservative" relative to our Founders' original visions for the United States and our role in the world.

Of course, they never went looking for trouble -- "cruisin' for a bruisin'" as is said, but neither did they ignore and run from it.

There are three bigger ideas that are essentially made in these posts: (1) The idea if Russia has a right to a sphere of influence, (2) what caused this war and if we got the message, (3) and who is winning.

1) Every nation has a “sphere of influence,” may that be military, economic, and/or political. We (the US) see the entire Pacific Rim, all of Latin and South America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Syria (a formal Russian/Soviet ally we decided to invade and occupy), the NATO world, parts of North Africa as “our sphere of influence.”

The Germans have their sphere of influence within Europe. The French have their sphere of influence in Europe and Africa. The UK has their sphere of influence in Europe, Asia, Africa... Within the EU, the Germans and French call the shots, and nations like Greece, even Poland walk to the tune of the Germans and French.

Claiming Russia has no right to a “sphere of influence” all while we are expanding our influence into Ukraine, is insincere and ironic to say the least.

https://www.axios.com/2021/12/01/nato-russia-ukraine-invasion
https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/nato-chief-great-powers-have-no-right-spheres-influence-against-small-neighboring-countries

This is best explained with an analogy. When you climb over someones fence and they watch from their house window crap in their backyard, they get pissed. When they warn you not to do this again, you probably should respect that. But if you keep doing it again and again (Republic of Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, 2021...), and just blow them off, and then you say in their face that they have no right to their own backyard (even though you have one too - in fact yours, the US, is the biggest in the world), they might come out of that house and resort to physical violence to get their point across. Stop $hitting in the Russians backyard and pretending like we’re the victim or good guy!

This war is because Russia is conventionally weak, not because they are strong.

We treat Russia entirely different than the PRC and that is not because the PRC is so much more moral, a better democracy, respecting of human rights and other nations sovereignty. The PRC is worse in every respect and they too have their “sphere of influence.” But, we respect theirs, including Taiwan.

It is because we thought we can do whatever we want, as we do in most the world, and the Russians must accept this, that this war happened.

The logic: After arming and training Ukraine for 7 years, the cost will be too high for Russia and they will acquiesce. That was the gamble. We were wrong.

I won’t go into your moralistic babble, it’s all junk. Both sides are equally bad. The Ukraine was neither holy before the war nor during it. You simply cherry pick a few things and then want to wrap yourself in these BS concepts of democracy, sovereignty and human rights to pretend like we have some high ground here. We don’t and Ukraine doesn’t either. In fact, if I were you, I would avoid using these concepts since we have over thrown true democracy’s when they interfere with our interests all while we have helped install or secure despots like in Saudi Arabia, Jordan... Even Ukraine is led by a dictator today. As of 20 May, he is no longer a democratically elected President, and there is a reason why we are OK with that, because contrary to popular belief and even though Times “person of the year” in the West, he’d lose an election in Ukraine. Hint: Mr. Z rode to power on a platform of peace with Russia, his mobilization plans, the economy... highly unpopular. But, he’s our boy and does what we say, so he stays in power at least until next year. If we are calling all the shots in Ukraine, how sovereign are they?

2) There is a lesson which has already been learned. Assuming this was a policy failure where risk and ROI wasn’t calculated right and we didn’t do this intentionally (a situation I do not even want to entertain as this would make us outright evil, albeit there is some evidence to suggest that this is the case).

Despite Russia being far weaker than in the time of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, despite being #5 in manpower on the worlds stage in terms of conventional forces (pre-2021), Russia still has the (((military ability and political will))) to defend their interests by force if need be. We cannot just plow over them and do whatever we want - Respect.

Tens of thousands of lives had to die, more be crippled, millions turned into refugees, an economy destroyed, so that some kid in Washington (example, a Jake Sullivan), can learn a basic lesson in life.

No matter what you think, I can assure you, we have learned our lesson at this point and will be more reserved with NATO East expansion in the future.

Even if a few block heads don’t get it, they will be constrained by our allies and popular opinion which will NOT go along with this in the future, and at this point many seriously regret they did: Germany, Italy...

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-chancellor-scholz-s-coalition-suffers-heavy-losses-in-european-elections/3245303

In Europe not only is public opinion anti-war at this point, as it is in the US (that’s why our MSM stopped polling and reporting on it, they are no longer favorable for a cause the MSM supports), but there are political changes happening in Europe in part because of this war. Even in the most staunch NATO allies and vehement anti-Russian places like Poland, you see this trend.

https://odysee.com/$/search?q=March-against-Poland%E2%80%98s-involvement-in-military-actions-in-Ukraine-to

Get this into you head, Ukraine will not be in NATO for the foreseeable future: https://news.yahoo.com/news/biden-opposes-ukraine-nato-membership-151512895.html

In fact, when this war ends, I would not doubt that there will be a backlash for NATO and the US. Today, issues like Ukraine supersede inside squabbling, but long term, nations like Germany realize that we are using NATO to serve our own best interests and not those of our allies. Blowing up a pipeline the Germans depend on economically did not serve Germany’s best interests. In Europe, the idea that they have been played and that this war in Ukraine is all about weakening Russia’s position on the world stage has not gone unnoticed (the evil option). Basically, they (Europe) pay 1/2 for this war and deal with the majority of refugees. The Ukraine does all the bleeding. But the US gets to deal with a weakened Russia on the world stage as we pursue them in places like Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Niger and we get the majority of defense contracts along the way (we are the worlds biggest arms exporter).

3) By definition, we have already lost, excluding the evil option where the argument can be made that long term we will win.

—The political agenda and cause of this war was to get Ukraine into NATO, and that has failed.

—The military objective was to prevent Russia from taking the Eastern and ethnic Russian parts of Ukraine, that has failed.

Russia will now continue to apply pressure, which means we must hemorrhage money as well, and Ukraine will only lose more ground and people, with zero prospect of turning things around.

This pressure prevents a build up of forces for a counter offensive as in 2023, but also puts Ukraine and the West at a disadvantage when the peace talks begin in earnest. At that point, Ukraine will agree to be neutral. Would it not have been better had we skipped the death and destruction part, and just skipped to the part where Ukraine is neutral?

The counter offensive of 2023 was the last chance for Ukraine to prevent Russia from achieving their military objectives, and this effort failed.

There will be no large scale future counter offensive (not like 2023) where Ukraine takes back the lost territory since Russia will both prevent the amassing of troops and concentration along the front, but also prevent a general build up of forces able to launch a larger counter offensive by applying constant pressure which the Ukrainians have to react to. If Ukraine attempts to build up a force for a counter-offensive, that means Russia will increase the pressure, requiring Ukraine to dedicate those force to the front. As the war goes on, Ukraine loses a small village and a few square miles of territory every few days with eventually Kharkiv falling late this year, and Odessa falling next year.

At this point, we have Ukraine and the West growing more desperate, not Russia, us. That is why we close our eyes regarding growing terrorist attacks sponsored by Ukraine in Russia (against outright civilian targets: Crocus City hall, St. Petersberg, Darya Dugina), why we provide Ukraine weapons that allow deep strikes into Russian territory which technically allows Russia to strike deep into Europe: ATACMS... You see this with the use of military NATO personnel (open secret) in Ukraine (Poland and France) and elsewhere.

Just yesterday: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/25/politics/biden-administration-american-military-contractors-ukraine/index.html (we are desperate and we’re the ones escalating in an attempt to turn things around or at least hold on)

We still try in part to spin this as a victory in our media, However: (1) We are past the Decision Point DP (counter offensive 2023), (2) we lost by all accounts , political and military objectives, (3) we are supporting a war that is mostly unpopular, (4) the political climate is changing in Europe, there is a chance that a new President in the US will end this conflict rapidly. (5) As the political climate changes, Europe and in the US, the monetary and logistical support for this war will become less. If you think we’re not sweating at this point...

What you are left with is changing the goal post, i.e. making up new definitions of what success and failure are.