Posted on 04/20/2022 4:19:45 PM PDT by conservative98
On Wednesday, appearing on the LindellTV with Emerald Robinson, former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, advocated for ending U.S. military aid to Ukraine to protect them from the Russian invasion.
"Let me give you my judgment on where we are right now," said Flynn. "I think that anybody that anyone that continues to put fuel on a blazing fire, meaning more weapons, more ammunition, more of the sort of warfare-type stuff that's thrown into this fire is going to keep this fire blazing for a long, long time. And I think that doesn't benefit anybody."
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
No, what matters is America's national interests in Ukraine and our "obligation" to spend blood and treasure in defense of Ukraine, which has been a sovereign country for a little over 30 years. We have already spent billions of dollars arming Ukraine in an open-ended commitment to keep the flow of money and arms going indefinitely. We are more interested in keeping the war going than trying to stop the fighting and needless loss of life and property. And who foots the bill to rebuild Ukraine bearing in mind the government is rife with corruption. We are stuck in another endless war. Afghanistan is now in the rear view mirror save for the hundreds of millions in humanitarian aid we are still giving today.
Did you ever read Putin's essay he wrote last summer, in which he said that Ukraine historically/culturally is a part of Russia, and that there really isn't a Ukrainian identity at all? That was basically a manifesto that Ukraine shouldn't exist at all. Any fair-minded person reading that would conclude that Putin does not/did not believe as you do. Certainly, the Ukrainians aren't going to have the same faith you do that Russia considers Ukraine to be long-term independent.
I read it. I also read former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, career diplomat Jack Matlock's recent essay that puts the Ukrainian situation in an historical context. I recommend it highly as a former diplomat myself.
I would also refer you to George Kennan's observations on NATO expansion memorialized in the Congressional Record. Kennan is arguably our greatest diplomat who authored the famous "Long Telegram" that formed our policy of containment of the Soviet Union that eventually caused its downfall. In 1997 Kennan said "expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era." He then predicted the consequences that we are seeing played out today.
Again, no matter what Putin's putative future intentions may be, Russia is a country in decline economically and demographically. It is an aging nation with a declining population. Life expectancy at birth for males is 66.92 years. Russia's conventional military forces are not a threat to Europe. It is no where what it was in 1968-70 when I was a naval officer assigned to NATO at AFSOUTH in Naples. Nuclear weapons make Russia a global threat, but their use assures total destruction.
The US has provided the security umbrella for Europe that has allowed them to create a generous welfare state. Most NATO countries have not spent the agreed upon 2% of GDP on defense. Uncle Sap bears the brunt of the costs and manpower. As a result, there is little interoperability of the forces and the differences in capabilities are vast. So Europe seems unwilling to pay for its own defense and people like Macron are calling for a separate European army outside of NATO. It is time for the US to reevaluate its security arrangements.
The Ukrainians -- and all of us -- also have the uncontroverted evidence of the Russians battling bitterly on the outskirts of Kyiv itself. They lost, but it surely shows their intent. Or at least, a very reasonable fear on the part of Ukraine that Russia would gladly take the entire country if it thought it could.
I agree that the Russians miscalculated about Kyiv. IMO they wanted to take over the capital and then have the Ukrainians capitulate to their demands. It didn't work so the fall back position is to return to the status quo ante bellum, i.e., autonomy for the eastern provinces and continued control over Crimea. No matter what Russia may want in terms of control of Ukraine, they don't have ability to accomplish it. The current war should squelch any such ambitions.
And that's the entire problem with the Russian offer of a ceasefire. They want Ukraine to give up large chunks of the most industrialized parts of their country, likely including the entire Black Sea coast east to the Donbass to give the Russians that land bridge. That will unquestionably make Ukraine a weaker/poorer country moving forward. Even if they rebuild all of it, they'll be a rump version of the country they were prior to this war. And, what's left of Ukraine must promise not to join NATO, which means they'd be fighting alone once more.
Ukraine is in the unfortunate position of being in the Russian sphere of influence. It shares a 1,500 mile border with Russia. The US had the Monroe Doctrine to assert its control of the hemisphere. We almost triggered a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union blinked, but they did get some concessions on removing missiles from Turkey.
What is your solution? Perpetual war? Ukraine is being destroyed every day. More and more refugees are being created. Do you want the US to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty? Why didn't Ukraine implement the 2015 Minsk Agreement? There are limits to American involvement and an ability to control outcomes. Vietnam was my war. Was the great sacrifice and costs worth it?
That's the entire problem with coming to a ceasefire. Russia is insisting on terms that will make Ukraine weaker and more vulnerable than it was before this war, and there is absolutely zero reason for them to believe any Russian promises that they won't try again. Ukraine cannot agree to that unless they literally are unable to fight any further, which is not the case.
Is that the metric? When they are unable to fight any further? Sad.
Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014 and there has been a shooting war in the Donbas region since 2015. Why wasn’t there the same kind of reaction then as there is now?
Ukraine is effectively postponing the inevitable using their soldiers and peoples lives to perhaps help them in a future negotiation. I agree with Flynn.
*Fight! Fight! Fight! (*the YOU is implied)
Not so much when one risks themselves and their stuff blown to smithereens.
I wish Biden was as concerned about our sovereignty on the Southern border as he is about Ukraine’s sovereignty. The money allocated to Ukraine for the war could have easily completed the Wall and implemented other security enhancements. Two million lawbreakers and counting.
Exactly
I just don’t know...
When your opponent steps on his dick, is bleeding and disoriented, get out of his way. Let him continue.
Army War College.
5.56mm
It breaks your heart.
Biden and his ilk also care about the border, and how to abolish it, to destroy this country. He himself is incoherent sufficient to be unaware of what his handlers' intentions are.
Americans as with other peoples are suckers for that sort of cheap hackery, Many countries have them, the first in modern times was Spain unde,r Philip II; ‘One Faith, One Sword, One King’, which is really a lot more honest and perceptive than the cartoonish ‘liberty, equality, fraternity ‘ sloganeering crap that the so called liberal democracies churn out.Nations are neither good nor evil. They are agglomerations of peoples formed under the pressure of unique historical and cultural events which gives each its individuality and interest. Nations leaders ake choices, some work some don’t, nobody wins every time . If you prefer bumper sticker slogans to thinking you have a lot of company. Actual intellectual activity requires critical thinking which most across the political spectrum find too time consuming and difficult.
Another poor pick by Trump. What a doofus.
Ah you believe in the Soros method of thinking. Whatever is the best for me and to hell with everything else.
Republics are built on the Rule of Law. If you wan a country to exist long term you follow certain rules. Your word is your bond. Look at the countries that do not follow those rules, China, Russia, many others and you can not trust them ever.
We signed an agreement, people’s lives depended on it. Going back on our word resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands. If you want to be untrustworthy like Russia or China I’m sure they would love to have you join them. You will be happier and so will we.
“ Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014 and there has been a shooting war in the Donbas region since 2015. Why wasn’t there the same kind of reaction then as there is now?”
—————————————————————————————————————————-
That’s a great question.
I wonder that myself. Why were all of the Pro-Putin people so silent then?
Oh, and Crimea was annexed without firing a shot. Mainly because most Crimeans consider themselves Russian.
“We defeated Japan mercessly.”
—
I agree and I agree the US should atomic bomb them again - use the entire nuke arsenal. You never know when they’ll bomb Pearl Harbor again! We gotta stop them!! They aren’t called “sneaky” for nothing, y’know.
Wisest line of the day. We have NATO, which is already bloated and over-extended. By the way, Finland and Sweden are doing fine. We should be more like them and mind our own business with two good oceans and no hostile neighbors. Russia has been around for a thousand years and will be around for a thousand more. We should figure out a way to coexist with this country, as well as with the Chinese and with the muslim world. This neocon bs has to stop. We're on a collision course with nuclear war, whether "limited" or full-on, and when it's over, countries like Brazil, India and South Africa will wonder why these dumasses threw away their future.
“If your battle line is indefensible then you relocate it to a defensible position.”
I said that and you agree, but as I think more, maybe the current warring is having effects unfavorable to Russia’s cause that we aren’t aware of.
I feel I know very little about what the strategies are.
The way I see it, if my government can’t articulate its strategy, then it isn’t worthy of my vote and certainly not of my tax dollars. I don’t trust some secret strategy.
I think I probably know more about the history than you do.
You can cut and paste to your heart’s content, but the fact remains that many, many people have occupied Crimea and called it home.
History records changes. Crimea “belonged to” many different peoples and ethnic groups and empires over millennia. So, according to your argument, ALL of them would have a legitimate claim to the peninsula; and, based on mere possession, Russia is way down the list as a valid claimant.
Russia’s claim to Crimea is relatively recent. In antiquity, it was Greek, Persian, Roman, Byzantine, Genoese, and Ottoman. It was populated by various nomadic tribes, including Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Alans, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Kipchaks, Mongols, and the Golden Horde. It was not annexed by Russia until the 18th century, about 240 years ago; and it was part of the Russian Empire for only about 135 years. Under the Soviets its native Tatar population was expelled and forced east to eastern Asia, in what was arguably a genocide. In 1954, as you point out, Crimea was transferred to the Ukraine SSR.
Since the Greeks probably had it longer than anyone (and, depending on the criteria, maybe the Romans), Crimea should belong to the Greeks. In fact, there is still a measurable Greek population there.
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and held a plebiscite where the people voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. The first language of the majority of the population is Russian.
The annexation occurred without any violence, then and now. The Ukrainians made no significant effort to retake Crimea. The chances of Crimea returning to Ukraine are slim to none, and slim just left town. That is the reality, which you wish to ignore.
For the record, I have never argued that there are many claimants to Crimea. Russia has the strongest claim to Crimea regardless of what the UN says. Moreover, Russia will not relinquish control.
“Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and held a plebiscite where the people voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. The first language of the majority of the population is Russian.”
Illegally. No international bodies, including the UN, recognize the “annexation.” According to you, Ukraine has no say in the matter. Whatever Russia wants, Russia gets, eh?
“The Ukrainians made no significant effort to retake Crimea.”
Get real. Ukraine was supposed to attack a nuclear power that was on record that Ukraine was illegitimate and had no right to exist as an independent and sovereign nation? And while Ukraine was in the midst of a civil war? Again, get real.
“The chances of Crimea returning to Ukraine are slim to none, and slim just left town.”
Doesn’t make it right.
“That is the reality, which you wish to ignore.”
I don’t ignore it at all. But, it’s not right, or legal. But right and legality mean nothing to you; all you recognize is raw power. I wonder how you’ll react when China exerts raw power and starts taking Russian territory; because, you know, it will.
Bullies are the same everywhere. They are always insecure, and are always just punks.
Nations have interests not morals and there is no moral order in the universe of nation states. You apparently really believe what some civics text from high school said. Agbreements have validity only so long as they serve the more powerful party’s interests. This has nothing to with Soros but is the wisdom of the ages. I don’t what sort bribe the Ukes were promised or what Clinton threatened with for signing an agreement manifestly not in their basic interests but that is their problem not ours and their rage should be directed at those who signed such a foolish agreement, As far as lots of Ukes getting gumped, tough shit, there are a lot more. None of it is of the slightest interest to real US interests. The completely rotten US political class has seen fit to trot this agreement out in order to use it for aiding K Street and Pentagonia’s current interest in bribes, babes, business opportunities, promotions and decorations. Americans should focus all their excess moral outrage on the shitbirds of DC rather than a distant and irrelevant foreign quarrel,
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.