Posted on 02/22/2023 1:16:22 PM PST by Tench_Coxe
Nearly one year after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, public support for the role the United States is playing in supplying weapons and funds to the eastern European nation has declined among both Democrats and Republicans alike.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostmillennial.com ...
All that changed when Irving Kristol pushed his fledging neoconservative movement under the GOP tent and poisoned the well water.
No doubt the Communists years ago figured out how to infiltrate the GOP. And now they have both parties.
“They might like Moldavia, but they LITERALLY have to go through Ukraine to get there. Kherson, Odessa, Mylovaiv... Not an easy trip.”
The plan I think would be an airborne assault on Moldova’s principal airport and then fly in ground troops. And, yes, to do that Russia would have to fly across the Black Sea from Crimea and cross Ukrainian territory at its extreme southwest point.
I guess the standard would be whether I could imagine Russia invading Estonia or Poland after this? Georgia makes this a messier standard. I can’t see them invading Poland, now, but could they invade Georgia on the pretext of settling the conflicts with South Ossetia and Abkhazia? (Those are two regions of Georgia currently in the same sort of frozen conflict as Donetsk and Luhansk were in Ukraine.) If they try to, do I care?===
Poland has no Russians or Russian land. So no reason to invade Poland given she will not make any trouble by her behavior.
Estonia is like Finland before 1940. It took Narva the Russian town. If they give it up to Russia voluntarily then no reason to invade them too.
If Georgia will not attack S.Osetia and Abkhazia again like in 2008 then Russia will have no cause to interfere.
If Putin set off a few nukes in Ukraine there would be no food grown in that Country for 100 years. The immediate effect of nukes are one thing but the long term effects are unimaginable.
What percentage of Americans wanted our State Department to blow up Putins natural gas export pipeline?
Nonsense. If there is a nuclear war it will be started by Russia. And I don’t think Russia is insane enough to do that.==
You are wrong. Russia will use tactical nukes on battlefield if needed to reach a victory. Of cause she will NOT launch strategic missiles toward NATO capitals at first place but will answer immediately if she sees such launch toward her. It is in her military doctrine. Read it.
“Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.”[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine_of_Russia
“All that changed when Irving Kristol pushed his fledging neoconservative movement under the GOP tent and poisoned the well water.”
To show you how meaningless the term “neocon” has become, here is a summary of the platform. (Note that many of its tenets and principles are those allegedly held by many FReepers who derogatorily call those with whom they disagree, neocons.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
That’s a perfectly sound definition of neoconservativism, with special attention to military intervention. I’d have noted that Kristol and company were Trotskyites, with no clear indication that they walked away from that ideology.
“You are wrong. Russia will use tactical nukes on battlefield if needed to reach a victory.”
I don’t think so. It would lose what little foreign support it currently has. Besides, it would be an admission that its conventional forces are so poor it can’t defeat a smaller and weaker neighbor WITHOUT having to resort to nukes.
“Of cause she will NOT launch strategic missiles toward NATO capitals at first place but will answer immediately if she sees such launch toward her. It is in her military doctrine. Read it.”
I have. It is similar to ours.
Your cite for use of nukes against a conventional foe states that nukes will only be considered for use “when the very existence of the state is threatened.” Are you seriously saying that Ukraine poses an existential threat to Russia? Are you saying that Russia is so weak, and so pathetic, and so backward that Ukraine poses an existential threat?
no kidding
we are rat infested
Do you have a source for that? That our STATED objective is regime change in Russia? The imbecilic Biden made a dumbass comment at a presser that was quickly walked back by the administration. So, please post a link to the official stated objective for regime change and a war of attrition to weaken the Russian military.
When you have the President of the United States and his Secretary of Defense stating on the public record that there needs to be regime change and that our objective in Ukraine is to weaken the Russian military, it is a stated policy. You can try walking it back, but it is closing the barn door after the horse has left. The Russians got the message loud and clear.
Biden Won't Apologize for Calling for Vladimir Putin's Removal
And the new hobby horse is Russia has committed crimes against humanity. Putin and his ilk are war criminals. So how can you negotiate an end to this war with war criminals?
Wrong. Radical and militant fundamental islamism existed way before Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan.
Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the same year the the Shah was removed in Iran and Khomeini took over. I remember it well since I was posted in Tehran from July 1977 thru March 1979 and was present during the first takeover of our Embassy on Feb 14, 1979, which coincidentally was the day our our Ambassador to Afghanistan, Spike Dubs, was killed.
The Iranian Revolution was the real catalyst that emboldened militant Islamic Fundamentalism as a real threat to national governments that strayed from Islamic governance. The US funded Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan to counter the Soviets. Fighters came from all over the Islamic world to fight for Islam. We funded, armed, and trained them, including bin Laden who participated in the Afghan war. AQ's roots can be traced to the Afghan war.
We were never defeated militarily in Vietnam. Our politicians quit and threw in the towel.
I remember it well. I served a year in-country (1967-68 including during the Tet Offensive) and 8 months off the coast. Yes, we never lost a significant military battle, but we lost the war thru the peace negotiations and a Congress that failed to fund the South Vietnamese who fought on their own for almost three years. We never responded to the North Vietnam's violation of the peace treaty. All of Vietnam is now under the Communists. That is a loss no matter how you try to rationalize it.
They had few losses because they had few military personnel in either Koreas or Vietnam, aside from some pilots and AA techs and advisors.
Duh. That was the plan in a proxy war. You weaken the enemy thru surrogates.
Because of assistance from Russia and China.
Add the US and Bush 41 who decided to remove nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991. And the Clinton Administration tried to bribe North Korea so they couldn't develop nuclear weapons. Wendy Sherman negotiated that one along with the JCPOA with Iran.
NB: The US is being led by one of the most incompetent, inexperienced national security teams in our history. We are being led by idiots who lie to us daily. The ignominious, botched exit from Afghanistan should have been a wake-up call. We are in deep kimchi.
“Call me crazy, but I really do think part of this is to make Russia embrace the LBGTQ+ contagion.”
It is THEIR DREAM. But unlike the Neocons and the Globalists, Russians still has FAMILY VALUES* and will not permit their children to become ‘playthings’.
*I use the term “Family Values” to trigger the Neocon Cheerleaders, most of whom want to trigger WW3 over Ukraine.
Your cite for use of nukes against a conventional foe states that nukes will only be considered for use “when the very existence of the state is threatened.” Are you seriously saying that Ukraine poses an existential threat to Russia? Are you saying that Russia is so weak, and so pathetic, and so backward that Ukraine poses an existential threat?==
Ukraine itself of cause is not considered any existential threat. But backed by NATO it may. If NATO soldiers will involve then even more.
And if they will be a moment when the use of tactical nuke will get great tactical gain and save lifes of Russian soldiers then commanders will use them 100%. Especially they are already there on a tips of Iskander and Kinzhal missiles.
I don’t think so. It would lose what little foreign support it currently has.==
Why that? I think opposite. The use of tactic battlefield low-yield nukes will be open practice very soon. Like using artillary and tactic missiles.
And Russia uses them will create the needed precedent for other countries. I guess China for one will thank Russia.
“That’s a perfectly sound definition of neoconservativism...”
Then you necessarily must concur that those who agree with family values and the traditional family; and that life is a choice between good and evil; and that Ronald Reagan and his legacy are the standard against which all must be measured; and equally disdain the state department and the United Nations; are neocons.
Do you admit that?
If you have a modicum of knowledge about history, you know that war can occur when there are miscalculations about the enemy's intentions. You shouldn't ascribe your own values, intentions, etc. to the enemy. We almost had a nuclear war over the Cuban missile crisis because the Soviets did not believe our red line. Fortunately, both sides blinked and the Soviets were given a face saving exit with our withdrawal of missiles from Turkey.
The Russians have drawn red lines over the entry of Ukraine into NATO and the status of Crimea. As we continue to escalate our involvement in Ukraine, we run the risk of crossing these red lines. Russia cannot lose this war. If it believes its strategic interests are being threatened, it will raise the ante. We are already at war economically with Russia now. Who blew up the NordStream pipelines?
Take a look at what Biden said we wouldn't do in terms of the kinds of weapons we would and would not supply at the beginning of the war and what we are doing today. There has been a definite escalation on our side. What happens if the coming Russian offensive is successful? To what extent will we go to prevent a Ukrainian defeat. F-16s? US advisors? How insane are we?
Synonyms of neoconservative 1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism 2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means neoconservatism ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-ˌti-zəm noun
Russia will do whatever is necessary to preserve Crimea as a part of Russia. Crimea is as much a part of Russia as is Moscow.
No, those values don’t define neoconservatives, quite the opposite. They’re vile creatures enthralled with war, wars they’ll never fight themselves. And don’t start me on rules. They don’t follow them.
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.