Posted on 01/29/2023 8:50:51 AM PST by BusterDog
Discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war in Washington is increasingly dominated by the question of how it might end. To inform this discussion, this Perspective identifies ways in which the war could evolve and how alternative trajectories would affect U.S. interests. The authors argue that, in addition to minimizing the risks of major escalation, U.S. interests would be best served by avoiding a protracted conflict. The costs and risks of a long war in Ukraine are significant and outweigh the possible benefits of such a trajectory for the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at rand.org ...
It is. In the end this was a major factor in the defeat of the Soviet Union and thus the culmination of the Pax Americana, our three decades of global peace.
Nothing lasts forever though, there is always something.
China turned from its promising path, up to @2010, with the rise of Xi, and his circle, the children of the old party chiefs, when they took over from the circle of Deng Xiaoping. Xi was a surprise in fact, because with his background one would have expected a natural liberal, given his background of troubles with the communists.
Its a bit like when Russia turned from its promising path as of 1914, and was taken over by the Bolsheviks. Nobody saw that coming.
The most Christian peoples in the area are the Romanians and Poles. They are the most devotedly religious people in Europe.
The Russians are middle of the Euro pack at best. The Ukrainians are more religious than the Russians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe
You charged in on your steed to the defence of a poster who rattled off a laundry list of supposed neo con successes. Once of which is the containment of China. Which is simply not true. The fact is, American elites in politics and business have helped China become an unshackled behemoth
I’ve often wondered if you were just taking the piss.
Your FR name, for one thing, is a curious choice for FR. Ganymede was Zeus pretty-boy cupbearer, and catamite (you know, those Greeks). There is a joke there somewhere.
“Unshackled behemoth” = “prosperous country”. The second was a prerequisite for “behemoth”.
The one cannot be without the other, and yet prosperity is nevertheless a moral and benevolent objective. A policy to cripple Chinese economic liberation would have been evil. And an evil course likely would have made a more dangerous China sooner.
We cannot know what turns a country will take, and we are not responsible for its internal politics. But for what China has become, otherwise, and its good behavior to this point, the US nevertheless deserves credit.
Only anti-American leftists call the Iraq War imperialist. It wasn’t Bush’s War. Iraq declared war on us. That is what breaking a cease fire is. Trump was for the war before he was against it. It is all there in black and white in his 2000 book. Trump then lied and gave comfort to our enemies. Because that’s who he is.
I don’t believe that opposing a particular military involvement is anti American.
I KNOW that many things posted about Ukraine are virulently anti American.
In fact it’s constant.
People gleeful that America will be abandoned by its allies, that Russia is fighting against the evil that is America, that we’re racist to fight in Europe, that our government is the enemy not Russia. They write leeringly that the “American Empire” is going to be destroyed. America is causing WW3, in fact it’s a plot by America to cause WW3.
This goes on and on and it’s not the exception. These people are using the same anti American arguments as the left adopted in the 60’s and 70’s.
Some of them say America was at fault in every war, including WW2.
Today it was that “the rest of the world must hate us for a good reason”.
It doesn’t, and all the above are anti American.
Your thesis is that the USA actually won wars we clearly lost like Vietnam, except the Left snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
We spent 20 years in Afghanistan and the Taliban over-ran it in a few weeks. The Left (Obama) prosecuted the war, including a neocon supported "surge" for his entire term.
You say
Revisionist history is supposed to bring some clever new insight, not just obscure the past with wishful thinking.Vietnam war completely won and peace agreement signed.
No one there at the time thought or claimed the war was won. Just as in Afghanistan most military analysts knew it was only a matter of time until the North won, once we left. The North was hardly "defeated" when we left. The Paris Peace Accords didn't even end the war, just Americas involvement.
Democrat leftists in Congress abandoned our ally to an invasion.You are essentially arguing that we should have re-invaded Vietnam after leaving. 15 years and 50,000 American lives wasn't enough?
You and fellow neocons don't factor in that Americans have a threshold for donating their young men to support the mad plans of the neocon war advocates. But any intelligent war plan would need to factor this in.
Insane withdrawal and abandonment of Afghanistan by leftist Biden administration.
Trump, like Nixon before him, negotiated directly with the enemy (Taliban) and left the puppet regime largely out of the loop. Trump's agreed upon terms foresaw all US troops leaving Afghanistan. Yes, Biden did a poor job on the withdrawal. But Trump negotiated it. Improper withdrawal from Iraq by leftist Obama administration. Weakening of US military by leftist Obama and Biden administrations.
One gets very tired of the childish lies thrown around by people who understand nothing about history.We neocon opponents aren't the ones indulging in fanciful revisionist history, that's you!
We are all very tired of your childish tantrums, ridiculous claims, and permanent wars. The neocons are a pox on America.
My thesis was that in every single case, leftists lost the wars, that’s just a fact.
And Vietnam, the grandaddy of them all, is the clearest case.
The left has insisted that we lose those wars.
“You can bet your ass I want Russia to win. I assume that God also wants Russia to win.”
there you have it from a freeper.
At some level it's a distinction without a difference. The USA has arguably been a majority "leftist" country since FDR. Both FDR and LBJ enjoyed huge majorities in both houses of Congress while President, something the GOP has not had in the post-WW2 period.
America would have won *excpet for those guys* - but *those guys* happen to be the leaders of the institutional majority party.
From the point of view of anyone outside of the USA: We (The United States of America) lost, regardless of what part of the loss the Democrats contributed vs. what percent of the loss the GOP contributed.
Somehow war advocates and planners can't figure this out?
Bush1 understood it. He got into and out of Iraq before the weariness and disunity set in. Reagan understood it: he got things done without big wars, few skirmishes here and there is all.
My thesis was that in every single case, leftists lost the wars, that’s just a fact.
And Vietnam, the grandaddy of them all, is the clearest case.
The left insisted that we lose those wars.
Nice name. Not
seek help...
seek help yourself if you believe all of that rubbish. You are just like the liberals who supported the Soviet Union back in the day. They are the same Russian thugs they always were and now we have a golden opportunity to end it all and you want to spread this rubbish.
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.