Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia is spending surprisingly little on its war on Ukraine
Insider ^ | Jun 1, 2023 | Phil Rosen

Posted on 06/02/2023 8:55:31 PM PDT by Mount Athos

The direct fiscal cost of the war — spending on soldiers and machines — is estimated to be about 3% of Russia's GDP, or roughly $67 billion a year, according to the report.

By historical standards, the current war pales in comparison. The Soviet Union during World War II, for example, spent about 61% of GDP, and the US at the same time put about 50% of its GDP toward the conflict.

...Printing additional cash to fund the war would push inflation higher and weigh on Russia's citizens. Saddling banks with war debt could do the same, and both options in turn could harm Vladimir Putin's political aims.

(Excerpt) Read more at markets.businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Russia
KEYWORDS: russia; ukraine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last
To: BroJoeK

The maps you provide show all nations that said “bad Russia” after the invasion but most were unwilling to take any actions and have normal relations with them today.

Focus on those that took action and the map does look different.

In fact, even among those that took action, there are cracks today, i.e. Japan: https://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-breaks-with-u-s-allies-buys-russian-oil-at-prices-above-cap-1395accb Hungary: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungary-cannot-support-any-new-eu-energy-sanctions-against-russia-govt-2022-09-29/

Israel is surrounded by mostly backward retards. A WWII Sherman tank can still fight in that world in the 60s, 70s, 80s! An M60 (Sabra) can still fight in that part of the world in the 2000s and even present. Furthermore, behind much of Israels military accomplishments may that be some of the wars they fought, or even their equipment, is “us” to some degree backing them. Some of their big defense firms cooperate with ours and while they get credit, part of that system is actually based on our tech, or would never have been possible without our “foreign aid” etc.

Sine you mention Iron Dome: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33222/44 (we have been allowing for major tech transfers and helping pay for a lot of their stuff)

There are two big players on this planet which pretty much lead in terms of military development. The US and Russia historically (1955-2000), with Russia descending and PRC ascending (they are today domestically developing new weapons and are not merely using Russian clones anymore). Today, it is probably already US and PRC since Russia (aside form their nuclear deterrent) is a legacy threat.

We have a long history of testing our systems in these foreign campaigns, for example TOW saw use with the Israelis before it even was wide spread fielded in the US Army: https://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-tow.html In 1973 that system was “bad ass” and it proved its capabilities in the Yom Kippur War. Albeit there were some lessons learned and tweaks made by us.

As to the Russian sanctions, I am sure they are having some effect, no doubt as without them Russia may see even greater growth in GDP etc. However, it’s not a matter of opinion or my feelings when I state that Russia is seeing growth in their GDP this year by .3%, that their inflation is low at 4%, the Ruble is strong, their unemployment is low, their infrastructure isn’t decimated, their bureaucracy is still working, they are not seeing internal instability, their industry is actually growing. When you compare that to Ukraine you see a stark contrast. Ukraine has a GDP 40% less than what it was pre war, they have 27% inflation, they do have instability, a damaged infrastructure... So again you conflate the issue since the point is that when comparing Russia and Ukraine in how this war affected them in economic terms, Russia is undoubtedly not the loser here, Ukraine is.

The point about foreign fighters again is you conflating the point I was making. Russia never pushed to have international bans on mercenaries, their politicians and media didn’t push for that, OURS DID. And today some of the same Western news outlets that wrote stories about how immoral and evil mercenaries were in Iraq are OK with it in Ukraine. Point being, we pivot 180 degrees on issues and pretend to have the moral high ground, even as we take two opposing sides of the issue: As long as it suits us.

Most of these Euro countries are smart enough to know our game. Our influence in Europe is largely through NATO, the Russian threat isn’t really there, and they do not want to pay, you’re right. Because as a “sovereign” nation, and we love “sovereignty,” they choose to spend their tax money for their causes, not fighting our wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela (all oil producers coincidentally).

You are right about another thing. It is pretty much all the NATO allies and those that are tied to us in the Pacific that supported the sanctions and war effort. That is because we are all economically and in security matters tied together and act as a block. We share similar economic interests, both US and EU regards Ukraine. Ukraine is about “economic interests,” not our security. The giants who have political clout in industry and the financial institutions want EU and NATO expansion into Ukraine. For them there is a long list of benefits in this. However, no differently than if Cuba were to host the forces of the PRC and how that would be a huge problem for us, NATO expansion into Ukraine is for Russia. In fact, that’s even far worse for Russia because they are far weaker than us, there isn’t 90 miles of water between Ukraine and Russia, Cuba isn’t connected by land to the worlds strongest military alliance of 31 nations... For the Russians this is a security matter.

Because this is a security matter for Russia, they will be pretty tenacious and they will be willing to escalate this issue beyond the scope we’re willing to play. What that means for Ukraine ultimately is obvious, but many more people need to die before we finally end up at the same place we know we will end up at.

So let me ask what I asked already in October 2021 when we offered NATO to Ukraine: Was it worth it?


81 posted on 06/21/2023 8:29:39 AM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Red6
Red6: "In fact, even among those that took action, there are cracks today, i.e. Japan"

So far, I've not seen blatant lies in anything you posted today.
My response to much of it is: there's no reason for us to either exaggerate or minimize the levels of support or opposition each country provides Ukraine or Russia.

A small number of western countries provide high levels of direct support to Ukraine and many more provide lesser support or only lip service.

By contrast, no major countries directly support Russia, even China has said it opposes Russia's actions and will not supply weapons.
China, along with India and others, does benefit from Russia's fire-sale on Russian oil and natural gas.
These sales, so we're told, keep Russia's energy infrastructure working, but do not provide profits for Vlad's war effort.

Red6: "Israel is surrounded by mostly backward retards.
A WWII Sherman tank can still fight in that world in the 60s, 70s, 80s! An M60 (Sabra) can still fight in that part of the world in the 2000s and even present.
Furthermore, behind much of Israels military accomplishments may that be some of the wars they fought, or even their equipment, is “us” to some degree backing them.
Some of their big defense firms cooperate with ours and while they get credit, part of that system is actually based on our tech, or would never have been possible without our “foreign aid” etc."

Israel is a tiny country, roughly the size, population and GDP of New Jersey.
It has been a close US ally for many years, if not since Day One, and has received something like $250 billion in US aid, inflation adjusted, since 1949.
Given their size, they've done a remarkable job defending themselves against often very hostile neighbors.
I would even hazard to guess that, however much help Israel received, directly & indirectly, from the US, their experiences and lessons learned may have equally helped us in our research & development efforts.
So it's not a 100% one-way street.

Red6: "However, it’s not a matter of opinion or my feelings when I state that Russia is seeing growth in their GDP this year by .3%, that their inflation is low at 4%, the Ruble is strong, their unemployment is low, their infrastructure isn’t decimated, their bureaucracy is still working, they are not seeing internal instability, their industry is actually growing."

The Russian ruble is not traded internationally, so its value is stipulated at whatever the Russian bank says it is.
If the ruble were freely traded, it would be worth vastly less than the Russians claim, and Russia's economy would be seen as much worse off that Vlad now pretends.

Setting that aside, the rest of your words on this seem to be true.

Red6: "When you compare that to Ukraine you see a stark contrast.
Ukraine has a GDP 40% less than what it was pre war, they have 27% inflation, they do have instability, a damaged infrastructure...
So again you conflate the issue since the point is that when comparing Russia and Ukraine in how this war affected them in economic terms, Russia is undoubtedly not the loser here, Ukraine is."

Sure, there's no doubt -- Russia has 28 times more territory, 3 or 4 times more population, 11 times the GDP, 10 times the 2021 military budget, 20 times the number of active and military reserves in 2021.
So there is no reason why Vlad the Invader's 2022 "special military operation" should have been anything other than a total cakewalk -- Russian forces should have rolled over Ukraine in a matter of days, a few weeks at most.

And yet, a miracle from God, that didn't happen.
Instead, Ukrainians stood their ground and fought back, inspiring the world with their courage and grit.
The results to date are roughly this:

  1. 7% of Ukrainian territories occupied by Vlad the Invader in 2014, including Crimea and parts of the Donbas.

  2. 20% additional Ukrainian land conquered by Vlad in February-March 2022, making the maximum total of 27% of Ukraine occupied by Russia.

  3. 70% of territory conquered by Vlad in 2022 has been retaken by Ukrainians since April 2022.

  4. 14% of Ukraine's territory is currently Russian occupied, or roughly double the amount controlled in 2021.

  5. Russians have made no significant gains in territories since March 2022.
    Estimates at Bakhmut are something like 100,000 Russian casualties needed to add around 100 square miles of territory, meaning roughly 1,000 Russian casualties per square mile.

  6. Today Russians have prepared hundreds of miles of defensive works, in depth, against an expected Ukrainian counter-offensive.
How this will all play out, right now is anyone's guess.

Red6: "The point about foreign fighters again is you conflating the point I was making.
Russia never pushed to have international bans on mercenaries, their politicians and media didn’t push for that, OURS DID. "

I think that's a fantasy, maybe you've dreamed it so often it seems real to you.
I've seen nothing of such proposals.
And whatever they were, whoever made them, they went nowhere.
Also, so far as I know, there are no Ukrainian independent units, equivalent to Wagner or the Chechens.
Ukraine's units are all under unified command.

Red6: "Most of these Euro countries are smart enough to know our game.
Our influence in Europe is largely through NATO, the Russian threat isn’t really there, and they do not want to pay, you’re right."

And now you're starting to babble pure nonsense, Russian propaganda lies, which I said before you had avoided, so now I must withdraw that.
Beginning in the early 2000s, Russia has proved for all time that they are a serious threat to their neighbors, to Europe and to world peace generally.
So, we are now back to the Cold War, as cold as it ever was between the Korean & Vietnam Wars and Russia's invasion of Afghanistan.

It will not end well for Russia.

Red6: "You are right about another thing...
We share similar economic interests, both US and EU regards Ukraine.
Ukraine is about “economic interests,” not our security. "

And there it is again, the insane Russian propaganda, emphasizing economics over everything else.

The real truth is that Ukraine is "all about" the same thing as almost every war since 1914 -- defeating militarized empire builders.
When big empires invade their smaller neighbors, they must be defeated, or the world will revert to the empire-system we had in 1914, and which we fought war after war (including the Cold War) to destroy.

Red6: "The giants who have political clout in industry and the financial institutions want EU and NATO expansion into Ukraine."

Naw, the truth is that from the early 1990s until well into the early 2000s, Russia itself planned to join NATO, and was encouraged in that by leaders like our own Pres. Slick William.
Russia and NATO were very friendly until Vlad the Invader invaded Georgia in 2008.
Even then, there was reasonable cooperation until Vlad first invaded Ukraine in 2014.
And Vlad's 2014 invasion had nothing to do with NATO, it was strictly a land-grab of Crimea, under the pretext of economic discussions between Ukraine and the EU.

Red6: "Because this is a security matter for Russia, they will be pretty tenacious and they will be willing to escalate this issue beyond the scope we’re willing to play.
What that means for Ukraine ultimately is obvious, but many more people need to die before we finally end up at the same place we know we will end up at."

I think Vlad the Invader is committing "suicide by cop", so Russia will end up destroying itself, and nobody will mourn it's passing.

Ukraine will join NATO and the EU.
Russia will descend into civil war and chaos.
The biggest question is whether Russians are insane enough to take the rest of the world down with them.
I don't think they are, and I do think peace can be negotiated, once Vlad the Invader is gone from power in Russia.

So it does not have to end badly for everyone except those Russians responsible for invading Ukraine.
They must be held accountable, and Russians must help pay for rebuilding Ukraine.

82 posted on 06/21/2023 10:51:59 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I cannot spend the level of time required to fully address your statements.

I will focus in on what I see as key points.

The reason why Ukraine puts a Ukrainian flag on the shoulder of its mercenaries is because it’s getting fighters from Columbia, Brazil, all over, to include nations which are not party to this conflict or worse yet part of BRICS and more aligned with Russia than us. The Chechen’s of course are under their own command. Chechnya is a nation, with it’s own flag and is party to the conflict as an ally of Russia. Just like the Poles, Brits, Japanese, Australians wore their flag on their shoulder in Iraq, so do Chechens in what is now Russia. If a guy puts the Brazilian, Colombian, Argentinian, flag on his shoulder and fights for Ukraine, but that nation is not party to the war, that’s a problem.

Ukraine lost more like 20% of its landmass if you include Crimea. Nice try.

This is a limited war/conflict where Russia is conserving because they are worried about other conflicts in other areas... They like us in Iraq and Afghanistan realize this is a longer campaign and you need to rotate forces in and out. The world is a bigger place for Russia than just Ukraine. That said, Russia is smart enough to only be interested in the areas that are ethnic Russian because they are planning longer stay. LOL

They could have pounded Ukraine even harder but Ukraine is one of their trading partners and there will be a post war eventually, many people have relations, and in the East where they took and are holding the land, those people mostly do not see them as the enemy.

Russia not seizing more of Ukraine is not a function of Ukrainian military success, but rather the limited scope of Russian operations.

Look at this: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2014/02/world/ukraine-divided/media/ukraine_map_region_language.jpg Look at this as well: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2014/02/world/ukraine-divided/media/ukraine_map_region_vote.jpg

Now, compare the areas shaded red above to the areas shaded red here: https://www.newsweek.com/2023/05/05/read-leaked-secret-intelligence-documents-ukraine-vladimir-putin-1794656.html#slideshow/2222794 What do you notice? They overlap!

As to this huge Russian threat, that’s all Cold War boogieman and make belief. Without the bloat from mobilization (we also can draft, call in our individual ready reserve...) Russia is actually conventionally quite small. Their armed forces compared to ours at wars begin was 55% of our ground forces, 47% of our air forces, 43% of our naval forces, with 1 whopping carrier that is not on par with any of our 11 super carriers. Russia has 44% our population, 40% the number of men reaching military age, and they do not have central and South America where we reach back too anytime we need lots of bodies. With an economy 1/10th ours, less industry, less high tech, they simply can’t keep up materially. Finally, Russia has few and relatively weak allies, whereas we have many and very powerful ones. Ukraine matters less, because it is after all, the prospect of US and NATO forces in Ukraine which caused this conflict: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

No one believes our junk. Not really. It’s not just Germany. It’s MOST OF THEM: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-backtracks-on-defense-spending-promise-warns-about-delays-ukraine-war/ They know Russia is not a conventional threat and while they pander to the noise in the media a little bit, they aren’t biting really because they know is junk, trash, not real. France and the UK will spend but that is because these colonial powers still have interests in Africa, South America, Asia they have to address. If you look at where they are putting their money, it’s not to deal with a major theater war, rather operations like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_French%E2%80%93Ivorian_clashes 2% is the contractual NATO minimum: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/313A/production/_118920621_nato_defence_spending_v4_map_640.png

It’s not Russia stepping all over our turf. It’s us stepping all over theirs: Republic of Georgia (2008), Ukraine (multiple attempts), Syria, Libya, Venezuela (later 3 ongoing)...

As to the rest of the God is on Ukraine’s side, inspirational, and glorious Ukraine narrative you’re attempting to push, they lost:

(politically it’s a failure)

Ukraine’s political stated goal and the cause for this conflict was NATO membership. That’s not happening.

Ukraine had EU membership well in their reach before the war. The probability of that is very low now.

(kinetically it’s a failure)

Ukraine lost 20% of their land.

Ukraine lost 20% of their population.

Ukraine lost an industrial area.

Ukraine lost a major port city.

Ukraine’s economy is on it’s @ss as shown by GDP, inflation...

Ukraine has millions of refugees, many of which will never return most likely (brain/skills drain).

Ukraine has tens of thousands dead, likely far more than being reported in all their glorious victories, while Russia far less. As supported by the leaked documents which show an entirely different picture/situation as you want to believe: https://www.newsweek.com/2023/05/05/read-leaked-secret-intelligence-documents-ukraine-vladimir-putin-1794656.html#slideshow/2222794

But do not despair! We are absolutely unbeatable when it comes to redefining failure into success, rationalizing stupidity, creating very impressive PowerPoint slide shows in government, and creating false moral pretenses after the fact to support whatever cause we decided to stand behind, today. I’m sure the inspirational Hollywood movie will be released shortly: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/sean-penn-joins-ukrainian-war-film-1235497572/ But is doesn’t matter how many millions of Russians (the draft dodging and porn star Stallone) Rambo kills in his movies, we still lost.


83 posted on 06/21/2023 12:46:16 PM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Red6
Red6: "I cannot spend the level of time required to fully address your statements.
I will focus in on what I see as key points."

All of my comments are simply responses to your previous posts.
If they are too much to handle, you might consider making shorter posts yourself.

Red6: "The reason why Ukraine puts a Ukrainian flag on the shoulder of its mercenaries is because it’s getting fighters from Columbia, Brazil, all over, to include nations which are not party to this conflict or worse yet part of BRICS and more aligned with Russia than us. "

I am, frankly, baffled and bewildered as to why you consider this to be a problem.
Obviously, people around the world are responding favorably to the courage and skills of Ukrainians in standing up to Vlad the Invader's insane "special military operation".

But I would note that a year ago we were told there were around 20,000 foreigners serving in Ukraine's army.
More recently, I understand, most have returned home and the totals today are in the 2,000 men range.

In the meantime, Ukraine's military has grown from around 100,000 to nearly 1,000,000 Ukrainians.

Red6: "If a guy puts the Brazilian, Colombian, Argentinian, flag on his shoulder and fights for Ukraine, but that nation is not party to the war, that’s a problem."

It's certainly not a problem for me, but maybe you can explain why it's a problem for Vlad the Invader?

Red6: "Ukraine lost more like 20% of its landmass if you include Crimea. Nice try."

Sure, at the peak of Russian advances last March, they occupied the original 7% (Crimea & some Donbas) plus an additional 20% (mainly around Kiev, Kharkiv and Kherson), for a total of 27% of Ukraine, which is what I said before.

Since March 2022, Ukrainians have won back roughly 70% of the additional 20%, meaning Russia today controls around 14% of Ukraine, including Crimea, and that is about double what they controlled in 2021.

Now, if you are determined to dispute me on this, then we can go over the actual numbers of square miles (or square kilometers, if you prefer) won and lost beginning in 2014.

Red6: "This is a limited war/conflict where Russia is conserving because they are worried about other conflicts in other areas...
They like us in Iraq and Afghanistan realize this is a longer campaign and you need to rotate forces in and out.
The world is a bigger place for Russia than just Ukraine.
That said, Russia is smart enough to only be interested in the areas that are ethnic Russian because they are planning longer stay. LOL"

LOL? Sorry, I don't "get" the joke here, how is that funny?

What Vlad the Invader might be willing, ultimately, to settle for, nobody now knows, but in February and March, 2022, his orcs took huge swaths of Ukraine, and focused first on its capital, Kiev, with the obvious intention of decapitating Ukraine's government.
At one point Russians occupied around 27% of Ukraine's total territory, including Crimea.
Today that number is about 14% and Russians have made no significant new gains in over a year -- this despite spending estimated 100,000 casualties to advance a few miles around Bakhmut.

Red6: "They could have pounded Ukraine even harder but Ukraine is one of their trading partners and there will be a post war eventually, many people have relations, and in the East where they took and are holding the land, those people mostly do not see them as the enemy."

Ukrainians will be blood-enemies of Russians forever, thanks to Vlad the Invader, may his name be cursed, and his grave spat on until Russians have fully repaid their blood-debt to Ukrainians.

Red6: "Russia not seizing more of Ukraine is not a function of Ukrainian military success, but rather the limited scope of Russian operations."

Your "scope of Russian operations" was only limited by Ukrainian military successes against the orcs.

Red6: "What do you notice? They overlap!"

Whatever "overlap" may, or may not, exist provides not even a shred of legal or moral justification for Vlad the Invader's "special military operations".

Red6: "As to this huge Russian threat, that’s all Cold War boogieman and make belief.
Without the bloat from mobilization (we also can draft, call in our individual ready reserve...)
Russia is actually conventionally quite small.
Their armed forces compared to ours at wars begin was 55% of our ground forces, 47% of our air forces, 43% of our naval forces, with 1 whopping carrier that is not on par with any of our 11 super carriers."

Right, and all of that is more than ample reason to think of Russia as no serious military threat to the NATO allies.
Depending on how you calculate it, Russia's GDP is maybe $5 trillion (PPV), while the US, EU and NATO allies combined are well over $50 trillion.
Russia's population is maybe 150 million, while the US and our allies (including the Western Pacific) total around 1 billion people.
So there is no reason whatever why we shouldn't be able to support Ukraine for as long as they are willing to resist the aggressors.

On the other hand, Russia has thousands of nukes, both tactical and strategic, and if they were to go suicidally insane, they could do incalculable damage to the world while committing Russian national suicide.
Are they that insane?

No! I don't think so because they never were before, and why would they go insane now?
It makes no sense, and would forever condemn Russians as a nation and a people.
And for what?

Red6: "Finally, Russia has few and relatively weak allies, whereas we have many and very powerful ones.
Ukraine matters less, because it is after all, the prospect of US and NATO forces in Ukraine which caused this conflict:"

That is a lie! It's a total complete lie, because NATO had nothing to do with Vlad's 2014 invasion of Crimea.
Of course, everything since 2014 might be blamed on NATO, since Ukrainians, unlike Russians, are not crazy, they sought allies where they could find them, but even in 2022 there was never a date set for Ukraine to even begin it's Membership Application Program (MAP) for NATO.

NATO is only the excuse, just the pretext Vlad the Invader used to attempt justifying what is clearly old-time Russian empire-building by military conquest.

Red6: "It’s not Russia stepping all over our turf.
It’s us stepping all over theirs: Republic of Georgia (2008), Ukraine (multiple attempts), Syria, Libya, Venezuela (later 3 ongoing)..."

Not one of those countries "belongs" to Russia.
All are independent and entitled to chose their own policies and allies.
Our making friends and allies in Georgia, Ukraine or anywhere else is no excuse for Vlad the Invader to begin an orgy of military massacres in those countries.

Red6: "Ukraine’s political stated goal and the cause for this conflict was NATO membership.
That’s not happening.
Ukraine had EU membership well in their reach before the war.
The probability of that is very low now."

Ukraine and Russia are now blood-enemies for the foreseeable future, if not forever.
If we treat Ukrainians with the respect and admiration they deserve, they will be our friends and allies from now on.
In due time that will include both EU and NATO membership.

And for all that, Vlad the Invader can claim 100% of the credit!!!

Red6: "Ukraine lost 20% of their land.
Ukraine lost 20% of their population."

Again, if you wish to dispute me on this we can look at the actual numbers.
In total, in March 2022 Ukraine lost around 27% of it's territory.
Today it has won back about half of that, leaving Russians still occupying 14%, including Crimea.

Red6: "Ukraine’s economy is on it’s @ss as shown by GDP, inflation...
Ukraine has millions of refugees, many of which will never return most likely (brain/skills drain)."

Nobody ever said freedom is free.
It's nearly always purchased at a very high price in blood and treasure.
That said, when peace is restored, I expect Ukraine will become another South Korea and Russia will become a North Korean style military cult-of-personality dictatorship.

It's too bad, very sad, but insanity has serious consequences.

Red6: "Ukraine has tens of thousands dead, likely far more than being reported in all their glorious victories, while Russia far less.
As supported by the leaked documents which show an entirely different picture/situation as you want to believe:"

You're right, it's true, we're not hearing bad-news stories about Ukraine, while bad-news about Russia (real or imagined) gets fully reported.
On the other hand, despite constant attacks in the Donbas against cities like Bakhmut, Russians have made no serious advances in over a year.
US estimates of Ukrainian casualties are around 150,000 plus over 40,000 civilians killed.
Russians are said to have suffered close to 300,000 total casualties.

Russian destruction of Ukrainian property and infrastructure was put at nearly $half a trillion, and that was before the dam collapse.
It will take Russians generations to pay off their debts to Ukraine for their orgy of blood and destruction there.

Red6: "But is doesn’t matter how many millions of Russians (the draft dodging and porn star Stallone) Rambo kills in his movies, we still lost."

Russia was never ours to lose, that choice was made by Vlad the Invader for reasons he considered more than adequate.

Ukraine is now "ours" to lose and nobody yet knows how it will end up.
Donald Trump says he will have end-of-war negotiations done in a day, and I think he could, and I'd trust his results.
Much depends on where, exactly, the ground forces stand when that day comes.

84 posted on 06/22/2023 8:26:08 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Ukraine heros Vlad the invader.

Got it.

Thx


85 posted on 06/22/2023 9:30:28 AM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Red6
Red6: "Ukraine heros Vlad the invader.
Got it."

Ukraine's heroes.
Vlad the Invader's orcs, Uruk-hai and Balrogs.

All Vlad's forces need to die, surrender or retreat the h*ll back to Russia.

That's it, in a nutshell.

Everything else is pure insanity.

86 posted on 06/22/2023 10:38:50 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

They’re in Russia now.

You just don’t understand that concept yet.


87 posted on 06/22/2023 10:48:20 AM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Red6
Red6: "They’re in Russia now.
You just don’t understand that concept yet."

They're in territories that Russians themselves officially recognized as Ukraine, many times, including:

  1. 1954 Soviet transfer of Crimea to Ukraine

  2. 1991 Belovezha Accords

  3. 1994 Budapest Memorandum

  4. 1997 Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty

  5. 2003 Russia Ukraine border treaty
As of 2015, Russia’s illegal annexations were recognized by virtually no other countries.

Shades of green-turquois -- opposed Russia annexing Crimea.
Shades of purple-orange -- supported Russia annexing Crimea.

The above map is based on international reaction to the 2014 Crimean crisis according to official governmental statements.[note 6]

  1. Darker Green: Condemnation of Russian actions as a military intervention or invasion (i.e., NATO countries)
  2. Dark Green: Condemnation of Russian actions (i.e., countries in central Africa, America and Chili in S America)
  3. Turquois: Support for Ukrainian territorial integrity (i.e., China, Argentina, Mexico)

  4. Yellow: Neutral-ish statements only voicing concern or hope for peaceful resolution to the conflict (i.e., Brazil, South Africa)

  5. Orange: Recognition of Russian interests (i.e., India, Afghanistan)
  6. Pink: Support for Russian actions and/or condemnation of the Ukrainian interim government (i.e., Syria, Venezuela, Cuba)

  7. Blue: Ukraine
  8. Brown: Russia
  9. Gray: No official statements / No data available (i.e., Mongolia, Egypt)
As shown on the map below, today seven (7) countries officially recognize (brown), plus 18 more De Facto (orange) recognize Crimea as annexed by Russia, making 25 of the world's 195 countries.:

Countries that have officially recognized Crimea as Russian

  1. Russia
  2. Syria
  3. Afghanistan
  4. Cuba
  5. Venezuela
  6. North Korea
  7. Sudan
Countries with De Facto Recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea:
  1. China
  2. India
  3. South Africa
  4. Iran
  5. Serbia
  6. Kazakhstan
  7. Armenia
  8. Belarus (Lukashenka recognized Crimea on 30.11.2021)
  9. Uzbekistan
  10. Angola
  11. Bolivia
  12. Cambodia
  13. Burundi
  14. Comoros
  15. Nicaragua
  16. Sudan
  17. Zimbabwe
  18. Eritrea
Also, it's been reported that on Tatooine, the cities of Mos Espa & Mos Pelgo, Tuskan Village, the Huts and denizens of the Mos Eisley cantina (described as a "wretched hive of scum and villainy") -- they all recognize Dark Vlader, the Emperor's, annexation of Crimea. 😂

No countries that I can find (not even on Tatooine 😁 ) recognize Dark Vlader's 2022 annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk.

88 posted on 06/23/2023 7:11:58 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

In 10-15 years the Euros will be sucking on the Russian gas pipe again (needed to stay competitive), even the North American / Euro sanctions will be history, and 20% of what once was Ukraine is learning the Patrioticheskaya Pesnya in schools.

Get over it, you lost.

The only difference from 2014 (in fact this was worse for Ukraine) is that today we have an amazing media operation and mass censorship in place, at least politically everyone in the West is united... But the result is the same.

What folks like you can’t seem to get through your skull is that Russia has something everyone needs, energy: gas, oil, coal and other strategic resources like titanium, copper, gold and platinum. Things which make a high tech and industrial economy possible.

You’re not dealing with some chump like Iraq or Libya. In
fact, we’re also paying the price already through inflationary pressures and eventual arming of our adversaries, PRC doing real well since they are leveraging Ukraine against us in their deals...

As Ukraine burns through a few thousand more lives, keeps up moral with their equivalent of “wunderwaffen,” and fantasies of how things are going reminiscent of the “Wochenschau,” I realize that you are right.

These things simply need to run their course. It won’t end any earlier than before the Ukrainian side has exhausted its means. Once Ukraine is pumped dry it ends since the West isn’t bleeding (we’ll keep this going for a while) and throwing huge sums of money at problems is our normal MO. It’s even profitable for some!

But the end will still be the same. You lose land, port cities, an industrial area, have millions displaced, tens of thousands dead, damaged infrastructure, an economy that’s 40% smaller, high inflation, internal instability, and you’re not part of NATO or the EU. Congratulations on your victory!


89 posted on 06/23/2023 3:33:29 PM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The only “smart guy” argument:

Assuming the US is that strategic thinking, this war in Ukraine long term weakens Russia on the international stage.

Of course Russia isn’t the fool and mobilized forces and is rotating them in and out, maintaining troop levels that are sustainable in Ukraine while also covering down their other interests.

We have been encroaching into their sphere of influence for years, and as Russia burns up military personnel, material, puts their forces under operational stress, as their economy does not recognize its full potential that would have been without the economic damage caused by us, their ability to fight us off in their frontier (Libya, Venezuela, Syria, Republic of Georgia...) becomes more difficult.

The problem with this argument is that while it serves our global strategic vision, it simply uses Ukraine as an expendable pawn. However, that would explain our continuance of a war which has become a stalemate for Ukraine, and war of attrition for both parties. That attrition part, the stress we’re putting on the Russian military apparatus is what we really care about.

In the case of us having a global strategic vision and simply depleting Russia, Ukraine does not end up a winner.


90 posted on 06/23/2023 4:15:04 PM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Red6
Red5: "In 10-15 years the Euros will be sucking on the Russian gas pipe again (needed to stay competitive), even the North American / Euro sanctions will be history, and 20% of what once was Ukraine is learning the Patrioticheskaya Pesnya in schools.
Get over it, you lost."

Maybe. Maybe not.
One fact we know for certain is that nobody lives forever, and in 10-15 years, Vlad the Invader will no longer rule over Russia.
Already we are seeing signs that many Russians are not satisfied with Vlad's war, and maybe even Vlad is not satisfied with his generals.
Russia could collapse at the end of a disastrous war, it wouldn't be the first time.

Also, I notice you keep saying "20%", when the real number is about 14%.
So let's review the actual square miles:

Red5: "The only difference from 2014 (in fact this was worse for Ukraine) is that today we have an amazing media operation and mass censorship in place, at least politically everyone in the West is united... But the result is the same."

The situation today is vastly different from what it was in, say, 2015.

Red5: "What folks like you can’t seem to get through your skull is that Russia has something everyone needs, energy: gas, oil, coal and other strategic resources like titanium, copper, gold and platinum.
Things which make a high tech and industrial economy possible."

Sure, I "get" that.
What trained Marxists like yourself (and too many others on Free Republic!) "can’t seem to get through your skulls" is that economics is not everything.
Economics is not "uber ales".
Some things are more important than mere economics, and one of those is preventing Hitler-wannabees from invading and conquering their smaller neighbors.

That's what's going on in Ukraine today.

Red5: "You’re not dealing with some chump like Iraq or Libya.
In fact, we’re also paying the price already through inflationary pressures and eventual arming of our adversaries, PRC doing real well since they are leveraging Ukraine against us in their deals..."

Our current O'bama/O'biden administration's claims to the contrary notwithstanding, the current rising inflation is nearly 100% engineered by them through many $trillions of dollars in Covid, "Green New Deal" and the ironically named "Inflation reduction" borrowing & spending, combined with they anti-energy policies.
The US economic connections to Russia have always been minimal to nonexistent.
Russia is not a major factor in the US economy.

Yes, China is a different story, and I think many US businesses are beginning to understand that overreliance on China could / will be an economic death-trap for them in the future.

Red5: "As Ukraine burns through a few thousand more lives, keeps up moral with their equivalent of “wunderwaffen,” and fantasies of how things are going reminiscent of the “Wochenschau,” I realize that you are right."

Even including some 40,000 Ukrainian civilians killed by Russia's orcs, the best estimates we have show Russian casualties at roughly 50% more than Ukraine's.
It appears that Russians have suffered more from a year in Ukraine (circa 300,000 total casualties) than Soviets did for over 9 years in Afghanistan (circa 75,000 total casualties).

Red5: "But the end will still be the same. You lose land, port cities, an industrial area, have millions displaced, tens of thousands dead, damaged infrastructure, an economy that’s 40% smaller, high inflation, internal instability, and you’re not part of NATO or the EU. Congratulations on your victory!"

The end will be this:

  1. Russians will be removed from part or all of the remaining 33,000 square miles (14% of Ukraine) they still temporarily occupy.

  2. Russians will be required to help pay reparations for deaths & destruction they caused in Ukraine.

  3. Russia itself may split apart, remembering that of Russia's circa 150 millions, only about 100 million are actual Russians.
    The others don't like their "big brothers" any more than Ukrainians do.

  4. Ukraine will join the EU and NATO.

  5. Ukraine will enjoy a "Marshall Plan" style economic recovery, leading to a rapidly returning and growing population.

  6. Vlad the Invader will be dead, his name cursed, his grave spat on.
Or, you could be right, but I don't think so.
For one thing, the economic odds favoring NATO are simply too high -- in the range of 10 to 1.
So Ukraine's friends can keep up their support far longer than Vlad the Invader can keep his weakened economy struggling to make more artillery shells.

91 posted on 06/24/2023 5:41:42 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Red6
Red6: "Russia isn’t the fool and mobilized forces and is rotating them in and out, maintaining troop levels that are sustainable in Ukraine while also covering down their other interests."

Sure, we'd assume that's true, since it's how we operated in Iraq and Afghanistan all those years.
On the other hand, we're hearing reports which say that nearly all of Russia's fighting forces (as opposed to administration and support) are already in Ukraine.
Since there's no way for us to learn the real truth of this, we just have to leave it as a big question mark.
My guess is that our intelligence services likely have a pretty good idea of how many reserve & surge forces Vlad still has.

Red6: "We have been encroaching into their sphere of influence for years, and as Russia burns up military personnel, material, puts their forces under operational stress, as their economy does not recognize its full potential that would have been without the economic damage caused by us, their ability to fight us off in their frontier (Libya, Venezuela, Syria, Republic of Georgia...) becomes more difficult."

The immediate question is neither Libya nor Venezuela, but rather Moscow -- can Putin still put down a revolt in his own ranks?
We'll see.

Red6: "The problem with this argument is that while it serves our global strategic vision, it simply uses Ukraine as an expendable pawn.
However, that would explain our continuance of a war which has become a stalemate for Ukraine, and war of attrition for both parties.
That attrition part, the stress we’re putting on the Russian military apparatus is what we really care about."

Now you're just reverting to form -- the insane Marxist ideology you learned as a child and just can't shake off.
The truth is that Ukraine now has the most capable military force in Europe -- arguably, man for man better than any others, especially Russians.
They are well earning their rights to call themselves our friends and allies, economic, military and social.
They will be admitted to NATO and the EU as soon as that becomes practical.

So Ukraine is forever.
It's Russia that is temporary.

Red6: "In the case of us having a global strategic vision and simply depleting Russia, Ukraine does not end up a winner."

Ukraine will be the EU's 28th member state.
Ukraine will be NATO's 32 or 33rd member state.

Russia could split into its component parts and no longer threaten the West as it increasingly focuses on fending off Chinese encroachments in the East.

Nobody yet knows for sure.

92 posted on 06/24/2023 9:12:06 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Your entire argument falls apart on two accounts:

We didn’t get involved in Ukraine because of any higher moral cause, it was hard cold economics. Ukraine is no more sovereign when we control them than if the Russians control them. Ukraine isn’t really a democracy. Ukraine doesn’t really have the best human rights record. We didn’t offer NATO because of some security risk at the moment from Russia, rather because the same economic interests that are invested in Ukraine want long term assurances and EU and NATO membership provide those. We were the ones that escalated the issue.

At an individual level, Americans are some of the most moral people, donating huge to charities, volunteering, joining the armed forces in a time of war... However, our national policies are in no way reflected by the morality of the people. Our policies are defined by political expediency, utilitarianism, they can even be described as Machiavellian. Our #1 trade partner, and probably 1/4 the crap in your home comes from the PRC and it would be interesting to hear how someone as “moral” as yourself accommodates your morality with this? We back despots in Saudi Arabia, Jordan. Folks like you like to “pretend” as if our policies in Ukraine are somehow driven by a moral cause, they never were.

At an individual level, Americas will share their home with people to help, hand out food, you’ll see successful people worth a lot donating their time, BUT at a national level, we’ll hire folks to have people assassinated and will overthrow a truly democraticly elected government because it doesn’t fit into our “economically motivated foreign policy:” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat. We actually installed a horrible, oppressive dictator because that was better for us.

Our policies and political system represents the interests of the big corporations and oligarchs. This is the case because at the individual level the US is a divided nation of many different loyalties and interests, but the corporate world is fairly united behind certain interests. Furthermore, these oligarchs and corporate interests have a disproportionately large influence on the political system since they finance the politicians and own the media / big tech. Finally, most the common people are ignorant, uninterested, or distracted, so they do not concern themselves with these issues and the policy makers can pretty much do what they want. What you get is a system where government represents Disney, Coca Cola, GM, Blackwater, Tesla, and is ANYTHING BUT promoting sovereignty, freedom, democracy or any of that crap you like to use in your rationalization. We back despots, warlords, have over thrown truly democraticly elected governments, are ok with single party communist regimes, kings, as long as it makes the right people or corporations wealthier and the paradox here is that at an individual level the US is fairly pious, has people that care, volunteer, donate big....

1.) *** All this feel good moral argument stuff is garbage, that’s not what our foreign policy is based on.

The Warsaw Pact is gone. The Soviet Union is gone. By the numbers, Russia is not a major world power anymore conventionally. In the Cold War Russia was idiolgically expansionist and wars like in Korea and Vietnam did indeed act to help stop this empire from spreading... That’s actually not what you are seeing today. Russia is ruled by oligarchs the same we we are. They have economic interests and their sphere of influence, just like we have. They are not on a socio-political conquest. If anything, it is what you see us doing where we have economic interests at stake and are readily willing to use military force to push our interests since there is no power that can match us.

That is why you’re hearing others like the PRC, Russia, Brazil talking about how there needs to be a multipolar world. Ukraine was one of those frontiers for Western economic interests where all lined up to build their sweat shops, avoid taxes, EPA standards may they be from the EU and North America (why we all agree, at least in the West)... If you want to see that at work, look at Mexico, PRC, Guatemala, the people never lift out of their impoverished state, we don’t even really want that. All you see is a few folks in those countries getting rich (those that open the doors for the Western corporations and provide security) but the people stay poor, their environment gets ruined while we talk about social justice and climate change in the West. The fact that Russia is weak today is likely even the reason why we are going after them but have an entirely different approach with the PRC (i.e. Taiwan), the apparent contradictory position our corporate media does not want to talk about, i.e Taiwan vs Ukraine. PRC is a regional power whereas Russia is arguably not even that anymore. Folks on the one hand argue Russia is losing against Ukraine, but then these same folks want to argue that Russia is a threat to us. Which is it?

2.) *** The Russian threat argument for us and our allies (aside from their nuclear forces) is BS.

What remains is a war that should have never been. Where outside influences, “us,” impacted Ukraine and hurled them into a war where folks like you today pretend to have a moral cause.

Glad you feel good about yourself. At least this idiotic war serves that end.

What this war does not serve is Ukraine, even though you wrap yourself in their flag. Because when it ends, they will be worse off in every respect and neither their political or military objectives will have been met.

I get that you feel you support Ukraine because you have a bumper sticker or a flag somewhere, and anyone that disagrees with the approved narrative is the enemy. Through time there have always been those like you, in every culture. You either agree with Stalin or you’re an XYZ, you either agree with Adolf or you’re an XYZ. Try using your brain - How have those like you and pushing this war helped Ukraine?


93 posted on 06/25/2023 11:26:32 AM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Red6
Red6: "We didn’t get involved in Ukraine because of any higher moral cause, it was hard cold economics. "

That is just your insane Marxist indoctrination speaking, you have no facts to support it, not one.
The real truth is that nobody has ever made an economic argument for supporting Ukraine.
The real argument can be summarized in two words, "broken windows".
Defeating Russia is the equivalent of the police broken windows philosophy / policies.

Red6: "Ukraine is no more sovereign when we control them than if the Russians control them. "

Ukraine is as sovereign as any other country and has been recognized as sovereign since the early 1990s, including with its 1990s borders by Russia itself:

  1. 1954 Soviet transfer of Crimea to Ukraine
  2. 1991 Belovezha Accords
  3. 1994 Budapest Memorandum
  4. 1997 Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty
  5. 2003 Russia Ukraine border treaty
Red6: "Ukraine isn’t really a democracy."

Like the United States, Ukraine is a constitutional republic.
On the Freedom scale, here are some typical examples:

  1. 100 -- Norway, Sweden, Finland = most free ~9.8

  2. 83 -- United States = free but flawed democracy ~7.9

  3. 50 -- Ukraine = partly free, hybrid regime ~5.9

  4. 16 -- Russia = not free, authoritarian regime ~3.3

  5. 3 -- North Korea = not free, repressed, authoritarian rebime ~1
Red6: "Ukraine doesn’t really have the best human rights record. "

Nor does the United States, but both are vastly better than Russia's.

Red6: "We didn’t offer NATO because of some security risk at the moment from Russia, rather because the same economic interests that are invested in Ukraine want long term assurances and EU and NATO membership provide those.
We were the ones that escalated the issue."

On this you are not even close, not in the right ballpark, not in the right state.
Yes, economics were the root cause of the 2013 Euromaiden Revolt, when your stooge, the traitor, Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign a long negotiated economic agreement with the EU and instead sought out closer ties to Russia.

NATO had nothing to do with that because at the time most Ukrainians opposed NATO membership.
But after the traitor Yanukovych fled Ukraine for Russia and invited Vlad the Invader to wage war on Ukraine, then most Ukrainians figured out, logically, they'd need a military alliance to protect them from lunatics like Vlad the Invader and Viktor Yanukovych.

NATO is the choice of most Ukrainians, but still, there was no official application to join NATO until after Vlad the Invader's second assault on Ukraine in 2022.

Red6: "However, our national policies are in no way reflected by the morality of the people.
Our policies are defined by political expediency, utilitarianism, they can even be described as Machiavellian."

Of course, anybody can throw stones and cast aspersions at even the noblest of enterprises.
Sure, anybody can ignore the glass 90% full and focus criticisms on the 10% still empty.

More to the point: anybody can take routine hyperboles from our domestic politics and project them onto our international relations -- especially with a crowd as corrupt as our current O'bamma/O'biden regime.

On the other hand, the long-term benefits worldwide of the American "system" or "order" are impossible to deny or ignore.
And to claim that our flaws outweigh our virtues is simply to attack Americans in general.
It's not warranted.

Red6: "Our #1 trade partner, and probably 1/4 the crap in your home comes from the PRC and it would be interesting to hear how someone as “moral” as yourself accommodates your morality with this?"

I think many American businesses are finally waking up to the fact that the CCP is not our friend and may soon become our existential enemy.
Then businesses caught being overly dependent on the CCP will suffer accordingly.

Red6: "We back despots in Saudi Arabia, Jordan.
Folks like you like to “pretend” as if our policies in Ukraine are somehow driven by a moral cause, they never were."

There is nothing "immoral" about helping a country like Ukraine defend itself against foreign invasion.
There's no need for you to make it seem more complicated than that.

Red6: "At an individual level, Americas will share their home with people to help, hand out food, you’ll see successful people worth a lot donating their time, BUT at a national level, we’ll hire folks to have people assassinated and will overthrow a truly democraticly elected government because it doesn’t fit into our “economically motivated foreign policy:”" -- referring to the 1973 Chile coup

If you have to go all the way back 50 years, to 1973 and Pres. Nixon's alleged Chile coup, to find an example of your point, then I'd say you're stretching it to the max.
Here's what the Church Committee said about it:

Red6: "Our policies and political system represents the interests of the big corporations and oligarchs.
This is the case because at the individual level the US is a divided nation of many different loyalties and interests, but the corporate world is fairly united behind certain interests."

From the beginning of our Free Republic, in 1788, until today, US politics have always divided into at least two parties, occasionally, briefly, three or four.
The parties can generally be described as "conservative" versus "progressive" or "liberal", though all such terms can change in definitions over time.

"Conservative" has always meant pro-Constitution, smaller government, nationalism, traditional values and was nearly always championed by the old Federalists, Whigs and Republicans.
Democratics in opposition often criticized "big government", but once in power themselves, Democrats more often grew the government beyond its previous boundaries.
Big Business nearly always ties in with the party in power, which was Democrats before 1861 and has been since 1933.

Red6: "What you get is a system where government represents Disney, Coca Cola, GM, Blackwater, Tesla, and is ANYTHING BUT promoting sovereignty, freedom, democracy or any of that crap you like to use in your rationalization."

Even our big corporations can support sovereignty, freedom and democracy.
They are not antithetical.
What's true is that Big Business is more likely to support Democrats and Democrat "woke" values than more traditional Republican positions.

Red6: "We back despots, warlords, have over thrown truly democraticly elected governments, are ok with single party communist regimes, kings, as long as it makes the right people or corporations wealthier and the paradox here is that at an individual level the US is fairly pious, has people that care, volunteer, donate big...."

The truth here is that we "allow" the evilest creatures on earth -- i.e., the NoKos -- to exist unmolested so long as they don't attack their neighbors.
When they do invade their neighbors, then we support the victims of aggression, so long as they are willing to fight for themselves.

And that's exactly what's going on in Ukraine.

Red6: "That’s actually not what you are seeing today.
Russia is ruled by oligarchs the same we we are.
They have economic interests and their sphere of influence, just like we have.
They are not on a socio-political conquest.
If anything, it is what you see us doing where we have economic interests at stake and are readily willing to use military force to push our interests since there is no power that can match us."

Russia is a very corrupt, authoritarian dictatorship, a failed democracy, only slightly better off than Cuba and CCP's China.
As bad as we are, we are nowhere near those levels of corruption and repression.

Red6: "If you want to see that at work, look at Mexico, PRC, Guatemala, the people never lift out of their impoverished state, we don’t even really want that.
All you see is a few folks in those countries getting rich (those that open the doors for the Western corporations and provide security) but the people stay poor, their environment gets ruined while we talk about social justice and climate change in the West. "

Yet again, your words here are nothing more than your Marxist indoctrination overcoming all connections to facts and reason.

The truth is that world poverty has dramatically reduced since 1945, as illustrated here:

Red6: "The fact that Russia is weak today is likely even the reason why we are going after them but have an entirely different approach with the PRC (i.e. Taiwan), the apparent contradictory position our corporate media does not want to talk about, i.e Taiwan vs Ukraine.
PRC is a regional power whereas Russia is arguably not even that anymore."

In fact, there are a good many Americans who argue that, unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is a vital national interest and therefore we should be preparing to defend Taiwan, forget about Ukraine.

My point is that Ukraine and Taiwan are the same in representing the return of the old-time empire builders by military conquest -- Vlad the Invader and CCP's Xi-snake.
They both can be "broken windows" which, if allowed to remain broken, will help destroy the entire neighborhood, in this case, planet Earth.

Red6: "Folks on the one hand argue Russia is losing against Ukraine, but then these same folks want to argue that Russia is a threat to us.
Which is it?"

It's still too early to say Vlad the Invader has totally failed in Ukraine, and absolutely, he would be succeeding wildly without worldwide support flowing into Ukraine.
If Vlad does fail in Ukraine, then he is unlikely to become a serious threat elsewhere for several years.
But if Vlad succeeds in Ukraine, then he will become an even bigger threat to all of his neighbors.

Red6: "What remains is a war that should have never been.
Where outside influences, “us,” impacted Ukraine and hurled them into a war where folks like you today pretend to have a moral cause.
Glad you feel good about yourself.
At least this idiotic war serves that end."

It's almost always a moral cause to defeat a foreign invader, the exceptions being a country ruled over by the vilest of aggressive villains, which was certainly not the case in Ukraine.
So the only idiot here is Vald the Invader.

Red6: "What this war does not serve is Ukraine, even though you wrap yourself in their flag.
Because when it ends, they will be worse off in every respect and neither their political or military objectives will have been met."

So you keep claiming, over and over again, as if saying it repeatedly might somehow make it true.
The truth is that Ukraine has already won back the majority of additional lands Vlad conquered in early 2022, and may well win much more, before it's over.

When peace returns, Ukraine will have a right to ask for membership in both the EU and NATO, and should be welcomed with open arms, as brothers in arms, worthy of support in peacetime as well as war.

Red6: "I get that you feel you support Ukraine because you have a bumper sticker or a flag somewhere, and anyone that disagrees with the approved narrative is the enemy.
Through time there have always been those like you, in every culture.
You either agree with Stalin or you’re an XYZ, you either agree with Adolf or you’re an XYZ.
Try using your brain - How have those like you and pushing this war helped Ukraine?"

And yet again, you are just babbling nonsense -- stupid Russian propaganda lies which have no serious contact with reality, or facts or reason.
All you're doing here is hurling words, anything, everything in hopes that something might stick.

But it can't because it's just nonsense.
The simple truth is that Ukraine was invaded and so deserves our support just as much as (much more than!) the old Soviet Union did when it was invaded in 1941.
Everything else is just propaganda nonsense.

94 posted on 06/26/2023 10:27:25 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I know all the arguments you make. I have used many of them myself over the years.

I do not even disagree with some of the arguments. But the problem here is that you deny/ignore that the other side has any arguments.

There are always two sides to a story and a background (History) to it. That is true about an employee telling his grievances about a peer, spouse complaining about their other half, kids complaining about parents. And yes, it is even true about WWII and Japan/Germany, Serbia, the Palestinians, the illegal debate...

A funny way at dismantling the “no reason” argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ

We live in an imperfect world and unlike God will never achieve perfect truth nor justice. The closest we will ever get is by careful consideration of all the variables, and then making an objective, consistent and measured judgement. That said, we like to make things simple for ourselves and often exclude those facts and details that go against a defined narrative and thereby exclude variables. American society is very trendy/faddish, and issues pick up inertia no differently than clothing fashions. It very quickly becomes expected to say certain things may that be marijuana, drunk driving, LGBTQIA+, climate change, don’t text and drive, etc. Today, this is even worse because you no longer have a watchdog media, true free reporting where all ideas can get get their chance to be heard. In today’s West we have created a system of censorship that while mostly commercial/civilian amounts to the same thing you had in the former East during the Cold War. You have a one sided message on key issues where those in true power agree: Covid, Ukraine, J6, 2020 elections...

Politicians and our MSM over simplify things, it has to be understood in a quick elevator type sales pitch for the masses to go for it. The MSM knows their target audience and panders to them. Especially today, where the media sees itself more as an influencer rather than a reporter and you have no professional nor objective standards anymore, you get a lot of socio/economic-political advertising pretending to be “news.” Even something as simple as the weather report usually has a political plug here and there (i.e. climate change nonsense). Our senior policy making bureaucrats are often ivy league educated and clueless, or they are rich and simply got the position because they helped finance some politician.

Start at about 55 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0RsAGZMFwM

One of our master minds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Sullivan

The quality of decisions our policy makers make reflect their lack of expertise, consistency, and show how they are influenced politically and economically. Our government Executive and Legislative branch have little respect for the promises, treaties, even laws made by their predecessors, as evidenced even by US laws that go willfully ignored or are selectively enforced, wars we start and where we make promises which the next administration ignores, even treaties we pull out of or ignore. The decisions made are therefore usually not strategic in thought (short sighted: as evidenced in our energy policies), dumbed down (over simplified), and ALWAYS take into consideration political interests (how this can be used to benefit oneself and hurt the opponent: think Covid and how they attacked Trump with that) as well as economic (how this helps those that pay for my campaign or give me bribes: brought to you by Pfizer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkQlZgnbUQ).

Again, all this freedom, sovereignty, multi-lateral/international agreements/laws, human rights, transparency arguments are garbage. We will unilaterally bomb the crap out of someone in a second even without any international consensus, use cluster munitions, incendiary devices (simply redefining them as a new category of weapon)... We will prop up kings and despot dictators, we will do trade with single party communist regimes, we will even have secret deals with drug cartels to finance wars: https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/9712/ch01p1.htm ... and we will in fact ourselves use proxies to engage in activities which we will publicly denounce as evil, illegal and wrong: torture (enhanced interrogations), kidnapping (extraordinary rendition), assignations... These moralistic, self righteous arguments are junk arguments that simply get the masses behind a cause by making them feel like the knight in silver armor fighting for some noble cause while our new elites, our nobility makes even more money.

—Examples (unrelated to Ukraine): Eventually, the peace we forced and continue to enforce in the former Yugoslavia will disintegrate. We achieved a solution by “forcing” someone into submission, i.e. the Serbs. However, the Serbs have an argument and we simply chose to ignore it. The Serb argument wasn’t even presented in the US media, just like the Iraqi side wasn’t presented in 91 (Kuwait was indeed slant drilling and stealing Iraqi oil and then hiding behind us, because Iraq surely won’t mess with them with our military might behind them): https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/03/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-the-oilfield-lying-below-the-iraq-kuwait-dispute.html (Very little coverage. All you got to see was Saddam shooting a gun in the sky and looking like a “madman.”)

—Why will the Peace in the Balkans not last?: The Serbs allowed refugees from Albania to enter their country years ago when the communists seize power in Albania and began persecuting Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Socialist_Republic_of_Albania (Albania became outright atheist) Many of the Muslims are the remnants of Ottoman invasions in the past, which the Serbs, Romanians, Russians etc. fought off literally for centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Albania Then, out of political expediency (we’re looking for a quick, easy and cheap solution) we create a new nation, Bosnia-Herzegovina, which we carve out of Serbia and give to these Muslim refugees from 40 years earlier coming from Albania. If you think Clinton and our DoD fixed that problem, you’re probably wrong. This issue will eventually raise its head again. But, we fixed the problem at least superficially and temporarily by dehumanizing the Serbs and making them out as a culprit (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/24/this-day-in-politics-march-24-1231269), creating the “madman” argument which we like to do in our society where we worship the cult of personality (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-lm&q=Ratko+Mladi%C4%87+madman), using meaningless emotional catch phrases “genocide, ethnic/urban cleansing...” (https://kera.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/amex24.socst.ush.yugoslavia/genocide-in-yugoslavia-clinton/) and pounding the Serbs into submission through force. This is an artificial peace created through the constant expenditure of energy. Stop applying force by pressing a lid on it, and the pot will boil over again.

The “madman” argument is simply a rhetorical attempt to exclude the ideas/thoughts of the opposing viewpoint. Even Saddam 91, 03, OBL, Adof or the Japanese emperor had their reasons, we simply chose to ignore them because we had interests that stood in conflict and then pretended to be surprised when they took the actions they did. Instead of being spoon fed about “madmen” through third parties interpreting and spinning, try reading what they actually say: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 Things do not happen spontaneously, randomly and without any force acting on them. Like elsewhere in nature, you have forces at work, and for every action there is a reaction, for every movement there is an eventual counter movement (i.e. the backlash today to the LGBTQIA+ movement). We always have some catchy moral idea which makes us the good guy in our eyes, even though it usually has nothing to do with the actual conflict. We always use unsolicited qualifying terms and phrases to paint one side bad or good, but neutrality is never there. Do you know we armed Saddam for decades? That we at a minimum assisted him instrumentally in producing chemical weapons used over many years!?!? That our MSM reported about him very favorably for years, and then all of a sudden he became the bad guy. Where do you think Iraq got Roland and Milan missiles, Mirage fighters, US made helicopters (before 1991), US made howitzers from? Boy did we want to forget that real fast in 91 and 2003!

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/26/215733981/new-details-on-how-u-s-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran

Is the problem in former Yugoslavia fixed? I nor you would accept this if we were in Serbia’s shoes, just like you would not accept what we’re trying to force onto Russia, a major foreign power playing on their border. You are simply OK with the conflict in Ukraine because you can accommodate blatant hypocrisy (inconsistency) since truth and justice is not what you seek: you have chosen your team and the other sides perspective is irrelevant for you (maximize and minimize arguments for one side). Peace is not what you seek (at least not yet) unless it’s entirely on your terms - so the war needs to run its course and kill many thousands more, until inevitably we reach the same result anyhow.

The problem is that when you exclude the other viewpoint, and this issue is important enough for them, the use of forces can result.

The spectrum: http://changingminds.org/images/negn_spectrum.gif

The goal should be to operate in what is the zone of probable compromise. Where and what can we find that is common ground or make as an offer so that both parties see it as a win-win? IMHO, that is one of the reasons why Trump was such a good President. He operated like a businessman and negotiator more-so than the lawyer and politician we have today. That is why Trump achieved some pretty significant results in the Middle East and why Ukraine did not spill over into a war even though he started the delivery of lethal weapon systems to Ukraine, and continued the wide spread training and intel sharing from the administration before him which the Russians were very well aware of.

The difference between you and I is that you have already closed your mind and picked a side, which is the natural thing to do, like choosing a sports team. But the problem here is that you have two sides in an argument where if you want a solution, you need to address both sides and find an area of compromise, not pick one side, have your own agenda, ignore the other side and simply try to steam roll them like we did in Ukraine (give Russia the middle finger and just do what we want). The Russian side DOES have arguments regards Ukraine and some of the territory they seized being theirs both historically and ethnic, you simply choose to ignore their side. Russia DOES have a security argument while our side has a flimsy and weak argument which is usually based on obsolete historical threat pictures or make belief present day scenarios which are not even remotely feasible. What is a “fact” is that our US administration, in October of 2021 gave Ukraine the go-ahead for NATO admission and trying to fast track this. That meant arms, money, intel will start flowing into Ukraine at even greater levels and Russia has a clock they are racing against (any action by Russia will quickly become excruciatingly painful): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/ (as stated before, this is what started the war - and that decision rested squarely on our shoulders).

https://www.theepochtimes.com/russia-draws-line-on-ukraine-joining-nato_4174626.html (it was very clear, you as many others simply chose to ignore it)

There is a time and place to use force.

But we have become very careless post Cold War (91 and increasingly onward) in its application.


95 posted on 06/29/2023 3:53:39 PM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Politics is at best amoral. It is at best representative and mostly capitalist which shares some of the power (influence) and some of the wealth with the people (albeit the oligarchs exist in such a system who concentrate wealth and disproportionately impact government). But that does not make it moral. To address the problem of an angry amoral mob which will majority vote to take away what you have, our founding fathers created a “republic” which was all about limiting the powers of government and guaranteeing certain unalienable rights.

Mammon is not neutral. It has a general negative influence morally. Man is full of sin (7 deadly sins) and the easiest way to make a lot of money often involve things which are sinful: sex, drugs, exploitation of people, lying/cheating/stealing, theft/conquest (taking things from others).

The idea that somehow our political/economic interests and what is moral coincide is naive. The morality we use is almost always a post-decision or post-action rationalization/justification.

***Morality in decision making is only possible when those values are understood, wide spread, and expected in a society, leading or being part of the decision making up front, not follow it.***

That is why today in the US, you have the government violating basic constitutional rights, and no body cares. Why you have massive, flagrant, corruption and misuse of power, but no body cares.

It’s election time: https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief-announcement

What do you think would have happened in 1960 had a US administration been caught spying (using the FBI) on their political opponent?

2016: https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html https://www.npr.org/2020/01/11/795566486/fbi-apologizes-to-court-for-mishandling-surveillance-of-trump-campaign-adviser

1972 (44 years earlier): https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/watergate (heads roll - the President himself is crushed)

The difference isn’t the US Constitution or genetic make up of the people. The difference is our values.

Just like you wrap yourself in a Ukrainian flag and think yourself better for backing an expansionist and expeditionary campaign that is economically motivated, our society today thinks itself better because we throw around terms like patriarchy, social justice, diversity, inclusion, tolerance, privilege and hire some usually obese black lesbo Diversity, Inclusion and Equity officer... when in reality we have become more savage and immoral.

An American firm today will fire their US employees in a heart beat, off shore to the PRC, to increase the bottom line. An American firm today, will hire Indian employees they pay 1/3 - 1/2 their US counterpart salary, bring them to the US on an H1B visa, require the US employees to first train these Indians (otherwise lose the severance package and potentially unemployment benefits) and then let the US employees go: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html

America is a nation without culture. We lost that somewhere along the way. Culture is conveyed through the ideas of nation, religion, race, and family/tribe/community. We once had a unique American culture, i.e. the rugged individualism, yearning for freedom, and morality. The America of Normal Rockwell is long dead: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-1-lm&hl=en&q=norman+rockwell&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjY7JODmuv_AhUnEVkFHY7bAPwQ0pQJegQIChAB&biw=1915&bih=937&dpr=1 Do you think someone like Teddy Roosevelt would have a chance in American politics today? No. The public would reject him!

Today we have no religious identity, no national, racial (except if you’re a self perceived minority), or even a family/community identity anymore. Many grow up being socialized in a secular education system and by the media, their family either broken or to busy in a dual income household. Religion has been pushed into a corner all together and is basically irrelevant. Religion has almost no impact on the laws and policies of this nation, nor the behaviors of most people anymore except for 1 hour in the week. The idea of a national identity today has become almost akin to racism, which of course is seen as bad and rejected. Many people see themselves as citizens of the world today, they embrace globalism (which is being pushed in public schools and by the arts), and racial identity is entirely taboo unless it’s black or to a lesser degree Latino (the later not even being a race). With the systems which convey culture all being broke, all you have is people that indiscriminately consume.

“I consume, therefore I am.” Culture has become no more than consumption, something you purchase. You buy the symbols of intellectualism, a magazine subscription and college degree and display them. You buy the symbols of success, sexual prowess, fitness, morality and plaster them on the wall for all to see. Never mind that almost everything in that Christian store is made in the PRC, an atheist state which oppresses Christianity: https://www.mardel.com/

***All we have remaining in common today is the desire to make a buck. Money is the sole means of organizing American society and at the lowest level, for the people that amounts to mere consumerism. At the higher level it’s PURELY about selling influence for the politician and framing policies and regulations which benefit key oligarchs, corporations or financial institutions.***

***The most basic values our nation was based on, the US Constitution and the Bible, are mostly meaningless today.***

1.) If you think that is an over exaggeration, ask yourself, which one of the first Ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) has not been circumnavigated and abridged by government?

2.) Ask yourself what public school today teaches from the Bible, mentions the Bible, or publicly displays a Bible (The Bible was the first school textbook used in America and in fact often was the ONLY textbook through 1690)?

Change is normal and necessary. However, the US today is is no longer the shining beacon of light, we are no longer the last best hope in the sense that we no longer represent ANY of those things you like to use as rationalizations: sovereignty, democracy, freedom, human rights. We do not give a $hit about any of those today.

These are the values America shoves down everyone’s throat today: https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/us-pride-flag-embassy-holy-see / https://twitter.com/wef/status/1483152141157994498?lang=en / https://www.foxnews.com/video/6326081246112


96 posted on 06/30/2023 8:35:14 AM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Red6
Red6: "There are always two sides to a story and a background (History) to it.
That is true about an employee telling his grievances..."

Sure, just like in a court of law, we have prosecutors and defenders, two sides.
And a jury of normal citizens must consider both sides fairly and then decide, which side makes the better case?
If a prosecutor makes the better case, then the accused is convicted & punished, but if not then the accused is exonerated and set free.

So, "two sides to every story" does not automatically mean both sided are equally valid.

Red6: "And yes, it is even true about WWII and Japan/Germany, Serbia, the Palestinians, the illegal debate..."

Sure, and 20+ years ago I had long and detailed debates (similar to what you see on Free Republic, though it was elsewhere) with several Holocaust Deniers.
They insisted that every single piece of evidence for the Holocaust was either fraudulent or actually proved nothing.
After many months of long back-and-forths, the discussions eventually petered out without either side admitting to being wrong.
The Holocaust Deniers even claimed total victory, since, they said, nobody was stepping forward to debate them.

Ever since, I've noticed that nobody defends Holocaust Denial these days, and even some who were previously notorious for their denials today claim that, no, no, no, they never really denied the Holocaust, simply questioned some of its statistical estimates.

My point here is that just because there are "two sides to every argument" does not mean that both sides are always equally valid.
Indeed, in my experience, it's seldom the case that they are.

Red6: "Today, this is even worse because you no longer have a watchdog media, true free reporting where all ideas can get get their chance to be heard.
In today’s West we have created a system of censorship that while mostly commercial/civilian amounts to the same thing you had in the former East during the Cold War."

That was also true in the 1930s and 1940s, when the New York Times censored bad news about the Soviet Union -- for example their Holodomor in Ukraine -- and about the Holocaust in WWII.
The difference is that today it's a bit easier to see how corrupt and biased they always were.

Red6: "Our government Executive and Legislative branch have little respect for the promises, treaties, even laws made by their predecessors, as evidenced even by US laws that go willfully ignored or are selectively enforced, wars we start and where we make promises which the next administration ignores, even treaties we pull out of or ignore."

Within reasonable limits, none of that is necessarily wrong or unusual.
To pick a ridiculous example to make my point -- you would not suggest, would you, that once the Supreme Court had issued its 1857 Dred Scott decision, that must necessarily bind the government forever to not change it, right?
Normal change happens over time, treaties which made good sense years ago may no longer do so and so much be modified or abrogated.
No big deal, right?

But, of course, when carried to extremes and for obvious partisan political reasons, you are right, those things are not so good.

Red6: "Again, all this freedom, sovereignty, multi-lateral/international agreements/laws, human rights, transparency arguments are garbage.
We will unilaterally bomb the crap out of someone in a second even without any international consensus, use cluster munitions, incendiary devices (simply redefining them as a new category of weapon)...
We will prop up kings and despot dictators, we will do trade with single party communist regimes, we will even have secret deals with drug cartels to finance wars:"

At this point you are beginning to transition from what I consider mild but somewhat valid criticisms to outright Russian propaganda lies.
And where, exactly, is the line dividing those two categories we could debate at length, but my bottom line response is: the more extreme your criticisms of the US, the less likely they are to be true and the more likely to be nothing more than hostile Russian propaganda lies.

Red6: "These moralistic, self righteous arguments are junk arguments that simply get the masses behind a cause by making them feel like the knight in silver armor fighting for some noble cause while our new elites, our nobility makes even more money."

In the "court of public opinion", both sides present their facts and arguments, cross-examine the other side's witnesses and make closing arguments.
The public then decides, via supporting & voting for certain candidates or via public opinion polls, we decide which side makes the better argument.
Of course, in the "court of public opinion", most people are not listening to both sides, rather they pick the news source which best confirms their own beliefs and then accept most of those arguments while rejecting those from other sides.

And of the circa 1/3 "independent voters", most are not truly independent and very few will make the effort to understand both sides of any particular argument.
The result is a somewhat "flawed democracy", but it may be the best we can hope for.

Red6: "Examples (unrelated to Ukraine): Eventually, the peace we forced and continue to enforce in the former Yugoslavia will disintegrate.
We achieved a solution by “forcing” someone into submission, i.e. the Serbs.
However, the Serbs have an argument and we simply chose to ignore it.
The Serb argument wasn’t even presented in the US media, just like the Iraqi side wasn’t presented in 91 (Kuwait was indeed slant drilling and stealing Iraqi oil and then hiding behind us, because Iraq surely won’t mess with them with our military might behind them):"

Well... first, in the case of Serbia, the argument was, and is, that Serbs had turned into monsters, mass murdering non-Serbs, and so, must be stopped.
That argument was true then and other arguments were simply irrelevant.

In the case of Iraq and Kuwait, if "slant drilling" was Saddam's worst complaint against Kuwait, then he was totally unjustified in his 1990 invasion.
The western media correctly presented it as just another ruthless dictator doing what ruthless dictators by their natures naturally do -- invade their smaller neighbors.

It's the same thing we see in Ukraine today, and it's just as important for us to defeat it there as it was in Kuwait, though necessarily without US troops' boots on the ground in Ukraine.

Now I'm out of time, will return to this later.
I hope you have a great day.

97 posted on 07/01/2023 7:09:24 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The devil is in the details:

-—It wasn’t until “we” pushed for NATO that things heated up in Ukraine. (((Cause and effect))). This ultimately was the cause of war: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

-—We were in violation of the Minsk Agreement and even bragging about it in our media. We had SF in Ukraine, allowed mercenaries to go there, we were arming them... all in violation of Minsk which said all outside influence should be kept out.

US training/equipping/funding them: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/25/417511636/u-s-army-begins-training-ukrainian-soldiers Minsk agreement: https://www.unian.info/politics/1043394-minsk-agreement-full-text-in-english.html (Read article 10)

-—We pulled out of the ballistic missile treaty (which plays a role in this Ukraine crisis): https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-07/news/us-withdraws-abm-treaty-global-response-muted and https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-withdrawal

Why is this important today? If Ukraine is in NATO and you have missile defense and/or nuclear weapons stationed there, it would tip the scale in nuclear deterrence immensely. We would potentially be able to diminish their nuclear capabilities significantly since much of it is based in the South and West of Russia. Furthermore, if we chose to do a first strike, Moscow is 6 minutes time of flight from the North Eastern parts of Ukraine for a modern hyper-sonic missile, leaving Russia little reaction time: https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/image/2023/03/-large-720_1.png

-—We did make promises of no NATO East expansion (and we try to argue this away, but that’s not true) into former Soviet Republics which we violated in 2004 (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia), tried again in 2008 (Rep. Georgia, where the Russians drew the line), 2014 (Ukraine), 2021 (Ukraine).

One of the more comprehensive articles on this: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html (purposely an older article and I’m frankly surprised it hasn’t been modified or taken down. Most of the stuff today is intentionally selective in what they mention)

-—We would not accept a major power setting up on our border and historically nearly went to war over this: Cuban Missile Crisis, over threw governments: Nicaragua, invaded countries: Grenada. In fact, historically, we simply unilaterally decided that we are the “hegemon” in charge of all Central and South America with our Monroe doctrine and then TR modifying this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis That’s how we react to a similar situation, and we have 90 miles of water between us!

-—When you look at Ukraine as a military planner, you realize for the Russians it’s a catastrophe if Ukraine is in NATO.

Ukraine has direct land access to Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia, logistics from other NATO nations is easy via road and rail (as we are proving true in the war). Ukraine can support the long-term basing of a large force (infrastructure, economy and physical size), they have long runways which can support strategic bombers (B2/52) and airlift (C5), have seaports than can support naval forces, logistics (moving heavy equipment), and give NATO essentially control over the Black Sea. With the same rail gauge as Russia, many hard ball roads connecting Russia and Ukraine, as well as areas suitable for a mechanized force, it would be very easy to advance into Russia and cover large areas quickly. Ukraine being fairly large, having forests and larger cities, it’s easy to hide things.

I know you dislike Russians for whatever reason. But for a second, put yourself in their shoes. If you were Putin or a member of their equivalent of the NSC you would be jumping on your desk screaming “конечно нет!”

-—Ukraine does NOT have a good human rights record. Not just the ethnic Russians are a target, also Jews, etc. You had US Congress even talking about cutting foreign aid until the US State Department, IC and DoD got involved and Congress simply began looking the other way.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-extremism-slotkin-idUSKBN2BW1KQ Again, the Pentagon and State Department essentially got involved and convinced lawmakers to back off and in 2016 we went back to training and arming far right whack jobs: https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/US-lifts-ban-on-funding-neo-Nazi-Ukrainian-militia-441884 (and mind, this is while Minsk was supposed to be in place!)
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_13th_HRMMU_Report_3March2016.pdf

-—Ukraine is NOT a real democracy nor are they really sovereign. Both Russia and the US have been meddling there in a huge way, with us winning by outspending them in every aspect. It is funny when you and others talk about “sovereignty” and the Ukraine: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/28/zelenskyy-blackrock-ceo-fink-agree-to-coordinate-ukraine-investment.html / https://www.france24.com/en/20140207-ukraine-usa-eu-nuland-leaked-audio (us choosing who is in charge in Ukraine)

-—Ukraine DOES have a national socialist problem and we are doing our best to downplay that, but you have Nazi symbols, salutes, slogans, an ideology alive there with an outright Nazi party getting >10% of the popular vote! Ukraine was where Germany raised an SS Division in the war, and they to this day erect monuments to people who were hard core Nazi’s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commemoration_of_Stepan_Bandera
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-1-lm&q=ukraine+nazi&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjagq_xhe__AhWmFVkFHZEZAp4Q0pQJegQICxAB&biw=1915&bih=937&dpr=1 (not a lot of analytical thinking required)

-—Our argument for some national security interest is extremely weak. The Warsaw Pact is gone. The Soviet Union is gone. Russia today is in conventional terms questionably a near peer.

Russia has 55% of our ground forces, 47% of our air forces, 43% of our naval forces, merely one carrier which is not on par with our 11 super carriers. Russia has 1/10 our GDP, less high tech, less industry. Russia has 44% our population, 40% the men reaching military age, and they do not have central and South America like we do where we reach back to when we need lots of bodies. Their security partners are few and weak, most riddled with their own internal security issues that prevent them from doing much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ground_Forces#Equipment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Aerospace_Forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Navy
US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO (31 members, with France and the UK being conventionally powerful and nuclear) Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization (6 members with Belarus their most powerful ally probably not even on par with the Netherlands and not nuclear!)

The ONLY area where Russia has an equal footing, possibly even an advantage, is with their nuclear deterrence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States

Russia is not the conventional threat we make them out as. In fact, it can be argued that because they are weak, we are going after them. In other words, call it propaganda or any other name, we are the shark and they are the prey.

-—Russia did own Ukraine or parts of what up until recently was Ukraine at various times, Ukraine does have ethnic Russians living in the East, Russia did build that industrial area and port city in the Soviet era, and if we’re going to make Ukraine ours, the likelihood of Russia making a move on those areas where they have a claim, is very high.

Post Cold War, we have been going down a slippery slope regards Russia and their frontier/satellites. They are not invading our sphere of influence, we are invading theirs: Syria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war), Libya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya), Venezuela (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020)), Republic of Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%E2%80%93NATO_relations), Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia (2204), even Iraq (they were more or less aligned with Russia). Name me one area where Russia post Cold War entered what we claim as ours? NATO expansion East: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug2468hDl6E (does this look like they are expanding or threatening us?)

If we’re going to assign blame, we overwhelmingly caused this war (my guess: 60% us, 10% the Euros, 30% Russia). Everyone is to blame to some degree, but we are mostly to blame. Ukraine actually isn’t to blame, because they are a mere chess piece, a pawn which does not really decide over its next move nor the rules of the game. Ukraine is a paper ship blown about by outside forces may they be us, the EU or Russia: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/—b8uIIVGQ8k/TuRC8ZQN5xI/AAAAAAAAAjA/rRxPpTS9HqU/s1600/Paper_boat.jpg Ukraine is a victim, that is for sure.

Why do we want Ukraine in NATO? For the big corporations, financial institutions and oligarchs, this as with EU membership is a security assurance, but for us specifically it is also influence in Europe. US influence in Europe is largely through security and if Ukraine enters the EU but not NATO, that would be less than ideal for us.

This is what you’re left with: rhetoric and fallacies. The game of maximizing what supports and minimizing what goes against ones side. That is not an “objective and rational” argument. The court of public opinion you mention is not known for it’s rational, consistent, thinking. The court of public opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g&t=1s

You cannot provide a legitimate security argument for our involvement (no one can) and what you end up with are economic and political considerations in reality.

You end up with us inevitably being the one that controlled most of the variables that led to this war (violating Minsk, NATO expansion, ballistic missile treaty, choosing who is in power in Ukraine...).

Talking about sovereignty, human rights, democracy, freedom, transparency... Did John Kerry throw in a climate change argument too? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/21/world/europe/ukraine-war-climate-change-john-kerry.html What about LGBTQIA? https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/how-kyivs-lgbtq-community-found-shelter-from-the-russian-invasion You might not think so, but your attempt at making a moral argument is actually quite amusing. Our media will surely feed you the moral rationalizations you’re looking for, since they are behind this war. But as you talk about unprovoked Russian aggression and propaganda, remember it’s us censoring them and it’s us getting fed a one sided narrative, with a media at times trying to make 180 degree pivot: https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-battalion-russia/

I think you have made your points and I mine. We’re just repeating and going in circles, trying to figure out how to word things better. We’re going to have to agree to disagree.

All that said, as mentioned before, I am not claiming Ukraine is to blame for this war. In fact, they are not at all to blame, we are. Blaming them for this war would be like blaming a 9 year old kid who was given a shotgun by his father and told to rob the liquor store. We caused this since we made the NATO offer, we control the money being infused into Ukraine, we decided partially who rises to political power in Ukraine, we are providing the intel, much of the weapons, training, logistics... ***This is Biden’s baby even though NO ONE holds him accountable for anything, and that is true even beyond the issue of Ukraine.***

A fair debate would be to what extent we are to blame and when we should end this (which our administration is avoiding and also is not being held to account for). But pretending this is entirely Russia’s fault, that Russia has no arguments, that all their arguments are entirely bogus... that’s just insincere or ignorant.

IMHO, the real reason why Russia will achieve their military and political objectives (not because I like them), which they mostly have already, is because they are simply willing to pay the price, whatever that may be, they are willing to take this further than us or our NATO allies. Why? I think, for them this is perceived as an existential (sorry for that cliche word) security risk, while for us it would have made our oligarchs, big corporations, financial institutions and political elite really happy. Also pure speculation, the reason why we are holding on the way we are is because we’re not doing the bleeding. Our courage and moral commitment is really high when it’s only our monopoly money we’re throwing at a problem and the war industrial complex is making hundreds of billions before all is done (not just Ukraine, you have Germany buying F35, you have massive US arms sales to allies).

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-arms-exports-up-11-fiscal-2022-official-says-2023-01-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/german-budget-committee-approves-f-35-fighter-jet-deal-with-us-sources-2022-12-14/


98 posted on 07/01/2023 8:54:00 PM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Red6

Regards NATO East expansion, it was understood, known to EVERYONE, that it was not acceptable.

Even Biden knew: https://www.facebook.com/rishibagree/videos/1997-the-only-thing-that-could-provoke-a-vigorous-and-hostile-russian-response-w/1131428724346357/

That was in 1997.

But over time, it is us that became more and more brazen, pushing things ever further, going to a point which was unimaginable in 1990. It would be like having to explain to your two 20+ year old adult children visiting your home the rules for dinner and telling them, do not bite, scratch, kick, stab, shoot, club, light on fire, crush one another. These thing simply go without needing explanation!

Today you have folks usually taking one single quote by Gorbachev out of context as to meaning that NATO expansion East, and in particular the former Soviet states which border Russia is acceptable. That is the epitome of an intellectually dishonest argument and I do not even waste my time on such folk.

There are two historic articles, one German, the other French which go into some depth and explain this well: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html Almost all the stuff written today, about what happened 33 years ago is revisionist, excluding major points in order to derive at the desired end state.

***The point is this, we simply choose to ignore the Russian perspective regards the Ukraine war. It is us that is pivoting (changing arguments which were not the real arguments in 1990), being hypocritical (we wouldn’t tolerate it), that also lied (NATO East expansion), cheated (Minsk) and went back on treaties (Ballistic Missile Treaty) all which impacted this situation. That doesn’t mean Russia isn’t also to blame to some degree, and ultimately they pulled the trigger, but there was a lot which happened before they invaded which set the stage for this war, and “WE” were the ones that overwhelmingly had a hand in those.***

When you hear things like “unprovoked Russian attack/invasion/ aggression” which is then followed by labeling anything which partially puts the blame on us as “propaganda,” that’s funny.


99 posted on 07/03/2023 11:07:42 AM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

One example of where we BS around and pretend as if it’s ONLY Russia to blame:

Regards NATO East expansion, it was understood, known to EVERYONE, that it was not acceptable.

Even Biden knew: https://www.facebook.com/rishibagree/videos/1997-the-only-thing-that-could-provoke-a-vigorous-and-hostile-russian-response-w/1131428724346357/

That was in 1997.

But over time, it is us that became more and more brazen, pushing things ever further, going to a point which was unimaginable in 1990. It would be like having to explain to your two 20+ year old adult children that’s do not get along but visiting your home the rules for dinner and telling them, do not bite, scratch, kick, stab, shoot, club, light on fire, crush one another. These thing simply go without needing explanation.

Today you have folks usually taking one single quote by Gorbachev out of context as to meaning that NATO expansion East was acceptable to them. This is the epitome of an intellectually dishonest argument from our side and I do not even waste my time on such folk.

There are two historic articles, one German, the other French that are still available online (I’m surprised we have not deleted or modified them to suit our present day argument) which go into some depth and explain this well: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html Almost all the stuff written today, about what happened 33 years ago is revisionist, excluding major points in order to derive at the desired end state.

***The point is this, we simply choose to ignore the Russian perspective regards the Ukraine. It is us that is pivoting (changing arguments which were not the real arguments in 1990), being hypocritical (we wouldn’t tolerate it), that also lied (NATO East expansion), cheated (Minsk) and went back on treaties (Ballistic Missile Treaty) all which contributed to this situation. That doesn’t mean Russia isn’t also to blame to some degree, and ultimately they pulled the trigger, but there was a lot which happened before they invaded which set the stage for this war, and “WE” were the ones that overwhelmingly had a hand in those.***

When you hear things like “unprovoked Russian attack/invasion/ aggression” which is then followed by labeling anything which partially puts the blame on us as “propaganda,” that’s funny.


100 posted on 07/03/2023 3:17:52 PM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson