How Long Can Ukraine Resist Before They're The Bad Guys?

How do I explain to you, Steady Pie, that the overwhelming view of National Security Officials & experts-- except for a few ultra- Right Wing hawks, who've rarely met a war- scenario, they didn't like-- find war with Russia, to be a VERY bad option?

And how do I get you to see past your biases, to appreciate that, over time, sanctions can inflict a more serious cost on Russia, and certainly stand far more chance of threatening Putin's position, personally, than would a conflict in Ukraine?

If actually breaching the gap in understanding, between us, is not in the cards, then let's stick to debate: so what are Biden's words, to which you refer, that were "comically mismatched," with "what has happened?" To the contrary, our President has been extremely consistent on this message: it has always been, arms to the Ukranians, & serious sanctions against Russia, but no American boots on the ground. Had he threatened war, by contrast, since our President does not have the power to declare war, Biden would then have needed to go to Congress, which would have turned him down. Now that, would have made him, and us, appear weak.

The reason Congress would turn him down, or at least one of them, is because the American population would not support this. Do you not find that to be an important consideration? In truth, it has proven to be foolish, particularly for any democracy, to go into a foreign war-- and this one would literally be on the other side of the world, and against the 2nd most powerful military in the world (their performance against Ukraine, thus far, notwithstanding), right in their back yard-- when their populace was not supporting of it.

More than all that: right now, the world is uniting, against Russia's aggression; and many of the Russian people, are troubled by, and do not support, Putin's assault. But you would throw away all that leverage, gained without the loss of a single soldier, to turn the narrative, into one of the U.S. fighting Russia, instead of it being about Russia's illegal, naked aggression, toward Ukraine? There is only one word for this course, you advocate: foolishness.

Our attack, BTW, would likely solidify support, among the Russian people, for Putin. The Nazis made a similar mistake, when they attacked Soviet Russia. Many of the then Soviet citizens, despised their government, & could easily have been turned to support the German invasion, had the Germans portrayed themselves, as liberating the people, from their Communist yoke. Instead, the pompous Third Reich, started shipping off many in the population, to concentration camps. The people rallied around their government, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Too bad all of history's lessons, seem to be lost on you, with your one-dimensional perspective of options, in cases of military aggression.

 

Nope, just taking the thought process past the empty tough talk stage. Being tough requires action, not words. What are those actions going to be? With Russia, there are sanctions and there is war. We're doing sanctions and non-military responses already. That leaves war as the only other option. So it is you trying to deflect here, like so many of the tough talk proponents do, because you know damn well that even a cursory glance at these tough talk arguments reveal the purely partisan emptiness within them.

 

Why on earth would Ukraine ever be considered the bad guys? Is this a low key troll attempt to try and turn this war into "Russia = conservatives, Ukraine = progressives"?

Biden helped start this mess. Biden's been in office not even 2 *******n years and we are almost back to the cold war days. Don't preach to me about the greatness of progressives right now. The people of Ukraine are ****ing terrified right now. Ukraine is going to lose Donbass. This sucks.

 

Oh, this should be good.
Tell us, then, one who is wiser than the world's political leaders, why this happened, and how it could have been prevented, had you been in the Oval office, at the time:

So by not caving in to Putin's demands, for NATO to bar Ukraine from ever being a NATO member-- which was probably a couple of decades, at least, from happening-- it was NATO & Biden who screwed the pooch on this one, huh?

Which required an invasion of Ukraine, NOW??

I'll give you this much: I could certainly see your boy, Trump, lobbying for Putin's cause, amongst the other members of NATO (like the Putin bootlick, he always was, when President).

Sure, appeasement has a great history of success, in such situations as this.


Your idea that you could have personally cut a secret deal with Putin (besides being troubling for its sketchiness, in your willingness to betray the rest of the NATO alliance) is woefully naive. So let's flesh out, your fantastic scenario. You & Putin hold a meeting, don't comment, afterward, on what was discussed, and then Putin withdraws 100 k troops-- that's really how you imagine things would play out, huh?

Sorry to burst your bubbles, but:
Putin would not accept a "private assur(ance)" from you-- do you forget that the basis of his complaint, are the promises of Western officials, back when the Soviets gave up East Germany?

So, first thing after your meeting, there would be a full report of the agreement, in the Soviet Press. Then, Putin would insist on the promise IN WRITING! But, there is no way you could make such a promise. For-- even though any new NATO member must be approved by all other (currently 30) members, so a "no," vote by any one, including the U.S., would keep a country out-- Ukraine is not currently up for membership; they are a long way from satisfying the conditions, stipulated for membership; I do not believe that a single NATO country had said that they supported giving membership to Ukraine (which hadn't, itself even applied, either, BTW); so that if Ukraine were to come up for membership, even if it were only 1 decade away, you would no longer be President, & so unable to affect our vote on the matter.

Of course, Putin would realize that your word, on this, was worthless. But he would get it, anyway, for the scenario, above, which only accomplishes another of Vlad's goals: to make NATO nations disunited, & untrusting of one another-- lighting a ravaging fire, for which your "private" meeting, would provide a stack of flammable ill- will, a cord of discord-- and put the countries of the West, particularly Europe, at each other's throats.

Nice job, Tough Talk.


And then, Putin would go into Ukraine, as he had always planned, because this always was about keeping Ukraine under his heel, and not allowing a nation that was so closely connected with Russia, turn West and become a truly free democracy, and a thriving, Capitalistic, success. If his own citizens saw that, it would shoot the roof off the demonization of the West, so relied- upon, by Russian leaders.

 

Nope.... like I said...
he was suggesting something that is not being suggested...at all.

 

But it has to be suggested if you're going to flesh out what all that toughness is that people are saying Joe Biden is lacking. What IS it? Toughness can't just be a word, it has to be associated with action. So what are those actions that can be taken to address Russia's invasion.

I'll tell you.

Sanctions. And war.

 

Your hyperbole aside, Putin is a war criminal. He needs to be captured and tried in The Hague. We have assets that can do that. So do the Brits, Israel, Germany. Likely too some factions within the Russian government, perhaps FSB. I'll be the Russian oligarchs aren't too happy with their fortunes dwindling...

Who is going to coordinate this effort? Biden will have to do it between his afternoon nap and his bowl of ice cream.

 

I will repeat again... now that you have stuck your nose in Freshair's post...

he was suggesting something that is not being suggested...at all.

 

Then why posture all this about how you don't like Putin making demands if you would just capitulate on them anyway?

You think Russia's demands to control the foreign policy of it's neighbors, and NATO are just, and proper. Or you're afraid of them. Those are the only to reasons anyone will find to explain this strange tough talking soft acting position on this conflict.

 

The demands he's making are not unreasonable. If I remember correctly it was stop holding military exercises near our borders...and don't turn one of our sat states into a NATO member we would see that as a direct threat to our sovereignty.

Now normally I'd say **** off to such demands...but the man is old school in how he thinks and controls 6000 nukes so it's a bit more complicated. This is a needless and dangerous game Biden and NATO are playing and I sure as **** hope that Putin doesn't feel cornered to the point that his only recourse is end game.

Because you know...that would suck?

 

It certainly would, but as they already guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty without that condition in exchange for it denuclearizing no one was under any obligation to grant them then, and even less now.

That is negotiating out of fear, and that is a poor way to conduct foreign policy. The Biden administration has acted competently regarding this, and if the nukes do fly it will be because of Vladimir Putin. That's just really all there is to it.

 

"The Biden administration has acted competently regarding this" He said as we are entering another cold war at best...

Ya. I don't think so. Negotiating out of fear? Hardly. Negotiating out of respect for a country with 6000 nukes? Yeah that sounds about right. You can claim moral high ground here and that won't mean much if he sets them off. It would mean you pushed too hard and ****ed up and handled the situation poorly and many, MANY people died.

That's a risk I don't think is worth it for not thinking that you negotiated in fear. Which isn't even what you would be doing.

 

I've made no moral judgment here. Even negotiating out of fear is not a condemnation. Fear is a survival instinct for a reason. It's just not effective foreign policy. I can't think of a dictator that achieved some aim by threatening an attack, and didn't turn around, and demand more then attack anyway when the line is finally drawn can you?

You negotiate for concessions, and the only thing they offered was something they already agreed to so why would you believe they'd honor that one anymore than the first?

 

So the violent resistance on the left would rather throw Molotov cocktails through the windows of minority owned businesses than at Russian tanks?

Priorities I guess.

 

Not what I said, nor what I meant, but I guess that doesn't matter to you, right?

 

What you said was, " I don't think that same sort of violent resistance, on the Left (what remains of it), is being directed towards foreign, fascist regimes. Rather, it is fighting for civil rights causes, right here, at home, for animal rights, and against global polluters."

 

And where does attacking "minority businesses," fit in there, in your mind?

 

The George Floyd riots cost about 2 billion dollars in property damage, and a lot of that damage was minority owned businesses. It wasn't all Target and chain stores.

 

I'm revisiting this pair of posts because of an interesting article that I came across today, that related that Zelenskyy & the Ukranians have decided to use even this angle to help with their war effort, of taking non- Ukrainian, civilian volunteers, who want to join in their fight!

You can sign up at your nearest Ukranian Embassy. People from all parts of the political spectrum, invited.

[SNIP]

‘International brigade'

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urges foreigners to sign up for an “international brigade” of volunteers at Ukrainian embassies to help fight invading Russian forces.

[End]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al...ion-of-ukraine-list-of-key-moments-from-day-4

 

Anyone who return to a city they had lived in.. in freedom in their own sovereign country... after the Russians conquer it and run it... has a screw loose.

 

Its interesting you think only 'leftists' would want to fight a tyrant like Putin. I would actually not be surprised if some antifas went there to volunteer, and I think European right and left wingers will too. Its really not a right vs left issue until you talk to someone like you.

 

Right-- that's what I'd thought you were saying, and that was not the intention of my remarks. What you you two had written, did not strike me as a debated argument. Just talk. So that is what I'd chipped in: my belief, as to a shift in the focus-- and so, you could also infer, sensibilities-- of modern leftist, "revolutionaries."

You came back, as if we were debating the relative merits, of the shift. So if you thought I was "presenting a case, a defense, etc." then you were mistaken. I was "just sayin', " in case you were actually wondering "where have they all gone"

I don't consider your response as a "just saying," kind of comment, but as an attempt to debate a topic that, personally, I find to be a bit played- out.

Certainly, you could argue that this is a debate forum, so you were commenting, with that purpose, in mind.

For my part, however, I could respond that the particular argument on which you were seemingly attempting to open up debate, had absolutely NO LEGITIMATE PLACE, in the thread, in which we found ourselves.

Therefore, neither of us can claim any high ground, of being in the "right." I had passed along, what I had thought of, as a casual, even friendly, comment. Your response sounded, to me, identical to your trying to make your point of argument, in a debate. So I responded in the spirit of, no, I don't want to do that. I was declining your invitation to an argument which I had not intended, with my comment, to launch us into debating. A topic, also, that would have been extremely off- topic, for the thread.

I hope this fulsome explanation, made everything clear, and answered all your questions.

 

Even Trumptard said US sending troops to Ukraine shouldn't be an option on the table.

 

I'm looking forward to posters from PF who have egged this on will pick up their kit bags and head over there.

 

Fox reported that the convoy is stalled due to lack of fuel and food. Tanker of vodka got through!

Speaking of Molotov cocktails, the safest place to be when fighting a tank is close. The machine gun can't move fast enough and in a close engagement, a gunner won't pop his head up. The idea, TV not withstanding, is that you want to get the fuel in the tracks to damage the rubber components in the drive wheels. I'm not up on explosive armor. It might burn but is probably designed not to. I'd go for the wheels.
You never know when you might need this information!