A Loud GOP Minority Pledges to Make Trouble on Ukraine Military Aid

I honestly don't know what the the goal of US foreign policy has been in Ukraine since 2014. Occam's razor would suggest it's simply about extracting bribe money for Western politicos.

 

If you think something we are doing is "stupid", then you better come up with a serious justification for that accusation.

My comment on the wrongs of the world as a whole is that we can't fix every problem.

But, I do believe that we can hold the line in cases where there is major agreement among all western states, where the principles are so direct as is indicated in the UN Charter and where the message sent by failing to back up such basic principles combine to form a serious justification.

The western world doesn't need to surrender to Russia.

And, what does it say to other aggressors if we choose to do so?

 

Interesting question - what are the aims of the US in Ukraine?

 

Curbing the continuing Russian expansionism.

Supporting the goals of the UN Charter and its statement concerning the illegality of increasing territory by use of war.

Defending Eastern European nations as well as threats to NATO that would be threatened should the Russian policy of expansionism be allowed to proceed.

If we allow Russian expansionism, what would we have to say concerning military expansionism in any other part of the world?

 

We can pick and choose our battles. I noticed there was no freak out about the Azerbaijan war with Armenia..I still don't know which side we should have picked to be on there. Meanwhile a major power went in a brokered a peace deal.

I thought it was very interesting that there was absolutely no intent for the US to do something similar with Ukraine and Russia. We want to the war to go on.

Sorry I just can't agree that's good policy.

 

I agree that the USA has done a spectacularly bad job of picking wars to have.

But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aid Ukraine in THEIR war to maintain independence from Russia and communism, especially given what such a loss would mean for other regional nations.

It's possible that the problem with us picking sides in the Azerbaijan/Armenia conflict is that Americans aren't well enough educated to find either one of those on a map, let alone understand what the issues are or whether there are longer term issues (such as there are with Russia attempting to conquer Ukraine).

Do Americans know that Armenia is a Christian nation?

Do Americans know that Azerbaijan is Islamic and was once part of the USSR, being recognized by the USA during the GHWBush presidential term? Have they heard of Nagorno-Karabakh? Are they aware that Azerbaijan was one of the first supporters of the US following the 9/11 catastrophe?

As for there being no "freak out" about these countries, I think you're are truly desperate for some justification for your ideas on foreign policy - even before you make any clear foreign policy statements.

 

This is the fundamental problem with talking about politics,
if you think, is that you might disagree with others in your group,
leading to insecurity within the relationships.

Conformity is the key to groups.
People ridicule those on the right for the high levels of conformity
Having a BBQ, all drive trucks, all drink the same beers more or less.

I haven't noticed any difference between right wing and left wing
behavior in principle; the same high level of conformity,
of language, and commonality of memetics in general.

The differences between the groups is in the labels applied
People were worried Trump would start WW3.
He came no where near it, but Biden is on the very edge.

 

A fundamental problem with talking about politics is putting tension
in the relationships with other people in your group, of showing disunity.

So why do people do it?
Political topics are ones everyone is familiar with and affected by.
And are complicated enough for people to find interesting.
And it is good exercise for the brain.

People are also drawn to it by a desire to prove themselves more intelligent than others
which works pretty well because the mainstream media is wrong on political points
about 95% of the time.

 

There was nothing to freak out about in the "two day war". Russia tried to broker a cease fire and it was broken 5 minutes after it became effective, and after that Azerbaijan and Armenia agreed to stop the nonsense on their own. How you compare that to Russians invasion of Ukraine is beyond me.

As for a peace deal between Russia (the aggressor), or Ukraine (the defender), neither side it interested in a deal. Russia won't leave unless they get what they are there to steal, and Ukraine won't stop until they have driven the Russians out.

Suggesting the US wants the war to continue is absurd and puts your "always blame the US" attitude on display.

 

Weird that you think I'm "desperate" when my view of foreign policy has been the default foreign policy of the United States for most of it's existence. That's not desperation, it's simply a return to normalcy, which seems to be quite the opposite of your view.

You should at least acknowledge that your way leads to many more deaths. At least own that since you are making this America's business.

 

I've posted it on this forum many times so I won't bother to do so again, but the Secretary of Defense said the purpose of our support is to wear down the military capabilities of Russia. So yes, the US wants the war to continue, that's stated policy. And even without Austin's statement the slow dribbling of equipment, one day we would never send them, the next day we grudgingly agree (like F-16's, Patriots, and Abrams) show the policy in action. If your goal was to have the Ukrainians win the war, would you wait until the Ukrainians had lost almost an entire generation to fighting?

 

How on earth do you figure that means they want it to continue forever? Wearing down an enemy is a way to defeat them aka winning the war aka ending it. Did Reagan want to continue the cold war perpetually when he wore down the Russians economically?

 

First of all, I didn't say forever, second of all, we were in a cold war with the Soviet Union. What is the equivalent with this much weaker version of Russia? There is no ideological struggle or military struggle that we have to meet and challenge worldwide.

It's as if the cold war ended, and then started up again in 2014 and nobody told the American public.

 

I think you are significantly misconstruing what the general said.

 

Barack Obama was unwilling to escalate the conflicts we started in Syria or the one we started in Ukraine into major wars.

While we supply weapons and the CIA is running it as a 'Covert Operation', if it isn't too big then Congress does not need to be informed.
And even when it grows Congress is pro war, so it doesn't matter until it is necessary to bring in one of the main arms of the US military.

We had planned to send lots of weapons to the Ukrainian government in Kyiv but Donald Trump blocked it,
so the war in Ukraine could not turn into a big proxy war against Russia until Joey arrived and the Democratic Congress voted in
mid 2021 to ship in the weapons which were finally brought into use on Feb 16th against the 'breakaway republic' of Donbas.

Breakaway Republic is a nice way of saying 'civilians'.

Joey then gave a speech that the war had started on Feb 24th.

If you don't believe Lil Mike then watch a youtube of the General Secretary of NATO because he is a fan of Lil Mike and says the same things.

 

You think we started the war in Ukraine. LOL

 

I have no idea what it is about what I've said that you believe would result in enough more death that it disqualifies what people are actually fighting for.

Ukrainians are showing willingness to fight for their future as a democratic capitalist country rather than being subsumed by Russia. That's a strong justification.

 

What absolute and total BS!

This is what NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg had to say on the 21st of this month concerning the efforts of western nations in support of Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_214734.htm

 

I don't accept this idea.

Putin's purpose here is clearly to put back the USSR footprint, extending communism and Moscow control into eastern Europe.

We didn't like that before. Why would we like that today?

 

Most people could figure it out on their own, especially when they got their military involved in Syria, but I guess you have to be told by your leaders.

 

Feel free to clarify his remarks.

 

It absolutely is justification for them. We shouldn't be making that decision for them.

 

The idea that he can restore the old Soviet Union doesn't seem in any way realistic. I don't get why so many people think this is a real thing.

 

I'm sorry but I don't see the connection there. Are you saying because Russia got involved in Syria the cold war restarted?

 

Here is the problem.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/

As is usual, Europe boasts about their ability to provide program after program for their entitled citizens, acting superior while ALWAYS hiding under the umbrella of the US military and defense.

Russia poses a far greater threat to Europe, yet we are footing the bill.

Nah, we need to be done funding the defense of Europe and their interests.