Putin does his "we-have-not-yet-begun-to-fight" number

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,653
5,471
1
Dear God.

You people need to get your stories straight.

Is it: A) the outnumbered Ukrainians have ground up the Russian military and exposed the mediocrity of its equipment, the unprofessionalism of its enlisted ranks, and the incompetence of its command.

Or: B) the mighty Russian military stands ready to take over all of Europe once it dispenses with Ukraine.

You can have one but not both. Then again, reality has never been an impediment for y'all.

Let me help you out: (A) is reality. (B) is fantasy.

Try again.

Don't disagree with anything you said. That post was supposed to be ironic.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,874
10,317
1
Not that I'd put you in this group, but there's another major category that fits in "list-goes-on," and that's the neocons, who never met a war they didn't like. Exhibit A: Bush Junior's ill-fated crusade for global democracy that led to such debacles as Iraq and Libya.

Afghanistan too, where we accomplished what we needed to do in, like, six months but then hung around for another 20 pointless years. You'd think maybe the neocons would learn but no. Now they're all hot to save the world in Ukraine. Anyway, it's no accident that most of them have gravitated to Dem-Media.

The problem the neocons always had was the inevitable backlash from all the body bags returning to the states from whatever war they were pushing. For now they appear to have found a sweet spot with Ukraine - massive spending on "military aid" and no involvement from US troops. Degrading Putin's military is just icing on top.

Agreed but the spot they've found is not very sweet for the American people and runs counter to American interests. Hell, it even runs counter to Ukrainian interests. Basically it harms everybody:

 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,874
10,317
1
It's interesting, the division in the conservative camp with regard to the Ukraine train wreck.

I mean, OK, Dem-Media is in lockstep. No surprise. Supply the talking points to the Hive, and the bees will dutifully buzz them out 24/7.

Dem-Media's rabid-dog response to Russia is first of all ideological. The Russians are seen as a major impediment to the global importation of Wokeism and must therefore be broken. Hell, Moscow opposes Pride Month and the Transgender Cult. Say no more.

But within conservative ranks, where people actually, like, think or at least try to, it's not nearly that simple.

You've got the Tucker Carlson wing -- I'm in that group -- which thinks the policy of our Ruling Class is madness and a product of hopeless corruption.

You've got a bunch of Republican office-holders who answer to their wealthy military-industrial-complex donors.

You've got sincere people who've never comprehended that the Soviet Union is long gone, and the successor state has nothing remotely in common with it either in terms of power or ideology.

You've got an assortment of people who hate Russia for reasons of history or ethnicity.

The list goes on.

But the one thing that unites the Russia-hating wing of the conservative movement is the inability or unwillingness to understand that the existential struggle of our time is not political but rather ideological...moral...spiritual.

The war has changed. The dividing lines are different. I wish nothing but the best for Ukraine, but its fate has little to do with that of my own country, which is being decided a lot closer to home than Moscow.

Those who think otherwise are either decent but misguided people (the conservatives) or hopeless fools (the Useful Idiots) or themselves complicit in the rotten game (Dem-Media Incorporated and its Regime toadies).

By the way, a P.S. to the group of conservatives, mentioned above, who may hate Russia for reasons of history or ethnicity. I actually get that. The Russians have a fair amount of blood on their hands historically speaking, but really, who doesn't?

Also, it's good to keep in mind that a large percentage of that blood was spilled during the Soviet era, and the culprit was not Russia as an ethnic or nationalist identity but rather transnational Soviet totalitarianism. In fact, the most notorious mass murderer of that period, guy by the name of Stalin, was not Russian at all. Nor was his head of Secret Police. Solzhenitsyn spoke compellingly on the common Western mistake of conflating "Soviet" with "Russian."

That said, it's interesting how the blood guilt of oppressors takes on an almost genetic property for its ethnic victims. Hell, I'm of Irish extraction, and for a long time at some level of consciousness felt a resentment toward our great ally, the Brits, for what they did to my ancestors. So how much more when the harm done is equally grave and even more recent. Still, a century or more after the fact, such feelings are the product of emotions, and it's usually not a good idea to let emotions cloud judgment when it comes to evaluating national interests.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,291
28,003
1
An altered state
Not that I'd put you in this group, but there's another major category that fits in "list-goes-on," and that's the neocons, who never met a war they didn't like. Exhibit A: Bush Junior's ill-fated crusade for global democracy that led to such debacles as Iraq and Libya.

Afghanistan too, where we accomplished what we needed to do in, like, six months but then hung around for another 20 pointless years. You'd think maybe the neocons would learn but no. Now they're all hot to save the world in Ukraine. Anyway, it's no accident that most of them have gravitated to Dem-Media.

That aside, I think you've mischaracterized the concept of "realism" in foreign policy. In fact, on my list, it's the Tucker Carlson camp who are the realists. John Mearsheimer is not only considered a realist, but he even wrote a book on the topic titled The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. The Harvard scholar Stephen Walt is also a leading voice in that group. There are many others.

Classically, the definition of "realism" is the placement of national interests and security above ideology, ethics, and morality in the conduct of foreign policy. That's been precisely my argument in the debate with you going back to last year.

Meanwhile, your whole thesis of Putin-as-Hitler and Russia-as-Nazi-Germany is just misplaced and delusional, in my view. The mighty Russian military has all it can do to take the Donbas region of Ukraine, yet you continue to posit it as a threat to the entire continent of Europe. You can call such thinking a lot of things, but don't call it "realism."

I'm all for learning from history. In fact, that's an essential precept of conservatism. But it's critical to learn the right lessons. I don't think you've done that, Spin.
First, I never said any5ning about Putin conquering all of Europe. Don’t know where you get these fantasies or why you engage in such hyperbole but it is unbecoming of you. His goal..... as I stated many, many times,.....is to re-establish Mother Russia. Which would be a serious threat to world peace.

Well, it appears that Putin will not turn out to be Hitler......because the world stood up to him. Everyone, even you, thought that Russia would conquer Ukraine fairly easily. Putin said it would take three to five days. And lots of people agreed. And if he took Ukraine easily he would likely have continued his playbook in the future.......the Baltics have a massive percentage of Russian speaking people. Use them them to stir up trouble and then move in forces without uniform markings to support those instigators. Destabilize the country.

But thank God that Poland, Romania, the Baltic states and Britain all quickly came to the aid of the Ukrainians. That gave time for the rest of NATO and the US to get off their butts. Putin’s military has taken a beating and is now far weaker. Even if he eventually takes all of Ukraine it’s highly likely his adventurism has come to an end. It will take years to rebuild his military and he doesn’t have years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgar and Ski

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,080
37,496
1
A guy sent this to me today.

The Battle of the Bulge was one of the deadliest American military battles in history. Nineteen thousand American soldiers were killed, another 70,000 missing or wounded, in just over a month as Nazi Germany made an ill-fated last push against the Allies.

Part of the reason it was so bloody is that Americans were surprised. And part of the reason they were surprised is that in the rational minds of American generals, it made no sense for Germany to attack.

The Germans didn’t have enough troops to win a counterattack, and the few that were left were often children under age 18 with no combat experience. They didn’t have enough fuel. They were running out of food. The terrain of the Ardenne Forest in Belgium stacked the odds against them. The weather was atrocious.

The Allies knew all of this. They reasoned that any rational German commander would not launch a counterattack. So the American lines were left fairly thin and ill-supplied.

What the American generals overlooked was how unhinged Hitler had become. He wasn’t rational. He was living in his own world, detached from reality and reason.

The question might be how unhinged is Putin?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,653
5,471
1
Agreed but the spot they've found is not very sweet for the American people and runs counter to American interests. Hell, it even runs counter to Ukrainian interests. Basically it harms everybody:


Agreed but the spot they've found is not very sweet for the American people and runs counter to American interests. Hell, it even runs counter to Ukrainian interests. Basically it harms everybody:

Well if the Ukrainian's stop fighting there is no Ukraine. Probably why they are fighting tooth and nail against a far superior opponent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maypole

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,653
5,471
1
A guy sent this to me today.

The Battle of the Bulge was one of the deadliest American military battles in history. Nineteen thousand American soldiers were killed, another 70,000 missing or wounded, in just over a month as Nazi Germany made an ill-fated last push against the Allies.

Part of the reason it was so bloody is that Americans were surprised. And part of the reason they were surprised is that in the rational minds of American generals, it made no sense for Germany to attack.

The Germans didn’t have enough troops to win a counterattack, and the few that were left were often children under age 18 with no combat experience. They didn’t have enough fuel. They were running out of food. The terrain of the Ardenne Forest in Belgium stacked the odds against them. The weather was atrocious.

The Allies knew all of this. They reasoned that any rational German commander would not launch a counterattack. So the American lines were left fairly thin and ill-supplied.

What the American generals overlooked was how unhinged Hitler had become. He wasn’t rational. He was living in his own world, detached from reality and reason.

The question might be how unhinged is Putin?

They tried to appease Hitler by giving him a few countries. If that strategy had worked there would have been no battle of the bulge.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,874
10,317
1
First, I never said any5ning about Putin conquering all of Europe. Don’t know where you get these fantasies or why you engage in such hyperbole but it is unbecoming of you. His goal..... as I stated many, many times,.....is to re-establish Mother Russia. Which would be a serious threat to world peace.

Well, it appears that Putin will not turn out to be Hitler......because the world stood up to him. Everyone, even you, thought that Russia would conquer Ukraine fairly easily. Putin said it would take three to five days. And lots of people agreed. And if he took Ukraine easily he would likely have continued his playbook in the future.......the Baltics have a massive percentage of Russian speaking people. Use them them to stir up trouble and then move in forces without uniform markings to support those instigators. Destabilize the country.

But thank God that Poland, Romania, the Baltic states and Britain all quickly came to the aid of the Ukrainians. That gave time for the rest of NATO and the US to get off their butts. Putin’s military has taken a beating and is now far weaker. Even if he eventually takes all of Ukraine it’s highly likely his adventurism has come to an end. It will take years to rebuild his military and he doesn’t have years.

So the guy who said more than once that my solution was to "give Ukraine" to Russia rebukes me for engaging in hyperbole. Oooohkay then.

My smart-aleck line about conquering Europe was exaggeration for effect. Nobody, not even you, believes such a thing could ever be in the cards. But still, you continue with the dark warnings about Moscow taking over the Baltics and reconstituting Mother Russia, etc. What is "Mother Russia"? Where is the evidence for any of these claims? How can you keep saying this after the dismal performance of the Russian military these past four months? They couldn't even make it 100 miles to friggin' Kyiv so how were they ever going to roll through the Baltics and take on all of NATO?

Also, your statement that I thought Russia would conquer Ukraine "fairly easily" is fiction. Just the opposite: before the invasion I said the number of troops that Moscow had assembled near the Ukrainian border was not remotely large enough to take Kyiv or occupy Ukraine. I said Russia's most realistic objective would be the creation of a land bridge between Crimea and the Donbas. Check the record. I'd say my assessment aged pretty well.

Meanwhile, there's your analogy earlier in the thread between Putin and Hitler...and between the situation in Ukraine in 2022 and the situation in Europe in 1939. As though Russia represents a similar threat to the world today as Nazi Germany did back then. As though not stopping Russia in Ukraine is equivalent to not stopping Germany when it took over Czechoslovakia or the Sudetenland in the lead-up to World War II. Spin, all this talk of Hitler and Mother Russia and the rest is not only hyperbolic but also delusional, in my always humble opinion.

This train wreck with its many disastrous ripple effects didn't have to happen. But it did, and now we're up to our necks in it...as is Ukraine. Again, I think my predictions and warnings stated in our long-running debate here have been vindicated so far. But if in the end, Russia is defeated and crippled with Putin's hold on power weakened or broken, I'll be the first to concede that you at least got that part right. The question will be whether it was at a price worth paying, and I'm pretty sure the answer will be: no.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,874
10,317
1
A guy sent this to me today.

The Battle of the Bulge was one of the deadliest American military battles in history. Nineteen thousand American soldiers were killed, another 70,000 missing or wounded, in just over a month as Nazi Germany made an ill-fated last push against the Allies.

Part of the reason it was so bloody is that Americans were surprised. And part of the reason they were surprised is that in the rational minds of American generals, it made no sense for Germany to attack.

The Germans didn’t have enough troops to win a counterattack, and the few that were left were often children under age 18 with no combat experience. They didn’t have enough fuel. They were running out of food. The terrain of the Ardenne Forest in Belgium stacked the odds against them. The weather was atrocious.

The Allies knew all of this. They reasoned that any rational German commander would not launch a counterattack. So the American lines were left fairly thin and ill-supplied.

What the American generals overlooked was how unhinged Hitler had become. He wasn’t rational. He was living in his own world, detached from reality and reason.

The question might be how unhinged is Putin?

I don't think Putin is unhinged.

He and his government made the entirely rational and unsurprising assessment that Russia had a vital national interest at stake in Ukraine...and this vital interest extended to not allowing Washington and NATO to establish a bridgehead in Ukraine...as Washington and NATO seemingly intended to do. In fact, the American government took an analogous view toward an entire hemisphere back 200 years ago.

That said, I do think Putin is angry and resentful, which likely influenced his decision to roll the dice in Ukraine. Unfortunately, he made two huge miscalculations, based apparently in part on faulty intelligence: A) he thought there was a good chance that Ukraine would capitulate and the invading Russian military column would roll into Kyiv without encountering serious resistance, allowing Russia to present a fait accompli to the West; and B) he thought Washington would not risk escalation and a global crisis over a nation 5,000 miles away where no U.S. vital interest was threatened.

Disastrously wrong on both counts.

Now, with the off-ramps blocked, a full-blown proxy war underway, and all sides to the conflict in a position where for different reasons they can't afford to "lose," the dynamic and logic of escalation have taken hold. The introduction of HIMARS is the latest step up that ladder. Moscow will soon be faced with a fateful decision on whether to see the American bid and raise it...or attempt to consolidate the battlefield gains that have been made at great cost and dig in for the long haul.

There's a lot riding on that decision...for both them and us.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,080
37,496
1
I don't think Putin is unhinged.

He and his government made the entirely rational and unsurprising assessment that Russia had a vital national interest at stake in Ukraine...and this vital interest extended to not allowing Washington and NATO to establish a bridgehead in Ukraine...as Washington and NATO seemingly intended to do. In fact, the American government took an analogous view toward an entire hemisphere back 200 years ago.

That said, I do think Putin is angry and resentful, which likely influenced his decision to roll the dice in Ukraine. Unfortunately, he made two huge miscalculations, based apparently in part on faulty intelligence: A) he thought there was a good chance that Ukraine would capitulate and the invading Russian military column would roll into Kyiv without encountering serious resistance, allowing Russia to present a fait accompli to the West; and B) he thought Washington would not risk escalation and a global crisis over a nation 5,000 miles away where no U.S. vital interest was threatened.

Disastrously wrong on both counts.

Now, with the off-ramps blocked, a full-blown proxy war underway, and all sides to the conflict in a position where for different reasons they can't afford to "lose," the dynamic and logic of escalation have taken hold. The introduction of HIMARS is the latest step up that ladder. Moscow will soon be faced with a fateful decision on whether to see the American bid and raise it...or attempt to consolidate the battlefield gains that have been made at great cost and dig in for the long haul.

There's a lot riding on that decision...for both them and us.
Once Russia takes Odesa the rest of Ukraine is landlocked and screwed royally.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,756
8,886
1
Once Russia takes Odesa the rest of Ukraine is landlocked and screwed royally.

Not looking good for Europe when that happens. Makes them completely subservient to Russia.

You'd think Europe would care more than the USA, but then they would not be Europeans, and we would not be the world's police force. History has a way of repeating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,080
37,496
1
Not looking good for Europe when that happens. Makes them completely subservient to Russia.

You'd think Europe would care more than the USA, but then they would not be Europeans, and we would not be the world's police force. History has a way of repeating.
Yep!

Russia is bonding with China and India. China is taking control of banks in Africa and South America.

The U.S. is focused on supporting Europe so they'll remain our friends. We're aldo focused on the new liberal world order. Then one of these days we're going to wake up and wonder WTF happened to us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,756
8,886
1
Yep!

Russia is bonding with China and India. China is taking control of banks in Africa and South America.

The U.S. is focused on supporting Europe so they'll remain our friends. We're aldo focused on the new liberal world order. Then one of these days we're going to wake up and wonder WTF happened to us.

The Party of Stupidity took over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,874
10,317
1
The Party of Stupidity took over.

Stupidity is a very charitable interpretation on your part, Knight.

A more accurate description might be Party of Corruption, Lies, and Moral Disease. AKA: the Dem-Media Party.

Meanwhile, a couple more tidbits linked below to brighten your day. The first speaks to the fact that the sick and twisted rulers of Brave New Amerika care more about Ukrainians than Americans.

In the second, Tulsi Gabbard asks what you should call leaders who surrender the sovereignty and interests of their own country to that of another? I'll take "Traitors" for $800, Alex.


 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,585
11,369
1
In the second, Tulsi Gabbard asks what you should call leaders who surrender the sovereignty and interests of their own country to that of another? I'll take "Traitors" for $800, Alex.
Unless those leaders are Ukrainians yielding their sovereignty to Russia. Totally different rules apply then.

Consistency………
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,874
10,317
1
Unless those leaders are Ukrainians yielding their sovereignty to Russia. Totally different rules apply then.

Consistency………

Point taken, Ski.

Ukrainian leaders must put the interests of their own country first. No argument there, and I hold nothing against them for doing that. My point is that American leaders should do the same...but aren't.

My case is not against the President of Ukraine but rather against the senile Dem-Media front-man in Washington...and those pulling his strings. I flat out don't believe any of these people care about the best interests of America or Americans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,585
11,369
1
Point taken, Ski.

Ukrainian leaders must put the interests of their own country first. No argument there, and I hold nothing against them for doing that. My point is that American leaders should do the same...but aren't.

My case is not against the President of Ukraine but rather against the senile Dem-Media front-man in Washington...and those pulling his strings. I flat out don't believe any of these people care about the best interests of America or Americans.

Jerry, I think our views are more similar than different. The big difference is whether the defense of Ukraine is in America's interest or not. One thing that makes the calculus difficult is that you never really know what disasters a certain action taken may have prevented. If Europe had stood up to Hitler and prevented him from annexing the Sudetenland thereby nipping his expansionism in the bud, would the world have known that it prevented 27,000,000 Russian deaths and 6,000,000 Jewish deaths amongst millions of others? No, but we know from not doing it that we might have. It is very difficult to know if you got it right even after the fact.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,291
28,003
1
An altered state
So the guy who said more than once that my solution was to "give Ukraine" to Russia rebukes me for engaging in hyperbole. Oooohkay then.

My smart-aleck line about conquering Europe was exaggeration for effect. Nobody, not even you, believes such a thing could ever be in the cards. But still, you continue with the dark warnings about Moscow taking over the Baltics and reconstituting Mother Russia, etc. What is "Mother Russia"? Where is the evidence for any of these claims? How can you keep saying this after the dismal performance of the Russian military these past four months? They couldn't even make it 100 miles to friggin' Kyiv so how were they ever going to roll through the Baltics and take on all of NATO?

Also, your statement that I thought Russia would conquer Ukraine "fairly easily" is fiction. Just the opposite: before the invasion I said the number of troops that Moscow had assembled near the Ukrainian border was not remotely large enough to take Kyiv or occupy Ukraine. I said Russia's most realistic objective would be the creation of a land bridge between Crimea and the Donbas. Check the record. I'd say my assessment aged pretty well.

Meanwhile, there's your analogy earlier in the thread between Putin and Hitler...and between the situation in Ukraine in 2022 and the situation in Europe in 1939. As though Russia represents a similar threat to the world today as Nazi Germany did back then. As though not stopping Russia in Ukraine is equivalent to not stopping Germany when it took over Czechoslovakia or the Sudetenland in the lead-up to World War II. Spin, all this talk of Hitler and Mother Russia and the rest is not only hyperbolic but also delusional, in my always humble opinion.

This train wreck with its many disastrous ripple effects didn't have to happen. But it did, and now we're up to our necks in it...as is Ukraine. Again, I think my predictions and warnings stated in our long-running debate here have been vindicated so far. But if in the end, Russia is defeated and crippled with Putin's hold on power weakened or broken, I'll be the first to concede that you at least got that part right. The question will be whether it was at a price worth paying, and I'm pretty sure the answer will be: no.
Not one person on the planet ever said Putin would take all of Europe. But there is strong evidence your plan would have resulted in Putin controlling all of Ukraine. You wanted the Donbas to have some ‘special’ sovereignty apart from Ukraine. Well, Putin had thousands of troops in that region since 2014 and would never have removed them. Plus he has a ton of stooges in various governmental positions there. Any special status would have mean full puppetry by Putinstan.

You also said that Ukraine should have neutral status. That means we could not have supplied them substantial weapons for a strong military. In fact, Putin said often they should not have a military exceeding 60-70,000. It wouldn’t have taken too many years for him to expand his aggressions into Ukraine.

How do we know that? Simple. Because it is his history of invading neighbors. His history of taking advantage of weakness. And his stated desire to restore Mother Russia. He has even said that Russia and Ukraine are one and the same, that Ukraine always was and always will be part of Russia. He used the history of the Russian Orthodox Church as justification and has closely aligned himself the church leader in that regard. See his speech of July 2021. And other speeches.

Of course the similarities between Hitler and Putin are not exact. Same inequalities between Germany 1930s and Russia of the current crisis. Putin is not about to attempt to conquer all of Europe. But if he got all of Ukraine it would make Russia a much more powerful adversary. It would be a much larger economic power with massive agricultural exports, a large industrial base, several key ports, a ship building base for its navy, massive nat gas reserves, and more.

You repeatly state the US has no security interests in Ukraine, which is extremely misinformed. The Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria are all petrified of Putin. A destabilized Eastern Europe is really bad. Worse, Putinstan is constantly trying to project power across the globe. They work closely with radical regimes like Syria and Iran that support global terrorism. He works closely supporting rogue regimes like Cuba and Venezuela, And having a powerful Russia teaming up with China is kinda bad too.

The western world is much better off with a weakened Russia and Putin put in a cage. Appeasing him while he grows in power and influence is certainly against the interests of the US. Eastern Ukraine is indeed a train wreck. But that train needed derailed somewhere whether it be the Donbas or western Ukraine. Or where ever the world finally decided to make a stand.
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,874
10,317
1
Jerry, I think our views are more similar than different. The big difference is whether the defense of Ukraine is in America's interest or not. One thing that makes the calculus difficult is that you never really know what disasters a certain action taken may have prevented. If Europe had stood up to Hitler and prevented him from annexing the Sudetenland thereby nipping his expansionism in the bud, would the world have known that it prevented 27,000,000 Russian deaths and 6,000,000 Jewish deaths amongst millions of others? No, but we know from not doing it that we might have. It is very difficult to know if you got it right even after the fact.

Thanks, Ski. No question, Ukraine aside, in the overall scheme of things, we agree on a lot more than not.

Re Ukraine, I think you put your finger on it, and this applies to my long-running debate with Spin on the topic as well: we have an honest (and honorable) difference of opinion on the matter of our country's national interests. I am of the strong conviction that a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine is not in those interests.

I say this as someone who in a former life held the hardest of hard-line views on the subject of the Soviet Union and Communism...in contrast with today's Dem-Mediacrats who were once Soviet appeasers but for some strange reason -- I think I know why -- have decades later turned into fanatical scourges of Russia.

For me, the equation completely changed with the downfall of the Soviet empire and birth of a successor state, namely Russia, having little resemblance with the Soviets in terms of ideology or power. There comes a time to let the past go...or risk the tragedy of repeating it unnecessarily.

Re the Road Not Taken, yup, you can never know or prove whether a different course might have prevented a disaster. That said, there were people who predicted this particular disaster in Ukraine -- a certain University of Chicago scholar, for example, whose name will go unmentioned here for fear of making Spin's head explode... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,874
10,317
1
Not one person on the planet ever said Putin would take all of Europe. But there is strong evidence your plan would have resulted in Putin controlling all of Ukraine. You wanted the Donbas to have some ‘special’ sovereignty apart from Ukraine. Well, Putin had thousands of troops in that region since 2014 and would never have removed them. Plus he has a ton of stooges in various governmental positions there. Any special status would have mean full puppetry by Putinstan.

You also said that Ukraine should have neutral status. That means we could not have supplied them substantial weapons for a strong military. In fact, Putin said often they should not have a military exceeding 60-70,000. It wouldn’t have taken too many years for him to expand his aggressions into Ukraine.

How do we know that? Simple. Because it is his history of invading neighbors. His history of taking advantage of weakness. And his stated desire to restore Mother Russia. He has even said that Russia and Ukraine are one and the same, that Ukraine always was and always will be part of Russia. He used the history of the Russian Orthodox Church as justification and has closely aligned himself the church leader in that regard. See his speech of July 2021. And other speeches.

Of course the similarities between Hitler and Putin are not exact. Same inequalities between Germany 1930s and Russia of the current crisis. Putin is not about to attempt to conquer all of Europe. But if he got all of Ukraine it would make Russia a much more powerful adversary. It would be a much larger economic power with massive agricultural exports, a large industrial base, several key ports, a ship building base for its navy, massive nat gas reserves, and more.

You repeatly state the US has no security interests in Ukraine, which is extremely misinformed. The Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria are all petrified of Putin. A destabilized Eastern Europe is really bad. Worse, Putinstan is constantly trying to project power across the globe. They work closely with radical regimes like Syria and Iran that support global terrorism. He works closely supporting rogue regimes like Cuba and Venezuela, And having a powerful Russia teaming up with China is kinda bad too.

The western world is much better off with a weakened Russia and Putin put in a cage. Appeasing him while he grows in power and influence is certainly against the interests of the US. Eastern Ukraine is indeed a train wreck. But that train needed derailed somewhere whether it be the Donbas or western Ukraine. Or where ever the world finally decided to make a stand.

Spin, we're just looking at this whole thing in a different way...different starting points...different premises...different understanding of what happened and why.

Still, I've enjoyed the debate. Gives me something to do in retirement. If I weren't spending my days setting you straight on world affairs, I'd just be harassing my wife and sending tedious e-mails to my kids with musings on life. Actually I find time for that anyway... ;)
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,291
28,003
1
An altered state
Spin, we're just looking at this whole thing in a different way...different starting points...different premises...different understanding of what happened and why.

Still, I've enjoyed the debate. Gives me something to do in retirement. If I weren't spending my days setting you straight on world affairs, I'd just be harassing my wife and sending tedious e-mails to my kids with musings on life. Actually I find time for that anyway... ;)
Well, hopefully you are emailing your kids copies of my posts so that they are getting a far more accurate reading of global affairs!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Jerry and Ski