I didn't see that in Miley's statement.He is right. When Russia is ready to stop the bloodshed and remove its armies from sovereign Ukrainian territory, UKR absolutely needs to cooperate.
I didn't see that in Miley's statement.He is right. When Russia is ready to stop the bloodshed and remove its armies from sovereign Ukrainian territory, UKR absolutely needs to cooperate.
At this point, I’d be fine with them even agreeing to not join NATO if Russia leaves all Ukrainian territory.Yep
What is there to "negotiate" otherwise?
Let Russia take huge swaths of Ukrainian territory, so they can just reload/rebuild and then attack again from a fortified front in another 5-10 years?
Ukraine doesn't want to kick the can down the road; they want their land back and assurances they won't be attacked again. Which means joining NATO.
Let’s try this as a hypothetical with you as President of the US.I didn't see that in Miley's statement.
Hmmm....Milley isn't a general from Mexico....he's the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the country that is the primary arms supplier and driver of NATO policy that supports Ukraine. Not really comparable...If a general from, say Mexico, told you it’s time to be done and to just let the Canadians keep Washington, Montana and Maine to “end the bloodshed” despite the fact you are currently winning all the battles, what is your call as commander in chief?
Let’s try this as a hypothetical with you as President of the US.
In this hypothetical, somehow Canada is a major military power and the US is much weaker but has powerful friends.
Let’s say Canada invaded and took over Washington, Oregon, Montana, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire.
Somehow, the outmatched but plucky American Army stops the initial invasion, saves NYC and Washington D.C. and - with help from weapons from its powerful allies - manages to take back Oregon, New Hampshire and Vermont in less than 10 months and is continuing to roll back the Canadians and inflict losses on them while you see the Canadian economy weaken and the globe turning against it.
If a general from, say Mexico, told you it’s time to be done and to just let the Canadians keep Washington, Montana and Maine to “end the bloodshed” despite the fact you are currently winning all the battles, what is your call as commander in chief?
It is comparable in my hypothetical. I said the US was weak and it’s allies were strong. In this hypothetical, Mexico is the chief power behind the support of the weak US.Hmmm....Milley isn't a general from Mexico....he's the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the country that is the primary arms supplier and driver of NATO policy that supports Ukraine. Not really comparable...
In your scenario I'd tell Mexico to go F themselves....Ukraine ain't doing that to the US.
Yes.In your scenario, is Mexico a superpower like the U.S. is currently?
from the article....Miley isn't a Russian "stooge".
Asked about prospects for diplomacy in Ukraine, Milley said the early refusal to negotiate in the first world war compounded human suffering and led to millions more casualties. “So when there is an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved: seize the moment,” Milley said.
Yes.
Interesting question.It is comparable in my hypothetical. I said the US was weak and it’s allies were strong. In this hypothetical, Mexico is the chief power behind the support of the weak US.
What is your call as Commander in Chief and president of the USA?
Ask Milley....he's the one who put it forward.How do you propose to negotiate with terrorists in Moscow?
Right, makes sense. But I presume since you are POTUS and a patriot, your first order of business would be to assess what your countrymen want and to work as hard as possible to regain ALL US territory.Interesting question.
In this scenario I'd have to figure out if losing Mexico's support could be overcome by other countries still providing military support.
Tough call....none of us know the true situation in regards to Ukraine's military. What's the status of their munitions supplies...could losing US support be overcome because current stocks are sufficient. A lot of unknowns...
My line in the sand if I'm Ukraine's leader is making it back to the pre-invasion border....nothing less is negotiable. I think Zelensky wants to get back to the pre-2014 border and that's where western support gets dicey.
Without a firm grip on Ukraine's current military status it's hard to give a definitive answer to your scenario.
Immediately, like, Sweden and Finland immediately?At this point, I’d be fine with them even agreeing to not join NATO if Russia leaves all Ukrainian territory.
Then wait for them to leave and immediately join NATO.
Just to dumb it down - are you arguing or otherwise disagreeing w/ Gen Milley?Let’s try this as a hypothetical with you as President of the US.
In this hypothetical, somehow Canada is a major military power and the US is much weaker but has powerful friends.
Let’s say Canada invaded and took over Washington, Oregon, Montana, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire.
Somehow, the outmatched but plucky American Army stops the initial invasion, saves NYC and Washington D.C. and - with help from weapons from its powerful allies - manages to take back Oregon, New Hampshire and Vermont in less than 10 months and is continuing to roll back the Canadians and inflict losses on them while you see the Canadian economy weaken and the globe turning against it.
If a general from, say Mexico, told you it’s time to be done and to just let the Canadians keep Washington, Montana and Maine to “end the bloodshed” despite the fact you are currently winning all the battles, what is your call as commander in chief?
I think Zelensky's leadership has been outstanding...big fan.Right, makes sense. But I presume since you are POTUS and a patriot, your first order of business would be to assess what your countrymen want and to work as hard as possible to regain ALL US territory.
Zelensky has been and should keep doing exactly that, IMO.
I think it should be. At the end of the day it’s a pretty black and white subject: should nations respect other nations’ sovereign territory? Russia violated that norm of the rules-based global order in 2014 and emboldened by lack of pushback, did again in 2021. Now they need to finally be held accountable.I think Zelensky's leadership has been outstanding...big fan.
I think Ukrainian's want to make it back to the pre-2014 border....understandable.
Have no problem with them having that position...if I was a Ukrainian I'd be right there with them.
The question is is it in US/NATO's interest to continue unconditional support for them to make it to that objective? I've always thought there is a clock on that support....might make it till next summer but if it keeps grinding on the US/NATO is gonna want a negotiated settlement.
Biggest takeaway for me is Milley's comment that Ukraine has suffered comparable casualties....certainly wouldn't have gathered that from the stuff posted in this thread.
Pre-2014 border may be the end game in this war.
Agree....in a perfect world Ukraine takes back all it's territory....pre-2014 included.I think it should be. At the end of the day it’s a pretty black and white subject: should nations respect other nations’ sovereign territory? Russia violated that norm of the rules-based global order in 2014 and emboldened by lack of pushback, did again in 2021. Now they need to finally be held accountable.
Totally agree...however it's awfully easy for me to sit here as an American in my nice warm house and cheer our government to continue sending weapons as Ukranians continue to die and their cities continue to be destroyed, farms mined, etc.I think it should be. At the end of the day it’s a pretty black and white subject: should nations respect other nations’ sovereign territory? Russia violated that norm of the rules-based global order in 2014 and emboldened by lack of pushback, did again in 2021. Now they need to finally be held accountable.
Well in this case it appears that the folks sitting warm and cozy are the ones most vociferously calling for negotiations and an end to hostilities while those paying in blood and discomfort want to keep the fight going.Totally agree...however it's awfully easy for me to sit here as an American in my nice warm house and cheer our government to continue sending weapons as Ukranians continue to die and their cities continue to be destroyed, farms mined, etc.
If that were happening around me, I might change my tune. I hope to never find out for real how I would feel.
If Nebraska invaded the first line of counties in Western Iowa, and Eastern Iowa/des Moines had a chance to save the rest of the state by telling Nebraska to keep western iowa...Nebraska would be bigger, and both states would have a higher IQ.
Yep, that's where I'm at.Well in this case it appears that the folks sitting warm and cozy are the ones most vociferously calling for negotiations and an end to hostilities while those paying in blood and discomfort want to keep the fight going.
I say you go until those willing to fight decide it’s not worth it.
In an instant 🙂.Yep, that's where I'm at.
You'd still jump at the chance to offload western Iowa though wouldn't you...
No good deed goes unpunished. Though getting out and helping saved a couple of lives.
Small government fascists are the worstIn an instant 🙂.
But that would ACTUALLY be clearing fascists out of Iowa.
Hypotheticals or not, the US is not fighting in this war, therefore we have no true objective to gain except trying to keep Kyiv and Ukraine from falling in total. So at some point when there's a stalemate, do ask the Ukranians why they're not fighting so hard to take everything back or do we make an assessment based on where things are and say let's just stop?Let’s try this as a hypothetical with you as President of the US.
In this hypothetical, somehow Canada is a major military power and the US is much weaker but has powerful friends.
Let’s say Canada invaded and took over Washington, Oregon, Montana, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire.
Somehow, the outmatched but plucky American Army stops the initial invasion, saves NYC and Washington D.C. and - with help from weapons from its powerful allies - manages to take back Oregon, New Hampshire and Vermont in less than 10 months and is continuing to roll back the Canadians and inflict losses on them while you see the Canadian economy weaken and the globe turning against it.
If a general from, say Mexico, told you it’s time to be done and to just let the Canadians keep Washington, Montana and Maine to “end the bloodshed” despite the fact you are currently winning all the battles, what is your call as commander in chief?
We have tremendous objectives to gain: support for global democracy; strengthening the rules-based global order and reaffirming the sacrosanct right of sovereign nations to exist; expanding NATO which assists in the previous two points and curbing the power of authoritarian Russia.Hypotheticals or not, the US is not fighting in this war, therefore we have no true objective to gain except trying to keep Kyiv and Ukraine from falling in total. So at some point when there's a stalemate, do ask the Ukranians why they're not fighting so hard to take everything back or do we make an assessment based on where things are and say let's just stop?
Settle down Beavis, I’d still fight for Counciltucky and SUX even if they are inbred deplorables. They are OUR inbred deplorables. 🙂Small government fascists are the worst
Settle down Beavis, I’d still fight for Counciltucky and SUX even if they are inbred deplorables. They are OUR inbred deplorables. 🙂