ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

FgPCpVpWAAcOyg1
 
Why is that the question? I don't care what Ukraine wants. The US should be making decisions based on US interests, not Ukraine's.

It is in the US interests to NOT have Russia steamrolling over Eastern Europe.
And NOT interfere in US elections
And NOT gain footholds in the Middle East.

Ukraine destroying their army is fully aligned with our interests.
 
With the volume of civilian casualties, I think Ukraine's goals become greater.

I think it has much more to do with Russia's inability to resupply their forces.
They are running out of tanks, artillery, drones, etc.

And they have nowhere near the logistical and battlefield reconnaissance levels the Ukrainians have with NATO resources. Ukraine will completely eliminate Russia's land/bridge access to Crimea, and when that happens, Russia will completely lose that territory.

Whether Russia uses a dirty bomb or nukes is up to them, but if that happens, the West is opening up an entirely new level of hurt for them.

The world now realizes that when John McCain said "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country. It’s kleptocracy, it’s corruption", he was 100% right.

It's state-run mafia, and the antithesis to democracy and freedom. And when that state-run mafia becomes too powerful, it threatens freedom around the globe. The world will need to figure out how to deal with China, next, because they're trending in this same direction.
 
I feel this is deliberately coy/obtuse.

Ukraine‘s war aims are limited by what NATO (read: The US) will support them doing.
e.g. They don’t march into Crimea if it means we quit giving them arms.

I don’t think any other appreciation of the situation is grounded in reality.

Are we keeping them in the dark about what would make the U.S. drop support, or have we told them we’ll back them all the way to the 1991 border?
Do Americans deserve to know what’s on the check the White House is writing Ukraine, because we don’t have a treaty to defend them that was adopted by our Senate.
How is it in the US interests to allow Russia to maintain hold of an area of land that allows them to do this all over again, and threaten Ukraine's port access to the Black Sea? And threaten worldwide grain supplies?

A: It is not.
 

How do countries joining NATO threaten Russia? Just in simple terms. Please explain.

Has any country expressed desire to attack or invade Russia? No.

It is much more likely that NATO membership will make it more difficult for Russia to meddle in their border country’s affairs and keep them under their influence. That is no threat. It is a delusional rationale that must be rejected by thinking people like yourself @hwk23
 
How do countries joining NATO threaten Russia? Just in simple terms. Please explain.

Has any country expressed desire to attack or invade Russia? No.

It is much more likely that NATO membership will make it more difficult for Russia to meddle in their border country’s affairs and keep them under their influence. That is no threat. It is a delusional rationale that must be rejected by thinking people like yourself @hwk23
Exactly this.

Russia’s aggression really gave us two options:

A) do nothing and we embolden all the thuggish countries (including China) to pursue territorial expansion without consequences and teaches them that nuclear saber rattling works, or
B) help Ukraine and protect the rights of free nations

The long term costs of option A are incredibly high. The short term cost of option B is absolutely worth the investment if we believe in the right to self determination.

Said another way, the only way to stop a school yard bully is to punch them in the face.
 
I think it has much more to do with Russia's inability to resupply their forces.
They are running out of tanks, artillery, drones, etc.

And they have nowhere near the logistical and battlefield reconnaissance levels the Ukrainians have with NATO resources. Ukraine will completely eliminate Russia's land/bridge access to Crimea, and when that happens, Russia will completely lose that territory.

Whether Russia uses a dirty bomb or nukes is up to them, but if that happens, the West is opening up an entirely new level of hurt for them.

The world now realizes that when John McCain said "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country. It’s kleptocracy, it’s corruption", he was 100% right.

It's state-run mafia, and the antithesis to democracy and freedom. And when that state-run mafia becomes too powerful, it threatens freedom around the globe. The world will need to figure out how to deal with China, next, because they're trending in this same direction.
At the risk of being naughty in this thread and stating something political, I miss the likes of McCain and his ilk, on both sides of the aisle.
 
Good article to read. The full ramifications of what Russia has done to itself have not come home yet.


Poland should annex Kaliningrad, you know, for “security purposes.” displace half the population that opposes annexation and hold sham referendums for joining Poland at the end of a gun barrel. You know, the Russian way. wink wink

/s
 
If Russia keeps Crimea, they will always have a pretext to invade Ukraine’s other territory. Land access and water access. Russia needs to be booted out of Crimea to end this open ended threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
I can agree with that…the question is what’s the US/NATO position on the subject. Hasn’t been stated to my knowledge.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kelsers
I can agree with that…the question is what’s the US/NATO position on the subject. Hasn’t been stated to my knowledge.
A better way to ask this may be: if putin came to zelensky today and said "crimea is now russia and we leave any January 2022 Ukrainian borders. Deal or not?". Will NATO disagree of zelensky accepted?
 
There has to be more than “we keep Crimea under Russia and we leave all other areas of Ukraine” Who controls access to vast amounts of natural gas and oil reserves in Baltic Sea. How is Ukraine guaranteed that Russia will not try to steal those reserves.
 
The same old tired schtick about nato expansion.
You keep harping on that point regardless of the fact the man running the show has said that's not the reason many times over now.
At this point, you're literally arguing w/ putin about putins motives.
That’s not even the main point of the video. The White House had every opportunity to avoid this war. He said they had multiple concerns.. Yet virtually no attempt was made.

There are multiple reasons, not just Nato. Primary is no US involvement.. especially after the coup of 2014 (this ties with no Nato) and the Donbas situation - thousands of civilians killed there since 2014.

Apparently Ukraine and Russia had an agreement in March for neutrality and an independent Donbas. That agreement would have been just fine. However Zelensky was convinced otherwise thru offers of more money and weapons, billions flowing into Ukraine. Ukraine has always been considered pretty corrupt and easily manipulated.

Bottom line, Russia will never allow the US to have primary influence in Ukraine uncontested. That’s why there needs to be an agreement. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea are not like any other former Soviet regions. The Baltics states have always hated Russians. Billions have flowed into Ukraine from the US since 2014.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT