|
Post by soulflower on Mar 9, 2024 14:19:33 GMT -5
Macron: West may need to save Ukraine if Russia makes breakthroughMacron may be writing checks that he can't or France is unwilling to really cash but his words carry more weight than Dmitri Medvedev's chest-beating. Also, indirectly, it sounds like Macron is saying the "red line" is Ukraine's Dnipro river. Which may be as far west as Russia can realistically expand into Ukraine. I don't think they have the manpower to take Kyiv or Odessa in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 9, 2024 14:27:22 GMT -5
Macron: West may need to save Ukraine if Russia makes breakthroughMacron may be writing checks that he can't or France is unwilling to really cash but his words carry more weight than Dmitri Medvedev's chest-beating. Also, indirectly, it sounds like Macron is saying the "red line" is Ukraine's Dnipro river. Which may be as far west as Russia can realistically expand into Ukraine. I don't think they have the manpower to take Kyiv or Odessa in the near future. Macron is very courageous with everyone else's troops.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 9, 2024 14:32:47 GMT -5
Macron: West may need to save Ukraine if Russia makes breakthroughMacron may be writing checks that he can't or France is unwilling to really cash but his words carry more weight than Dmitri Medvedev's chest-beating. Also, indirectly, it sounds like Macron is saying the "red line" is Ukraine's Dnipro river. Which may be as far west as Russia can realistically expand into Ukraine. I don't think they have the manpower to take Kyiv or Odessa in the near future. Macron is very courageous with everyone else's troops. He apparently got a ton pf pushback in France. Hence why I said he's writing checks he might not be able to cash. There may be some countries (Poland maybe?) that might send troops to try to stop Russia from advancing if necessary. Not sure if it will be France though.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 9, 2024 14:55:09 GMT -5
Macron is very courageous with everyone else's troops. He apparently got a ton pf pushback in France. Hence why I said he's writing checks he might not be able to cash. There may be some countries (Poland maybe?) that might send troops to try to stop Russia from advancing if necessary. Not sure if it will be France though. I think the entry of ground troops from any NATO nation, regardless of whether NATO collectively supports that deployment or not, will be interpreted by Russian as an act of war, exposing France, properly within the law of war, to direct counterattack. Ukraine is not a NATO nation and pretending that it is by deploying combat force into the theater would constitute an offensive action, as opposed to NATO's long-professed defensive alliance. Indeed, Macron's foolishness would prove Putin correct; NATO is, in fact, a threat. I think the move now is to seek a 90 day cease fire while the parties negotiate a peace, recognizing that Ukraine is going to lose territory, however fair or unfair the world perceives that condition. In exchange for that loss, Ukraine becomes a formal "partner State" (admittedly, a concocted status) with the alliance and, as such, formally comes under NATO protection against further aggression. The same would apply to Poland. This is not a NATO fight, at this point.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Mar 9, 2024 17:14:22 GMT -5
He apparently got a ton pf pushback in France. Hence why I said he's writing checks he might not be able to cash. There may be some countries (Poland maybe?) that might send troops to try to stop Russia from advancing if necessary. Not sure if it will be France though. I think the entry of ground troops from any NATO nation, regardless of whether NATO collectively supports that deployment or not, will be interpreted by Russian as an act of war, exposing France, properly within the law of war, to direct counterattack. Ukraine is not a NATO nation and pretending that it is by deploying combat force into the theater would constitute an offensive action, as opposed to NATO's long-professed defensive alliance. Indeed, Macron's foolishness would prove Putin correct; NATO is, in fact, a threat. I think the move now is to seek a 90 day cease fire while the parties negotiate a peace, recognizing that Ukraine is going to lose territory, however fair or unfair the world perceives that condition. In exchange for that loss, Ukraine becomes a formal "partner State" (admittedly, a concocted status) with the alliance and, as such, formally comes under NATO protection against further aggression. The same would apply to Poland. This is not a NATO fight, at this point. It is easy to be generous with other peoples Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 19, 2024 13:13:45 GMT -5
Insane. French troops become targets as soon as they enter Ukraine.
Not sure what Macron is trying to prove.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 19, 2024 15:23:58 GMT -5
This is what happens when U.S. leadership is absent and you can thank Mike Johnson for that.
France won't be the only country. I could see Poland and the Baltic states sending troops as well. Macron has been talking about keeping French troops in a support role but it is still very risky.
I would just urge Macron, Biden, and others to think about what happens when, inevitably, a number of French troops get killed or injured. Things could very quickly escalate.
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy Jazz on Mar 19, 2024 16:27:30 GMT -5
Crimean War II sounds like a really bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 19, 2024 17:37:57 GMT -5
This is what happens when U.S. leadership is absent and you can thank Mike Johnson for that. France won't be the only country. I could see Poland and the Baltic states sending troops as well. Macron has been talking about keeping French troops in a support role but it is still very risky. I would just urge Macron, Biden, and others to think about what happens when, inevitably, a number of French troops get killed or injured. Things could very quickly escalate. There is no such thing as a "support role" in a war in which Ukraine's national survival is at risk. Russia can, and will, strike at any part of Ukraine if they see that area as a threat. Unless NATO goes to war as NATO, it goes as individual nations, with arguably the most powerful NATO nation watching from the sidelines. It is a foolish action.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 19, 2024 17:53:36 GMT -5
I think the entry of ground troops from any NATO nation, regardless of whether NATO collectively supports that deployment or not, will be interpreted by Russian as an act of war, exposing France, properly within the law of war, to direct counterattack. Ukraine is not a NATO nation and pretending that it is by deploying combat force into the theater would constitute an offensive action, as opposed to NATO's long-professed defensive alliance. Indeed, Macron's foolishness would prove Putin correct; NATO is, in fact, a threat. I think the move now is to seek a 90 day cease fire while the parties negotiate a peace, recognizing that Ukraine is going to lose territory, however fair or unfair the world perceives that condition. In exchange for that loss, Ukraine becomes a formal "partner State" (admittedly, a concocted status) with the alliance and, as such, formally comes under NATO protection against further aggression. The same would apply to Poland. This is not a NATO fight, at this point. It is easy to be generous with other peoples Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rocketwolf, unless there is a truly remarkable negotiator out there, the Norteastern and Eastern part of Ukraine is lost. Now comes the prevention of more losses. A piecemeal intervention by parts of NATO will likely result in losses of capabilities with little recapture of territory. One solution might be the ceding of currently held territory to Russia and the creation of a Ukranian non-miltarized buffer zone in the remaining Ukranian area east of the Dneiper. Western Ukraine remains an independent nation, not a part of NATO, but under its protection. IMO, this attack on Ukraine would not have happened had all NATO nations maintained their security investments to reasonable standards, or even had they invested as they initially agreed to under Obama, instead of ignoring him and their agreement. Even now, too many NATO States have failed to meet this minimum standard and it is important to remember that an increased budget commitment today will not be seen in the field for 2 -3 years.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 19, 2024 18:23:58 GMT -5
This is what happens when U.S. leadership is absent and you can thank Mike Johnson for that. France won't be the only country. I could see Poland and the Baltic states sending troops as well. Macron has been talking about keeping French troops in a support role but it is still very risky. I would just urge Macron, Biden, and others to think about what happens when, inevitably, a number of French troops get killed or injured. Things could very quickly escalate. There is no such thing as a "support role" in a war in which Ukraine's national survival is at risk. Russia can, and will, strike at any part of Ukraine if they see that area as a threat. Unless NATO goes to war as NATO, it goes as individual nations, with arguably the most powerful NATO nation watching from the sidelines. It is a foolish action. That’s not really true. French troops could be there in a logistics or training capacity in the western part of the country - essentially a quarter master role which frees up Ukrainian troops for other duties. That’s the ‘safest’ option. But overall, I agree with you. There are two basic risks to this. One is an errant strike that kills or wounds a substantial number of French troops. The other is a deliberate strike. Either scenario is dangerous. If France responds, you’re now in a tit for tat which is going to very quickly get out of hand and lead to a wider war. The other scenario is also arguably dangerous. France either does nothing or, after some type of escalating actions, France and/or NATO backs down. Now NATO has lost its credibility, Putin has a ‘huge’ victory and he might draw the wrong lessons from that ‘triumph’. So, as I was saying, it’s one thing for Macron to do some chest thumping but he, and NATO, should really think this through before putting troops in the country.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 19, 2024 18:35:02 GMT -5
It is easy to be generous with other peoples Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rocketwolf, unless there is a truly remarkable negotiator out there, the Norteastern and Eastern part of Ukraine is lost. Now comes the prevention of more losses. A piecemeal intervention by parts of NATO will likely result in losses of capabilities with little recapture of territory. One solution might be the ceding of currently held territory to Russia and the creation of a Ukranian non-miltarized buffer zone in the remaining Ukranian area east of the Dneiper. Western Ukraine remains an independent nation, not a part of NATO, but under its protection. Or, we just give them the weapons they say they need. There’s an idea If I am a Ukrainian, I‘be already given up enough territory so a ‘buffer’ zone is just an invitation for Putin to roam the countryside sowing mischief in preparation for the next invasion. Finally, if I am Ukrainian, it is NATO or bust. We gave Ukraine security assurances in exchange for them surrendering the Soviet nuclear weapons on their territory and those assurances weren’t worth the paper they were written on. And yes, Russia also signed the Budapest memorandum which recognized Ukraine’s borders including Crimea. We should give Ukrainians the weapons they need and get out of their way. They have actually had an incredible amount of success against the Russian invaders, and even in this current very dire situation, look at what they’re doing to Russia’s oil refining capability. They’ve driven the Russian fleet out of the western black sea, and Putin now has an open rebellion on his hands in the south of his country that is now on is now on its eighth day. Contrary to popular belief, this is not going well for Putin
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 19, 2024 19:03:07 GMT -5
If you had told me in March 2022 that Russia’s economy would overcome western sanctions and be growing faster than Germany’s economy after two years of war, I would’ve said: “No way!”
But that’s what is happening evidently.
Russia has been resilient and in some ways and Putin has grown stronger and tightened his grip on power over the course of this war.
So at this point, it looks like Russia is better positioned to indefinitely wage a war of attrition in Ukraine than Ukraine and her western allies. We weren’t prepared for an open ended conflict. We still haven’t gotten our defense manufacturing on a war footing so they can’t keep up with the artillery demands of this war.
I think Macron is trying to deter Putin from capturing Odessa and maybe attacking Moldova from there. That’s my guess on what this is about. But I’d rather see this conflict frozen after some level of peace talks and de-escalation than to see NATO countries escalate their involvement…
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Mar 19, 2024 19:25:23 GMT -5
When a war breaks out all parties write checks they can't honor. It's called basic survival. It's why if we have the small capacity to underwrite the Ukrainians we need to do it. We will be paying huge if we don't. Otherwise Western Europe will become a pleasant memory under a pile of rubble. This is that important. Some wars are justified. This is the first one in my lifetime that's a noble war. We are far too used to the other kind
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 19, 2024 19:49:34 GMT -5
Russia has been resilient and in some ways and Putin has grown stronger and tightened his grip on power over the course of this war. So at this point, it looks like Russia is better positioned to indefinitely wage a war of attrition in Ukraine than Ukraine and her western allies. We weren’t prepared for an open ended conflict. We still haven’t gotten our defense manufacturing on a war footing so they can’t keep up with the artillery demands of this war. That's simply not true. Again, Russia's economy is about $1.7 trillion GDP. Germany's is $4 trillion GDP. The Western allies economies combined add up to about $60 trillion. In other words, 30 times the economy of Russia. It is a question of political will. As for Russia's economy, it is being propped up by increased military spending but the Russian economy is not in good shape. And what we're seeing now is a strategic campaign by Ukraine to destroy Russia's oil refining infrastructure and that has implications both for Russia's ability to supply it's military vehicles at the front but it also is going to have an impact on Russia's crucial source of cash - oil revenue. www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/03/01/russia-declares-a-six-month-moratorium-on-gasoline-exports_6576796_4.htmlAs for artillery shells, one of the reasons that United States' efforts to ramp up production of artillery shells has fallen short is Speaker Mike Johnson's refusal to let the supplemental appropriations bill onto the House Floor. So, again, it is a question of political will. As for whether or not Putin is 'stronger' now than he was in January 2022, again, that is a dubious assessment. 1) His military has been decimated 2) The Ruble has crashed 3) He's faced one mutiny 4) He's faced street protests over the killing of Nalvany 5) The rebellion is Kursk is now 7 days old. It is, by the way, the second incursion into Kursk by Russian insurgents into southern Russia. 6) Plus the various strikes against Russian air bases, train tunnels, and oil infrastructure deep in Russia Those six bullet points are not the sign of a regime that has strengthened its hold on power. Quite the opposite
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 19, 2024 20:01:00 GMT -5
Rocketwolf, unless there is a truly remarkable negotiator out there, the Norteastern and Eastern part of Ukraine is lost. Now comes the prevention of more losses. A piecemeal intervention by parts of NATO will likely result in losses of capabilities with little recapture of territory. One solution might be the ceding of currently held territory to Russia and the creation of a Ukranian non-miltarized buffer zone in the remaining Ukranian area east of the Dneiper. Western Ukraine remains an independent nation, not a part of NATO, but under its protection. Or, we just give them the weapons they say they need. There’s an idea If I am a Ukrainian, I‘be already given up enough territory so a ‘buffer’ zone is just an invitation for Putin to roam the countryside sowing mischief in preparation for the next invasion. Finally, if I am Ukrainian, it is NATO or bust. We gave Ukraine security assurances in exchange for them surrendering the Soviet nuclear weapons on their territory and those assurances weren’t worth the paper they were written on. And yes, Russia also signed the Budapest memorandum which recognized Ukraine’s borders including Crimea. We should give Ukrainians the weapons they need and get out of their way. They have actually had an incredible amount of success against the Russian invaders, and even in this current very dire situation, look at what they’re doing to Russia’s oil refining capability. They’ve driven the Russian fleet out of the western black sea, and Putin now has an open rebellion on his hands in the south of his country that is now on is now on its eighth day. Contrary to popular belief, this is not going well for Putin Russia's economy isn't doing all that badly, despite western sanctions. The near closure of the Suez has greatly enhanced Russia's role in moving goods to the west. And while the Russian people are paying a price, that's not a significant concern to Putin. The only thing the rebellion is doing is putting additional Russian civilians at risk. Russia's naval losses are a surprise to everyone and Russia's military has been found to be generally inept. The difference is, those losses are sustainable in a country where human life is second to the State. The Ukranians gave done well, and their courage is manifest, but more artillery isn't going to chase Putin out. Russia's industrial complex is nearly fully spun up and we're still making consumabls.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 19, 2024 20:10:02 GMT -5
When a war breaks out all parties write checks they can't honor. It's called basic survival. It's why if we have the small capacity to underwrite the Ukrainians we need to do it. We will be paying huge if we don't. Otherwise Western Europe will become a pleasant memory under a pile of rubble. This is that important. Some wars are justified. This is the first one in my lifetime that's a noble war. We are far too used to the other kind How so? What's the worst that will happen if Ukraine fails to defeat Russia?
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 19, 2024 20:15:33 GMT -5
Or, we just give them the weapons they say they need. There’s an idea If I am a Ukrainian, I‘be already given up enough territory so a ‘buffer’ zone is just an invitation for Putin to roam the countryside sowing mischief in preparation for the next invasion. Finally, if I am Ukrainian, it is NATO or bust. We gave Ukraine security assurances in exchange for them surrendering the Soviet nuclear weapons on their territory and those assurances weren’t worth the paper they were written on. And yes, Russia also signed the Budapest memorandum which recognized Ukraine’s borders including Crimea. We should give Ukrainians the weapons they need and get out of their way. They have actually had an incredible amount of success against the Russian invaders, and even in this current very dire situation, look at what they’re doing to Russia’s oil refining capability. They’ve driven the Russian fleet out of the western black sea, and Putin now has an open rebellion on his hands in the south of his country that is now on is now on its eighth day. Contrary to popular belief, this is not going well for Putin Russia's economy isn't doing all that badly, despite western sanctions. The near closure of the Suez has greatly enhanced Russia's role in moving goods to the west. And while the Russian people are paying a price, that's not a significant concern to Putin. The only thing the rebellion is doing is putting additional Russian civilians at risk. Russia's naval losses are a surprise to everyone and Russia's military has been found to be generally inept. The difference is, those losses are sustainable in a country where human life is second to the State. The Ukranians gave done well, and their courage is manifest, but more artillery isn't going to chase Putin out. Russia's industrial complex is nearly fully spun up and we're still making consumabls. Russia didn't have a great navy before this war and I assume it's even worse now. That's one of the main reasons I see it as unlikely that Russia would start a fight with a NATO member country. Nuclear threats are all Russia has because they can't take on NATO in a conventional war. For the most part, we agree. Russia can militarily occupy Ukraine for the forseeable future and there's not much that we can do to fundamentally improve the circumstances for Ukraine. Best case at this point is a frozen conflict when the opportunity presents itself.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Mar 19, 2024 21:00:50 GMT -5
It is easy to be generous with other peoples Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rocketwolf, unless there is a truly remarkable negotiator out there, the Norteastern and Eastern part of Ukraine is lost. Now comes the prevention of more losses. A piecemeal intervention by parts of NATO will likely result in losses of capabilities with little recapture of territory. One solution might be the ceding of currently held territory to Russia and the creation of a Ukranian non-miltarized buffer zone in the remaining Ukranian area east of the Dneiper. Western Ukraine remains an independent nation, not a part of NATO, but under its protection. IMO, this attack on Ukraine would not have happened had all NATO nations maintained their security investments to reasonable standards, or even had they invested as they initially agreed to under Obama, instead of ignoring him and their agreement. Even now, too many NATO States have failed to meet this minimum standard and it is important to remember that an increased budget commitment today will not be seen in the field for 2 -3 years. It is easy to be generous with other peoples Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 19, 2024 21:03:26 GMT -5
Or, we just give them the weapons they say they need. There’s an idea If I am a Ukrainian, I‘be already given up enough territory so a ‘buffer’ zone is just an invitation for Putin to roam the countryside sowing mischief in preparation for the next invasion. Finally, if I am Ukrainian, it is NATO or bust. We gave Ukraine security assurances in exchange for them surrendering the Soviet nuclear weapons on their territory and those assurances weren’t worth the paper they were written on. And yes, Russia also signed the Budapest memorandum which recognized Ukraine’s borders including Crimea. We should give Ukrainians the weapons they need and get out of their way. They have actually had an incredible amount of success against the Russian invaders, and even in this current very dire situation, look at what they’re doing to Russia’s oil refining capability. They’ve driven the Russian fleet out of the western black sea, and Putin now has an open rebellion on his hands in the south of his country that is now on is now on its eighth day. Contrary to popular belief, this is not going well for Putin Russia's economy isn't doing all that badly, despite western sanctions. The near closure of the Suez has greatly enhanced Russia's role in moving goods to the west. And while the Russian people are paying a price, that's not a significant concern to Putin. The only thing the rebellion is doing is putting additional Russian civilians at risk. Russia's naval losses are a surprise to everyone and Russia's military has been found to be generally inept. The difference is, those losses are sustainable in a country where human life is second to the State. The Ukranians gave done well, and their courage is manifest, but more artillery isn't going to chase Putin out. Russia's industrial complex is nearly fully spun up and we're still making consumabls. Russia's civilian economy is facing staggering inflation as well as a devaluation of the ruble (they obviously go hand in hand but it is two separate phenomena) . While the relatively well off in St Petersburg and Moscow may be doing ok, average Russians are getting hammered by supply shortages and stunning prices. While I don't think the 'rebellion' is going to immediately topple Putin, it is forcing him to divert resources to combat it and, as I pointed out elsewhere, Belograd is the main nexus for Russian supplies running into the Donbas. I know you have a military background, having an insurgent force sitting behind you knocking out supply depots is... well it is not great. Beyond that, that rebellion shows that the Putin's regime hold on power is far weaker than many in the west realize. Let's not forget that last year Pirghozin launched a mutiny that made it unopposed almost all the way to Moscow. That's the sign of a weak regime. Artillery alone will not drive Putin out but what we saw on the battlefield is that when Ukraine had something approaching artillery parity they were able to inflict substantial losses on Russian formations before they even left the zero line. The advanced munitions also enabled Ukraine to conduct very effective counter battery fire. Both those things saved Ukrainian lives on the battlefield. In other words, Ukrainian artillery was able to decimate and/or degrade Russian infantry units before they even got to within firing range of Ukrainian units. Again, that saved Ukrainian lives. Conversely, being forced to ration shells or not having shells at all is the main reason that Ukraine ultimately had to pull out of Avdiivka and, again, we can thank House Speaker Mike Johnson for that. From where I sit, this is a matter of perseverance and political will. Putin's bet was that America was too soft and divided to stick with Ukraine. Right now it is looking like he made the right bet. The geopolitical ramifications of us walking away from Ukraine will be long lasting, far reaching, and incredibly damaging. Or, we could just give the Ukrainians the weapons they say they need while revamping our own defense industrial base and at a fraction (less than 1/2 of 1 percent) of our overall budget. I've never seen a more clear cut choice.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 19, 2024 21:31:29 GMT -5
It is easy to be generous with other peoples Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. There's not much liberty in war. Military age men can't legally leave Ukraine but many still are trying to get out because not everyone wants to fight in this war. Ukraine has every right to defend their sovereignty from Russia's invasion but they don't have infinite levels of manpower and are mostly dependent on foreign aid for the forseeable future. You're not free as an individual or a nation if you're not financially independent.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Mar 20, 2024 6:34:41 GMT -5
It is easy to be generous with other peoples Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. There's not much liberty in war. Military age men can't legally leave Ukraine but many still are trying to get out because not everyone wants to fight in this war. Ukraine has every right to defend their sovereignty from Russia's invasion but they don't have infinite levels of manpower and are mostly dependent on foreign aid for the forseeable future. You're not free as an individual or a nation if you're not financially independent. That’s not true. After winning our independence and freedom we incurred massive debt and borrowed from France and Netherlands to pay for the war. China could call in its loans to the US and cripple our economy. In a globalist world very few countries are “financially independent”. Not to mention countries help other countries in war all the time.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Mar 20, 2024 6:59:26 GMT -5
It is easy to be generous with other peoples Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. There's not much liberty in war. Military age men can't legally leave Ukraine but many still are trying to get out because not everyone wants to fight in this war. Ukraine has every right to defend their sovereignty from Russia's invasion but they don't have infinite levels of manpower and are mostly dependent on foreign aid for the forseeable future. You're not free as an individual or a nation if you're not financially independent. I agree with this statement
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 20, 2024 8:49:16 GMT -5
There's not much liberty in war. Military age men can't legally leave Ukraine but many still are trying to get out because not everyone wants to fight in this war. Ukraine has every right to defend their sovereignty from Russia's invasion but they don't have infinite levels of manpower and are mostly dependent on foreign aid for the forseeable future. You're not free as an individual or a nation if you're not financially independent. That’s not true. After winning our independence and freedom we incurred massive debt and borrowed from France and Netherlands to pay for the war. China could call in its loans to the US and cripple our economy. In a globalist world very few countries are “financially independent”. Not to mention countries help other countries in war all the time. The US has the world's reserve currency. Therefore we have a disproportionate influence over the global financial system. No other country rivals us in that department so please don't compare Ukraine to our country. There's a tendency among some to see ourselves in Ukraine's struggle but it's not the same. Their relations with Russia go back centuries before the US even existed.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 20, 2024 8:58:11 GMT -5
I agree with this statement I agree with President Obama who was more of a realist on foreign policy than an idealist. Save the idealism for domestic priorities. 2016 - Obama: Ukraine 'Vulnerable' To Russian 'Military Domination' No Matter What U.S. DoesObama's 2016 statement about Ukraine is still relevant today. We won't fully commit to Ukraine because it's not a 'major' concern or national interest for Americans. Russia is more committed because Ukraine is a major concern for Russians. And there's nothing we can do to change that fundamental reality. It's not something worth risking World War 3 over. That's the cold hard reality...
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 20, 2024 12:41:52 GMT -5
That’s not true. After winning our independence and freedom we incurred massive debt and borrowed from France and Netherlands to pay for the war. China could call in its loans to the US and cripple our economy. In a globalist world very few countries are “financially independent”. Not to mention countries help other countries in war all the time. The US has the world's reserve currency. Therefore we have a disproportionate influence over the global financial system. No other country rivals us in that department so please don't compare Ukraine to our country. There's a tendency among some to see ourselves in Ukraine's struggle but it's not the same. Their relations with Russia go back centuries before the US even existed. 1. That's clearly not what he said. We were not the world's reserve currency in the 1780s/1790s. In fact, we didn't become the world's reserve currency until after WWII 2. Actually, our relationship with Britain also went almost two centuries before the U.S. even existed. We were actually British subjects. Ukraine is a sovereign nation.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 20, 2024 13:56:21 GMT -5
The US has the world's reserve currency. Therefore we have a disproportionate influence over the global financial system. No other country rivals us in that department so please don't compare Ukraine to our country. There's a tendency among some to see ourselves in Ukraine's struggle but it's not the same. Their relations with Russia go back centuries before the US even existed. 1. That's clearly not what he said. We were not the world's reserve currency in the 1780s/1790s. In fact, we didn't become the world's reserve currency until after WWII 2. Actually, our relationship with Britain also went almost two centuries before the U.S. even existed. We were actually British subjects. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Ukraine has been sovereign for just over 30 years. Prior to that, they have at least 1000 years of shared history with Russia. And unfortunately for Ukraine, Russia is their neighbor, unlike the British, who were separated from us by a vast ocean (if we don't count their other colonies in America). Broader point is, Americans can't really relate our own history to what is happening between Russia and Ukraine...
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Mar 20, 2024 14:30:20 GMT -5
1. That's clearly not what he said. We were not the world's reserve currency in the 1780s/1790s. In fact, we didn't become the world's reserve currency until after WWII 2. Actually, our relationship with Britain also went almost two centuries before the U.S. even existed. We were actually British subjects. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Ukraine has been sovereign for just over 30 years. Prior to that, they have at least 1000 years of shared history with Russia. And unfortunately for Ukraine, Russia is their neighbor, unlike the British, who were separated from us by a vast ocean (if we don't count their other colonies in America). Broader point is, Americans can't really relate our own history to what is happening between Russia and Ukraine... Never said we should. Just said that your "financial independence" point was flawed. Because it is.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 20, 2024 14:31:06 GMT -5
1. That's clearly not what he said. We were not the world's reserve currency in the 1780s/1790s. In fact, we didn't become the world's reserve currency until after WWII 2. Actually, our relationship with Britain also went almost two centuries before the U.S. even existed. We were actually British subjects. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Ukraine has been sovereign for just over 30 years. Prior to that, they have at least 1000 years of shared history with Russia. And unfortunately for Ukraine, Russia is their neighbor, unlike the British, who were separated from us by a vast ocean (if we don't count their other colonies in America). Broader point is, Americans can't really relate our own history to what is happening between Russia and Ukraine... Yeah, why let actual facts derail your capitulation agenda? Ukraine does not want to be under Moscow's yoke which is why Ukraine voted overwhelmingly for independence in 1991 and always why there was the so-called Orange Revolution in 2004. Ukraine is a sovereign country with internationally accepted borders. That's the fact no matter how many times you try to gloss it over.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 20, 2024 14:49:03 GMT -5
Ukraine has been sovereign for just over 30 years. Prior to that, they have at least 1000 years of shared history with Russia. And unfortunately for Ukraine, Russia is their neighbor, unlike the British, who were separated from us by a vast ocean (if we don't count their other colonies in America). Broader point is, Americans can't really relate our own history to what is happening between Russia and Ukraine... Yeah, why let actual facts derail your capitulation agenda? Joy, it's not capitulation for us because we have no dog in the fight. What part of that don't you understand? It's fine to root for Ukraine but at the end of the day, NOTHING will happen to America negatively if Ukraine fails to defeat Russia. The attempts to ignore reality and pretend that this war is 'existential' for us is why we're seeing such bad policies be proposed instead of attempts by third-parties to de-escalate. France won't be negatively affected either. Some of the former Soviet countries or Baltic states are justifiably concerned. Outside of those countries, it's a huge stretch to argue that we have a real stake in the outcome of this war...
|
|