I expect the Russia apologists will be around shortly to explain that the Ukrainians blew up their own people to make the Russians look bad.dajo9 said:cbbass1 said:True about the war being an embarrassment for Russia.calbear93 said:This whole war has been an embarrassment for Russia. It is why they engage in terror tactics by targeting civilians because NATO trained Ukrainian solders are outsmarting the Russian military.golden sloth said:
First, let's not act like there is an obvious right answer and an obvious wrong answer. There isnt.
Second, Russia and Russia alone determines if they use nuclear weapons or if they attack NATO. In fact, a few geopolitical analysts believe Russia had already planned on attacking NATO, they were merely planning on conquering Ukraine first. To pretend we control their actions is incorrect.
And as a side tanget:
I honestly don't know if this is more or less worrisome. When Russia got involved in Syria 60% of their precision guided missiles failed to hit their targets (anything above 20% is considered an utter failure). In fact a few hit Iran (which doesnt even border Syria). Also given one of the major issues facing the russian military is that the equipment was not maintained and therefore doesn't work. I don't know what is scarier, Russia's nuclear weapons being deployed and hitting their targets, or going completely haywire and just everything everywhere all at once.
But I have to disagree about your "targeting civilians" comment. Zelenskyy forced all Ukrainian men 18-60 to stay & fight. When Zelenskyy gave that order, he turned Ukraine's civilians into armed combatants. In the weeks before the invasion, wasn't Azov Battalion training grannies on military rifles near Mariupol?
You only get a few times in life on the world stage to choose between good and evil. Choose wisely.The Russians dropped a powerful aerial bomb on a school in the village of Belogorivka in Luhansk Region, where 90 people were hiding from shelling. 30 people have been taken out from under the rubble. Ukraine continues saving the people pic.twitter.com/VUaZZoTjfF
— Iuliia Mendel (@IuliiaMendel) May 7, 2022
The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread
921,703 Views |
10135 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by Cal88
If David Attenborough was a war reporter in Ukraine...
"This is a Russian tank. Like the Pacific salmon, Russian tanks migrate long distances from the abyss of Russia to end their lives in #Ukraine's beautiful fields".
— Ostap Yarysh (@OstapYarysh) May 9, 2022
Who did this? π pic.twitter.com/uKXv3eD1sy
The U.S. government spends $40 Billion of your money on Ukraine and nobody bats an eye.
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 11, 2022
Elon Musk spends $40 Billion of his own money to restore Free Speech on Twitter and everyone loses their minds.
#Breaking The House Has Passed The $40 Billion Foreign Aid Package For Ukraine
— The Columbia Bugle πΊπΈ (@ColumbiaBugle) May 11, 2022
368-57 pic.twitter.com/Ndv9k0ToXj
How are we paying for this? Shame on Mitch McConnell.
Good question. But a far better one is how are we paying for the $1.9 trillion (that's trillion with a "T") amount the CBO estimates Trump's 2017 tax cut, engineered by Mitch McConnell, added to the deficit over the succeeding 10 years. You can't be outraged over the Ukraine spending and how we are paying for it unless you are approximately 40 times more outraged by what happened in 2017. And I'm pretty sure you aren't.BearForce2 said:The U.S. government spends $40 Billion of your money on Ukraine and nobody bats an eye.
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 11, 2022
Elon Musk spends $40 Billion of his own money to restore Free Speech on Twitter and everyone loses their minds.#Breaking The House Has Passed The $40 Billion Foreign Aid Package For Ukraine
— The Columbia Bugle πΊπΈ (@ColumbiaBugle) May 11, 2022
368-57 pic.twitter.com/Ndv9k0ToXj
How are we paying for this? Shame on Mitch McConnell.
But this is an area where I hew far more conservative. Our deficit spending is an abomination. We are taking all of the investments of prior generations, spending those and then stealing all of the money from our kids and grandkids. It's insane.
But freedom isn't free. And the question to ask is not who is paying for this. We all know the answer to that. The question is whether this is a good investment in Ukraine. Point can be debated but what we absolutely learned was appeasing that nut in the Kremlin (the cheap option) over the last 10 years was a mistake and left us where we are today. Letting him take Ukraine pretty clearly seems like it's a fast track to WWIII because it is crystal clear he ain't stopping there. And THAT would really be expensive.
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
I don't think isolationist fully understand the cost to America from unstable geopolitical environment. We absolutely need to make sure Russia's ability to attack another country is degraded. And if countries stop looking at us as a reliable partner, they will align with China and Russia, and neither of the countries are looking for a new world order that would be friendly for us or our interests. Look at what Middle East is doing when they stopped looking at us as a reliable partner. If we back off and focus only on national matters, China will gladly fill the void. They are already looking to overtake us in global influence.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
Yes. If America stops trying to exert its influence worldwide then other powers will fill that void. Would everyone be better off with China or Russia doing that? Probably not.calbear93 said:I don't think isolationist fully understand the cost to America from unstable geopolitical environment. We absolutely need to make sure Russia's ability to attack another country is degraded. And if countries stop looking at us as a reliable partner, they will align with China and Russia, and neither of the countries are looking for a new world order that would be friendly for us or our interests. Look at what Middle East is doing when they stopped looking at us as a reliable partner. If we back off and focus only on national matters, China will gladly fill the void. They are already looking to overtake us in global influence.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
And I get the qualms about military intervention, given our misadventures in Iraq and elsewhere. This is different for two reasons:
1. The US is not committing our own actual military to the conflict, merely helping another country defend itself.
2. Unlike in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or various Latin American countries, we're not trying to topple the existing government or prop up some vaguely defined puppet regime. We're assisting a legitimately-elected Ukrainian government that is actively asking for the help. There's less risk of creating further instability here.
dimitrig said:
It is much easier to defend than attack.
I believe that Napoleon said that the invader is at a 3 to 1 disadvantage because they dont know the geography like the defender does.
BF2 isn't against helping Ukraine. He is against things that Biden supports.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
As I said, the point isn't whether this whether this is the right thing to do for freedom and democracy (it is). The point is that no rationale observer could look at Putin's actions and listen to his statements and think he would choose to stop at Ukraine. Some EU members would have been next (NATO adjacent) and then some recent NATO members themselves. And that would have been very expensive for Americans - assuming we actually intend to honor our treaties.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
Putin wants to recreate Czarist Russia, I don't think that's in doubt any longer. He needs to be stopped. And that's an investment worth making.
calbear93 said:I don't think isolationist fully understand the cost to America from unstable geopolitical environment. We absolutely need to make sure Russia's ability to attack another country is degraded. And if countries stop looking at us as a reliable partner, they will align with China and Russia, and neither of the countries are looking for a new world order that would be friendly for us or our interests. Look at what Middle East is doing when they stopped looking at us as a reliable partner. If we back off and focus only on national matters, China will gladly fill the void. They are already looking to overtake us in global influence.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
I disagree. This is already too unstable- it threatens Europe and us with a depression, rising energy prices and inflation are destabilizing as well as related shortages of food, fertilizer, global warming unchecked. It's a very big deal.
I also disagree that the rest of the world is looking around as to as whether we are a reliable partner in a global superpower battle. Most of the world and the world's population has already declared neutrality in this conflict and aren't imposing sanction- nobody in Africa, Mexico, India, Brazil, etc. . This is a European and North American concern not a defining event for the world. It's also one that Europeans must take the lead for in defending their continent. The rest of the world's best interests is to stay neutral.
I don't have a problem supporting Ukraine but there has to be a strategic end game to this money pit and iI doubt it's going to be Ukraine winning.
I'll also add that it's pathetic when the only thing domestic politicians can universally agree on is throwing money at Ukraine not our problems. This will not end well.
Anarchistbear said:calbear93 said:I don't think isolationist fully understand the cost to America from unstable geopolitical environment. We absolutely need to make sure Russia's ability to attack another country is degraded. And if countries stop looking at us as a reliable partner, they will align with China and Russia, and neither of the countries are looking for a new world order that would be friendly for us or our interests. Look at what Middle East is doing when they stopped looking at us as a reliable partner. If we back off and focus only on national matters, China will gladly fill the void. They are already looking to overtake us in global influence.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
I disagree. This is already too unstable- it threatens Europe and us with a depression, rising energy prices and inflation are destabilizing as well as related shortages of food, fertilizer, global warming unchecked. It's a very big deal.
I also disagree that the rest of the world is looking around as to as whether we are a reliable partner in a global superpower battle. Most of the world and the world's population has already declared neutrality in this conflict and aren't imposing sanction- nobody in Africa, Mexico, India, Brazil, etc. . This is a European and North American concern not a defining event for the world. It's also one that Europeans must take the lead for in defending their continent. The rest of the world's best interests is to stay neutral.
I don't have a problem supporting Ukraine but there has to be a strategic end game to this money pit and iI doubt it's going to be Ukraine winning.
I'll also add that it's pathetic when the only thing domestic politicians can universally agree on is throwing money at Ukraine not our problems. This will not end well.
I understand your viewpoint.
Joe Biden supports Hunter Biden. Who cares what Joe Biden "supports"? My frustration is mainly with the Republicans who voted for this.dajo9 said:BF2 isn't against helping Ukraine. He is against things that Biden supports.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
Most Americans can't locate Ukraine on a map without the help of Google much less understand the geopolitics of the region and this includes the politicians. I'm not convinced Congress is doing this entirely because their collective hearts go out to the Ukrainian people. And our current military leadership just got their aises handed to them last year in another distant location by goat herders. While the struggle for many Americans here don't compare to what some Ukrainians are experiencing, I don't think the $40 billion foreign aid package is all that popular.
Most Americans take little interest in foreign policy period, unless there is an active war we've dedicated our own troops to.
That doesn't mean the US shouldn't have a foreign policy.
That doesn't mean the US shouldn't have a foreign policy.
sycasey said:
Most Americans take little interest in foreign policy period, unless there is an active war we've dedicated our own troops to.
That doesn't mean the US shouldn't have a foreign policy.
What is the U.S. position on warfighting between former Soviet states that score very low on the Corruption Perceptions Index that are funded by NATO countries?
The US should support a growing democracy (Ukraine) over a war-mongering autocracy (Russia).BearForce2 said:sycasey said:
Most Americans take little interest in foreign policy period, unless there is an active war we've dedicated our own troops to.
That doesn't mean the US shouldn't have a foreign policy.
What is the U.S. position on warfighting between former Soviet states that score very low on the Corruption Perceptions Index that are funded by NATO countries?
Sebastabear said:As I said, the point isn't whether this whether this is the right thing to do for freedom and democracy (it is). The point is that no rationale observer could look at Putin's actions and listen to his statements and think he would choose to stop at Ukraine. Some EU members would have been next (NATO adjacent) and then some recent NATO members themselves. And that would have been very expensive for Americans - assuming we actually intend to honor our treaties.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
Putin wants to recreate Czarist Russia, I don't think that's in doubt any longer. He needs to be stopped. And that's an investment worth making.
To your point, it will be interesting to see the crucial decisions expected in Finland and Sweden this week pertaining to applying to become a NATO member.
https://news.yahoo.com/decisive-week-finland-sweden-nato-095610242.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-finland-sweden-weigh-pros-152304598.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
Vlad will not be happy.
Anarchistbear said:calbear93 said:I don't think isolationist fully understand the cost to America from unstable geopolitical environment. We absolutely need to make sure Russia's ability to attack another country is degraded. And if countries stop looking at us as a reliable partner, they will align with China and Russia, and neither of the countries are looking for a new world order that would be friendly for us or our interests. Look at what Middle East is doing when they stopped looking at us as a reliable partner. If we back off and focus only on national matters, China will gladly fill the void. They are already looking to overtake us in global influence.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
I disagree. This is already too unstable- it threatens Europe and us with a depression, rising energy prices and inflation are destabilizing as well as related shortages of food, fertilizer, global warming unchecked. It's a very big deal.
I also disagree that the rest of the world is looking around as to as whether we are a reliable partner in a global superpower battle. Most of the world and the world's population has already declared neutrality in this conflict and aren't imposing sanction- nobody in Africa, Mexico, India, Brazil, etc. . This is a European and North American concern not a defining event for the world. It's also one that Europeans must take the lead for in defending their continent. The rest of the world's best interests is to stay neutral.
I don't have a problem supporting Ukraine but there has to be a strategic end game to this money pit and iI doubt it's going to be Ukraine winning.
I'll also add that it's pathetic when the only thing domestic politicians can universally agree on is throwing money at Ukraine not our problems. This will not end well.
The only two possible end games I see are...
1. (shorter term) both sides decide on a negotiated settlement to end what has been a disastrous stalemate
2. (longer term) Putin's successors pull that country's head out of its ass and try to reform and build from within. As I have stated before, we have never been natural enemies with Russia. The problem has been the USSR and now Putin. Crazy situation.
I'm also not sure that Ukraine can't "win." I don't mean total victory, but maybe getting most of what they want and Russia getting out with only minor concessions, that seems to be on the table. Russia probably doesn't want to keep their army there forever either.Big C said:Anarchistbear said:calbear93 said:I don't think isolationist fully understand the cost to America from unstable geopolitical environment. We absolutely need to make sure Russia's ability to attack another country is degraded. And if countries stop looking at us as a reliable partner, they will align with China and Russia, and neither of the countries are looking for a new world order that would be friendly for us or our interests. Look at what Middle East is doing when they stopped looking at us as a reliable partner. If we back off and focus only on national matters, China will gladly fill the void. They are already looking to overtake us in global influence.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
I disagree. This is already too unstable- it threatens Europe and us with a depression, rising energy prices and inflation are destabilizing as well as related shortages of food, fertilizer, global warming unchecked. It's a very big deal.
I also disagree that the rest of the world is looking around as to as whether we are a reliable partner in a global superpower battle. Most of the world and the world's population has already declared neutrality in this conflict and aren't imposing sanction- nobody in Africa, Mexico, India, Brazil, etc. . This is a European and North American concern not a defining event for the world. It's also one that Europeans must take the lead for in defending their continent. The rest of the world's best interests is to stay neutral.
I don't have a problem supporting Ukraine but there has to be a strategic end game to this money pit and iI doubt it's going to be Ukraine winning.
I'll also add that it's pathetic when the only thing domestic politicians can universally agree on is throwing money at Ukraine not our problems. This will not end well.
The only two possible end games I see are...
1. (shorter term) both sides decide on a negotiated settlement to end what has been a disastrous stalemate
2. (longer term) Putin's successors pull that country's head out of its ass and try to reform and build from within. As I have stated before, we have never been natural enemies with Russia. The problem has been the USSR and now Putin. Crazy situation.
sycasey said:I'm also not sure that Ukraine can't "win." I don't mean total victory, but maybe getting most of what they want and Russia getting out with only minor concessions, that seems to be on the table. Russia probably doesn't want to keep their army there forever either.Big C said:Anarchistbear said:calbear93 said:I don't think isolationist fully understand the cost to America from unstable geopolitical environment. We absolutely need to make sure Russia's ability to attack another country is degraded. And if countries stop looking at us as a reliable partner, they will align with China and Russia, and neither of the countries are looking for a new world order that would be friendly for us or our interests. Look at what Middle East is doing when they stopped looking at us as a reliable partner. If we back off and focus only on national matters, China will gladly fill the void. They are already looking to overtake us in global influence.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
I disagree. This is already too unstable- it threatens Europe and us with a depression, rising energy prices and inflation are destabilizing as well as related shortages of food, fertilizer, global warming unchecked. It's a very big deal.
I also disagree that the rest of the world is looking around as to as whether we are a reliable partner in a global superpower battle. Most of the world and the world's population has already declared neutrality in this conflict and aren't imposing sanction- nobody in Africa, Mexico, India, Brazil, etc. . This is a European and North American concern not a defining event for the world. It's also one that Europeans must take the lead for in defending their continent. The rest of the world's best interests is to stay neutral.
I don't have a problem supporting Ukraine but there has to be a strategic end game to this money pit and iI doubt it's going to be Ukraine winning.
I'll also add that it's pathetic when the only thing domestic politicians can universally agree on is throwing money at Ukraine not our problems. This will not end well.
The only two possible end games I see are...
1. (shorter term) both sides decide on a negotiated settlement to end what has been a disastrous stalemate
2. (longer term) Putin's successors pull that country's head out of its ass and try to reform and build from within. As I have stated before, we have never been natural enemies with Russia. The problem has been the USSR and now Putin. Crazy situation.
Hmmm... not sure who came the closest (probably you), but it now looks like Russia is potentially going to "end this portion of the special military operation" and settle for some of the East.
If they are actually willing to stop there forever (doubtful), it would be worth it to stop the carnage, IMO. Hopefully this culminates in Putin's ouster, followed by a more sensible regime.
Yeah, I don't know if I would say Ukraine won or can win, but Putin definitely lost. This will go down as a big win for Joe Biden and is one of the few good foreign policy results we've had since the Soviet Union fell apart and the Berlin Wall came down.
Republicans will find a way to take credit for it or give Trump credit, but history will recognize Biden's part in it. Probably won't make a big enough difference to impact the midterms but Americans should be very happy that for once we didn't screw things up overseas.
Republicans will find a way to take credit for it or give Trump credit, but history will recognize Biden's part in it. Probably won't make a big enough difference to impact the midterms but Americans should be very happy that for once we didn't screw things up overseas.
Tommy spends ten dollars on candy and nobody cares. Billy spends ten dollars to hire someone to kill his parents and everyone goes crazy. Maybe that's because dollars spent being the same amount is not what that they are analyzing and reacting to? Just a guess.BearForce2 said:The U.S. government spends $40 Billion of your money on Ukraine and nobody bats an eye.
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 11, 2022
Elon Musk spends $40 Billion of his own money to restore Free Speech on Twitter and everyone loses their minds.
The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!
A little confession leak out? I don't think the Americans who can't identify where Ukraine is or the geopolitics should be deciding our policy there. Darn. I guess that rules out most of MAGA world.BearForce2 said:
"Most Americans can't locate Ukraine on a map... "
The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!
blungld said:Tommy spends ten dollars on candy and nobody cares. Billy spends ten dollars to hire someone to kill his parents and everyone goes crazy. Maybe that's because dollars spent being the same amount is not what that they are analyzing and reacting to? Just a guess.BearForce2 said:The U.S. government spends $40 Billion of your money on Ukraine and nobody bats an eye.
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 11, 2022
Elon Musk spends $40 Billion of his own money to restore Free Speech on Twitter and everyone loses their minds.
Tommy's money was his own, the class said he should have used it to feed the poor. Billy taxed his classmates and got the approval from the class reps to use the money it kill his parents.
blungld said:A little confession leak out? I don't think the Americans who can't identify where Ukraine is or the geopolitics should be deciding our policy there. Darn. I guess that rules out most of MAGA world.BearForce2 said:
"Most Americans can't locate Ukraine on a map... "
Biden Administration Mounts Daring Mission To Evacuate Hunterβs Remaining Cash From Ukraine https://t.co/BwAxdjETYp
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) February 15, 2022
Hunter knows where Ukraine is, he's an energy expert!
So how's that invasion thing working out for you Vlad, take 27.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/finlands-leaders-announce-intention-to-apply-for-nato-membership-11652340796
https://www.wsj.com/articles/finlands-leaders-announce-intention-to-apply-for-nato-membership-11652340796
Big C said:Anarchistbear said:calbear93 said:I don't think isolationist fully understand the cost to America from unstable geopolitical environment. We absolutely need to make sure Russia's ability to attack another country is degraded. And if countries stop looking at us as a reliable partner, they will align with China and Russia, and neither of the countries are looking for a new world order that would be friendly for us or our interests. Look at what Middle East is doing when they stopped looking at us as a reliable partner. If we back off and focus only on national matters, China will gladly fill the void. They are already looking to overtake us in global influence.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
I disagree. This is already too unstable- it threatens Europe and us with a depression, rising energy prices and inflation are destabilizing as well as related shortages of food, fertilizer, global warming unchecked. It's a very big deal.
I also disagree that the rest of the world is looking around as to as whether we are a reliable partner in a global superpower battle. Most of the world and the world's population has already declared neutrality in this conflict and aren't imposing sanction- nobody in Africa, Mexico, India, Brazil, etc. . This is a European and North American concern not a defining event for the world. It's also one that Europeans must take the lead for in defending their continent. The rest of the world's best interests is to stay neutral.
I don't have a problem supporting Ukraine but there has to be a strategic end game to this money pit and iI doubt it's going to be Ukraine winning.
I'll also add that it's pathetic when the only thing domestic politicians can universally agree on is throwing money at Ukraine not our problems. This will not end well.
The only two possible end games I see are...
1. (shorter term) both sides decide on a negotiated settlement to end what has been a disastrous stalemate
2. (longer term) Putin's successors pull that country's head out of its ass and try to reform and build from within. As I have stated before, we have never been natural enemies with Russia. The problem has been the USSR and now Putin. Crazy situation.
There won't be a negotiated settlement, at least not in the short term. German Chancellor Scholz offered a reasonable deal to Zelensky which was based on these three conditions:
1) giving the two rebel provinces autonomy on cultural matters (mainly the right to speak their own language)
2) Urkaine staying out of NATO
3) Ukraine recognizing Crimea as Russian
Zelensky turned him down.
Barring complete military or political collapse, Russia is never going to give up Mariupol, Kherson, part of the
extended land bridge from the Donbass to Crimea. If the Ukrainian government cannot recognize Crimea as Russian, they will never recognize these other regions that are less culturally Russian as independent from Ukraine.
So the war will go on, until one side is completely exhausted, or until the financial and political support for Zelensky's government runs out, which is unlikely in the short term.
In the longer term, the severe economic repercussions in Europe will push European NATO countries like Italy, France and even Germany to work towards a settlement.The mood in the US might also change after the November elections, with inflation raging and near $10/gal gas.
As to your 2nd point about Putin, there is a lot of misconception around his persona and agenda, because by Russian standards, he is a moderate. His main opposition has been from the far right (Zhirinovsky), who consider Putin to be a wimp, and from the Communist Party, who want to recreate the Soviet empire. The commies have a lot of pull with Russian Boomers, who are nostalgic for uncle Joe and who went through the neoliberal dystopia of the 1990s, and who like in the West, are a large demographic voting block. Even Navalny, who never got much traction among Russian voters outside of a narrow audience in Moscow, is a staunch nationalist who did run on a white supremacist/anti-immigrant agenda.
It's funny that you think there are real elections in Russia.Cal88 said:
As to your 2nd point about Putin, there is a lot of misconception around his persona and agenda, because by Russian standards, he is a moderate. His main opposition has been from the far right (Zhirinovsky), who consider Putin to be a wimp, and from the Communist Party, who want to recreate the Soviet empire. The commies have a lot of pull with Russian Boomers, who are nostalgic for uncle Joe and who went through the neoliberal dystopia of the 1990s, and who like in the West, are a large demographic voting block. Even Navalny, who never got much traction among Russian voters outside of a narrow audience in Moscow, is a staunch nationalist who did run on a white supremacist/anti-immigrant agenda.
He recently predicted that Russia would accomplish their "main objective" of taking Donbas at some point in the past few weeks. He was wrong about it being anything other than a fallback objective and he was wrong that they would take Donbas that quickly. If you look at his posting history you will be impressed by how many bold predictions he makes and how spectacularly false they all turn out to be.sycasey said:It's funny that you think there are real elections in Russia.Cal88 said:
As to your 2nd point about Putin, there is a lot of misconception around his persona and agenda, because by Russian standards, he is a moderate. His main opposition has been from the far right (Zhirinovsky), who consider Putin to be a wimp, and from the Communist Party, who want to recreate the Soviet empire. The commies have a lot of pull with Russian Boomers, who are nostalgic for uncle Joe and who went through the neoliberal dystopia of the 1990s, and who like in the West, are a large demographic voting block. Even Navalny, who never got much traction among Russian voters outside of a narrow audience in Moscow, is a staunch nationalist who did run on a white supremacist/anti-immigrant agenda.
It's curious that 88 always seems to get things wrong in Putin's favor but not surprising to anyone who's been paying attention.
Cal88 said:Big C said:Anarchistbear said:calbear93 said:I don't think isolationist fully understand the cost to America from unstable geopolitical environment. We absolutely need to make sure Russia's ability to attack another country is degraded. And if countries stop looking at us as a reliable partner, they will align with China and Russia, and neither of the countries are looking for a new world order that would be friendly for us or our interests. Look at what Middle East is doing when they stopped looking at us as a reliable partner. If we back off and focus only on national matters, China will gladly fill the void. They are already looking to overtake us in global influence.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
I disagree. This is already too unstable- it threatens Europe and us with a depression, rising energy prices and inflation are destabilizing as well as related shortages of food, fertilizer, global warming unchecked. It's a very big deal.
I also disagree that the rest of the world is looking around as to as whether we are a reliable partner in a global superpower battle. Most of the world and the world's population has already declared neutrality in this conflict and aren't imposing sanction- nobody in Africa, Mexico, India, Brazil, etc. . This is a European and North American concern not a defining event for the world. It's also one that Europeans must take the lead for in defending their continent. The rest of the world's best interests is to stay neutral.
I don't have a problem supporting Ukraine but there has to be a strategic end game to this money pit and iI doubt it's going to be Ukraine winning.
I'll also add that it's pathetic when the only thing domestic politicians can universally agree on is throwing money at Ukraine not our problems. This will not end well.
The only two possible end games I see are...
1. (shorter term) both sides decide on a negotiated settlement to end what has been a disastrous stalemate
2. (longer term) Putin's successors pull that country's head out of its ass and try to reform and build from within. As I have stated before, we have never been natural enemies with Russia. The problem has been the USSR and now Putin. Crazy situation.
There won't be a negotiated settlement, at least not in the short term. German Chancellor Scholz offered a reasonable deal to Zelensky which was based on these three conditions:
1) giving the two rebel provinces autonomy on cultural matters (mainly the right to speak their own language)
2) Urkaine staying out of NATO
3) Ukraine recognizing Crimea as Russian
Zelensky turned him down.
Barring complete military or political collapse, Russia is never going to give up Mariupol, Kherson, part of the
extended land bridge from the Donbass to Crimea. If the Ukrainian government cannot recognize Crimea as Russian, they will never recognize these other regions that are less culturally Russian as independent from Ukraine.
So the war will go on, until one side is completely exhausted, or until the financial and political support for Zelensky's government runs out, which is unlikely in the short term.
In the longer term, the severe economic repercussions in Europe will push European NATO countries like Italy, France and even Germany to work towards a settlement.The mood in the US might also change after the November elections, with inflation raging and near $10/gal gas.
As to your 2nd point about Putin, there is a lot of misconception around his persona and agenda, because by Russian standards, he is a moderate. His main opposition has been from the far right (Zhirinovsky), who consider Putin to be a wimp, and from the Communist Party, who want to recreate the Soviet empire. The commies have a lot of pull with Russian Boomers, who are nostalgic for uncle Joe and who went through the neoliberal dystopia of the 1990s, and who like in the West, are a large demographic voting block. Even Navalny, who never got much traction among Russian voters outside of a narrow audience in Moscow, is a staunch nationalist who did run on a white supremacist/anti-immigrant agenda.
Very true that many Russians over 55 or so look back fondly at the Soviet regime. At least everybody had a job (such as they were) and there weren't many rich people to remind you of what you didn't have.
As for a negotiated settlement, the trick would be some sort of compromise regarding territories in the east/southeast. As more and more Russian mothers start to wonder what happened to their sons, Putin might decide to accept something that lets him save face. I dunno, an autonomous region or something. Plenty of possibilities. And, while nobody wants to be seen as giving up anything to Putin, there's something to be said for ending this mess.
Any negotiated settlement should include the reclamation by Putin of all of his western assets. Sending off half of the Republican congressional caucus would help our country bigly.Big C said:Cal88 said:Big C said:Anarchistbear said:calbear93 said:I don't think isolationist fully understand the cost to America from unstable geopolitical environment. We absolutely need to make sure Russia's ability to attack another country is degraded. And if countries stop looking at us as a reliable partner, they will align with China and Russia, and neither of the countries are looking for a new world order that would be friendly for us or our interests. Look at what Middle East is doing when they stopped looking at us as a reliable partner. If we back off and focus only on national matters, China will gladly fill the void. They are already looking to overtake us in global influence.sycasey said:So you think we shouldn't be helping Ukraine.BearForce2 said:
The historic tax relief was for Americans. The $40 billion foreign aid package is for, well, foreigners.
I disagree. This is already too unstable- it threatens Europe and us with a depression, rising energy prices and inflation are destabilizing as well as related shortages of food, fertilizer, global warming unchecked. It's a very big deal.
I also disagree that the rest of the world is looking around as to as whether we are a reliable partner in a global superpower battle. Most of the world and the world's population has already declared neutrality in this conflict and aren't imposing sanction- nobody in Africa, Mexico, India, Brazil, etc. . This is a European and North American concern not a defining event for the world. It's also one that Europeans must take the lead for in defending their continent. The rest of the world's best interests is to stay neutral.
I don't have a problem supporting Ukraine but there has to be a strategic end game to this money pit and iI doubt it's going to be Ukraine winning.
I'll also add that it's pathetic when the only thing domestic politicians can universally agree on is throwing money at Ukraine not our problems. This will not end well.
The only two possible end games I see are...
1. (shorter term) both sides decide on a negotiated settlement to end what has been a disastrous stalemate
2. (longer term) Putin's successors pull that country's head out of its ass and try to reform and build from within. As I have stated before, we have never been natural enemies with Russia. The problem has been the USSR and now Putin. Crazy situation.
There won't be a negotiated settlement, at least not in the short term. German Chancellor Scholz offered a reasonable deal to Zelensky which was based on these three conditions:
1) giving the two rebel provinces autonomy on cultural matters (mainly the right to speak their own language)
2) Urkaine staying out of NATO
3) Ukraine recognizing Crimea as Russian
Zelensky turned him down.
Barring complete military or political collapse, Russia is never going to give up Mariupol, Kherson, part of the
extended land bridge from the Donbass to Crimea. If the Ukrainian government cannot recognize Crimea as Russian, they will never recognize these other regions that are less culturally Russian as independent from Ukraine.
So the war will go on, until one side is completely exhausted, or until the financial and political support for Zelensky's government runs out, which is unlikely in the short term.
In the longer term, the severe economic repercussions in Europe will push European NATO countries like Italy, France and even Germany to work towards a settlement.The mood in the US might also change after the November elections, with inflation raging and near $10/gal gas.
As to your 2nd point about Putin, there is a lot of misconception around his persona and agenda, because by Russian standards, he is a moderate. His main opposition has been from the far right (Zhirinovsky), who consider Putin to be a wimp, and from the Communist Party, who want to recreate the Soviet empire. The commies have a lot of pull with Russian Boomers, who are nostalgic for uncle Joe and who went through the neoliberal dystopia of the 1990s, and who like in the West, are a large demographic voting block. Even Navalny, who never got much traction among Russian voters outside of a narrow audience in Moscow, is a staunch nationalist who did run on a white supremacist/anti-immigrant agenda.
Very true that many Russians over 55 or so look back fondly at the Soviet regime. At least everybody had a job (such as they were) and there weren't many rich people to remind you of what you didn't have.
As for a negotiated settlement, the trick would be some sort of compromise regarding territories in the east/southeast. As more and more Russian mothers start to wonder what happened to their sons, Putin might decide to accept something that lets him save face. I dunno, an autonomous region or something. Plenty of possibilities. And, while nobody wants to be seen as giving up anything to Putin, there's something to be said for ending this mess.
BearForce2 said:
It's funny that you think there are real elections in the United States.
Well, it's true that we have one major political party constantly trying to undermine our electoral process with unfounded conspiracy theories right now, and that they may well drive us into autocracy at some point. That does suck.
I still think our democracy is doing better than Russia though. It's a shame that you don't agree.
sycasey said:BearForce2 said:
It's funny that you think there are real elections in the United States.
Well, it's true that we have one major political party constantly trying to undermine our electoral process with unfounded conspiracy theories right now, and that they may well drive us into autocracy at some point. That does suck.
I still think our democracy is doing better than Russia though. It's a shame that you don't agree.
I agree with you that the Democratic Party is constantly trying to undermine our electoral process with unfounded conspiracy theories and that they may well drive us into autocracy at some point. Yes, it does suck.
Featured Stories
See All
Washington Safety Tristan Dunn Signs With Cal
by Jim McGill
Bears Raise the Bar in Decisive 89-63 Win Over Temple
by Jim McGill