Why does Ukraine matter?

[Tombs]

I noticed you didn't answer. Would you support the US agreeing to a peace deal with Mexico if they invaded that gave them CA/AZ/NM to save lives? A simple yes or no will suffice.

And they are negotiating, do you mean that he refuses to roll over and give Russia what it wants?

If Mexico had the capability to exterminate the entire US, and nobody was coming to help us, then yes.

Consider it a lesson on military spending, training, and equipment that should be rectified ASAP.

P.S. This isn't a videogame, there's nothing preventing a counter offensive at a later date when you're better prepared to retake territory lost. Play the long game and play it smart.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If Mexico had the capability to exterminate the entire US, and nobody was coming to help us, then yes.

Consider it a lesson on military spending, training, and equipment that should be rectified ASAP.

Well Russia has made noise recently about wanting AK back, so... Should we give it to them? How many nukes does Russia have again?

You mentioned that other countries are sending weapons, isn't that providing help?

 

[Tombs]

Well Russia has made noise recently about wanting AK back, so... Should we give it to them? How many nukes does Russia have again?

You mentioned that other countries are sending weapons, isn't that providing help?

We've always sent weapons, whether it be through foreign aid (which is store credit to spend at lockheed martin, raytheon, etc) or dumping equipment on them. That isn't the same as having someone's military commitment to your country.

As for nukes, I'm not as concerned about that, neither am I about Russia's military capabilities against us. It would be like sending out elementary student footballers against the NFL. A professional fighting force against conscripts is always going to be the worst possible day they've ever had.

I imagine Russia knows this, and keeps their noise to a measured pitch lol.

I'm not sure how they'd even attempt to invade Alaska, they flatly lack the naval power to do it, even if we didn't respond.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

We've always sent weapons, whether it be through foreign aid (which is store credit to spend at lockheed martin, raytheon, etc) or dumping equipment on them. That isn't the same as having someone's military commitment to your country.

As for nukes, I'm not as concerned about that, neither am I about Russia's military capabilities against us. It would be like sending out elementary student footballers against the NFL. A professional fighting force against conscripts is always going to be the worst possible day they've ever had.

I imagine Russia knows this, and keeps their noise to a measured pitch lol.

I'm not sure how they'd even attempt to invade Alaska, they flatly lack the naval power to do it, even if we didn't respond.

You say you're not concerned about nukes, but you also said this "If Mexico had the capability to exterminate the entire US, and nobody was coming to help us, then yes.". I don't believe Russia has shown the capability to exterminate the entire Ukraine unless they were to use nukes.

 

[KG1]

Just give the bully your lunch money and maybe he'll stop beating you up.

 

[wagyu52]

The purpose is pretty easily found if one is willing to look past the endless propaganda campaign.

Start researching everything that has happened around 2014 up until now. No party is innocent.

Time didn’t start in 2014 and neither did hostilities between Russia and Ukraine in particular Moscow and Kiev.

 

[KG1]

When did Ukraine ever take anything from Russia by force?

 

[JettaKnight]

When did Ukraine ever take anything from Russia by force?

According to Putin, 24 August 1991.

 

[Twangbanger]

And what results in more suffering for Ukrainians? If they're willing to fight to the last man, woman, and child, isn't arming them just creating more suffering?

Wouldn't it be better for the people if they were negotiating a peace treaty right now?

...I'm not exactly sure what the point of prolonging the war is, except for western powers to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to deplete Russian resources.

Because from where I'm sitting, that's all that it appears the west is doing. Encouraging Ukraine into suicidal behavior so that they'll fight the war the west doesn't want to.

...Overall, I don't see the loss of life as worth it. If Ukraine was planning on taking over Russia in some massive counter offensive, and had the means... Things might be different. Otherwise, what is the strategic objective? Make the country that was fine with sacrificing 60+million of their own people for ideological reasons, bleed enough to start caring?

It's a lose/lose situation, but one outcome costs a lot less lives.

I also feel that the west is only supporting Ukraine as a means to hurt Russia, with Ukrainian lives being the collateral damage.

In all honesty, this is not our call to make. Ukraine is the one who got invaded, so if it's their wish to fight until one of the dogs starts high-pitched yiping, that's their call.

And I don't think it's universal that the western "powers that be" want this conflict to go on indefinitely. If anything, they probably wanted it settled very quick. The Bankers do not like ongoing sanctions, central bank foreign assets being freezed, limiting flow of capital across international borders, etc. Because you can bet it is hurting their bottom line. My take is that many in the West wanted a quick settlement. It's just that Ukraine has (inconveniently) been able to put up a better fight than expected, dragging this out most likely to the chagrin of everyone else involved.

But eventually, the Bankers are going to "call in their chits" and privately request this thing get settled. (As INGO is never hesitant to point out...follow the Benjamins). There's nothing the "International Investment Community" likes more than a country which is 1) Stable, with firm treaties in place, and 2) Impoverished. The eventual "Ukraine Treaty" has the potential to create another one of these places, and they cannot wait to pour money into such a place.

This war is going to end at the negotiating table, carving Ukraine into pieces like Yugoslavia. And Ukraine knows this. They know the future of their country will be decided by bland, soul-sucking, monotone stiffs with expressionless faces, sitting a table with bottles of Evian in front of them. Where you end in negotiations, largely depends on where you start. Ukraine is pressing this war vigorously so they can walk into that negotiation room with the best possible initial bargaining position, both in terms of concrete territory and intangible moral high ground.

We owe it to them to let them fight that positional battle to whatever extent they wish to take it. They know that when the Bankers "make that call," they are the ones who have to walk out of that room after the handshakes and photo-ops, and live with that result for the rest of history.

Ukraine may be a "toy of the West," but so much more the reason why it's important to let them set at least some of the terms of how they're going to be toyed-with.

If they're willing to die for it, it's their call, not ours to make.

 

[Tombs]

In all honesty, this is not our call to make. Ukraine is the one who got invaded, so if it's their wish to fight until one of the dogs starts high-pitched yiping, that's their call.

And I don't think it's universal that the western "powers that be" want this conflict to go on indefinitely. If anything, they probably wanted it settled very quick. The Bankers do not like ongoing sanctions, central bank foreign assets being freezed, limiting flow of capital across international borders, etc. Because you can bet it is hurting their bottom line. My take is that many in the West wanted a quick settlement. It's just that Ukraine has (inconveniently) been able to put up a better fight than expected, dragging this out most likely to the chagrin of everyone else involved.

But eventually, the Bankers are going to "call in their chits" and privately request this thing get settled. (As INGO is never hesitant to point out...follow the Benjamins). There's nothing the "International Investment Community" likes more than a country which is 1) Stable, with firm treaties in place, and 2) Impoverished. The eventual "Ukraine Treaty" has the potential to create another one of these places, and they cannot wait to pour money into such a place.

This war is going to end at the negotiating table, carving Ukraine into pieces like Yugoslavia. And Ukraine knows this. They know the future of their country will be decided by bland, soul-sucking, monotone stiffs with expressionless faces, sitting a table with bottles of Evian in front of them. Where you end in negotiations, largely depends on where you start. Ukraine is pressing this war vigorously so they can walk into that negotiation room with the best possible initial bargaining position, both in terms of concrete territory and intangible moral high ground.

We owe it to them to let them fight that positional battle to whatever extent they wish to take it. They know that when the Bankers "make that call," they are the ones who have to walk out of that room after the handshakes and photo-ops, and live with that result for the rest of history.

Ukraine may be a "toy of the West," but so much more the reason why it's important to let them set at least some of the terms of how they're going to be toyed-with.

If they're willing to die for it, it's their call, not ours to make.

I agree with you that they deserve the right to determine their own destiny.

Where I disagree is that I don't believe they are making their own choices, and that the west is pushing them towards devastation for the west's own ends.

Ever since I listened to all the calls between Poroshenko and Biden, no one is convincing me that they aren't being used as puppets.

All I ask is that you remember what the US does to people we aid against Russia.

 

[gvbcraig]

If they're willing to die for it, it's their call, not ours to make.

This is the point I have been trying to make. The Ukrainians know they are going to get screwed by both the west and Russia, by fighting for their land, they are making a statement that they are willing to sacrifice everything for their land. This goes back almost a hundred years.

As my grandfather told me, “first they took away our guns then they too away our land.“ This occurred in the late 1920’s / early 1930’s. The Ukrainian people know what happened to them in the past and if they are armed, they have a better chance of keeping what is theirs. They are fighting for their lan, they are fighting for this identity, they are fighting for what was lost once before.

My family lost of of their property in 1932, my grandfather was sent to Siberia for being a subversive. My wife’s grandfather was shot outside his village on the way to Siberia. My great grandparents were dragged into the street and stoned to death because they would not give up their home.

Watching all of this unfold today, brings back a lot of memories of the stories my grandparents told me of their lives. I never thought I would be seeing a replay of their struggles.

 

[Twangbanger]

I agree with you that they deserve the right to determine their own destiny.

Where I disagree is that I don't believe they are making their own choices, and that the west is pushing them towards devastation for the west's own ends.

Ever since I listened to all the calls between Poroshenko and Biden, no one is convincing me that they aren't being used as puppets.

All I ask is that you remember what the US does to people we aid against Russia.

The US has been screwing Ukraine since the pu$$y George HW Bush was doing his "Thousand Points of Light" schtick. If we wanted to do right by Ukraine, the time to do it was in the Yeltsin years. And I think the Ukrainians are painfully aware of that. We were walking on eggshells after our Cold War victory, afraid that expanding NATO eastward too rapidly would undermine Yeltsin's reform government and deliver the country back into the hands of ex-KGB goons (boy, sure am glad GHWB and his too-smart Reagan lackeys dodged that bullet!).

There is actually a very fashionable point of view among western elites, that our goal in Ukraine should be to abandon them to a treaty as soon as practicable, and permanently maintain Ukraine as a sort of "nuclear-free buffer zone" between the free world and Russia. They would play the role of sacrificial "DMZ" separating the West from whatever wild-hair ideas enter Putin's head, and we wouldn't have to care about them, because there's no nuclear capability there to be misused or captured, and no mutual-protection-pact requiring us to do anything in their defense.

If there's any sort of "crassness" in the Western approach to Ukraine, which is counter to their interests, I think that would be it.

But to your comment about them being puppets, well, I don't think Zelensky is lying, and really, actually wants to quit fighting and the US is somehow forcing him and his countrymen to continue fighting against their will. If that's what you think, it's a level of tinfoil I can't reach. When you're invaded by Russia, your interests are pretty transparent. You want the bastards out, and it's a pretty visceral desire. If you've got Porcupine quills in your ass, and the person offering to pull them out wants you to listen to a time-share presentation afterward, you're not being a "puppet" by going along with that. You're acting rationally in your own best interest.

Regardless of the benevolence toward the Ukraine, or lack-thereof from the U.S., the reality is that they're getting the sht bombed out of them by Russia. Even if they're being "used" by the West, that use is preferable to them compared to what the Russians are doing. They are probably using us just as well. They have resigned themselves to the fact that all they will ever be to the West is a nuclear-free buffer zone between Europe and Russia, valuable enough for the West to help prevent from being plowed completely under, but not good enough to draw a guarantee of NATO protection.

I think the Ukrainians genuinely want whatever support they can get to enlarge that buffer zone as big as possible, before they walk to the negotiating table and accept their fate at the hands of politicians. Zelensky received - and refused - western offers of asylum. The idea that "Zelensky the Puppet" is somehow taking phoned-in battle orders from Washington and/or the West, against his personal wishes, just doesn't square against clearly-observed reality.

 

[Tombs]

The US has been screwing Ukraine since the pu$$y George HW Bush was doing his "Thousand Points of Light" schtick. If we wanted to do right by Ukraine, the time to do it was in the Yeltsin years. And I think the Ukrainians are painfully aware of that. We were walking on eggshells after our Cold War victory, afraid that expanding NATO eastward too rapidly would undermine Yeltsin's reform government and deliver the country back into the hands of ex-KGB goons (boy, sure am glad GHWB and his Reagan lackeys dodged that bullet!).

There is actually a very fashionable point of view among western elites, that our goal in Ukraine should be to abandon them to a treaty as soon as practicable, and permanently maintain Ukraine as a sort of "nuclear-free buffer zone" between the free world and Russia. They would play the role of sacrificial "DMZ" separating the West from whatever wild-hair ideas enter Putin's head, and we wouldn't have to care about them, because there's no nuclear capability there to be misused or captured, and no mutual-protection-pact requiring us to do anything in their defense.

If there's any sort of "crassness" in the Western approach to Ukraine, which is counter to their interests, I think that would be it.

But to your comment about them being puppets, well, I don't think Zelensky is lying, and really, actually wants to quit fighting and the US is somehow forcing him and his countrymen to continue fighting against their will. If that's what you think, it's a level of tinfoil I can't reach. When you're invaded by Russia, your interests are pretty transparent. You want the bastards out, and it's a pretty visceral desire. If you've got Porcupine quills in your ass, and the person offering to pull them out wants you to listen to a time-share presentation afterward, you're not being a "puppet" by going along with that. You're acting rationally in your own best interest.

Regardless of the benevolence toward the Ukraine, or lack-thereof from the U.S., the reality is that they're getting the sht bombed out of them by Russia. Even if they're being "used" by the West, that use is preferable to them compared to what the Russians are doing. They are probably using us just as well. They have resigned themselves to the fact that all they will ever be to the West is a nuclear-free buffer zone between Europe and Russia, valuable enough for the West to help prevent from being plowed completely under, but not good enough to draw a guarantee of NATO protection.

I think the Ukrainians genuinely want whatever support they can get to enlarge that buffer zone as big as possible, before they walk to the negotiating table and accept their fate at the hands of politicians. Zelensky received - and refused - western offers of asylum. The idea that Zelensky is somehow taking phoned-in battle orders from Washington, against his personal wishes, just doesn't square against clearly-observed reality.

I just don't want us pulling another Vietnam or Afghanistan (mujahideen) on them.

Or kicking off a far larger conflict that would inevitably lead to WW3.

The best case would be is if a ton of military hardware happened to be stolen from a military base in Poland.

 

[gvbcraig]

As the battle for Mariupol becomes a small footnote in this invasion, a battle that was to only last a couple of days, l want you to meet the Defenders of Azovstal, 11 sqft kilometer iron works, and see their faces. I keep looking at them, people unwilling to surrender.
Please keep them in your prayers, because that is about all they have.

This is the Alamo equivalent of Ukraine.

 

[BigRed]

$5B

 

[gvbcraig]

$5B

10% of the $54B annual cost of accommodating illegal aliens, that's cheap.

 

[gvbcraig]

I initially hesitated in posting this speech, it is a little long. Zelensky gives his remembrance speech to the victory against Nazism and the term "never again". But he also points out that we have forgotten "never again" and that Ukraine is again the victim of the new Nazism of Russia.

For those that do not know President Zelensky's background, he is Jewish, his grandfather and grandfather's three brothers dies in the Holocaust, his great grand parents were killed by German troops during WW II, so he has a very personal connection to "never again".

I know this is long, but we must never forget that evil exists in this world and we are witnessing it for ourselves.

 

[BugI02]

$5B

We could get a couple of Bayraktar TB2s for 0.1% of that. They seem quite capable taking out an automobile or armored vehicle

 

[BigRed]

10% of the $54B annual cost of accommodating illegal aliens, that's cheap.

I agree!

I'm happy to take a contract for the southern border as well. God knows the central state does not address its responsibility delegated to it in the Constitution!

******* simply **** away other people's money.

 

[BigRed]

We could get a couple of Bayraktar TB2s for 0.1% of that. They seem quite capable taking out an automobile or armored vehicle

Perhaps.....but it isn't getting done.