All Things Russia & Ukraine

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
a fan
Posts: 17525
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by a fan »

DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:36 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:51 pm Senator Josh Hawley, in his own words, on why he's voting NO on admitting Sweden & Finland to NATO.
Symbolic vote on his part but it sends a message that needs to be heard.
Why I Won’t Vote to Add Sweden and Finland to NATO
Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

by Josh Hawley

The Senate will soon vote on adding Sweden and Finland to NATO. According to the terms of NATO’s founding treaty, that means the United States would be obliged to defend both countries in the event of a military attack. I intend to vote no.

Finland and Sweden want to join the Atlantic Alliance to head off further Russian aggression in Europe. That is entirely understandable given their location and security needs. But America’s greatest foreign adversary doesn’t loom over Europe. It looms in Asia. I am talking of course about the People’s Republic of China. And when it comes to Chinese imperialism, the American people should know the truth: the United States is not ready to resist it. Expanding American security commitments in Europe now would only make that problem worse—and America, less safe.

China has adopted a policy of dominating its neighbors and bullying free nations into doing its bidding. The Chinese Communist Party seeks effective control over Asia and the Pacific. And it seeks power over the United States—power to dictate our terms of trade, power to take American jobs, power to weaken our economy and make us dependent on Beijing. If left undeterred, China will gain that power. It will swallow up Taiwan, expand its use of slave labor, ramp up its global campaigns of censorship and repression, and make the United States beg for economic access. Even the Biden administration admits that China is now our greatest threat.

Confronting this threat will force us to make tough choices. As the 2018 and 2022 U.S. National Defense Strategies both acknowledge, the United States cannot defeat China and Russia in two major wars at the same time. And we are not where we need to be in Asia. The U.S. is currently not prepared to fend off Chinese military aggression in the Pacific. Our forces are not postured as they should be. And we do not have the arms and equipment there we need, not least because we have been distracted for too long by nation-building activities in the Middle East and legacy commitments in Europe. In the face of this stark reality, we must choose. We must do less in Europe (and elsewhere) in order to prioritize China and Asia.

To be clear, America shouldn’t abandon NATO. But it’s time for our European allies to do more. In particular, they must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe by investing more in their own militaries. All the way back in 2006, NATO member states pledged to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on national defense. It should be higher. The United States spends far more than that on defense. But many NATO members still haven’t met even this minimal commitment.

And this isn’t just about U.S. interests. For our allies, it’s also a matter of self-preservation. If NATO member states aren’t prepared to defend themselves, they risk serious danger if U.S. forces are pulled from Europe into a crisis in the Asia-Pacific. Every European nation must now make the necessary investments to prepare themselves for a new threat environment, or risk the worst.

As to Sweden and Finland, both nations are advanced economies, with capable militaries. But they haven’t yet made the policy commitments appropriate to their geostrategic positions. Sweden doesn’t spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense and won’t for years to come. And Finland, though it announced a one-time defense spending boost, hasn’t made clear whether it will sustain these levels. In the event of a future conflict in Europe, U.S. forces would almost certainly be called in to defend both countries.

And even absent armed conflict, NATO expansion would almost certainly mean more U.S. forces in Europe for the long haul, more military hardware devoted there, and more dollars spent—to the detriment of our security needs in Asia, to say nothing of needs at home.

U.S. resources are not unlimited. Already we spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year on defense. And our manpower is already stretched thin across the globe. The United States must prioritize the defense resources we have for the China effort, while there is still time. Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

For decades, NATO stood as a bulwark against a militant Soviet Union, protecting the Western world by blocking Communism’s westward expansion. But more than three decades after the Soviet Union’s fall, the geopolitical landscape is very different. Russia is still a threat, but the Chinese Communist Party is a far greater one. And a truly strategic American foreign policy—one that looks to this nation’s strategic interests now, rather than the world of years ago—must embrace this reality, and prepare for it.
Hmmm …

… Vladimir Putin opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO, and

… Josh Hawley opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO, and

… old salt opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO.

Coincidence … or something else? 🤔
Hawley explained himself just fine. Hawley knew the vote would go thought. He's pointing out that NATO members need to stop doing sh*tty things like getting the bulk of their energy from Putin.....and Americans need to hold these idiots responsible for such stupid choices.

You realize that this war would be over if our own freaking NATO allies stopped trading with Putin, right Doc?

If you're serious about "winning" this war, Doc...you should be LIVID at NATO members for letting Ukraine and Biden twist in the wind.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32095
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

a fan wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:50 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:36 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:51 pm Senator Josh Hawley, in his own words, on why he's voting NO on admitting Sweden & Finland to NATO.
Symbolic vote on his part but it sends a message that needs to be heard.
Why I Won’t Vote to Add Sweden and Finland to NATO
Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

by Josh Hawley

The Senate will soon vote on adding Sweden and Finland to NATO. According to the terms of NATO’s founding treaty, that means the United States would be obliged to defend both countries in the event of a military attack. I intend to vote no.

Finland and Sweden want to join the Atlantic Alliance to head off further Russian aggression in Europe. That is entirely understandable given their location and security needs. But America’s greatest foreign adversary doesn’t loom over Europe. It looms in Asia. I am talking of course about the People’s Republic of China. And when it comes to Chinese imperialism, the American people should know the truth: the United States is not ready to resist it. Expanding American security commitments in Europe now would only make that problem worse—and America, less safe.

China has adopted a policy of dominating its neighbors and bullying free nations into doing its bidding. The Chinese Communist Party seeks effective control over Asia and the Pacific. And it seeks power over the United States—power to dictate our terms of trade, power to take American jobs, power to weaken our economy and make us dependent on Beijing. If left undeterred, China will gain that power. It will swallow up Taiwan, expand its use of slave labor, ramp up its global campaigns of censorship and repression, and make the United States beg for economic access. Even the Biden administration admits that China is now our greatest threat.

Confronting this threat will force us to make tough choices. As the 2018 and 2022 U.S. National Defense Strategies both acknowledge, the United States cannot defeat China and Russia in two major wars at the same time. And we are not where we need to be in Asia. The U.S. is currently not prepared to fend off Chinese military aggression in the Pacific. Our forces are not postured as they should be. And we do not have the arms and equipment there we need, not least because we have been distracted for too long by nation-building activities in the Middle East and legacy commitments in Europe. In the face of this stark reality, we must choose. We must do less in Europe (and elsewhere) in order to prioritize China and Asia.

To be clear, America shouldn’t abandon NATO. But it’s time for our European allies to do more. In particular, they must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe by investing more in their own militaries. All the way back in 2006, NATO member states pledged to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on national defense. It should be higher. The United States spends far more than that on defense. But many NATO members still haven’t met even this minimal commitment.

And this isn’t just about U.S. interests. For our allies, it’s also a matter of self-preservation. If NATO member states aren’t prepared to defend themselves, they risk serious danger if U.S. forces are pulled from Europe into a crisis in the Asia-Pacific. Every European nation must now make the necessary investments to prepare themselves for a new threat environment, or risk the worst.

As to Sweden and Finland, both nations are advanced economies, with capable militaries. But they haven’t yet made the policy commitments appropriate to their geostrategic positions. Sweden doesn’t spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense and won’t for years to come. And Finland, though it announced a one-time defense spending boost, hasn’t made clear whether it will sustain these levels. In the event of a future conflict in Europe, U.S. forces would almost certainly be called in to defend both countries.

And even absent armed conflict, NATO expansion would almost certainly mean more U.S. forces in Europe for the long haul, more military hardware devoted there, and more dollars spent—to the detriment of our security needs in Asia, to say nothing of needs at home.

U.S. resources are not unlimited. Already we spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year on defense. And our manpower is already stretched thin across the globe. The United States must prioritize the defense resources we have for the China effort, while there is still time. Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

For decades, NATO stood as a bulwark against a militant Soviet Union, protecting the Western world by blocking Communism’s westward expansion. But more than three decades after the Soviet Union’s fall, the geopolitical landscape is very different. Russia is still a threat, but the Chinese Communist Party is a far greater one. And a truly strategic American foreign policy—one that looks to this nation’s strategic interests now, rather than the world of years ago—must embrace this reality, and prepare for it.
Hmmm …

… Vladimir Putin opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO, and

… Josh Hawley opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO, and

… old salt opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO.

Coincidence … or something else? 🤔
Hawley explained himself just fine. Hawley knew the vote would go thought. He's pointing out that NATO members need to stop doing sh*tty things like getting the bulk of their energy from Putin.....and Americans need to hold these idiots responsible for such stupid choices.

You realize that this war would be over if our own freaking NATO allies stopped trading with Putin, right Doc?

If you're serious about "winning" this war, Doc...you should be LIVID at NATO members for letting Ukraine and Biden twist in the wind.
Wouldn’t the addition of Sweden and Finland add incremental $ to the NATO pot?
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
DocBarrister
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

a fan wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:50 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:36 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:51 pm Senator Josh Hawley, in his own words, on why he's voting NO on admitting Sweden & Finland to NATO.
Symbolic vote on his part but it sends a message that needs to be heard.
Why I Won’t Vote to Add Sweden and Finland to NATO
Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

by Josh Hawley

The Senate will soon vote on adding Sweden and Finland to NATO. According to the terms of NATO’s founding treaty, that means the United States would be obliged to defend both countries in the event of a military attack. I intend to vote no.

Finland and Sweden want to join the Atlantic Alliance to head off further Russian aggression in Europe. That is entirely understandable given their location and security needs. But America’s greatest foreign adversary doesn’t loom over Europe. It looms in Asia. I am talking of course about the People’s Republic of China. And when it comes to Chinese imperialism, the American people should know the truth: the United States is not ready to resist it. Expanding American security commitments in Europe now would only make that problem worse—and America, less safe.

China has adopted a policy of dominating its neighbors and bullying free nations into doing its bidding. The Chinese Communist Party seeks effective control over Asia and the Pacific. And it seeks power over the United States—power to dictate our terms of trade, power to take American jobs, power to weaken our economy and make us dependent on Beijing. If left undeterred, China will gain that power. It will swallow up Taiwan, expand its use of slave labor, ramp up its global campaigns of censorship and repression, and make the United States beg for economic access. Even the Biden administration admits that China is now our greatest threat.

Confronting this threat will force us to make tough choices. As the 2018 and 2022 U.S. National Defense Strategies both acknowledge, the United States cannot defeat China and Russia in two major wars at the same time. And we are not where we need to be in Asia. The U.S. is currently not prepared to fend off Chinese military aggression in the Pacific. Our forces are not postured as they should be. And we do not have the arms and equipment there we need, not least because we have been distracted for too long by nation-building activities in the Middle East and legacy commitments in Europe. In the face of this stark reality, we must choose. We must do less in Europe (and elsewhere) in order to prioritize China and Asia.

To be clear, America shouldn’t abandon NATO. But it’s time for our European allies to do more. In particular, they must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe by investing more in their own militaries. All the way back in 2006, NATO member states pledged to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on national defense. It should be higher. The United States spends far more than that on defense. But many NATO members still haven’t met even this minimal commitment.

And this isn’t just about U.S. interests. For our allies, it’s also a matter of self-preservation. If NATO member states aren’t prepared to defend themselves, they risk serious danger if U.S. forces are pulled from Europe into a crisis in the Asia-Pacific. Every European nation must now make the necessary investments to prepare themselves for a new threat environment, or risk the worst.

As to Sweden and Finland, both nations are advanced economies, with capable militaries. But they haven’t yet made the policy commitments appropriate to their geostrategic positions. Sweden doesn’t spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense and won’t for years to come. And Finland, though it announced a one-time defense spending boost, hasn’t made clear whether it will sustain these levels. In the event of a future conflict in Europe, U.S. forces would almost certainly be called in to defend both countries.

And even absent armed conflict, NATO expansion would almost certainly mean more U.S. forces in Europe for the long haul, more military hardware devoted there, and more dollars spent—to the detriment of our security needs in Asia, to say nothing of needs at home.

U.S. resources are not unlimited. Already we spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year on defense. And our manpower is already stretched thin across the globe. The United States must prioritize the defense resources we have for the China effort, while there is still time. Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

For decades, NATO stood as a bulwark against a militant Soviet Union, protecting the Western world by blocking Communism’s westward expansion. But more than three decades after the Soviet Union’s fall, the geopolitical landscape is very different. Russia is still a threat, but the Chinese Communist Party is a far greater one. And a truly strategic American foreign policy—one that looks to this nation’s strategic interests now, rather than the world of years ago—must embrace this reality, and prepare for it.
Hmmm …

… Vladimir Putin opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO, and

… Josh Hawley opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO, and

… old salt opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO.

Coincidence … or something else? 🤔
Hawley explained himself just fine. Hawley knew the vote would go thought. He's pointing out that NATO members need to stop doing sh*tty things like getting the bulk of their energy from Putin.....and Americans need to hold these idiots responsible for such stupid choices.

You realize that this war would be over if our own freaking NATO allies stopped trading with Putin, right Doc?

If you're serious about "winning" this war, Doc...you should be LIVID at NATO members for letting Ukraine and Biden twist in the wind.
Europeans (and/or NATO allies) have already made substantial sacrifices with respect to their reliance on Russian energy. They have also made incredible contributions to Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s criminal war, not just in arms and money, but especially in the sheltering of over 5 million Ukrainian refugees (the largest refugee crisis in Europe since WWII).

The claim that NATO allies are not doing enough to help Ukraine is actually a false narrative promoted by Russia (obviously, to divide the alliance and reduce U.S. domestic support for NATO), and you and old salt have been propagating those lies (knowingly or not).

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
a fan
Posts: 17525
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by a fan »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:09 pm
Wouldn’t the addition of Sweden and Finland add incremental $ to the NATO pot?
Relative our new responsibility to go to war for them? Dunno. We'll see, i guess.
a fan
Posts: 17525
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by a fan »

DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:13 pm The claim that NATO allies are not doing enough to help Ukraine is actually a false narrative promoted by Russia (obviously, to divide the alliance and reduce U.S. domestic support for NATO), and you and old salt have been propagating those lies (knowingly or not).
Complete and utter buffalo bagels.

In what world does it make ANY sense to get your energy from the one country that started the need for NATO in the first place.

Here's a question that shows you how stupid it is get NATO from Putin, Doc: should America start buying energy from Putin?


Why not? You're telling me that It's sooper cool for Germany and others in the EU to do it, so why wouldn't America start essential trade with Putin? Buy natural gas etc?

Germany and others are literally financing Putin's armies in buying his energy. And YOU are telling us that that's just great.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32095
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

a fan wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:42 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:09 pm
Wouldn’t the addition of Sweden and Finland add incremental $ to the NATO pot?
Relative our new responsibility to go to war for them? Dunno. We'll see, i guess.
We go to war for other countries? We are that benevolent? BTW, Yankee Spirits in MA is all out of your product….I can look into having some ordered in but they didn’t have much in their whole system when generally they have multiple varieties of your stuff. A colleague is addicted to the Apple whiskey and I pick it up when I pass through Massachusetts.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17443
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

Here ya go Comrade Doc --
old salt wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:02 am I support the EUropeans who are willing to help defend themselves against Russia, like the ones I served with. Finland & Sweden have done a good job of that. They are already a valuable neutral armed buffer, using our weapons or compatible ones of their own design. They already operate effectively alongside us, without NATO membership. Thanks to their own resolve & resources, they have not needed NATO to protect them & have not been obligated to defend their free-riding neighbors. They've successfully defended themselves since WW II. If Germany & the other former Warsaw Pact NATO members (except Poland recently) invested in their own defense & diplomacy as effectively as Finland & Sweden have, NATO would still be as strong & effective as the NATO which won the Cold War.
a fan
Posts: 17525
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by a fan »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:48 pm
a fan wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:42 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:09 pm
Wouldn’t the addition of Sweden and Finland add incremental $ to the NATO pot?
Relative our new responsibility to go to war for them? Dunno. We'll see, i guess.
We go to war for other countries? We are that benevolent?
We are if we let them into NATO!
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:48 pm
BTW, Yankee Spirits in MA is all out of your product….I can look into having some ordered in but they didn’t have much in their whole system when generally they have multiple varieties of your stuff. A colleague is addicted to the Apple whiskey and I pick it up when I pass through Massachusetts.
I'll look into it.....sorry!
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17443
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:53 pm Here ya go Comrade Doc --
old salt wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:02 am I support the EUropeans who are willing to help defend themselves against Russia, like the ones I served with. Finland & Sweden have done a good job of that. They are already a valuable neutral armed buffer, using our weapons or compatible ones of their own design. They already operate effectively alongside us, without NATO membership. Thanks to their own resolve & resources, they have not needed NATO to protect them & have not been obligated to defend their free-riding neighbors. They've successfully defended themselves since WW II. If Germany & the other former Warsaw Pact NATO members (except Poland recently) invested in their own defense & diplomacy as effectively as Finland & Sweden have, NATO would still be as strong & effective as the NATO which won the Cold War.
old salt wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:34 pm Sweden & Finland were capable of defending themselves & thus, are now an asset to NATO when they ask to join.

Ukraine could have been the same had they followed Finland's example & taken the path of the Baltic states when the USSR came apart.
old salt wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:13 pm
Kismet wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:05 am This gets really interesting - Turkey comes to support addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO after initially balking...
This is all good...
old salt wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:13 am What's done is done. The issue now is what comes next....
Putin's invasion has unified & strengthened the EU & NATO, not destabilized them.
The pending accession of Finland & Sweden further strengthens NATO's E flank & makes Russian expansion even less likely.
Last edited by old salt on Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

a fan wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:46 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:13 pm The claim that NATO allies are not doing enough to help Ukraine is actually a false narrative promoted by Russia (obviously, to divide the alliance and reduce U.S. domestic support for NATO), and you and old salt have been propagating those lies (knowingly or not).
Complete and utter buffalo bagels.

In what world does it make ANY sense to get your energy from the one country that started the need for NATO in the first place.

Here's a question that shows you how stupid it is get NATO from Putin, Doc: should America start buying energy from Putin?


Why not? You're telling me that It's sooper cool for Germany and others in the EU to do it, so why wouldn't America start essential trade with Putin? Buy natural gas etc?

Germany and others are literally financing Putin's armies in buying his energy. And YOU are telling us that that's just great.
This is one of those situations analogous to that old maxim, “amateurs think strategy, generals think logistics” (Russia, by the way, doesn’t have very good generals).

The point being, the issue is a pragmatic one, not one based on principles and rational debate, as you are portraying it.

Europeans have long relied on Russian energy. They still need to buy Russian natural gas because Europeans need it for cooking fuel and heating. Europeans used to produce their own natural gas but the North Sea gas fields were depleted. They moved away from coal towards cleaner natural gas and renewables, but that’s a process that will require decades to complete. Europe doesn’t have the infrastructure or suppliers to immediately replace Russian natural gas. It’s a practical problem. Russia once supplied over 40% of Europe’s natural gas. The European Union is planning to become completely independent from Russian natural gas. That’s an incredible feat to attempt in a short period of time.

Similarly, it takes time for Europe to change oil suppliers. There isn’t enough oil on the current market to replace all the oil supplied by Russia. Some European nations received more than 80% of their oil from Russia. The EU has committed to eliminating reliance on Russia completely.

Can you imagine Americans trying to make the massive changes in oil and gas supplies that the Europeans have pledged to do? Would absolutely never happen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/58888451.amp

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/24/why ... l-gas.html

It’s a practical need, a fan. Such a major transition in energy supply on such a massive scale in such a short period of time has never been achieved or attempted before in modern history. Never.

People still need to cook. They still need to heat their homes. They still need to drive their cars.

The Europeans have committed to the most massive transition in energy supply in the shortest period of time possible. It’s never been done before.

Maybe amateur armchair generals like you can give them a break while they attempt to do something completely unprecedented… a transition that we Americans could never, ever accomplish under similar circumstances.

DocBarrister :?
Last edited by DocBarrister on Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
@DocBarrister
DocBarrister
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:53 pm Here ya go Comrade Doc --
old salt wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:02 am I support the EUropeans who are willing to help defend themselves against Russia, like the ones I served with. Finland & Sweden have done a good job of that. They are already a valuable neutral armed buffer, using our weapons or compatible ones of their own design. They already operate effectively alongside us, without NATO membership. Thanks to their own resolve & resources, they have not needed NATO to protect them & have not been obligated to defend their free-riding neighbors. They've successfully defended themselves since WW II. If Germany & the other former Warsaw Pact NATO members (except Poland recently) invested in their own defense & diplomacy as effectively as Finland & Sweden have, NATO would still be as strong & effective as the NATO which won the Cold War.
Thing is … there are two parties that disagree with your assessment, namely Finland & Sweden. Both have assessed the current security environment and have concluded that they need NATO membership to maintain their national security. The governments of the United States and current NATO members agree.

Pardon me if I accept their assessment over yours.

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17443
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:18 pm
a fan wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:46 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:13 pm The claim that NATO allies are not doing enough to help Ukraine is actually a false narrative promoted by Russia (obviously, to divide the alliance and reduce U.S. domestic support for NATO), and you and old salt have been propagating those lies (knowingly or not).
Complete and utter buffalo bagels.

In what world does it make ANY sense to get your energy from the one country that started the need for NATO in the first place.

Here's a question that shows you how stupid it is get NATO from Putin, Doc: should America start buying energy from Putin?


Why not? You're telling me that It's sooper cool for Germany and others in the EU to do it, so why wouldn't America start essential trade with Putin? Buy natural gas etc?

Germany and others are literally financing Putin's armies in buying his energy. And YOU are telling us that that's just great.
This is one of those situations analogous to that old maxim, “amateurs think strategy, generals think logistics” (Russia, by the way, doesn’t have very good generals).

The point being, the issue is a pragmatic one, not one based on principles and rational debate, as you are portraying it.

Europeans have long relied on Russian energy. They still need to buy Russian natural gas because Europeans need it for cooking fuel and heating. Europeans used to produce their own natural gas but the North Sea gas fields were depleted. They moved away from coal towards cleaner natural gas and renewables, but that’s a process that will require decades to complete. Europe doesn’t have the infrastructure or suppliers to immediately replace Russian natural gas. It’s a practical problem. Russia once supplied over 40% of Europe’s natural gas. The European Union is planning to become completely independent from Russian natural gas. That’s an incredible feat to attempt in a short period of time.

Similarly, it takes time for Europe to change oil suppliers. There isn’t enough oil on the current market to replace all the oil supplied by Russia. Some European nations received more than 80% of their oil from Russia. The EU has committed to eliminating reliance on Russia completely.

Can you imagine Americans trying to make the massive changes in oil and gas supplies that the Europeans have pledged to do? Would absolutely never happen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/58888451.amp

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/24/why ... l-gas.html

It’s a practical need, a fan. Such a major transition in energy supply on such a massive scale in such a short period of time has never been achieved or attempted before in modern history. Never.

People still need to cook. They still need to heat their homes. They still need to drive their cars.

The Europeans have committed to the most massive transition in energy supply in the shortest period of time possible. Its never been done before.

Maybe amateur armchair generals like you can give them a break while they attempt to do something completely unprecedented… a transition that we Americans could never, ever accomplish under similar circumstances.

DocBarrister :?
Nice dissertation by doc of Putin's evil genius in boxing in the EU & neutering their ability to adequately support Ukraine's war for independence.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17443
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:24 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:53 pm Here ya go Comrade Doc --
old salt wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:02 am I support the EUropeans who are willing to help defend themselves against Russia, like the ones I served with. Finland & Sweden have done a good job of that. They are already a valuable neutral armed buffer, using our weapons or compatible ones of their own design. They already operate effectively alongside us, without NATO membership. Thanks to their own resolve & resources, they have not needed NATO to protect them & have not been obligated to defend their free-riding neighbors. They've successfully defended themselves since WW II. If Germany & the other former Warsaw Pact NATO members (except Poland recently) invested in their own defense & diplomacy as effectively as Finland & Sweden have, NATO would still be as strong & effective as the NATO which won the Cold War.
Thing is … there are two parties that disagree with your assessment, namely Finland & Sweden. Both have assessed the current security environment and have concluded that they need NATO membership to maintain their national security. The governments of the United States and current NATO members agree.

Pardon me if I accept their assessment over yours.

DocBarrister
Read it again doc. It's complimentary of Sweden & Finland. It points out that they are more capable than many current NATO members.
Read my subsequent posts, further down the page, saying more good things about them joining NATO.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:25 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:18 pm
a fan wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:46 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:13 pm The claim that NATO allies are not doing enough to help Ukraine is actually a false narrative promoted by Russia (obviously, to divide the alliance and reduce U.S. domestic support for NATO), and you and old salt have been propagating those lies (knowingly or not).
Complete and utter buffalo bagels.

In what world does it make ANY sense to get your energy from the one country that started the need for NATO in the first place.

Here's a question that shows you how stupid it is get NATO from Putin, Doc: should America start buying energy from Putin?


Why not? You're telling me that It's sooper cool for Germany and others in the EU to do it, so why wouldn't America start essential trade with Putin? Buy natural gas etc?

Germany and others are literally financing Putin's armies in buying his energy. And YOU are telling us that that's just great.
This is one of those situations analogous to that old maxim, “amateurs think strategy, generals think logistics” (Russia, by the way, doesn’t have very good generals).

The point being, the issue is a pragmatic one, not one based on principles and rational debate, as you are portraying it.

Europeans have long relied on Russian energy. They still need to buy Russian natural gas because Europeans need it for cooking fuel and heating. Europeans used to produce their own natural gas but the North Sea gas fields were depleted. They moved away from coal towards cleaner natural gas and renewables, but that’s a process that will require decades to complete. Europe doesn’t have the infrastructure or suppliers to immediately replace Russian natural gas. It’s a practical problem. Russia once supplied over 40% of Europe’s natural gas. The European Union is planning to become completely independent from Russian natural gas. That’s an incredible feat to attempt in a short period of time.

Similarly, it takes time for Europe to change oil suppliers. There isn’t enough oil on the current market to replace all the oil supplied by Russia. Some European nations received more than 80% of their oil from Russia. The EU has committed to eliminating reliance on Russia completely.

Can you imagine Americans trying to make the massive changes in oil and gas supplies that the Europeans have pledged to do? Would absolutely never happen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/58888451.amp

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/24/why ... l-gas.html

It’s a practical need, a fan. Such a major transition in energy supply on such a massive scale in such a short period of time has never been achieved or attempted before in modern history. Never.

People still need to cook. They still need to heat their homes. They still need to drive their cars.

The Europeans have committed to the most massive transition in energy supply in the shortest period of time possible. Its never been done before.

Maybe amateur armchair generals like you can give them a break while they attempt to do something completely unprecedented… a transition that we Americans could never, ever accomplish under similar circumstances.

DocBarrister :?
Nice dissertation by doc of Putin's evil genius in boxing in the EU & neutering their ability to adequately support Ukraine's war for independence.
You’re praising Putin again. Old habits are hard to break …. :?

Anyway, Putin and Russia are doing fine in the short term. However, in the long run, Europe will indeed become energy independent from Russia. Russia can increase exports to certain nations (e.g., China), but Russia will never be able to replace the energy export market that is Europe. Sanctions will also not be lifted until Putin dies or is forced from power.

Putin is basically castrating Russia’s future for his delusional war.

If that’s genius, that’s a genius in incompetence and myopia.

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
DocBarrister
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:29 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:24 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:53 pm Here ya go Comrade Doc --
old salt wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:02 am I support the EUropeans who are willing to help defend themselves against Russia, like the ones I served with. Finland & Sweden have done a good job of that. They are already a valuable neutral armed buffer, using our weapons or compatible ones of their own design. They already operate effectively alongside us, without NATO membership. Thanks to their own resolve & resources, they have not needed NATO to protect them & have not been obligated to defend their free-riding neighbors. They've successfully defended themselves since WW II. If Germany & the other former Warsaw Pact NATO members (except Poland recently) invested in their own defense & diplomacy as effectively as Finland & Sweden have, NATO would still be as strong & effective as the NATO which won the Cold War.
Thing is … there are two parties that disagree with your assessment, namely Finland & Sweden. Both have assessed the current security environment and have concluded that they need NATO membership to maintain their national security. The governments of the United States and current NATO members agree.

Pardon me if I accept their assessment over yours.

DocBarrister
Read it again doc. It's complimentary of Sweden & Finland. It points out that they are more capable than many current NATO members.
Read my subsequent posts, further down the page, saying more good things about them joining NATO.
Yet in the end, you still oppose their joining NATO. That’s how you really feel, correct? That’s why you posted Hawley’s article opposing NATO membership for Finland and Sweden, correct?

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17443
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:36 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:25 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:18 pm
a fan wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:46 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:13 pm The claim that NATO allies are not doing enough to help Ukraine is actually a false narrative promoted by Russia (obviously, to divide the alliance and reduce U.S. domestic support for NATO), and you and old salt have been propagating those lies (knowingly or not).
Complete and utter buffalo bagels.

In what world does it make ANY sense to get your energy from the one country that started the need for NATO in the first place.

Here's a question that shows you how stupid it is get NATO from Putin, Doc: should America start buying energy from Putin?


Why not? You're telling me that It's sooper cool for Germany and others in the EU to do it, so why wouldn't America start essential trade with Putin? Buy natural gas etc?

Germany and others are literally financing Putin's armies in buying his energy. And YOU are telling us that that's just great.
This is one of those situations analogous to that old maxim, “amateurs think strategy, generals think logistics” (Russia, by the way, doesn’t have very good generals).

The point being, the issue is a pragmatic one, not one based on principles and rational debate, as you are portraying it.

Europeans have long relied on Russian energy. They still need to buy Russian natural gas because Europeans need it for cooking fuel and heating. Europeans used to produce their own natural gas but the North Sea gas fields were depleted. They moved away from coal towards cleaner natural gas and renewables, but that’s a process that will require decades to complete. Europe doesn’t have the infrastructure or suppliers to immediately replace Russian natural gas. It’s a practical problem. Russia once supplied over 40% of Europe’s natural gas. The European Union is planning to become completely independent from Russian natural gas. That’s an incredible feat to attempt in a short period of time.

Similarly, it takes time for Europe to change oil suppliers. There isn’t enough oil on the current market to replace all the oil supplied by Russia. Some European nations received more than 80% of their oil from Russia. The EU has committed to eliminating reliance on Russia completely.

Can you imagine Americans trying to make the massive changes in oil and gas supplies that the Europeans have pledged to do? Would absolutely never happen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/58888451.amp

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/24/why ... l-gas.html

It’s a practical need, a fan. Such a major transition in energy supply on such a massive scale in such a short period of time has never been achieved or attempted before in modern history. Never.

People still need to cook. They still need to heat their homes. They still need to drive their cars.

The Europeans have committed to the most massive transition in energy supply in the shortest period of time possible. Its never been done before.

Maybe amateur armchair generals like you can give them a break while they attempt to do something completely unprecedented… a transition that we Americans could never, ever accomplish under similar circumstances.

DocBarrister :?
Nice dissertation by doc of Putin's evil genius in boxing in the EU & neutering their ability to adequately support Ukraine's war for independence.
You’re praising Putin again. Old habits are hard to break …. :?

Anyway, Putin and Russia are doing fine in the short term. However, in the long run, Europe will indeed become energy independent from Russia. Russia can increase exports to certain nations (e.g., China), but Russia will never be able to replace the energy export market that is Europe. Sanctions will also not be lifted until Putin dies or is forced from power.

Putin is basically castrating Russia’s future for his delusional war.

If that’s genius, that’s a genius in incompetence and myopia.

DocBarrister
:lol: ...I'm not praising Putin. I'm quoting your words illustrating how he has outmaneuvered our EU allies.
We'll see if the EU ever becomes independent of Russian energy & how long it takes.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:42 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:36 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:25 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:18 pm
a fan wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:46 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:13 pm The claim that NATO allies are not doing enough to help Ukraine is actually a false narrative promoted by Russia (obviously, to divide the alliance and reduce U.S. domestic support for NATO), and you and old salt have been propagating those lies (knowingly or not).
Complete and utter buffalo bagels.

In what world does it make ANY sense to get your energy from the one country that started the need for NATO in the first place.

Here's a question that shows you how stupid it is get NATO from Putin, Doc: should America start buying energy from Putin?


Why not? You're telling me that It's sooper cool for Germany and others in the EU to do it, so why wouldn't America start essential trade with Putin? Buy natural gas etc?

Germany and others are literally financing Putin's armies in buying his energy. And YOU are telling us that that's just great.
This is one of those situations analogous to that old maxim, “amateurs think strategy, generals think logistics” (Russia, by the way, doesn’t have very good generals).

The point being, the issue is a pragmatic one, not one based on principles and rational debate, as you are portraying it.

Europeans have long relied on Russian energy. They still need to buy Russian natural gas because Europeans need it for cooking fuel and heating. Europeans used to produce their own natural gas but the North Sea gas fields were depleted. They moved away from coal towards cleaner natural gas and renewables, but that’s a process that will require decades to complete. Europe doesn’t have the infrastructure or suppliers to immediately replace Russian natural gas. It’s a practical problem. Russia once supplied over 40% of Europe’s natural gas. The European Union is planning to become completely independent from Russian natural gas. That’s an incredible feat to attempt in a short period of time.

Similarly, it takes time for Europe to change oil suppliers. There isn’t enough oil on the current market to replace all the oil supplied by Russia. Some European nations received more than 80% of their oil from Russia. The EU has committed to eliminating reliance on Russia completely.

Can you imagine Americans trying to make the massive changes in oil and gas supplies that the Europeans have pledged to do? Would absolutely never happen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/58888451.amp

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/24/why ... l-gas.html

It’s a practical need, a fan. Such a major transition in energy supply on such a massive scale in such a short period of time has never been achieved or attempted before in modern history. Never.

People still need to cook. They still need to heat their homes. They still need to drive their cars.

The Europeans have committed to the most massive transition in energy supply in the shortest period of time possible. Its never been done before.

Maybe amateur armchair generals like you can give them a break while they attempt to do something completely unprecedented… a transition that we Americans could never, ever accomplish under similar circumstances.

DocBarrister :?
Nice dissertation by doc of Putin's evil genius in boxing in the EU & neutering their ability to adequately support Ukraine's war for independence.
You’re praising Putin again. Old habits are hard to break …. :?

Anyway, Putin and Russia are doing fine in the short term. However, in the long run, Europe will indeed become energy independent from Russia. Russia can increase exports to certain nations (e.g., China), but Russia will never be able to replace the energy export market that is Europe. Sanctions will also not be lifted until Putin dies or is forced from power.

Putin is basically castrating Russia’s future for his delusional war.

If that’s genius, that’s a genius in incompetence and myopia.

DocBarrister
:lol: ...I'm not praising Putin. I'm quoting your words illustrating how he has outmaneuvered our EU allies.
But he hasn’t.

Russia will eventually be shut out of the entire European energy market. It will take time but it will happen. That is an economic and national security catastrophe for Russia.

Putin himself has destroyed Russia’s long-term future. It could take decades for Russia to recover from Putin’s debacle.

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17443
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:39 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:29 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:24 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:53 pm Here ya go Comrade Doc --
old salt wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:02 am I support the EUropeans who are willing to help defend themselves against Russia, like the ones I served with. Finland & Sweden have done a good job of that. They are already a valuable neutral armed buffer, using our weapons or compatible ones of their own design. They already operate effectively alongside us, without NATO membership. Thanks to their own resolve & resources, they have not needed NATO to protect them & have not been obligated to defend their free-riding neighbors. They've successfully defended themselves since WW II. If Germany & the other former Warsaw Pact NATO members (except Poland recently) invested in their own defense & diplomacy as effectively as Finland & Sweden have, NATO would still be as strong & effective as the NATO which won the Cold War.
Thing is … there are two parties that disagree with your assessment, namely Finland & Sweden. Both have assessed the current security environment and have concluded that they need NATO membership to maintain their national security. The governments of the United States and current NATO members agree.

Pardon me if I accept their assessment over yours.

DocBarrister
Read it again doc. It's complimentary of Sweden & Finland. It points out that they are more capable than many current NATO members.
Read my subsequent posts, further down the page, saying more good things about them joining NATO.
Yet in the end, you still oppose their joining NATO. That’s how you really feel, correct? That’s why you posted Hawley’s article opposing NATO membership for Finland and Sweden, correct?

DocBarrister
Show us my words opposing their membership.
I said that Hawley said things that need to be heard & considered, not that I oppose their membership.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:47 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:39 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:29 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:24 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:53 pm Here ya go Comrade Doc --
old salt wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:02 am I support the EUropeans who are willing to help defend themselves against Russia, like the ones I served with. Finland & Sweden have done a good job of that. They are already a valuable neutral armed buffer, using our weapons or compatible ones of their own design. They already operate effectively alongside us, without NATO membership. Thanks to their own resolve & resources, they have not needed NATO to protect them & have not been obligated to defend their free-riding neighbors. They've successfully defended themselves since WW II. If Germany & the other former Warsaw Pact NATO members (except Poland recently) invested in their own defense & diplomacy as effectively as Finland & Sweden have, NATO would still be as strong & effective as the NATO which won the Cold War.
Thing is … there are two parties that disagree with your assessment, namely Finland & Sweden. Both have assessed the current security environment and have concluded that they need NATO membership to maintain their national security. The governments of the United States and current NATO members agree.

Pardon me if I accept their assessment over yours.

DocBarrister
Read it again doc. It's complimentary of Sweden & Finland. It points out that they are more capable than many current NATO members.
Read my subsequent posts, further down the page, saying more good things about them joining NATO.
Yet in the end, you still oppose their joining NATO. That’s how you really feel, correct? That’s why you posted Hawley’s article opposing NATO membership for Finland and Sweden, correct?

DocBarrister
Show us my words opposing their membership.
I said that Hawley said things that need to be heard & considered, not that I oppose their membership.
You oppose NATO in general. You have made that abundantly clear in countless posts. Your post of Hawley’s article is just the most recent example.

Who exactly are you trying to fool around here?

DocBarrister :roll:
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17443
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:49 pm You oppose NATO in general. You have made that abundantly clear in countless posts. Your post of Hawley’s article is just the most recent example.

Who exactly are you trying to fool around here?

DocBarrister :roll:
Liar ! Slander ! I have posted repeatedly that I want to restore NATO to what it was when I was part of it when we won the Cold War.
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”