All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

I assume you approve of the Marshall Plan, our occupation of Japan & our decades long presence in S Korea, ...& the results.
How 'bout NATO solidarity leading to the outcome of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany & evolution of democracies in former Warsaw Pact nations & the former Soviet Baltic nations ? That was all US post WW II foreign policy. You're obsessed with only the negative.
That all turned out well & was little l liberalism.

I thought for a moment above that you were going to go all-in for small l "liberalism" on this post, Salty. That said, what aspect are you describing as "liberalism"?

#2 in this definition?

lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun
noun: liberalism
1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
3.
the doctrine of a Liberal Party or (in the UK) the Liberal Democrats.
Translate liberalism to
Use over time for: liberalism

Or, perhaps this first paragraph?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy.[11] Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism.[12][13][14]

We failed in not anticipating the impact on Russia & the inevitable response.
We failed to appreciate the difference between Warsaw Pact nations that were forced to be Soviet satellite states & former Soviet republics which were historically part of greater Russia.
That is where our liberalism needed to be tempered with a dose of realism, ...which is what we are getting now.

But then you abandoned liberalism to "realism" or "realpolitik" when it comes to Russia specifically...because what was once part of Russia's empire, whether Soviet or former Czarist Russa, must not be considered worthy of independence, "consent of the governed", "democracy" etc...nope, what Russia (Vlad) wants, realpolitik says they must get...

I agree with the definition of liberalism in the articles I posted & linked.

I also agree that our post cold war foreign policy has been too much liberalism & not enough realism.

We did not abandon realism when it came to Russia. We tried, it failed. It's not up to us to deem whether Russians are worthy of democracy. They had that option twice in the 20th century & rejected democracy twice.

We chose to expand NATO east of Germany, this was the inevitable result as predicted by Kennan & Kissinger.
It was fine to encourage democracy but an overreach to agree to defend their borders.
Finland, Sweden, Austria & Switzerland have not needed NATO to defend them.

Perhaps you're missing the point. Sure, it's up to the Russians whether they put up with kleptocracy instead of democracy...but that has nothing to do with the consent of the governed in other areas regardless of whether they were at some or many points in history under the hegemony of Russia.

And those other countries have the right to ally themselves now with whoever they wish, join whatever multilateral organizations they wish, should those organizations accept them as compatible...Russia doesn't get a veto.

And while you say "we expanded NATO", lets not forget that people in those areas wished to join NATO, membership was not imposed...indeed it needed to be earned.

How about we counsel the Russians on "realism"?
They're a third rate power...with nukes and oil...and their neighbors don't want to live under their rule.

[jhu72]

I assume you approve of the Marshall Plan, our occupation of Japan & our decades long presence in S Korea, ...& the results.
How 'bout NATO solidarity leading to the outcome of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany & evolution of democracies in former Warsaw Pact nations & the former Soviet Baltic nations ? That was all US post WW II foreign policy. You're obsessed with only the negative.
That all turned out well & was little l liberalism.

I thought for a moment above that you were going to go all-in for small l "liberalism" on this post, Salty. That said, what aspect are you describing as "liberalism"?

#2 in this definition?

lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun
noun: liberalism
1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
3.
the doctrine of a Liberal Party or (in the UK) the Liberal Democrats.
Translate liberalism to
Use over time for: liberalism

Or, perhaps this first paragraph?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy.[11] Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism.[12][13][14]

We failed in not anticipating the impact on Russia & the inevitable response.
We failed to appreciate the difference between Warsaw Pact nations that were forced to be Soviet satellite states & former Soviet republics which were historically part of greater Russia.
That is where our liberalism needed to be tempered with a dose of realism, ...which is what we are getting now.

But then you abandoned liberalism to "realism" or "realpolitik" when it comes to Russia specifically...because what was once part of Russia's empire, whether Soviet or former Czarist Russa, must not be considered worthy of independence, "consent of the governed", "democracy" etc...nope, what Russia (Vlad) wants, realpolitik says they must get...

I agree with the definition of liberalism in the articles I posted & linked.

I also agree that our post cold war foreign policy has been too much liberalism & not enough realism.

We did not abandon realism when it came to Russia. We tried, it failed. It's not up to us to deem whether Russians are worthy of democracy. They had that option twice in the 20th century & rejected democracy twice.

We chose to expand NATO east of Germany, this was the inevitable result as predicted by Kennan & Kissinger.
It was fine to encourage democracy but an overreach to agree to defend their borders.
Finland, Sweden, Austria & Switzerland have not needed NATO to defend them.

Perhaps you're missing the point. Sure, it's up to the Russians whether they put up with kleptocracy instead of democracy...but that has nothing to do with the consent of the governed in other areas regardless of whether they were at some or many points in history under the hegemony of Russia.

And those other countries have the right to ally themselves now with whoever they wish, join whatever multilateral organizations they wish, should those organizations accept them as compatible...Russia doesn't get a veto.

And while you say "we expanded NATO", lets not forget that people in those areas wished to join NATO, membership was not imposed...indeed it needed to be earned.

How about we counsel the Russians on "realism"?
They're a third rate power...with nukes and oil...and their neighbors don't want to live under their rule.

... they also have 80 million online cam girls - their biggest industry.

[old salt]

Perhaps you're missing the point. Sure, it's up to the Russians whether they put up with kleptocracy instead of democracy...but that has nothing to do with the consent of the governed in other areas regardless of whether they were at some or many points in history under the hegemony of Russia.

And those other countries have the right to ally themselves now with whoever they wish, join whatever multilateral organizations they wish, should those organizations accept them as compatible...Russia doesn't get a veto.

And while you say "we expanded NATO", lets not forget that people in those areas wished to join NATO, membership was not imposed...indeed it needed to be earned.

How about we counsel the Russians on "realism"?
They're a third rate power...with nukes and oil...and their neighbors don't want to live under their rule.

I don't blame other nations for wanting to join NATO. I blame NATO for enticing them to join, then not being able to follow through.
NATO made sense when it was a continuation of WW-II western allies who remained committed to their mutual defense from the USSR & to prevent a revanchist German threat. Who is NATO to enforce the " consent of the governed " in non-member nations ? It's not a global police force to impose our version of democracy on all of Europe. There was nothing keeping the nations between original NATO & Russia from forming their own alliance. A modern League of Armed Neutrality, following the model of Finland, Sweden & Switzerland.

You see where your "third rate power...with nukes and oil " rap has delivered us. We are scared sh!tless of that third rate power, with no effective deterrance, short of nucs.

[MDlaxfan76]

Perhaps you're missing the point. Sure, it's up to the Russians whether they put up with kleptocracy instead of democracy...but that has nothing to do with the consent of the governed in other areas regardless of whether they were at some or many points in history under the hegemony of Russia.

And those other countries have the right to ally themselves now with whoever they wish, join whatever multilateral organizations they wish, should those organizations accept them as compatible...Russia doesn't get a veto.

And while you say "we expanded NATO", lets not forget that people in those areas wished to join NATO, membership was not imposed...indeed it needed to be earned.

How about we counsel the Russians on "realism"?
They're a third rate power...with nukes and oil...and their neighbors don't want to live under their rule.

I don't blame other nations for wanting to join NATO. I blame NATO for enticing them to join, then not being able to follow through.
NATO made sense when it was a continuation of WW-II western allies who remained committed to their mutual defense from the USSR & to prevent a revanchist German threat. Who is NATO to enforce the " consent of the governed " in non-member nations ? It's not a global police force to impose our version of democracy on all of Europe. There was nothing keeping the nations between original NATO & Russia from forming their own alliance. A modern League of Armed Neutrality, following the model of Finland, Sweden & Switzerland.

You see where your "third rate power...with nukes and oil " rap has delivered us. We are scared sh!tless of that third rate power, with no effective deterrance, short of nucs.

Yup, Putin is a very dangerous enemy, albeit Russia as a whole is certainly not the sort of power the Soviet Union once was. But this is really about domestic politics in Russia, the continuation of a kleptocracy through phony ultranationalism and ego. But he's a smarter adversary than most any other world leader, though certainly Xi is very, very bright as well.

I think we certainly have an interest in seeing a larger portion of the world adopt democracy and comply with international law rather than less. And I definitely understand why NATO signaled openness to the possibility of Eastern European states joining at some point once they had their act together.

I guess you don't.

[old salt]

I think we certainly have an interest in seeing a larger portion of the world adopt democracy and comply with international law rather than less. And I definitely understand why NATO signaled openness to the possibility of Eastern European states joining at some point once they had their act together.

I guess you don't.

They never got their act together militarily. Reminder -- NATO is a military alliance.

I'm all for military alliances like we have with all of our non-NATO allies. We are not automatically bound to protect their borders for them.
NATO was fine for W Europe & N America to bind together to defend each other against attack (nuclear & conventional) from the massive power of the USSR & then their ally Communist China, when they too went nuclear.

That protective umbrella should not have been extended to cover other nations who were unwilling or unable to meaningfully contribute to the combined defense. Extending US protection to them is a disincentive for them to make an honest effort to contribute to their own or the collective defense. The former Warsaw Pact nations who are now NATO member nations are still less militarily capable than they were when they were part of the Warsaw Pact. Since then, they have allowed their military capability to atrophy. They're still using obsolete Soviet era weapons & equipment. That's why we have US tanks in Poland & the Baltic states & the original western NATO countries are still deploying fighter planes for the air policing mission over NATO's E front. The US has been footing the bill to protect the EUroburghers new market countries. Germany benefits most from NATO, contributes the least in relative terms, & is an obstacle to leveraging Russia by non-military means.
Trump was accurate, but undiplomatic, when he said we were being played for suckers by our EU "allies".

[CU88]

January 24, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson

Today, the Pentagon ordered up to 8500 troops to go on standby in case they are needed to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. The troops have not been activated. If they are, they will deploy to nations allied with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), nations like Poland or Lithuania or Latvia, to provide help with logistics, medical needs, intelligence, and so on. If activated, the troops will not be authorized to enter Ukraine.

Here’s the story of how we got here:

The USSR dissolved in 1991 under pressure from a new alliance of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, joined by most of the other Soviet republics. Quickly, well-connected businessmen in those former republics began to amass wealth and power. At the same time, the fall of the Soviet Union prompted lawmakers in the U.S. to champion the free enterprise they were convinced had sunk the Soviets. They deregulated the U.S. financial industries just as rising oligarchs in Eastern Europe were eager to launder illicit money.

In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, all former satellites of the USSR, joined NATO over the protests of Russia, which was falling under the control of oligarchs who opposed western democracy. More countries near Russia joined NATO in the 2000s.

Russia set out to keep control of Ukraine. In 2004, it appeared to have installed a Russian-backed politician, Viktor Yanukovych, as president of Ukraine, but Yanukovych was rumored to have ties to organized crime, and the election was so full of fraud—including the poisoning of a key rival who wanted to break ties with Russia and align Ukraine with Europe—that the government voided the election and called for a do-over.

In 2004, Yanukovych began to work with U.S. political consultant Paul Manafort, who was known for managing unsavory characters, and in 2010, Yanukovych finally won the presidency on a platform of rejecting NATO. Immediately, Yanukovych turned Ukraine toward Russia. But in 2014, after months of popular protests, Ukrainians ousted Yanukovych from power in what is known as the Revolution of Dignity. He fled to Russia.

Shortly after Yanukovych’s ouster, Russia invaded Ukraine’s Crimea and annexed it, prompting the United States and the European Union to impose economic sanctions on Russia itself and also on specific Russian businesses and oligarchs, prohibiting them from doing business in U.S. territories. Since Russians had been using U.S. financial instruments to manage their illicit money, these sanctions froze the assets of key Russian oligarchs.

Putin wanted to get the sanctions lifted. At the same time, with Yanukovych out of power, Manafort was out of a job and in debt to his former friends. In summer 2016, Manafort began to manage the presidential campaign of Republican candidate Donald Trump. Shortly afterward, the Trump campaign changed the Republican Party’s 2016 platform to weaken its formerly strong stance against Russia and in defense of Ukraine.

Trump won the election, of course, and an investigation by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Russia had worked to get Trump elected and that Manafort had shared campaign information with his own former partner, a man the senators identified as a Russian operative.

Under Trump, American policy swung Putin’s way as Trump attacked NATO and the European Union, weakened our ties to our traditional European allies, and threatened to withdraw our support for Ukraine.

That policy changed when Biden took office. His administration renewed support for Ukraine and its move toward stronger ties to NATO and the European Union. At the same time, it has dramatically cracked down on money laundering, shell companies, and the movement of illicit money.

The U.S. began to take note that Russia was massing troops on its border with Ukraine last November. Rather than act unilaterally, the Biden administration immediately reached out to European allies and sent senior U.S. officials to Russia to meet with officials there, at the same time reassuring Ukraine officials that the U.S. would continue its support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity. When Putin worked with Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko to destabilize Poland by pushing migrants over the border, he helped to strengthen NATO’s unity, until now countries like Finland and Sweden, which are not NATO members, are considering joining.

The question at home is whether today’s Republicans will stand with Ukraine, NATO, and the rule of law that says sovereign countries have the right to determine their own alliances. If they support another Russian invasion of Ukraine, they will weaken NATO and the stands the U.S. and the European Union have taken to clean up global finances to stop oligarchs from amassing the power that comes from illicit money.

Since November, Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson has led the U.S. defense of Russia, echoing Russian talking points and suggesting that there is no reason for the U.S. to support Ukraine. (In November, when he asked of Representative Mike Turner (R-OH) why the U.S. should side with Ukraine over Russia, Turner noted that Ukraine is a democracy, “Russia is an authoritarian regime,” and that America is “for democracy” and “not for authoritarian regimes.”)

But the Republicans are split on the issue. Many are criticizing Biden not for his stand against Russian aggression, but because they say he has not been tough enough about it. National Review editorialized today that Biden should be moving weapons to Ukraine more quickly, the Wall Street Journal said the same on January 19, and Breitbart has called for impeaching Biden for not pushing back strongly enough against Russia.

While the Republicans are focusing on a unilateral military approach to the situation before Putin makes another move into Ukraine, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Bob Menendez (D-NJ), along with 38 colleagues, has introduced legislation to impose sanctions on the Russian banking sector, senior military and government officials, and Russia’s extractive industries, as well as cut Russia out of the SWIFT global transaction system, if Putin escalates hostilities. It authorizes another $500 million in assistance to Ukraine if Russia reinvades, and it seeks to counter disinformation coming from the Kremlin. Republican lawmakers are in talks with their Democratic counterparts over the bill.

At stake in this crisis is the concept of the international rule of law. The obvious question is whether nations should control their own borders and governments, or whether larger countries can absorb others in a sphere of influence. But there is also the question of money: oligarchs have risen to power thanks in part to the financial systems that enabled them to amass and launder illicit money that they then used to manipulate the politics of other countries. Under Biden, the U.S. and our allies are trying to strengthen democracies by getting rid of the loopholes that have helped illicit money poison democratic politics. The economic sanctions that Republicans are finding weak sauce might, in the end, reach far beyond Ukraine.

[MDlaxfan76]

I think we certainly have an interest in seeing a larger portion of the world adopt democracy and comply with international law rather than less. And I definitely understand why NATO signaled openness to the possibility of Eastern European states joining at some point once they had their act together.

I guess you don't.

They never got their act together militarily. Reminder -- NATO is a military alliance.

I'm all for military alliances like we have with all of our non-NATO allies. We are not automatically bound to protect their borders for them.
NATO was fine for W Europe & N America to bind together to defend each other against attack (nuclear & conventional) from the massive power of the USSR & then their ally Communist China, when they too went nuclear.

That protective umbrella should not have been extended to cover other nations who were unwilling or unable to meaningfully contribute to the combined defense. Extending US protection to them is a disincentive for them to make an honest effort to contribute to their own or the collective defense. The former Warsaw Pact nations who are now NATO member nations are still less militarily capable than they were when they were part of the Warsaw Pact. Since then, they have allowed their military capability to atrophy. They're still using obsolete Soviet era weapons & equipment. That's why we have US tanks in Poland & the Baltic states & the original western NATO countries are still deploying fighter planes for the air policing mission over NATO's E front. The US has been footing the bill to protect the EUroburghers new market countries. Germany benefits most from NATO, contributes the least in relative terms, & is an obstacle to leveraging Russia by non-military means.
Trump was accurate, but undiplomatic, when he said we were being played for suckers by our EU "allies".

I understand your argument re relative level of commitment, I just think it doesn't 'trump' our greater interest in promoting an international order of democracy and the rule of law, a system of international rules from which no country has benefited more than the US. And this includes the need of such democracies to provide security against aggression from those not willing to commit to the same set of rules and values.

Big problem we have with the EU, particularly since the Soviet Union broke apart, is that the US broke from the mutual expectation that we would work multilaterally in the system, rather than unilaterally decide when, where and how to use aggressive force. Much of their reaction is that the US' far higher investments in "defense" are really because we not actually interested in 'defense', rather our real animating interest is that we want to acquire greater power...colonialism 2.0.

Which makes it far harder for us to persuade those we want to make greater commitments to their and our collective security to invest comparably to us.

IMO, Trump greatly exacerbated this view of the US, making it very clear that the US could not be trusted to keep its commitments and its potential disdain for any collective commitment to international organizations, multilateralism, etc. America Alone.

George W's invasion of Iraq against the objections of our EU allies had broken faith, partially assuaged during Obama's tenure, but Trump made it very, very clear that US could not be trusted to keep its commitments to NATO in specific, nor any other international commitment. Which had never really been the case prior.

So, we have a big trust hole to dig out of...frankly, I don't think we deserve to be trusted at this point. We don't appear to actually be committed to democracy ourselves anymore, so no longer have the moral, philosophical authority to lead.

[old salt]

Big problem we have with the EU, particularly since the Soviet Union broke apart, is that the US broke from the mutual expectation that we would work multilaterally in the system, rather than unilaterally decide when, where and how to use aggressive force. Much of their reaction is that the US' far higher investments in "defense" are really because we not actually interested in 'defense', rather our real animating interest is that we want to acquire greater power...colonialism 2.0.

colonialism 2.0 ...right, that's why we invaded Iraq & Afghanistan. The jewels in our crown. ...
Colonialism 2.0 was the EU driven invasion of Libya, which Obama-Biden-Clinton lead from behind.

The only times we have used force in Europe has been through NATO -- the Balkans & Libya (from the Med & NATO bases).

NATO participated fully in Desert Storm & Afghanistan -- voluntarily.
In Iraq, NATO nations chose whether or not to join our coalition of the willing.

This is just silly.

IMO, Trump greatly exacerbated this view of the US, making it very clear that the US could not be trusted to keep its commitments and its potential disdain for any collective commitment to international organizations, multilateralism, etc. America Alone.

George W's invasion of Iraq against the objections of our EU allies had broken faith, partially assuaged during Obama's tenure, but Trump made it very, very clear that US could not be trusted to keep its commitments to NATO in specific, nor any other international commitment. Which had never really been the case prior.

So, we have a big trust hole to dig out of...frankly, I don't think we deserve to be trusted at this point. We don't appear to actually be committed to democracy ourselves anymore, so no longer have the moral, philosophical authority to lead.

We did more to support Ukraine under Trump than the rest of NATO combined.
Look at all we did during Trump"'s 4 years to improve Ukraine & our E NATO allies, militarily.
All EU leadership accomplished was the futile Minsk process.
There is a reason that Putin waited until Trump left office to make this move.
Trump is irrelevant to what is happening now. Germany's intransigence in supporting Ukraine is driven solely by self-interest.
Not everything is about Trump, despite your lame attempts to still blame him for everything bad in the world.

[MDlaxfan76]

Big problem we have with the EU, particularly since the Soviet Union broke apart, is that the US broke from the mutual expectation that we would work multilaterally in the system, rather than unilaterally decide when, where and how to use aggressive force. Much of their reaction is that the US' far higher investments in "defense" are really because we not actually interested in 'defense', rather our real animating interest is that we want to acquire greater power...colonialism 2.0.

colonialism 2.0 ...right, that's why we invaded Iraq & Afghanistan. The jewels in our crown. ...
Colonialism 2.0 was the EU driven invasion of Libya, which Obama-Biden-Clinton lead from behind.

The only times we have used force in Europe has been through NATO -- the Balkans & Libya (from the Med & NATO bases).

NATO participated fully in Desert Storm & Afghanistan -- voluntarily.
In Iraq, NATO nations chose whether or not to join our coalition of the willing.

This is just silly.

IMO, Trump greatly exacerbated this view of the US, making it very clear that the US could not be trusted to keep its commitments and its potential disdain for any collective commitment to international organizations, multilateralism, etc. America Alone.

George W's invasion of Iraq against the objections of our EU allies had broken faith, partially assuaged during Obama's tenure, but Trump made it very, very clear that US could not be trusted to keep its commitments to NATO in specific, nor any other international commitment. Which had never really been the case prior.

So, we have a big trust hole to dig out of...frankly, I don't think we deserve to be trusted at this point. We don't appear to actually be committed to democracy ourselves anymore, so no longer have the moral, philosophical authority to lead.

We did more to support Ukraine under Trump than the rest of NATO combined.
Look at all we did during Trump"'s 4 years to improve Ukraine & our E NATO allies, militarily.
All EU leadership accomplished was the futile Minsk process.
There is a reason that Putin waited until Trump left office to make this move.
Trump is irrelevant to what is happening now. Germany's intransigence in supporting Ukraine is driven solely by self-interest.
Not everything is about Trump, despite your lame attempts to still blame him for everything bad in the world.

We obviously disagree on most of this, though let me be clear, again, that I don't think Trump is the lone bad actor over the last 3 decades. Not the only factor. And I was quite clear about that above, so it's entirely bad faith to say otherwise. I just think Trump made it far worse, given the landscape he inherited, whereas you still are trying to whitewash all his perfidy in every arena.

Par for the course from you.

But I am interested in your perspectives when you don't try to exaggerate and misrepresent my views.

BTW, yes, that's the perspective of the europeans: Colonialism 2.0. America First, America Alone.

Doesn't mean I agree with that perspective, just the reality that we've fed that perspective far too often.

[a fan]

There is a reason that Putin waited until Trump left office to make this move.

Nope. If that was remotely true? He would have invaded during any of Obama's 8 years....you and the rest of your party told us Obama was the weakest President ever, remember? You don't get to play the "Little D Presidents are weak" game here.

If Putin invades all of Ukraine? He loses. Mark my words.

[youthathletics]

There is a reason that Putin waited until Trump left office to make this move.

Nope. If that was remotely true? He would have invaded during any of Obama's 8 years....you and the rest of your party told us Obama was the weakest President ever, remember? You don't get to play the "Little D Presidents are weak" game here.

If Putin invades all of Ukraine? He loses. Mark my words.

Disagree, he knew effing with Ukraine during the ME war would not go over well and not giv him attention (ego). Now that we are war(less), the timing is impeccable, that, and, well, Biden.

[a fan]

There is a reason that Putin waited until Trump left office to make this move.

Nope. If that was remotely true? He would have invaded during any of Obama's 8 years....you and the rest of your party told us Obama was the weakest President ever, remember? You don't get to play the "Little D Presidents are weak" game here.

If Putin invades all of Ukraine? He loses. Mark my words.

Disagree, he knew effing with Ukraine during the ME war would not go over well and not giv him attention (ego).

If attention is all he wants? He won't invade.

If attention PLUS an invasion was what he wanted? Russia would have invaded right after the Olympics in 2014, when all eyes were on Russia. Because as you know, YA....Obama was the weakest POTUS the Republicans have ever dealt with.....

[youthathletics]

There is a reason that Putin waited until Trump left office to make this move.

Nope. If that was remotely true? He would have invaded during any of Obama's 8 years....you and the rest of your party told us Obama was the weakest President ever, remember? You don't get to play the "Little D Presidents are weak" game here.

If Putin invades all of Ukraine? He loses. Mark my words.

Disagree, he knew effing with Ukraine during the ME war would not go over well and not giv him attention (ego).

If attention is all he wants? He won't invade.

If attention PLUS an invasion was what he wanted? Russia would have invaded right after the Olympics in 2014, when all eyes were on Russia. Because as you know, YA....Obama was the weakest POTUS the Republicans have ever dealt with.....

I am amazed how you know what Putin had planned this last decade....can you PM me the power ball numbers for Friday's drawing please.

[old salt]

Moved from another thread :

OS is on to something, in that I can see Putin invading a PART of Ukraine, and leaving the rest alone.

That's not my prediction, it's just one possibility which must be considered.
We still don't know how capable Ukraine's defenses are & if they will stand & fight.
Russia's latest force disposition would allow for massive air strikes & a quick thrust toward Kyiv, which could draw Ukrainian forces to defend their capital, making it easier for Russia to take the area in E & SE Ukraine which connects Crimea to Russia & has the largest ethnic Russian population.

We still don't know if Ukrainian nationalism is real & if it leads to standing & fighting to defend their nation & then mount an insurgency.
We don't know if Putin's goal is topple the current govt & install his new leader, while taking a bite out of E/SE Ukraine, or gain control of all of Ukraine & annex the entire nation back into Mother Russia. Putin may calculate that this will be his best & only opportunity to go for the full monty. Putin has better intel than we have on the strength of Ukrainian nationalism & their resolve to fight for democracy & independence -- on their own.

Makes sense.
Though like you, very hard to predict.

I'm not so sure we can dismiss "Ukrainian nationalism" as non-existent or unworthy if they don't manage to stop the Russian forces in their tracks and/or make it very bloody and costly. given that there's no cavalry coming to the rescue. It's one thing to fight when you think you have a shot at winning, even if only over the long haul, or if you have mountain caves to fall back into, or Pakistan to cross the border into, but quite another if you don't think you have a shot at winning. We're told that they've been training and arming for this since 2014, so maybe they're prepared to fight hard and long. But when all hellfire is raining down and you don't have air superiority...and no caves...

I have zero insight into the resilience of the Ukrainian side, just worry that they are in a very difficult position, and quite agree with you that Putin likely has far better insight....as you say "on their own".


Image result for ukrainian landscape
The country consists almost entirely of level plains at an average elevation of 574 feet (175 metres) above sea level. Mountainous areas such as the Ukrainian Carpathians and Crimean Mountains occur only on the country's borders and account for barely 5 percent of its area.

That's not my prediction, it's just one possibility which must be considered.
We still don't know how capable Ukraine's defenses are & if they will stand & fight.

Got it.

The weapons recently provided to Ukraine are not that impressive. They're geared to counter separatist para-military forces, not a modern Army/Air Force/Navy. The weapons provided are stopgap short range line-of-sight weapons. They're still using cold war vintage Soviet stuff.

[a fan]

There is a reason that Putin waited until Trump left office to make this move.

Nope. If that was remotely true? He would have invaded during any of Obama's 8 years....you and the rest of your party told us Obama was the weakest President ever, remember? You don't get to play the "Little D Presidents are weak" game here.

If Putin invades all of Ukraine? He loses. Mark my words.

Disagree, he knew effing with Ukraine during the ME war would not go over well and not giv him attention (ego).

If attention is all he wants? He won't invade.

If attention PLUS an invasion was what he wanted? Russia would have invaded right after the Olympics in 2014, when all eyes were on Russia. Because as you know, YA....Obama was the weakest POTUS the Republicans have ever dealt with.....

I am amazed how you know what Putin had planned this last decade....can you PM me the power ball numbers for Friday's drawing please.

Says the guy who is convinced that Putin took power waaaaay back in 2000.....and held off invading Ukraine for 22 years, because he just KNEW that weak Joe Biden (D) would be POTUS, and THAT would be the time to invade.

[old salt]

If attention PLUS an invasion was what he wanted? Russia would have invaded right after the Olympics in 2014,

He did. Immediately following the Olympics he seized Crimea & the Donbass.

[MDlaxfan76]

If attention PLUS an invasion was what he wanted? Russia would have invaded right after the Olympics in 2014,

He did. Immediately following the Olympics he seized Crimea & the Donbass.

And could have rolled onward...but he didn't.

a fan's point is that it's rather silly to say that he didn't while Obama was POTUS, then was really scared to do so while Trump was POTUS and only now that Trump is no longer in power and it's weak old Joe Biden that he'll do so...as if this wasn't all about domestic politics in Russia driving these timing decisions.

[a fan]

If attention PLUS an invasion was what he wanted? Russia would have invaded right after the Olympics in 2014,

He did. Immediately following the Olympics he seized Crimea & the Donbass.

]Oh. I know. Did you think I forgot? But he DIDN'T invade Ukraine.

So.....why not Ukraine while he's on a roll? Waiting for Biden to take office?

This is all the fruit from the "Post WWII US Foreign Policy" tree. Thinking that when the opposing party is in office? Oh, our adversaries gain 400 IQ points, and are playing (insert Dem/Republican President's name) for a fool.

This type of thinking would fail the Grad-School Foreign policy seminar, where the Professor asks: "name five things Putin did wrong in the last decade". Or, better still ,"what are the downsides for Putin if he invades Ukraine"? That's when you smell the toast burning, and realize that this is a cartoonish way of looking at our Global adversaries.

The way to pass that class? Leave the "Post WWII Foreign Policy" line of thinking, and look at the bigger picture. Putin didn't invade Ukraine back right after Crimea is that he knew it would lead to MAJOR economic consequences. This is the line of thinking that led Old Salt to realize "this is the Euroburgers problem."

That's what Putin is mulling over right now: "what are the pluses and minuses of taking Ukraine?" The minuses have been winning for 22 years now.

[a fan]

a fan's point is that it's rather silly to say that he didn't while Obama was POTUS, then was really scared to do so while Trump was POTUS and only now that Trump is no longer in power and it's weak old Joe Biden that he'll do so...as if this wasn't all about domestic politics in Russia driving these timing decisions.

It's how it works. Dems are bad, remember? That's what drives everything that happens around the world, remember?

[old salt]

If attention PLUS an invasion was what he wanted? Russia would have invaded right after the Olympics in 2014,

He did. Immediately following the Olympics he seized Crimea & the Donbass.

Oh. I know. Did you think I forgot? But he DIDN'T invade Ukraine.

So.....why not Ukraine while he's on a roll? Waiting for Biden to take office?

This is all the fruit from the "Post WWII US Foreign Policy" tree. Thinking that when the opposing party is in office? Oh, our adversaries gain 400 IQ points, and are playing (insert Dem/Republican President's name) for a fool.

This type of thinking would fail the Grad-School Foreign policy seminar, where the Professor asks: "name five things Putin did wrong in the last decade". Or, better still ,"what are the downsides for Putin if he invades Ukraine"? That's when you smell the toast burning, and realize that this is a cartoonish way of looking at our Global adversaries.

The way to pass that class? Leave the "Post WWII Foreign Policy" line of thinking, and look at the bigger picture. Putin didn't invade Ukraine back right after Crimea is that he knew it would lead to MAJOR economic consequences. This is the line of thinking that led Old Salt to realize "this is the Euroburgers problem."

That's what Putin is mulling over right now: "what are the pluses and minuses of taking Ukraine?" The minuses have been winning for 22 years now.

a fan's point is that it's rather silly to say that he didn't while Obama was POTUS, then was really scared to do so while Trump was POTUS and only now that Trump is no longer in power and it's weak old Joe Biden that he'll do so...as if this wasn't all about domestic politics in Russia driving these timing decisions.

It's how it works. Dems are bad, remember? That's what drives everything that happens around the world, remember?

I stand corrected. What Putin did in 2014 in annexing Crimea & his little green men seizing the Donbass, does not really count, because the Ukrainians did not resist his hybrid warfare.
If you haven't figured it out yet, Putin is playing the long game.

You tell us why Putin waited until Trump was out of office to do this. Trump was his puppet, bent on destroying NATO, right ?
Why did Putin wait those 8 years, while we armed & trained Ukraine's military ?
It has nothing to do with your silly red vs blue strawmen team sports.
Putin sees weakness now that he did not see before.

MAJOR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES ? How will this be less damaging to Putin economically now than it was in 2014 ?
I thought all the soft power sanctions after Crimea were going to ruin him & stop him from going farther.
Instead -- with Biden's blessing, he built Nordstream 2 so he can bypass Ukraine.

I get queasy just thinking about what this could look like if Putin goes all in & tries to take the entire country.
Putin has to get some kind of return on investment for this enormous military deployment.