All Things Russia & Ukraine

[a fan]

Oh OK. You're counting on the wrath of God. No worries.

Not at all! Us morons are counting on the resident "military expert", who JUST told us the Ukrainians are all set!

We're now providing more than they need just to defend the territory they now hold.

Yep. Apparently we're willing to equip them until one side runs out of human cannon fodder.

Like in Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Syria. And then Iraq again. Oh, and in Afghanistan again.

I ADORE you're pretending that this is new, and that you haven't CHEERED this behavior for DECADES.


We already saw your reaction in Afghanistan, where we were blowing trillions, and killing civilians by the thousands. You were OUTRAGED that Biden decided to stop doing that, and get out. Old Salt "magically" didn't care about the bloodshed there. Or money blown.

But sure, you're a peacenik now that Biden's little D is in office, telling us he's doing it wrong, and that you "care" about the casualties...while the rest of us don't.

Are you fooling yourself, is my only question? Because no one here is falling for this act.

[old salt]

Oh OK. You're counting on the wrath of God. No worries.

Not at all! Us morons are counting on the resident "military expert", who JUST told us the Ukrainians are all set!

We're now providing more than they need just to defend the territory they now hold.

Yep. Apparently we're willing to equip them until one side runs out of human cannon fodder.

Like in Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Syria. And then Iraq again. Oh, and in Afghanistan again.

I ADORE you're pretending that this is new, and that you haven't CHEERED this behavior for DECADES.


We already saw your reaction in Afghanistan, where we were blowing trillions, and killing civilians by the thousands. You were OUTRAGED that Biden decided to stop doing that, and get out. Old Salt "magically" didn't care about the bloodshed there. Or money blown.

But sure, you're a peacenik now that Biden's little D is in office, telling us he's doing it wrong, and that you "care" about the casualties...while the rest of us don't.

Are you fooling yourself, is my only question? Because no one here is falling for this act.

We've never sponsored a proxy war of this magnitude, that produced so many casualties, without putting our own forces at risk.

Our presence in Afghanistan was preventing casualties & worse. Look at what's happened since we departed.
Look at the casualties ISIS caused when we departed Iraq too soon.

[a fan]

We've never sponsored a proxy war of this magnitude, that produced so many casualties, without putting our own forces at risk.

Iran-Iraq war. It's not even a close call, for heaven's sake. We're on the hook for that sh9t since at least 1980...and one could argue even before that.

How many dead, total, again? Start to finish.....from 1980-2023 and counting. From when we armed one side, then the other, then the Gulf War, then Iraq War? How many hundreds of thousands? Most peg the dead at over 500K for 80-88 alone.

We're still there, and the meter is running. What do you think the death toll is in Iran-Iraq from 1980-2023? Over a million, yeah?

Our presence in Afghanistan was preventing casualties & worse.

So our boys were over there shooting goats? For 20 years?

Look at what's happened since we departed.

Yeah. US casualties dropped to zero. How about that? It's almost as if Biden's plan worked.

You gonna pull the "look at what's happened since we departed" card if Biden bails on Ukraine? Or does this logic ONLY work for Afghanistan?

You're telling us we should leave Ukraine out of one side of your mouth......but telling us we should NEVER leave Afghanistan with the other.

And we're to blame for what happens in Afghanistan when we leave....but we'd be off the hook if we left Ukraine.

Sensing a logic gap here anywhere yet?

[old salt]

We've never sponsored a proxy war of this magnitude, that produced so many casualties, without putting our own forces at risk.

Iran-Iraq war. It's not even a close call, for heaven's sake. We're on the hook for that sh9t since at least 1980...and one could argue even before that.

How many dead, total, again? Start to finish.....from 1980-2023 and counting. From when we armed one side, then the other, then the Gulf War, then Iraq War? How many hundreds of thousands? Most peg the dead at over 500K for 80-88 alone.

We're still there, and the meter is running. What do you think the death toll is in Iran-Iraq from 1980-2023? Over a million, yeah?

Our presence in Afghanistan was preventing casualties & worse.

So our boys were over there shooting goats? For 20 years?

Look at what's happened since we departed.

Yeah. US casualties dropped to zero. How about that? It's almost as if Biden's plan worked.

You gonna pull the "look at what's happened since we departed" card if Biden bails on Ukraine? Or does this logic ONLY work for Afghanistan?

You're telling us we should leave Ukraine out of one side of your mouth......but telling us we should NEVER leave Afghanistan with the other.

And we're to blame for what happens in Afghanistan when we leave....but we'd be off the hook if we left Ukraine.

Sensing a logic gap here anywhere yet?

...we didn't go ashore in Iraq until '91, then left & did not return until '03-'10, left too soon & had to return in '14 to deal with ISIS.
The peace is holding in Iraq (& NE Syria) with our minimal ongoing presence there,

things are really great for the Afghan people since we pulled out our (& NATO's) minimal security force. .

After meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs since '92, fomenting revolutions & regime changes there, & enabling this ongoing proxy war, we're on the hook until a diplomatic solution or frozen conflict emerges. Then we'll have to rebuild & protect the new, improved Ukraine, ...indefinitely.

Next up : Taiwan

[MDlaxfan76]

OR, we can enable Ukraine to destroy Russia's aggression, forcing Putin to withdraw.

How long ? At what cost ? What if you're wrong ? How far are you willing to go ?
In your opinion, Is it worth provoking Putin to use a tac nuc ?

Are you actually asking whether it's the US or Ukraine or anyone else but Putin and his hardliners who are responsible... if Putin chooses to use a tactical nuke, calling down on them the wrath of god??

Nope, the only parties responsible will be Putin and those hardliners...no one has "provoked" them by standing up to them.

Oh OK. You're counting on the wrath of God. No worries.

counting on?
No, but Vlad should.

Use of tactical nukes will result in overwhelming destruction for Putin's military.
Crushing, "wrath of god" level destruction.

Putin should "count on it".

How about a straight answer to my question.

[Typical Lax Dad]

We've never sponsored a proxy war of this magnitude, that produced so many casualties, without putting our own forces at risk.

Iran-Iraq war. It's not even a close call, for heaven's sake. We're on the hook for that sh9t since at least 1980...and one could argue even before that.

How many dead, total, again? Start to finish.....from 1980-2023 and counting. From when we armed one side, then the other, then the Gulf War, then Iraq War? How many hundreds of thousands? Most peg the dead at over 500K for 80-88 alone.

We're still there, and the meter is running. What do you think the death toll is in Iran-Iraq from 1980-2023? Over a million, yeah?

Our presence in Afghanistan was preventing casualties & worse.

So our boys were over there shooting goats? For 20 years?

Look at what's happened since we departed.

Yeah. US casualties dropped to zero. How about that? It's almost as if Biden's plan worked.

You gonna pull the "look at what's happened since we departed" card if Biden bails on Ukraine? Or does this logic ONLY work for Afghanistan?

You're telling us we should leave Ukraine out of one side of your mouth......but telling us we should NEVER leave Afghanistan with the other.

And we're to blame for what happens in Afghanistan when we leave....but we'd be off the hook if we left Ukraine.

Sensing a logic gap here anywhere yet?

...we didn't go ashore in Iraq until '91, then left & did not return until '03-'10, left too soon & had to return in '14 to deal with ISIS.
The peace is holding in Iraq (& NE Syria) with our minimal ongoing presence there,

things are really great for the Afghan people since we pulled out our (& NATO's) minimal security force. .

After meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs since '92, fomenting revolutions & regime changes there, & enabling this ongoing proxy war, we're on the hook until a diplomatic solution or frozen conflict emerges. Then we'll have to rebuild & protect the new, improved Ukraine, ...indefinitely.

Next up : Taiwan

[a fan]

...we didn't go ashore in Iraq until '91,

Yeah...that ain't what you asked. You can't keep your nonsense together from post to post...

We've never sponsored a proxy war of this magnitude

This is a lie. It's a lie, not a misstatement....because you know perfectly well that we started arming, training, and bankrolling Saddam starting in (at least) 1983. And guys like you SWORE we "had not no choice" but to fight this war because they were too stupid to understand that no matter how much war is happening in the ME...the oil will keep on flowing. So what did you advocate? That's right.....a proxy war that led to the death of over a million people in the Iran/Iraq regions.

You asserted "we never sponsored a proxy war of this magnitude". You're lying. Why? Because your giant ego won't let you concede that paths and choices YOU advocated had bad outcomes. YOU wanted cheap oil, and didn't care that over a million people died to get it YOUR way.

And here you are yet again, with your giant ego, unable to concede that Biden is doing just fine, having been placed between a rock and a hard place, with no right move on hand, assuming your believe the same Russian pundits you keep citing.

in your eyes, Biden MUST fail.....because you can't handle the damage to you ego if this war works out.

THAT is why you're cheering for failure. Ego.

The peace is holding in Iraq (& NE Syria) with our minimal ongoing presence there,

Yeah. After we fomented and enabled a proxy war....and then sent in troops .....twice, creating MORE war.

Now that, oh, over a million people are dead because of our proxy wars AND direct interventions.....all because YOU think we "had to do it" because we "have to have cheap oil"....things are relatively.....relatively.....less of a warzone. Take a bow, things are AWESOME in Iraq. Nice job!.

things are really great for the Afghan people since we pulled out our (& NATO's) minimal security force. .

Well next time? Don't start a F"ing proxy war there, Old Salt. Leave them the F alone. Then the Afghani would NEVER have known what or where the United States was. Then there's no 9/11. And no need to send troops there.

Listen to the real liberals. They were telling all of you idiots who can't think past "take that hill" DON"T DO IT. What did you do, instead? Treated Afghanistan like a toy, and played Charlie Wilson's game. And we paid the price for your shortsightedness.

After meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs since '92, fomenting revolutions & regime changes there, & enabling this ongoing proxy war, we're on the hook until a diplomatic solution or frozen conflict emerges. Then we'll have to rebuild & protect the new, improved Ukraine, ...indefinitely.

Wait...does this mean you've pulled your head out of your *ss, and are admitting this is Standard Operating Procedure, and Biden is doing the same exact sh*t YOU have advocated for for 50 years? And the ONLY difference is: Biden is a Dem, and you don't want to acknowledge that he's using YOUR playbook.

Next up : Taiwan

Holy cow....you ARE admitting that this is Standard Operating Procedure, and Biden is doing the same exact sh*t you've advocated for in the past....and will do in the future.

We have a phrase for this: Global Cop. And YOU want us to send tanks to Taiwan, and start yet another war. Sweet!

Well, this has been a productive conversation. Only took you, oh, about a year to admit that Biden is using YOUR playbook. And the ONLY reason you're b*tching about it is that you DESPERATELY want to complain that Biden is "doing it wrong".

If Biden had followed my consistent advice, and not done a thing militarily with countries that we don't have treaties with? You'd be on here, together will allllll the Republicans and FoxNation, whining about how "Biden is weak", and is "doing it wrong"

There's not a poster here who doesn't know that that's the straight truth. It's why you said---repeatedly----that you think Putin didn't invade when Trump was in power. Because for decades, Republicans that need to make up for a shortfall in their pants regions, think that "acting tough" solves every problem in the world...and INSIST that Dems are weak.

Now that Biden has proven he's just as much of a neo con as the Republicans, and stood up to Putin like you want? You're complaining. I thought tough guys were awesome, OS? That little D make you change your mind? (yep, that's exactly what did it)

It's not fooling anyone. You can't name the last Dem that "did it right" when it came to foreign policy. Yet spectacularly, Trump was FLAWLESS for you....even though neither he nor his aides could even tell you what the F his policies were.

[PizzaSnake]

...we didn't go ashore in Iraq until '91,

Yeah...that ain't what you asked. You can't keep your nonsense together from post to post...

We've never sponsored a proxy war of this magnitude

This is a lie. It's a lie, not a misstatement....because you know perfectly well that we started arming, training, and bankrolling Saddam starting in (at least) 1983. And guys like you SWORE we "had not no choice" but to fight this war because they were too stupid to understand that no matter how much war is happening in the ME...the oil will keep on flowing. So what did you advocate? That's right.....a proxy war that led to the death of over a million people in the Iran/Iraq regions.

You asserted "we never sponsored a proxy war of this magnitude". You're lying. Why? Because your giant ego won't let you concede that paths and choices YOU advocated had bad outcomes. YOU wanted cheap oil, and didn't care that over a million people died to get it YOUR way.

And here you are yet again, with your giant ego, unable to concede that Biden is doing just fine, having been placed between a rock and a hard place, with no right move on hand, assuming your believe the same Russian pundits you keep citing.

in your eyes, Biden MUST fail.....because you can't handle the damage to you ego if this war works out.

THAT is why you're cheering for failure. Ego.

The peace is holding in Iraq (& NE Syria) with our minimal ongoing presence there,

Yeah. After we fomented and enabled a proxy war....and then sent in troops .....twice, creating MORE war.

Now that, oh, over a million people are dead because of our proxy wars AND direct interventions.....all because YOU think we "had to do it" because we "have to have cheap oil"....things are relatively.....relatively.....less of a warzone. Take a bow, things are AWESOME in Iraq. Nice job!.

things are really great for the Afghan people since we pulled out our (& NATO's) minimal security force. .

Well next time? Don't start a F"ing proxy war there, Old Salt. Leave them the F alone. Then the Afghani would NEVER have known what or where the United States was. Then there's no 9/11. And no need to send troops there.

Listen to the real liberals. They were telling all of you idiots who can't think past "take that hill" DON"T DO IT. What did you do, instead? Treated Afghanistan like a toy, and played Charlie Wilson's game. And we paid the price for your shortsightedness.

After meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs since '92, fomenting revolutions & regime changes there, & enabling this ongoing proxy war, we're on the hook until a diplomatic solution or frozen conflict emerges. Then we'll have to rebuild & protect the new, improved Ukraine, ...indefinitely.

Wait...does this mean you've pulled your head out of your *ss, and are admitting this is Standard Operating Procedure, and Biden is doing the same exact sh*t YOU have advocated for for 50 years? And the ONLY difference is: Biden is a Dem, and you don't want to acknowledge that he's using YOUR playbook.

Next up : Taiwan

Holy cow....you ARE admitting that this is Standard Operating Procedure, and Biden is doing the same exact sh*t you've advocated for in the past....and will do in the future.

We have a phrase for this: Global Cop. And YOU want us to send tanks to Taiwan, and start yet another war. Sweet!

Well, this has been a productive conversation. Only took you, oh, about a year to admit that Biden is using YOUR playbook. And the ONLY reason you're b*tching about it is that you DESPERATELY want to complain that Biden is "doing it wrong".

If Biden had followed my consistent advice, and not done a thing militarily with countries that we don't have treaties with? You'd be on here, together will allllll the Republicans and FoxNation, whining about how "Biden is weak", and is "doing it wrong"

There's not a poster here who doesn't know that that's the straight truth. It's why you said---repeatedly----that you think Putin didn't invade when Trump was in power. Because for decades, Republicans that need to make up for a shortfall in their pants regions, think that "acting tough" solves every problem in the world...and INSIST that Dems are weak.

Now that Biden has proven he's just as much of a neo con as the Republicans, and stood up to Putin like you want? You're complaining. I thought tough guys were awesome, OS? That little D make you change your mind? (yep, that's exactly what did it)

It's not fooling anyone. You can't name the last Dem that "did it right" when it came to foreign policy. Yet spectacularly, Trump was FLAWLESS for you....even though neither he nor his aides could even tell you what the F his policies were.

LOL

[old salt]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/opin ... raine.html

OPINION : The Costs of a Long War in Ukraine
Feb. 4, 2023, by Ross Douthat

The next phase of the Ukraine War, a new Russian offensive and a potential Ukrainian counteroffensive, seems all but inevitable for late winter or early spring. The logic of escalation is prevailing, the mutual belief that no peace deal is possible until the other side understands that it can’t win.

The Ukrainian hope for how this escalation ends was sketched out by Mykhailo Podolyak, a key adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky, in a recent interview with Bruno Macaes for The New Statesman. “Russia will embark on some minor offensive actions in a short period of time,” Macaes summarizes. “A lot of manpower will be lost. After that, it will face a series of significant defeats.” This will lead to Russian unraveling: Major cities will be lost, some kind of military collapse will follow, and then there will be “uncontrolled political transformation” within the Russian Federation itself.

Podolyak doesn’t predict that all of this will happen this spring, suggesting that the timing depends on Western support. But with that support escalating, if he’s right about the likelihood of total victory we should see its beginnings in the looming campaign, with real territorial turnover in Ukraine’s favor and signs of turmoil inside Russia.

If that’s what we end up seeing, then the American strategy will need to focus on the dilemmas of success: The perils of a desperate Russian nuclear gamble, spillover risks from any internal Russian power struggle and possible dangers from a still-more-nationalist successor regime.

But if we don’t see signs of Podolyak’s prophecy’s fulfillment, if mutual escalation yields again to stalemate (I am bracketing the dire but hopefully unlikely scenario where the Russians threaten Kyiv again), then analysts predicting a long war will look more prescient. And the Biden administration will need to decide whether a grinding conflict extending toward 2025 and beyond is in the American national interest.

In a new paper from RAND, Samuel Charap and Miranda Priebe offer a strong case that the answer should be no. There are, they acknowledge, benefits for the United States from a drawn-out struggle. If a long war very gradually goes the Ukrainian way, more Ukrainians would be liberated from Russian occupation, and a post-conflict Ukraine would be potentially more economically viable. A long war would impose continuing punishment on Russia for its aggression, shoring up the norm against cross-border aggression, and it would encourage increased military spending among our European allies and the continued decoupling of Western economies from Russian energy, both of which are clearly in the American interest.

But against those benefits you have to count the extensive costs. A long war maintains the current dangerously elevated risk of NATO-Russia conflict and nuclear brinkmanship indefinitely into the future. A long war requires constant flows of money and weapons, threatening the depletion of American military resources at a time when we’re escalating our rivalry with China.

A long war kills lots of people, Ukrainian as well as Russian, and threatens to leave a post-conflict Ukraine in ever-worsening economic and demographic shape. A long war is a drag on global economic growth, and its continued impact on energy and food prices would cost lives in Europe and in poorer countries around the world.

And a long war leaves America ill-equipped to pivot, not just to face a Chinese threat but against whatever other surprises the 21st century might yet have in store.

To the authors — and, I suspect, to the Biden administration — the possibility of these risks extending far into the 2020s makes a strong case for de-escalation. But of course any de-escalation requires a Russian willingness to negotiate and make real concessions, which has not been evident to date. So the question is whether there are credible American moves that would actually make negotiations more likely, rather than just encouraging Moscow to wait us out.

Charap and Priebe suggest a few such possibilities, which attempt to link different peace-oriented policies together. The promise of long-term American support for Ukraine’s security, via regularized aid and some sort of guarantee in the event of renewed Russian aggression, could be linked to Kyiv’s willingness to open negotiations. The promise of some sanctions being lifted against Putin’s regime could be linked to Russia’s willingness to entertain concessions that Ukraine might accept. The goal would be to show Kyiv some limits to our patience while offering to stabilize our relationship, and show Moscow some potential advantages to making peace without pre-emptively conceding any ground.

All this is easier said than done, especially given the moral asymmetry in the war, where any settlement short of Russian surrender will necessarily concede something to a wicked aggressor.

But if the next phase of war suggests that such a compromise is required for peace, better to seek it sooner than after many more seasons of suffering and death.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/opin ... raine.html

OPINION : The Costs of a Long War in Ukraine
Feb. 4, 2023, by Ross Douthat

The next phase of the Ukraine War, a new Russian offensive and a potential Ukrainian counteroffensive, seems all but inevitable for late winter or early spring. The logic of escalation is prevailing, the mutual belief that no peace deal is possible until the other side understands that it can’t win.

The Ukrainian hope for how this escalation ends was sketched out by Mykhailo Podolyak, a key adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky, in a recent interview with Bruno Macaes for The New Statesman. “Russia will embark on some minor offensive actions in a short period of time,” Macaes summarizes. “A lot of manpower will be lost. After that, it will face a series of significant defeats.” This will lead to Russian unraveling: Major cities will be lost, some kind of military collapse will follow, and then there will be “uncontrolled political transformation” within the Russian Federation itself.

Podolyak doesn’t predict that all of this will happen this spring, suggesting that the timing depends on Western support. But with that support escalating, if he’s right about the likelihood of total victory we should see its beginnings in the looming campaign, with real territorial turnover in Ukraine’s favor and signs of turmoil inside Russia.

If that’s what we end up seeing, then the American strategy will need to focus on the dilemmas of success: The perils of a desperate Russian nuclear gamble, spillover risks from any internal Russian power struggle and possible dangers from a still-more-nationalist successor regime.

But if we don’t see signs of Podolyak’s prophecy’s fulfillment, if mutual escalation yields again to stalemate (I am bracketing the dire but hopefully unlikely scenario where the Russians threaten Kyiv again), then analysts predicting a long war will look more prescient. And the Biden administration will need to decide whether a grinding conflict extending toward 2025 and beyond is in the American national interest.

In a new paper from RAND, Samuel Charap and Miranda Priebe offer a strong case that the answer should be no. There are, they acknowledge, benefits for the United States from a drawn-out struggle. If a long war very gradually goes the Ukrainian way, more Ukrainians would be liberated from Russian occupation, and a post-conflict Ukraine would be potentially more economically viable. A long war would impose continuing punishment on Russia for its aggression, shoring up the norm against cross-border aggression, and it would encourage increased military spending among our European allies and the continued decoupling of Western economies from Russian energy, both of which are clearly in the American interest.

But against those benefits you have to count the extensive costs. A long war maintains the current dangerously elevated risk of NATO-Russia conflict and nuclear brinkmanship indefinitely into the future. A long war requires constant flows of money and weapons, threatening the depletion of American military resources at a time when we’re escalating our rivalry with China.

A long war kills lots of people, Ukrainian as well as Russian, and threatens to leave a post-conflict Ukraine in ever-worsening economic and demographic shape. A long war is a drag on global economic growth, and its continued impact on energy and food prices would cost lives in Europe and in poorer countries around the world.

And a long war leaves America ill-equipped to pivot, not just to face a Chinese threat but against whatever other surprises the 21st century might yet have in store.

To the authors — and, I suspect, to the Biden administration — the possibility of these risks extending far into the 2020s makes a strong case for de-escalation. But of course any de-escalation requires a Russian willingness to negotiate and make real concessions, which has not been evident to date. So the question is whether there are credible American moves that would actually make negotiations more likely, rather than just encouraging Moscow to wait us out.

Charap and Priebe suggest a few such possibilities, which attempt to link different peace-oriented policies together. The promise of long-term American support for Ukraine’s security, via regularized aid and some sort of guarantee in the event of renewed Russian aggression, could be linked to Kyiv’s willingness to open negotiations. The promise of some sanctions being lifted against Putin’s regime could be linked to Russia’s willingness to entertain concessions that Ukraine might accept. The goal would be to show Kyiv some limits to our patience while offering to stabilize our relationship, and show Moscow some potential advantages to making peace without pre-emptively conceding any ground.

All this is easier said than done, especially given the moral asymmetry in the war, where any settlement short of Russian surrender will necessarily concede something to a wicked aggressor.

But if the next phase of war suggests that such a compromise is required for peace, better to seek it sooner than after many more seasons of suffering and death.

Pretty thorough layout of the various possibilities and implications.

I think the Charap and Priebe suggestions require a degree of naïveté to think they'd actually be successful, as, unfortunately, Putin and the hard liners are never going to be satisfied to step back permanently until they are actually beaten on the battlefield. Not simply a 'stalemate'...though they may prefer a temporary ceasefire at some point in order to regroup and attack again.

They do acknowledge the 'moral asymmetry' problem as well, the notion that aggression is rewarded in any sense would have a major cost.

Though it would be better to have the breakthrough in momentum to Ukraine, and an unwinding of the Russian military capabilities happen sooner rather than later, I think it's not going to be swift nor easy. I think we could see some breaks if this impending Russian offensive fails miserably, but I'm not so sure we've provided sufficient weapon resources in time to really break that effort completely. So, I think this will be a grind with Ukrainian advances coming over the summer and fall and another tough winter before it's really 'ripe' for a negotiation with a chastened Russia.

I think it would be an enormous mistake to force it earlier by signaling to Ukraine, the world, including Russia, that weaponry won't be provided further, forcing 'negotiation' from a position of weakness.

It requires patience, the exact opposite of what Putin apologists advocate.

[Kismet]

Old Salt’s guy Vlad ain’t giving up without a fight! He is within his right to take Ukraine.

This one's better.

Very good interview with her.
I tend to think she's right on the money.

Great documentary.

and what a surprise that the Old Sailor never weighed in (or even watched) because none of it comports with his worldview that Putin isn't the problem but rather it is really all of our allies and our stupid selves (only when our people aren't in charge).

[a fan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/opin ... raine.html

OPINION : The Costs of a Long War in Ukraine
Feb. 4, 2023, by Ross Douthat\

Should have thought about this before you chiding the US and NATO into action, Old Salt.

Let's have a look at the earlier parts of this thread, when Biden's little D wasn't in office.....and what advice you had as to what to do.....I added bold in places.

The US, EU & NATO encouraged Ukraine to give up their nucs & to prepare for NATO & EU membership, then helped them stage 2 successful revolutions against pro-Russian elected governments.

The US-EU-NATO pushed Ukraine to this point. Now that Putin pushes back, we turn our backs on them.
I disagreed with doing all that, but we did it. We can't turn away now.

The more Putin takes, without meaningful pushback, the more he'll continue to take.

We're paralyzed by our political debate & uncertainty over Trump-Russia, & our NATO allies won't act without us in the lead.
...& so far, they're not following our lead.

And that's just a few quotes. So I remembered correctly........ the arrival of Biden's little D, and your desperate need to hate Democrats "changed your mind".

So now that we can all see this game you're playing, and that you don't actually think Biden is doing it wrong...can you please stop playing this game of yours?

Thanks in advance.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Old Salt’s guy Vlad ain’t giving up without a fight! He is within his right to take Ukraine.

This one's better.

Very good interview with her.
I tend to think she's right on the money.

Great documentary.

and what a surprise that the Old Sailor never weighed in (or even watched) because none of it comports with his worldview that Putin isn't the problem but rather it is really all of our allies and our stupid selves (only when our people aren't in charge).

He’s Old Surrender

[CU88]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/opin ... raine.html

OPINION : The Costs of a Long War in Ukraine
Feb. 4, 2023, by Ross Douthat\

Should have thought about this before you chiding the US and NATO into action, Old Salt.

Let's have a look at the earlier parts of this thread, when Biden's little D wasn't in office.....and what advice you had as to what to do.....I added bold in places.

The US, EU & NATO encouraged Ukraine to give up their nucs & to prepare for NATO & EU membership, then helped them stage 2 successful revolutions against pro-Russian elected governments.

The US-EU-NATO pushed Ukraine to this point. Now that Putin pushes back, we turn our backs on them.
I disagreed with doing all that, but we did it. We can't turn away now.

The more Putin takes, without meaningful pushback, the more he'll continue to take.

We're paralyzed by our political debate & uncertainty over Trump-Russia, & our NATO allies won't act without us in the lead.
...& so far, they're not following our lead.

And that's just a few quotes. So I remembered correctly........ the arrival of Biden's little D, and your desperate need to hate Democrats "changed your mind".

So now that we can all see this game you're playing, and that you don't actually think Biden is doing it wrong...can you please stop playing this game of yours?

Thanks in advance.

Me thinks that Old Soviet might want to STFU.

Sadly, I fear that his train of thought is engrained within the US military...

[old salt]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/opin ... raine.html

OPINION : The Costs of a Long War in Ukraine
Feb. 4, 2023, by Ross Douthat\

Should have thought about this before you chiding the US and NATO into action, Old Salt.

Let's have a look at the earlier parts of this thread, when Biden's little D wasn't in office.....and what advice you had as to what to do.....I added bold in places.

The US, EU & NATO encouraged Ukraine to give up their nucs & to prepare for NATO & EU membership, then helped them stage 2 successful revolutions against pro-Russian elected governments.

The US-EU-NATO pushed Ukraine to this point. Now that Putin pushes back, we turn our backs on them.
I disagreed with doing all that, but we did it. We can't turn away now.

The more Putin takes, without meaningful pushback, the more he'll continue to take.

Correct. Not fans of stupid wars, needlessly prolonged, where the troops are cannon fodder.

We're paralyzed by our political debate & uncertainty over Trump-Russia, & our NATO allies won't act without us in the lead.
...& so far, they're not following our lead.

And that's just a few quotes. So I remembered correctly........ the arrival of Biden's little D, and your desperate need to hate Democrats "changed your mind".

So now that we can all see this game you're playing, and that you don't actually think Biden is doing it wrong...can you please stop playing this game of yours?

Thanks in advance.

Me thinks that Old Soviet might want to STFU.

Sadly, I fear that his train of thought is engrained within the US military...

Correct. Not many fans of stupid wars where the troops on both sides are cannon fodder & the diplomats refuse to negotiate a peace.

[old salt]

Old Salt’s guy Vlad ain’t giving up without a fight! He is within his right to take Ukraine.

This one's better.

Very good interview with her.
I tend to think she's right on the money.

Great documentary.

and what a surprise that the Old Sailor never weighed in (or even watched) because none of it comports with his worldview that Putin isn't the problem but rather it is really all of our allies and our stupid selves (only when our people aren't in charge).

What ? Put your glasses on you old fool. Who posted the Julia Ioffe interview, saying it was better than Blinken's ? I also recommend the Susan Glasser interview.

[old salt]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/opin ... raine.html

OPINION : The Costs of a Long War in Ukraine
Feb. 4, 2023, by Ross Douthat\

Should have thought about this before you chiding the US and NATO into action, Old Salt.

Let's have a look at the earlier parts of this thread, when Biden's little D wasn't in office.....and what advice you had as to what to do.....I added bold in places.

The US, EU & NATO encouraged Ukraine to give up their nucs & to prepare for NATO & EU membership, then helped them stage 2 successful revolutions against pro-Russian elected governments.

The US-EU-NATO pushed Ukraine to this point. Now that Putin pushes back, we turn our backs on them.
I disagreed with doing all that, but we did it. We can't turn away now.

The more Putin takes, without meaningful pushback, the more he'll continue to take.

We're paralyzed by our political debate & uncertainty over Trump-Russia, & our NATO allies won't act without us in the lead.
...& so far, they're not following our lead.

And that's just a few quotes. So I remembered correctly........ the arrival of Biden's little D, and your desperate need to hate Democrats "changed your mind".

So now that we can all see this game you're playing, and that you don't actually think Biden is doing it wrong...can you please stop playing this game of yours?

Thanks in advance.

Look at the dates on my quotes. When did Biden take office, dummy ? I was in favor of giving Ukraine what they needed to ensure their survival, not for prolonging the war indefinitely with no realistic objective. Putin has received "meaningful pushback", to say the least. We pushed Ukraine & Putin to this point by offering NATO membership. How much more proof do you need that NATO won't act without the US in the lead. Nuanced, second order thinking is beyond your toddler logic. I could take every post you make, chop it up out of time & context, then misstate it's meaning. Waste of time.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/opin ... raine.html

OPINION : The Costs of a Long War in Ukraine
Feb. 4, 2023, by Ross Douthat\

Should have thought about this before you chiding the US and NATO into action, Old Salt.

Let's have a look at the earlier parts of this thread, when Biden's little D wasn't in office.....and what advice you had as to what to do.....I added bold in places.

The US, EU & NATO encouraged Ukraine to give up their nucs & to prepare for NATO & EU membership, then helped them stage 2 successful revolutions against pro-Russian elected governments.

The US-EU-NATO pushed Ukraine to this point. Now that Putin pushes back, we turn our backs on them.
I disagreed with doing all that, but we did it. We can't turn away now.

The more Putin takes, without meaningful pushback, the more he'll continue to take.

We're paralyzed by our political debate & uncertainty over Trump-Russia, & our NATO allies won't act without us in the lead.
...& so far, they're not following our lead.

And that's just a few quotes. So I remembered correctly........ the arrival of Biden's little D, and your desperate need to hate Democrats "changed your mind".

So now that we can all see this game you're playing, and that you don't actually think Biden is doing it wrong...can you please stop playing this game of yours?

Thanks in advance.

Look at the dates on my quotes. When did Biden take office, dummy ? I was in favor of giving Ukraine what they needed to ensure their survival, not for prolonging the war indefinitely with no realistic objective. Putin has received "meaningful pushback", to say the least. We pushed Ukraine & Putin to this point by offering NATO membership. How much more proof do you need that NATO won't act without the US in the lead. Nuanced, second order thinking is beyond your toddler logic. I could take every post you make, chop it up out of time & context, then misstate it's meaning. Waste of time.

[a fan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/opin ... raine.html

OPINION : The Costs of a Long War in Ukraine
Feb. 4, 2023, by Ross Douthat\

Should have thought about this before you chiding the US and NATO into action, Old Salt.

Let's have a look at the earlier parts of this thread, when Biden's little D wasn't in office.....and what advice you had as to what to do.....I added bold in places.

The US, EU & NATO encouraged Ukraine to give up their nucs & to prepare for NATO & EU membership, then helped them stage 2 successful revolutions against pro-Russian elected governments.

The US-EU-NATO pushed Ukraine to this point. Now that Putin pushes back, we turn our backs on them.
I disagreed with doing all that, but we did it. We can't turn away now.

The more Putin takes, without meaningful pushback, the more he'll continue to take.

Correct. Not fans of stupid wars, needlessly prolonged, where the troops are cannon fodder.

We're paralyzed by our political debate & uncertainty over Trump-Russia, & our NATO allies won't act without us in the lead.
...& so far, they're not following our lead.

And that's just a few quotes. So I remembered correctly........ the arrival of Biden's little D, and your desperate need to hate Democrats "changed your mind".

So now that we can all see this game you're playing, and that you don't actually think Biden is doing it wrong...can you please stop playing this game of yours?

Thanks in advance.

Me thinks that Old Soviet might want to STFU.

Sadly, I fear that his train of thought is engrained within the US military...

Correct. Not many fans of stupid wars where the troops on both sides are cannon fodder & the diplomats refuse to negotiate a peace.

So even after reading your own thoughts on that BEFORE Biden was POTUS-------you're gonna lie to everyone on the Forum, right to our faces, and tell us that you didn't ask for NATO and the US to do precisely what they are doing?

You said "we can't turn away now". Meaning....we have to help Ukraine with their sovereignty.

You said "The more Putin takes, without meaningful pushback, the more he'll continue to take."-----meaning, if we don't stand up to Putin here, he's going to keep right on taking land. Our Chamberlain moment. Ioffe that you keep citing, and plainly didn't listen to....says the same thing.

And now that NATO and Biden is doing what you implored them to do 5 years ago, and are standing up to Putin, and backing Ukraine........you're telling us that what YOU advocated...is now wrong.


You hit your head, or something? Even Pete backed down when confronted with his nonsense contradictions. You're not gonna cop to this so we can all move on? Really?

[a fan]

]Look at the dates on my quotes.

Oh, I did. Did you?

When did Biden take office, dummy ? I was in favor of giving Ukraine what they needed to ensure their survival, not for prolonging the war indefinitely with no realistic objective.

Well first of all, if you recall, Trump didn't do that. Trump didn't give Ukraine what was needed to defend their land. And Trump didn't take the lead, as you asked.

And you "forgot" to complain about that while it happened, or when Putin advanced and took land. You have an excuse for this, too? Trump gets a full pass, every bit of this mess is on Biden?

You're lying. And not having an honest conversation.




And let me get this new goalpost straight.

You're caught with your own freaking words....and Biden and NATO are doing what you asked, and not turning their back on Ukraine.....and NOW you're telling us that Biden and NATO has to figure out how to give Zelensky the EXACT amount of military help so that they can push Putin back from his 2022 gains, and not an inch further.....

And do it all in a matter of months, and with minimal casualties. And if they don't do EXACTLY that? Everyone is "doing it wrong"

I'm not misstating doodly. You're asking that Biden and NATO to conduct the most perfect war in the history of wars.....and if they don't, you're not man enough to say "boy, this is a really difficult situation".

And yet you hilariously mock ME for having no nuance. You're being a child, and are complaining because the R's aren't in charge of this.

Putin has received "meaningful pushback", to say the least.

Yes! Just like you asked! Just like Ioffe you keep citing is telling us......Putin will take more if we sit back and do nothing. And YOU don't want that.

We pushed Ukraine & Putin to this point by offering NATO membership

That's not what Ioffe said. Nor any of the other pundits. Nor you yourself.

What you ALL SAID was that if you give Putin an inch, and don't push back...he's gonna keep taking.

You're literally arguing with yourself here, and the pundits you keep citing.