All Things Russia & Ukraine

[a fan]

When we use the term "global cop", I assume pejoratively, and "paying the price" of being so, I think this misses the point that 'paying' this "price" has been enormously 'profitable' for the United States and its citizens, at least in economic terms.

We have benefited enormously from a rule based order that enables global trade. We would benefit even more if this was an entirely peaceful process, without risk of major disruption of supply lines, as it would foster even more efficient trade and risk taking, but unfortunately our world also includes transgressors to that 'rule based order', including those willing to commit horrible atrocities for power.

That's reality.

That's a very pie-eyed explanation of our behavior post-WWII that ignores a whole lot of bad, and completely unnecessary behavior on our part.

[DocBarrister]

Ukraine reports 1,030 Russian soldiers killed, and the destruction of 14 Russian tanks and 28 armored personnel carriers.

https://thehill.com/policy/internationa ... e-day/amp/

One might be skeptical of these numbers, but throwing troops to slaughter has been the Russian military’s MO for over a century.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Russia has a dirtball culture. Just absolute garbage ….

One need not look at the war crimes being committed by Russian troops against Ukraine on a daily basis to conclude that Russia has a scumbag culture.

No, just take a look at the atrocities committed by Russia against their own troops.

If new recruits see what they're up against and refuse to fight, Vlad said they're given no option.

"You're just killed, that's it," he said. "If you don't agree with an order, you're simply killed."

He told CBS News he had seen it first-hand.

"One of the fighters was too scared to fight," he said. "They made him dig his own grave and shot him."

Vlad claimed that he saw three comrades executed with bullets to the head, but insists he had no part in it: "There are specially trained people to do that, a security group that can do anything to you."

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ukrain ... -lies/#app

Russia is no more than a destructive malignancy corroding the soul of humanity. We must do everything necessary to ensure Ukraine destroys the Russian invaders and forces the Russians into a full retreat.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

]The mission immediately became to counter a revanchist Russia & incorporate the militaries of new members & their Soviet equipment & tactics.

If that were true, Turkey wouldn't be using Russian weapons.
...all our former Warsaw Pact members came with Soviet legacy weapons which they're still using. Greece has the S-300 air defense system. What do you think they've been donating to Ukraine.
Is your position now that we should not have military alliances ?

It's a real feat of logistics to move stuff from Germany to Poland, ...unless the roads are blocked with protesters.
The USAF have 272 heavy lift transport aircraft (C-5/C-17). The Luftwaffe have zero.

That's right. And why doesn't Germany or France have these transport aircraft? Keep on telling me this isn't intentional. This this is a "whoops, we forgot to buy transport planes as our duty in NATO"....just an oversight, not the key feature to NATO.
Not an oversight. Part of their plan, proving my point that their primary NATO mission is to defend EUrope, not project power globally. They buy smaller, short range transport aircraft for their mission. They know that if they have to deploy globally, it will be with the US & they can rely on our global heavy lift capability. They went to Afghanistan because of 9-11 & their NATO treaty obligation to the US.

How many wars did Trump take us into.

One. Syria. Actually sent troops. They're still there. Wanna try again?
We were already there exterminating ISIS. We began attacking ISIS in Syria in 2014 (Obama CinC). We only backed up our Kurdish allies in the NE. It was part of the cleanup after Obama/Biden's early exit from Iraq which allowed ISIS to emerge.

BS. My position has consistently been that we can deter & contain Russia from further expansion with defensive military aid for Ukraine.

No. It hasn't. You called me a moron for not understanding that a Russian offensive was coming, and that Russia would take more land.

These two statements don't square, and you know it.
I pointed out that Putin had made his position on Ukraine clear.
Now that he has failed to take all of Ukraine, at great cost, he can be contained by a well armed Ukraine.

I'm disappointed & frustrated that we meddled in Ukraine's internal affairs, fomenting 3 revolutions & regime changes. promising NATO membership, with Victoria Nuland handing out sandwiches in Maidan Sq, telling the EUros to go F themselves.

No, you're not. You're ignoring your statementS and citationS, plural, that we HAVE to stand up to Putin, or he'll keep taking.
We have stood up to Putin. He's been badly bloodied.

We said it because it was true. Putin knew that Trump wasn't going to expand NATO, make him give up Crimea or lecture him on the world stage.

Bzzzt. Wrong. That was Obama. I think it's SOOPER cute that you're skipping over Obama to fall all over yourself to suck up to Trump's little R.
Obama just did sanctions & looked the other way. The status quo held under Trump while we armed & trained the Ukrainians to defend themselves. When Putin saw us bungle our Afghan exit & based on his previous experience in dealing with Biden & his neocon cabal of Nuland, Blinken, Sullivan & others, he felt compelled to act militarily, because he knew they'd bring Ukraine into NATO & try to foment regime change in Russia.

Nice try. Your problem here is your FoxNation wrap yourself in the flag of the awesomeness of Trump.......can't explain Obama role without giving him credit. Obama didn't get sucked in to step #1 because he's smarter than you. Can you imagine? Someone who knows more than you? Perish the thought!
...you just can't handle the reality that Putin invaded Ukraine when Obama & Biden were in office & held off when Trump was in office.

OK genius, what should we have done to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine ? Oh, I know. Rewind back to '92 & don't convince them to give up their nucs. What could go wrong ?

Asked and answered, but your giant ego is too busy being wrong, and pretending you're right.....and having zero humility when even you know you've been wrong, to notice. Still think Putin doesn't need money for his armies? Still think Putin is gonna use those Syrian subs to attack Ukraine?
obtw...Russian subs returned to their Black Sea homeport & have been launching cruise missiles into Ukraine.

We discussed this waaaaay back when Obama was in office, and you were all over him and his little D for "doing it wrong". You and FoxNation (what a coincidence you parroted their views, yet again). Remember Crimea? Remember you and your neo-con buddies were all over Obama for not standing up to Putin? And for......and this is part of FoxNations's greatest hits....."being weak". Because Dems are weak. And R's are are strong....no one is tougher than a Republican. I recall Trump being accused for being soft on Russia when his 2016 platform would not pledge lethal aid to Ukraine, after Obama had refused to & HRC's platform pledged nothing.

The answer to "how do we prevent Russia from invading Ukraine" is: you don't. You levy sanctions, and make Putin pay an economic price....which you mocked, naturally, because it's not "acting tough". This is where Obama quipped to Putin. "the 80's called, they want their foreign policy back".

And because you can't think past "take that hill", you not only mocked Obama.....you didn't bother to think, for even ten seconds, about what Obama was telling you, and the world.

Obama knew EXACTLY what Putin wants: to restore the Soviet glory before the fall. Except Obama knew what Putin didn't: Putin can't do that.

Obama is and was smarter than you. Obama's solution that you are hilariously NOW asking for is: don't engage in step #1 of my list of your Neo-Con steps to war. You didn't want to hear it, so you mocked him.

Who's laughing now OS? We're doing it YOUR way, not Obama's. And naturally, after having mocked Obama's wise choice....you're also mocking Biden for choosing YOUR path. No matter what the Dems do, you're on here telling us it's wrong.

And you think no one is noticing.
...Obama had it all figured out. That's why Putin seized & held Crimea & Donbas enclaves with no opposition. Obama was way ahead on that one.

ProTip : we needed Persian Gulf oil in the '80's & '90's.

Like the EU "needs" Putin's oil. They're doing fine, and adjusting the free market, just like we should have, but couldn't....because guys like you who can't think their way through problems insisted that we HAD to have that oil.

No. We didn't. But take a bow....your insistence that we "had" to get that oil led to over a million deaths, and trillions of wasted dollars mucking around in that region....money we're still paying to this day, 50 f'ing years later. You and your crew were whispering into President's ears then...and they're doing it right now......telling them "we HAVE to do this".
I guess the gas lines in the 70's didn't impact you on your tricycle.

Yeah no, we don't. You can bet they were there telling Obama and Bush that we "had" to stand up to Putin. Nope.

What are you ranting about now. All I've said about Taiwan is that we should sell them whatever military stuff, to defend themselves, that they're willing to pay for.

Tanks are going to defend Taiwan from China? Did you skip over alllll the classes on military strategy? How the F are tanks going to do that?

The tanks, as you are playing dumb here (you sure do like playing dumb lately) are a provocation of China. And it's step #1 on the Neo Con steps to war.

How many more times does this need to happen before you get it?

The Generals got us out of combat ops in Iraq & Afghanistan. They just wanted to leave a small residual force, who would not be in combat, to advise & enable the local security forces. A small investment with a huge payoff, when used. Your inability to grasp this nuance makes it impossible to have a rational discussion with you. It works.

You don't get it. I'm trying to help you recognize step #1 so that we don't hit step #7. Or to recognize Mission Creep before you hit step #7
Are you advocating that we do nothing to help Taiwan ?.

That's the nuance, my man. You just don't want to hear it.

I'm telling you this so that you recognize we're executing step #1 THE NEXT TIME...which you are hilariously missing with Taiwan, and missed with Ukraine.So you agree with me that we should not have fomented regime change & revolution in Ukraine ? You say that's step #1.
Is it your position we're doing the same thing in Taiwan ? That we should do nothing to help Taiwan maintain their autonomy & defend themselves against armed intervention from the PRC ? I'm not saying the US should intervene militarily, that's where strategic ambiguity is used effectively.

You'll never learn. I've tried, but your giant ego won't allow you to listen to anyone. Obama was right to not get sucked in to step #1. You were wrong.

Remember to act shocked when we hit step #2 in Taiwan.
Are you willing to do anything to help Taiwan ? To keep the sea lanes open through the western Pacific ?

These extended distorted extracts of yours are too lengthy & unwieldy to respond to. A waste of time.
If you want a response from me, post a brief, coherent statement which can be answered in kind.
Your lengthy, repetitive circular logic attacking rants are tedious & too time consuming for response. I'm done with this format.

[MDlaxfan76]

When we use the term "global cop", I assume pejoratively, and "paying the price" of being so, I think this misses the point that 'paying' this "price" has been enormously 'profitable' for the United States and its citizens, at least in economic terms.

We have benefited enormously from a rule based order that enables global trade. We would benefit even more if this was an entirely peaceful process, without risk of major disruption of supply lines, as it would foster even more efficient trade and risk taking, but unfortunately our world also includes transgressors to that 'rule based order', including those willing to commit horrible atrocities for power.

That's reality.

That's a very pie-eyed explanation of our behavior post-WWII that ignores a whole lot of bad, and completely unnecessary behavior on our part.

That might seem to be a reasonable case to make, assuming you ignore the rest of that post:

"So, we have led in the development of international organizations which create multilateral structures of such 'rules' and support for further peaceful development, and, if necessary, forceful maintenance of such rules.

Where we've gone awry, as we've often done, is when we have acted more unilaterally than multilaterally, and when we have over played our hand in disputes beyond our ability to control, choosing in many cases to back regimes which are undemocratic and do not well represent their people, simply out of our own 'interests' as defined by short term thinking."

[a fan]

...all our former Warsaw Pact members came with Soviet legacy weapons which they're still using. Greece has the S-300 air defense system. What do you think they've been donating to Ukraine.
Is your position now that we should not have military alliances ?

My position is that we shouldn't have alliances to fight foes that no longer exist. And if we do? We should....just spitballing here....update the equipment they use at some point over three decades.....so that it's compatible with our allies equipment, instead of our foes equipment. You know: in case you have to fight this foe you think we have.

But THIS is your idea of sparkly-awesome "logistics" is it? Heck, why doesn't the US convert to Soviet parts, and call Putin when we run out?

I pointed out that Putin had made his position on Ukraine clear.
Now that he has failed to take all of Ukraine, at great cost, he can be contained by a well armed Ukraine.

Did you hit your head? How many more times are we going to go back and forth on this. Which is it, and for the love of heaven, pick one, and stick to it:

1. Ukraine has more than enough to defend the current 80% it holds, and doesn't need one more bullet from the US

2. Ukraine needs constant supplies from the US to defend the current battle lines.

Pick one, and we can go from there. In this post, you're telling me it's #2, and that Biden can't cut Ukraine off to force them to negotiate.

We have stood up to Putin. He's been badly bloodied.

Not according to your own MULTIPLE statements in this thread.

The problem here is that you're upset that this isn't going as you thought it would, just like allll the other examples I gave as to why you don't do step #1. So you want to "take it back" now that the steps you have been championing has what the CIA calls "Blowback". Sorry, that's not how this works. Wars NEVER go as planned. You wanted to stand up to Putin.....that led us to today, with no good way out. You ASKED for this.

Now you're demanding that Biden force Zelensky to the negotiation table, and to concede the last Putin has taken. And you're feigning surprise that Zelensky isn't on board with your "plan".

Obama just did sanctions & looked the other way.

Yep. Smart man. Do we have a treaty with Ukraine, or not?

Do you want to avoid pointless war, or not?

You want it all, and I frankly can't believe that I have to explain this to you for the 1,000th time in 10+ years of discussion.

The status quo held under Trump while we armed & trained the Ukrainians to defend themselves.

Annnnd enter your partisan dumb*ssery. In what world is sending more and more arms and training that Obama didn't send....the "Status quo".

Trump ramped up the pressure. And you DESPERATELY want to pretend he didn't, now that we've arrived at a place you don't like.

It's so transparently stupid. You won't melt like the Wicked Witch of the West if you acknowledge that Trump played his role. Geezus.

...you just can't handle the reality that Putin invaded Ukraine when Obama & Biden were in office & held off when Trump was in office.

He didn't "hold off" when Trump was in office. Riddle me this, with your dumb*ssery: why didn't Putin march into Kiev under Obama.

Go ahead. Dazzle me. (you can't)

More to the point, because as usual, your ego and partisan blowhard-ery makes you unable to pay attention for five minutes: I told you when it happened that Obama did the right thing. You, on the other hand, hit Obama for being weak. So did FoxNation (gee, what a coincidence). Then when Trump started arming Ukraine, what did you do? That's right! You BRAGGED about it. "Isn't this awesome? Trump is strong".

So this sends the signal to Putin that Ukraine is gonna be off limits soon as the US sends them more and more stuff over time. You keep squawking about the messages we send Putin, and how he feels threatened. But here comes your partisan "Xmas Miracle"....somehow, Trump sending arms and training to Ukraine doesn't send a single message to Putin. Partisan idiocy. Watching a grown man tie himself into knots to blame the Dems for why the sky is blue is just.....painful.

obtw...Russian subs returned to their Black Sea homeport & have been launching cruise missiles into Ukraine.

So they didn't shoot the missiles from your special-big-boy sub base in Syria?

....all this so you don't have to say "yeah, you were right, all the stuff Putin did in Syria was utterly pointless."

I recall Trump being accused for being soft on Russia when his 2016 platform would not pledge

So what? That ain't what I said, my man, and you know it. It's in this very thread if you "can't remember".

...Obama had it all figured out. That's why Putin seized & held Crimea & Donbas enclaves with no opposition. Obama was way ahead on that one.

And here we are: you FINALLY admitting you wanted this war, and for us to "stand up to Putin".

Well, it only took a few weeks. You ASKED FOR THIS. Quit whining like a baby when you got what you asked for here.

And yep, Obama had it all figured out. We didn't blow any money. And no one died on by American money or arms. I think it's SPECTACULAR that you think this is bad, and prefer this war we're witnessing. And you're STiLL mocking Obama for making the correct choice, and hitting Putin economically.

I guess the gas lines in the 70's didn't impact you on your tricycle.

Oh no! Not gas lines!

Use your head. Picture how far America would be in 2023 had we stopped using that oil. Conservation. Cars would get smaller. Mass transit makes more sense. Urban sprawl is lessened because it makes more sense to live close to work. Engineers work harder to make materials lighter. Alternative fuel research has a quicker ROI....and on and on and on.

That's how free markets work. Instead? How many millions died because a military "expert" like you whispered to HW Bush "we have no choice but to buy this oil".

Are you advocating that we do nothing to help Taiwan ?

Well, look who arrived! Yes!

What happens if China puts controls on Taiwan? Economic slowdown, golden goose is killed, brain drain follows. Works for me. If we're smart, we'll snap up the brain drain for jobs that we cannot currently fill. (We're not smart, sadly)

Do we have a treaty with them, or not? No, right?

And if China REALLY wants to "take over Taiwan"? They can do it without firing a shot. Use your head. Using military force is from the same "the 80's called" mentality that's killing Putin and the Russian people.

So you agree with me that we should not have fomented regime change & revolution in Ukraine ? You say that's step #1.
Is it your position we're doing the same thing in Taiwan ?

Yep. Been saying this since we've been on this forum. I'm.....at a loss that you haven't noticed that I've had the same exact bar for this stuff this ENTIRE time, dating back to Laxpower.

That we should do nothing to help Taiwan maintain their autonomy & defend themselves against armed intervention from the PRC ? I'm not saying the US should intervene militarily, that's where strategic ambiguity is used effectively.

You don't get steps #1-#7. Just like when Trump started arming Ukraine, arming Taiwan sends a signal.

Who pays for the stupid arms is 100% irrelevant to the message that sends. Or do you think Chinese leaders are freaking idiots?

Are you willing to do anything to help Taiwan ? To keep the sea lanes open through the western Pacific ?

Our billions in trade keeps the sea lanes open. Welcome to the 21st century....that's what Obama was trying to tell you, but you didn't want to listen. So yep, just like Obama did? Sanctions. It's how grown ups handle this stuff, who don't think like you do----that war or "talking tough" "fixes everything".

Rant on with your circular logic. I'm done.

I've been using the EXACT SAME LOGIC....regardless of which country, and who is President. Unlike you. And yet you want to claim I'm using circular logic?? That's rich.

Do we have a treaty with said country? No? Then the only thing I'd want to execute are economic sanctions.

Economic sanctions beat the Soviets, Old Salt. Or did that escape your attention, too?

[a fan]

When we use the term "global cop", I assume pejoratively, and "paying the price" of being so, I think this misses the point that 'paying' this "price" has been enormously 'profitable' for the United States and its citizens, at least in economic terms.

We have benefited enormously from a rule based order that enables global trade. We would benefit even more if this was an entirely peaceful process, without risk of major disruption of supply lines, as it would foster even more efficient trade and risk taking, but unfortunately our world also includes transgressors to that 'rule based order', including those willing to commit horrible atrocities for power.

That's reality.

That's a very pie-eyed explanation of our behavior post-WWII that ignores a whole lot of bad, and completely unnecessary behavior on our part.

That might seem to be a reasonable case to make, assuming you ignore the rest of that post:

"So, we have led in the development of international organizations which create multilateral structures of such 'rules' and support for further peaceful development, and, if necessary, forceful maintenance of such rules.

Where we've gone awry, as we've often done, is when we have acted more unilaterally than multilaterally, and when we have over played our hand in disputes beyond our ability to control, choosing in many cases to back regimes which are undemocratic and do not well represent their people, simply out of our own 'interests' as defined by short term thinking."

This isn't true, either. Gulf War was multilateral. So was Charlie Wilson's War. And the Korean War. Even the Vietnam War had allied troops from other countries.

Sorry, I disagree.

[MDlaxfan76]

When we use the term "global cop", I assume pejoratively, and "paying the price" of being so, I think this misses the point that 'paying' this "price" has been enormously 'profitable' for the United States and its citizens, at least in economic terms.

We have benefited enormously from a rule based order that enables global trade. We would benefit even more if this was an entirely peaceful process, without risk of major disruption of supply lines, as it would foster even more efficient trade and risk taking, but unfortunately our world also includes transgressors to that 'rule based order', including those willing to commit horrible atrocities for power.

That's reality.

That's a very pie-eyed explanation of our behavior post-WWII that ignores a whole lot of bad, and completely unnecessary behavior on our part.

That might seem to be a reasonable case to make, assuming you ignore the rest of that post:

"So, we have led in the development of international organizations which create multilateral structures of such 'rules' and support for further peaceful development, and, if necessary, forceful maintenance of such rules.

Where we've gone awry, as we've often done, is when we have acted more unilaterally than multilaterally, and when we have over played our hand in disputes beyond our ability to control, choosing in many cases to back regimes which are undemocratic and do not well represent their people, simply out of our own 'interests' as defined by short term thinking."[/i]

This isn't true, either. Gulf War was multilateral. So was Charlie Wilson's War. And the Korean War. Even the Vietnam War had allied troops from other countries.

Sorry, I disagree.

Let me help you out. See bold.

I recognize that we don't agree entirely, but when you cherry pick what I've written, and pretend I didn't write further, that's not a fair argumentation.

[a fan]

These extended distorted extracts of yours are too lengthy & unwieldy to respond to. A waste of time.
If you want a response from me, post a brief, coherent statement which can be answered in kind.
Your lengthy, repetitive circular logic attacking rants are tedious & too time consuming for response. I'm done with this format. [/color]

I've had the same, straight as an arrow logic since we first met on Laxpower.

1. do we have a treaty with this country?
2. if yes, we have to do what we have to do
3. if no, then stay out of it, outside of economic measures

That it. Same bar, since we first met. If you haven't noticed, I don't know what to tell you.

So for example, I hit Hillary for voting for the Iraq War. And cheered Trump when he left the Black Sea kerfuffle alone, and left sanctions in place....when everyone else was hitting him for being soft. And yep, cheered Obama for just giving sanctions over Crimea.

Consistent as F. Straight as an arrow.

Pity you can't make the same claim of calling ball and strikes with the same strike zone, regardless of who is our POTUS.

Pity that for you, your assessment of EVERYTHING depends 100% on the party of the person in the White House. And you HATE when posters call you out for it.

[a fan]

When we use the term "global cop", I assume pejoratively, and "paying the price" of being so, I think this misses the point that 'paying' this "price" has been enormously 'profitable' for the United States and its citizens, at least in economic terms.

We have benefited enormously from a rule based order that enables global trade. We would benefit even more if this was an entirely peaceful process, without risk of major disruption of supply lines, as it would foster even more efficient trade and risk taking, but unfortunately our world also includes transgressors to that 'rule based order', including those willing to commit horrible atrocities for power.

That's reality.

That's a very pie-eyed explanation of our behavior post-WWII that ignores a whole lot of bad, and completely unnecessary behavior on our part.

That might seem to be a reasonable case to make, assuming you ignore the rest of that post:

"So, we have led in the development of international organizations which create multilateral structures of such 'rules' and support for further peaceful development, and, if necessary, forceful maintenance of such rules.

Where we've gone awry, as we've often done, is when we have acted more unilaterally than multilaterally, and when we have over played our hand in disputes beyond our ability to control, choosing in many cases to back regimes which are undemocratic and do not well represent their people, simply out of our own 'interests' as defined by short term thinking."[/i]

This isn't true, either. Gulf War was multilateral. So was Charlie Wilson's War. And the Korean War. Even the Vietnam War had allied troops from other countries.

Sorry, I disagree.

Let me help you out. See bold.

I recognize that we don't agree entirely, but when you cherry pick what I've written, and pretend I didn't write further, that's not a fair argumentation.

Well come on...when you do that...whether we acted multilaterally or unilaterally has no bearing one way or the other on whether something we did was right or wrong. It's an irrelevant detail that has no bearing on the "correctness" our playing Global Cop.

[MDlaxfan76]

When we use the term "global cop", I assume pejoratively, and "paying the price" of being so, I think this misses the point that 'paying' this "price" has been enormously 'profitable' for the United States and its citizens, at least in economic terms.

We have benefited enormously from a rule based order that enables global trade. We would benefit even more if this was an entirely peaceful process, without risk of major disruption of supply lines, as it would foster even more efficient trade and risk taking, but unfortunately our world also includes transgressors to that 'rule based order', including those willing to commit horrible atrocities for power.

That's reality.

That's a very pie-eyed explanation of our behavior post-WWII that ignores a whole lot of bad, and completely unnecessary behavior on our part.

That might seem to be a reasonable case to make, assuming you ignore the rest of that post:

"So, we have led in the development of international organizations which create multilateral structures of such 'rules' and support for further peaceful development, and, if necessary, forceful maintenance of such rules.

Where we've gone awry, as we've often done, is when we have acted more unilaterally than multilaterally, and when we have over played our hand in disputes beyond our ability to control, choosing in many cases to back regimes which are undemocratic and do not well represent their people, So, we have led in the development of international organizations which create multilateral structures of such 'rules' and support for further peaceful development, and, if necessary, forceful maintenance of such rules.

Where we've gone awry, as we've often done, is when we have acted more unilaterally than multilaterally, and when we have over played our hand in disputes beyond our ability to control, choosing in many cases to back regimes which are undemocratic and do not well represent their people, simply out of our own 'interests' as defined by short term thinking. "[/i]

This isn't true, either. Gulf War was multilateral. So was Charlie Wilson's War. And the Korean War. Even the Vietnam War had allied troops from other countries.

Sorry, I disagree.

Let me help you out. See bold.

I recognize that we don't agree entirely, but when you cherry pick what I've written, and pretend I didn't write further, that's not a fair argumentation.

Well come on...when you do that...whether we acted multilaterally or unilaterally has no bearing one way or the other on whether something we did was right or wrong. It's an irrelevant detail that has no bearing on the "correctness" our playing Global Cop.

Again, I continued with now bold red.

Multilateral increases the chances that what we're doing is more likely to be 'right', unilateral increases the chances that what we're doing is disagreed with, perhaps, and maybe probably, for good reason.

The "global cop" moniker implies a pejorative...I'd suggest that 'someone' does need to 'police' the rules based order, because there are, and likely always will be, transgressors. To the extent that multilateral orgs play this role, all the better, or at least more likely the 'better', but we've appreciated the control it has provided the US, with all sorts of attendant advantages, of being the lead such...'cop'.

There's a price paid, of course, for being in this role, a price that's typically less if multilaterally orchestrated, but a price nevertheless...but there's also enormous benefit of such a rules based order being in place, and I'd argue that this outweighs those costs.

But, of course we agree that how we exercise that leadership role matters a ton...

[old salt]

1. do we have a treaty with this country?
2. if yes, we have to do what we have to do
3. if no, then stay out of it, outside of economic measures

Do you consider the Budapest Memo a US treaty to defend Ukraine ?

[a fan]

1. do we have a treaty with this country?
2. if yes, we have to do what we have to do
3. if no, then stay out of it, outside of economic measures

Do you consider the Belgrade Memo a US treaty to defend Ukraine ?

You, of all people, know precisely what a US treaty is.....how many times have you told me what is and what isn't a treaty with the US?

[a fan]

1. do we have a treaty with this country?
2. if yes, we have to do what we have to do
3. if no, then stay out of it, outside of economic measures

Do you consider the Belgrade Memo a US treaty to defend Ukraine ?

You, of all people, know precisely what a US treaty is.....how many times have you told me what is and what isn't a treaty with the US?

Happy to restate...again....that ironically, we should have never have signed that thing, or pressured Ukraine (and others) to give up their nukes. And yep, Putin violated that memo. But then, it's obvious to me that Putin violated the stupid Black Sea Montreux nonsense that obviously isn't performing as intended.

Ain't war just fantastic?

[old salt]

1. do we have a treaty with this country?
2. if yes, we have to do what we have to do
3. if no, then stay out of it, outside of economic measures

Do you consider the Budapest Memo a US treaty to defend Ukraine ?

You, of all people, know precisely what a US treaty is.....how many times have you told me what is and what isn't a treaty with the US?

Happy to restate...again....that ironically, we should have never have signed that thing, or pressured Ukraine (and others) to give up their nukes. And yep, Putin violated that memo. But then, it's obvious to me that Putin violated the stupid Black Sea Montreux nonsense that obviously isn't performing as intended.

Ain't war just fantastic?

Do you consider the Budapest Memo a US treaty to defend Ukraine ? Yes or No.?

[a fan]

Here's a refresher, by the way, as to how I treated Trump's inaction over Ukraine and the Black Sea kerfuffle...when others were hitting him for "being soft".

The question is: does Trump get it?

Remember, according to VDH (don't make me pull the quote), Obama was soft, and Trump won't be pushed around like Obama was.

What's your wager here, old salt? Will Trump bail on the situation, risking criticism from you and VDH?

Or will he step up immediately, and enter the region with a show of force?

More importantly: which path is the correct path?

I'm sure Mattis, Bolton, Kelly, Pompeo & Dunford are all advising him.

I'd avdise Trump to include NATO in every sentence. Say this requires a united NATO response.
The US is ready to participate & support whatever the collective alliance decides.
The USN is already there, with a CSG in the E Med. Closer, with far more firepower, than any of our other NATO allies.

I wouldn't go into the Black Sea without a NATO flotilla.
Can't afford to get into a shooting war if our allies are going to stay neutral.
Time for Macron & Merkel to assert the EU leadership they've been puffing about.

If Trump indicates he might do something unilaterally, he'll be accused of wagging the dog.

And then I followed this posting IMMEDIATELY with this.

I totally forgot Ukraine didn't get full NATO membership.

Trump doesn't have to do a thing.

Gave Trump, just as I gave Obama....a full pass for doing nothing about Putin and Ukraine.

Same standard for both Presidents------no treaty? Don't have to do anything militarily. And Trump, to my recollection, had kept the economic sanctions that Obama had put on to Putin.

So as I said: at that time, for me? Trump was in the clear. No Treaty? Trump could sit by and do nothing, militarily.

[old salt]

Here's a refresher, by the way, as to how I treated Trump's inaction over Ukraine and the Black Sea kerfuffle...when others were hitting him for "being soft".

The question is: does Trump get it?

Remember, according to VDH (don't make me pull the quote), Obama was soft, and Trump won't be pushed around like Obama was.

What's your wager here, old salt? Will Trump bail on the situation, risking criticism from you and VDH?

Or will he step up immediately, and enter the region with a show of force?

More importantly: which path is the correct path?

I'm sure Mattis, Bolton, Kelly, Pompeo & Dunford are all advising him.

I'd avdise Trump to include NATO in every sentence. Say this requires a united NATO response.
The US is ready to participate & support whatever the collective alliance decides.
The USN is already there, with a CSG in the E Med. Closer, with far more firepower, than any of our other NATO allies.

I wouldn't go into the Black Sea without a NATO flotilla.
Can't afford to get into a shooting war if our allies are going to stay neutral.
Time for Macron & Merkel to assert the EU leadership they've been puffing about.

If Trump indicates he might do something unilaterally, he'll be accused of wagging the dog.

And then I followed this posting IMMEDIATELY with this.

I totally forgot Ukraine didn't get full NATO membership.

Trump doesn't have to do a thing.

Gave Trump, just as I gave Obama....a full pass for doing nothing about Putin and Ukraine.

Same standard for both Presidents------no treaty? Don't have to do anything militarily. And Trump, to my recollection, had kept the economic sanctions that Obama had put on to Putin.

So as I said: at that time, for me? Trump was in the clear. No Treaty? Trump could sit by and do nothing, militarily.

What was the Black Sea kerfuffle in Nov 2018 ? Refresh my memory.

[a fan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerch_Strait_incident

[a fan]

And then here I am, criticizing Putin AND Biden....and threw in the idiocy of the Iraq "preemptive war" Dems like Hillary signed up for, to boot....right before the inevitable sh*tshow started. All built on practicing 1980's foreign policy in 2022.....

Putin is using another 70 year old guys gameplan------preemptive war. Start a war to prevent a war. Anyone remember THAT brilliant military theory? Oh yeah, that worked out GREAT for Bush, and the Dems who signed on for it.

If NATO was going to (snicker) invade? We would have done it in 1990-95, when the entire region was in chaos. No one lifted a finger. Why? Because again, it's not 1960 anymore, and who the F wants to invade Russia? We already have their best hockey players...so what would be the point?

It's all 1980's thinking by men in their 70's who don't know how to change how they look at the world. So Putin, predictably, masses at the border.


And Biden, of course, is running his play calls from the same 70 year old guy "the Cold War never ended" playbook. It's all so stupid.

[old salt]

And then here I am, criticizing Putin AND Biden....and threw in the idiocy of the Iraq "preemptive war" Dems like Hillary signed up for, to boot....right before the inevitable sh*tshow started. All built on practicing 1980's foreign policy in 2022.....

Putin is using another 70 year old guys gameplan------preemptive war. Start a war to prevent a war. Anyone remember THAT brilliant military theory? Oh yeah, that worked out GREAT for Bush, and the Dems who signed on for it.

If NATO was going to (snicker) invade? We would have done it in 1990-95, when the entire region was in chaos. No one lifted a finger. Why? Because again, it's not 1960 anymore, and who the F wants to invade Russia? We already have their best hockey players...so what would be the point?

It's all 1980's thinking by men in their 70's who don't know how to change how they look at the world. So Putin, predictably, masses at the border.


And Biden, of course, is running his play calls from the same 70 year old guy "the Cold War never ended" playbook. It's all so stupid.

Do you consider the Budapest Memo a US treaty to defend Ukraine ? Yes or No.?