All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

This is what Russian sympathizing looks like. It will be couched in “I am just explaining it”…. but the “just explaining it” is always one direction. Old and exposed.

You just refuse to acknowledge what does not fit your agenda.

I don’t have an “agenda”….you do. You are vested. I am not. You are a sympathizer.

I have sympathy for all the needless deaths on both sides of this stupid war.

Un huh. You are consistently one sided in your argument. Just as you were with Trump. You were sympathetic to Trump and his administration and you are sympathetic to Putin and Russia. If AI ran an analysis, it would likely prove it out. In the meantime I have to rely on what I have read from you over the years. Your records says who and what you are. You don’t have to hide it like your hat at home.

Key Difference – Reason vs Excuse
A reason simply refers to a cause or explanation. It explains why someone did something or why something happened. An excuse, on the other hand, is also a type of reason that specifically justifies or defends a fault.

I have been consistent. I spent the prime part of my life facing down the Russians, prepared to go to combat with them that day -- because they posed a credible threat to our survival. I don't want to do so again unless it is a matter of our survival. I've opposed our encroachment on Russia since the end of the Cold War. I have been vocal about it here & on LP since 2014. I saw this conflict coming & have warned about it since we began debating our Russia policy in 2014.

I am not sympathetic to the Russians. I try to understand what motivates them & anticipate what they will do.
We can't control everything, all over the world. I have consistently maintained that we have no strategic interest in Ukraine, or any of the other former Soviet Republics which were historically integral parts of Russia. I've warned that we are prolonging a catastrophic war within formerly Russian territory that can easily spin out of control & suck us in. Look at the casualties. This is not like the post 9-11 forever wars, or any other war in which we've been involved. This has the real potential to devolve into the type of all out war which we spent the Cold War trying to avoid. In my sincere opinion, politics aside -- it is not worth the risk we are taking in prolonging our proxy war on Russia & I do not apologize for it.

You have been consistent. That’s how I drew the conclusion. You are sympathetic to Putin and Russia just was you were to Trump and his administration. Basically the exact same pattern. I don’t care what you did along time ago. It was, as you said, a long time ago.

What was Trump doing in 2014 ? That's when we started having the debate on LP about Russia, Ukraine, NATO expansion & Putin. I was critical then of Nuland, Soros, McCain & the neocons who were fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine. I was critical of W Bush on NATO expansion. I posted Kissinger's op-ed advocating the Finlandization of Ukraine. I was critical of our post Cold War policy toward Russia since the end of the Cold War through both (R) & (D) Presidencies & Congresses. IMO, Bush the Elder was the last admin that got it right & attempted to do the right thing re. Russia. Since then, we have consistently overreached, under both parties' policies. Trump came along & his policy toward Russia aligned with mine, as did much of his other foreign policies. Apparently, I was not alone in my preference.

https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=356

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is what Russian sympathizing looks like. It will be couched in “I am just explaining it”…. but the “just explaining it” is always one direction. Old and exposed.

You just refuse to acknowledge what does not fit your agenda.

I don’t have an “agenda”….you do. You are vested. I am not. You are a sympathizer.

I have sympathy for all the needless deaths on both sides of this stupid war.

Un huh. You are consistently one sided in your argument. Just as you were with Trump. You were sympathetic to Trump and his administration and you are sympathetic to Putin and Russia. If AI ran an analysis, it would likely prove it out. In the meantime I have to rely on what I have read from you over the years. Your records says who and what you are. You don’t have to hide it like your hat at home.

Key Difference – Reason vs Excuse
A reason simply refers to a cause or explanation. It explains why someone did something or why something happened. An excuse, on the other hand, is also a type of reason that specifically justifies or defends a fault.

I have been consistent. I spent the prime part of my life facing down the Russians, prepared to go to combat with them that day -- because they posed a credible threat to our survival. I don't want to do so again unless it is a matter of our survival. I've opposed our encroachment on Russia since the end of the Cold War. I have been vocal about it here & on LP since 2014. I saw this conflict coming & have warned about it since we began debating our Russia policy in 2014.

I am not sympathetic to the Russians. I try to understand what motivates them & anticipate what they will do.
We can't control everything, all over the world. I have consistently maintained that we have no strategic interest in Ukraine, or any of the other former Soviet Republics which were historically integral parts of Russia. I've warned that we are prolonging a catastrophic war within formerly Russian territory that can easily spin out of control & suck us in. Look at the casualties. This is not like the post 9-11 forever wars, or any other war in which we've been involved. This has the real potential to devolve into the type of all out war which we spent the Cold War trying to avoid. In my sincere opinion, politics aside -- it is not worth the risk we are taking in prolonging our proxy war on Russia & I do not apologize for it.

You have been consistent. That’s how I drew the conclusion. You are sympathetic to Putin and Russia just was you were to Trump and his administration. Basically the exact same pattern. I don’t care what you did along time ago. It was, as you said, a long time ago.

What was Trump doing in 2014 ? That's when we started having the debate on LP about Russia, Ukraine, NATO expansion & Putin. I was critical then of Nuland, Soros, McCain & the neocons who were fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine. I was critical of W Bush on NATO expansion. I posted Kissinger's op-ed advocating the Finlandization of Ukraine. I was critical of our post Cold War policy toward Russia since the end of the Cold War through both (R) & (D) Presidencies & Congresses. IMO, Bush the Elder was the last admin that got it right & attempted to do the right thing re. Russia. Since then, we have consistently overreached, under both parties' policies. Trump came along & his policy toward Russia aligned with mine, as did much of his other foreign policies. Apparently, I was not alone in my preference.

https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=356

More blah blah blah. Doth protest too much. Night night.

[a fan]

Who's going to attack Russian warships in the Black Sea ?

No one. They're invulnerable. And I'm sure you'll tell me the air defense systems on the port can't be hit, either.

So we're back to my assertion that Putin doesn't really think NATO is an actual threat, what with Russian's invulnerable defenses, and all.

Putin must've read your assessments.

We'd try to take out the air defense system on the first day of an all out war. It would not be ez & would come with costs. Success could not be guaranteed. The Black Sea is Russia's back yard. We don't have bases in our Black Sea allies that we could count on, other than IncirlIK in Turkey, which is unreliable & a long flight from Crimea.

Are you honestly not noticing that in an effort to make the logic work...... you're arguing both sides of the point in this thread, and you flip back and forth from post to post?

In this post? NATO is not a realistic threat to Russia.

In the other one? You're telling me that Russia is justified in their invasion because of a threat from NATO.



Further, if you haven't figured this out, Putin has: whenever this ends, NATO will be closer to Putin than ever.

Which means, for the 100th time, this invasion had NOTHING to do with NATO encroachment. This wasn't provoked. That's an excuse.

[old salt]

Who's going to attack Russian warships in the Black Sea ?

No one. They're invulnerable. And I'm sure you'll tell me the air defense systems on the port can't be hit, either.

So we're back to my assertion that Putin doesn't really think NATO is an actual threat, what with Russian's invulnerable defenses, and all.

Putin must've read your assessments.

We'd try to take out the air defense system on the first day of an all out war. It would not be ez & would come with costs. Success could not be guaranteed. The Black Sea is Russia's back yard. We don't have bases in our Black Sea allies that we could count on, other than IncirlIK in Turkey, which is unreliable & a long flight from Crimea.

Are you honestly not noticing that in an effort to make the logic work...... you're arguing both sides of the point in this thread, and you flip back and forth from post to post?

In this post? NATO is not a realistic threat to Russia. Not in our mind, because we can't ever imagine NATO (as presently constituted}, attacking Russia. What matters is what the Russians think.

In the other one? You're telling me that Russia is justified in their invasion because of a threat from NATO.
In their mind, yes. They see Crimea as a NATO base if it reverts to Ukraine, as a NATO member.

Further, if you haven't figured this out, Putin has: whenever this ends, NATO will be closer to Putin than ever.
Yes. Unless Zelensky is deposed & replaced by a pro-Russian leader, not likely. That was Putin's original goal. Now, he'd settle for Crimea, the Donbas, & the land bridge connecting them.

Which means, for the 100th time, this invasion had NOTHING to do with NATO encroachment. This wasn't provoked. That's an excuse.
Zelensky's election put Ukraine on the road to NATO membership. Putin saw that as a threat & still does.
How would we react if Mexico entered a NATO-like treaty with China, Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua & Venezuela ?

[a fan]

What was Trump doing in 2014 ? That's when we started having the debate on LP about Russia, Ukraine, NATO expansion & Putin. I was critical then of Nuland, Soros, McCain & the neocons who were fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine. I was critical of W Bush on NATO expansion. I posted Kissinger's op-ed advocating the Finlandization of Ukraine. I was critical of our post Cold War policy toward Russia since the end of the Cold War through both (R) & (D) Presidencies & Congresses. IMO, Bush the Elder was the last admin that got it right & attempted to do the right thing re. Russia. Since then, we have consistently overreached, under both parties' policies. Trump came along & his policy toward Russia aligned with mine, as did much of his other foreign policies. Apparently, I was not alone in my preference.

No. It didn't. Do you want me to pull up your posts----- that you're intentionally ignoring ------where you kept asking where was NATO in terms of standing up to, and I quote "Russia's adventurism"?

Or holding Putin accountable for Crimea?

You've advocated for a strong MILITARY response to Putin for years. Apply NATO military pressure on Putin to keep him in line. And made fun of those who didn't stand up to him. . Encouraged Germany to arm Russia's neighbors. Told NATO to get stronger....to be MORE of a threat to Putin.

And made fun of Obama's economic measures---again and again----as soft and pointless. Repeatedly tell me that we need to react militarily, instead.


Now that this has happened, you're pretending that you did NONE of these things.

You've completely changed your tune.

[old salt]

What was Trump doing in 2014 ? That's when we started having the debate on LP about Russia, Ukraine, NATO expansion & Putin. I was critical then of Nuland, Soros, McCain & the neocons who were fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine. I was critical of W Bush on NATO expansion. I posted Kissinger's op-ed advocating the Finlandization of Ukraine. I was critical of our post Cold War policy toward Russia since the end of the Cold War through both (R) & (D) Presidencies & Congresses. IMO, Bush the Elder was the last admin that got it right & attempted to do the right thing re. Russia. Since then, we have consistently overreached, under both parties' policies. Trump came along & his policy toward Russia aligned with mine, as did much of his other foreign policies. Apparently, I was not alone in my preference.

No. It didn't. Do you want me to pull up your posts----- that you're intentionally ignoring ------where you kept asking where was NATO in terms of standing up to, and I quote "Russia's adventurism"?

Or holding Putin accountable for Crimea?

You've advocated for a strong MILITARY response to Putin for years. Apply NATO military pressure on Putin to keep him in line. And made fun of those who didn't stand up to him. . Encouraged Germany to arm Russia's neighbors. Told NATO to get stronger....to be MORE of a threat to Putin.

And made fun of Obama's economic measures---again and again----as soft and pointless. Repeatedly tell me that we need to react militarily, instead.

Now that this has happened, you're pretending that you did NONE of these things.

You've completely changed your tune.

Not at all. My critique was that the US was carrying a disproportionate share of the load in NATO's response to Russia's incursion into Ukraine in 2014. I complained that we had to ship tanks back to EUrope so NATO could deploy rotational Armored Brigades in Poland & the Baltics, when all the EUroburghers could do was to levy sanctions. The objective was to reassure panicked E NATO members that we could contain Putin & deter him from invading NATO countries.

It was to restore NATO to the strength necessary to defend against Russian incursion, to contain & deter Putin.
NATO forces were not configured or deployed in form or number to pose a threat to attack or invade Russia.
I supported training & arming the Ukrainians to defend against further incursions & criticized Obama & the EUroburghers for withholding lethal defensive aid.

I've always been a proponent of NATO maintaining sufficient conventional forces to contain & deter Russia from invading NATO territory, rather than just relying on the US nuclear umbrella. I criticized the EUroburghers for being free riders in that regard & becoming overly dependent on Russian energy. That's all to contain & deter Russia, not to threaten invasion.

NATO is a defensive alliance. The difficulty we're having in scraping together weapons to donate to Ukraine is evidence that NATO is not currently structured to invade Russia. That could change, but would take years to accomplish.

[Typical Lax Dad]

What was Trump doing in 2014 ? That's when we started having the debate on LP about Russia, Ukraine, NATO expansion & Putin. I was critical then of Nuland, Soros, McCain & the neocons who were fomenting revolution & regime change in Ukraine. I was critical of W Bush on NATO expansion. I posted Kissinger's op-ed advocating the Finlandization of Ukraine. I was critical of our post Cold War policy toward Russia since the end of the Cold War through both (R) & (D) Presidencies & Congresses. IMO, Bush the Elder was the last admin that got it right & attempted to do the right thing re. Russia. Since then, we have consistently overreached, under both parties' policies. Trump came along & his policy toward Russia aligned with mine, as did much of his other foreign policies. Apparently, I was not alone in my preference.

No. It didn't. Do you want me to pull up your posts----- that you're intentionally ignoring ------where you kept asking where was NATO in terms of standing up to, and I quote "Russia's adventurism"?

Or holding Putin accountable for Crimea?

You've advocated for a strong MILITARY response to Putin for years. Apply NATO military pressure on Putin to keep him in line. And made fun of those who didn't stand up to him. . Encouraged Germany to arm Russia's neighbors. Told NATO to get stronger....to be MORE of a threat to Putin.

And made fun of Obama's economic measures---again and again----as soft and pointless. Repeatedly tell me that we need to react militarily, instead.

Now that this has happened, you're pretending that you did NONE of these things.

You've completely changed your tune.

Not at all. My critique was that the US was carrying a disproportionate share of the load in NATO's response to Russia's incursion into Ukraine in 2014. I complained that we had to ship tanks back to EUrope so NATO could deploy rotational Armored Brigades in Poland & the Baltics, when all the EUroburghers could do was to levy sanctions. The objective was to reassure panicked E NATO members that we could contain Putin & deter him from invading NATO countries.

It was to restore NATO to the strength necessary to defend against Russian incursion, to contain & deter Putin.
NATO forces were not configured or deployed in form or number to pose a threat to attack or invade Russia.
I supported training & arming the Ukrainians to defend against further incursions & criticized Obama & the EUroburghers for withholding lethal defensive aid.

I've always been a proponent of NATO maintaining sufficient conventional forces to contain & deter Russia from invading NATO territory, rather than just relying on the US nuclear umbrella. I criticized the EUroburghers for being free riders in that regard & becoming overly dependent on Russian energy. That's all to contain & deter Russia, not to threaten invasion.

NATO is a defensive alliance. The difficulty we're having in scraping together weapons to donate to Ukraine is evidence that NATO is not currently structured to invade Russia. That could change, but would take years to accomplish.

Anywhere else is free game? I thought you would have said “deter Russia from threatening our security or a threatening our NATO alliance”…. Cute wording you chose pops.

We have always taken action when it’s in our national interest? What changed?

[MDlaxfan76]

If you think Naval Bases are pointless, there's no point in continuing the discussion with you. You'll never get it.

What I'm telling you is that if Russia attacks NATO, or vice versa.....

What's the first thing Turkey will do?

So then tell me: what good is that Russian Naval base if Russia is in open hostilities with NATO?

Think it through in a linear fashion.


It'd be like having a Russian Naval base in St. Louis. A bunch of trapped ships in a fish bowl. A useless station with ships that can't deploy to oceans.

Putin would be better off with "attack river boats" on the Volga.

Because as significant number of cruise missiles fired into Ukraine (& Syria) have been from warships in the Black Sea Fleet & Caspian Flotilla.
Those missiles can also strike E NATO countries. They can also shoot down aircraft over Ukraine. Read the link I posted up the page. It details how the Russians can transfer warships between homeports via their inland water system. The Russian corvettes & patrol boats in the Black Sea & Caspian Sea bristle with cruise missiles & could operate from a base in St Louis or any of our Great Lakes, with their shallow draft & narrow beam.

So, really good for attacking Ukraine, but not so good if opponent is actually NATO.

Seriously, how fast would they be utterly destroyed, much less bottled up?

But good for bully boy tactics...

Their cruise missiles pose a threat to E NATO nations.
They'd just be a few of multiple targets that are mobile & not ez to detect in all conditions.
They could fire their missiles before they were destroyed & if they got their missiles off, they're no longer worth targeting.
Think of them as you would a HIMARS or any land mobile missile launcher that can shoot & scoot.

Their cruise missiles are a 'threat' from dozens of places, but that's one of the easiest for NATO to take out. But sure, they could fire all their missiles, blow their wad so to speak...and then await the response...meanwhile, much of NATO has air defenses specifically for such event.

Point is, good for bullying a weaker opponent right next door, not so good when matched against superior capabilities.

It would be truly insane for Russia to attack NATO. As it is, it's proving to have been an immensely tragic mistake for Russia to attack a nation like Ukraine with their heroic leadership and with Biden's leadership of the US and NATO. The Russian people will suffer mightily for this error, the Ukrainians much worse, but with greater moral clarity of purpose for their sacrifices.

[a fan]

Not at all. My critique was that the US was carrying a disproportionate share of the load in NATO's response to Russia's incursion into Ukraine in 2014. I complained that we had to ship tanks back to EUrope so NATO could deploy rotational Armored Brigades in Poland & the Baltics, when all the EUroburghers could do was to levy sanctions. The objective was to reassure panicked E NATO members that we could contain Putin & deter him from invading NATO countries.

That was PART of your critique. The rest was that you wanted NATO to stand up to Putin.....and if we didn't, Putin would keep taking because Putin wants to return to Soviet glory days.

And they have now done that. Just like you asked. And now that they've done what you asked, you're acting like you didn't ask for that, and also blaming them for all the death and carnage, as if your demand for a military action had no downsides.

....you can't have it both ways. You can't demand military action, while mocking peaceful economic action......and then whine and complain when people get killed. The ships and planes and weapons you rattle off with ease kill people, OS. You've gotten what you've wanted.

Sit back, and deal with the consequences of your wishes. And in case you haven't noticed? I'm not blaming you for your wishes....even a peacnik like me understands that with Putin you're between a rock and a hard place. That if Putin takes Ukraine, every country not protected by NATO could be next on his list.....because as YOU say, if you give Putin an inch, he takes a mile. I believe that you are more likely correct than not in this evaluation.

It was to restore NATO to the strength necessary to defend against Russian incursion, to contain & deter Putin.
NATO forces were not configured or deployed in form or number to pose a threat to attack or invade Russia.
I supported training & arming the Ukrainians to defend against further incursions & criticized Obama & the EUroburghers for withholding lethal defensive aid.

There it is again!

You're like this for everything on the forum-----you are 100% unwilling to concede that YOUR advice, and YOUR wishes often have downsides. And you mock other posters for not having your "flawless" ideas and solutions to every problem.

If we have to think like Russians, as you keep telling us....how is it that Trump slowly arming and training Ukraine wasn't what spurred Putin to invade? That your advice to re-arm NATO and Ukraine wouldn't make Russians feel threatened......to use your metaphor....how would YOU feel if Putin armed and trained the Mexicans?


Because you're stubborn, and want to act like your paths are always perfect. The path YOU suggested (and Trump executed) threatens Russia just as much as the "threat" to allow NATO membership does. In fact, I'd argue it's WORSE, because Putin can't invade a NATO nation. But he CAN invade a nation that NATO and the US arms.

For me? I understand the consequences and downsides of the paths I'd prefer that our country take. That there are rarely perfect choices in life. So my preference that we leave Afghanistan, Kuwait, Taiwan, Ukraine, and Crimea to their own devices----militarily-----will have some bad outcomes. I'm sure some would likely be REALLY bad. I'm not here, as you are, pretending that it's all sunshine and roses if we ONLY do as I suggest.

I've always been a proponent of NATO maintaining sufficient conventional forces to contain & deter Russia from invading NATO territory, rather than just relying on the US nuclear umbrella. I criticized the EUroburghers for being free riders in that regard & becoming overly dependent on Russian energy. That's all to contain & deter Russia, not to threaten invasion.

Yeah, that's not how it works, remember? It's up to Russians to decide what to think, my man.

And you said for YEARS that NATO should have ratcheted up the pressure on Russia....while at the same time, arming and training Ukraine.

......but with a straight face, you're telling me that the Russian people wouldn't take this massive rearming of NATO coupled with arming Ukraine to the teeth....wouldn't be taken as a threat.

You can't have it both ways, OS. You INSISTED that NATO arm Ukraine, and threaten Russia. And here we are......

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not at all. My critique was that the US was carrying a disproportionate share of the load in NATO's response to Russia's incursion into Ukraine in 2014. I complained that we had to ship tanks back to EUrope so NATO could deploy rotational Armored Brigades in Poland & the Baltics, when all the EUroburghers could do was to levy sanctions. The objective was to reassure panicked E NATO members that we could contain Putin & deter him from invading NATO countries.

That was PART of your critique. The rest was that you wanted NATO to stand up to Putin.....and if we didn't, Putin would keep taking because Putin wants to return to Soviet glory days.

And they have now done that. Just like you asked. And now that they've done what you asked, you're acting like you didn't ask for that, and also blaming them for all the death and carnage, as if your demand for a military action had no downsides.

....you can't have it both ways. You can't demand military action, while mocking peaceful economic action......and then whine and complain when people get killed. The ships and planes and weapons you rattle off with ease kill people, OS. You've gotten what you've wanted.

Sit back, and deal with the consequences of your wishes. And in case you haven't noticed? I'm not blaming you for your wishes....even a peacnik like me understands that with Putin you're between a rock and a hard place. That if Putin takes Ukraine, every country not protected by NATO could be next on his list.....because as YOU say, if you give Putin an inch, he takes a mile. I believe that you are more likely correct than not in this evaluation.

It was to restore NATO to the strength necessary to defend against Russian incursion, to contain & deter Putin.
NATO forces were not configured or deployed in form or number to pose a threat to attack or invade Russia.
I supported training & arming the Ukrainians to defend against further incursions & criticized Obama & the EUroburghers for withholding lethal defensive aid.

There it is again!

You're like this for everything on the forum-----you are 100% unwilling to concede that YOUR advice, and YOUR wishes often have downsides. And you mock other posters for not having your "flawless" ideas and solutions to every problem.

If we have to think like Russians, as you keep telling us....how is it that Trump slowly arming and training Ukraine wasn't what spurred Putin to invade? That your advice to re-arm NATO and Ukraine wouldn't make Russians feel threatened......to use your metaphor....how would YOU feel if Putin armed and trained the Mexicans?


Because you're stubborn, and want to act like your paths are always perfect. The path YOU suggested (and Trump executed) threatens Russia just as much as the "threat" to allow NATO membership does. In fact, I'd argue it's WORSE, because Putin can't invade a NATO nation. But he CAN invade a nation that NATO and the US arms.

For me? I understand the consequences and downsides of the paths I'd prefer that our country take. That there are rarely perfect choices in life. So my preference that we leave Afghanistan, Kuwait, Taiwan, Ukraine, and Crimea to their own devices----militarily-----will have some bad outcomes. I'm sure some would likely be REALLY bad. I'm not here, as you are, pretending that it's all sunshine and roses if we ONLY do as I suggest.

I've always been a proponent of NATO maintaining sufficient conventional forces to contain & deter Russia from invading NATO territory, rather than just relying on the US nuclear umbrella. I criticized the EUroburghers for being free riders in that regard & becoming overly dependent on Russian energy. That's all to contain & deter Russia, not to threaten invasion.

Yeah, that's not how it works, remember? It's up to Russians to decide what to think, my man.

And you said for YEARS that NATO should have ratcheted up the pressure on Russia....while at the same time, arming and training Ukraine.

......but with a straight face, you're telling me that the Russian people wouldn't take this massive rearming of NATO coupled with arming Ukraine to the teeth....wouldn't be taken as a threat.

You can't have it both ways, OS. You INSISTED that NATO arm Ukraine, and threaten Russia. And here we are......

Time and time again he fails simple logic.

[dislaxxic]

MORE reasons why the Columbia Journalism Review Story (by Jeff Gerth) about RussiaGate is Totally Wrong and Manifestly Misleading

CJR claimed that it “has been examining the American media’s coverage of Trump and Russia in granular detail.” This review has shown how ridiculous that claim is. What it did, in the name of scolding other journalists while misrepresenting their work, was create the “Russiagate” narrative they defined the entire project by. They did so by skipping key events of 2016, ignoring the vast majority of the NYT and WaPo reporting they claimed to review, substituting the dossier for actual media coverage, and passing off a Russian intelligence product with no notice. To prove they found the “Russiagate” narrative they had dishonestly created, they simply parroted the work of people from their same “Russiagate” bubble, all the while ignoring vast swaths of contradictory evidence in the documentary record.

CJR invented a Russiagate narrative via omission and factual error. Then they boasted that they had found what their own journalistic failures created.

..

[old salt]

Their cruise missiles are a 'threat' from dozens of places, but that's one of the easiest for NATO to take out.

If NATO gets sucked into a shooting war with Russia, you will quickly see how little strategic interest the US has in Ukraine & the Black Sea, let alone Caspian Sea targets. It will be a global war from the Arctic, to the Med, to WPac. Ukraine will be an afterthought.

[MDlaxfan76]

Their cruise missiles are a 'threat' from dozens of places, but that's one of the easiest for NATO to take out.

If NATO gets sucked into a shooting war with Russia, you will quickly see how little strategic interest the US has in Ukraine & the Black Sea, let alone Caspian Sea targets. It will be a global war from the Arctic, to the Med, to WPac. Ukraine will be an afterthought.

If Russia makes the colossal error of drawing NATO into direct conflict, you can be assured that they will be devastated in any place threatening NATO.

Might want to tell Vlad to turn tail now and save a lot of Russian lives.

[old salt]

Not at all. My critique was that the US was carrying a disproportionate share of the load in NATO's response to Russia's incursion into Ukraine in 2014. I complained that we had to ship tanks back to EUrope so NATO could deploy rotational Armored Brigades in Poland & the Baltics, when all the EUroburghers could do was to levy sanctions. The objective was to reassure panicked E NATO members that we could contain Putin & deter him from invading NATO countries.

That was PART of your critique. The rest was that you wanted NATO to stand up to Putin in 2014, after Putin's first incursions, by bolstering NATO's E flank as much as the US did......and if we didn't, Putin would keep taking because Putin wants to return to Soviet glory days.
& he did, because so little was done to help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves & the EUroburghers insisted on Nordstream 2. & punted on the Minsk process.
And they have now done that. Post invasion. Just like you asked. Too little, too late to deter invasion. And now that they've done what you asked, you're acting like you didn't ask for that, and also blaming them for all the death and carnage, as if your demand for a military action had no downsides. It wasn't a demand for military ACTION. It was a plea for military preparedness to deter military action.

....you can't have it both ways. You can't demand military action, while mocking peaceful economic actionyes you can if that'a all they're willing to do)......and then whine and complain when people get killed.(because military preparedness was insufficient to deter military action.) The ships and planes and weapons you rattle off with ease kill people, OS. only if you have to use them.You've gotten what you've wanted. I wanted enough for deterrence, not token amounts.

Sit back, and deal with the consequences of your wishes. And in case you haven't noticed? I'm not blaming you for your wishes....even a peacnik like me understands that with Putin you're between a rock and a hard place. That if Putin takes Ukraine, every country not protected by NATO could be next on his list.....because as YOU say, if you give Putin an inch, he takes a mile. I believe that you are more likely correct than not in this evaluation
. Other than Ukraine, Georgia & the Baltic states, all the other SSR's are smart enough to maintain relations with Russia so that's not a threat to them.

It was to restore NATO to the strength necessary to defend against Russian incursion, to contain & deter Putin.
NATO forces were not configured or deployed in form or number to pose a threat to attack or invade Russia.
I supported training & arming the Ukrainians to defend against further incursions & criticized Obama & the EUroburghers for withholding lethal defensive aid.

There it is again! Yes, deterrence.

You're like this for everything on the forum-----you are 100% unwilling to concede that YOUR advice, and YOUR wishes often have downsides. And you mock other posters for not having your "flawless" ideas and solutions to every problem. ...that's hoot, coming from you.

If we have to think like Russians, as you keep telling us....how is it that Trump slowly arming and training Ukraine wasn't what spurred Putin to invade? That your advice to re-arm NATO and Ukraine wouldn't make Russians feel threatened......to use your metaphor....how would YOU feel if Putin armed and trained the Mexicans? They have. They fly Russian helos & carry AK-47's. I was never for expanding NATO as far E as we did. NATO EUros has not rearmed to the point where they're a threat to invade Russia & we brought home all our offensive forces in the 90's.

Because you're stubborn, and want to act like your paths are always perfect. The path YOU suggested (and Trump executed) threatens Russia just as much as the "threat" to allow NATO membership does. In fact, I'd argue it's WORSE, because Putin can't invade a NATO nation. But he CAN invade a nation that NATO and the US arms.

For me? I understand the consequences and downsides of the paths I'd prefer that our country take. That there are rarely perfect choices in life. So my preference that we leave Afghanistan, Kuwait, Taiwan, Ukraine, and Crimea to their own devices----militarily-----will have some bad outcomes. I'm sure some would likely be REALLY bad. I'm not here, as you are, pretending that it's all sunshine and roses if we ONLY do as I suggest.
It's a tricky balancing act. The US & our allies must judiciously use our strengths (combined, preferably) to deter the bad guys.

I've always been a proponent of NATO maintaining sufficient conventional forces to contain & deter Russia from invading NATO territory, rather than just relying on the US nuclear umbrella. I criticized the EUroburghers for being free riders in that regard & becoming overly dependent on Russian energy. That's all to contain & deter Russia, not to threaten invasion.

Yeah, that's not how it works, remember? It's up to Russians to decide what to think, my man.

And you said for YEARS that NATO should have ratcheted up the pressure on Russia....while at the same time, arming and training Ukraine.
No. I've said they should increase their capability to defend themselves.

......but with a straight face, you're telling me that the Russian people wouldn't take this massive rearming of NATO coupled with arming Ukraine to the teeth....wouldn't be taken as a threat.It depends on what they rearm with & how they deploy it & exercise with it.

You can't have it both ways, OS. You INSISTED that NATO arm Ukraine, and threaten Russia. NATO can rearm in a way that is defensive & not a threat to Russia. However, when NATO expands right up to Russia's border, it provides the opportunity for bases that could be a threat if reinforced. That's why the US has refrained from permanently refrained from deploying forces E of German cold war bases. And here we are......

Time and time again he fails simple logic.

He refuses to acknowledge the difference between offense & defense & the concept of deterrence.

[a fan]

& he did, because so little was done to help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves & the EUroburghers insisted on Nordstream 2. & punted on the Minsk process.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves.
It wasn't a demand for military ACTION. It was a plea for military preparedness to deter military action.[/color]

I wanted enough for deterrence, not token amounts.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Sent tokens amounts that were plainly not enough of the "deterrent" you're claiming you want here in 2023. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.

Other than Ukraine, Georgia & the Baltic states, all the other SSR's are smart enough to maintain relations with Russia so that's not a threat to them.

Great news! Hey everybody, OS just guaranteed that Putin wont' invade other nations.

Yes, deterrence.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.

...that's hoot, coming from you.

I've admitted to when I've been wrong dozens of times. And as I stated in this very thread, I'm delighted to tell you that there are actual downsides to my preferred American foreign policy choice.

You, on the other hand, have the stereotypical know it all military grad "I'm always right" nonsense that enlisted men mock, and have mocked for hundreds of years. But keep it going. It's a great look. You've moved the goalposts so many times in this conversation that you've send your offense in the wrong direction multiple times, because you can't keep your BS straight.

All because you're one of those guys who thinks that admitting he's wrong...or was wrong.... is a weakness.

It's a tricky balancing act. The US & our allies must judiciously use our strengths (combined, preferably) to deter the bad guys.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.

No. I've said they should increase their capability to defend themselves.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.

He refuses to acknowledge the difference between offense & defense & the concept of deterrence.

Happy to acknowledge it......so where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves...didn't provide the deterrent you're asking for, again and again. Trump only sent token help. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region...and aren't hitting Trump for this "token" help.

So.,....by all means, explain why you weren't lecturing Trump that what he did wasn't nearly enough to be a deterrent? And why you are claiming after the fact that you "aligned with his policies"....when his policy was to give token help to Urkaine? Only NATO and the other US Presidents "did it wrong"...is that it?

That's your story? :lo:

[Brooklyn]

Moscow says calls to ban Russian athletes from Olympics 'unacceptable'

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sport ... 023-02-11/


Russian Sports Minister Oleg Matytsin said on Saturday that calls from ministers of more than 30 countries to ban Russian and Belarusian athletes from the 2024 Olympics were unacceptable, TASS news agency reported.

A group of 35 countries, including the United States, Germany and Australia, will demand that Russian and Belarusian athletes are banned from the 2024 Olympics, Lithuania's sports minister said on Friday, deepening the uncertainty over the Paris Games.

The move cranks up the pressure on an International Olympic Committee (IOC) that is desperate to avoid the sporting event being torn asunder by the conflict unfolding in Ukraine.



Why didn't the world take actions like this when terrorist Bush invaded the Middle East? Obviously because it would reduce the television audience and cost the IOC billions. You know the old story about money talks and caca walks.

[old salt]

& he did, because so little was done to help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves & the EUroburghers insisted on Nordstream 2. & punted on the Minsk process.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves.
The hell he didn't. He was the first NATO leader to give lethal defensive aid. The Javelins & US tactical training provided during Trump's term were difference makers that kept Ukraine from falling as predicted.
It wasn't a demand for military ACTION. It was a plea for military preparedness to deter military action.[/color]

I wanted enough for deterrence, not token amounts.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Sent tokens amounts that were plainly not enough of the "deterrent" you're claiming you want here in 2023. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.

Other than Ukraine, Georgia & the Baltic states, all the other SSR's are smart enough to maintain relations with Russia so that's not a threat to them.

Great news! Hey everybody, OS just guaranteed that Putin wont' invade other nations.

Yes, deterrence.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.

...that's hoot, coming from you.

I've admitted to when I've been wrong dozens of times. And as I stated in this very thread, I'm delighted to tell you that there are actual downsides to my preferred American foreign policy choice.

You, on the other hand, have the stereotypical know it all military grad "I'm always right" nonsense that enlisted men mock, and have mocked for hundreds of years. But keep it going. It's a great look. You've moved the goalposts so many times in this conversation that you've send your offense in the wrong direction multiple times, because you can't keep your BS straight.

All because you're one of those guys who thinks that admitting he's wrong...or was wrong.... is a weakness.

It's a tricky balancing act. The US & our allies must judiciously use our strengths (combined, preferably) to deter the bad guys.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.

No. I've said they should increase their capability to defend themselves.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.

He refuses to acknowledge the difference between offense & defense & the concept of deterrence.

Happy to acknowledge it......so where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves...didn't provide the deterrent you're asking for, again and again. Trump only sent token help. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region...and aren't hitting Trump for this "token" help.

So.,....by all means, explain why you weren't lecturing Trump that what he did wasn't nearly enough to be a deterrent? And why you are claiming after the fact that you "aligned with his policies"....when his policy was to give token help to Urkaine? Only NATO and the other US Presidents "did it wrong"...is that it?

That's your story? :lo:

[old salt]

& he did, because so little was done to help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves & the EUroburghers insisted on Nordstream 2. & punted on the Minsk process.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves.
The hell he didn't. He was the first NATO leader to give lethal defensive aid. The Javelins & US tactical training provided during Trump's term were difference makers that kept Ukraine from falling as predicted.
It wasn't a demand for military ACTION. It was a plea for military preparedness to deter military action.[/color]

I wanted enough for deterrence, not token amounts.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Sent tokens amounts that were plainly not enough of the "deterrent" you're claiming you want here in 2023. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.
This is how you play your dishonest game by chopping up text & lifting portions out of context. We were addressing both NATO's efforts to bolster the E front AND SEPERATELY, the US contributions to help prepare Ukraine's self-defense. Two separate issues which you conflate in your lengthy, repetitive, argumentative rant.

Other than Ukraine, Georgia & the Baltic states, all the other SSR's are smart enough to maintain relations with Russia so that's not a threat to them.

Great news! Hey everybody, OS just guaranteed that Putin wont' invade other nations.
I guarantee nothing. I predict that Putin will not invade a NATO country, so long as NATO does not engage in combat in Ukraine. If we do, then all bets are off. He won't invade the other former SSR's unless they do what Georgia & Ukraine have done -- US fomented revolution, regime change, & apply to join NATO & EU.

Yes, deterrence.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.
We did more to prepare Ukraine to defend themselves in 4 years under Trump than Obama & the rest of NATO combined. Had we not, Kyiv would have fallen in 3 days, as predicted.

...that's hoot, coming from you.

I've admitted to when I've been wrong dozens of times. And as I stated in this very thread, I'm delighted to tell you that there are actual downsides to my preferred American foreign policy choice.

You, on the other hand, have the stereotypical know it all military grad "I'm always right" nonsense that enlisted men mock, and have mocked for hundreds of years. But keep it going. It's a great look. Did you learn that by reading Beetle Bailey, Catch 22, watching Oliver Stone movies & going to peaceful protests ? I'm the one arguing against this was, Sport.You've moved the goalposts so many times in this conversation that you've send your offense in the wrong direction multiple times, because you can't keep your BS straight.
You move the goalposts every time you chop up my text & misrepresent what i post.
All because you're one of those guys who thinks that admitting he's wrong...or was wrong.... is a weakness.
I was wrong thinking it was possible to have a civil discussion with you.

It's a tricky balancing act. The US & our allies must judiciously use our strengths (combined, preferably) to deter the bad guys.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.
We did more to prepare Ukraine to defend themselves in 4 years under Trump than Obama & the rest of NATO combined. Had we not, Kyiv would have fallen in 3 days, as predicted.

No. I've said they should increase their capability to defend themselves.

Then where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region.
We did more to prepare Ukraine to defend themselves in 4 years under Trump than Obama & the rest of NATO combined. Had we not, Kyiv would have fallen in 3 days, as predicted.

He refuses to acknowledge the difference between offense & defense & the concept of deterrence.

Happy to acknowledge it......so where are your critiques of Trump? Four years, didn't help prepare Ukraine to defend themselves...didn't provide the deterrent you're asking for, again and again. Trump only sent token help. Not only did you 'forget" to demand action from Trump, you JUST told us you aligned with Trump's policies in the region...and aren't hitting Trump for this "token" help.
We did more to prepare Ukraine to defend themselves in 4 years under Trump than Obama & the rest of NATO combined. Had we not, Kyiv would have fallen in 3 days, as predicted. Who sent the Javelins ?
So.,....by all means, explain why you weren't lecturing Trump that what he did wasn't nearly enough to be a deterrent? And why you are claiming after the fact that you "aligned with his policies"....when his policy was to give token help to Urkaine? Only NATO and the other US Presidents "did it wrong"...is that it?Thanks to their corruption, Ukraine had let their forces deteriorate over 3 decades to the point that it was impossible to arm them sufficiently to deter invasion. The best we could do was arm & train them enough to survive until the rest of NATO came along. Under Trump, we were the only ones willing to do that much. What Trump did was enough to deter Putin from invading NATO, which was the fear after 2014. Under Trump (& Mattis) we did more in that regard than the rest of NATO combined -- & Trump criticized NATO for it.
That's your story? :lo:
That's your version of my story.

[Farfromgeneva]

Who's going to attack Russian warships in the Black Sea ?

No one. They're invulnerable. And I'm sure you'll tell me the air defense systems on the port can't be hit, either.

So we're back to my assertion that Putin doesn't really think NATO is an actual threat, what with Russian's invulnerable defenses, and all.

Putin must've read your assessments.

We'd try to take out the air defense system on the first day of an all out war. It would not be ez & would come with costs. Success could not be guaranteed. The Black Sea is Russia's back yard. We don't have bases in our Black Sea allies that we could count on, other than IncirlIK in Turkey, which is unreliable & a long flight from Crimea.

Are you honestly not noticing that in an effort to make the logic work...... you're arguing both sides of the point in this thread, and you flip back and forth from post to post?

In this post? NATO is not a realistic threat to Russia. Not in our mind, because we can't ever imagine NATO (as presently constituted}, attacking Russia. What matters is what the Russians think.

In the other one? You're telling me that Russia is justified in their invasion because of a threat from NATO.
In their mind, yes. They see Crimea as a NATO base if it reverts to Ukraine, as a NATO member.

Further, if you haven't figured this out, Putin has: whenever this ends, NATO will be closer to Putin than ever.
Yes. Unless Zelensky is deposed & replaced by a pro-Russian leader, not likely. That was Putin's original goal. Now, he'd settle for Crimea, the Donbas, & the land bridge connecting them.

Which means, for the 100th time, this invasion had NOTHING to do with NATO encroachment. This wasn't provoked. That's an excuse.
Zelensky's election put Ukraine on the road to NATO membership. Putin saw that as a threat & still does.
How would we react if Mexico entered a NATO-like treaty with China, Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua & Venezuela ?

We wouldn’t invade their country. It’s that simple.

[Farfromgeneva]

Not at all. My critique was that the US was carrying a disproportionate share of the load in NATO's response to Russia's incursion into Ukraine in 2014. I complained that we had to ship tanks back to EUrope so NATO could deploy rotational Armored Brigades in Poland & the Baltics, when all the EUroburghers could do was to levy sanctions. The objective was to reassure panicked E NATO members that we could contain Putin & deter him from invading NATO countries.

That was PART of your critique. The rest was that you wanted NATO to stand up to Putin.....and if we didn't, Putin would keep taking because Putin wants to return to Soviet glory days.

And they have now done that. Just like you asked. And now that they've done what you asked, you're acting like you didn't ask for that, and also blaming them for all the death and carnage, as if your demand for a military action had no downsides.

....you can't have it both ways. You can't demand military action, while mocking peaceful economic action......and then whine and complain when people get killed. The ships and planes and weapons you rattle off with ease kill people, OS. You've gotten what you've wanted.

Sit back, and deal with the consequences of your wishes. And in case you haven't noticed? I'm not blaming you for your wishes....even a peacnik like me understands that with Putin you're between a rock and a hard place. That if Putin takes Ukraine, every country not protected by NATO could be next on his list.....because as YOU say, if you give Putin an inch, he takes a mile. I believe that you are more likely correct than not in this evaluation.

It was to restore NATO to the strength necessary to defend against Russian incursion, to contain & deter Putin.
NATO forces were not configured or deployed in form or number to pose a threat to attack or invade Russia.
I supported training & arming the Ukrainians to defend against further incursions & criticized Obama & the EUroburghers for withholding lethal defensive aid.

There it is again!

You're like this for everything on the forum-----you are 100% unwilling to concede that YOUR advice, and YOUR wishes often have downsides. And you mock other posters for not having your "flawless" ideas and solutions to every problem.

If we have to think like Russians, as you keep telling us....how is it that Trump slowly arming and training Ukraine wasn't what spurred Putin to invade? That your advice to re-arm NATO and Ukraine wouldn't make Russians feel threatened......to use your metaphor....how would YOU feel if Putin armed and trained the Mexicans?


Because you're stubborn, and want to act like your paths are always perfect. The path YOU suggested (and Trump executed) threatens Russia just as much as the "threat" to allow NATO membership does. In fact, I'd argue it's WORSE, because Putin can't invade a NATO nation. But he CAN invade a nation that NATO and the US arms.

For me? I understand the consequences and downsides of the paths I'd prefer that our country take. That there are rarely perfect choices in life. So my preference that we leave Afghanistan, Kuwait, Taiwan, Ukraine, and Crimea to their own devices----militarily-----will have some bad outcomes. I'm sure some would likely be REALLY bad. I'm not here, as you are, pretending that it's all sunshine and roses if we ONLY do as I suggest.

I've always been a proponent of NATO maintaining sufficient conventional forces to contain & deter Russia from invading NATO territory, rather than just relying on the US nuclear umbrella. I criticized the EUroburghers for being free riders in that regard & becoming overly dependent on Russian energy. That's all to contain & deter Russia, not to threaten invasion.

Yeah, that's not how it works, remember? It's up to Russians to decide what to think, my man.

And you said for YEARS that NATO should have ratcheted up the pressure on Russia....while at the same time, arming and training Ukraine.

......but with a straight face, you're telling me that the Russian people wouldn't take this massive rearming of NATO coupled with arming Ukraine to the teeth....wouldn't be taken as a threat.

You can't have it both ways, OS. You INSISTED that NATO arm Ukraine, and threaten Russia. And here we are......

Time and time again he fails simple logic.

But still smarter and better at everything.