NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 11:22 am
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 3:32 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 11:49 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 10:46 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:37 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:03 pm
There would have still been a bloody war & a flood of refugees, & Russia's SW border would have been extended well into central Europe & NATO's armed border with Russia lengthened exponentially.
That's fine. But there's NO WAY it would be anywhere CLOSE to the casualties and destruction that we have now. EVEN YOU have to admit this.
And America would have----how much more money to spend on Americans?
Congratulations, you've FINALLY arrived at my point, and preferred path. And you understand why I prefer to NOT arm anyone that we don't have a treaty with. Only took you a year.
Better late than never.
I still say Putin invaded because of more promised arms and training from Biden....to use YOUR words: the coming "porcupine" you want in Taiwan. He had to invade before that option was taken off the table. Or...NEVER invade.
You disagree, and that's fine.
You greatly underestimate the loss if life, number of refugees & destruction across the entire breadth of Ukraine had the defenders not received US aid & training. The Ukrainians would have still resisted, their casualties would have been much greater, there would have been even more refugees & their nation would have been dismembered or ceased to exist. Then Putin would have indeed become a threat to NATO, with no buffer state to contain him.
The war would have been over in 3 days to a week like you and Putin predicted. We're talking a few thousand dead vs. more than a million today because of a scant 2014 appeasement resistance force that would have capitulated quickly. Ukraine would be a defacto part of Russia again like Belarus. Russia would now have to react to many more more NATO states on their borders because they pushed the Russian border forward.
You can't keep your story straight from hour to hour, let alone day to day.
Stop speaking on my behalf. You have no idea what you are talking about. When the invasion was launched, I made no predictions on how the invasion would go or how quickly it would conclude. Check my posts, they're all still there.
Again. You assume that the Ukrainians would not have resisted. Whatever else we say about the Ukrainians, unlike 2014, they proved that they were willing to fight & die to defend their country. At the time of the invasion, the US provided weapons were difference makers, but they were only a small fraction of the weapons the Ukrainians had at the outset of the war.
In different words, you are restating what I said about Russia's proximity to NATO, as if there is a difference.
You make no sense, in the way in you state it. Russia would not be more vulnerable if they controlled more, or all, of Ukraine.
I'll restate it if you can't follow. You go on about Putin's concern about Ukraine joining the EU and NATO and having them next door. Yet by taking over Ukraine they would add 4 NATO countries to their border. So that whole argument makes no sense.
You did suggest at the start that there were plenty of people willing to submit to Russian rule rather than resist.
You also initially suggested the invasion made NATO more afraid, and not stronger or more committed. And yet the invasion indeed caused NATO to strengthen and re-commit like nothing in the past 50+ years.
John McCain's analysis of Putin's goals and motives was 100% spot-on back in 2014. The NATO thing is a red herring.
As was Mitt Romney's assessment in 2014.
For those paying attention, Putin was saying aloud what his ambitions were throughout the second half of the 2000's. It was clear that he sought a reversal of what he saw as the humiliation of the Soviet empire.
And note, we've had on here those who have made the argument that Russian speaking areas and/or former territories of Soviet hegemony are rightfully part of Russia, or at best, rightfully vassal states. Parroting Putin's argument, not contradicting it.
The US tried various strategies of appeasement, but whether well intentioned or just kicking the can down the road, Putin saw weakness and vacillation in the democratic world and sought to exploit those weaknesses for Russia (his) benefit. And as the operative he's always been, he exploited the openness of our society, our very democracy, against us, with asymmetric campaigns of misinformation and division.
The invasion woke up the Western democracies to the reality of Putin's intentions.
And now, elements are again promoting appeasement and weakness....why? because strength and resolve is hard in a democracy when the threat isn't immediately on one's own doorstep. Stick the head in the sand, kick the can down the road...