All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

...Pat Buchanan & I were saying it before Putin came to power.

That explains a few things ….

In his role as a political commentator for the mainstream media, former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has increasingly advanced an anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-immigrant ideology. Many of the views he holds are identical to those of self-declared "white nationalists." Buchanan repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with white supremacists. Among his frequent claims is that the sovereignty of the United States is being undermined by Israeli control and Mexican incursion, a belief which he disseminates on mainstream cable and network television and in his prolific writings. Buchanan has released a book nearly every two years, many of which take the view that non-white immigrants destroy Western culture.

https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/p ... tant-bigot

DocBarrister

That's indeed a valid description of Buchanan.
Part of his appeal was that he dog whistled as a core part of his messaging.

We see it on here.

Yep. Buchanan was smeared by his bigoted, intolerant critics.

Now THAT made me laugh.

His words, Salty...I know, I know, he probably meant something else...

[old salt]

...Pat Buchanan & I were saying it before Putin came to power.

That explains a few things ….

In his role as a political commentator for the mainstream media, former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has increasingly advanced an anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-immigrant ideology. Many of the views he holds are identical to those of self-declared "white nationalists." Buchanan repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with white supremacists. Among his frequent claims is that the sovereignty of the United States is being undermined by Israeli control and Mexican incursion, a belief which he disseminates on mainstream cable and network television and in his prolific writings. Buchanan has released a book nearly every two years, many of which take the view that non-white immigrants destroy Western culture.

https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/p ... tant-bigot

DocBarrister

That's indeed a valid description of Buchanan.
Part of his appeal was that he dog whistled as a core part of his messaging.

We see it on here.

Yep. Buchanan was smeared by his bigoted, intolerant critics.

Now THAT made me laugh.

His words, Salty...I know, I know, he probably meant something else...

This has nothing to do with US foreign policy & trade, which is where I agreed with Buchanan.

[MDlaxfan76]

...Pat Buchanan & I were saying it before Putin came to power.

That explains a few things ….

In his role as a political commentator for the mainstream media, former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has increasingly advanced an anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-immigrant ideology. Many of the views he holds are identical to those of self-declared "white nationalists." Buchanan repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with white supremacists. Among his frequent claims is that the sovereignty of the United States is being undermined by Israeli control and Mexican incursion, a belief which he disseminates on mainstream cable and network television and in his prolific writings. Buchanan has released a book nearly every two years, many of which take the view that non-white immigrants destroy Western culture.

https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/p ... tant-bigot

DocBarrister

That's indeed a valid description of Buchanan.
Part of his appeal was that he dog whistled as a core part of his messaging.

We see it on here.

Yep. Buchanan was smeared by his bigoted, intolerant critics.

Now THAT made me laugh.

His words, Salty...I know, I know, he probably meant something else...

This has nothing to do with US foreign policy & trade, which is where I agreed with Buchanan.

Understood...but I'd suggest to you and anyone else that there's a long through-line over many decades of "isolationist" thinking that has been aligned with these other bigotries...America First

Not good company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_F ... %20War%20I.

[old salt]

...Pat Buchanan & I were saying it before Putin came to power.

That explains a few things ….

In his role as a political commentator for the mainstream media, former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has increasingly advanced an anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-immigrant ideology. Many of the views he holds are identical to those of self-declared "white nationalists." Buchanan repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with white supremacists. Among his frequent claims is that the sovereignty of the United States is being undermined by Israeli control and Mexican incursion, a belief which he disseminates on mainstream cable and network television and in his prolific writings. Buchanan has released a book nearly every two years, many of which take the view that non-white immigrants destroy Western culture.

https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/p ... tant-bigot

DocBarrister

That's indeed a valid description of Buchanan.
Part of his appeal was that he dog whistled as a core part of his messaging.

We see it on here.

Yep. Buchanan was smeared by his bigoted, intolerant critics.

Now THAT made me laugh.

His words, Salty...I know, I know, he probably meant something else...

This has nothing to do with US foreign policy & trade, which is where I agreed with Buchanan.

Understood...but I'd suggest to you and anyone else that there's a long through-line over many decades of "isolationist" thinking that has been aligned with these other bigotries...America First

Not good company.

...& you'll find no one more supportive of Israel than me.

[MDlaxfan76]

...Pat Buchanan & I were saying it before Putin came to power.

That explains a few things ….

In his role as a political commentator for the mainstream media, former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has increasingly advanced an anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-immigrant ideology. Many of the views he holds are identical to those of self-declared "white nationalists." Buchanan repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with white supremacists. Among his frequent claims is that the sovereignty of the United States is being undermined by Israeli control and Mexican incursion, a belief which he disseminates on mainstream cable and network television and in his prolific writings. Buchanan has released a book nearly every two years, many of which take the view that non-white immigrants destroy Western culture.

https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/p ... tant-bigot

DocBarrister

That's indeed a valid description of Buchanan.
Part of his appeal was that he dog whistled as a core part of his messaging.

We see it on here.

Yep. Buchanan was smeared by his bigoted, intolerant critics.

Now THAT made me laugh.

His words, Salty...I know, I know, he probably meant something else...

This has nothing to do with US foreign policy & trade, which is where I agreed with Buchanan.

Understood...but I'd suggest to you and anyone else that there's a long through-line over many decades of "isolationist" thinking that has been aligned with these other bigotries...America First

Not good company.

...& you'll find no one more supportive of Israel than me.

I believe you. The accusation is about Buchanan and America First over the many decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_F ... %20War%20I.

It's been interesting how support for "Israel" in specific has been more recently accepted among parts of the hard-right, who are otherwise pre-disposed to be anti-Semitic. It's traceable to two elements, 1) an Islamaphobic reaction to 9-11 etc and 2) a strain of evangelicalism which believes that End Days require such alignment. It's not based on respect for Judaism or Jews, though we see this alignment with the hard right in Israel as well. Enemy of my enemy, and who cares about authoritarianism, apartheid, etc.

I'm very supportive as well, but I'd like to think with a lot of nuance.

[a fan]

I still believe in strategic ambiguity re Taiwan. I wouldn't go as far as Biden has.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/1 ... d-00057658

I'd say Taiwan's on their own if our economy & standard of living were not so dependent on their technology.
It will take a decade or longer to close the chips gap.
I remain ok with selling Taiwan anything (short of WMD) that they are willing to pay for.
I also want to relocate more of our forces & deployments to W Pac from Europe to deter China, reassure our allies & protect our forces & territory already there. That's a major reason I don't want to get sucked into Ukraine.
The goal is to deter China, so we don't have to go to war.

I don't understand why you see the need to militarily deter China "and reassure our allies".yet you don't feel the same need with Russia.

It should be the other way around. China isn't threatening NATO nations...they want to sell them stuff.

[old salt]

I still believe in strategic ambiguity re Taiwan. I wouldn't go as far as Biden has.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/1 ... d-00057658

I'd say Taiwan's on their own if our economy & standard of living were not so dependent on their technology.
It will take a decade or longer to close the chips gap.
I remain ok with selling Taiwan anything (short of WMD) that they are willing to pay for.
I also want to relocate more of our forces & deployments to W Pac from Europe to deter China, reassure our allies & protect our forces & territory already there. That's a major reason I don't want to get sucked into Ukraine.
The goal is to deter China, so we don't have to go to war.

I don't understand why you see the need to militarily deter China "and reassure our allies".yet you don't feel the same need with Russia.

It should be the other way around. China isn't threatening NATO nations...they want to sell them stuff.

For the reason you pointed out -- China is a much stronger potential adversary, economically & militarily, than Russia.

NATO is much more capable of defending themselves, geographically, militarily & economically, than Taiwan & our Pacific allies are in deterring or defending an invasion or sea/air blockade of Taiwan, which is extremely vulnerable, geographically.

2 significantly different situations & threats. Taiwan is much more vulnerable & at much greater risk that our NATO allies & more critical to US national security than Ukraine.

Plus -- Taiwan is a longstanding democracy & US ally who has done a great deal to prepare for their own defense, unlike Ukraine.

Compared to NATO members, consider how exposed (& alone) Japan & S Korea are, to China, N Korea, & Russia.

[a fan]

I still believe in strategic ambiguity re Taiwan. I wouldn't go as far as Biden has.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/1 ... d-00057658

I'd say Taiwan's on their own if our economy & standard of living were not so dependent on their technology.
It will take a decade or longer to close the chips gap.
I remain ok with selling Taiwan anything (short of WMD) that they are willing to pay for.
I also want to relocate more of our forces & deployments to W Pac from Europe to deter China, reassure our allies & protect our forces & territory already there. That's a major reason I don't want to get sucked into Ukraine.
The goal is to deter China, so we don't have to go to war.

I don't understand why you see the need to militarily deter China "and reassure our allies".yet you don't feel the same need with Russia.

It should be the other way around. China isn't threatening NATO nations...they want to sell them stuff.

For the reason you pointed out -- China is a much stronger potential adversary, economically & militarily, than Russia.

NATO is much more capable of defending themselves, geographically, militarily & economically, than Taiwan & our Pacific allies are in deterring or defending an invasion or sea/air blockade of Taiwan, which is extremely vulnerable, geographically.

2 significantly different situations & threats. Taiwan is much more vulnerable & at much greater risk that our NATO allies & more critical to US national security than Ukraine.

Plus -- Taiwan is a longstanding democracy & US ally who has done a great deal to prepare fir their own defense, unlike Ukraine.

Compared to NATO members, consider how exposed (& alone) Japan & S Korea are, to China, N Korea, & Russia.

I understand all that but.....if a Nato ally is attacked? We're on the hook to respond militarily, regardless of foe.

Taiwan? We have no such obligation.

That's the difference. I don't understand why you think we're on the hook for Taiwan.

And what would happen if China invaded? Simple answer: every country would pivot from buying things from China-occupied Taiwan. It's not a winning move for China any more than Putin's attack on Ukraine.

[old salt]

It's been interesting how support for "Israel" in specific has been more recently accepted among parts of the hard-right, who are otherwise pre-disposed to be anti-Semitic. It's traceable to two elements, 1) an Islamaphobic reaction to 9-11 etc and 2) a strain of evangelicalism which believes that End Days require such alignment. It's not based on respect for Judaism or Jews, though we see this alignment with the hard right in Israel as well. Enemy of my enemy, and who cares about authoritarianism, apartheid, etc.

That's a sweeping indictment. There's been significant support for Israel from the right, back to Israel's founding & through the wars of the '60's & '70's, before 9-11, & before evangelicals were driven to the (R) party by the (D)'s increasing secularism & anti-christian dogma.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's been interesting how support for "Israel" in specific has been more recently accepted among parts of the hard-right, who are otherwise pre-disposed to be anti-Semitic. It's traceable to two elements, 1) an Islamaphobic reaction to 9-11 etc and 2) a strain of evangelicalism which believes that End Days require such alignment. It's not based on respect for Judaism or Jews, though we see this alignment with the hard right in Israel as well. Enemy of my enemy, and who cares about authoritarianism, apartheid, etc.

That's a sweeping indictment. There's been significant support for Israel from the right, back to Israel's founding & through the wars of the '60's & '70's, before 9-11, & before evangelicals were driven to the (R) party by the (D)'s increasing secularism & anti-christian dogma.

I said "hard-right".

Folks like me were supportive. And I assume you for similar reasons.
But it's always been a mixed bag on the 'right', whether GOP or Dem, largely because of anti-semitism.
Even Ike was mixed in his views.

And no, evangelicals weren't "driven", they were seduced by grifters and charlatans who have lied to them from TV and radio pulpits for profit and power.

It's amazing how you see everything through this liberalism and Democrats = evil lens.

It sure feels like deep rooted anger.

[old salt]

I understand all that but.....if a Nato ally is attacked? We're on the hook to respond militarily, regardless of foe.

Taiwan? We have no such obligation.

That's the difference. I don't understand why you think we're on the hook for Taiwan.
Our economy, defense industry & tech sectors are currently dependent upon Taiwan.
No such critical dependence on Ukraine.


And what would happen if China invaded? Simple answer: every country would pivot from buying things from China-occupied Taiwan. It's not a winning move for China any more than Putin's attack on Ukraine.
China has a window of opportunity before Taiwan enhances their defenses to "porcupine" status, & before we can diversify our supply chain to absorb the loss of what we need from Taiwan. Their military has been ordered to be ready to invade by 2027 & they are demonstrating that growing capability. It may be a bluff, but can we afford to find out ?

We are already in the hurt locker to restock the munitions & smart weapons being expended in Ukraine. We still currently need chips from Taiwan.

[old salt]

It's been interesting how support for "Israel" in specific has been more recently accepted among parts of the hard-right, who are otherwise pre-disposed to be anti-Semitic. It's traceable to two elements, 1) an Islamaphobic reaction to 9-11 etc and 2) a strain of evangelicalism which believes that End Days require such alignment. It's not based on respect for Judaism or Jews, though we see this alignment with the hard right in Israel as well. Enemy of my enemy, and who cares about authoritarianism, apartheid, etc.

That's a sweeping indictment. There's been significant support for Israel from the right, back to Israel's founding & through the wars of the '60's & '70's, before 9-11, & before evangelicals were driven to the (R) party by the (D)'s increasing secularism & anti-christian dogma.

I said "hard-right".

Folks like me were supportive. And I assume you for similar reasons.
But it's always been a mixed bag on the 'right', whether GOP or Dem, largely because of anti-semitism.
Even Ike was mixed in his views.

And no, evangelicals weren't "driven", they were seduced by grifters and charlatans who have lied to them from TV and radio pulpits for profit and power.

It's amazing how you see everything through this liberalism and Democrats = evil lens.

It sure feels like deep rooted anger.

You think differences in pro-life vs pro-choice didn't matter, or intact 2 parent families vs single parent family ?

[a fan]

Our economy, defense industry & tech sectors are currently dependent upon Taiwan.
No such critical dependence on Ukraine.

Then we should either A. sign a treaty to protect this interest, or B. not have our economy dependent on some random country. Bad move by the DoD and four different Presidents and their Congress....who were all getting paid to "let it slide", and let Taiwan have that monopoly.

China has a window of opportunity before Taiwan enhances their defenses to "porcupine" status, & before we can diversify our supply chain to absorb the loss of what we need from Taiwan. Their military has been ordered to be ready to invade by 2027 & they are demonstrating that growing capability. It may be a bluff, but can we afford to find out ?

Yes. We can afford to find out. If we can't? Treaties are at our disposal. No one is even TALKING about that....and that tells me that yes, we can afford it.

We are already in the hurt locker to restock the munitions & smart weapons being expended in Ukraine. We still currently need chips from Taiwan

I understand that. You're not answering the question: what do you think would happen if China invaded Taiwan in the next 5 years, as China is claiming?

Taiwan would be made irrelevant in a matter of months, because Biden has started the pivot already, and can simply step on the gas.

Biden is already making it so that it would be pointless for China to invade Taiwan without the US arming them. Smart and far cheaper move if that's the objective. Taiwan will be just another island that we don't have a treaty with......

[old salt]

Our economy, defense industry & tech sectors are currently dependent upon Taiwan.
No such critical dependence on Ukraine.

Then we should either A. sign a treaty to protect this interest, or B. not have our economy dependent on some random country. Bad move by the DoD and four different Presidents and their Congress....who were all getting paid to "let it slide", and let Taiwan have that monopoly.
Too late. Just more woulda, coulda, hindsight second guessing. As committed globalists, we thought we could trust Communist China.

China has a window of opportunity before Taiwan enhances their defenses to "porcupine" status, & before we can diversify our supply chain to absorb the loss of what we need from Taiwan. Their military has been ordered to be ready to invade by 2027 & they are demonstrating that growing capability. It may be a bluff, but can we afford to find out ?

Yes. We can afford to find out. If we can't? Treaties are at our disposal. No one is even TALKING about that....and that tells me that yes, we can afford it. What treaty with who ? How would that close the chip gap by '27, or sooner ?

We are already in the hurt locker to restock the munitions & smart weapons being expended in Ukraine. We still currently need chips from Taiwan

I understand that. You're not answering the question: what do you think would happen if China invaded Taiwan in the next 5 years, as China is claiming?
I don't know. Biden has abandoned strategic ambiguity & said we will come to Taiwan's defense militarily.
Taiwan would be made irrelevant in a matter of months, because Biden has started the pivot already, and can simply step on the gas.
We're into the 2nd year of our Ukrainian proxy war. How has stepping on the gas fixed our munitions & weapons production capacity ?

Biden is already making it so that it would be pointless for China to invade Taiwan without the US arming them. How so ? Smart and far cheaper move if that's the objective. Taiwan will be just another island that we don't have a treaty with......after guaranteeing their freedom for the past 70 years, ...& we need their chips for the next decade. They're a much longer loyal democratic ally than Ukraine, if that's supposed to matter. Again -- the goal is to deter invasion, which we failed to do in Ukraine. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is not asking for independence -- just the same level of freedom & autonomy they've had.

China is currently demonstrating their ability to impose a sea & air blockade of Tawiwan.
Are our EUro allies threatening to punish China economically if they do so. Macron visits to talk up more trade.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's been interesting how support for "Israel" in specific has been more recently accepted among parts of the hard-right, who are otherwise pre-disposed to be anti-Semitic. It's traceable to two elements, 1) an Islamaphobic reaction to 9-11 etc and 2) a strain of evangelicalism which believes that End Days require such alignment. It's not based on respect for Judaism or Jews, though we see this alignment with the hard right in Israel as well. Enemy of my enemy, and who cares about authoritarianism, apartheid, etc.

That's a sweeping indictment. There's been significant support for Israel from the right, back to Israel's founding & through the wars of the '60's & '70's, before 9-11, & before evangelicals were driven to the (R) party by the (D)'s increasing secularism & anti-christian dogma.

I said "hard-right".

Folks like me were supportive. And I assume you for similar reasons.
But it's always been a mixed bag on the 'right', whether GOP or Dem, largely because of anti-semitism.
Even Ike was mixed in his views.

And no, evangelicals weren't "driven", they were seduced by grifters and charlatans who have lied to them from TV and radio pulpits for profit and power.

It's amazing how you see everything through this liberalism and Democrats = evil lens.

It sure feels like deep rooted anger.

You think differences in pro-life vs pro-choice didn't matter, or intact 2 parent families vs single parent family ?

Of course... the reproductive rights issue was actively drummed from the pulpit, but it was to all a political con job.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... s-00031480

For White evangelicals, you know, the ones who went to the GOP...it was a cover for what they really were fighting for, racial segregation.

Abortion was initially considered an issue for Catholics, not evangelicals.

And what do you think "intact 2 parent families" is code for? Race.

It's been an immense con job. Certainly many believe quite sincerely in their "biblical beliefs" but it's all how you're taught and manipulated from the pulpit...

Just as Paul's letters are misinterpreted as universal (rather than local and cultural in that time), as justification for keeping women out of positions of high leadership; they can "serve" but can't occupy various leadership positions...you think that's not about power? God wants women to serve, not lead?

There's no question that the pulpit and politics were merged for profit and power.

Given my religious training, I ascribe this to human weakness, succumbing to Satan's temptations, not following God's wishes...

[old salt]

Abortion was initially considered an issue for Catholics, not evangelicals.

And what do you think "intact 2 parent families" is code for? Race.

Facts, not code words. You presume to speak for millions of people of faith.

Do you really think that people who oppose unrestricred abortion, or see the value in promoting intact 2 parent families, are motivated by race.

If that were the case, they'd celebrate abortion as a useful tool in limiting the size of the black population, & the high % of single parent households as an effective tool in limiting black upward mobility.

[MDlaxfan76]

A fan,
Salty is never going to understand 'carrot and stick', soft power and hard. Or at least not admit it.

But you are good to try.

I don't entirely agree with your conclusions, but I think these aren't situations in which we can actually test the outcomes and know for sure which policies and actions will deter, and which light the flames of hostility, and how to balance it all. Not even in retrospect can we know for sure which actions mattered most.

I tend to think that keeping dialogues open, finding common ground and common benefit when possible, demonstrating firmness and resolve yet with an open hand, are all crucial to avoiding the need for hard power answers...but they may not be enough, regardless of our own good intentions.

Sometimes, the situations and exigencies of the other parties are beyond are capacity to influence away from hostility and aggression, so preparation can be the best deterrence...whereas failure to prepare can embolden earlier aggression.

But there's no fair testing of these, so it's a balancing act of continuously 'trying' to get it right.

[old salt]

Salty is never going to understand 'carrot and stick', soft power and hard. Or at least not admit it.

I recognize when it does not work, or when it's used as an excuse for no meaningful action.

How'd it work for Hong Kong ?

[MDlaxfan76]

Abortion was initially considered an issue for Catholics, not evangelicals.

And what do you think "intact 2 parent families" is code for? Race.

Facts, not code words. You presume to speak for millions of people of faith.

Do you really think that people who oppose unrestricred abortion, or see the value in promoting intact 2 parent families, are motivated by race.

If that were the case, they'd celebrate abortion as a useful tool in limiting the size of the black population, & the high % of single parent households as an effective tool in limiting black upward mobility.

Read the article, these are facts I'm citing.
An historical reality that is quite uncomfortable, I know.

I definitely don't speak for anyone but myself, much less "millions of people of faith".

As I said, I'm confident that many evangelicals sincerely believe what they believe...based upon what has been preached to them. I have great respect for 'faith' but zippo respect for the con artists who manipulate good people using their basest instincts.

The political merging with the pulpit has been massively successful enriching con artists and grifters, both for direct profit or for power. Often both.

But let's note, there are large groups of evangelicals, and I'm not just talking about black evangelicals in America, who reject the extremism and exclusion being promulgated by the "conservative" grifters. They care about these issues too, just way differently.

Indeed, there are all sorts of splits among "evangelicals".

[old salt]

Abortion was initially considered an issue for Catholics, not evangelicals.

And what do you think "intact 2 parent families" is code for? Race.

Facts, not code words. You presume to speak for millions of people of faith.

Do you really think that people who oppose unrestricred abortion, or see the value in promoting intact 2 parent families, are motivated by race.

If that were the case, they'd celebrate abortion as a useful tool in limiting the size of the black population, & the high % of single parent households as an effective tool in limiting black upward mobility.

Read the article, these are facts I'm citing.
An historical reality that is quite uncomfortable, I know.

I definitely don't speak for anyone but myself, much less "millions of people of faith".

As I said, I'm confident that many evangelicals sincerely believe what they believe...based upon what has been preached to them. I have great respect for 'faith' but zippo respect for the con artists who manipulate good people using their basest instincts.

The political merging with the pulpit has been massively successful enriching con artists and grifters, both for direct profit or for power. Often both.

But let's note, there are large groups of evangelicals, and I'm not just talking about black evangelicals in America, who reject the extremism and exclusion being promulgated by the "conservative" grifters. They care about these issues too, just way differently.

Millions of people are young enough not to have been influenced by the history in that article.

Tech advances, showing life in the womb, have had a huge influence.