LaxPower Back-Up Stick

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:50 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:47 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:13 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:56 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:38 pm afan thinks we should have based US troops in Ukraine since 1994 or encourage Ukraine to keep their nucs (even though they didn't have the codes to arm them). What could go wrong with that ?

In what grad seminar did he learn that ? Good luck getting the US Senate to ratify that Treaty.

One where we don't make decisions that lead to the Russian-Ukranian war that you've been complaining about for a year now.

You're NOW telling us you that you're HAPPY with the Russian Ukranian war, and any choices that America could have made in order to avoid the Russian-Ukranian war are stupid or insane.

How the F did you graduate from a military school and NOT be able to figure out how to stay the F out of war that has NOTHING to do with America?

You're telling us that we had no choice but to do all the thing we did to get us to the war. Brilliant.

My choices would have avoided the war. And these are choices you can't argue with...my choices lead to knowable, factually verifiable outcomes.

I'm not happy with the war in Ukraine. It did not have to come to this.

That's right. And that's my point.

And I told you this would be a sh*tshow BEFORE we made these stupid decisions that we keep making over and over and over and over again.

Yet you act like I'm insane for telling you BEFORE we do these things: hey dude, there's a different path in front of us. For the love of G*d, can we PLEASE take this path.

And your response to me is "sorry, we MUST take this path that we KNOW FROM 70+ YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ends badly.

It's batsh(t crazy that won't so much as listen to what I'm telling you for five seconds.

FTR -- in 2014, I posted Henry K's op-ed on the Finlandization of Ukraine.
That was my hope, starting in 1992.
Looking back - Henry K was prescient.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

How the Ukraine crisis ends
by Henry A. Kissinger, March 5, 2014

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia's means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanu­kovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo­shenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

Well he’s dead and was wrong about Finland…. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_213448.htm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:07 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:50 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:47 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:13 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:56 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:38 pm afan thinks we should have based US troops in Ukraine since 1994 or encourage Ukraine to keep their nucs (even though they didn't have the codes to arm them). What could go wrong with that ?

In what grad seminar did he learn that ? Good luck getting the US Senate to ratify that Treaty.

One where we don't make decisions that lead to the Russian-Ukranian war that you've been complaining about for a year now.

You're NOW telling us you that you're HAPPY with the Russian Ukranian war, and any choices that America could have made in order to avoid the Russian-Ukranian war are stupid or insane.

How the F did you graduate from a military school and NOT be able to figure out how to stay the F out of war that has NOTHING to do with America?

You're telling us that we had no choice but to do all the thing we did to get us to the war. Brilliant.

My choices would have avoided the war. And these are choices you can't argue with...my choices lead to knowable, factually verifiable outcomes.

I'm not happy with the war in Ukraine. It did not have to come to this.

That's right. And that's my point.

And I told you this would be a sh*tshow BEFORE we made these stupid decisions that we keep making over and over and over and over again.

Yet you act like I'm insane for telling you BEFORE we do these things: hey dude, there's a different path in front of us. For the love of G*d, can we PLEASE take this path.

And your response to me is "sorry, we MUST take this path that we KNOW FROM 70+ YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ends badly.

It's batsh(t crazy that won't so much as listen to what I'm telling you for five seconds.

FTR -- in 2014, I posted Henry K's op-ed on the Finlandization of Ukraine.
That was my hope, starting in 1992.
Looking back - Henry K was prescient.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

How the Ukraine crisis ends
by Henry A. Kissinger, March 5, 2014

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia's means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanu­kovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo­shenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

Well he’s dead and was wrong about Finland…. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_213448.htm

Had Henry K's advice been followed in 2014, & beyond, Ukraine would not have been invaded & Finland would not have needed to join NATO.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:39 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:07 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:50 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:47 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:13 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:56 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:38 pm afan thinks we should have based US troops in Ukraine since 1994 or encourage Ukraine to keep their nucs (even though they didn't have the codes to arm them). What could go wrong with that ?

In what grad seminar did he learn that ? Good luck getting the US Senate to ratify that Treaty.

One where we don't make decisions that lead to the Russian-Ukranian war that you've been complaining about for a year now.

You're NOW telling us you that you're HAPPY with the Russian Ukranian war, and any choices that America could have made in order to avoid the Russian-Ukranian war are stupid or insane.

How the F did you graduate from a military school and NOT be able to figure out how to stay the F out of war that has NOTHING to do with America?

You're telling us that we had no choice but to do all the thing we did to get us to the war. Brilliant.

My choices would have avoided the war. And these are choices you can't argue with...my choices lead to knowable, factually verifiable outcomes.

I'm not happy with the war in Ukraine. It did not have to come to this.

That's right. And that's my point.

And I told you this would be a sh*tshow BEFORE we made these stupid decisions that we keep making over and over and over and over again.

Yet you act like I'm insane for telling you BEFORE we do these things: hey dude, there's a different path in front of us. For the love of G*d, can we PLEASE take this path.

And your response to me is "sorry, we MUST take this path that we KNOW FROM 70+ YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ends badly.

It's batsh(t crazy that won't so much as listen to what I'm telling you for five seconds.

FTR -- in 2014, I posted Henry K's op-ed on the Finlandization of Ukraine.
That was my hope, starting in 1992.
Looking back - Henry K was prescient.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

How the Ukraine crisis ends
by Henry A. Kissinger, March 5, 2014

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia's means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanu­kovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo­shenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

Well he’s dead and was wrong about Finland…. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_213448.htm

Had Henry K's advice been followed in 2014, & beyond, Ukraine would not have been invaded & Finland would not have needed to join NATO.

Had he followed good health advice he might be alive too. He was wrong….Finland didn’t follow his advice either.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 1:02 am

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:39 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:07 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:50 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:47 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:13 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:56 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:38 pm afan thinks we should have based US troops in Ukraine since 1994 or encourage Ukraine to keep their nucs (even though they didn't have the codes to arm them). What could go wrong with that ?

In what grad seminar did he learn that ? Good luck getting the US Senate to ratify that Treaty.

One where we don't make decisions that lead to the Russian-Ukranian war that you've been complaining about for a year now.

You're NOW telling us you that you're HAPPY with the Russian Ukranian war, and any choices that America could have made in order to avoid the Russian-Ukranian war are stupid or insane.

How the F did you graduate from a military school and NOT be able to figure out how to stay the F out of war that has NOTHING to do with America?

You're telling us that we had no choice but to do all the thing we did to get us to the war. Brilliant.

My choices would have avoided the war. And these are choices you can't argue with...my choices lead to knowable, factually verifiable outcomes.

I'm not happy with the war in Ukraine. It did not have to come to this.

That's right. And that's my point.

And I told you this would be a sh*tshow BEFORE we made these stupid decisions that we keep making over and over and over and over again.

Yet you act like I'm insane for telling you BEFORE we do these things: hey dude, there's a different path in front of us. For the love of G*d, can we PLEASE take this path.

And your response to me is "sorry, we MUST take this path that we KNOW FROM 70+ YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ends badly.

It's batsh(t crazy that won't so much as listen to what I'm telling you for five seconds.

FTR -- in 2014, I posted Henry K's op-ed on the Finlandization of Ukraine.
That was my hope, starting in 1992.
Looking back - Henry K was prescient.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

How the Ukraine crisis ends
by Henry A. Kissinger, March 5, 2014

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia's means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanu­kovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo­shenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

Well he’s dead and was wrong about Finland…. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_213448.htm

Had Henry K's advice been followed in 2014, & beyond, Ukraine would not have been invaded & Finland would not have needed to join NATO.

Had he followed good health advice he might be alive too. He was wrong….Finland didn’t follow his advice either.

Looking go Kissinger as authoritative is a joke. That should have ended with Vietnam. On the strong side he believed a deep understanding of history is necessary. Something many here do not have or care to acquire

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:50 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:47 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:13 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:56 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:38 pm afan thinks we should have based US troops in Ukraine since 1994 or encourage Ukraine to keep their nucs (even though they didn't have the codes to arm them). What could go wrong with that ?

In what grad seminar did he learn that ? Good luck getting the US Senate to ratify that Treaty.

One where we don't make decisions that lead to the Russian-Ukranian war that you've been complaining about for a year now.

You're NOW telling us you that you're HAPPY with the Russian Ukranian war, and any choices that America could have made in order to avoid the Russian-Ukranian war are stupid or insane.

How the F did you graduate from a military school and NOT be able to figure out how to stay the F out of war that has NOTHING to do with America?

You're telling us that we had no choice but to do all the thing we did to get us to the war. Brilliant.

My choices would have avoided the war. And these are choices you can't argue with...my choices lead to knowable, factually verifiable outcomes.

I'm not happy with the war in Ukraine. It did not have to come to this.

That's right. And that's my point.

And I told you this would be a sh*tshow BEFORE we made these stupid decisions that we keep making over and over and over and over again.

Yet you act like I'm insane for telling you BEFORE we do these things: hey dude, there's a different path in front of us. For the love of G*d, can we PLEASE take this path.

And your response to me is "sorry, we MUST take this path that we KNOW FROM 70+ YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ends badly.

It's batsh(t crazy that won't so much as listen to what I'm telling you for five seconds.

FTR -- in 2014, I posted Henry K's op-ed on the Finlandization of Ukraine.
That was my hope, starting in 1992.
Looking back - Henry K was prescient.

We discussed this piece before.

All you're doing is ADDING to my advocation for a different path. The path is:

1. either sign a treaty, and park Troops in Ukraine;

2. or do NOTHING militarily about it. No sending arms.

What you're saying is that you want to add things to this, which is fine. So...

3. don't foment regime change using CIA (and come on, you KNOW I agree with that)

4. don't suggest NATO membership WITHOUT parking US troops there first, with the notion of getting a treaty done in a reasonable time frame (one year).

5. Don't stick our noses in removing nukes from Ukraine without a treaty or an agreement to do NOTHING militarily.

Etc.

My method would have kept us out of 100% of our post WWII wars. Every one of them.

Have you noticed no one has invaded NATO nations? If freaking worked.

Have you noticed N Korea hasn't invaded S Korea? Why? US troops are parked there, treaty signed, that's why.

BOTH of these examples did EXACTLY what I prescribed.

In short: US Treaties freaking work. "Arming some guy" does NOT work, and we should stop doing it.

Biden on Obama's 2014 non-response in 2014, per Woodward :

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international ... 668_4.html

Biden's criticism of Obama's handling of Crimea

In terms of the war starting at all, the book details Biden’s criticism late last year of President Barack Obama’s handling of Russia seizing Crimea and a section of the Donbas in 2014, at a time when Biden was serving as the Democrat’s vice president.

"They f----- up in 2014," Woodward wrote that Biden said to a close friend in December, blaming the lack of action for Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. "Barack never took Putin seriously."

Biden was angry while speaking to the friend and said they "never should have let Putin just walk in there" in 2014 and that the U.S. "did nothing."

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 11:52 am

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:50 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:47 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:13 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:56 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:38 pm afan thinks we should have based US troops in Ukraine since 1994 or encourage Ukraine to keep their nucs (even though they didn't have the codes to arm them). What could go wrong with that ?

In what grad seminar did he learn that ? Good luck getting the US Senate to ratify that Treaty.

One where we don't make decisions that lead to the Russian-Ukranian war that you've been complaining about for a year now.

You're NOW telling us you that you're HAPPY with the Russian Ukranian war, and any choices that America could have made in order to avoid the Russian-Ukranian war are stupid or insane.

How the F did you graduate from a military school and NOT be able to figure out how to stay the F out of war that has NOTHING to do with America?

You're telling us that we had no choice but to do all the thing we did to get us to the war. Brilliant.

My choices would have avoided the war. And these are choices you can't argue with...my choices lead to knowable, factually verifiable outcomes.

I'm not happy with the war in Ukraine. It did not have to come to this.

That's right. And that's my point.

And I told you this would be a sh*tshow BEFORE we made these stupid decisions that we keep making over and over and over and over again.

Yet you act like I'm insane for telling you BEFORE we do these things: hey dude, there's a different path in front of us. For the love of G*d, can we PLEASE take this path.

And your response to me is "sorry, we MUST take this path that we KNOW FROM 70+ YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ends badly.

It's batsh(t crazy that won't so much as listen to what I'm telling you for five seconds.

FTR -- in 2014, I posted Henry K's op-ed on the Finlandization of Ukraine.
That was my hope, starting in 1992.
Looking back - Henry K was prescient.

We discussed this piece before.

All you're doing is ADDING to my advocation for a different path. The path is:

1. either sign a treaty, and park Troops in Ukraine;

2. or do NOTHING militarily about it. No sending arms.

What you're saying is that you want to add things to this, which is fine. So...

3. don't foment regime change using CIA (and come on, you KNOW I agree with that)

4. don't suggest NATO membership WITHOUT parking US troops there first, with the notion of getting a treaty done in a reasonable time frame (one year).

5. Don't stick our noses in removing nukes from Ukraine without a treaty or an agreement to do NOTHING militarily.

Etc.

My method would have kept us out of 100% of our post WWII wars. Every one of them.

Have you noticed no one has invaded NATO nations? If freaking worked.

Have you noticed N Korea hasn't invaded S Korea? Why? US troops are parked there, treaty signed, that's why.

BOTH of these examples did EXACTLY what I prescribed.

In short: US Treaties freaking work. "Arming some guy" does NOT work, and we should stop doing it.

So the USA should implement your brilliant idea and park a division over in Taiwan? While we are at it we can an keep aircraft carrier in the region as well. How do you think Xi will respond to that? A Fan is now a huge advocate of operation " trip wire " Your a huge advocate of removing our troops. Let's start with South Korea, they have a powerful and well trained military. Why do they still need American soldiers patrolling the DMZ.? I forgot... " Operation Tripwire " ...

Lolol you forgot!!! I should not be surprised you forget so much. Why do we keep troops in Europe? Why do we have boots on the ground in do many countries eg upwards
of 6 dozen or more. No need to worry Trump will nullify the meaningfulness of it as he unravels the coalitions that have provided security over decades. And other than kow towing to Strongmen what will replace it?

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am So the USA should implement your brilliant idea and park a division over in Taiwan?

You're acting like I'm nuts.

Understand what you're reacting to, I'm telling you that there are two obvious choices:

1. if you think Taiwan is in need of protection, great, sign a defensive treaty and park a division there, or
2. if you don't think Taiwan is in need of protection, great: do nothing militarily. No arms, no training.

That's it. Boy, that's REAL complicated.

And if you're asking me? Without question, I choose #2: do nothing militarily.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am While we are at it we can an keep aircraft carrier in the region as well. How do you think Xi will respond to that? A Fan is now a huge advocate of operation " trip wire "

You're mocking me when you know perfectly well my path makes sense.

What YOU are telling me is that you'd prefer we half *ss it, and "arm some guy", as we have done countless times since WWII.....Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, S. Korea., Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. And every freaking time we did that, Cradle.....what happened? Were you happy with the outcome in Vietnam? No, right?

Well, my method would have made it so that we never set foot there. Or Iran. Or any of the hundreds of bases we have all over the world....outside of bases where we have treaties with said nations (NATO, for example).

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am Your a huge advocate of removing our troops. Let's start with South Korea, they have a powerful and well trained military. Why do they still need American soldiers patrolling the DMZ.? I forgot... " Operation Tripwire " ...

We have a treaty with them, my man. Did you even read my position?

And have you noticed that the treaty we signed with S Korea, and the troops we have parked there has led to peace for well over five decades? Hey, how about that! It's almost as if what I'm advocating works!

Have you notice NATO has worked perfectly? Hey, how about that! Must be a coincidence!

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 11:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am So the USA should implement your brilliant idea and park a division over in Taiwan?

You're acting like I'm nuts.

Understand what you're reacting to, I'm telling you that there are two obvious choices:

1. if you think Taiwan is in need of protection, great, sign a defensive treaty and park a division there, or
2. if you don't think Taiwan is in need of protection, great: do nothing militarily. No arms, no training.

That's it. Boy, that's REAL complicated.

And if you're asking me? Without question, I choose #2: do nothing militarily.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am While we are at it we can an keep aircraft carrier in the region as well. How do you think Xi will respond to that? A Fan is now a huge advocate of operation " trip wire "

You're mocking me when you know perfectly well my path makes sense.

What YOU are telling me is that you'd prefer we half *ss it, and "arm some guy", as we have done countless times since WWII.....Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, S. Korea., Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. And every freaking time we did that, Cradle.....what happened? Were you happy with the outcome in Vietnam? No, right?

Well, my method would have made it so that we never set foot there. Or Iran. Or any of the hundreds of bases we have all over the world....outside of bases where we have treaties with said nations (NATO, for example).

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am Your a huge advocate of removing our troops. Let's start with South Korea, they have a powerful and well trained military. Why do they still need American soldiers patrolling the DMZ.? I forgot... " Operation Tripwire " ...

We have a treaty with them, my man. Did you even read my position?

And have you noticed that the treaty we signed with S Korea, and the troops we have parked there has led to peace for well over five decades? Hey, how about that! It's almost as if what I'm advocating works!

Have you notice NATO has worked perfectly? Hey, how about that! Must be a coincidence!

I'm only trying to expound on your premise. It worked in Europe but guess what country gave it validity and made it work? It always seems like the US military is an integral part of any trip wire. If I had my preference we wouldn't have an American infantry division stationed at the DMZ in South Korea. If they weren't there the Norks and Lil Kim would invade the South as soon as he could. I'm not mocking you my friend. I'm pointing out what your advocating conflicts with things you have said previously. OS advocated keeping a small residual force of training personnel in Afghanistan to support the ASF there. These were not combat troops. You were not an advocate of doing that, and I get that. I am seeing some inconsistency on how and where our military should be deployed on your part. The United States spends an awful lot of money supplying " trip wire " forces to keep the peace. How much of that effort is justifiable? I threw Taiwan into the conversation for obvious reasons. China will invade and conquer that rogue island at a time and place of their choosing. Do you think it is in the interest of the US to defend Taiwan? That is not an easy question to answer.

FTR I think your a bit confused about South Korea. If you remember your history Korea started as war supported by the United Nations. Americans didn't fight there unilaterally. That is when wars became " police actions " I don't know what details a treaty with South Korea might include. I do know that technically South Korea and North Korea are still at war. There are some folks that confuse a truce for a peace treaty. That truce in Korea has been dicey at best since it was signed in 1953.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 12:24 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 11:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am So the USA should implement your brilliant idea and park a division over in Taiwan?

You're acting like I'm nuts.

Understand what you're reacting to, I'm telling you that there are two obvious choices:

1. if you think Taiwan is in need of protection, great, sign a defensive treaty and park a division there, or
2. if you don't think Taiwan is in need of protection, great: do nothing militarily. No arms, no training.

That's it. Boy, that's REAL complicated.

And if you're asking me? Without question, I choose #2: do nothing militarily.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am While we are at it we can an keep aircraft carrier in the region as well. How do you think Xi will respond to that? A Fan is now a huge advocate of operation " trip wire "

You're mocking me when you know perfectly well my path makes sense.

What YOU are telling me is that you'd prefer we half *ss it, and "arm some guy", as we have done countless times since WWII.....Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, S. Korea., Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. And every freaking time we did that, Cradle.....what happened? Were you happy with the outcome in Vietnam? No, right?

Well, my method would have made it so that we never set foot there. Or Iran. Or any of the hundreds of bases we have all over the world....outside of bases where we have treaties with said nations (NATO, for example).

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am Your a huge advocate of removing our troops. Let's start with South Korea, they have a powerful and well trained military. Why do they still need American soldiers patrolling the DMZ.? I forgot... " Operation Tripwire " ...

We have a treaty with them, my man. Did you even read my position?

And have you noticed that the treaty we signed with S Korea, and the troops we have parked there has led to peace for well over five decades? Hey, how about that! It's almost as if what I'm advocating works!

Have you notice NATO has worked perfectly? Hey, how about that! Must be a coincidence!

I'm only trying to expound on your premise. It worked in Europe but guess what country gave it validity and made it work? It always seems like the US military is an integral part of any trip wire. If I had my preference we wouldn't have an American infantry division stationed at the DMZ in South Korea. If they weren't there the Norks and Lil Kim would invade the South as soon as he could. I'm not mocking you my friend. I'm pointing out what your advocating conflicts with things you have said previously.

Where? I've had this same exact idea for YEARS here.

Have I discussed what we should do AFTER we violated my rule of "not arming some guy"? Sure.

But had we done as I'm saying, we wouldn't have been in Iraq OR Afghanistan.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 12:24 pm FTR I think your a bit confused about South Korea. If you remember your history Korea started as war supported by the United Nations. Americans didn't fight there unilaterally. That is when wars became " police actions " I don't know what details a treaty with South Korea might include. I do know that technically South Korea and North Korea are still at war. There are some folks that confuse a truce for a peace treaty. That truce in Korea has been dicey at best since it was signed in 1953.

We have a Defensive Treaty in place with S Korea.

And yes, you're correct, Korea ain't the perfect example of my "arm some guy" point, because the UN involvement muddied those waters. You're right.

That said, S Korea is a perfect example of: sign treaty, park US troops there, and you'll get peace for 50+ years.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 1:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 12:24 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 11:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am So the USA should implement your brilliant idea and park a division over in Taiwan?

You're acting like I'm nuts.

Understand what you're reacting to, I'm telling you that there are two obvious choices:

1. if you think Taiwan is in need of protection, great, sign a defensive treaty and park a division there, or
2. if you don't think Taiwan is in need of protection, great: do nothing militarily. No arms, no training.

That's it. Boy, that's REAL complicated.

And if you're asking me? Without question, I choose #2: do nothing militarily.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am While we are at it we can an keep aircraft carrier in the region as well. How do you think Xi will respond to that? A Fan is now a huge advocate of operation " trip wire "

You're mocking me when you know perfectly well my path makes sense.

What YOU are telling me is that you'd prefer we half *ss it, and "arm some guy", as we have done countless times since WWII.....Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, S. Korea., Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. And every freaking time we did that, Cradle.....what happened? Were you happy with the outcome in Vietnam? No, right?

Well, my method would have made it so that we never set foot there. Or Iran. Or any of the hundreds of bases we have all over the world....outside of bases where we have treaties with said nations (NATO, for example).

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am Your a huge advocate of removing our troops. Let's start with South Korea, they have a powerful and well trained military. Why do they still need American soldiers patrolling the DMZ.? I forgot... " Operation Tripwire " ...

We have a treaty with them, my man. Did you even read my position?

And have you noticed that the treaty we signed with S Korea, and the troops we have parked there has led to peace for well over five decades? Hey, how about that! It's almost as if what I'm advocating works!

Have you notice NATO has worked perfectly? Hey, how about that! Must be a coincidence!

I'm only trying to expound on your premise. It worked in Europe but guess what country gave it validity and made it work? It always seems like the US military is an integral part of any trip wire. If I had my preference we wouldn't have an American infantry division stationed at the DMZ in South Korea. If they weren't there the Norks and Lil Kim would invade the South as soon as he could. I'm not mocking you my friend. I'm pointing out what your advocating conflicts with things you have said previously.

Where? I've had this same exact idea for YEARS here.

Have I discussed what we should do AFTER we violated my rule of "not arming some guy"? Sure.

But had we done as I'm saying, we wouldn't have been in Iraq OR Afghanistan.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 12:24 pm FTR I think your a bit confused about South Korea. If you remember your history Korea started as war supported by the United Nations. Americans didn't fight there unilaterally. That is when wars became " police actions " I don't know what details a treaty with South Korea might include. I do know that technically South Korea and North Korea are still at war. There are some folks that confuse a truce for a peace treaty. That truce in Korea has been dicey at best since it was signed in 1953.

We have a Defensive Treaty in place with S Korea.

And yes, you're correct, Korea ain't the perfect example of my "arm some guy" point, because the UN involvement muddied those waters. You're right.

That said, S Korea is a perfect example of: sign treaty, park US troops there, and you'll get peace for 50+ years.

You have been an advocate for you break it you buy it. We sure as f***ing hell broke it in Afghanistan. Matter of fact that convicted felon Gen Flynn did his best to tell the folks in DC just how bad we broke it. All of the screaming meamies on this forum has to say about him was he lied to the FBI. No mention how the folks in Washington DC F***ing lied to all of us? It only counts if you lie to the FBI. Why didn't anybody in DC pay attention to what Gen Flynn was saying? He was 100% spot on in his analysis. Our counter insurgency in Afghanistan was breeding more bad guys. It was a complete failure. Oddly enough none of the FLP folks on this forum want to discuss that. All they want to know is Flynn lied to the FBI...

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:03 pm You have been an advocate for you break it you buy it.

Yes. That does NOTHING to change my stance, my man.

If i was in charge, we would never have "broke it" in the first place. Get it?

It's why I don't want to "arm some guy". Because every time we do that....what happens?

That's right: we "break it". And then are on the hook to fix the broken pieces.

Which is where we are with Ukraine, if you didn't notice. I was the one, single, solitary poster here who advocated that Biden and Trump do the same thing Obama did in the region: nothing militarily.

Obama did what I wanted, and I told OS this in real time, Cradle.

What happened instead? That's right: Trump and BIden showed up, and "armed some guy".

.....so here we are, dealing with the consequence of this choice, and this consequence will last for GENERATIONS.


While with Obama and Crimea? Hey, how about that...there aren't any generational consequences. Obama's choice meant we spent no money, spilled zero blood, and have no long term consequences as Americans. It's almost as if MY PATH works.......

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 1:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 12:24 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 11:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am So the USA should implement your brilliant idea and park a division over in Taiwan?

You're acting like I'm nuts.

Understand what you're reacting to, I'm telling you that there are two obvious choices:

1. if you think Taiwan is in need of protection, great, sign a defensive treaty and park a division there, or
2. if you don't think Taiwan is in need of protection, great: do nothing militarily. No arms, no training.

That's it. Boy, that's REAL complicated.

And if you're asking me? Without question, I choose #2: do nothing militarily.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am While we are at it we can an keep aircraft carrier in the region as well. How do you think Xi will respond to that? A Fan is now a huge advocate of operation " trip wire "

You're mocking me when you know perfectly well my path makes sense.

What YOU are telling me is that you'd prefer we half *ss it, and "arm some guy", as we have done countless times since WWII.....Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, S. Korea., Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. And every freaking time we did that, Cradle.....what happened? Were you happy with the outcome in Vietnam? No, right?

Well, my method would have made it so that we never set foot there. Or Iran. Or any of the hundreds of bases we have all over the world....outside of bases where we have treaties with said nations (NATO, for example).

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:12 am Your a huge advocate of removing our troops. Let's start with South Korea, they have a powerful and well trained military. Why do they still need American soldiers patrolling the DMZ.? I forgot... " Operation Tripwire " ...

We have a treaty with them, my man. Did you even read my position?

And have you noticed that the treaty we signed with S Korea, and the troops we have parked there has led to peace for well over five decades? Hey, how about that! It's almost as if what I'm advocating works!

Have you notice NATO has worked perfectly? Hey, how about that! Must be a coincidence!

I'm only trying to expound on your premise. It worked in Europe but guess what country gave it validity and made it work? It always seems like the US military is an integral part of any trip wire. If I had my preference we wouldn't have an American infantry division stationed at the DMZ in South Korea. If they weren't there the Norks and Lil Kim would invade the South as soon as he could. I'm not mocking you my friend. I'm pointing out what your advocating conflicts with things you have said previously.

Where? I've had this same exact idea for YEARS here.

Have I discussed what we should do AFTER we violated my rule of "not arming some guy"? Sure.

But had we done as I'm saying, we wouldn't have been in Iraq OR Afghanistan.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 12:24 pm FTR I think your a bit confused about South Korea. If you remember your history Korea started as war supported by the United Nations. Americans didn't fight there unilaterally. That is when wars became " police actions " I don't know what details a treaty with South Korea might include. I do know that technically South Korea and North Korea are still at war. There are some folks that confuse a truce for a peace treaty. That truce in Korea has been dicey at best since it was signed in 1953.

We have a Defensive Treaty in place with S Korea.

And yes, you're correct, Korea ain't the perfect example of my "arm some guy" point, because the UN involvement muddied those waters. You're right.

That said, S Korea is a perfect example of: sign treaty, park US troops there, and you'll get peace for 50+ years.

I had friends of mine from the 82nd that were sent there for a year on a levy. That is done when the army needs more ground pounders to patrol the DMZ. Most Americans a Fan are unaware of just how dangerous those patrols along the DMZ are. When my friend was over there in 1981 they operated out of Warrior Base. At that time it was the only active firebase in the US Army. You patrolled in full protective gear, flak vests and a basic load of ammunition to include grenades. The Norks were constantly building tunnels trying to provide access routes into the South. It was a constant game of cat and mouse and small scale firefights were not uncommon back then. My buddy often called it a dead man zone. You had to know where you were on the DMZ every damn minute. It was and still is scary chit. It's a very dangerous place to serve your country.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:16 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:03 pm You have been an advocate for you break it you buy it.

Yes. That does NOTHING to change my stance, my man.

If i was in charge, we would never have "broke it" in the first place. Get it?

It's why I don't want to "arm some guy". Because every time we do that....what happens?

That's right: we "break it". And then are on the hook to fix the broken pieces.

Which is where we are with Ukraine, if you didn't notice. I was the one, single, solitary poster here who advocated that Biden and Trump do the same thing Obama did in the region: nothing militarily.

Obama did what I wanted, and I told OS this in real time, Cradle.

What happened instead? That's right: Trump and BIden showed up, and "armed some guy".

.....so here we are, dealing with the consequence of this choice, and this consequence will last for GENERATIONS.


While with Obama and Crimea? Hey, how about that...there aren't any generational consequences. Obama's choice meant we spent no money, spilled zero blood, and have no long term consequences as Americans. It's almost as if MY PATH works.......

Your path works to the extent that other people do the fighting and dying for you. If that makes you feel more at ease about the situation then so be it. The more there is open warfare anywhere on this earth there will always be a good chance our military will eventually get dragged in. Are you comfortable with a rotating US armored brigade stationed near the Polish border with Ukraine? Why don't the Germans or the French or the British provide that heavy armor? You were the one who was just tooting the NATO horn.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:29 pm Your path works to the extent that other people do the fighting and dying for you. If that makes you feel more at ease about the situation then so be it.

Again, that's wrong. What did I just write about Taiwan AND Ukraine AND Crimea: for America to do NOTHING miltiarily.

And what you wrote is a big reason why.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:29 pm The more there is open warfare anywhere on this earth there will always be a good chance our military will eventually get dragged in. Are you comfortable with a rotating US armored brigade stationed near the Polish border with Ukraine? Why don't the Germans or the French or the British provide that heavy armor? You were the one who was just tooting the NATO horn.

What I was tooting is that NATO worked.

If you put a piece of paper in front of me ending NATO, and making the EU raise their own d*mn Army? I'd sign it so fast it would make your head spin.If you check, you'll find I have been advocating that NATO and every other doggone country be in charge of their own dam* shipping lanes. You're complaining to the wrong guy.

You've seen my posting enough times to know that If I were king, the US Defense Dept would, oh, I don't know, spend their time and resources DEFENDING America's borders.

I think that the Neo-con concept of playing policeman to the world should have been shelved DECADES ago.

But I"m not in charge, my friend.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:34 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:29 pm Your path works to the extent that other people do the fighting and dying for you. If that makes you feel more at ease about the situation then so be it.

Again, that's wrong. What did I just write about Taiwan AND Ukraine AND Crimea: for America to do NOTHING miltiarily.

And what you wrote is a big reason why.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:29 pm The more there is open warfare anywhere on this earth there will always be a good chance our military will eventually get dragged in. Are you comfortable with a rotating US armored brigade stationed near the Polish border with Ukraine? Why don't the Germans or the French or the British provide that heavy armor? You were the one who was just tooting the NATO horn.

What I was tooting is that NATO worked.

If you put a piece of paper in front of me ending NATO, and making the EU raise their own d*mn Army? I'd sign it so fast it would make your head spin.If you check, you'll find I have been advocating that NATO and every other doggone country be in charge of their own dam* shipping lanes. You're complaining to the wrong guy.

You've seen my posting enough times to know that If I were king, the US Defense Dept would, oh, I don't know, spend their time and resources DEFENDING America's borders.

I think that the Neo-con concept of playing policeman to the world should have been shelved DECADES ago.

But I"m not in charge, my friend.

NATO worked in Europe why?? It was the US Army 1st Armored Division that drew the short straw in defending the Fulda Gap. The Soviets were not exactly shaking in their boots at the defensive capability of the combined German, British heavy armored units. Depending on what mood they were in on any given day you might even include the French.

Your hypothetical is interesting to say the least. Too bad it isn't even close to being realistic. I did regret my unit never being chosen for REFORGER. Hot damn I would have liked wearing those German jump wings....

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:49 pm Your hypothetical is interesting to say the least. Too bad it isn't even close to being realistic.

That's what OS claimed.

Barack Obama proved you both wrong. It's why he quipped "the 80's called, and wants it's foreign policy back".

We can take a new path after 70 years of making the same mistake over and over and over again, my friend.


How's the "cop to the world" game working out in Ukraine, my friend?

Now at the same time, how much money have we blown in Crimea? How many dead?

So my response to "it's not even close to realistic" is: check the scoreboard.

Obama's path worked, while Trump/Biden's neo-con plan with Ukraine is a sh*tshow.

Propaganda or truth? https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasf ... _uniforms/