LaxPower Back-Up Stick

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:06 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 6:29 pm But back to the real problem here, you actually side with the "Mother Russia" argument that Russia should control all of those peoples and lands, with an iron authoritarian fist.

No. I just don't see a strategic imperative that we get involved to prevent it. Abstain -- like most of the rest of the nations of the world do. Sure jawbone, but don't put govt people on the ground (like Nuland in Ukraine) to fan the flames.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:55 pm No. I buy into the notion that it's none of our business & is not in our long term interest to foment unrest, revolution & regime change in former Soviet Republics, which have no significant national history, that were integral parts of Russia for most of modern history before that.
We dismember Mother Russia at our own peril when we have more critical strategic interests elsewhere. We're making bad situations worse.
If the EU wants to create new members, they can send their forces to the front & ours should deploy elsewhere.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:30 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:00 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 6:29 pm How do you feel about China's claim that it should control all of its neighbors...and perhaps beyond, where any of its peoples reside? Much of those regions and countries were once controlled by mainland China...at least according to their interpretation of history.

You mean like Taiwan & our one China policy ?

Not just Taiwan, most of Southeast Asia, Korea, Japan.
All subject to similar "historical" claims.
Just like Tibet, Mongolia, etc.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:37 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:55 pm No. I buy into the notion that it's none of our business & is not in our long term interest to foment unrest, revolution & regime change in former Soviet Republics, which have no significant national history, that were integral parts of Russia for most of modern history before that.
We dismember Mother Russia at our own peril when we have more critical strategic interests elsewhere. We're making bad situations worse.
If the EU wants to create new members, they can send their forces to the front & ours should deploy elsewhere.

And btw, this is a complete 180 from where you were back in 2018. You wanted NATO to step in....with Trump leading, and including NATO in every sentence. You never said it was none of our business.

The "none of out business" guy was me. I said Trump didn't have to lift a finger militarily because Ukraine isn't in NATO.

Something changed your mind.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:03 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:37 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:55 pm No. I buy into the notion that it's none of our business & is not in our long term interest to foment unrest, revolution & regime change in former Soviet Republics, which have no significant national history, that were integral parts of Russia for most of modern history before that.
We dismember Mother Russia at our own peril when we have more critical strategic interests elsewhere. We're making bad situations worse.
If the EU wants to create new members, they can send their forces to the front & ours should deploy elsewhere.

And btw, this is a complete 180 from where you were back in 2018. You wanted NATO to step in....with Trump leading, and including NATO in every sentence. You never said it was none of our business.

The "none of out business" guy was me. I said Trump didn't have to lift a finger militarily because Ukraine isn't in NATO.

Something changed your mind.

BS ! There you go again, misrepresenting my position.

You ignore all my squawking about having to send US forces back to EUrope to bolster NATO's E flank when our EU allies could not defend themselves. Remember my complaints about all the tanks having to roll out of CO then TX & KN in 9 mos rotations, over & back.

Trump scared the hell out of the rest of NATO & shamed them into spending more on defense, but he did not neglect our duty as a NATO member to help bolster NATO's E flank after Russia seized Crimea & part of the Donbas in 2014.

My "none of our business" comment is about former parts of Russia, not about our NATO allies.
You're equating Ukraine, Georgia & Belarus with our NATO allies.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:15 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:03 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:37 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:55 pm No. I buy into the notion that it's none of our business & is not in our long term interest to foment unrest, revolution & regime change in former Soviet Republics, which have no significant national history, that were integral parts of Russia for most of modern history before that.
We dismember Mother Russia at our own peril when we have more critical strategic interests elsewhere. We're making bad situations worse.
If the EU wants to create new members, they can send their forces to the front & ours should deploy elsewhere.

And btw, this is a complete 180 from where you were back in 2018. You wanted NATO to step in....with Trump leading, and including NATO in every sentence. You never said it was none of our business.

The "none of out business" guy was me. I said Trump didn't have to lift a finger militarily because Ukraine isn't in NATO.

Something changed your mind.

BS ! There you go again, misrepresenting my position.

You ignore all my squawking about having to send US forces back to EUrope to bolster NATO's E flank when our EU allies could not defend themselves. Remember my complaints about all the tanks having to roll out of CO then TX & KN in 9 mos rotations, over & back.

Trump scared the hell out of the rest of NATO & shamed them into spending more on defense, but he did not neglect our duty as a NATO member to help bolster NATO's E flank after Russia seized Crimea & part of the Donbas in 2014.

My "none of our business" comment is about former parts of Russia, not about our NATO allies.
You're equating Ukraine, Georgia & Belarus with our NATO allies.

Maybe tone it down a shade. I was referring to your position in 2018 that we specifically "stick our nose" in Ukraine's business and Putin's meddling with said nation.

I'm not ignoring anything. Your position in 2018 was that Ukraine was indeed the US's business (particular emphasis on Black Sea), and that NATO should respond, with Trump in the lead.

Now here you are, telling us that " it's none of our business & is not in our long term interest to foment unrest, revolution & regime change in former Soviet Republics, which have no significant national history, that were integral parts of Russia for most of modern history before that. "

No one here wants to foment anything, btw. They all just want Putin out of Ukraine, who clearly doesn't want Putin there. That's not the same as what you listed above.

See for yourself, if you can't remember your position. It's right in this very thread.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:51 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:30 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:00 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 6:29 pm How do you feel about China's claim that it should control all of its neighbors...and perhaps beyond, where any of its peoples reside? Much of those regions and countries were once controlled by mainland China...at least according to their interpretation of history.

You mean like Taiwan & our one China policy ?

Not just Taiwan, most of Southeast Asia, Korea, Japan.
All subject to similar "historical" claims.
Just like Tibet, Mongolia, etc.

Not similar at all. The countries you name (other than Taiwan) all had significant national histories of their own.
It's ridiculous that you would include Korea & especially Japan, which invaded & occupied Korea & much of China.

The China - Taiwan situation is unique, too complex to rehash, but we recognized that in our One China Policy, which currently restrains us in what we can & should do re. Taiwan's independence or autonomy.

Japan & Korea are treaty allies, based on our wars & occupations there, in which we played a role in their democratization.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:53 pm After the 2014 incursion, I agreed with the limited defensive aid & military training we were providing, which added lethal aid (like Javelins) under Trump. It's a good thing that we did, or Ukraine would have been overrun in short order, as all the experts predicted.

My complaints about our meddling in Ukraine go back to their revolutions in 2004 & 2014.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:53 pm Had we not helped foment the ouster of governments that were peacefully coexisting with Russia, Putin would not have invaded.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:53 pm Would you currently rather have friends & family (esp of military age) living in Ukraine or Belarus ?

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:31 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:53 pm After the 2014 incursion, I agreed with the limited defensive aid & military training we were providing, which added lethal aid (like Javelins) under Trump. It's a good thing that we did, or Ukraine would have been overrun in short order, as all the experts predicted.

My complaints about our meddling in Ukraine go back to their revolutions in 2004 & 2014.

Right. You changed your mind. You were in support of Trump's intervention. That's not a "this is none of our business" approach. That's a "this IS our business, and here's a bunch of stuff that will help".

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:53 pm Had we not helped foment the ouster of governments that were peacefully coexisting with Russia, Putin would not have invaded.

That's right. And Trump arming Putin, followed by Biden signaling he'd give them even more arms and help was what cinched it.

Glad you finally arrived here. You argued for weeks that this wasn't the case.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:53 pm Would you currently rather have friends & family (esp of military age) living in Ukraine or Belarus ?

I've been telling you this stuff for over a decade. This is why I believe what I believe. You're on board with my approach...but only for those that were formerly under the Soviet yoke. That's fine. Welcome aboard. Good luck explaining this position to anyone...they think you're naive, stupid, or both. Right up until the "oh hey! We didn't foresee any negative consequences to this choice" part that always arrives.

This, btw, is why I keep telling you that we're provoking China by arming Taiwan. If we leave Taiwan alone? China has, and will continue to, leave them the F alone. Want them to invade? Keep sending China headlines like this one:

Headline: U.S. to Expand Troop Presence in Taiwan for Training Against China Threat
The Pentagon is helping Taiwan focus on tactics and weapon systems that would make the island harder to assault


https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-exp ... t-62198a83

I have no clue why this is SO difficult for military and diplomacy wonks to understand this really simple concept.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm Jeez. This is incredible. You skip from decade to decade.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm History happens & demands action based on what's happening now.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm I did not want us meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs in 2004 & 2014.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm I supported US being a good NATO ally & participating, esp since NATO was with us in Afghanistan.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm We joined NATO in helping Ukraine to prepare to defend themselves. That was our policy since 2014.
Biden's continuation of that is not what prompted Putin to invade. It was the threat of Ukraine committing to join NATO.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm My policy on Taiwan has been to not get involved militarily, but keep that a secret to maintain strategic ambiguity.
We also have a law governing military sales to Taiwan. They're a wealthy nation. They will buy from other nations if not us.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm If we sell to them, they can convert their economic power to military power sufficient to deter a Chinese invasion.
China has vowed to bring Taiwan to heel as they did Hong Kong. A few US military trainers is not going to prompt that decision, but it may help deter it.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:03 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm Jeez. This is incredible. You skip from decade to decade.

No. What I"m telling you is what you wrote in 2018. I'm not skipping anything. I'm simply saying that you have changed your mind.

Something you are 100% welcome to do.
I have vertigo from your time machine. Show me my words from 2018 & tell me how I've changed.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm History happens & demands action based on what's happening now.

Yes. I know. That's why i wrote: "something changed your mind". In other words, something changed from 2018 to 2022 that made you change from Ukraine being in the US interest....to your position in 2022 that Ukraine was none of our business.
Adapting & responding to changing circumstances & events is not changing you mind.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm I did not want us meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs in 2004 & 2014.

And I'm right there with you. See: Saddam for why.
Apples & oranges. But ok if you say so. As I've said before (many times), I was not in favor of going to war in '91. Everything in Iraq has followed from that. Once there, we couldn't leave AQ & IS behind.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm I supported US being a good NATO ally & participating, esp since NATO was with us in Afghanistan.

That's fine. To be clear, I'm not talking about 2014. I'm talking about 2018.....when Russia was messing with Ukraine and the Black Sea.
I didn't see that as a big deal & we didn't do much in response. I wanted NATO to send the Standing Naval Task Force through the Kerch strait as a freedom of navigation mission to keep the sea lanes open, but that was an unrealistic expectation. It was fun spit-balling it though.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm We joined NATO in helping Ukraine to prepare to defend themselves. That was our policy since 2014.
Biden's continuation of that is not what prompted Putin to invade. It was the threat of Ukraine committing to join NATO.

Sorry, again, that doesn't square. If that was what did it, Putin would have invaded in 2017. He didn't.
Putin knew that Trump would never approve of Ukraine joining NATO.

You keep saying that we can arm Taiwan enough to deter a Chinese invasion. Send enough arms that China can't invade without massive losses, right? That it will make Xi reconsider invading, right?

Yet at the exact same time, you're telling me that Trump arming Ukraine, and then Biden following up in the fall of 2022, telling Putin "hey, we're about to send Ukraine EVEN MORE arms and training"......sent precisely zero information to Putin? And it's a complete and utter coincidence that Putin started massing at the border while BIden was promising more arms?
Incredible difference in the defenses that UKraine & Taiwan maintain on their own.
It's still possible to make Taiwan a porcupine if they're willing to pay for it.
Ukraine was an armadillo in the middle of the highway & couldn't pay for anything, & still can't.

--------------

WaPo, June 2021

In the spring, as Russia amassed more than 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border, the Biden administration considered a package of lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine worth tens of millions of dollars under an authority given to the president by Congress.

The administration decided to table that aid package, however, after Russia began reducing the number of troops at the border in late April, said people familiar with the decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James E. Risch (Idaho), who recently became privy to the deliberations, said the Biden administration should have moved forward on the package at that time. “It was past time to provide more for Ukraine’s defense when Putin began amassing his troops on its border,” he said in an interview. “His drawdown should not have triggered a drawdown of U.S. support.”

U.S. officials say they have not ruled out the package, and could still advance it if Russia expands its presence at the border. They also point to a separate $150 million assistance package for Kyiv that the Pentagon announced on Friday that includes counter-artillery radars, electronic warfare equipment and counter-drone systems.

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

-----------

Arms deter Xi, but not Putin? That's what you're telling me?
Porcupine vs armadillo.

Come on, man. That doesn't make a lick of sense. Either arming Taiwan is pointless, or sending arms to Ukraine...with the threat of more and more to come..... is CLEARLY why Putin invaded, before the price for invasion was too dear. I'm using YOUR logic to come to this conclusion.
Knowing what he knows now, do you think Putin would invade again ? ...in the same way ?

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm My policy on Taiwan has been to not get involved militarily, but keep that a secret to maintain strategic ambiguity.
We also have a law governing military sales to Taiwan. They're a wealthy nation. They will buy from other nations if not us.

You don't think it sends a different message if Taiwan buys from the US vs. say, France?
That's where strategic ambiguity comes in -- as a deterrent.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:32 pm If we sell to them, they can convert their economic power to military power sufficient to deter a Chinese invasion.
China has vowed to bring Taiwan to heel as they did Hong Kong. A few US military trainers is not going to prompt that decision, but it may help deter it.

That doesn't make sense. If a known quantity of arms and training "will keep China from invading"....it obviously follows that if Xi has any interest in really controlling Taiwan, he's gonna go in BEFORE Taiwan is armed to the teeth by America.
Xi's military is not ready yet, but they are executing a plan to get there nlt 2027.

See: Ukraine if you want to learn why if you wait until America arms them, you're f'ed. I don't get how you don't see this. So I guess agree to disagree.

If I'm Xi, and I for-reals want Taiwan? I'm going to go in the second America is stupid enough to run a press release about arming and training Taiwan. And we're already sending them signals about the training. He's not ready yet. We're in an arms & training race with Xi over Taiwan, just as we are (now) with Putin in Ukraine, playing catch up, trying to save the armadillo. We still have a chance to help Taiwan attain porcupine status & deter an invasion & maybe even a sea/air blockade. ...& end up with a grateful, well defended, democratic ally who helps maintain regional stability.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:59 pm I have vertigo from your time machine. Show me my words from 2018 & tell me how I've changed.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:20 am Putin doesn't care if we're slowly arming and training Ukraine, turning them into a porcupine....but at the same time, you think that he invaded because they might join NATO?

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:29 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:20 am Putin doesn't care if we're slowly arming and training Ukraine, turning them into a porcupine....but at the same time, you think that he invaded because they might join NATO?

Putin didn't care enough to be deterred from invading

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:56 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:29 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:20 am Putin doesn't care if we're slowly arming and training Ukraine, turning them into a porcupine....but at the same time, you think that he invaded because they might join NATO?

Putin didn't care enough to be deterred from invading

If that was true....that arms from Trump, and then more promised arms from Biden were irrelevant to Putin...... why would Putin care if Ukraine joined NATO? I'm sorry....I have to ask.

If arming to the point where Putin can no longer invade Ukraine is immaterial to Putin's ambitions.....then why would Putin care if Ukraine joined NATO?

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:05 am Because Crimea would become a NATO base rather than the home port of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:05 am Because NATO could deploy forces on his southern border, as they are now doing in the Poland, the Baltics, & soon to be Finland.
I've answered this before.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:22 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:05 am Because Crimea would become a NATO base rather than the home port of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

No, that's Crimea. Not Ukraine. And before he attacked Crimea----he had his lease all set for his fleet.
We've gone over this before. The lease was renewed in 2010 in a very contentious vote. Given the way the govt was overthrown in 2014, there was no confidence the lease would be honored, given that those who had voted for it in 2010 were ousted in the 2014 revolution.
The lease was for use of the port of Sevostopol, not all of Crimea. Overland access to the port could be restricted.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:05 am Because NATO could deploy forces on his southern border, as they are now doing in the Poland, the Baltics, & soon to be Finland.
I've answered this before.

What's the difference between a fully American-armed and trained Ukrainian porcupine that Putin can't attack, and NATO backed porcupine that Putin can't attack? Access to offensive weapons which can reach inside Russia. The difference between a neutral or ally buffer state & an armed adversary.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:30 am We've gone over this before. The lease was renewed in 2010 in a very contentious vote. Given the way the govt was overthrown in 2014, there was no confidence the lease would be honored, given that those who had voted for it in 2010 were ousted in the 2014 revolution.
The lease was for use of the port of Sevostopol, not all of Crimea. Overland access to the port could be restricted.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:05 am Because NATO could deploy forces on his southern border, as they are now doing in the Poland, the Baltics, & soon to be Finland.
I've answered this before.