Why are we rushing to defend Ukraine? [merged threads]

[millefleur 5,047]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

In summary,

 

1. bring back the MAGA agenda which did keep the peace, degrade terrorism, and was degrading China, 

 

2. Energy independence for the Western bloc + Japan, ANZ, SK, Singapore, and friends 

 

3. Fiscal prudence 

 

4. Diversify supply chains among USA and allies 

Trump expanded the national debt and was not exactly "fiscally responsible." It sounds like you want a fantasy candidate/US government that simply doesn't exist, Trump did not encapsulate all of your points, so it can't be merely Trump. Is there some coalition of politicians/powerful people in the US who support this and can actually get this stuff done? I don't see how any of your plans are feasible unless there is legit political will and power behind them. And if there are no powerful political figures who can bring this proposed agenda to reality, it is hopeless even in the long run. Ideas live and die on the page, you need actual political will and power to get them out in the world. Without some real political power in DC that cares about the problems you outlined and supports them, none of this means anything.

 

I'm more concerned about the short term problems right now and how the war in Ukraine will be eventually ended. I'm glad the US DoD has been acting with as much restraint as they have, preventing us from getting into nuclear war, relevant to this point:

 

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

The MiG thing is an example of failure to act because of fear. It could be a giant fake out though, and perhaps the MiG's will conveniently find themselves in the capable hands of Ukrainian pilots. We'll see.

To cement an end to the rumor about "fighter jets to Ukraine" here's a new article with a firm "no" from the US. If the US is doing so out of "fear" then isn't that the sane thing to do? Isn't being afraid of nuclear escalation the sane (and even moral) way to behave in a situation like this? The amount of times I've seen people go in circles over "no fly zones" and "fighter jets to Ukraine" or other suggestions of escalation only to run back into the "oh wait that might lead to nukes and WW3" reminder just makes my head hurt at this point. 😵

Pentagon rejects NATO nations providing jets to Ukraine

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — The Pentagon on Wednesday slammed the door on any plans to provide MiG fighter jets to Ukraine, even through a second country, calling it a “high-risk” venture that would not significantly change the effectiveness of the Ukrainian Air Force.

 

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby told reporters that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke with his Polish counterpart on Wednesday and told him the U.S. assessment. He said the U.S. is pursuing other options that would provide more critical military needs to Ukraine such as air defense and anti-armor weapons systems.

 

Poland had said it was prepared to hand over MiG-29 planes to NATO that could then be delivered to Ukraine, but Kirby said U.S. intelligence concluded that it could be considered escalatory and trigger a “significant” Russian reaction.

 

Kirby’s remarks went beyond his comments in a statement Tuesday, rejecting Poland’s offer to give fighter jets to the United States for transfer to Ukraine.

 

He said individual NATO nations can make up their own minds on what assistance to give Ukraine, but it’s questionable whether any would provide fighters without U.S. support.

 

Read more here: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-poland-united-states-europe-warsaw-534cd345f7bcb5a08a21fc2244efb04f

 

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by millefleur

[Dashinka 24,628]

45 minutes ago, Mike E said:

I see zero virtue and goodness in the Chinese Communist Party.  An organization  that supports a regime that puts bullets in brains of pregnant women.  
 

The right answer would have been to bring Russia into NATO in the 1990s.  Instead Clinton bombed Serbia.  
 

What the US should do about it:

* give oil companies permits to drill on every lease they have on USA territory

* uncancel Keystone XL

* re-open coal powered plants

* issue permits for new  nuclear power plants

* export energy to Europe 

* cancel regulations on CO2 emissions 

* cancel Paris agreement 

* pass laws that punish states for punishing residents that use roof top solar power 

* Inform NATO allies that the USA will leave the alliance if it continues to rely on Russia for energy, give a timeline, and stick to it.  

* give the CCP/Putinista axis a quick loss in Burma: establish a no fly zone and let the ethnic armies topple the junta. This will remind China (and India) that America can project power. 
* Stop the new Iran nuclear deal

* Make it clear to the axis that the USA will bleed Russia in Ukraine the way it bled Russia in Afghanistan. 

* freeze non military discretionary spending until budget comes into surplus 

* construct a supply chain that provides alternatives to China whether domestic or imported from an ally 

 

 

 

 

US and Europe. Just like the USA traded with Europe and Japan after the USA destroyed Europe and Japan in WW2. 
 

?

 

China is in the northern Hemisphere.  Africa’s time of ascendancy is inevitable but not for another 200 years. 
 

America’s goal should be to prevent CCP from ever being ascendant.  
 

Yes well Obama messed that up badly.  

The EU cannot back off because Russia will not stop at Ukraine.  The EU has already incorporated former Soviet and former Warsaw Pact countries into its Union.  In the end when backed into a corner the EU will have no choice to fight.  
 

I doubt Ukrainians will put up with it.  It will be decades of terrorism such as we saw in Ireland and with the Basques.  Regardless it isn’t our place to force Ukrainians to cede territory.  Forcing Serbia to cede territory led directly to the invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine has to win its country back.  

 

I don’t see how backing off from China stops China.  
 

In summary,

 

1. bring back the MAGA agenda which did keep the peace, degrade terrorism, and was degrading China, 

 

2. Energy independence for the Western bloc + Japan, ANZ, SK, Singapore, and friends 

 

3. Fiscal prudence 

 

4. Diversify supply chains among USA and allies 

Great analysis and suggestions.  I also wonder why a country of 130 million with the most land area including raw materials that was transitioning from a communist country with a socialist economy was not courted toward NATO and the EU, but unfortunately we had a President at that time that was only worried about his johnson.

 

One thing that I am unsure of though is will Putin continue beyond Ukraine.  From what I am hearing, the Russian military is not mobilizing beyond what was already  put forth on the Ukraine border, and they made no threats to the Baltic States.  Spring is coming fast which will severely hamper any ground forces, and the Russian navy is not that big.  I am a little surprised Russia did not commit more air power to this invasion, and has relied more on artillery and “dumb” missiles (not sure what a “no-fly zone would do about that), it really seems Putin is more intent on sowing chaos and needless destruction.

[millefleur 5,047]

Whoops? This might just be a rumor as it seems unconfirmed yet.

Absent UK soldiers may have travelled to Ukraine, British Army says

A small number of British soldiers have disobeyed orders and may have travelled to Ukraine to fight, the British Army has confirmed.

 

The soldiers were absent without leave and may have gone to Ukraine "in a personal capacity", the Army said.

 

"We are actively and strongly encouraging them to return to the UK," a spokesperson added.

 

Read more here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60684749

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by millefleur

[Mike E 11,741]

1 hour ago, millefleur said:

Trump expanded the national debt and was not exactly "fiscally responsible." It sounds like you want a fantasy candidate/US government that simply doesn't exist, Trump did not encapsulate all of your points, so it can't be merely Trump. Is there some coalition of politicians/powerful people in the US who support this and can actually get this stuff done? I don't see how any of your plans are feasible unless there is legit political will and power behind them

You asked what could be done.
 

In the 1990s there was bipartisan agreement to bring the government into surplus. 
 

My recollection of the Trump years was

 

* higher tariffs on imports which ultimately would have diversified the supply chain. They were certainly narrowing the trade gap
 

* engineered price for oil which led to American energy independence 

 

* warning to NATO that depending on Russian energy would lead to war 

 

* demands to NATO for higher spending on Defence 

 

You are probably correct that there isn’t political will. 
 

If we take Biden at his literal  word that the USA will not put boots on the ground, then we are looking at Russia and China expanding their territory.  If   Biden flip flops then US and Russia will get into a shooting war in Europe and I don’t see how it doesn’t go nuclear.  
 

So China wins.   

 

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Mike E

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The road to US energy independence should have started in 1973. We would have been there a couple of decades ago if it had. Too much corporate greed.

[TBoneTX 45,570]

Want to interject that a lot of brilliant minds are posting highly reasoned discussion points here.  We need even more threads like this.

[Dashinka 24,628]

11 hours ago, Mike E said:

You asked what could be done.
 

In the 1990s there was bipartisan agreement to bring the government into surplus. 
 

My recollection of the Trump years was

 

* higher tariffs on imports which ultimately would have diversified the supply chain. They were certainly narrowing the trade gap
 

* engineered price for oil which led to American energy independence 

 

* warning to NATO that depending on Russian energy would lead to war 

 

* demands to NATO for higher spending on Defence 

 

You are probably correct that there isn’t political will. 
 

If we take Biden at his literal  word that the USA will not put boots on the ground, then we are looking at Russia and China expanding their territory.  If   Biden flip flops then US and Russia will get into a shooting war in Europe and I don’t see how it doesn’t go nuclear.  
 

So China wins.   

 

 

 

 

The other thing I heard Bill Barr talk about was how the false narrative of Russian Collusion brought forward by the Clinton campaign and carried by the Democrats and MSM (Adam Schiff et. al.) hamstrung Trump from working with Putin and Russia.  I know Barr is on a book tour right now and the MSM wants to focus on any criticism he has for Trump, but in reality, he appears to be a lukewarm supporter (not a Lincoln Project type) and understands what Trump had to deal with orchestrated by the DC elite.  It's one of those counterfactuals that we can only speculate on, but if the Clinton campaign and the MSM/Democrats had actually accepted the results of the 2016 election, one wonders what would have been different.  Instead, we got Old Joe (Let's Go Brandon!) who is ten times worse than Trump was, but of course no mean tweets.  Heck, even President Obama warned us about Joe's ability to mess up (paraphrased as I cannot repeat what Obama actually said here on VJ).

10 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

The road to US energy independence should have started in 1973. We would have been there a couple of decades ago if it had. Too much corporate greed.

Back then it was all about Global Cooling, so it should have been "drill-baby-drill".

[Mike E 11,741]

11 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

The road to US energy independence should have started in 1973. We would have been there a couple of decades ago if it had.

correct  

11 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

Too much corporate greed.

No too much irrational fear of nuclear power from the left fueled by the Hollywood left.  

[yuna628 9,686]

16 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Great analysis and suggestions.  I also wonder why a country of 130 million with the most land area including raw materials that was transitioning from a communist country with a socialist economy was not courted toward NATO and the EU, but unfortunately we had a President at that time that was only worried about his johnson.

 

One thing that I am unsure of though is will Putin continue beyond Ukraine.  From what I am hearing, the Russian military is not mobilizing beyond what was already  put forth on the Ukraine border, and they made no threats to the Baltic States.  Spring is coming fast which will severely hamper any ground forces, and the Russian navy is not that big.  I am a little surprised Russia did not commit more air power to this invasion, and has relied more on artillery and “dumb” missiles (not sure what a “no-fly zone would do about that), it really seems Putin is more intent on sowing chaos and needless destruction.

I believe he will go beyond Ukraine, that is if he can ever actually succeed in Ukraine. It's always been the gameplan. It seems he has a lot of hubris, unless everyone at the top there is very stupidly overconfident. He apparently thought it would be completely easy. If he succeeds using any means he deems necessary, he'll have a choice to make whether to keep going - probably slowly though. Militarily, he seems beaten... but he's got bombs, chemical weapons, and nukes. Many territories will start applying for EU and or NATO membership - this will trigger him all over again. I've heard some people elude that we are trying to trigger some sort of coup - how do we know the options after Putin, won't be just the same?

[Boiler 45,715]

It is important to remember most of the world is not part of NATO or the EU and may well see things differently

 

Turkey, part of NATO has not imposed sanctions, Saudi would not take Biden's call.

 

We live in interesting times. For example US gets a lot of fertilizer from Russia, can only imagine what the loss of that and increased energy costs are going to do to food prices.

 

And Russia/Ukraine are major grain exporters to some very unstable countries.

 

My concern is from a US perspective we have a very weak leadership who seem incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

[Dashinka 24,628]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

I believe he will go beyond Ukraine, that is if he can ever actually succeed in Ukraine. It's always been the gameplan. It seems he has a lot of hubris, unless everyone at the top there is very stupidly overconfident. He apparently thought it would be completely easy. If he succeeds using any means he deems necessary, he'll have a choice to make whether to keep going - probably slowly though. Militarily, he seems beaten... but he's got bombs, chemical weapons, and nukes. Many territories will start applying for EU and or NATO membership - this will trigger him all over again. I've heard some people elude that we are trying to trigger some sort of coup - how do we know the options after Putin, won't be just the same?

How do you know it was always the game plan?  Putin sent in roughly 120k troops (not all of these combat specific) for a country the size of Texas, and based on what we are hearing from our government, there is no real movement of additional troops ready to actually occupy what will be a Russian hostile country. 

 

What amazes me is that in all the media reports of what is going on in Ukraine, we hear nothing related to what the Ukraine military is doing?  We hear a lot of Zelenskyy calling for a "no-fly" zone which is impractical against artillery and cruise missiles, but what is he doing with his roughly quarter million active duty troops?  Why are they not doing something to break the siege of Mariupol, or resupply the city?  Putin certainly has a lot of hubris and it has grown since we let him annex Crimea, and essentially the Donbass region.  The Russian military is not infinite, and quite honestly, I don't think most of the conscripts have the heart to fight, so if Putin is stuck in a quagmire in Ukraine, I don't see him going after anything else any time soon.

[millefleur 5,047]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

I've heard some people elude that we are trying to trigger some sort of coup - how do we know the options after Putin, won't be just the same?

You'd think we'd have so-called "experts" in Washington who are supposed to know the answer to that, but it seems we don't. Makes you wonder what all those people in cushy thinktanks are getting paid for.

 

Let's imagine that, the majority of people in Russia support Russia invading other countries and they all vote for that. Wouldn't that be democracy? It's something I've always wondered about. What if people democratically organize and support war, belligerence and intolerance towards other nations? How is the US supposed to handle that? (I guess the Yugoslav Wars are somewhat of an example....but that ended up with NATO bombing them to "bring the Serbs to heel". But, oops, we can't do that now because Russia has nukes.) Also, the idea that "freedom" and "democracy" are inherently linked is a modern idea. In ancient Greece where democracy originated, slavery was not only legal but a hugely integral part of society and the economy. These political ideas like "freedom" and "democracy" that America likes to throw around as if they were simple and straightforward are anything but. The "let's bomb them to bring peace" tactic does not work when you're against a nuclear power. It seems the US has no answer for how to handle if a nuclear power "goes rogue" and decides to start invading other countries (other than sanctions, whose track record of effectiveness is not great.)

 

A general Russian view (that would be held by any Russian who comes to power) is: nuclear weapons protect them from the US, whom they inherently don't trust, especially after Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. If the fear of nuclear war rises, Russians become more distrustful and that will only cause them to double down on their military spending, NATO expansion falls under this category because it means more nukes potentially pointed at Russia. I don't see this changing no matter who is president of Russia. I'm not really sure where the oligarchs come into play when it comes to Russia's defense but it seems to me they have little say in it. It's mostly coming from the Russian people who generally fear being carpet bombed to dust and turned into a new Libya by the US if they give up their nukes. A Russian president who supports a strong military/defense sector will most likely be no different from a Putin.

 

43 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

We hear a lot of Zelenskyy calling for a "no-fly" zone which is impractical against artillery and cruise missiles, but what is he doing with his roughly quarter million active duty troops? 

We also hear very little of Zelensky's plans or policies right now. Ever since the "cooling on NATO" comment and the fighter jets falling through, he's basically not said much on what his plans are, which makes me think he has no more plans now that playing the "help us NATO" card has failed. I genuinely don't understand why he kept pressing this line so hard when the Biden administration told him multiple times before the invasion even began that the US/NATO would not actively join. It's very strange.

 

43 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Why are they not doing something to break the siege of Mariupol, or resupply the city? 

My view is that most people fundamentally don't understand what's happening in Mariupol. This isn't about "democracy" or "freedom" or "Russia being mad a NATO" or even "Russia wants Ukraine because land" or whatever the takes current are out there, those may be true for other parts of Ukraine but not Mariupol....what's happening in Mariupol is the culmination of 8 years of beef and fighting that has been brewing on both sides now between the Azov Battallion neonazis, who hate the pro-Russian LPR/DPR and the LPR/DPR's equal disdain for them in return. Mariupol has no real strategic significance and Russia even wasting as much time there just doesn't make sense from a logical point of view, because this battle is emotional. The battle in Mariupol is 100% fueled by hatred on both sides, it's a bloodbath where these 2 sides have chosen to fight to the death. This is why no amount of talking is going to convince the other to surrender or give up, they both want a fight to the death, to the last man, if it comes to that. This is what years of brewing ethnic hatred and fighting inside of a country leads to, we've seen it with the Yugoslav Wars and now it's happening there. It's just that you won't hear the mass media frame it this way because saying that both sides are motivated by hatred and essentially want to kill each other is not the warm, fuzzy narrative that people want to hear. Both sides want the fight and that means more people will die and innocent civilians will be put in harms way. I expect a lot more causalities and don't see this ending soon.

Edited March 10, 2022 by millefleur

[Dashinka 24,628]

19 minutes ago, millefleur said:

 

 

My view is that most people fundamentally don't understand what's happening in Mariupol. This isn't about "democracy" or "freedom" or "Russia being mad a NATO" or even "Russia wants Ukraine because land" or whatever the takes current are out there, those may be true for other parts of Ukraine but not Mariupol....what's happening in Mariupol is the culmination of 8 years of beef and fighting that has been brewing on both sides now between the Azov Battallion neonazis, who hate the pro-Russian LPR/DPR and the LPR/DPR's equal disdain for them in return. Mariupol has no real strategic significance and Russia even wasting as much time there just doesn't make sense from a logical point of view, because this battle is emotional. The battle in Mariupol is 100% fueled by hatred on both sides, it's a bloodbath where these 2 sides have chosen to fight to the death. This is why no amount of talking is going to convince the other to surrender or give up, they both want a fight to the death, to the last man, if it comes to that. This is what years of brewing ethnic hatred and fighting inside of a country leads to, we've seen it with the Yugoslav Wars and now it's happening there. It's just that you won't hear the mass media frame it this way because saying that both sides are motivated by hatred and essentially want to kill each other is not the warm, fuzzy narrative that people want to hear. Both sides want the fight and that means more people will die and innocent civilians will be put in harms way. I expect a lot more causalities and don't see this ending soon.

This is what most people here have no idea about.  When Putin was speaking of Nazis, he was specifically talking about the Azov Battalion.  Of course the Western Media has to chime in and frame it as a deranged comment from an unhinged leader and of course remind us that Zelenskyy is a Jew.  People here in the US have no idea of the corrupt and criminal factions that exist in the Ukraine, and the type of ethnic cleansing that happens there.  Everyone wants a "good" vs "evil" fight, and the media is pushing that narrative.

[Ban Hammer 13,417]

[millefleur 5,047]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Western Media has to chime in and frame it as a deranged comment from an unhinged leader and of course remind us that Zelenskyy is a Jew.

The best rebuttal I've seen to that is saying that America solved racism because we elected President Obama. It's an absurd take. Just because a country has some media darling president doesn't mean there isn't division and even hatred among the people in that country.

 

Another "nope" from the Pentagon today. I assume this is because you can't just do a Zoom meeting/remote learning session to teach people how to use these things.

 

https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1502019751010308100?s=20&t=TaLeHFe3Oz6PmMECVelq7A