There's way too damn many problems within our own country to be sending tens of billions to a foreign nation. How bout we fix the border first, then we can talk.
1:58p, 4/24/24
So we stop funding Ukraine, hope that Trump gets elected, hope that he owns both houses, and THEN finishes the wall, and THEN we start funding Ukraine again.
Which means we would be funding Russia, as they would already own Ukraine.
Which means we would be funding Russia, as they would already own Ukraine.
2:03p, 4/24/24
In reply to richardag
richardag said:
BlueSmoke
You said, "NATO has been marching east for decades now,".
That's not correct. The truth is the former Soviet block countries are marching west.
Nobody cares. Work Harder
2:18p, 4/24/24
In reply to BlueSmoke
If I remember correctly, you could even argue over a millennium dating back to the Rus Vikings in Ukraine.
BlueSmoke said:
I never got this idea that Russia isn't going to stop with Ukraine. It's always been the reddest or redlines to Russia. Going back centuries, it's always been an attack vector on their mainland.
If I remember correctly, you could even argue over a millennium dating back to the Rus Vikings in Ukraine.
2:21p, 4/24/24
In reply to aTmAg
Taiwan has been prepping for decades. It would be like Okinawa on steroids, minus an actual Navy that could land the troops. It's fortified like the Atlantic Wall in most places and when they see Chinese troops massing to the East, they'd mine every inch of coastline. Assuming they did land, now the rest of the island are mountains and forests. It'd be a meatgrinder for both sides.
The only way I can see them taking the island is to bomb it into submission, which then destroys all the fabrication plants the rest of the world uses for all their technology chips.
The only play I see is a naval blockade of some kind. They can't in, but nothing can come out - putting global pressure on the tech markets to come to some resolution without destroying the fab plants themselves or the people that run them.
They can "try", but again, how? They have a decent sized Navy and almost no landing craft. It would take thousands of ships to move the number of soldiers it would take to secure the island....again, in a very small window due to weather concerns and all extremely vulnerable to Taiwan defenses. And if this is overcome, where do they land? Taiwan is a big rock. Almost no beaches. They have deep-water ports, which of course they would destroy immediately. The west coast has significant shallow water that extend from the coastline, again making landings very difficult (think Peleliu). The east side are all cliffs. When I say shallow water, I'm talking in some places over a mile deep. Chinese ships can't get close without WWII-style Higgins boats, that they don't have (or boats to launch them from).aTmAg said:All that matters for this discussion is China THINKING they could. Enough to try at least. If they obliterate Taiwan in the process, then it doesn't matter for us, as we are just as screwed anyway.BlueSmoke said:
How exactly is China going to invade Taiwan? It's 100 miles from the mainland, with a Navy bereft of any amphibious assault experience on a target that it MUST keep intact. China would have to coordinate air, sea, & land forces as well as cyber and electronic warfare systems. Something they've never done before. Then you have to time it. Think the English Channel with worse weather.
China needs the chip manufacturing as much as we do. It's not just the fab sites, it's the intellectual library of people who run them. Think Operation Paperclip after WWII. They are attacking a target that has spend decades preparing for this very thing, supported by one the largest Navies in the world. Even if the US sat it out, which they would not, Taiwan has the capability with their air force and long range ship attack capabilities to make this all but impossible without China having to resort to what Russia is doing now leveling everything (which them defeats the purpose)
Right now, WE are the primary reason they don't try. If Biden let Putin run over Ukraine and then said something stupid (again) like his "minor incursion" comment regarding Taiwan, then the Chinese might try.
Taiwan has been prepping for decades. It would be like Okinawa on steroids, minus an actual Navy that could land the troops. It's fortified like the Atlantic Wall in most places and when they see Chinese troops massing to the East, they'd mine every inch of coastline. Assuming they did land, now the rest of the island are mountains and forests. It'd be a meatgrinder for both sides.
The only way I can see them taking the island is to bomb it into submission, which then destroys all the fabrication plants the rest of the world uses for all their technology chips.
The only play I see is a naval blockade of some kind. They can't in, but nothing can come out - putting global pressure on the tech markets to come to some resolution without destroying the fab plants themselves or the people that run them.
Nobody cares. Work Harder
2:29p, 4/24/24
In reply to i is smart
I'm not saying I support this invasion or Russia, but you have to look upstream at the cascading events that got us here and what we did to exacerbate the war, not stop it. Make no mistake, we WANT this proxy war.
Yep. We almost initiated nuclear war over Cuba, this would be like Russia/China infiltrating Mexico and bringing them into their fold. We'd go bat-crap crazy as well.i is smart said:BlueSmoke said:
I never got this idea that Russia isn't going to stop with Ukraine. It's always been the reddest or redlines to Russia. Going back centuries, it's always been an attack vector on their mainland.
If I remember correctly, you could even argue over a millennium dating back to the Rus Vikings in Ukraine.
I'm not saying I support this invasion or Russia, but you have to look upstream at the cascading events that got us here and what we did to exacerbate the war, not stop it. Make no mistake, we WANT this proxy war.
Nobody cares. Work Harder
2:39p, 4/24/24
In reply to Logos Stick
Well they had them in 1992 and we convinced them to give them to Russia in exchange for security guarantees...
Logos Stick said:
We should sell nukes to Ukraine.
Well they had them in 1992 and we convinced them to give them to Russia in exchange for security guarantees...
2:40p, 4/24/24
In reply to aTmAg
The national debt thing is real for sure but at the same time, you mention the scale. Any actual critical thinking person who understands math and how logistics/tech work knows that ~$115B over about 5 years in these types of war efforts is such a bargain, it is actually kinda insane. This is not what is going to break America, not even f'ing close.
That money also goes further to actually strengthen our middle class than most of the other budget. Our middle class is the one who largely makes up the MIC and adjacent industries. I am not talking about greedy CEOs. Those exist everywhere. But the highly skilled technical workers and the brains behind the products themselves. There is more than one person here on TexAgs itself who will receive some of that $115B in their own paychecks. Love it or hate it, there is no denying that our MIC is a MASSIVE driver in our economy and R/D sector which the entire world benefits from. Which goes to answer your second con. The complexity of some of todays weapons system is far, far more than 70's level tech. And the cost comes from paying for the brains and manufacturing capabilities to make those weapons. The one thing I truly believe in that is also unquantifiable, is that America's military is absolutely going to be in a better spot because of this money and the lessons and tech developed from it. This money will save American war fighter lives in the future, I am sure of that. Another unquantifiable thing I know of, is that this war has truly shown the way of the future and we have since already stopped sinking money in more than one area that has shown to be on the way out. This war in Ukraine was a slap in the face to some procurement people here and we will be better for it in the future.
It's honestly refreshing to see at least one person here is still asking honest questions. Most of us chose our sides long ago and our actions either are fight among ourselves or step away from the conversation. The latter of which is what I did till I saw this. Last thing I will mention is the bolded. I approve of our aid but I cannot stand the extremely slow dribbling in of both numbers and tech level. Political games for sure going on there and it is honestly infuriating in it's wastefulness and short sightedness. Won't even try to defend that one.
I am one of those who supports our efforts in Ukraine.aTmAg said:
Cons:
1) Biden is corrupt as hell, and I wouldn't be surprised if his support is basically hush money to ensure that Ukraine doesn't expose all of this schemes.
2) We are in massive national debt. Reagan spend $3B in Afghanistan to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan. That was when the Soviets were still a superpower. That is $7-$12 billion in today dollars (depending if that figure was in 1980's dollars or 1989 dollars). Biden has spent ~$75B so far in Ukraine (in less time) and Russia is a shadow of their former selves. So what gives? Reagan did stuff like only provide stingers in exchange for empty stinger tubes. To ensure that they were actually used in war and not stockpiled. Is Biden just blindly shipping them stuff?
In short, I think we need to win this fast. Don't drag it out for 10 years. Do it the Reagan way and ensure victory as fast as possible. We need to cut spending elsewhere (like entitlements) to pay for it. And before anybody says nonsense about the "military industrial complex", I think we should not give them any F-35s.
The national debt thing is real for sure but at the same time, you mention the scale. Any actual critical thinking person who understands math and how logistics/tech work knows that ~$115B over about 5 years in these types of war efforts is such a bargain, it is actually kinda insane. This is not what is going to break America, not even f'ing close.
That money also goes further to actually strengthen our middle class than most of the other budget. Our middle class is the one who largely makes up the MIC and adjacent industries. I am not talking about greedy CEOs. Those exist everywhere. But the highly skilled technical workers and the brains behind the products themselves. There is more than one person here on TexAgs itself who will receive some of that $115B in their own paychecks. Love it or hate it, there is no denying that our MIC is a MASSIVE driver in our economy and R/D sector which the entire world benefits from. Which goes to answer your second con. The complexity of some of todays weapons system is far, far more than 70's level tech. And the cost comes from paying for the brains and manufacturing capabilities to make those weapons. The one thing I truly believe in that is also unquantifiable, is that America's military is absolutely going to be in a better spot because of this money and the lessons and tech developed from it. This money will save American war fighter lives in the future, I am sure of that. Another unquantifiable thing I know of, is that this war has truly shown the way of the future and we have since already stopped sinking money in more than one area that has shown to be on the way out. This war in Ukraine was a slap in the face to some procurement people here and we will be better for it in the future.
It's honestly refreshing to see at least one person here is still asking honest questions. Most of us chose our sides long ago and our actions either are fight among ourselves or step away from the conversation. The latter of which is what I did till I saw this. Last thing I will mention is the bolded. I approve of our aid but I cannot stand the extremely slow dribbling in of both numbers and tech level. Political games for sure going on there and it is honestly infuriating in it's wastefulness and short sightedness. Won't even try to defend that one.
2:43p, 4/24/24
In reply to Teslag
Ah, one of your favorite fall-back lies, even today, I see. LOL. "Maybe."Teslag said:PlaneCrashGuy said:nortex97 said:PlaneCrashGuy said:Teslag said:PlaneCrashGuy said:Teslag said:PlaneCrashGuy said:Teslag said:PlaneCrashGuy said:
Ukraine will get smaller and Russia will get bigger. I said this very early on. It is and will remain correct.
And Russia goal was for Ukraine to not exist at all. And we stopped that dead in its tracks. Lines will be frozen largely where they are now.
You've been saying this months and the lines keep moving.
They have moved 4 miles in almost 5 months now. It's frozen.
And here we can compare and contrast the difference between fact and narrative.
The proof you're lying is when you contradict yourself.
Do you cheer for 1 yard runs on 3rd and 10? I mean, after all you gained on the play.
I'm starting to think you've legitimately never been right about anything ever.
LOL. probably right. This thread has managed to redeem itself today.
This is great.
And wrong. Remember that same poster told us Ukraine would fall in "two weeks" back in December.
2:57p, 4/24/24
In reply to aTmAg
In short, we can't. So there's that…
aTmAg said:
Cons:
1) Biden is corrupt as hell, and I wouldn't be surprised if his support is basically hush money to ensure that Ukraine doesn't expose all of this schemes.
2) We are in massive national debt. Reagan spend $3B in Afghanistan to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan. That was when the Soviets were still a superpower. That is $7-$12 billion in today dollars (depending if that figure was in 1980's dollars or 1989 dollars). Biden has spent ~$75B so far in Ukraine (in less time) and Russia is a shadow of their former selves. So what gives? Reagan did stuff like only provide stingers in exchange for empty stinger tubes. To ensure that they were actually used in war and not stockpiled. Is Biden just blindly shipping them stuff?
Pros:
1) F Russia. They have been funding our enemies for YEARS getting American soldier killed. They need pay back. Make them think twice about supporting our enemies again. So far, they are up to almost the amount we lost in Vietnam. Not to mention the number that died in other conflicts they supported. I'd be happy with 3X, but not at the expense of fast victory.
2) If we had let Putin waltz into Ukraine unopposed, then he wouldn't have stopped there. Just like he wasn't satisfied with Crimea. He probably would have taken every non-NATO country.
3) We need to make sure China does not try to take Taiwan. That would be a severe blow to our economy and way of life. Even if we just let it happen and didn't engage at all. Maybe our actions in Ukraine so far postponed that? A complete defeat of Russia would probably postpone any action in Taiwan for 50+ years. (assuming no future democrat president projects weakness)
4) None of our troops are fighting. The Ukrainians are doing all the grunt work. While $75B is a lot, it's NOTHING compared to the $2.3T we spent in our war in Afghanistan. And 0 American deaths is WAY better than ~2500 that were killed in Afghanistan. I'd rather all of our conflicts were like this. Yet people are more anxious about this war than the 20 years we fought in Afghanistan. It makes no sense.
5) We have screwed over nearly every ally since Vietnam, and that has made our allies weak in return. We let Saddam wipe out the Kurds, even though the Kurds are the only decent people in the area. If anybody deserves their own country over there, it's them. We screwed over the people who helped us in Afghanistan. We have screwed over Israel (and Biden is starting to do that again now). If we had let Russia roll over Ukraine, then we would have screwed over yet another country that we had promised to help protect (in exchange for them giving up nukes). If we withdraw all our support now, then THAT will be what is remembered by future allies. Not the fact that we blew $75B prior. And it will be remembered as Russian victory and them "standing up" to us and winning.
In short, I think we need to win this fast. Don't drag it out for 10 years. Do it the Reagan way and ensure victory as fast as possible. We need to cut spending elsewhere (like entitlements) to pay for it. And before anybody says nonsense about the "military industrial complex", I think we should not give them any F-35s.
In short, we can't. So there's that…
The flames of the Imperium burn brightly in the hearts of men repulsed by degenerate modernity. Souls aflame with love of goodness, truth, beauty, justice, and order.
3:02p, 4/24/24
In reply to Ragoo
Beyond wall funding, (which I'm 100% for)Trump was able to secure the border by applying laws and directing CBP to follow his policies…….those were very cheap.Ragoo said:you dont think $75,000,000,000 dedicated to the southern border would have made a dent in the influx of people?aTmAg said:
Ukraine is a drop in the bucket compared to all these other problems.
Saving $75B by not funding Ukraine is not going to fix the border, our economy, or our culture.
We need to cut entitlements by TRILLIONS to do that. Which we should absolutely do.
Use Ukraine funding to get concessions from democrats on cutting THAT.
$38,187,372 per linear mile, doesn't secure the southern border?
Liberal rag, here you go. 1/2 the price
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/27/border-wall-texas-cost-rising-trump/#:~:text=In%20an%20October%20update%2C%20the,roughly%20%2420%20million%20a%20mile.
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
3:08p, 4/24/24
Teslag got his (her?) face bashed in so now they are derailing. This is my surprised face.
3:09p, 4/24/24
In reply to Logos Stick
US aid had been exhausted when he made that post.
Logos Stick said:Teslag said:
The internet is forever.
That says without US support.
US aid had been exhausted when he made that post.
3:10p, 4/24/24
In reply to Teslag
Safe. Free. Effective. Your best lie amongst a long list.Teslag said:
The internet is forever.
3:11p, 4/24/24
In reply to BlueSmoke
NATO didn't march anywhere. It's voluntary organization. Why are countries so desperate for proteciton?
BlueSmoke said:El oh el.Teslag said:
And once Ukraine is in NATO we will have permanent peace.
We had peace before NATO keep marching East. We had a chance to broker peace months after the invasion and shut it down.
NATO didn't march anywhere. It's voluntary organization. Why are countries so desperate for proteciton?
3:14p, 4/24/24
In reply to Logos Stick
But he latched onto that one for whatever reason and repeated it 10 dozen times or so, to where he believes I was making some sort of factual definitive assertion and, as with this thread, always perceives himself to be rhetorically tap dancing on people who disagree with him in any way with the repetitions.
It is both funny and sad.
And it was in response to a question about Ukraine remaining a 'viable country.' It likely isn't one now, thanks to the demographic/territorial changes (including losing their mineral rights access East of the Dnieper, and net around half the pre-war population, disproportionately among young adults). And based on their own official's admission (as I linked) they had no plan B, but had to rely on American hand outs. And contained the word 'maybe' which in normal discourse is kinda-sorta considered a big qualifier.Logos Stick said:Teslag said:
The internet is forever.
That says without US support.
But he latched onto that one for whatever reason and repeated it 10 dozen times or so, to where he believes I was making some sort of factual definitive assertion and, as with this thread, always perceives himself to be rhetorically tap dancing on people who disagree with him in any way with the repetitions.
It is both funny and sad.
3:45p, 4/24/24
In reply to BlueSmoke
You are interpreting that animation completely wrong either because you are unaware of the facts or are an ideolog ignoring facts.
Even the previous head of Russia agreed there was no agreement that former Soviet states could not join NATO.
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,"
attributed to philosophers George Santayana and Edmund Burke.
You're still wrong. Those countries petitioned to join the western alliance in order to prevent what is currently happening in Ukraine.BlueSmoke said:richardag said:
BlueSmoke
You said, "NATO has been marching east for decades now,".
That's not correct. The truth is the former Soviet block countries are marching west.
You are interpreting that animation completely wrong either because you are unaware of the facts or are an ideolog ignoring facts.
Even the previous head of Russia agreed there was no agreement that former Soviet states could not join NATO.
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,"
attributed to philosophers George Santayana and Edmund Burke.
The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, the public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt.
People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
-- Cicero, 55 B.C.
People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
-- Cicero, 55 B.C.
3:46p, 4/24/24
In reply to BlueSmoke
Which one of those countries did NATO forcefully take over? Can you think of a reason why countries around Russia would be desperate to join a defensive alliance?
BlueSmoke said:richardag said:
BlueSmoke
You said, "NATO has been marching east for decades now,".
That's not correct. The truth is the former Soviet block countries are marching west.
Which one of those countries did NATO forcefully take over? Can you think of a reason why countries around Russia would be desperate to join a defensive alliance?
3:55p, 4/24/24
In reply to nortex97
For a "non-viable country" Putin sure does seem to want it pretty bad.
Quote:
And it was in response to a question about Ukraine remaining a 'viable country.' It likely isn't one now, thanks to the demographic/territorial changes (including losing their mineral rights access East of the Dnieper
For a "non-viable country" Putin sure does seem to want it pretty bad.
3:58p, 4/24/24
In reply to RebelE Infantry
Didn't you say that the Russians would defeat the Ukranians within weeks/months back when the invasion first happened?RebelE Infantry said:
In short, we can't. So there's that…
4:01p, 4/24/24
In reply to aTmAg
Not sure if he did or not, but many Russian media accounts, both state and mouthpieces, made those remarks. And Simplicious the Thinker, one of the biggest propaganda clowns on X, has been beating the "Ukraine is about to fall" drum since February of 2022.
Yet here we are, and Russia has lost 60% of their gains since April of 2022. Even in the last 5 months, they've only managed a few miles in one tiny little part of the entire front.
aTmAg said:Didn't you say that the Russians would defeat the Ukranians within weeks/months back when the invasion first happened?RebelE Infantry said:
In short, we can't. So there's that…
Not sure if he did or not, but many Russian media accounts, both state and mouthpieces, made those remarks. And Simplicious the Thinker, one of the biggest propaganda clowns on X, has been beating the "Ukraine is about to fall" drum since February of 2022.
Yet here we are, and Russia has lost 60% of their gains since April of 2022. Even in the last 5 months, they've only managed a few miles in one tiny little part of the entire front.
4:05p, 4/24/24
In reply to richardag
As for joining, NATO is a bloated, anachronistic, self-servicing, expansionist organization that long lost any illusions of protection or deterrence. Nations join, ignore spending requirements, and rely on the US and a few other members to do all their dirty work for them. By joining NATO, they can effectively outsource their military and fall in line with US political interests. We know this. That's the point. Further, we also know if you have a modicum of historical perspective, that encroaching on Russian states would only provoke what we are seeing now. Ukraine was always the reddest of red lines and we've known that. Again, if we wanted to end this, we could have with the Munich accords. But we didn't. We want this war.
As for being scared of Russia - If EU nations were truly terrified of Russia attacking, then why the h*ll are they all dependent on Russian O&G for their very survival?
And you obviously know nothing about the history of Russia and Ukraine.richardag said:You're still wrong. Those countries petitioned to join the western alliance in order to prevent what is currently happening in Ukraine.BlueSmoke said:richardag said:
BlueSmoke
You said, "NATO has been marching east for decades now,".
That's not correct. The truth is the former Soviet block countries are marching west.
You are interpreting that animation completely wrong either because you are unaware of the facts or are an ideolog ignoring facts.
Even the previous head of Russia agreed there was no agreement that former Soviet states could not join NATO.
As for joining, NATO is a bloated, anachronistic, self-servicing, expansionist organization that long lost any illusions of protection or deterrence. Nations join, ignore spending requirements, and rely on the US and a few other members to do all their dirty work for them. By joining NATO, they can effectively outsource their military and fall in line with US political interests. We know this. That's the point. Further, we also know if you have a modicum of historical perspective, that encroaching on Russian states would only provoke what we are seeing now. Ukraine was always the reddest of red lines and we've known that. Again, if we wanted to end this, we could have with the Munich accords. But we didn't. We want this war.
As for being scared of Russia - If EU nations were truly terrified of Russia attacking, then why the h*ll are they all dependent on Russian O&G for their very survival?
4:06p, 4/24/24
In reply to BlueSmoke
Ukraine isn't and wasn't a "Russian state". It is a sovereign nation which Russia themselves recognized as such.
Quote:
Further, we also know if you have a modicum of historical perspective, that encroaching on Russian states would only provoke what we are seeing now.
Ukraine isn't and wasn't a "Russian state". It is a sovereign nation which Russia themselves recognized as such.
4:10p, 4/24/24
Countries have the right to ally with whoever they want. The notion that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to join NATO because that would "provoke" Russia is a load of appeasement crap. If such a thing is "provoking" to somebody, then that is reason enough to join an alliance against that somebody. If Russia weren't aggressive a-holes, then they wouldn't be bothered, and Ukraine joining NATO wouldn't be necessary. No to mention that Ukraine would be a bigger asset to NATO than a several countries already in NATO. They've already shown a willingness to fight the Russians harder than America.
4:13p, 4/24/24
In reply to Teslag
You obviously know nothing about the history between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine has their sovereignty, but they are also the front door to Russian land going back thousands of years. It's NATO that has been expansionist, not Russia. Again, we were inches from nuclear war when Russia dared put missiles in Cuba. If Russia or China put bases in Mexico the US would intervene immediately. Going back to the early 90's it's known that any overtures of Ukraine in NATO would be a bridge too far for Russia....and we pushed anyway, knowing what it would spark. Again, we could have stopped this war within the first few months and actively threatened Ukraine with a threat of being cut off if they entertained signing the accords. This is a proxy war that we are loving every minute of and have no intentions to try and assuage.Teslag said:Quote:
Further, we also know if you have a modicum of historical perspective, that encroaching on Russian states would only provoke what we are seeing now.
Ukraine isn't and wasn't a "Russian state". It is a sovereign nation which Russia themselves recognized as such.
4:16p, 4/24/24
In reply to aTmAg
So by this logic is Mexico or Canada joined the prior Warsaw pact, we'd have done nothing? We were on the verge of nuclear war when Cuba was in the mix.
aTmAg said:
Countries have the right to ally with whoever they want. The notion that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to join NATO because that would "provoke" Russia is a load of appeasement crap. If such a thing is "provoking" to somebody, then that is reason enough to join an alliance against that somebody. If Russia weren't aggressive a-holes, then they wouldn't be bothered, and Ukraine joining NATO wouldn't be necessary. No to mention that Ukraine would be a bigger asset to NATO than a several countries already in NATO. They've already shown a willingness to fight the Russians harder than America.
So by this logic is Mexico or Canada joined the prior Warsaw pact, we'd have done nothing? We were on the verge of nuclear war when Cuba was in the mix.
4:20p, 4/24/24
In reply to BlueSmoke
Every sovereign nation has the right to ally with however the hell they want. The notion that Russia should have a say in who Ukraine allies with is total BS.
History prior to independence is irrelevant. Just like the British invasion of America in 1812 was an abomination, so is Russia's invasion of Ukraine today. And we were British colonies for hundreds of years.BlueSmoke said:You obviously know nothing about the history between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine has their sovereignty, but they are also the front door to Russian land going back thousands of years. It's NATO that has been expansionist, not Russia. Again, we were inches from nuclear war when Russia dared put missiles in Cuba. If Russia or China put bases in Mexico the US would intervene immediately. Going back to the early 90's it's known that any overtures of Ukraine in NATO would be a bridge too far for Russia....and we pushed anyway, knowing what it would spark. Again, we could have stopped this war within the first few months and actively threatened Ukraine with a threat of being cut off if they entertained signing the accords.Teslag said:Quote:
Further, we also know if you have a modicum of historical perspective, that encroaching on Russian states would only provoke what we are seeing now.
Ukraine isn't and wasn't a "Russian state". It is a sovereign nation which Russia themselves recognized as such.
Every sovereign nation has the right to ally with however the hell they want. The notion that Russia should have a say in who Ukraine allies with is total BS.
4:24p, 4/24/24
In reply to aTmAg
So history is irrelevant and the Cuban missile crisis was a massive overreaction on our part?aTmAg said:History prior to independence is irrelevant. Just like the British invasion of America in 1812 was an abomination, so is Russia's invasion of Ukraine today. And we were British colonies for hundreds of years.BlueSmoke said:You obviously know nothing about the history between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine has their sovereignty, but they are also the front door to Russian land going back thousands of years. It's NATO that has been expansionist, not Russia. Again, we were inches from nuclear war when Russia dared put missiles in Cuba. If Russia or China put bases in Mexico the US would intervene immediately. Going back to the early 90's it's known that any overtures of Ukraine in NATO would be a bridge too far for Russia....and we pushed anyway, knowing what it would spark. Again, we could have stopped this war within the first few months and actively threatened Ukraine with a threat of being cut off if they entertained signing the accords.Teslag said:Quote:
Further, we also know if you have a modicum of historical perspective, that encroaching on Russian states would only provoke what we are seeing now.
Ukraine isn't and wasn't a "Russian state". It is a sovereign nation which Russia themselves recognized as such.
Every sovereign nation has the right to ally with however the hell they want. The notion that Russia should have a say in who Ukraine allies with is total BS.
4:24p, 4/24/24
In reply to aTmAg
I think we should give them all of our F-35s and have them fly straight towards Putin's mansion.
4:25p, 4/24/24
In reply to Teslag
What security guarantees?
Teslag said:Logos Stick said:
We should sell nukes to Ukraine.
Well they had them in 1992 and we convinced them to give them to Russia in exchange for security guarantees...
What security guarantees?
4:28p, 4/24/24
In reply to BlueSmoke
And we were in the wrong during the Cuban Missile crisis as we took the first offensive move. Unlike the Pershing 2 missiles that Reagan stationed in West Germany, the Jupiter missiles that JFK put in Turkey took a long time to fuel and therefore could only be used as a strike first weapon. That truly was a provocation and why the Soviets put missiles in Cuba.
If we were threatening to invade Mexico and Canada, then YES, they would have every reason to join an alliance against us.BlueSmoke said:aTmAg said:
Countries have the right to ally with whoever they want. The notion that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to join NATO because that would "provoke" Russia is a load of appeasement crap. If such a thing is "provoking" to somebody, then that is reason enough to join an alliance against that somebody. If Russia weren't aggressive a-holes, then they wouldn't be bothered, and Ukraine joining NATO wouldn't be necessary. No to mention that Ukraine would be a bigger asset to NATO than a several countries already in NATO. They've already shown a willingness to fight the Russians harder than America.
So by this logic is Mexico or Canada joined the prior Warsaw pact, we'd have done nothing? We were on the verge of nuclear war when Cuba was in the mix.
And we were in the wrong during the Cuban Missile crisis as we took the first offensive move. Unlike the Pershing 2 missiles that Reagan stationed in West Germany, the Jupiter missiles that JFK put in Turkey took a long time to fuel and therefore could only be used as a strike first weapon. That truly was a provocation and why the Soviets put missiles in Cuba.