The Nazi Streets of Ukraine

—These were rhetorical questions with very obvious answers:

1.) How does this war make me wealthier, more free, or safer?

*** It does not, in any respect. The average American is PAYING for this in terms of higher inflation. The average American is LESS safe today. May it be from an unlikely nuclear war (even if unlikely it is more probable today than before) and definitely in the form of our people and service members abroad being in the crosshairs as well as more lethal arms getting into the hands of our threats.

2.) Name me the US national security interest (not some made up boogieman threat) served, or the alliance/treaty we had with Ukraine that required our involvement?

*** There wasn’t one. Not one. Unlike NATO members or Israel with who we have three (3) different security agreements, with Ukraine it’s fluff. Funny how folks say we made no formal agreement/promise with the Russians about NATO East expansion but then mention something like you do as an argument that we made a promise to Ukraine.

3.) Is Ukraine better off today because of this? How has Ukraine benefited?

*** Ukraine is WORSE off in every respect. Ukraine today is economically a basket case (27% inflation, 37% GDP contraction), its military can’t find bodies anymore to stuff into uniforms, it’s in political turmoil, facing a near certain demographic disaster (population in Ukraine went from 41 to 28 million and a birthrate of 1.16), they lost their most important industrial area and 18% of their landmass, EU membership you can kiss goodbye (and that was well in reach before the war), they have thousands of invalids, a damaged infrastructure and massive debt that they will have no foreseeable way to service.

4.) Was this war not probable in that it would happen and predictable in outcome, but worst of all preventable?

*** Yes, yes, and yes. It was probable (high risk), it was predictable (everyone knew what the Russians would go for, the Eastern ethnic Russian areas), and it was preventable (simple pull NATO for Ukraine off the table).

*** We were the ones calling the shots and Russia was reacting to us, not the other way around. A time-line would help in this case. It was this act which caused a war: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

It was after we did this, that Russia began mobilizing and moving forces to the Ukraine border, then they began conducting live fire exercises, and finally invaded. For 3 months they pleaded their case and attempted to have us back off. Not only did we not back off, we basically stone-walled them (gave them the middle finger). And the double standard is astonishing: when it’s us we apply a different standard may that be Grenada or the Cuban Missile Crisis historically. May it be in the Solomon Islands today where we push nations around that want to make a deal with the Chinese some 6,000+ miles from our most South West continental border. Because when it’s us the entire Pacific Rim is our “sphere of influence” and dare someone try to go there who we don’t want playing there.

—Regards the Baltic States:

Russia was not happy about Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia in 2004 and they did express their discontent, but at that time relations between the US and Russia were still favorable. Also, landlocked, smaller, with a smaller GDP and infrastructure, not posing the same sort of threat to Russia’s nuclear deterrent capabilities, these Baltic states do not pose the same sort of security threat Ukraine would if it were in NATO unconditionally. Missile defense wasn’t as far along as it was today, and geographic location plays a role here as well. Caveat: we were the ones to withdraw from the Ballistic Missile Treaty: https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/trty/101888.htm

However, when we again tried to pull the same crap in the Republic of Georgia 2008, Russia blocked us. That is what that invasion was about. That also foretold what would happen in Ukraine. Russia wasn’t playing anymore.

—Regards limited war:

Russia is NOT throwing into this war all they have. Much of the big stuff even conventionally is NOT coming to use: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/bombs.htm Occasionally the Russians will drop a FAB500 (~1000 lbs conventional bomb). They are not plastering Kiev like we did Hanoi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aShr8VCCAOM (Great video of the Christmas bombings). IMHO, Russia as we do in conflicts, has made limited use of some of their new toys “testing it” essentially, but that is of limited use. If you look at a live map where folks report, you see it’s mostly along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area: https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/2-november-at-kherson-direction-russian-army-shelled-antonivka Aircraft like the TU 95 and 160 are not seeing use, many obvious targets that would have a great value that are in western Ukraine are not being hit, and planes like the TU160 and 95 aren’t flying. Yes, a very limited war.

—Regards the defensive NATO and our altruistic motivations:

NATO, you mean the organization which ATTACKED Libya, as in offensive operations without them threatening us in any way?

You mean that NORTH ATLANTIC organization that’s in Africa, Middle East and the Caucasus?

Question, who did Serbia (also aligned with the Russians) threaten in the US, or elsewhere in Europe? Answer: No one. NATO essentially using that “humanitarian” BS argument offensively struck out at them because a bunch of NATO members wanted that.

Is this the NATO you’re talking about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug2468hDl6E

If you were Russian, and someone invaded your ally Syria, where you have navy and air base since 1970, because they once again claimed “human rights” were the cause, you wouldn’t have a problem with that, right? BTW, just coincidentally, Syria is a major oil producer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war (of course for human rights)

If a nation that is aligned with you has a coup sponsored by the US, as in Venezuela, that wouldn’t be a concern, right? BTW, Venezuela is a major oil producer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020)

If another nation aligned to you were attacked, as Libya was, you of course wouldn’t have a problem with that, right? BTW, Libya is a major oil producer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

If that same nation took over another aligned nation of yours in 2003, Iraq. BTW an oil producer you’d be OK with that because of course it’s to protect the world from WMD, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

YOU TELL ME!!! If you’re Russia and there is some country out there which is going into Venezuela, Libya, Iraq and Syria, all aligned and one a formal ally with you; tried to take control of the Republic of Georgia; ignored a promise of no NATO East expansion; withdrew from the Ballistic Missile Treaty; is stationing troops all along your border in bases it tries to keep low key (calls them NATO bases, not US); ignored MINSK which was an attempt to de-escalate the Ukraine crisis (and refused to be part of it); and now wants to set up shop in Ukraine, do you let them?

If this were a board game like RISK (but broken down by nations) and you had Russia, what would you do? If the other player said “sovereignty, human rights, democracy, WMD” would you just let them take over whatever areas on the board they want?

Mr. Putin is Russian. He knows he’s Russian, and he knows what team he’s playing for (other than himself). There is no fault in his nationalism. We simply took things to far. We have been pushing this bear into a corner and now act surprised when he shows us his teeth.

—Slogan vs. argument.

Nazi is no argument.

Nor is democracy, sovereignty, human rights, or even WMD.

These are cheap slogans to rally the masses around. The masses are generally poorly informed and not even interested. They want a quick explanation of 2 minutes where they are spoon fed who the good and bad guys are so that they know what T-shit, flag and hat to buy (no different than if it were a sports team).

If any of this junk were important, you wouldn’t have the US giving the PRC most favored trade status and pushing for WTO membership as tanks drive over pro-democracy students on Tienanmen Square. We wouldn’t have Saudi Arabia and Jordan as buddies who we prop up... Look, I do not disagree with Israel and their actions in Gaza (I’m not the one using these faux arguments), but what they are doing is pretty brutal and the same US politicians that tear their mouth open about Russia in Ukraine give them a literal blank check!!!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgKhjvXGMa8 These are just fake arguments that are used when convenient but they are seldom the true driving force behind any of our policies.

I can see you are passionate about this, and we are not going to agree.

Is Russia better off taking these actions?

Not saying US actions in the past were proper or even necessary , being in gulf 1 and 2, iraq and Afghanistan I saw the results.

Cuban missile crisis, a bit of a different time (we will crush you), but point taken

So two wrongs make a right?

Georgia moves towards west Russia invades levels cities
Chechnya makes moves Russia invades and levels cities

Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia make moves and russia does nothing, basically because they can’t at that time.

After decades of trade, commercial cooperation, and consolidation of power and increased wealth, Ukraine makes moves Russia invades and levels cities

I am not saying that in putin’s mind he felt threatened, I am sure he did, that is the Russian mindset(disregard all the invasions they have done in the past and focus only on being invaded), but that is only part of the equation. Putin himself in speeches and written words has made his position on Ukraine or better there is no such thing as Ukraine or Ukrainians quite clear. In speeches and written words he has lamented the fall of the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact and the power and influence it had and wanted it back. That point is quite clear.

Yes NATO expansion threatens that desire and dream of his, with Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia in NATO, despite words of some them and even now, putin knew he did not have the power to take those territories back by force, but Ukraine was still a possibility.

So in a sense Ukraine joining EU and NATO was a threat, but not to Russia, but to Putin’s dreams, and those dreams were fading fast as is his time to secure his legacy ( not a conspiracy theory about his health, just father time’s clock ticking for us all), so Putin acted.

NATO is an organization countries are free to join and leave. Finland and Sweden are two good examples of countries massively against joining NATO, but had sudden massive change of opinion(trying to put my finger on just why, could it be the aggressive nature of someone, drawing a blank), but for decades with NATO countries on Russias borders there was no NATO invasion.

In fact, Russia thrived(well some more than others as is the way of the world), trade and commerce expanded, Hilary reset button….., and if the plan was for NATO to invade after the key linch pin of Ukraine joining NATO, for the most part, had an interesting way of showing it.

Most European members were cutting the size of their militaries and military budgets, military industrial base was in massive decline(supplying Ukraine is exhibit one), investing in Russia both for energy and commerce was happening and increasing

Lastly to your point that Russia is holding back ie not carpet bombing. I will respectfully disagree that they did this out of some kind generosity.

They do not have the capacity or capabilities to do that and has never been part of their doctrine. Their bomber fleet(if you want to call it that) is not that large, and loses suffered initially and since show that loses to that “fleet” would have been substantial and left Russia with little or no strategic bomber capability. With that said, Israel has no such problem, and though the media likes to play up the bombings by Israel as excessive, they certainly are not and if Israel wanted to bomb Gaza to the Stone Age they could. When Hamas has made it a national pastime of placing their assets in and under schools, hospitals, and “refugee” camps, as is planned, Israel has no choice. Attacking world supply of grain in Odessa is mot quite the same.

So end of early morning rant,got lots to do today. Be safe

The Ukrainians were already heading towards EU membership and that would have happened since it does NOT pose a direct military threat to Russia (Russia would have went along with that). You’re using the same tactic Biden is regards trying to convolute Ukraine with Israel. NATO and EU membership are different, one poses a military threat to Russia, the other one doesn’t. One is an Economic agreement the other a military. Ironically, this war wiped any chance Ukraine had for the EU from the table.

You are correct, Russia has a small strategic bomber fleet, but they also have other conventionally capable strategic type systems (ground and sea based as well as tactical fighter bombers comparable to our F15: SU 30/32/34/35) that are also nuclear capable and which can be used for strategic attack or interdiction. Don’t get hung up on the strategic bombers as they are merely an example of an entire genre of weapon systems not coming to use in Ukraine. Russia can definitely reach into Ukraine but they have only done so to a limited degree. My point with the bombers is that they are not bulldozing Ukraine, which they could and systems that are devoted to strategic attack or even air interdiction are only seeing limited use, nuclear not at all.

In fact, while the Russians have a limited conventional force when it comes to major theater war, they made sure to preserve their strategic nuclear capabilities as this is their last and only ace in the hole when things get really bad. If things deteriorated to the point to where the US and Russia go at it, they would be able to reach out and touch us, even here in the US: https://russianforces.org/missiles/

Even older TU95 bombers can be productive since as our B52 (also only viable in a permissive environment) they can operate in a low threat environment while the TU160 goes for the higher threat areas. Likewise, just as we do, with standoff weapons (one example: cruise missiles) these platforms can stay out of the range of threat air defense systems but still hit deep targets.

This again is a contradiction that’s obvious, we want to pretend Russia is this huge threat, puff them up as some boogieman, when in reality we know they have a whopping 66 strategic bombers, 1 mini carrier... Can they hurt us? Yes. But are they even a near peer regards their conventional forces and capabilities? Barely.

Are their strategic capabilities equal to ours? No. For example, Russia has 66 strategic bombers, the US has 20 B2’s, 57 B52s, and 45 B1’s for a total of 122, not quite double of what Russia has. Russia has one (1) carrier that is comparable to our LHA which we have (6) six of and carry Marines in. They have nothing comparable to our eleven (11) super carriers. Don’t get fixated on the bombers per say, it’s just an example you will see in near all aspects except for the number of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles. Russia, because they can’t afford what we can (How we do it has much more flexibility and is more survivable) is doing it on the cheap with ground based missiles which they try to make mobile etc. to keep them alive at least long enough to send the missiles our way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj9egxTytos

You use the argument everyone does when they want to downplay altruism (i.e. eliminate anything positive from someone), and using that logic mother Theresa was a heartless bitch just trying to buy her ticket to heaven. No one does anything good or nice except for selfish reasons if you really want to get down to it, using this reasoning (and maybe it’s true, but then you need to apply that reasoning to everyone). It’s rhetorical, not factual. Fact is, Russia COULD blow Ukraine to pieces, they have not. Whatever reason, it does not matter, and their reasons are just as valid as ours, they have shown a great deal of restraint may it be with American mercenaries they could have executed and are not, prisoners and exchanges, allowing for temporary ceasefires, or the highly limited use of large area destructive weapon systems (nuclear or conventional).

IMHO, the reason for this is that Russia sees Ukraine as related, and indeed they are: both are related to the Rus and Slavic. Many Ukrainians live in Russia, many Russians live in Ukraine. Many Russians and Ukrainians are married to someone or have children from someone of the other nation. About 20% of the population in Ukraine is ethnic Russian. They were major trade partners right up until the war and have been through most of recorded history. Realize up until we took over in 2014, Russia was Ukraine’s big brother. There is IMHO both an economic as well a cultural reason why Russia doesn’t just pound Ukraine into the ground, and that they surely could have. It is in fact EASIER to just bulldoze than to surgically go in and play the limited war game.

Nations act in their best interests. Russia is no different. To that end, (1) No major power wants another stepping into their sphere of influence and/or (2) playing on their border.

That is true for the US, the new player on the playground the PRC, and our old foe Russia which is at this point trying to cling to their sphere of influence as we peel their fingers from these places one at a time (but only the ones with an economic value to us, for freedom, democracy, human rights and sovereignty, of course). This is a how in modern times one empire gobbles up another.

You mention Khrushchev and his “We will bury you” comment. In context, it wasn’t as big of a deal as made out to be, why? This guy was a true simpleton, literally not capable of nuance and persuasion. The Soviet Union wanted to be taken serious, to be noticed, so what would a poorly educated modern inner city gang leader do? He talks smack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnkhDANo5rY (Yo, we will bury you - add a Latino or Ebonics accent and gun held sideways pointing at you). Khrushchev also took his shoe off and banged it on a table at the UN... Theatrics. Part of negotiating is making your opponent afraid of you. The Russians were a threat, no doubt: they were expansionist, willing to use their military, and at that time with the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union they had a formidable military (the ability). But some of this was also show and today the Russians no longer have this formidable military.

Look at Lindsey Graham today. He’s calling for the violent over throw of Putin, supports his assignation... This is the same sort of crap as Khrushchev, only from our side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w3QZl7no3g This is no different than “we will bury you” or banging a shoe on a table. But when we do it, it’s somehow different and justified, like it always is when it’s us.

Russia is an empire in decline. It is precisely because they are smaller and weaker, that (((we))) have become aggressive, pushing them around. We would never dare do to the PRC today what we’re doing to Russia. With the PRC, may it be Taiwan or the Spratly Islands, we are a lot less forceful.

We are basically stripping Russia of what is theirs historically, taking over one frontier and border nation after another, but only with those that offer us an economic value. As we invade countries, attack them, we talk about democracy, freedom, human rights, WMD and sovereignty. Funny-

*** If the West is going to purge all Russian influence in Ukraine, and 2014 was the tipping point (Maiden is when we took over), then Russia is going to want that piece of the pie that they see as theirs (the ethnic Russian areas and what they helped build up in the Soviet era).

Between our NGO’s, State Department, CIA, media, big tech, corporate-political coordination, NSA, foreign and military aid, we eventually managed to make Ukraine ours. So obvious is this that US oligarchs like Soros and politicians didn’t even hide this fact and they bragged about it until recent! You had Nuland and the US ambassador literally hand picking who rises to power in Ukraine: https://www.france24.com/en/20140207-ukraine-usa-eu-nuland-leaked-audio You have a US VP ordering Ukraine to fire a senior prosecutor who was unfavorable for the Biden’s, and Ukraine did: https://oversight.house.gov/timeline/ukraine-11/biden-firing-ukraine-prosecutor-clip/ (Biden bragged about it!!!) Do you realize a US financial institution JPMC (https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/ukraines-creditors-agree-two-year-payment-freeze-almost-20-billion-international-2022-08-10/) and Blackrock asset management (https://astutenews.com/2023/07/ukraine-falls-into-the-hands-of-blackrock/) basically control Ukraine’s finances and that Ukraine is massively in debt to guess who?

This is a country essentially under a US bank and asset holding company’s control, where we pick who’s in power, a nation that survives on the teat of our intel, weapons and money, and we talk about “sovereignty.”

*** What difference does it make if Ukraine is our cuckhold vs. Russia’s? In terms of their “sovereignty” do you think they are any more free today, as we dictate what they do, when, how, and where? Even look at the war, at the top most levels, we tell them what to do.

If peace and sovereignty had ever been what we pursue in Ukraine, then we should have jumped on board with MINSK which was all about purging foreign military presence (mercenaries, weapons, advisors in Ukraine - de-escalation), but what would that have done to our influence?

*** Ukraine has been in the Russians sphere of influence “forever.” We are the new guy. Ukraine borders them and if it were the other way around and the PRC were talking about making a military alliance and possible stationing troops in Mexico, we would blow a gasket. Yes, we would overthrow the government in Mexico if need be to prevent such. We have been stepping all over the Russians, may that be in Lithuania, Estonia, Republic of Georgia, Ukraine, Latvia, Venezuela, Syria, Libya and Iraq. We can pretend as if this is all OK because we’re such nice guys and our motives are all legit, but no matter what rhetorical technique we try to use the (((FACT))) remains that we are invading Russia’s sphere of influence, not them ours (we’re the one pushing).

We’re the big guy today. I’m sure our policy makers know this, but the average Joe doesn’t. It’s not Russia pushing us around, it’s us pushing them around. The times have changed and it’s a hard pill to swallow that maybe we’re not always the “good guy:” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLmuF-0P4tk

Just be careful what you ask for. Imagine if Russia, a nuclear power destabilizes in some coup. They’re a nuclear power and in that one aspect a peer.

Nice reply/ post
Though I have a different opinion on many of your points, I seriously appreciate not being called an idiot, global homo leftist… and should leave FR because apparently I don’t adhere to the “accepted” and apparently to the youcranie types “conservative “ values. “Shut up and go away types”. To me FR is a place to debate and discuss issues, not so much anymore for some. So thanks.

Also appreciate your clarification on RED6, not that it matters but went Star Wars direction

Let me start with nuclear points.
Yes russia has maintained the nuclear option, frankly if they go nuclear, not saying they won’t, for Putin this has become a do or die war, but if he does it is over for Russia and his dreams of an expanded empire. All other ramifications of going nuclear to the rest of the world hold, but allowing a nation/person to use thread of nuclear option as let me do what I want or else also has ramifications. Iran, NK, China…

Air Forces, first believe B-52 numbers are more in the 70s, small point. I have serious questions about mission readiness of the Russian fleet, but no hard facts, but with that said, I don’t think capacity and capabilities are even close, and Russia has not gone “all in” because that would be the end of at least the capability side of that part of their deterrence
Their 5th gen, is not, and air powe is not limited to US, the rest of NATO is quite capable esp Sweden
Navy , one small carrier, are you referring to dry dock queen , smoking accident, tug boat following .. carrier? If so don’t think it counts, if there is another let me know

Historically theirs? Guess that depends how far one goes back, and under what conditions they became “theirs”

Prior to sept 39. Poland wasn’t “theirs” nor was Lithuania,Latvia or Estonia till they invaded them in the early 40s(still allied with Nazi germany at that point if I am correct), that “brotherhood” ended with invasion and occupation, a bit familiar tactic. Ask the poles, Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians as well as Crimean tatars about the “historically theirs” concept, suspect you might get a seriously different take.

Let’s talk Ukraine, the millions starved to death by Stalin, well maybe not them because their dead, but perhaps those who remember, what they think of the historically theirs as well and the brotherhood you speak of.

To your point about percent Russian, that point to me is a false one, decades of occupation and control the Russians do and did what they always do, move their people in and remove by various means(i will be polite here) many of the indigenous people, ask the tatars, hell even Russian state sponsored “commercials” have Russian soldiers in foxholes discussing where they are going to live in Ukraine after the war.
That kind of talk is akin to saying white European population in US is a historical thing, and the Indians are our brothers, Indians have a different view I suspect.

Borders change, sovereignty changes, going back to a time that suits your narrative as Putin has, does not make it right.

Yes Khrushchev (am I the only one who sees crush in his name, lol) may have been an idiot(sadly we have our own) but he was soviets leader and his words and actions have meaning, not saying Putin is an idiot though not one who thinks he is particularly bright, a thug yes, a brute yes, a dictator, yes and like Khrushchev his words and actions have consequences.

Bottom line for me, regardless of “historical or sphere of influence” claims, Ukraine was and is a sovereign nation. Putin took his shot for his legacy and now we have the repercussions. Letting him have Ukraine because of claims you have stated above does not wash with me. We will disagree and that is fine

As Mongo said we are all just pawns

Take care, got to go help put metal roof and siding on for a friend

If you’re going to war:

1. (The moral argument) Make sure you have the moral high ground:

Attempt to have some sort of “just war” concept on your side. Meaning, it’s a defensive war where you can make an argument for the use of force for your own safety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

a.) Regards Ukraine, we do NOT have such just war argument and it’s a far stretch pretending Russia is on a world conquest or trying to rebuild the Soviet Empire all while we are kicking them from their turf all around the world, building bases all along their border, and have a military numerical advantage in literally every aspect except the number of nuclear warheads.

b.) Ukraine was/is a civil war. We chose sides and armed them, i.e. the nationalists in the West. Neither side in this conflict is without fault, only we chose that side which is pro-West and the US, and can be used to advance our Geo-political and economic interests.

c.) The Minsk agreement was all about de-escalation and we refused to sign and abide by this, making us a major contributor to this conflict. But in addition to this, we also withdrew from the Ballistic Missile Treaty AND had been expanding NATO East despite what the Russians perceive as a promise not to do such: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today A good article that tells how the Russians see it.

***Putting someone into a position where they feel threatened, and then hiding behind BS like “sovereignty, democracy, and human rights” isn’t a moral cause.

We do not care about sovereignty, democracy or human rights. We overthrow real democratic governments we don’t like as in Chile (got in the way of economic interests) and install a dictator, Pinoche. These are vapid slogans we pull from our @ss (when convenient) to make people feel good about the idea of a war.

All of these feel good arguments are BS. We do not care about the use of incendiary or cluster munitions, we use them. We don’t care about mine use and have them all along the Korean border and used them prolifically in Vietnam. We will stand by Israel even if they flatten Gaza, but are very concerned about the collateral damage in Ukraine by the Russians... Just like our false justification for war, WMD (Iraq), oh wait today it’s “sovereignty,” all of this nonsense about the illegality of some action and calling someone a war criminal, or lamenting the horror of a war pointing out the collateral damage, it’s all junk. We contradict ourselves not only historically, but even present day as we poop on another nations sovereignty because they want to host a PRC base which would economically help them (Salomon Islands), prop up despots (Saudi Arabia, Jordan), practice apologetics for a single party communist regime which are our #1 trade partner (PRC), and back some folks that are responsible for some of the worst human rights violations imaginable (radical Islamist types we helped in Syria not to long ago - because they were fighting the Assad regime). It’s just junk-

2. (The functional argument) which can best be viewed in terms of Risk and return on Investment ROI.

a.) If you take actions that likely lead to war, you should carefully consider Risk=(probability x magnitude). With Ukraine, both for the Ukrainians and the West, this was a disaster. Ukraine is economically a mess, thousands have died, even more will be left maimed, they are today FAR worse off than before the war in EVERY sense. The US tax payer has paid over 130 billion USD and what is there to show for? A military and political failure, i.e. Russia wins, we lose and that will eventually begin to soak into the public’s consciousness at least a little bit. Risk: The probability of war was very high x the magnitude/consequences would be disastrous. In terms of Risk, this was a stupid move.

b.) Ukraine already enjoyed many of the benefits of NATO informally (exercises, exchanges, etc), could have joined the EU and was a nation that was prospering economically, growing in political influence. The Return was low since they already had most of what you can gain (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement), while the cost was extremely high if a war does happen, so it made no sense in terms of ROI. Ukraine already belonged to the West! The US and Europeans had/have their fingers deep into that government, Ukraine was already a partial EU member, was getting weapons from the US, training, intel... This was a case where having 90% of what you want, wasn’t good enough.

3. (Opinion)

This war was the consequence of a horrible gamble.

For years we had been arming and training Ukraine both in Ukraine and outside. We had allowed mercenaries to come in great numbers who we in a round about pay for with out foreign aid. We had been arming them and providing intel.

***The gamble was: Will Russia simply acquiesce and we get our way?

We made the cost of intervention for the Russians very high, so goes the reasoning, and we can simply steamroll them, knowing they do not agree with NATO East expansion, but “F#$% them.”

Here’s the flip side of it all. Arming Ukraine, training their troops, feeding them intel and money is fine. It made the cost of a true unprovoked war of aggression costly. But that is not what happened. Under Biden, we began to push for unconditional Ukraine NATO membership, fast tracked it, and refused to deal with the Russians on this. At that point these arms, training and intel we provided Ukraine went from being defensive to leverage in what Russia perceived as an offensive act. Having NATO able to base nukes, missile defense, any number of troops and tanks, fighters, ships and bombers in Ukraine is not acceptable for Russia. Everything changed at this point: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

From the Russian perspective, Ukraine in NATO is a threat, and yes that is a valid argument, and no we would not accept that if we were in their shoes, neither historically nor today.

NATO is one of the major ways we’re influential. The Europeans and in particular the big financial institutions and businesses want Ukraine in both the EU and NATO. These organizations provide the policy harmonization and regulatory consistency, market access, as well as physical security which the large financial institutions and corporations desire before they pour money into some place (how they look at risk and ROI). They do not want this happening: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexicos-lopez-obrador-orders-ministry-step-up-lithium-nationalization-2023-02-19/ or this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2021/10/28/mexico-moves-to-re-nationalize-energy-markets—a-return-to-1938/

We, Europe and Ukraine wanted this, BUT this impacts Russia and we chose to ignore that, hiding behind silly slogans like “sovereignty.”

Of course it matters if someone is impacted by the decisions of another. This entire “sovereignty” emotional word association junk is idiotic and does not make sense unless you look no further than the feeling/mood which that word is supposed to convey but in a vacuum of actual context of what is happening. What do you think would happen if Sudan restricts the Nile? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53494604 You will have war. And no one will fault Egypt for this because it’s obvious that Sudan’s sovereignty does not mean they can do as they please regardless of how that impacts their neighbor. That’s exactly what we did. We were expanding NATO into Ukraine and gave Russia the middle finger.

This was a war which was predictable in that it would happen and in terms of what the outcome would be. Worse yet, it was a war that was entirely preventable and where the risk and ROI never made sense.

We didn’t slow walk anything. We had SF training their folks at the same time the Euro’s were drafting the Minsk agreement. We were sending them weapons already in 2014, and then we stepped that up in October 2021 when we decided that we’re going to force the issue with NATO which we were also fast tracking. That is why things went fairly quick after October 2021. The Russians didn’t have a big window.

It doesn’t matter that Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are in NATO. The Russians didn’t agree with that either and voiced their opinion even back then. ONLY US-Russian relations were different back then (more positive) and that was the first time we pulled that trick in 2004. Already in 2008 when we attempted to do the exact same thing again in the Republic of Georgia, Russia blocked us.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-60645720111121

You are absolutely correct in that two wrongs don’t make a right. But when someone is continuously wrong that may be an indicator of whether you should trust them in the future and what their MO is. When you hear this nonsense “democracy, human rights and sovereignty” being used by our policy makers, maybe you should ask what the true motivation is, because it’s likely NOT those.

Sometimes, your hand is forced. When OBL killed a lot of folks in his WTC attack, ran to Afghanistan and hid there, and the Taliban refused to hand him over because they like the guy and are mostly sympathetic to his cause, what are we to do? Are we the aggressor? We invaded Afghanistan! Of course we had justification to go after him.

***As we lie about NATO East expansion, cheat on Minsk (albeit we never agreed to it), renege on the Ballistic Missile Treaty, step all over their turf in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Venezuela, bring their border states into a military alliance and base our troops and equipment there (without any conditions or stipulations), —YES— we pretty much are forcing this issue.***

The problem isn’t even Ukraine. The problem is —us.— We need to turn that dial down a little bit or maybe just be more selective with who we push around. It’s OK to push around some Central or South American nation, we do it all the time. But Russia even though no longer a worlds super power and peer in all reality, is still powerful enough to push back and they won’t take our crap. We’re playing with fire and all this pretending that it’s for these altruistic causes or that they are trying to rebuild their Soviet Empire and pose some huge threat is simply put, fantasy.

I’m not even advocating isolationism or non-interventionism, but just like we walk a wide path around the PRC (mainland China), we should respect Russia and not encroach on their space.

Think of it like this: a good neighbor doesn’t jump over the fence and take a big $hit in your yard. He also doesn’t try to play games and move the property line with some trick. Even if you don’t like each other, because you’re both alpha dogs and have competing interests, you smile and say “good morning” and “good evening” and move along without incident. That’s what good neighbors do, even if they don’t like each other.

Good neighbors:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosions-boston-congress/russia-warned-u-s-about-boston-marathon-bomb-suspect-tsarnaev-report-idUSBREA2P02Q20140326 They were sharing intel with us, on a regular bases BTW about possible/potential threats.

https://www.rt.com/russia/manas-kyrgyzstan-american-base/ For 13 years they let us operate from there to support the mission in Afghanistan.

IMHO: We’re the bad neighbor. Our greed (insatiable apatite) has pushed us to do things which are very bad, even though we see ourselves as some savior and protector of freedom, democracy, sovereignty and human rights (at least that’s the junk fed to the masses by our MSM). Russia and us are competitors on the global stage for oil and gas. Russia is disconnected from the West in that you do not have massive Western manufacturing there, nor do they import all that much so you don’t have our oligarchs coming to their defense on any issue, quite the contrary as in Ukraine. They do not have a huge lobbying effort in the US, nor do they own some of the US media, or even engage them, but we do mass censor them (their voice isn’t heard by our people or in government). Finally, many in our most senior levels of government (politics and bureaucracy) had their formative years during the Cold War and much of this perception and even doctrine persists to this day. Meanwhile, Russia has become weak conventionally seen, #6 on the world stage, and we no longer give them any respect.

The conflict in Ukraine was to a large degree a self fulfilling prophesy. Only we have become the aggressor all awhile we try to pretend like they are some huge threat.

We just need to calm down before we create an even bigger problem!

Instead of CREATING more enemies and problems, where there was no need to create such, we should be worried about other threats that are real and imminent that we cannot avoid indefinitely: Middle East (short range / non-existential), PRC (long term / existential).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.