Homesteading Forum banner
81 - 100 of 179 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,802 Posts
The nuke talk is ramping up. Putin says he has nukes and may use them. Biden says that is a dangerous threat. Zelensky says the US should preemptively use nukes if Russia even THINKS about it. We now know Russia and Ukraine negotiators reached an agreement last April to end the war. The agreement said Russia would leave all Ukrainian territory and Ukraine would agree to not join NATO. That was a win for everybody. But, no, Biden sent his incompetent people to meet Boris Johnson and they killed the agreement. So the war continues and rhetoric increases. Biden's advisors want war with Russia solely because they want regime change there. They want Putin out even though whoever would replace him may be even worse. Know this. If nukes start flying. NYC will be gone and millions of lives with it, along with other cities, including DC. But, whoever is left to represent this administration will declare the whole thing Putin's fault.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,467 Posts
Where did you get that Zelensky says to preemptively use nukes? He did say that there was a high probability of Russia using them and that the world needed to more strongly lay out what would happen if he does.

Ukraine had already agreed not to join NATO if Russia left them alone. That didn't work out so well. Russia still attacked them so the US had nothing to do with that agreement.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
Your words:
The US likely could have prevented the war, but Biden didn't even try.
(Again, I don't understand how this is debatable)
Your question.

@Robin "What did Biden do or not do that provoked Putin? I still haven't seen you mention that."​

Look at what you quoted I said and what you asked. I said nothing about Biden provoking Putin. I said Biden could have likely prevented the war.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
Hiro said:

So, to summarize your "thoughts" on the matter. The US provoked Russia to invade Ukraine, but you don't know what the provocation was. The US could have prevented the conflict, but you don't know how.
.................................................................
Ukraine and the West provoked Putin
(That's a very simple statement. Don't read anything into it that I didn't say.)
I did not say provoked Russia TO INVADE UKRAINE.

The US likely could have prevented the war, but Biden didn't even try.
(Again, I don't understand how this is debatable)
I think my answer was clear. Biden could have gotten involved, BUT BIDEN DIDN'T EVEN TRY.

You do remember how long the buildup was and you do remember Biden doing nothing during that time to try to prevent Russia from invading, right?

WASHINGTON —​
A group of Republican U.S. senators called on the Biden administration Wednesday to adopt a tougher response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats to invade Ukraine.​
“Historically, wars are easy to start, and they're hard to finish. That's why this threat of sanctions after the fact is not alone enough to deter (Russian President) Vladimir Putin and to prevent him from invading — further invading Ukraine,” Senator John Cornyn said in a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday.​
“Neither are the promises of financial assistance to the Ukrainians sufficient to deter Putin. And make no mistake about it — our goal on a bipartisan basis should be to stop Putin and to make him think twice about invading Ukraine,” Cornyn continued.​
The group includes Republicans from the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees.​
Three of those members — Kevin Cramer, Roger Wicker and Rob Portman — were part of a bipartisan congressional delegation that traveled to Kyiv to meet with Ukrainian officials this week to reinforce U.S. support for Ukraine and its defensive needs.​
A bipartisan group of senators also met virtually with President Biden Wednesday morning to discuss U.S. policy in Ukraine. In a readout of the meeting released afterward, the White House said, “President Biden commended the strong history of support for Ukraine from both sides of the aisle, and agreed to keep working closely with Congress as the Administration prepares to impose significant consequences in response to further Russian aggression against Ukraine.”​
VOA
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee took to Twitter. “I am very concerned by the weak, incoherent message we just heard from [President Biden] on Ukraine,” he posted.​
“This administration must be clear that ANY Putin move into Ukraine is unacceptable, and we should do more to impose costs on him.”​
Representative Michael McCaul, (R-TX), and the top GOP member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee echoed Inhofe’s feelings on the situation. “President Biden’s remarks on Russia’s buildup near Ukraine tonight were nothing short of a disaster,” he said, adding that the president’s comments gave Russia a green light for a limited invasion.​
1945
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,245 Posts
That has nothing to do with the 2 points I gave.

Ukraine and the West provoked Putin
(That's a very simple statement. Don't read anything into it that I didn't say.)

The US likely could have prevented the war, but Biden didn't even try.
(Again, I don't understand how this is debatable)

I hope you got everything off your chest. Since I didn't discuss any of the points you made, you have no idea what I think about them.

I will refute one point. Ukraine has a west side and an east side. The west side leans toward Europe and the east leans toward Russia. Ukraine had an elected president that tried to play things down the middle but he was overthrown in what was likely a CIA/State Dept sponsored rebellion and a President favorable to the West was installed.
Biden’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan is a large part of the reason for russia invading urkraine in my opinion. It also seems to be serving as a likely test for china to observe. Factor in the condition of Europe’s military and europes reliance on energy from russia and it would seem putin had a likely easy win.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
Biden’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan is a large part of the reason for russia invading urkraine in my opinion. It also seems to be serving as a likely test for china to observe. Factor in the condition of Europe’s military and europes reliance on energy from russia and it would seem putin had a likely easy win.
I agree. Biden is just the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt.

Biden is Talk Loudly and Don't Carry a Stick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,767 Posts
@GunMonkeyIntl I think that number is closer to 54K now. That seems to be the last number I read. There was a Russian document obtained, don't know how vetted it was, but it dealt with the payouts for the Russian casualties in Ukraine. According to the math the number came to over 40K. The LDR/DNR deaths would not be part of those counts. Nor with Wagner be part of those counts.
No doubt it’s higher than 6k. I used that number because that’s the number Putin admits, and even that is HUGE when put in perspective of superpowers in war in the last 40 years.

I tend to believe it’s somewhere closer to that 50k number which, if true, means that Russia is truly on the ropes. That would be 5% of this standing army. Normally, something like 10-15% of a war-posture army is actually frontline fighters. A 5% loss means you’re getting down to mechanics and potato peelers.

That actually jibes with what we’re seeing from Putin. Losing 6,000 troops, seven months into a war that was supposed to last a week, is bad, but not “mobilize 300,000 former soldiers” bad. Losing 50,000 soldiers, in that same short period is exactly “mobilize 300,000 former soldiers” bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,767 Posts
…We now know Russia and Ukraine negotiators reached an agreement last April to end the war. The agreement said Russia would leave all Ukrainian territory and Ukraine would agree to not join NATO. That was a win for everybody. But, no, Biden sent his incompetent people to meet Boris Johnson and they killed the agreement…
You’re mistaken on that. There has not, to anyone’s knowledge, ever been a draft agreement on the table that had Russia pulling out of Ukraine altogether. The draft agreement from April, by reports from both sides, had Russia keeping Donetsk and Luhansk (as well as Crimea).

We don’t know for sure why the talks fell apart but, from Zelenskyy’s side, the reasoning was that they weren’t willing to give up 1/3 of their country, and they had just discovered the atrocities committed by the Russians in liberated territories.

Whether or not Zelenskyy wanted to sign it, the Russians also backed out, with their defense minister quoting that taking Luhansk and Donetsk was “no longer enough”, and that they wanted Kherson and Kharkiv as well.

There’s been a narrative constructed that the west told Zelenskyy what to do, and that may even be, but Russia publicly rejected the talks because, in April, they still thought they could have half the country and weren’t willing to settle for 1/3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #92 ·
I am surprised so many people are either not aware, or deny the US role in Russia's action with Ukraine. It is all out there.

This thread is a perfect example of how well US propaganda works.

The US set up Ukraine to fight a proxy war, We got it. The question now is whether the control burn will get out of control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,767 Posts
I am surprised so many people are either not aware, or deny the US role in Russia's action with Ukraine. It is all out there.

This thread is a perfect example of how well US propaganda works.

The US set up Ukraine to fight a proxy war, We got it. The question now is whether the control burn will get out of control.
I’m aware of the extent (I guess that any of us are) of the US’ meddling in Ukraine, but saying that we set them up for a proxy war is far from plain truth.

Ukraine is a source of strategic power and resources in Eastern Europe, and any country with an active foreign policy would see the value in having them aligned with you rather than your enemy. When the USSR crashed, and was forced to turn loose of its slave states, for economic reasons, the west actively courted alliance with all of them. Was that wrong to do?

Hungary and Poland have become valuable allies in that theatre, and freedom in Eastern Europe is more secure with them being aligned with the west rather than Russia. Maybe even more importantly, Hungary and Poland are much more productive and prosperous than they were under slavery to Russia. Aligning with the west has been good for Hungary and Poland, as well as good for the west. It pissed Russia off, but so what?

The real “meddling” the West did in Ukraine was in two positions/events. In the first, we helped them to come to action to replace a president that Putin had installed through violence and espionage. In the second, the west offered them a better deal on their Black Sea oil holdings than what Russia offered them. At the end of that second event, Russia showed their true colors and simply took the Ukrainian oil.

The west’s actions in Ukraine may have been provocative to Russia, but only in the sense that it’s made it harder for Russia to take Ukraine back onto the plantation. I don’t think we owe any apologies for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #95 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #96 ·
Did we set South Korea up for a proxy war with the Chinese when we helped them to ward off an attempt by the communists to take them over?

Should we feel bad that South Korea doesn’t look more like North Korea today?
Apples and oranges. That is weak Monkey
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,767 Posts
Apples and oranges. That is weak Monkey
Please share the differences you see in the analog.

For similarities: China fomented a pro-communist insurgency in Korea, trying to bring Korea into alignment with China’s political interests. The US, through direct military involvement, bolstered the democratic government in Korea, and fought off the communists.

Russia fomented a pro-Russia insurgency in Ukraine, trying to bring Ukraine into alignment with Russia’s political interests. The US, through financial and materiel support, bolstered the Ukrainian military to fight off the Russian invasion.

The significant difference I see between Korea c. 1950 and Ukraine today is that we’ve stopped short of putting US boots on the ground (at least overtly).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,767 Posts
The apology might come after the nuclear launch. We are playing a very dangerous game.
If Putin, a crazy, dying dictator decides to launch nukes, you would apologize? For what? Once a nation has nuclear weapons, are we supposed to let them take whatever territory they want?

If Kim launches a nuke into Seoul, is that our fault? If China nukes Taiwan, is that our fault?

Nuclear weapons are a terrible reality of modern geo-politics, but we can’t (shouldn’t) allow it to be a border erasure tool.

I believe you’ve commented before that you recognize the mistake Chamberlain made in looking the other way when Hitler demanded control of Sudetenland. Would that have become the right choice if Hitler had nuclear weapons?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #99 ·
Please share the differences you see in the analog.

For similarities: China fomented a pro-communist insurgency in Korea, trying to bring Korea into alignment with China’s political interests. The US, through direct military involvement, bolstered the democratic government in Korea, and fought off the communists.

Russia fomented a pro-Russia insurgency in Ukraine, trying to bring Ukraine into alignment with Russia’s political interests. The US, through financial and materiel support, bolstered the Ukrainian military to fight off the Russian invasion.

The significant difference I see between Korea c. 1950 and Ukraine today is that we’ve stopped short of putting US boots on the ground (at least overtly).
What ideology are we fighting in Russia?

Right or wrong, Korea and Vietnam were wars of ideology.

I see the difference in fighting a named country, versus fighting an ideology. Don't take me wrong, I am not saying our fight in Korea or Vietnam was justified.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,363 Posts
Discussion Starter · #100 ·
If Putin, a crazy, dying dictator decides to launch nukes, you would apologize? For what? Once a nation has nuclear weapons, are we supposed to let them take whatever territory they want?

If Kim launches a nuke into Seoul, is that our fault? If China nukes Taiwan, is that our fault?

Nuclear weapons are a terrible reality of modern geo-politics, but we can’t (shouldn’t) allow it to be a border erasure tool.

I believe you’ve commented before that you recognize the mistake Chamberlain made in looking the other way when Hitler demanded control of Sudetenland. Would that have become the right choice if Hitler had nuclear weapons?
Why do you rely so heavily on false equivalencies?

I do think TPTB will owe the world an apology if Ukraine goes nuclear. You cannot toy with world powers and predict how it plays out. That said, that apology will be a very poor substitute for good judgement.
 
81 - 100 of 179 Posts
Top