Russia Russia Russia

[Cinga]

3 minutes ago, RkFast said:

Works for me. Im in the Tucker camp. Could not GIVE A ISHT LESS if the old Soviet states fall under Russian influence. And I certainly dont want to see Ukraine join NATO and see the US subject to Article 5 and having to defend them militarily one day in the future.

 

I understand this is simplistic reasoning. But I can see NYC if I climb on my roof and Id rather not see a few mushroom clouds over it one day because we had to go fight for F-ing Ukraine.

 

Oh believe me, I want no part of a war that is absolutely no threat to our national security either. I'm just dumbfounded with how easy this is going to be and i think a large part of it can be traced directly to Biden energy policies and the fact that not only did we stop exporting oil and gas, we have to import oil ourselves now. This allows Russia to gain dominance over the EU simply because he is now their main gas supplier and can simply threaten to turn off the spigot....

So no matter how angry the EU gets about this, there isn't a f***ing thing they can or will do about it either.

[Billsandhorns]

Pretty sure that there is already a treaty of sorts in place. That is why they gave up their nuclear weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

[RkFast]

58 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

Oh believe me, I want no part of a war that is absolutely no threat to our national security either. I'm just dumbfounded with how easy this is going to be and i think a large part of it can be traced directly to Biden energy policies and the fact that not only did we stop exporting oil and gas, we have to import oil ourselves now. This allows Russia to gain dominance over the EU simply because he is now their main gas supplier and can simply threaten to turn off the spigot....

So no matter how angry the EU gets about this, there isn't a f***ing thing they can or will do about it either.

 

I know I have a lot of hyperbole in my statement above. And from what Ive read from "experts" Russia has a lot more to lose than NATO does and we do. Unless some screws get seriously loose, we arent directly going to war with Russia. That said, my main point is that I dont see the issue with former Soviet states, ones that share virtually EVERYTHING with Russia culturally and otherwise, falling under a Russian "sphere of influence." Arent they already in that sphere? A "western" Ukraine benefits us how, exactly? Did the US and NATO think that Russia would remain the defeated bear forever? Looking at the even bigger picture, if Russia becomes more of a powerhouse, along with China and the US and we compete economically, thats bad HOW exactly?  Im genuinely asking. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by RkFast

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, RkFast said:

 

I know I have a lot of hyperbole in my statement above. And from what Ive read from "experts" Russia has a lot more to lose than NATO does and we do. Unless some screws get seriously loose, we arent directly going to war with Russia. That said, my main point is that I dont see the issue with former Soviet states, ones that share virtually EVERYTHING with Russia culturally and otherwise, falling under a Russian "sphere of influence." Arent they already in that sphere? A "western" Ukraine benefits us how, exactly? Did the US and NATO think that Russia would remain the defeated bear forever? Looking at the even bigger picture, if Russia becomes more of a powerhouse, along with China and the US and we compete economically, thats bad HOW exactly?  Im genuinely asking. 

 

You're gravely overestimating how much former Soviet states -or states within the Soviet sphere of influence - share with Russia.  There's a reason the USSR fragmented into a dozen different states, and why Caucasian regions are still fighting for independence.  And why Hungary and Czechoslovakia were invaded by the USSR during the Cold War.  

 

Ask a Ukrainian how they feel about their "cultural similarity" to Russia. Ukraine has an independent history that goes back more than 800 years, and has been fighting for independence from Russia for more than 100 years.  It's not because they're culturally Russian.

[Cinga]

2 hours ago, RkFast said:

 

I know I have a lot of hyperbole in my statement above. And from what Ive read from "experts" Russia has a lot more to lose than NATO does and we do. Unless some screws get seriously loose, we arent directly going to war with Russia. That said, my main point is that I dont see the issue with former Soviet states, ones that share virtually EVERYTHING with Russia culturally and otherwise, falling under a Russian "sphere of influence." Arent they already in that sphere? A "western" Ukraine benefits us how, exactly? Did the US and NATO think that Russia would remain the defeated bear forever? Looking at the even bigger picture, if Russia becomes more of a powerhouse, along with China and the US and we compete economically, thats bad HOW exactly?  Im genuinely asking. 

 

Simple answer, expansion or colonialism if you prefer an outdated term. The former Soviet Union had visions of world dominance, not world competition you seem to allude to. 

China seems to be more content with economic power, keeping themselves pretty close to their own nation with Nepal and Taiwan, at least so far. But in most endeavors it looks more economic, even down to the basics like raw materials. It doesn't look like they want to resort to conquest, content with buying the world. Same pretty much goes for the US. Yeah, we get involved in way the f*** too much around the world that we have no business being involved in, but we still give it back when we're done which blows the old colonial crap away.

But there are 2 movements, or powers that do indeed want world dominance, and Communist Russia is one of those. Just look at the recent USSR for a glimpse of what their vision of the future holds. And know their version of colonialism is permanent... 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

This is downright psychotic.

 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

Two interesting things of note today.  The first one is reporting from Twitter:

 

Quote

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the US made no concessions in response to Russia’s two main demands: for the US and allies to curb preparation for an invasion and for Ukraine and other ex-Soviet nations to be denied entry to NATO, per The AP

 

Note the wording: Russia demanding NATO cease their preparations for an invasion.  This no doubt refers to the aforementioned "rolling back all NATO deployments 1997 boundaries," but it's an interesting wording nonetheless.

 

The second thing...I lost the article, but it basically amounts to: China is supporting Russia's "security concerns" in the UN Security Council.  Think about the ramifications for Taiwan.

[snafu]

On 1/26/2022 at 1:02 PM, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

He may not invade.  The US/NATO presence in Eastern Europe has always been controversial to both sides (witness the BMD debate from almost 20 years ago), and Russia in general (and Putin in particular) has not wanted western influence in what has historically been perceived as Russia's sphere of influence (going back to before the US was even formed.

 

And he knows what he has in the Biden administration.  An administration that, as likely as not, will give up basing rights in Eastern Europe (e.g. Aegis Ashore in Romania and Poland) for the chance to crow about "averting war."  The Biden administration will happily take a "peace in our time" victory before the mid-terms, at the expense of NATO and Eastern Europe.

 

Why do you think Putin waited this long to do this?  Biden's predictable - he's the inheritor of an Obama foreign policy that saw Obama abandon his Syria policy (i.e. the "red line") in Russia's favor.  Biden will blink first.  Trump...who the hell knows what he would have done?  Not given up Eastern Europe, for sure.  

 

 

This is pretty much how I see it.

I don’t think the west should do anything akin to playing Putin’s game. 
 

…and as an aside, just wait and see what happens with China once the Olympics are over. Their window has closed but they won’t go away without trying something big.

 

 

 

 

[Hedge]

There's a lot in this interview with Gen. Flynn:

 

 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

 

[CarpetCrawler]

1 hour ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

 

[RkFast]

Its funny, as a right wing hack, Im "supposed to" go to Fox News and the Daily Wire for all my stuff, right? However, when it comes to world affairs, I find BBC, Al Jazeera and yes...CNN are still the best and its not even close. 

 

This is some good analysis at the link below. The closest youll find to this on Fox is some old crusty cold war relic general yelling about tanks and frozen dirt. 

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/1/in-central-and-eastern-europe-ukraine-crisis-proves-natos-worth

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by RkFast

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1488969219668467717

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

On 2/1/2022 at 12:27 PM, RkFast said:

Its funny, as a right wing hack, Im "supposed to" go to Fox News and the Daily Wire for all my stuff, right? However, when it comes to world affairs, I find BBC, Al Jazeera and yes...CNN are still the best and its not even close. 

 

This is some good analysis at the link below. The closest youll find to this on Fox is some old crusty cold war relic general yelling about tanks and frozen dirt. 

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/1/in-central-and-eastern-europe-ukraine-crisis-proves-natos-worth

 

 

I remember watching the invasion of Iraq 20 years ago, on BBC, CNN, and Fox.  

 

Fox: got the news out quickest, but 80% of it was wrong.

BBC: always correct, but spent so much time vetting stories they were late with "breaking" stories.

CNN: at the time, a nice middle ground.

 

Really, the best coverage at the time was listening to Fox for breaking rumors, then waiting for BBC to confirm them as facts.  I suspect the same holds true now, particularly since American media has found that Fox's journalism model of "throw shit against the wall and see what sticks" is a winning business model, so everyone, even CNN, copies it.

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:02 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

It's been almost three generations since Ukraine was devastated by a war.  So I'd say they're do.

 

Really, three generations of peace is probably a record for Ukraine.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

52 minutes ago, Foxx said:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1488969219668467717

 

 

First, it sounds like they're moving the ready brigade of the 82d Airborne, which wouldn't even be a speed bump.  The purpose of that move is to send a message that the US will commit to a full war when the ready brigade gets overrun (see also: the initial deployments to Saudi Arabia in 1990 after Saddam overran Kuwait.

 

Second:

Quote

The United States will send nearly 3,000 extra troops to Poland and Romania to shield Eastern Europe from a potential spillover from the crisis over the massing of Russian troops near Ukraine, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

 

Not even a speed bump.  It's a message to Putin: you have a free hand in the Ukraine, but don't go any farther than that.

 

What a feckless foreign policy.

[Foxx]

9 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

Not even a speed bump.  It's a message to Putin: you have a free hand in the Ukraine, but don't go any farther than that.

 

What a feckless foreign policy.

I can't imagine the message it is sending to Ukraine. They just might end up releasing all that pesky incriminating evidence they have on US corruption. Which, of course, will go unreported by the MSM. I dunno though, it seems Joe's honeymoon is over in some regards.

 

If there is no one to report it, did it actually happen?

[Foxx]

This is like Alex Jones territory you're getting into now. 

 

This whole thread is gold Jerry, Gold!

 

About the size of it...