War in Ukraine

[hog88]

The arguments for and against elections both have a lot of important points. However, Ukraine elected a Russian stooge just prior to Zelensky, and making the same mistake during a war with Russia would be fatal. One argument says stay with a strong leader defending the country because you know what you have. You never know when things are in turmoil that an opponent is really who you think he is and that there's not an element of Russian propaganda at work. The other is that someone else might be a better choice, and people deserve the opportunity to make the choice. Personally, I'd vote for keeping Zelensky in place for a while (supposed warts and all) unless somebody can demonstrate a real reason to do otherwise - like proving there is corruption, and especially that the corruption is harming Ukraine's opportunity to win, and I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I think Z would win in a landslide (unless things are not what they seem to be) and his legitimacy would be cemented.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The arguments for and against elections both have a lot of important points. However, Ukraine elected a Russian stooge just prior to Zelensky, and making the same mistake during a war with Russia would be fatal. One argument says stay with a strong leader defending the country because you know what you have. You never know when things are in turmoil that an opponent is really who you think he is and that there's not an element of Russian propaganda at work. The other is that someone else might be a better choice, and people deserve the opportunity to make the choice. Personally, I'd vote for keeping Zelensky in place for a while (supposed warts and all) unless somebody can demonstrate a real reason to do otherwise - like proving there is corruption, and especially that the corruption is harming Ukraine's opportunity to win, and I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I'm less concerned about "free and fair" and all that but I am very concerned with America's long-term interests. Putin sucks. Anything we can do and anyone (despots and criminals included) we can use to weaken and destabilize Russia is good.

Zelensky is a minnow. At worst a human rights disaster for the Ukraine but, I like how the CIA used to handle these things. Friendly despots can be kept in line unless they're the Saudis and have more money than God. Zelensky will learn where his leash lets him go if he survives.

Jaded? Yes. Realistic? Yes. There are 3 real players in the world. I want America to be on top of those 3 and I'm not really concerned with the morality of how that happens.

 

[AM64]

My plan would be to sell European countries all the war material they want to provide Ukraine and for us to share all appropriate intelligence to Ukraine.

This is a European problem so Europe should be footing the bill.

It's a European problem until it isn't. We've been there and done that twice now. Our support for Ukraine without being there seems to be a smart move. This time Europe is standing together rather than being the problem; better to keep herding them along than have somebody like the Frogs go off the reservation and cause a bigger problem. It took a while for democracy to spread across Europe and for counties to quit squabbling and get along; that benefits us, too. Seems like our investment in NATO makes far more sense in our investment in the UN where the **** stirrers can veto action against problems they are causing.

 

[LouderVol]

I have never said otherwise. I've repeatedly said Zelensky is not "good" but the bigger picture is Putin is AGAIN trying to "get the band back together" in the Baltic states and that's not in America's long-term interest.

I've never held up Zelensky as a saint. He's our despot like we've allowed and funded despots around the world for years. We need his dirty tail to win this...... not because we like him....... because the other side sucks more.

Need I remind that we have provided weapons to Saddam vs Iran after the Shah (speaking of despots) fell.

Keeping America great is a long game not speed chess.

and how did arming Sadam work out for us in the end? Seems like that's a good example of why we shouldn't be involved. We help in a regional war providing limited support, to only turn around and fight two wars ourselves against the guy we helped.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Right about now, I'm thinking China is overtaking Russia as Public Enemy #1, but it's still too close to call. I don't get the impression that China would start out with nukes, and Russia might. As far as conventional forces go, the numbers go to China, but that's highly dependent on where you fight. That old thing about not getting involved in an Asian war applies to both Russia and China, but China looks to be the bigger problem if it came down to that. It's like the real game is to deny either the gains they want and never to fight them directly, and that's what is happening with Ukraine and potentially with Taiwan. Better both bottled up, conventionally neutered, and hope nukes never come into play. Because of our age, we probably see this differently than younger generations ... we've both seen virtually the entire Cold War. It still comes down to us (and allies), Russia, and China as a three sided power struggle; all peace takes is for Russia and China to become good neighbors.

Like you I'm not overly concerned about China's nukes. I honestly believe they are smarter than the Russians and know everyone loses if there is a nuclear exchange. I fear that Russia might actually take the position that if I can't have it nobody can and really do something stupid. That's one reason I believe they are still our biggest threat. No doubt China has accumulated significant wealth in the last few decades but IMO the West along with Australia and several of the Asian nations still hold the economic upper hand over them. Sure China has expanded their territorial claims in the Pacific but when you really get down to it it's mostly just water and most of the world doesn't recognize their claims anyway. I believe if China invaded Taiwan the economic fallout would dwarf what we've seen in Russia. And economic devastation is what they fear the most. Besides even if China invades Taiwan we absolutely will not entangle ourselves in that mess with direct military intervention.

So let's finish off those damn Ruskies and we can devote more of our resources to other problems.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Tucker Carlson Launches Scathing Attack on Biden's Support for Ukraine in new Twitter show - and Mocks 'world's foremost democracy advocate' Zelensky for refusing to hold elections while country is at war

Tucker Carlson on Tuesday night questioned once again why the United States was involved in the Ukraine war - and accused President Volodymyr Zelensky of veering towards dictatorship for refusing to hold elections while the country is at war.

Carlson, in his 'Tucker on Twitter' monologue, which has replaced his nightly Fox News show, said Ukraine's war was 'pointless' and that Joe Biden was 'wasting' billions of dollars to 'repay its debts to the oligarchs who finance their beach house in Rehoboth' - a reference to Hunter Biden's lucrative work in Ukraine from 2014.

He also condemned Biden for failing to mobilize to rescue Gonzalo Lira, a provocative Chilean-American dating coach and blogger who lives in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv and produces pro-Putin propaganda.

Carlson, whose 13-minute clips - Tuesdays was his seventh - regularly get more viewers than Fox News, told his audience he understood their question: 'Why exactly are we at war with Russia?'

Carlson mocks 'world's foremost democracy advocate' Zelensky and attacks Biden's support for Ukraine | Daily Mail Online

 

[LouderVol]

The arguments for and against elections both have a lot of important points. However, Ukraine elected a Russian stooge just prior to Zelensky, and making the same mistake during a war with Russia would be fatal. One argument says stay with a strong leader defending the country because you know what you have. You never know when things are in turmoil that an opponent is really who you think he is and that there's not an element of Russian propaganda at work. The other is that someone else might be a better choice, and people deserve the opportunity to make the choice. Personally, I'd vote for keeping Zelensky in place for a while (supposed warts and all) unless somebody can demonstrate a real reason to do otherwise - like proving there is corruption, and especially that the corruption is harming Ukraine's opportunity to win, and I haven't seen any evidence of that.

the guy before Zelensky wasn't the one Russian's bought. there were two other Ukrainian presidents before Zelensky and after Yanukovych. There was a temporary one before the elections were held in 2014, then a guy named Poroshenko served a full term as well.

 

[AM64]

I'm less concerned about "free and fair" and all that but I am very concerned with America's long-term interests. Putin sucks. Anything we can do and anyone (despots and criminals included) we can use to weaken and destabilize Russia is good.

Zelensky is a minnow. At worst a human rights disaster for the Ukraine but, I like how the CIA used to handle these things. Friendly despots can be kept in line unless they're the Saudis and have more money than God. Zelensky will learn where his leash lets him go if he survives.

Jaded? Yes. Realistic? Yes. There are 3 real players in the world. I want America to be on top of those 3 and I'm not really concerned with the morality of how that happens.

The three player world is the thing people keep forgetting. It doesn't come cheap unfortunately, but the option if we fold and walk away is disastrous. We literally have the tiger by the tail; let go and the tiger eats you. Holding on isn't safe or desirable, but it's still the lesser of the two evils.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

It's a European problem until it isn't. We've been there and done that twice now. Our support for Ukraine without being there seems to be a smart move. This time Europe is standing together rather than being the problem; better to keep herding them along than have somebody like the Frogs go off the reservation and cause a bigger problem. It took a while for democracy to spread across Europe and for counties to quit squabbling and get along; that benefits us, too. Seems like our investment in NATO makes far more sense in our investment in the UN where the **** stirrers can veto action against problems they are causing.

European "democracy" is a stretch. It works for them but there's a good bit of socialism all around Europe to varying degrees. It's the overall reason they can't afford nor stomach their own defense, IMO.

But, for now, they're in our camp and only play footsie with Russia for the most part because of geography. It's in our interest to keep them in our camp, like many others around the world, despite their form of govt.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

and how did arming Sadam work out for us in the end? Seems like that's a good example of why we shouldn't be involved. We help in a regional war providing limited support, to only turn around and fight two wars ourselves against the guy we helped.

In the short term it worked out well for us vs Iran. An Iran with Iraq's oil would be a gem for Russia and likely China too.

Edit: not to mention Israel would've probably started WWIII by now if Iran won.

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[AM64]

European "democracy" is a stretch. It works for them but there's a good bit of socialism all around Europe to varying degrees. It's the overall reason they can't afford nor stomach their own defense, IMO.

But, for now, they're in our camp and only play footsie with Russia for the most part because of geography. It's in our interest to keep them in our camp, like many others around the world, despite their form of govt.

Agree. I've hated paying for their defense so they could spend money on European socialist programs ... I hate it even worse because our left holds European countries up as a paragon because of what they do for their people. It still beats a fractured Europe because as history shows that never goes well.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Agree. I've hated paying for their defense so they could spend money on European socialist programs ... I hate it even worse because our left holds European countries up as a paragon because of what they do for their people. It still beats a fractured Europe because as history shows that never goes well.

Exactly. We made it possible for them to ignore defense after WWII because we had to keep the USSR at bay. If we could ignore defense, we could have nice low taxes (unless we leaned left and let govt become our nanny a la Europe.)

We can't. We're pretty much it for the "good guys with guns" in the world. That comes at a heavy price and with a responsibility to make sure we stay on top.

 

[AM64]

Like you I'm not overly concerned about China's nukes. I honestly believe they are smarter than the Russians and know everyone loses if there is a nuclear exchange. I fear that Russia might actually take the position that if I can't have it nobody can and really do something stupid. That's one reason I believe they are still our biggest threat. No doubt China has accumulated significant wealth in the last few decades but IMO the West along with Australia and several of the Asian nations still hold the economic upper hand over them. Sure China has expanded their territorial claims in the Pacific but when you really get down to it it's mostly just water and most of the world doesn't recognize their claims anyway. I believe if China invaded Taiwan the economic fallout would dwarf what we've seen in Russia. And economic devastation is what they fear the most. Besides even if China invades Taiwan we absolutely will not entangle ourselves in that mess with direct military intervention.

So let's finish off those damn Ruskies and we can devote more of our resources to other problems.

I definitely agree although I'm not sure Russia will ever be finished; it could even morph into something worse ... and somehow be relatively efficient. I'm mixed on China - except for nukes and economically (as long as we feed them), China isn't really a direct threat to us, and we aren't as involved with China's land neighbors as we are with Europe. Short of getting into another Vietnam type situation to fight China or proxies on the Asian continent proper, China does seem more a paper threat. If we could just move Taiwan to someplace safer, or have been smarter about keeping vital sources of materials and products at home ...

 

[hog88]

It's a European problem until it isn't. We've been there and done that twice now. Our support for Ukraine without being there seems to be a smart move. This time Europe is standing together rather than being the problem; better to keep herding them along than have somebody like the Frogs go off the reservation and cause a bigger problem. It took a while for democracy to spread across Europe and for counties to quit squabbling and get along; that benefits us, too. Seems like our investment in NATO makes far more sense in our investment in the UN where the **** stirrers can veto action against problems they are causing.

I look at it this way. Our biggest threat on the global stage is China, they are modernizing and expanding their military at a rapid pace while ours is probably at it's worse shape since the end of the Vietnam war. We are spending billions on the defense of Ukraine while letting our military slip closer to and possibly behind our biggest future worry. Our blank checkbook for Ukraine will end up biting us in the arse.

 

[TVOLS]

IMO with Poland and Lithuania leaders meeting in Ukraine they wanting answers on WTH Is going on here almost a month in. Of course though it’s based off my calculations comfy here in the US.

 

[Volsdeep4]

.

 

[AM64]

I look at it this way. Our biggest threat on the global stage is China, they are modernizing and expanding their military at a rapid pace while ours is probably at it's worse shape since the end of the Vietnam war. We are spending billions on the defense of Ukraine while letting our military slip closer to and possibly behind our biggest future worry. Our blank checkbook for Ukraine will end up biting us in the arse.

I honestly think it's one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations, and I don't see good answers either way. Ukraine has been a proving ground on weapons and strategy. Right now it looks like minefields are winning over extremely expensive armor, airpower is shockingly not even a major player, and cheap drones are a major player (both cheap bombers and eyes to direct artillery). Who knows if this is the future; it's certainly not what our military has been spending insane amounts of money to fight. When put on the battlefield with hearty minefields, it isn't clear so far that the best German armor is more successful than Russian armor. If that's true then are tanks and surface ships simply targets excessively exposed by satellite and drone imaging and vulnerable to missiles? This looks to be proof that the next battle isn't the one you last fought and that preparing to fight the last one over again isn't a great plan.

We've proven time and again that you can't win wars by "proxy" - that airpower and artillery can be adjuncts to support ground troops. You can blast targets for days, destroy a lot of the enemy, but every time it's come down to fighting on the ground to take what couldn't be destroyed from the air. Somehow I have to argue that our military is it's own worst enemy by overthinking it all and making their "tools" too expensive to buy and too expensive to lose ... and at this point without ever proving their value. I have to wonder exactly what F-35s would achieve differently in Ukraine - if you can keep them flying, or what more expensive tanks would accomplish vs minefields. There's not much Navy related stuff going on, but Ukraine has proven that's still risky business.

I guess I'm wondering if our military minds have finally made it too expensive to fight, and Ukraine has proven war doesn't go away. Perhaps that militarily we just don't know WTH we are doing, but we better be figuring it out in a big hurry - and figure out that quantity over "quality" is still the rule of the game. I won't even get started on the insanity of drone v drone warfare.

 

[Burhead]

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I look at it this way. Our biggest threat on the global stage is China, they are modernizing and expanding their military at a rapid pace while ours is probably at it's worse shape since the end of the Vietnam war. We are spending billions on the defense of Ukraine while letting our military slip closer to and possibly behind our biggest future worry. Our blank checkbook for Ukraine will end up biting us in the arse.

China is playing the long game economically, as they have for a long time. They saw the USSR bankrupt itself, essentially, trying to keep up with Reagan's defense initiatives. When Russia could no longer maintain their expenses in the Bloc nations, they lost their strangle hold socially and it crumbled.

Putin's vision is to rebuild that as much as is slowly sustainable but his ground forces and military leadership is trash. His only hope to gain power in the region is that we'll ignore him. In my opinion it's better to expose him in Ukraine than wait until he gets to a NATO country. It REALLY weakens Russia on the world stage that he seemingly can't even make big ground gains in Ukraine. He's weak enough now that he is posturing with nukes. Threatening nukes is not a strong leader's move.

China, as previously, sits back and makes money and steals intellectual property. They just ignore us when we tell them they can't develop the South China Sea. They ignore us when we tell them to stop bullying Taiwan. They've been investing and establishing connections and goodwill by building infrastructure in Africa for decades.

China is ruthless. They will control their people regardless of cities with awful air quality and working conditions. They really don't care about today nor about their citizens. They care only about survival long term. That's a formidable enemy especially for the "I want results now" culture America promotes.

 

[Burhead]

Dude's second time getting arrested for being part of a coup attempt.

 

[Septic]

RIP to the scapegoat.

 

[MontyPython]

Please pitch in for @Rasputin_Vol 's comfort pillow.

 

[vols40]

You might reconsider your belief about the direction of this war. Russia hasn't had the upper hand since the very early days of the invasion. Once the attack on Kiev was repelled and the invasion from the west stalled Russia has mostly been on the defensive. They control less territory than they did a year ago. They cannot occupy or control the territory they illegally annexed in September. It took them over six months and a hired army to take the minor city of Bakhmut and they have since basically lost it. Russia has a severe supply problem. They cannot replace their weapons and ammunition fast as they are using it while supplies from then West to Ukraine have continued unabated. Another problem Russia has is they are basically an army of conscripts who are untrained, unwilling and undersupplied. The reports they they are often being forced it to battle at gunpoint are so numerous and from so many sources that they are hard to dismiss. There are a couple of guys here who constantly post propaganda from Russian state owned media that will contradict this but if you read any of it just consider the source.

It it fair to ask why I believe this. I can only say that the reports coming out of the free Nations from around the world pretty much agree that this war is not going well for Russia. In fact if these reports can be believed it has been a complete disaster for Russia.

Those millions of Russians living in Ukraine are like the millions of Mexicans living in the Southwest US who are now US citizens. They have two choices they can be Americans of go back to Mexico. But they sure as hell don't get to move the border.

This is what you get basically word for word from the mainstream media. You just assumed the Russians living in eastern Ukraine support Zelenski. What proof other than you saying this do you have? You have what the media spews. But hey you have the right to support Zelenski. The guy who says we will have elections again when we win the war. Lol.

 

[vols40]

Did you vote for Obama?

"After all, you don't call Russia our No. 1 enemy -- not Al-Qaida, Russia -- unless you're still stuck in a Cold War mind warp," Obama said, alluding to Republican rival Mitt Romney.

"1980's called and wants their foreign policy back"