War in Ukraine

[lukeneyland]

eh, we will see.

I think Ukraine/Zelensky goes chicken little every time their funds are mentioned because more obviously helps them. its not like Trump cutting funding is going to stop the rest of Europe from doing so. it may even force Europe to up their game even more.

at this point in the war it is clear there is no huge advantage on either side. Russia has had to pull in North Korean troops, so clearly they are feeling it at this point. yeah maybe without US funding Russia doesn't need North Koreans to fight for them, but I doubt it leads to a full collapse of the Ukrainian war effort.

Ukrainian arms production has drastically gone up in the intervening two years too. so much so that Ukraine can't afford to buy all of the production, and they are considering exports. mostly of drones, to help fund the war effort. So its not like Ukraine has been sitting on its hands 100% relying on western aide. going back to WW2, even in 1945 with the USSR rolling into Germany the US was still giving them plenty of equipment, resources, and machine components even though objectively it wasn't "needed" at that point. I think its a little similar hear. The extra equipment is nice, and both sides would rather have more than less, but its not to the same degree of necessary as it was before.

You may be right. You are probably more up to date on the conflict than me. At this point I genuinely don’t care who wins. I just want USA completely out of it.

 

[lukeneyland]

Nothing says "America" quite like abandoning 37 million people to live under the rule of people who have been murdering and raping them for the last three years.

I don’t want any part of it. I’m tired of being world police. If the victims of the conflict need asylum let them come here. But I’m sick of our participation in this war. America above all else for me

 

[Volnbeers]

I don’t want any part of it. I’m tired of being world police. If the victims of the conflict need asylum let them come here. But I’m sick of our participation in this war. America above all else for me

no to asylum seekers as well.

 

[volbound1700]

I think there is a place we can further discuss i.e. Fantasy Land.

The meat grinder will continue under that situation, without U.S. support the whole thing collapses, imo. 10s of billions of U.S. money every year, there isn't anything to negotiate.... so to the Last Ukrainian.

Even without the USA's help, I still think Ukraine can somewhat hold its own against Russia. To me, it is a EU/Ukraine problem. Cold War should be dead.

I equate it to Hitler invading Poland in 1939 and then getting bogged down into a war that last 3-4 years. Had that happened, Germany and the Nazis would have likely collapsed in 1940.

I give this to Putin, he has staying power. I thought the Russians would have grown tired of the lack of success and have overthrown him by now.

 

[BeardedVol]

I don’t want any part of it. I’m tired of being world police. If the victims of the conflict need asylum let them come here. But I’m sick of our participation in this war. America above all else for me

Cool, isolationism worked out great for us in the early 20th century, why not try it again for funsies in th 21st?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Even without the USA's help, I still think Ukraine can somewhat hold its own against Russia. To me, it is a EU/Ukraine problem. Cold War should be dead.

I equate it to Hitler invading Poland in 1939 and then getting bogged down into a war that last 3-4 years. Had that happened, Germany and the Nazis would have likely collapsed in 1940.

I give this to Putin, he has staying power. I thought the Russians would have grown tired of the lack of success and have overthrown him by now.

As stated back in 2022, that isn't purpose... not really. The issue is the same issue the Russians face when it started i.e. what to do with Western Ukraine. Nobody wants it. As mentioned a few months ago, even an unconditional surrender really doesn't help. There is no easy off ramp.

I give this to Putin, he has staying power.

If the goal changes to destroying a whole country the size of the Ukraine, that takes considerable time. I said a decade or two in 2022 was possible, I would say less than a decade now. Ukrainians should consider learning Polish.

Meat grinder will continue to grind.

 

[lukeneyland]

Cool, isolationism worked out great for us in the early 20th century, why not try it again for funsies in th 21st?

It probably would have worked out well if we actually stuck to it. Us throwing our hat in the ring in WW1 pretty much doomed the Germans and emboldened the French to gut them at Versailles. Had Germany emerged from WW1 still led by the Kaiser we’d likely wouldn’t have had the Nazis or the rise of communism. Wilhelm wouldn’t have allowed it. So yes if we actually practiced isolationism in the in the early 20th century we probably would be better off today.

 

[lukeneyland]

no to asylum seekers as well.

I can respect that opinion as well.

 

[McDad]

How exactly is it a sarcastic premise?

We forced Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons, bombers, and missiles, in exchange for protection.

The complied with our demands:

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/ukraine-nuclear-disarmament/

Now, we're going to abandon them to the people who have been actively raping and murdering them for the last three years.

How did we force?

 

[volbound1700]

As stated back in 2022, that isn't purpose... not really. The issue is the same issue the Russians face when it started i.e. what to do with Western Ukraine. Nobody wants it. As mentioned a few months ago, even an unconditional surrender really doesn't help. There is no easy off ramp.



If the goal changes to destroying a whole country the size of the Ukraine, that takes considerable time. I said a decade or two in 2022 was possible, I would say less than a decade now. Ukrainians should consider learning Polish.

Meat grinder will continue to grind.

Your posts don't match reality. If Russia was "winning", the front lines would not be where they are at today. Take Kharkiv for example, that is a strategic objective that Russian wants but has been incapable of taking. Kherson is another objective that Russia recently lost. Russia is losing as many if not more men than Ukraine and they have burnt through a lot of their (not easy to make) equipment. It is a meat grinder for both sides and I am not so sure that the meat grinder fails for Russia first. Putin only has so much more time to address.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Your posts don't match reality. If Russia was "winning", the front lines would not be where they are at today. Take Kharkiv for example, that is a strategic objective that Russian wants but has been incapable of taking. Kherson is another objective that Russia recently lost. Russia is losing as many if not more men than Ukraine and they have burnt through a lot of their (not easy to make) equipment. It is a meat grinder for both sides and I am not so sure that the meat grinder fails for Russia first. Putin only has so much more time to address.

View attachment 695099

That's not the purpose. You are living in Fantasy Land. You don't need me in Fantasy Land and I don't want to be there. If you care to review my posts from 2022, you are welcome to do so.... I said it could take a decade or two even then. (although I think the time table is quicker now) It takes time to destroy a whole country of that size.

The meat grinder will continue.

 

[volbound1700]

That's not the purpose. You are living in Fantasy Land. You don't need me in Fantasy Land and I don't want to be there.

I don' t even have an ability to respond to this because you put together no argument and only threw out insults.

I have argued with you many times in the past. I think you overestimate Russia's abilities. Ukraine isn't going to fall anytime soon, even without USA help. At the same time, they aren't going to all of a sudden defeat the Russian army and drive them out of Ukraine.

Russia's issues are self-inflicted. Their army was poorly equipped for war because the officers were corrupt and lied to their commanders about their readiness, misused their funding, and the training of new recruits was subpar. Russian equipment was not up to par with the needs of their army. The "caravan" invading Kiev was an utter disaster and you know it. Russia lost tons of equipment and any major momentum. They have decided to fight the war 1918 style ever since. However, it is bleeding them along with Ukraine. I am not sure sure that Ukraine is going to fold as quick as you say. I think Russia is running out of manpower and ammunition quicker than Ukraine.

I want us out of the war, I don't care if Ukraine gets take over by Russia or not. All of modern Ukraine was owned by Czarist Russia for centuries and by the USSR so, in my book, they were part of Russia all along. However, I don't think Russia is doing as well as you think.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I don' t even have an ability to respond to this because you put together no argument and only threw out insults.

I have argued with you many times in the past. I think you overestimate Russia's abilities. Ukraine isn't going to fall anytime soon, even without USA help. At the same time, they aren't going to all of a sudden defeat the Russian army and drive them out of Ukraine.

Russia's issues are self-inflicted. Their army was poorly equipped for war because the officers were corrupt and lied to their commanders about their readiness, misused their funding, and the training of new recruits was subpar. Russian equipment was not up to par with the needs of their army. The "caravan" invading Kiev was an utter disaster and you know it. Russia lost tons of equipment and any major momentum. They have decided to fight the war 1918 style ever since. However, it is bleeding them along with Ukraine. I am not sure sure that Ukraine is going to fold as quick as you say. I think Russia is running out of manpower and ammunition quicker than Ukraine.

I want us out of the war, I don't care if Ukraine gets take over by Russia or not. All of modern Ukraine was owned by Czarist Russia for centuries and by the USSR so, in my book, they were part of Russia all along. However, I don't think Russia is doing as well as you think.

There is no argument, the meat grinding will continue just like it continued after people were posting that Russia lost here in 2022.

I want us out of the war

Well, my guess was that U.S. would abandon the situation, see my numerous posts on this long ago. People said I was crazy for suggesting the U.S. would abandon. (time will tell)

The situation will work itself out naturally... eventually (just not necessarily at the time table of someone on tik tok). There is no real magic to make all this go away, lots of killing to do yet.

 

[VOLLeeann]

You can collectively kiss Ukraine's azz goodbye.

 

[whodeycin85]

And neither can Trump or any president.

He would have to follow precedent and use the DOJ.

Does this authorize anything??
Directive 5240.01

DOD Authorizes Military Use of Force on Civilians: DOD DIR 5240.01 — Ronald W. Chapman II

DoD Directive 5240.01 and the Department of Defense's expanded authorization for military use of force in response to domestic civil disturbances, including election-related unrest. This directive outlines when and how the military may assist law enforcement, potentially using lethal force under cer

ronaldwchapman.com

 

[Firebirdparts]

Cool, isolationism worked out great for us in the early 20th century, why not try it again for funsies in th 21st?

So I know this is supposed to be sarcastic, but I actually think it was great. Wilson got into the war because he thought he could give them some advice, and his advice was brilliant. They didn't take it. Staying out of the war was also brilliant. It illustrated the stupidity of European politics, and it obviously made the USA the world's preeminent nation. The war was faught to see who was the most imporant nation, and it turns out it's us, and it would have also been us if we stayed totally out of it to the end. So really a pretty shockingly great outcome. Sometimes, one illustration is not enough, obviously. They needed a second one.

There is some degree of randomness of what kind of results you get, for sure. In World War II the sides could have been drawn differently, but they weren't.

Both wars, they said it was the public that wanted to stay out of it. Smart public.

So, about Nato: Since World war II, the USA was the only country holding NATO together. for some reasons it stayed together even though the UK had a communist government. NATO does 2 things:
1. It scares russia (not enough of course) and
2. It allows us to occupy Germany and tell them they can't have nukes. Germany has not attacked anybody since world war II. European constant self-descrtruction was stopped.

now, do we need that? It's a reasonable question, but of course nobody knows what people are going to do in the future. Like I said, sometimes you get random rewards. I don't have any idea why Putin does the stuff he does. He looks dumb to me. If they just end it over the USA election it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

 

[Grand Vol]

Not another ****ing penny....

 

[BeardedVol]

So I know this is supposed to be sarcastic, but I actually think it was great. Wilson got into the war because he thought he could give them some advice, and his advice was brilliant. They didn't take it. Staying out of the war was also brilliant. It illustrated the stupidity of European politics, and it obviously made the USA the world's preeminent nation. The war was faught to see who was the most imporant nation, and it turns out it's us, and it would have also been us if we stayed totally out of it to the end. So really a pretty shockingly great outcome. Sometimes, one illustration is not enough, obviously. They needed a second one.

There is some degree of randomness of what kind of results you get, for sure. In World War II the sides could have been drawn differently, but they weren't.

Both wars, they said it was the public that wanted to stay out of it. Smart public.

So, about Nato: Since World war II, the USA was the only country holding NATO together. for some reasons it stayed together even though the UK had a communist government. NATO does 2 things:
1. It scares russia (not enough of course) and
2. It allows us to occupy Germany and tell them they can't have nukes. Germany has not attacked anybody since world war II. European constant self-descrtruction was stopped.

now, do we need that? It's a reasonable question, but of course nobody knows what people are going to do in the future. Like I said, sometimes you get random rewards. I don't have any idea why Putin does the stuff he does. He looks dumb to me. If they just end it over the USA election it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Yeah man, two world wars in 30 years was great. Should be even more of a blast now that our economy is fed by a global supply chain.

I mean really, NATO is only responsible for the longest period of peace in Europe since the end of the Roman Empire, who the hell even wanted to keep that going?

Not like we benefitted at all from Pax Europa anyway.

 

[BeardedVol]

It probably would have worked out well if we actually stuck to it. Us throwing our hat in the ring in WW1 pretty much doomed the Germans and emboldened the French to gut them at Versailles. Had Germany emerged from WW1 still led by the Kaiser we’d likely wouldn’t have had the Nazis or the rise of communism. Wilhelm wouldn’t have allowed it. So yes if we actually practiced isolationism in the in the early 20th century we probably would be better off today.

Wow, that's some serious revisionist history.

Is this really what you tell yourself to maintain the levels of cognitive dissonance required to exist with your world outlook?

You do realize that Germany has invaded France twice in less than 50 years at the end and if WW1 right?

The US entering the war and helping turn the tide had zero impact on France's demands of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.

In the end and, we didn't even ratify the treaty ourselves.

 

[LouderVol]

Cool, isolationism worked out great for us in the early 20th century, why not try it again for funsies in th 21st?

there is literally a world of difference between being the world's police, and being 100% isolationist.

we pick a very few close allies who are actually aligned with us, we defend them. most of the world we stay on good terms with and trade with, but no defense alliances. those who are on our naughty list we sanction, and don't trade with.

we are still there protecting the things that matter, but not wasting our money and men in every fire pit that crops up, even if it involves an "enemy". we still have influence as the largest trading force in the world. and maybe without our influence and thinking we know best where to draw the lines in the corpse of the Ottoman Empire we let them sort itself out. It would have been far better for the world had we let them beat each other up for a generation, establish their own borders, then the last hundred years could have been far more peaceful. but instead we have people like you who think we can do no wrong and should be involved with everything.

 

[volbound1700]

So I know this is supposed to be sarcastic, but I actually think it was great. Wilson got into the war because he thought he could give them some advice, and his advice was brilliant. They didn't take it. Staying out of the war was also brilliant. It illustrated the stupidity of European politics, and it obviously made the USA the world's preeminent nation. The war was faught to see who was the most imporant nation, and it turns out it's us, and it would have also been us if we stayed totally out of it to the end. So really a pretty shockingly great outcome. Sometimes, one illustration is not enough, obviously. They needed a second one.

There is some degree of randomness of what kind of results you get, for sure. In World War II the sides could have been drawn differently, but they weren't.

Both wars, they said it was the public that wanted to stay out of it. Smart public.

So, about Nato: Since World war II, the USA was the only country holding NATO together. for some reasons it stayed together even though the UK had a communist government. NATO does 2 things:
1. It scares russia (not enough of course) and
2. It allows us to occupy Germany and tell them they can't have nukes. Germany has not attacked anybody since world war II. European constant self-descrtruction was stopped.

now, do we need that? It's a reasonable question, but of course nobody knows what people are going to do in the future. Like I said, sometimes you get random rewards. I don't have any idea why Putin does the stuff he does. He looks dumb to me. If they just end it over the USA election it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

#2 is more important than #1 and people don't realize that. It isn't just about Russia, if it was about Russia, it would have disbanded in the early 1990s.

Sadly, China is winning right now with USA and Russia wearing each other down over Ukraine.

 

[BeardedVol]

there is literally a world of difference between being the world's police, and being 100% isolationist.

we pick a very few close allies who are actually aligned with us, we defend them. most of the world we stay on good terms with and trade with, but no defense alliances. those who are on our naughty list we sanction, and don't trade with.

we are still there protecting the things that matter, but not wasting our money and men in every fire pit that crops up, even if it involves an "enemy". we still have influence as the largest trading force in the world. and maybe without our influence and thinking we know best where to draw the lines in the corpse of the Ottoman Empire we let them sort itself out. It would have been far better for the world had we let them beat each other up for a generation, establish their own borders, then the last hundred years could have been far more peaceful. but instead we have people like you who think we can do no wrong and should be involved with everything.

"World police" is just buzzword phrase the people throw out to try to justify their beliefs when they are unwilling or unable to comprehend the necessity of an active foreign policy.

Deterrence has a value and a cost, the value that we gained in the 20th century was to become the most powerful economy in the world, and a beacon of democracy. Were we perfect? Absolutely not, but we were a damn sight better than the alternative.

But you're going to get your chance to see your theory put to the test. Let Putin take Ukraine, then Moldova, then Georgia. Let China take Taiwan, let them exert control over the entirety of the South China Sea unopposed. Hell, pull troops from South Korea and let Trump's favorite dictator unite the peninsula under his rule while China threatens anyone who tries to help.

Why not, we aren't the "world police" and those events won't have any effect on us will they?

 

[LouderVol]

Wow, that's some serious revisionist history.

Is this really what you tell yourself to maintain the levels of cognitive dissonance required to exist with your world outlook?

You do realize that Germany has invaded France twice in less than 50 years at the end and if WW1 right?

The US entering the war and helping turn the tide had zero impact on France's demands of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.

In the end and, we didn't even ratify the treaty ourselves.

talk about revisionism.

The French started the Franco Prussian War. they mobilized first, declared war first, and entered German Territory first.

WWI was started because of the alliance type system you are a proponent for, and it didn't start with the German's invading France, although the Germans were the aggressors in the western front. the US didn't turn the tide, we just saved the Europeans and their colonies a few lives. the germans were already spent and we didn't even have a fighting force over there until there was less than 6 months in the war, in June 1918. the first armistice was signed in September 1918, and it wasn't even on a front we were involved with.

wilson very much had us join the fighting to try and influence the treaty of Versailles. they had rejected his earlier 1916 and 1917 attempts to make peace because he was an outsider. The French wanted to break up Germany back into the independent nations it was before the Franco Prussian War, so I am not sure what you mean he had zero impact. that clearly didn't happen. he also played a huge influence on recognizing the independent nationalities in the Balkans vs many of the proposed Imperialism plans, particularly from the Italians.

 

[LouderVol]

"World police" is just buzzword phrase the people throw out to try to justify their beliefs when they are unwilling or unable to comprehend the necessity of an active foreign policy.

Deterrence has a value and a cost, the value that we gained in the 20th century was to become the most powerful economy in the world, and a beacon of democracy. Were we perfect? Absolutely not, but we were a damn sight better than the alternative.

But you're going to get your chance to see your theory put to the test. Let Putin take Ukraine, then Moldova, then Georgia. Let China take Taiwan, let them exert control over the entirety of the South China Sea unopposed. Hell, pull troops from South Korea and let Trump's favorite dictator unite the peninsula under his rule while China threatens anyone who tries to help.

Why not, we aren't the "world police" and those events won't have any effect on us will they?

we were the world's strongest economy because we were so isolated from the fighting. not because we got involved in the fighting of WW2. our economy was cranking up bigly before 1941 just supplying weapons. it was literally because of the destruction of WW2, mostly on our part, that our economy lead the world. funny that our destructive nature wasn't brought up in your reasoning.

and you are flailing at the same myopic world, we must do everything, or else we are doing nothing. the alternative was more than just the single outcome we see today, or WW3. we could have easily set up NATO to just be a united Europe. we should have done the same thing once the Iron Curtain fell. set up another alliance of old soviet territories, and just like we could have been left out of NATO, Russia would have been left out of the new "Warsaw Pact". each side got a buffer from the rest, strong alliances big enough where Russia would never mess with them, and it wouldn't have needed our lives in wars all over the world. that is just one possible alternative your imagination is too small to consider.

worried about the Chinese? Do the same thing. unify nations over there into another separate alliance, without our direct involvement.

Us fighting Russia over Ukraine makes it more likely that China invades Taiwan.
Us fighting China over Taiwan makes it more likely that NK invades SK. if you defend everything, you defend nothing.
the entangling alliances we are currently part of, are just as complicated as the ones that started WW1. plenty of options out there that don't require us to demilitarize.

we didn't need the new version of imperliam via alliances to ensure a more peaceful future. common sense natural alliances with nations that actually share borders, and problems, makes far more sense than Argentina or Australia being part of our invasion of Iraq.

 

[BeardedVol]

talk about revisionism.

The French started the Franco Prussian War. they mobilized first, declared war first, and entered German Territory first.

WWI was started because of the alliance type system you are a proponent for, and it didn't start with the German's invading France, although the Germans were the aggressors in the western front. the US didn't turn the tide, we just saved the Europeans and their colonies a few lives. the germans were already spent and we didn't even have a fighting force over there until there was less than 6 months in the war, in June 1918. the first armistice was signed in September 1918, and it wasn't even on a front we were involved with.

wilson very much had us join the fighting to try and influence the treaty of Versailles. they had rejected his earlier 1916 and 1917 attempts to make peace because he was an outsider. The French wanted to break up Germany back into the independent nations it was before the Franco Prussian War, so I am not sure what you mean he had zero impact. that clearly didn't happen. he also played a huge influence on recognizing the independent nationalities in the Balkans vs many of the proposed Imperialism plans, particularly from the Italians.

Bismarck knew exactly what he was doing. It was a brilliant move really, get your enemy to declare war so you can galvanize your populace who just saw you steam role the Austrian empire 4 years earlier, and continue the long-term plan of uniting what you consider 'German lands'.

Franco-German War | History, Causes, & Results | Britannica

Franco-German War (July 19, 1870–May 10, 1871), war in which a coalition of German states led by Prussia defeated France. The war marked the end of French hegemony in continental Europe and resulted in the creation of a unified Germany. Superior numbers, organization, and mobility contributed to...

www.britannica.com

The US financial boost for Britain to keep being able to fund both themselves and France during WW1, and US material supply, had far more impact than our direct military involvement.
It's somewhat irrelevant anyway, given that the opinions of Germany at the time were the prevailing factor in France's attitude toward them at the end of WW1, and the fact that the great depression hit as the Germany economy had finally started rebounding at the end of the 1920s, which was also when French and German relations had begun to thaw.