ESOMKnicks wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:
Germany was not fighting a defensive war then, Russia is not fighting a defensive war now. If you are one of those people who are going to claim that Russia is fighting a defensive war - then don't be one of those people.

Do you think absent the US invitation for Ukraine to join NATO Russia would have invaded?

What difference does it make? Incidentally, yes, I do.

gradyandrew wrote:I'm not going to argue any sort of moral justification for Russia's invasion. Similar to the US invasion of Panama in 1989, the Crimea and Sevastopol is a vital artery for Russia and it was short sighted for US policy makers not to realize that.

False equivalence. The United States did not annex any Panamanian territory.

gradyandrew wrote:Putin has been clear over the years that the admission of Ukraine into NATO is an existential threat to Russia and he would act on it.

That's his problem. Hitler was also clear for years that the German people needed more living space (lebensraum). So what?

gradyandrew wrote:There was a significant amount of gloating in 2022 that Russia would spend all of its power in the Ukraine and it would eventually result in the downfall of Putin. In 2023, there was the false promise of a summer offensive that would liberate Crimea. Now we're two years in and Ukraine is in ruins. Are the peace solutions on the table any better than the terms Bad Vlad offered in 2021 prior to invasion or in 2022 in Turkey after the initial failure?

Left to their own devices (ie no US support for Maidan in 2014), I think it's tough to argue that Ukrainians would be worse off.

Looks like you are arguing that an aggressor should always be accommodated in his demands, since peace is better than war. Which is why I brought up Chamberlain and Poincare in the first place.

People have been pre-brainwashed to take that perspective and I don’t even know how it is entertained.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Nalod wrote:For what Russia wants, they could have paid Ukraine? Food production, port access? Were they denied anything if not for sanctions?
His failed economic policies necessitated hostile take over. He gave away state assets to cronies for cents on the dollar when soviet block divested and they never caught up. Russians have a thing for suffering. They make good knick fans.

Russians have a thing for suffering, but also a thing for making others suffer in the process (I'm originally from Russia, BTW, so I know what I am talking about).

Knicks fans do not take out their misery on others.

Just each other? LOL
You got a point. Perhaps when we do win we dance on the misery of others. Maybe in time we'll learn to act like winning is kind of nice by itself and gracious to the pain of others. We have to much healing before that happens.

I'm of Ukrainian blood whose family left from Odessa. Pogrom's chased my great grandparents out. It don't sit well when your neighbors turn their back on each other. I know survival makes it hard otherwise.
I root for a sovereign Ukraine to defend itself. If Russia wants to do business they can pay. The loss of human life is a travesty and Putin's arrogance cost too many young men's lives.

newyorknewyork wrote:If Trump wins the election. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will retire. Trump will then be able to appoint 2 younger versions of them totaling 5 out of the 9 he has been able to appoint. They would probably be in place for the next 2 decades. John Roberts could possibly retire towards the end of the Trump 4 year term allowing him to appoint a 6th. Sonyia Sotomayor would need to hold fort or he would be able to appoint a 6th creating a 7 out of 9 majority conservative supreme court for the next 2 decades.

The world has tipping points

martin wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:
Germany was not fighting a defensive war then, Russia is not fighting a defensive war now. If you are one of those people who are going to claim that Russia is fighting a defensive war - then don't be one of those people.

Do you think absent the US invitation for Ukraine to join NATO Russia would have invaded?

What difference does it make? Incidentally, yes, I do.

gradyandrew wrote:I'm not going to argue any sort of moral justification for Russia's invasion. Similar to the US invasion of Panama in 1989, the Crimea and Sevastopol is a vital artery for Russia and it was short sighted for US policy makers not to realize that.

False equivalence. The United States did not annex any Panamanian territory.

gradyandrew wrote:Putin has been clear over the years that the admission of Ukraine into NATO is an existential threat to Russia and he would act on it.

That's his problem. Hitler was also clear for years that the German people needed more living space (lebensraum). So what?

gradyandrew wrote:There was a significant amount of gloating in 2022 that Russia would spend all of its power in the Ukraine and it would eventually result in the downfall of Putin. In 2023, there was the false promise of a summer offensive that would liberate Crimea. Now we're two years in and Ukraine is in ruins. Are the peace solutions on the table any better than the terms Bad Vlad offered in 2021 prior to invasion or in 2022 in Turkey after the initial failure?

Left to their own devices (ie no US support for Maidan in 2014), I think it's tough to argue that Ukrainians would be worse off.

Looks like you are arguing that an aggressor should always be accommodated in his demands, since peace is better than war. Which is why I brought up Chamberlain and Poincare in the first place.

People have been pre-brainwashed to take that perspective and I don’t even know how it is entertained.

No, I'm not. I tell my kids if someone is holding a knife or a gun and they want your money, just give it to them and run. If they are telling you to get into a vehicle, then you try to escape or fight back because your chances for survival are much less if they take you to a second location. In one instance you accommodate the aggressor because handing over your wallet isn't a vital interest, in the other you don't.

For Ukraine, I don't see how Donbass, Luhansk, and Crimea or admission in NATO is part of their vital interest. They haven't been part of the country for 10 years.

For the US, I don't see how Ukrainian admission to NATO is part of the US vital interest.

For Russia, the threat of losing Crimea and less so NATO bases in Ukraine is part of their vital interest.

Putin let Ukraine be under Trump because he knew Trump had no interest in expanding NATO. His assessment changed when Biden took over. Prior to the 2022 invasion Biden announced to the world that Russia was planning one. Zelensky poo pooed Biden's warnings and then quickly agreed to peace talks in Turkey following the invasion. US state Department Under Secretary Nuland told the Ukrainians to walk away, US would support them, and they could win a better peace on the battlefield. That advice now seems at best stupidity, at worst lies.

The only threat to US vital interests is a nuclear exchange with Russia or China. It seems foolish that the US has now put itself in a position where the only way to 'win' the Ukraine war is to deploy combat troops to directly engage Russian forces.

Nalod wrote:

Philc1 wrote:Why does the media keep asking who will be trump’s running mate? He already has a running mate it’s Putin

Your right!

This made my day!

gradyandrew wrote:No, I'm not. I tell my kids if someone is holding a knife or a gun and they want your money, just give it to them and run. If they are telling you to get into a vehicle, then you try to escape or fight back because your chances for survival are much less if they take you to a second location. In one instance you accommodate the aggressor because handing over your wallet isn't a vital interest, in the other you don't.

For Ukraine, I don't see how Donbass, Luhansk, and Crimea or admission in NATO is part of their vital interest. They haven't been part of the country for 10 years.

For the US, I don't see how Ukrainian admission to NATO is part of the US vital interest.

For Russia, the threat of losing Crimea and less so NATO bases in Ukraine is part of their vital interest.

Putin let Ukraine be under Trump because he knew Trump had no interest in expanding NATO. His assessment changed when Biden took over. Prior to the 2022 invasion Biden announced to the world that Russia was planning one. Zelensky poo pooed Biden's warnings and then quickly agreed to peace talks in Turkey following the invasion. US state Department Under Secretary Nuland told the Ukrainians to walk away, US would support them, and they could win a better peace on the battlefield. That advice now seems at best stupidity, at worst lies.

The only threat to US vital interests is a nuclear exchange with Russia or China. It seems foolish that the US has now put itself in a position where the only way to 'win' the Ukraine war is to deploy combat troops to directly engage Russian forces.

Point blank, this is not the scenario that is happening. IMHO you are taking the position of legitimizing terrorism as an "vital interest" of another country. That is far from responsible. What is this basis for vital interest that you point to that has wildly different interpretations from person to person?

No **** that people shout run if confronted with a gun. Ask a whole city or villages to do so while killing and raping and kidnapping them and what do you call that anywhere in the world?

You feel like countries making alliances is a reasonable, actionable threat? So, Finland can be invaded right now and you AOK?

gradyandrew wrote:I'm not legitimizing Russia's war conduct. I'm saying it could easily have been avoided and/ or minimized by the US not offering it admission to NATO, not participating in the overthrow of a neutral government in 2014, and not telling Zelensky to walk away from peace talks six weeks into the war.

You kind of are by blaming it on the US. The danger in what you are also offering is incomplete facts.

Ukraine first expressed public interest in joining NATO in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit. There was lobbying at that time by GW Bush, advocating for Ukraine's membership - however it takes concensus over 30 members to be included in the NATO alliance. Ukraine's standing with regards to NATO has remained relatively unchanged since that time.

There's no strong evidence that he US triggered the overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014 in the Revolution of Dignity within Ukraine. Yanukovych was essentially a Putin puppet and running Ukraine into the ground which triggered mass Euromaiden protests, revolts and upheaval among the populace. Putin has portrayed this overthrow as US Orchestrated, however the facts only show a level of US meddling in leaked conversations with the US Ambassador musing who could potentially succeed or replace Yanukovych. Putin's actions in annexing Crimea thereafter were likely a result of his loss of control over Ukraine and that strategic military port rather than any US (or EU) meddling. From a Geo-Political standpoint, the US stood to gain through a stabile relationship with Ukraine via trade partnership as well as buffer with conflicting Russia coming out of the cold war.

At the time of the peace talks in Turkey in 2022, Ukraine was showing advantage with Russia being stalled in their invasion and Russian troops taking on hits. At the time if I recall - it seemed apparent that Russia did not think Ukraine would fight back and be difficult. In the talks Russia made demands concerning reduction in Ukraine's military defenses as well as barring their entry into NATO. While the US certainly offered their opinions and guidance on this (so did other members of NATO/EU) - both the invasion and ensuing war atrocities had already commenced. On most Global fronts, Russia's invasion is considered both an act of terror and violation of international law.

Over it's history, the US is certainly not angels when it comes to international dealings and conflicts, but you assessing blame on this situation mainly on the US by saying the conflict and invasion "could easily have been avoided" just speaks to either your relatively lesser insight or Russian focused informational sources.

gradyandrew wrote:The two guys I mainly follow are Jeff Sachs and John Mearscheimer.

Sachs and Mearsheimer appear to have the same relative views on blaming the US expansionistic policies towards NATO starting in the 1990s caused this curren conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Note that Sachs is also pretty much anti US Industrial-Military complex. You might want to consider seeking diverse and alternate views on this as well for perspective prior to coming to your own personal conclusions. I don't follow anyone in particular but finding views on this via the NET is pretty easy these days given its prominence.

gradyandrew wrote:

False equivalence. The United States did not annex any Panamanian territory.

I think there are a lot more false equivalences on your side.

Czechoslovakia didn't participate in the Munich conference, whereas the US actively told Ukraine to abandon peace talks in 2022.

Czechoslovakia had the Skoda works which basically supplied armaments for all of Eastern Europe. Controlling the Skoda works vastly increased Germany's military capacities while degrading other states. Ukraine lacks any significant industrial base.

Hitler was a madman. Putin has been relatively stable for the past 20 years. What's the risk to Europe if Putin we're to annex all of Ukraine when all the remaining states are part of NATO? Is he going to risk a war against the Baltic Republics or Poland when the only way to win is a nuclear exchange? I don't follow the logic.

You misunderstand where I draw the equivalence. Letting an aggressor (Putin's Russia) have its way with a neighbor (Ukraine) would be akin to how the Munich Conference appeased an aggressor (Hitler's Germany) have its way with a neighbor (Czechoslovakia). The appeasers - Chamberlain and Daladier - back then hoped that the aggressor would be satisfied and war averted. They were wrong. Assuming that Putin would be satisfied via appeasement would be equally wrong now.

Both Hitler then and Putin now follow a similar logic: rally popular support of their repressive regimes promising greatness, military victories and territorial gains.

foosballnick wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:The two guys I mainly follow are Jeff Sachs and John Mearscheimer.

Sachs and Mearsheimer appear to have the same relative views on blaming the US expansionistic policies towards NATO starting in the 1990s caused this curren conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Note that Sachs is also pretty much anti US Industrial-Military complex. You might want to consider seeking diverse and alternate views on this as well for perspective prior to coming to your own personal conclusions. I don't follow anyone in particular but finding views on this via the NET is pretty easy these days given its prominence.

Any links you can forward are always appreciated and read. p