War in Eastern Europe, what's it good for ....

[French G.]

Don't have to be very pro ukraine to realize a good Russian is a dead one.  As for expansionism if we're smart we will let China and Russia fight it out over Africa while we just watch . But, we ain't smart.

[Ben]

if we're smart we will let China and Russia fight it out over Africa while we just watch . But, we ain't smart.

Only if while we're watching, we are also increasing mining in the US and making mining deals with Canada.

[K Frame]

"Russia is not an expansionist state"

 

For the ENTIRETY of his dictatorship... er... excuse me... "presidency," Putin has lamented the fall of the Soviet Union and the breaking away of all of its component Soviet Socialist Republics to independent nations as the "fall of historical Russia" and has routinely indicated his desire to reassemble those component pieces into a new Soviet Union under the guise of the Russian Federation.

And yeah, there was absolutely NOTHING expansionist about Putin's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. But there was a popular, democratic plebicite! Yeah... nothing irregular about that...

But, at least De Selby is being consistent in his irrationality...

IT'S ALL AMERICA'S FAULT! AMERICA IS THE GREAT SATAN! EVERYTHING THAT GOES WRONG IN THE WORLD IS AMERICA'S FAULT!

[Big Hairy Bee]

[Georgia has entered the chat]

Crimea has entered the chat

[MechAg94]

Crimea has entered the chat

There are a lot of dead rebels in Chechnya that might have had something to say also.  I am not sure if that didn't start before Putin came into power though.

[Opportunity]

Don't have to be very pro ukraine to realize a good Russian is a dead one.  As for expansionism if we're smart we will let China and Russia fight it out over Africa while we just watch . But, we ain't smart.

Give a Nazi salute, bro! I know how you want to... )))

[De Selby]

"Russia is not an expansionist state"

 

For the ENTIRETY of his dictatorship... er... excuse me... "presidency," Putin has lamented the fall of the Soviet Union and the breaking away of all of its component Soviet Socialist Republics to independent nations as the "fall of historical Russia" and has routinely indicated his desire to reassemble those component pieces into a new Soviet Union under the guise of the Russian Federation.

And yeah, there was absolutely NOTHING expansionist about Putin's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. But there was a popular, democratic plebicite! Yeah... nothing irregular about that...

But, at least De Selby is being consistent in his irrationality...

IT'S ALL AMERICA'S FAULT! AMERICA IS THE GREAT SATAN! EVERYTHING THAT GOES WRONG IN THE WORLD IS AMERICA'S FAULT!

Let’s just repeat again here - you’re spouting Clinton/Biden lines here that Trump has rejected.

Every single territory mentioned in these past few posts that’s had Russians in it has been a direct consequence of NATO expansion plans. Where NATO expansion was not on the table, like in Georgia, the Russians did not stay even when having routed the opposing force.

The comparisons to Hitler are Clintonian and Bidenesque propaganda designed to justify their mass expenditure of US money and exposing the US to nuclear war for reasons that have nothing to do with defending US citizens or democracy.

[dogmush]

While I am actually sympathetic to the Russian's point of view of not wanting an opposing military alliance right on their borders, when you say "NATO Expansionism" you do recognize the difference between sovereign countries choosing to enter into a military alliance of their own free will, and Russia conquering territory with military force, right?


These things are not equal.  Or even in the same ballpark.

[De Selby]

While I am actually sympathetic to the Russian's point of view of not wanting an opposing military alliance right on their borders, when you say "NATO Expansionism" you do recognize the difference between sovereign countries choosing to enter into a military alliance of their own free will, and Russia conquering territory with military force, right?


These things are not equal.  Or even in the same ballpark.

You brought up Georgia - that’s a very clear example demonstrating that these are not wars of conquest and expansion. Russia did not conquer and keep Georgia; it withdrew once the war was over and left a pro-western Government. The aim appears to have been avoiding NATO presence. Not too different from US policy on Afghanistan and Iraq, except that they didn’t install
puppet governments and attempt to establish a permanent hold. Also, they won that war.

Digging into what “free” choices Georgia and Ukraine made and what the actual populations of the Territories Russia did occupy want (like Crimea and Ossetia) makes your point weaker, not stronger. The reason Russia was able to hold those places and hasn’t been able to do comparatively well elsewhere is popular support. The copious amounts of US aid required to establish NATO friendly governments in Georgia and Ukraine strongly suggests that their populations were not exactly clamouring for it.

[K Frame]

While I am actually sympathetic to the Russian's point of view of not wanting an opposing military alliance right on their borders, when you say "NATO Expansionism" you do recognize the difference between sovereign countries choosing to enter into a military alliance of their own free will, and Russia conquering territory with military force, right?


These things are not equal.  Or even in the same ballpark.

Nope, he doesn't recognize that.

That's very, very clear.

In his world view, Russia will always be the poor beset upon nation that's been bullied by everyone and everything...

[dogmush]

You brought up Georgia - that’s a very clear example demonstrating that these are not wars of conquest and expansion. Russia did not conquer and keep Georgia; it withdrew once the war was over and left a pro-western Government. The aim appears to have been avoiding NATO presence. Not too different from US policy on Afghanistan and Iraq, except that they didn’t install
puppet governments and attempt to establish a permanent hold. Also, they won that war.

Digging into what “free” choices Georgia and Ukraine made and what the actual populations of the Territories Russia did occupy want (like Crimea and Ossetia) makes your point weaker, not stronger. The reason Russia was able to hold those places and hasn’t been able to do comparatively well elsewhere is popular support. The copious amounts of US aid required to establish NATO friendly governments in Georgia and Ukraine strongly suggests that their populations were not exactly clamouring for it.

US Aid =/= T-72s.  Seriously.

[MechAg94]

You brought up Georgia - that’s a very clear example demonstrating that these are not wars of conquest and expansion. Russia did not conquer and keep Georgia; it withdrew once the war was over and left a pro-western Government. The aim appears to have been avoiding NATO presence. Not too different from US policy on Afghanistan and Iraq, except that they didn’t install
puppet governments and attempt to establish a permanent hold. Also, they won that war.

Digging into what “free” choices Georgia and Ukraine made and what the actual populations of the Territories Russia did occupy want (like Crimea and Ossetia) makes your point weaker, not stronger. The reason Russia was able to hold those places and hasn’t been able to do comparatively well elsewhere is popular support. The copious amounts of US aid required to establish NATO friendly governments in Georgia and Ukraine strongly suggests that their populations were not exactly clamouring for it.

Part of the reason those countries were entertaining the idea of joining NATO was they felt threatened by Russia.  Russia was pushing its weight around and making demands. 

[K Frame]

"Part of the reason those countries were entertaining the idea of joining NATO was they felt threatened by Russia.  Russia was pushing its weight around and making demands."

But that's not expansionist at all!

That's being a loving, caring, concerned neighbor!

Poor, misunderstood Russia, once again bullied by those horrible Americans.

Now, that said, I'll admit that yes, the US has been expansionist in its past. Most large, powerful nations have an expansionist history. America's territorial expansionist era is, for better or worse, largely in the past.

Russia is still living under the illusion that it A) is a powerful nation, and B) has the right to expand at the expense of its independent neighbors as a means of reassembling the old Soviet Union. Putin has stated as much during his dictatorship... er... excuse me, his "presidency."

To call Russia's actions anything other than nakedly aggressive and territorialist is a fool's mission, fully as deluded as the rational Russia's "special military exercise."

But, as I have opined in previous messages, I'm rather all for Russia's actions... because Russia is bleeding itself dry.

[Northwoods]

Don't have to be very pro ukraine to realize a good Russian is a dead one.  As for expansionism if we're smart we will let China and Russia fight it out over Africa while we just watch . But, we ain't smart.

Might want to dial it back a bit.  We have Opportunity here, and I don't think saying that as a Russian he should be killed is very fitting with the Polite in our title. Not to mention the originator of this very forum, Mr Oleg Volk, also a Russian (by birth, though also naturalized as an American since)

[WLJ]

As I said before most Russian soldiers would much rather be somewhere else than being shot at in muddy trench so I don't rejoice in their killing. I can celebrate a win while feeling sorry for the dead and wounded on both sides while making exceptions for those who have purposely committed war crimes.

[Northwoods]

As I said before most Russian soldiers would much rather be somewhere else than being shot at in muddy trench so I don't rejoice in their killing. I can celebrate a win while feeling sorry for the dead and wounded on both sides while making exceptions for those who have purposely committed war crimes.

My last comment was specifically for French G, not (necessarily) a general comment on this thread's commenters.

[K Frame]

Just to be clear, I decry and mourn the loss of life on both sides.

My comments about Let Russia Bleed are its wanton expenditure of its rapidly waning military power and material on what is clearly a fool's errand.

[Opportunity]

Might want to dial it back a bit.  We have Opportunity here, and I don't think saying that as a Russian he should be killed is very fitting with the Polite in our title. Not to mention the originator of this very forum, Mr Oleg Volk, also a Russian (by birth, though also naturalized as an American since)

Oh, don't be shy about my presence, my friend! In my opinion, if a person says that let’s kill Russians because they are Russians, or let’s kill Arabs because they are dirty Arabs, this is at least an honest admission of one’s beliefs.
At least it's a more honest position than saying "Let's pretend that we love Ukrainians very much, so we will supply Ukraine with any weapons so that it will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian."))

[zxcvbob]

Give a Nazi salute, bro! I know how you want to... )))

Ackchyually, it's called a Roman salute. 

Carry on.  (I'm glad you're here)

[De Selby]

US Aid =/= T-72s.  Seriously.

US backed coup = / = free alliance of a people with NATO. Seriously.

[De Selby]

"Part of the reason those countries were entertaining the idea of joining NATO was they felt threatened by Russia.  Russia was pushing its weight around and making demands."

But that's not expansionist at all!

That's being a loving, caring, concerned neighbor!

Poor, misunderstood Russia, once again bullied by those horrible Americans.

Now, that said, I'll admit that yes, the US has been expansionist in its past. Most large, powerful nations have an expansionist history. America's territorial expansionist era is, for better or worse, largely in the past.

Russia is still living under the illusion that it A) is a powerful nation, and B) has the right to expand at the expense of its independent neighbors as a means of reassembling the old Soviet Union. Putin has stated as much during his dictatorship... er... excuse me, his "presidency."

To call Russia's actions anything other than nakedly aggressive and territorialist is a fool's mission, fully as deluded as the rational Russia's "special military exercise."

But, as I have opined in previous messages, I'm rather all for Russia's actions... because Russia is bleeding itself dry.

You’ve adopted the Clinton Biden kool aid on Ukraine, we know that. The reality is that the Russian regime has proven it will tolerate even pro western revolutions in the old Soviet bloc, so long as NATO weapons are off the table. That is not by any reasonable definition an expansionist policy.

The bit you’re missing is that Russia is in one sense a very powerful nation - it can destroy a few thousand American cities with nuclear weapons. That is why confrontations with it should only be undertaken in the interests of the whole American people, and not just in the interests of the Democratic Party elites whose propaganda you keep repeating.

[De Selby]

Part of the reason those countries were entertaining the idea of joining NATO was they felt threatened by Russia.  Russia was pushing its weight around and making demands.

That’s one theory. The fact that US backed revolutions brought US-backed politicians to power who immediately commenced engagement with NATO in these places implies that it was the other way around though. Russian policy on allowing the Soviet Union to dissolve doesn’t square with the view that they care about much more than stopping NATO bases on their borders.

[Hawkmoon]

Every single territory mentioned in these past few posts that’s had Russians in it has been a direct consequence of NATO expansion plans. Where NATO expansion was not on the table, like in Georgia, the Russians did not stay even when having routed the opposing force.

WHAAAAT?

Russia controls roughly 20% of Georgia. https://www.csce.gov/hearings/russias-occupation-georgia-and-erosion-international-order/

[WLJ]

By that logic Hitler and then the SU was justified in invading Poland because Poland had signed a defense treaty with UK and France. Well that's it, WW-II is Poland's fault for feeling threaten by it's neighbor, sorry about the 40+ million dead.

[Ron]

The Bush/Clinton cabal in charge of our foreign policy are well represented by K-frame here.

Conflict with and warring against Russia is actually the goal, with the dissolution of Russia as the end goal.

There are those from that cabal and their think tanks who are on record stating it outright.

I'm not so naïve to think that Russia isn't engaging in asymmetrical warfare against us, probably in partnership with China.

Targeting Russia's border neighbors with economic and military support (one always follows the other) is aggressive and provoking conflict. Russia has more respect for their national borders than our ruling elite has for ours here in the US.

We (the west) are the aggressors IMHO.