Putin just wants all the old Soviet countries back into the Russian federation. Ukraine was the first and most important. He wants Moldova next.
The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)
- Thread starter BigBlueFanGA
- Start date
Because they invaded a sovereign country for expansionism. (no actually its because the democrats are mad trump won 7 years ago)
99.9% of dems LOVED Russia until Clinton accused them of helping Trump. Cause you all are commies.
So quick to assume anyone not in lock-step with your beliefs are democrats or on the left. Good programmed sheep doing their parties bidding. While both of them get richer and richer off your backs.
There have been multiple sovereign nations that have been invaded since 2020. We obviously haven’t defended all of them. In fact, practically none of them.
So why Ukraine, Richie?
Remember, it's the global affairs short bus crew we're dealing with here, Richie. He won't be able to answer you. Same story as had happened before right on the same page of this thread. Ask a question, they don't have a legit response, and flail about with what they think are witty replies. Sad, really.
Hey Richie you’ve got a helper! That great! A quick google search showed Ethiopia, Gambia, Yemen, Somalia, Georgia. Israel has invaded Lebanon and of course, we invaded Iraq. These were all sovereign countries.
Now, both you and your helper entropy can tell us what’s different between these countries and Ukraine. I’ve asked at least 20 times in these two threads.
One would think after the "Trust the Experts!" complete chitshow that was Covid, and so recently to boot, they'd be more prepared to understand they're just being lied to again, manipulated once more for ulterior motives.
Don't trust the experts. They're idiots too.
Don't trust the experts. They're idiots too.
Hey genius, you specifically stated since 2020. Ethiopia happened since 2020, but it's is a civil conflict (that means different regions w/in the country are fighting, not one sovereign country invading another for expansionist aims). Yemen, Somalia, Georgia, Iraq, and the Israel/Lebanon conflict are all older. YWIA.
Last edited:
It was actually BBFGA's question from the prior page (thought it was this one). He asked a simple question and got a bunch of cute, hyperbolic responses, none of them addressing the substance. Par for the course.
The Ukraine War is a piggy bank and slush fund for the elite in Washington. Anyone who can’t see that is just a fool.
And, you wonder why someone might think you are a Democrat?
Oh dear, thanks for correcting that. Now that we’ve established that there were indeed invasions of sovereign countries since 2000 (which is what I intended to say), we can FINALLY get the answer!
Why are we assisting Ukraine when we didn’t the others?
🤣🤣🤣 20 years? That's a pretty big difference, dude. If you wanna brush it aside, I'll let you take a mulligan. Your argument (if there is a coherent one) still falls flat.
Maybe if you strain hard enough, the answer will come to you. Anyway, some of the older (pre-2020) ones you mentioned are also civil conflicts (Somalia, Yemen). Of the ones you listed, only Georgia and Israel/Lebanon fit the bill, and the latter is about terrorism rather than one state invading another for expansionist aims.
Anyway, your question is why are we assisting Ukraine but not the others. ICYMI, we have assisted Israel greatly over the years. The 2008 Georgia flare-up was over shortly (maybe in about 2 weeks, IIRC). Vastly different than the Ukraine war in scale, scope, and duration. Georgia's president at the time was also a hothead who exacerbated the situation.
As to why we're assisting Ukraine in general, have you looked at a map? Aside from the obvious, here are two. Picture a hostile autocrat like Putin controlling the flow of key global grain supplies. The Kremlin could influence global food prices in such a scenario, steering nations according to its whims. Ukraine is a main route for Russian energy exports to Europe. Russia could dictate terms by controlling Ukraine's energy infrastructure, leveraging its energy resources for political gains.
No mulligan here. I said what I said: tell us why we’re involved in defending Ukraine when we didn’t defend others. This, after all, is what a Richie said it was about.
To your credit, you’ve at least tried an actual strategic reason: We are racking up debt and killing young Ukrainians for “grain and energy”. So, now we can put aside the silly argument that this is about sovereignty, and get to the next question.
Don’t we produce grain and energy?
Putin already controls quite a lot of energy and guess what - things seem to go okay for me.
We do but we aren’t called a bread basket are we? Ukrainian grain Is important to a lot of countries.
Now NATO and Weatern Allie’s are admitting we are “bottom of the barrel” on ammo to send Ukraine, what benefit do these idiots get by announcing that? So freaking stupid like much of our “leadership”.
The people who are for Ukraine still wear masks in public. Not serious!
If it makes you feel any better I do the same to the lunatics who want push transgender surgery on kids, cancel culture, and other far-left BS.
Actually, you did just take a mulligan by drastically revamping the entire timeframe of your original question for a do-over. I mean, why even argue that point? That's OK, I understand it's difficult for you to grasp even simple things, let alone geopolitics. It's fine, you took a mulligan without taking one. I get it, you get it, we all get it.😅
Anyway, I reject your premise that we're killing young Ukrainians. Russia is killing Ukrainians. Neither Ukraine nor Russia have indicated they're interested in negotiating at present. If anything, giving Ukraine assistance gives them an actual fighting chance rather than being slaughtered and overrun. Also, sovereignty is very important. Thought that was obvious. Ukrainians won’t surrender the fight because their survival is at stake, and allowing Russia to keep Ukrainian territories legitimizes the use of force. The direct and indirect consequences of such a precedent would be severe not only in geopolitical terms but in many other ways as well. (As an aside, although we weren't trying to annex the country, this is why the Second Iraq War was such a huge blunder geopolitically, really the biggest of the 21st century until Putin miscalculated.) Lastly, legitimizing the use of force would likely lead to more countries would moving to acquire nuclear weapons as a security guarantee.
Ukraine will not voluntarily give up any of its territories, including Crimea and those parts of the Donbas that were annexed by Russia in 2014. If Ukraine were forced to do so by no longer getting Western aid, the war could perhaps be ended by some sort of compromise. However, compromise due to capitulation would endanger other countries of the former Soviet bloc. It would also create such a degree of instability and tension in Ukraine that it would make it impossible for the nation to integrate into the EU, carry out necessary reforms (hey y'all are constantly bitching about corruption), and rebuild its war-torn country.
Grain and energy I used as just two illustrative examples. Those are global commodities and markets are all interconnected.
Lastly, looking at assistance to Ukraine as just throwing dollars away is shortsighted. Think of it as a strategic investment. Military aid from the U.S. and other nations has neutralized half of Russia’s military capabilities on the ground, and also harmed its air force and navy. This was achieved without any U.S. troops getting hurt or killed. If Russia had been permitted to overrun Ukraine, and annex it or control it via a puppet regime, our and our allies' strategic outlook for the next flare-up would be that much weaker. Remember, Russia is China's main ally. Lastly, if you think Ukraine aid is a significant item w/r/t the national debt, you're badly misinformed.
No do-over requested. He said it’s for their sovereignty. I showed we haven’t protected anybody else’s sovereignty in a long time. That’s a fact.
With all due respect, the rest is all wrong. We are broke and witnessing the debasement of our currency because of debt. Pretending otherwise is false. Our government is literally, today, in turmoil because of the relationship between this war and our debt. (I warned you all over a year ago about unintended consequences.)
If Russia and China (traditional enemies) are drawn closer together, why is that? Did you consider why before you posted it?
The other countries of the Soviet bloc? You certainly don’t mean Eastern Europe. Russia would not dare attack NATO. You may mean Central Asia. I have a hard fact for you- that is far less important than many other things
Degrading the Russian military? As a strategic investment? Why? When did Russia become the enemy? Who made that determination?
This hodge-podge of unconnected reasons is as nebulous as it was over a year ago. I told you then: Ukraine has no strategic import. It will end just as anybody with eyes could tell: Russia will get the territory it wanted. Our dollar weaker. Our debt greater. Russia drawn closer to China. Turmoil at home, on the border and in the cities, as we focus on something completely unrelated to our security, or to the security of any ally.
You have been completely misled.
Fun fact: your personal amount of the national debt is now over $100,000.
Just numbers to you, I’m sure.
You literally showed nothing. I showed that there hasn't been a war like the current one. I guess I should be incredulous about how willfully blind you are to that, but nothing much surprises me anymore.
Ah, it's all wrong cuz you say it's wrong. Got it. This war has precious little to do with our national debt; what we've sent to Ukraine thus far amounts to 0.23% of our national debt. The debt is a function of politicians not doing their job to balance the budget. Balanced budget amendment and terms limits would fix a lot, so would ineligibility to run for reelection if you were part of a Congress that couldn't pass a budget. I suspect you and I are both fiscally conservative. Entitlements have needed to be reformed for 25+ years. Lots of other things vastly more important than what we've spent on Ukraine.
Revisionist powers driven by realpolitik considerations. It's been a while since they've been enemies, and it's an "alliance" of convenience. China will try to balance keeping Russia as weak as possible to ensure that it doesn’t pose a threat to China, while also ensuring that Russia can still be an irritant to their common rivals.
You love to ask questions without offering anything of substance on the matter, so now it's your turn. Let's hear your take.
They wouldn't attack Eastern Europe militarily, of course not. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of hybrid warfare, which is "a strategic-level effort to shape the governance and geostrategic orientation of a target state," and includes "subversive, economic, information, and diplomatic means," in addition to grey zone military stuff.
Putin made that determination kind of all by himself. It would be great if Russia and the U.S. weren't geopolitical adversaries. There was room for significant cooperation post-Cold War, and for a while, things were OK, even after Putin came to power. The tendencies he learned in his career as a KGB agent soon took over.
Putin’s core objectives have been 1) staying in power as long as possible, 2) establishing an iron grip on Russia domestically, 3) reasserting Russia as a great power, and 4) achieving a multipolar world order where Russia essentially has a veto over global events. Controlling Ukraine and eroding U.S. influence have always been central to these core objectives.
I'm sure you'll find a way to blame America, though. Always our fault.
They're unconnected only if you live in a vacuum. As a country, we're more than capable of tackling the problems you listed with or without assisting Ukraine. There's a marked lack of political will, vision, and initiative, though. Ukraine literally has jacksh!t to do with those things. You mention them as a polemical aid to add to your grievance, nothing more.
entropy you’ve given some good responses that deserve an answer which I appreciate. I’ll respond asap. I’ll briefly say this: nothing is as important at this point than the debt.
Putin came into power in 1999. He killed Litvinko in 2006. Was there a time between 1999 and 2006 when Putin could be called a respected leader?
Apparently much later than that. The lauded "the 80s called" zinger was in the 2012 last debate iirc. What immediately followed was a lecture from Obama on how a strong Russia was good for everyone. Despite all the warnings he was a headline ussr guy that was a danger.
Also sometime in that Obama administration, we sold uranium deposits to Putin. I don't recall the date but it's all out there and we know who the players were. They are household names.
Then all at once, he became the Boogeyman behind all the world's ills. Without even debating if he is or not, noone can offer even a tepid attempt at explaining how our very favorable view of an obviously dangerous/formidable adversary suddenly turned. Was the trust just complete incompetence? Or influenced by nice monetary payments to the right foundation?
Something happened and one segment of the population tries to memory hole the entire portion of history where Obama and Co made sure Putin had everything he needed to rebuild the ussr
entropy I’ll start with a couple of things-
-my take is that China is far and away more dangerous than Russia. I’ve said from the start that instead of prolonging the Ukraine war and sanctioning Russia, we should have worked to end this war and try to engage Russia. Not because we like Russia, and not because we don’t care about Ukraine. But because the reality is that we cannot dislodge Russia from Ukraine. That’s the realpolitik.
Russia is a plutocracy, a dictatorship. But they’re not completely detached from the Western world. China is a hive mind. Chinese communism is so repressive, so thoroughly evil, that they represent the biggest threat the world faces. Hopefully their demographics collapse their system but I think they will move before that happens.
With all that said, balance of power says we need Russia more than Ukraine needs the Donbas.
-my take is that China is far and away more dangerous than Russia. I’ve said from the start that instead of prolonging the Ukraine war and sanctioning Russia, we should have worked to end this war and try to engage Russia. Not because we like Russia, and not because we don’t care about Ukraine. But because the reality is that we cannot dislodge Russia from Ukraine. That’s the realpolitik.
Russia is a plutocracy, a dictatorship. But they’re not completely detached from the Western world. China is a hive mind. Chinese communism is so repressive, so thoroughly evil, that they represent the biggest threat the world faces. Hopefully their demographics collapse their system but I think they will move before that happens.
With all that said, balance of power says we need Russia more than Ukraine needs the Donbas.
Next, entropy discussed debt. It is true that what we have spent on Ukraine is a tiny proportion compared to overall debt. But that’s not the point. When we factor in mandatory spending, the skyrocketing interest on the debt, and military spending, there’s precious little left for each fiscal year. THAT is the amount that funding this war diminishes.
You and others may argue that we can just borrow it, that what’s happening in Ukraine is worth borrowing for. I can’t grasp that at all. A single straw really can break a camel’s back.
If we had a balanced budget, and if we were paying down our debt even slightly, then I’d be much more inclined to say spend it. But those are not the conditions we face.
To make it all worse: we send billions to protect Ukraine while millions invade OUR country, and those millions will end up costing many billions more than Ukraine! How does that make sense?
You and others may argue that we can just borrow it, that what’s happening in Ukraine is worth borrowing for. I can’t grasp that at all. A single straw really can break a camel’s back.
If we had a balanced budget, and if we were paying down our debt even slightly, then I’d be much more inclined to say spend it. But those are not the conditions we face.
To make it all worse: we send billions to protect Ukraine while millions invade OUR country, and those millions will end up costing many billions more than Ukraine! How does that make sense?
Latest posts
-
Boise St forfeits Mntn West volleyball tourny
- Latest: Glenn's take
-
-
-
