Is arming Ukraine akin to waging war with Russia?

[brandonb]

So..... how many Russian soldiers do you want murdered? How many American boys should be killed and maimed to accomplish the goal.... whatever the fuck it is.

I wish we could ship you and all the other warmongering chicken hawks straight to the front lines. When you all are wiped out in meaningless engagements overseas, at last we will have RATIONAL foreign policy in the United States. All the batshit crazy bloodlust filled murderering war dogs would no longer have a say in foreign policy.

We should reduce out military funding by about 95%. This would remove the possibility of these little murderous adventures America just loves to engage in. The military isn't used to for national protection any more, it is used to bully other countries and fuck up shit.

As much as I dislike you, I'm 100% in agreement with you on this.

 

[fskimospy]

So..... how many Russian soldiers do you want murdered? How many American boys should be killed and maimed to accomplish the goal.... whatever the fuck it is.

I wish we could ship you and all the other warmongering chicken hawks straight to the front lines. When you all are wiped out in meaningless engagements overseas, at last we will have RATIONAL foreign policy in the United States. All the batshit crazy bloodlust filled murderering war dogs would no longer have a say in foreign policy.

Chickenhawk? I've actually served in the military and was deployed to Iraq for the invasion in the beginning of 2003, you clown. I sincerely doubt you have any concept of what a rational foreign policy is. Rational foreign policy advances our national interests.

Despite your ignorance and foolishness, I don't wish death upon you. I will note the irony in you hoping for the deaths of thousands or millions of your own fellow citizens while complaining about people's bloodlust though.

We should reduce our military funding by about 95%. This would remove the possibility of these little murderous adventures America just loves to engage in. The military isn't used for national protection any more, it is used to bully other countries and fuck up shit.

The military has many many uses other than simply national protection. It's foolish and myopic to pretend it doesn't. We should reduce our military spending, but by more like 20%.

All that aside, your rant about US adventurism overseas that I replied to had literally nothing to do with Ukraine. I never advocated for war between the US and Russia, although I'm perfectly fine with us indirectly leading to the deaths of their soldiers. That's sort of the point, after all. We should also ramp up sanctions further and continue to strangle Russia's economy.

Basically nothing in your last two posts in any way addresses the topic at hand. It's just unhinged ranting.

 

[Jaskalas]

Did we really think that Russia would tolerate the transformation of Ukraine, historically part of Russia, into our client state as part of NATO?

Now I finally understand your position... thinking that it's Russia's own territory that we're discussing.

Now understand my position. Russia has seized land and invaded a neighbor. This is a hostile advancement towards Europe - where does it end? The only reason we shouldn't already be militarily ATTACKING Russian forces is because the Crimean takeover was largely peaceful.

Congratulations to Russia for a successful maneuver. HOWEVER, the Russian backed "rebels" in eastern Ukraine risk escalation beyond a point that should be tolerated.

I can excuse ethnic Russian people returning to Russia, but a full on invasion and assault on Europe must be paid for in blood. Kiev must not fall. Further aggression must be countered and made costly. We must prepare to make it so.

 

[fskimospy]

Now I finally understand your position... thinking that it's Russia's own territory that we're discussing.

Now understand my position. Russia has seized land and invaded a neighbor. This is a hostile advancement towards Europe - where does it end? The only reason we shouldn't already be militarily ATTACKING Russian forces is because the Crimean takeover was largely peaceful.

Congratulations to Russia for a successful maneuver. HOWEVER, the Russian backed "rebels" in eastern Ukraine risk escalation beyond a point that should be tolerated.

I can excuse ethnic Russian people returning to Russia, but a full on invasion and assault on Europe must be paid for in blood. Kiev must not fall. Further aggression must be countered and made costly. We must prepare to make it so.

Exactly. Ukraine isn't Russian territory. Forget that it hasn't been under the control of Russia in any way for a quarter-century, but Ukraine has a long history of a separate national identity that is very distinct from that of Russia. (and one that had long resented Russia's aggression towards it)

It's basically saying that Russia gets to reserve the right to crush Ukraine under its bootheel in perpetuity because it did so in the past.

 

[norseamd]

Ukraine has a long history of a separate national identity that is very distinct from that of Russia. (and one that had long resented Russia's aggression towards it)

This. Fuck I was watching some World War 2 documentary a while ago and was pleasantly surprised when the narrator said when the Nazis invaded Ukraine that the Ukrainians hated the Russians. This conflict is centuries old and goes way back to the 18th century Russian Tsars who undertook massive oppression with the goal of eradicating all Ukrainian culture and nationalism. Ukrainians is a recently adopted name for the Kievans. And so going back centuries and reading history the original name for the Ukrainians, Belarussians, and other Western Rus cultures was Ruthynians. And some Western Rus cultures even today are known as Ruthynians especially those from the mountainous areas in Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, and other Central and Eastern European countries.

 

[bshole]

Chickenhawk? I've actually served in the military and was deployed to Iraq for the invasion in the beginning of 2003, you clown. I sincerely doubt you have any concept of what a rational foreign policy is. Rational foreign policy advances our national interests.

Explain why it should matter to America if Russia controls Ukraine or not? For the life of me, I can't think of a single cogent reason why America should give a shit. What national interest? What vital American resource is threatened? What are the unforeseen consequences of American intervention? What are the chances that Russia will allow America to dictate what happens on her own borders without MAJOR military conflict? Why is escalation a "safe" strategy? When did America abandon diplomacy as a valid method of foreign policy.

 

[Muse]

Well, obviously akin to it, yeah. But not the same thing. If I'm friends with your enemy I'm not exactly your friend, well, not when it comes to war, alliances, detente, diplomacy, all that hash.

 

[fskimospy]

Explain why it should matter to America if Russia controls Ukraine or not? For the life of me, I can't think of a single cogent reason why America should give a shit. What national interest? What vital American resource is threatened? What are the unforeseen consequences of American intervention?

The US has a strong, vested interest in the stability of Eastern Europe. Russia currently threatens that. US actions against Russia so far have been very minor for us. We're weakening a generally hostile power at little cost to ourselves.

What are the chances that Russia will allow America to dictate what happens on her own borders without MAJOR military conflict?

Chances are very good. Russia is primarily banking on the west not caring enough here because in the end the west holds the cards. Russia is simply too weak, both militarily and economically.

We've brought other countries bordering Russia into NATO already you realize. Did I miss WW3 or did Russia allow America to dictate what happened on her borders without major military conflict?

Why is escalation a "safe" strategy? When did America abandon diplomacy as a valid method of foreign policy.

This is diplomacy.

 

[davmat787]

If we don't, Putin will likely move to expand. If we don't stop him at Ukraine, where will we?

Europe seems to be in a panic.

Fern

Oh come on, I'm sure he will stop at Poland, I mean Ukraine. We just need to let the Ukraine be the sacrificial lamb for the greater good. It worked in dubya dubya dos with the krauts afterall. D:

 

[bshole]

Chances are very good. Russia is primarily banking on the west not caring enough here because in the end the west holds the cards. Russia is simply too weak, both militarily and economically.

We've brought other countries bordering Russia into NATO already you realize. Did I miss WW3 or did Russia allow America to dictate what happened on her borders without major military conflict?

Yes I realize that we precipitated this violence by bringing those countries into NATO. It was this reckless action of pissing all over Russia that brought on this violence. We presented an existential threat to Russia. Real stupid and provocative move on our part. Now the size of the mistake will be measured in body bags. Herp-a-derp US policy, getting 'er wrong all da time..... can't even get it right by mistake.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes I realize that we precipitated this violence by bringing those countries into NATO. It was this reckless action of pissing all over Russia that brought on this violence. We presented an existential threat to Russia. Real stupid and provocative move on our part. Now the size of the mistake will be measured in body bags. Herp-a-derp US policy, getting 'er wrong all da time..... can't even get it right by mistake.

Wow, Russia sure took their sweet time on dealing with that existential threat, considering they sat in it for about a decade and then when they decided to act went after Ukraine instead of Latvia. It's interesting watching you tie yourself up into knots to convince yourself that Russian aggression is somehow our fault.

Did you ever stop to think that the reason these countries wanted to join NATO is that Russia has a very long history of aggression against them anyway? I'm interested to see how you can blame Russia's many previous invasions of Ukraine and their neighbors on the US. Start in the 1600's and work you way up from there.

 

[bshole]

Wow, Russia sure took their sweet time on dealing with that existential threat, considering they sat in it for about a decade and then when they decided to act went after Ukraine instead of Latvia. It's .....

Here are what some experts say and I concur. We simply kept pissing in Russia's lunch and eventually they reached the boiling point and reacted. Then we are all shocked that they would react. Christ........ Get the FUCK out of the eastern Europe. IT IS NOT OUR BUSINESS.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...kraine-joins-nato-will-cause-nuclear-war.html

Stephen Cohen is one of America’s top experts on Russia. Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, and the author of a number of books on Russia and the Soviet Union.

Cohen says that the West is mainly to blame for the crisis in Ukraine:

This is a horrific, tragic, completely unnecessary war in eastern Ukraine. In my own judgment, we have contributed mightily to this tragedy. I would say that historians one day will look back and say that America has blood on its hands. Three thousand people have died, most of them civilians who couldn’t move quickly. That’s women with small children, older women. A million refugees.
​

Cohen joins other American experts on Russia – such as former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock – in this assessment.
Cohen also says that if Ukraine joins NATO, it will lead to nuclear war:

 

[norseamd]

Stephen Cohen

Like how you pick exactly this guy as one of your "experts" as if I have not already read some biased political bullshit from him a while ago IIRC.

 

[fskimospy]

Like how you pick exactly this guy as one of your "experts" as if I have not already read some biased political bullshit from him a while ago IIRC.

Seriously. For any idea as to that guy's credibility people should look at what else he has written.

 

[norseamd]

Seriously. For any idea as to that guy's credibility people should look at what else he has written.

Yep. And take a fucking look at this guy.

http://www.tanosborn.com/

http://www.eurasiareview.com/author/ben-tanosborn/

 

[Victorian Gray]

So..... how many Russian soldiers do you want murdered? How many American boys should be killed and maimed to accomplish the goal.... whatever the fuck it is.

When you are killed while participating in the invasion of another country's territory, that's not considered as "murder".

 

[norseamd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katrina_vanden_Heuvel

 

[norseamd]

I was a Russian Studies major in the 70's and I read, and even corresponded with, Prof. Cohen. I find no remarkable transformation, other than that now Prof. Cohen is now married to an extraordinarily wealthy heiress (granddaughter of MCA mogul, Jules Stein), whereas then he was just another of dozens of highly ambitious Sovietologists at the time.

Of that ilk, Cohen was definitely on the left flank, the side that held both that the Soviets and Americans were more or less equally to blame in the Cold War, that the Soviet system was sound and here to stay, and that our policy needed to encourage the moderate forces that were supposedly in competition with the hardliners in the Kremlin.

Now that all of these tenets have been proved wrong, what's a former left wing Sovietologist with the added influence of a billionaire wife to do?

Answer: Maintain that the Cold War is still going on, that Putin -- the closest thing we have to a Soviet Cold War era leader -- is reasonable, legitimate and misunderstood, and to lecture the purported "hard-liners" in the US of the need to encourage and accommodate the supposedly moderate forces in the Kremlin. Same old. Same old. Don't you think?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...he_nation_just_published_the_most.single.html

 

[feralkid]

nm.

 

[bshole]

Um... kill the messenger eh..... Well kill these messengers as well.....

There is a consequence to provocative actions. America has been slapping Russia in the face for decades. Our actions provoked this. THIS WAS THE PREDICTED RESULT. WE WERE WARNED APRIORI OF THE POSSIBLE RESULTS. What was predicted to happen, happened. Now that our provocations have led to this mess, you want to up the ante? Pathetic.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...partly-to-blame-for-the-ukraine-russia-crisis

When the U.S. was pushing for the expansion of NATO in 1997, 50 foreign policy experts, including Susan Eisenhower and former Sens. Sam Nunn and Gary Hart, wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton arguing against NATO expansion, warning of the potential for future consequences to America. The letter claimed that NATO expansion would “decrease allied security and unsettle European stability” and presciently warned that “in Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties.”

Virtually every one of their concerns came to pass, as START II never went into effect and START III was never completed, directly attributable, in part, to NATO expansion.

You treat a country like your enemy long enough, eventually they will indeed become your enemy.

 

[fskimospy]

Um... kill the messenger eh..... Well kill these messengers as well.....

There is a consequence to provocative actions. America has been slapping Russia in the face for decades. Our actions provoked this. THIS WAS THE PREDICTED RESULT. WE WERE WARNED APRIORI OF THE POSSIBLE RESULTS. What was predicted to happen, happened. Now that our provocations have led to this mess, you want to up the ante? Pathetic.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...partly-to-blame-for-the-ukraine-russia-crisis

You treat a country like your enemy long enough, eventually they will indeed become your enemy.

Hahaha. The west's actions so enraged Russia that it had to invade its neighbors repeatedly.

Pay no mind to the fact that Russia has been routinely invading its neighbors for literally centuries. But yeah, they were all done with that until the mean old USA stepped in.

You're just looking for opinion pieces that tell you what you already want to hear. You know that, right?

 

[fleshconsumed]

Hahaha. The west's actions so enraged Russia that it had to invade its neighbors repeatedly.

Pay no mind to the fact that Russia has been routinely invading its neighbors for literally centuries. But yeah, they were all done with that until the mean old USA stepped in.

You're just looking for opinion pieces that tell you what you already want to hear. You know that, right?

And other countries have been invading Russia for millennia. At some point you got to wipe the slate clean and try to start over. Germany was given that chance, Japan was given that chance, Italy was given that chance. Post cold war with perestroika and glasnost' was that chance to mend ties with Russia and west blew it.

 

[fskimospy]

And other countries have been invading Russia for millennia. At some point you got to wipe the slate clean and try to start over. Germany was given that chance, Japan was given that chance, Italy was given that chance. Post cold war with perestroika and glasnost' was that chance to mend ties with Russia and west blew it.

Hard to see how any of that matters. Russia is the one invading people in the last 10 years, not the other way around.

What's the more plausible explanation?

1. Russia was uniquely provoked by the west into repeatedly invading its neighbors.
2. Russia has simply continued doing what it has been doing for centuries.

 

[bshole]

Hard to see how any of that matters. Russia is the one invading people in the last 10 years, not the other way around.

What's the more plausible explanation?

1. Russia was uniquely provoked by the west into repeatedly invading its neighbors.
2. Russia has simply continued doing what it has been doing for centuries.

Had to chuckle about that. Russia has invaded 2 countries since 1980 while America has invaded 6. See list of invasions below.

The invasion of Georgia was caused by (and let me quote Wikipedia here):

An international diplomatic crisis between Georgia and Russia began in 2008, when Russia announced that it would no longer participate in the Commonwealth of Independent States economic sanctions imposed on Abkhazia in 1996 and established direct relations with the separatist authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The crisis was linked to the push for Georgia to receive a NATO Membership Action Plan

Did you catch that? If we had just let them the fuck alone and stopped trying to attach Georgia to an anti-Russia cabal, that invasion would never have occurred. CAUSE and EFFECT, pretty simple really. What did America do when Russia put missiles on Cuba? CAUSE and EFFECT.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russo-Georgian_diplomatic_crisis

What does Putin say?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a new military doctrine, the Kremlin said in a statement on Friday.

The new military doctrine says the main external risks for the country are the expansion of NATO's military capabilities and detribalization in several regions, RIA news agency reported.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/puti...ion-of-nato-is-a-threat-2014-12#ixzz3RSmpo2vg

 

[fleshconsumed]

Hard to see how any of that matters. Russia is the one invading people in the last 10 years, not the other way around.

What's the more plausible explanation?

1. Russia was uniquely provoked by the west into repeatedly invading its neighbors.
2. Russia has simply continued doing what it has been doing for centuries.

You still don't get it. Eurasia, simply by the fact that every nation is packed so closely together without huge bodies of water to separate them, has been in constant state of warfare for the past 1000 years. No one is innocent, there are guilty parties everywhere. Every single country at some point has invaded someone else. The fall of the Soviet Union was a chance to cut that warfare cycle and to start over. Instead west continued NATO expansion out east. What you're arguing for is to never forgive and to never give another chance to actually mend the relationships because you "just can't trust them". Well, fine, don't trust, but then do not act surprised when they do not trust you back. You're arguing for perpetuating the warfare state. Well, that's what you got.