Ukraine

Krgrecw said:
I'm sure he said that. The Iranians and North Korea say that kind of **** too.

Strong bullies only respond to stronger bullies.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, although I think we can peacefully deescalate.

BTW, here's Russia's last attempt to launch something:

 
Hawk said:
I tend to agree, although I think we can peacefully deescalate.

BTW, here's Russia's last attempt to launch something:

Click to expand...

Not sure you can deescalate. If Putin falls back he loses. Russia's media is to open to hide, downplay, or twist any stories if Putin falls back. His people will know. He'd lose all power. He's got everything to lose by walking away.

Putin could be smart and just keep things status quo while he secretly has hardliners throughout the Baltic states start rioting and trying to overthrow their respective governments.
 
I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on the following argument:

Bush was a frickin loser vis-a-vis Putin and Georgia, so Obama should be now with Putin and Ukraine.

I agree Bush was a frickin idiot. "I looked into his eyes" bull malarkey. Although I am not sure what actions Bush should have taken, I do suspect he could have done better. Don't you Bush detractors on here think so?

But with Ukraine, things are amped up a few notches. To act as if they aren't is well, naive at best.

I am not a fan of Obama's foreign policy leading up to this mess, but I have been pretty much since it occurred. And to those Obama detractors now, what more do you want him to do. He's rattled the saber. He's sent Kerry to Ukraine, bolstering our support of the fledgling new government, he's threatened sanctions, he's tried to leverage the Chinese and light fires under the arses of the EU, he's maintained and expanded military exercises with Turkey in the Black Sea.

Now, where does he go from here? Especially if Russia further pours its 60,000 troops further into Ukraine, particularly into a Ukraine that was gutted of its nuclear weapons per our "Gentlemen's Agreement" (Z, come on!) with a Ukrainian military that was further weakened thru the actions of Putin's puppet, the former president?

None of us, I hope, want full scale war. We don't want our men and women slaughtered in battle over Ukrainian wheat fields. And with Russia's savvy courting of the libertarians among us over the past decade and since Millennials suck in general, I don't see this country as it is currently, ever supporting a war effort the scale needed if you are battling a cocky, aggressive super-power. Russia and China surely see this. We'll fight some variant of a glorified computer game war if it doesn't last too long and so long as we can smoke pot, watch porn, play fantasy football, and do a little social media. In other words, we suck as a nation now.

So I'm not sure what POTUS can do moving forward.
 
I'm just finishing Anthony Beevor's history of the Second World War. His book about the Battle of Stalingrad, btw, is magisterial.

Anyway, this passage struck me as germane to the topic:

"There is, nevertheless, a real danger of the Second World War becoming an instant reference point, both for modern history and for all contemporary conflicts. In a crisis, journalists and politicians alike instinctively reach for parallels with the Second World War, either to dramatize the gravity of the situation, or in an attempt to sound Rooseveltian or Churchillian. To compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, or to liken Nasser and Saddam Hussein to Hitler, is not just to make an inaccurate historical parallel. Such comparisons are gravely misleading and risk producing the wrong strategic responses. Leaders of democracies can become prisoners of their own rhetoric, just like dictators."

Going back upthread a bit, addressing krgrecw—it was more than just domestic isolationists that kept the US out of the war when Hitler was romping around Europe from '38-'40. The Western democracies simply didn't have a military force that could stand up to the Wehrmacht in those years. No amount of tough talk or bellicosity or pointless sacrifice would have changed that. Had Hitler not hastened the inevitable clash of the two totalitarian states, it might have been many years before the western democracies could have rolled back the Germans' mastery of Europe. As it was, doing so meant making a deal with the devil and ultimately consigning miillions of Eastern Europeans to the depredations of the USSR. It's harder for democracies to move to a war footing, but it is well that it should be so.
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm just finishing Anthony Beevor's history of the Second World War. His book about the Battle of Stalingrad, btw, is magisterial.

Anyway, this passage struck me as germane to the topic:

"There is, nevertheless, a real danger of the Second World War becoming an instant reference point, both for modern history and for all contemporary conflicts. In a crisis, journalists and politicians alike instinctively reach for parallels with the Second World War, either to dramatize the gravity of the situation, or in an attempt to sound Rooseveltian or Churchillian. To compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, or to liken Nasser and Saddam Hussein to Hitler, is not just to make an inaccurate historical parallel. Such comparisons are gravely misleading and risk producing the wrong strategic responses. Leaders of democracies can become prisoners of their own rhetoric, just like dictators."

Going back upthread a bit, addressing kcgrew—it was more than just domestic isolationists that kept the US out of the war when Hitler was romping around Europe from '38-'40. The Western democracies simply didn't have a military force that could stand up to the Wehrmacht in those years. No amount of tough talk or bellicosity or pointless sacrifice would have changed that. Had Hitler not hastened the inevitable clash of the two totalitarian states, it might have been many years before the western democracies could have rolled back the Germans' mastery of Europe. As it was, doing so meant making a deal with the devil and ultimately consigning miillions of Eastern Europeans to the depredations of the USSR. It's harder for democracies to move to a war footing, but it is well that it should be so.
Click to expand...

Well put Julio. I do wonder though - no, scratch that, I doubt that we - as we are today - can move to a massive war footing. I just don't think our generations are capable of it. I think we'll prefer appeasement and a slow move to capitulation so long as we get our goodies.
 
zitothebrave said:
I think it would be fine in 20th and 21st as well. Less dealing with European banking oligarchies would do us good.
Click to expand...

Not unless we become energy independent. Our world is too interconnected and the geo-politics too involved for the isolationist model to actually work, imho.
 
Also, our world is the world yes of nations, but also, and often more importantly, the world of transnational businesses. Hard to change all that on a dime.
 
BedellBrave said:
Well put Julio. I do wonder though - no, scratch that, I doubt that we - as we are today - can move to a massive war footing. I just don't think our generations are capable of it. I think we'll prefer appeasement and a slow move to capitulation so long as we get our goodies.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, damned lazy generation. Just like those lazy kids in the 40s. They didn't realize how easy they had it they didn't have to work in factories as children like the boys of the first world war.

As far as your latter statement about appeasement. That has to do with the interest of the rich. We're not controlled by anyone but the richest of the rich. They'll only do things to make money. If what Putin is doing wasn't appeasing the rich of the world he'd be ousted. The whole idea that that's not the case would be amusing. The rich of China and Russia pull the strings, the moves that Putin makes now are to make more money for the rich in Europe, the US, Russia, China, etc. We rape the resources of developing nations and many others.
 
BedellBrave said:
Not unless we become energy independent. Our world is too interconnected and the geo-politics too involved for the isolationist model to actually work, imho.
Click to expand...

We honestly could have become energy independent a long time ago if it wasn't for the European entanglements. We could easily have alternative motors, wind energy, cheap solar energy, etc. but the rich are all about monetizing.

For example, nearly 100 years ago without the sole goal of monetizing, we could have wireless energy all over the US (read on Wardenclyffe Tower)
 
obamacare_pajamas_boy_as_che_12-22-13-3.jpg
 
So Z, tell me, do you really think the likes of all you young guys have the stomach for a war with Russia or China? Really? I'm at the edge of the baby-boomers and I know we're a bunch of losers.
 
BedellBrave said:
So Z, tell me, do you really think the likes of all you young guys have the stomach for a war with Russia or China? Really? I'm at the edge of the baby-boomers and I know we're a bunch of losers.
Click to expand...

If it has to happen it will happen. That said, in the age of post WWII (aka the nuclear age) there isn't the same battles for a reason. If we get into a war with China or Russia the potential end of the world is on the line. Instead the proxy wars happen, cyber warfare, etc. happen. Because it's how wars are fought today. It's the way it is. You claim it's cause of whatever generational etc. But it really has to do with the interests of those at the top of the food chain. They don't want the end of the world, or the destruction of important interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top