Russia-Ukrainian War

[Castanza]

7 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

 

@Castanza,

 

I seldom participate in these discussions in this topic. I would just say here : You - as a US citizen - should not even have an opinion on that particular matter. It's simply none of your business, if you believe in true democracy.

 

I spend tax dollars on it and it's not my business? Someone launches a nuke and I get drafted yet it's none of my business? Respectfully, your comment doesn't even make sense. If it's none of our business to have an opinion on the matter then why is it any of Europe's business to accept our money and weapons? 

 

I guess by your standards I should never hear a European on here mention American politics then? Lastly, we are a Constitutional Republic with representative democracy. Opinions of the citizens are expected. This isn't "democracy" in the pure sense. 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Castanza

[John Hjorth]

7 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

I spend tax dollars on it and it's not my business? Respectfully, your comment doesn't even make sense. 

 

I guess by your standards I should never hear a European on here mention American politics then? 

 

You are messing up your US miniscule voting right of yours related to NATO with the voting rights of other citizens of other nations in Europe. As I already said, this is not relevant for you. And please go somewhere else with this : "I spend tax dollars on it and it's not my business?". It does not matter, unless you decide to run for an office to become a politician, or unless you relocate to Europe for taxation etc. [, in the first case I'll stop reading your posts here on CoBF].

 

Please get real, and please stop posting stuff, that has no real merit.

[Castanza]

46 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

^^^ Oh so it’s really zero.
 

Appreciate your honesty. Looks like quite an admirable record.

Mike, 

 

NATO is like the kid who sticks a finger in your face and says “I’m not touching you!” Since the 90’s. The fact that you can’t admit the blunder over the last 30 years regarding NATO is sad. You’ve got to be able to see the pros and cons, wins, losses and mistakes. 
 

Gow do you reconcile your views with your boy Trump? He says he wants to end the war in “24hrs.” 

What exactly is your view in NATO long term? Have everyone join? Continue to pay billions to foreign countries with their hands out while ignoring stuff back here? 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Castanza

[Castanza]

19 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

, in the first case I'll stop reading your posts here on CoBF].

 I’m heart broken….an entitled European with his hand out won’t read my posts anymore. I’ll send you my tax bill. Lord knows I’m paying more than you for this war. 

[John Hjorth]

@Castanza,

 

What the heck is it with you today?

[Castanza]

42 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

@Castanza,

 

What the heck is it with you today?

Me? I make a reasonable post detailing the failures of NATO since the 90s. List dozens of conflicts that occurred in EU since NATO started. Show two examples specifically involving Russia and NATO discussions. Show multiple former Defense Secretaries under multiple administrations and the architect of the Cold War policy who disagree with NATO expansion and warned that it would lead to the exact conflict we are in now. 
 

You and Mike insult me and say I can’t have an opinion? Gtfoh. Mike who I agree with in a lot of things is a bit of a neocon on this topic. That’s fine, but at least present another argument or be willing to see where your own argument falls short. I didn’t say NATO was a total failure. But since the 90s it has been. It has not prevented conflicts with the exact power it was supposed to prevent them with. Russia did exactly what they said they would do multiple times. 
 

John respectfully I haven’t seen you make a single post on this forum that isn’t bitching and moaning about someone else’s post or thread because it’s not the “exact” content you want to see. You bitch about macro stuff, threads that are too specific, threads that are about a topic you simply don’t like. Don’t read it; or at least don’t come into the topic and say “I don’t typically comment” then leave a single line of text with no real meaning and walk away from the conversation. You literally entered this conversation with “I haven’t been paying attention”….then end with “You don’t get to have an opinion on a war you’re primarily funding because you’re not an elected official in the US.” “Don’t comment unless it has merit” even though what I said was almost verbatim the opinion of multiple Generals and former US defense secretaries that basically predicted this conflict with a crystal ball. So if you want to discuss “merit” of opinions take it up with them. 

You seem like a guy who would have a lot of interesting opinions and I would like to hear them. 

 

Here is an idea….why don’t you give me your synopsis on the War in Ukraine. Why did it start, what’s the solution, how does it end? 
 

I like hearing the opinion of Ukraine from all side of this. It has changed my opinion on the war and what America/NATO should be doing now, and in the future. I said before I’m not opposed to supporting Ukraine as I believe this problem was primarily created by us. @Xerxes @Spekulatius @no_free_lunch @changegonnacome and  others all make very good points from often opposing sides. 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Castanza

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Castanza said:

Mike, 

 

NATO is like the kid who sticks a finger in your face and says “I’m not touching you!” Since the 90’s. The fact that you can’t admit the blunder over the last 30 years regarding NATO is sad. You’ve got to be able to see the pros and cons, wins, losses and mistakes. 
 

Gow do you reconcile your views with your boy Trump? He says he wants to end the war in “24hrs.” 

What exactly is your view in NATO long term? Have everyone join? Continue to pay billions to foreign countries with their hands out while ignoring stuff back here? 

Ha, good one!

 

If my boy Trump was running the show, your buddy Vlad would have never made his move. Putin, of course has not one ounce of fear in Joe HidenBiden or Obama. 
 

I can’t prove that of course and it’s just my opinion…

 

But the FACT is, the TRUTH is, NATO provided a very effective deterrent to the Russians for 70 years. That fact is not up for debate regardless of how you try and spin it.

 

You’re a very smart guy and will  figure it out one of these days.

 

That we may be on the precipice of war with the Russians is NOT the fault of NATO, but squarely in the lap of Putin.

 

 

[cubsfan]

Oh yeah @Castanza, I’m totally with YOU on the issue of the US funding NATO. Unfortunately that’s the price we pay to keep peace in Europe, while the Europeans jump on for the free ride. There is no better ally in the world for the US than a united Europe. You and I can hope that they will take this alliance much more seriously and contribute meaningfully unlike the past.

 

You are correct- we have large problems at home we ignore by being the world’s policeman.

 

It’s very unfortunate Europe trashes the shit out of us, while at the same time having their hands out. 
 

that’s the price we pay for some level of world peace. It’s sucks big time.

[cubsfan]

Europe led by France (hope my French wife doesn’t read this) and Germany - the extremely weak leaders of Europe since they are total pacifists and hypocrites- are now waking up to their  failures of letting Putin run wild. And of course, with their buddy Obama - largely created this disaster.

 

Unfortunately, this conflict is uniting the allies- but the damage is largely already done.

 

So @Castanza, you, John and I are not quite as far apart as you might think.  
 

Weak leaders got us into this mess by giving Vlad the green light.

 

But the solution is NOT to destroy NATO - it’s to make NATO much stronger - and get rid of those weak leaders not serious about this alliance.

 

I’ll apologize for any insults. 

[shhughes1116]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

Europe led by France (hope my French wife doesn’t read this) and Germany - the extremely weak leaders of Europe since they are total pacifists and hypocrites- are now waking up to their  failures of letting Putin run wild. And of course, with their buddy Obama - largely created this disaster.

 

Unfortunately, this conflict is uniting the allies- but the damage is largely already done.

 

So @Castanza, you, John and I are not quite as far apart as you might think.  
 

Weak leaders got us into this mess by giving Vlad the green light.

 

But the solution is NOT to destroy NATO - it’s to make NATO much stronger - and get rid of those weak leaders not serious about this alliance.

 

I’ll apologize for any insults. 

The leadership of NATO is shifting.  The NATO of past years was led by the United States and Germany and France.  The pain of WW2 was recent for leaders and citizens of these countries.  The leaders of those countries, and the citizens, had experienced that pain first-hand, and believed that the Soviets were ready to bring a similar level of pain to Western Europe, engendering strong support for NATO.  Those citizens and leaders are now dead.  They have been replaced by leaders and citizens who lack that direct experience to the pain and destruction of WW2, and the understanding that bullies must be confronted rather than appeased.  Without first-hand experience of that pain and destruction, there is little motivation or appetite for the sacrifice necessary to support a military alliance like NATO.  

 

But, I believe we are seeing the leadership of NATO transition before our eyes.  I believe the torch of NATO will be carried forward by the former Warsaw Bloc countries.  For them, the pain of the USSR is recent, and the pain of Ukraine is right on their doorstep.  Their leaders and citizens have a direct connection to this pain, and understand that bullies must be confronted rather than appeased.  NATO will not disappear into the ether, rather it will be re-invigorated.  Leadership will come from a coalition of former Warsaw Bloc countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.    

[cubsfan]

21 minutes ago, shhughes1116 said:

The leadership of NATO is shifting.  The NATO of past years was led by the United States and Germany and France.  The pain of WW2 was recent for leaders and citizens of these countries.  The leaders of those countries, and the citizens, had experienced that pain first-hand, and believed that the Soviets were ready to bring a similar level of pain to Western Europe, engendering strong support for NATO.  Those citizens and leaders are now dead.  They have been replaced by leaders and citizens who lack that direct experience to the pain and destruction of WW2, and the understanding that bullies must be confronted rather than appeased.  Without first-hand experience of that pain and destruction, there is little motivation or appetite for the sacrifice necessary to support a military alliance like NATO.  

 

But, I believe we are seeing the leadership of NATO transition before our eyes.  I believe the torch of NATO will be carried forward by the former Warsaw Bloc countries.  For them, the pain of the USSR is recent, and the pain of Ukraine is right on their doorstep.  Their leaders and citizens have a direct connection to this pain, and understand that bullies must be confronted rather than appeased.  NATO will not disappear into the ether, rather it will be re-invigorated.  Leadership will come from a coalition of former Warsaw Bloc countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.    

Very nice. I think Castanza’s point about the “failure” of NATO are in line with the failed leadership you describe. Keeping a military alliance together takes constant hard work - and NATO is no different.

[Castanza]

4 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

Very nice. I think Castanza’s point about the “failure” of NATO are in line with the failed leadership you describe. Keeping a military alliance together takes constant hard work - and NATO is no different.

 

Yes and no. Is there any evidence to support an aggressive Russia post Cold War without countries directly on their border discussing NATO membership 90's onward? I mean you can follow the map and timeline alongside the comments from both Russian leadership and American leadership. @cubsfan I think our difference is the framework with which we view geopolitics. I think aggression should be a last resort and I think a proper classification of aggression is required. A lot of people out there try to exclude certain things from "aggression". Building an alliance with contracts and then parking weapons on someone's border is aggression. We wouldn't tolerate it here. Sanctions, financial attacks, and trade disputes can also be seen as aggression. But your view seems to be more of be as strong as possible and always make sure you have the pressure on. I don't think you need to prod borders and keep the pressure on to maintain peace. 

 

Geographically speaking it makes sense for Russia to want Ukraine as a defensive position. So between NATO pushing up against Russia and Ukraine basically becoming a NATO nation by proxy it kind of forced Russia's hand. Their demographics are shit. Their border "defendabiliy" is shit and they see their "enemies" banning together along all of their borders. 

 

Imagine if instead of excluding Russia from NATO post WWII we found a way to integrate them. What would Europe look like today? America needs to come to terms with the idea that not every world leader has to fit our values to a T. You can have some bad actors out there and live and let live. We've done it with China for along time now and to our great benefit. 

 

I still see no clear way for this conflict to end. Do you? 

 

[cubsfan]

42 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

Yes and no. Is there any evidence to support an aggressive Russia post Cold War without countries directly on their border discussing NATO membership 90's onward? I mean you can follow the map and timeline alongside the comments from both Russian leadership and American leadership. @cubsfan I think our difference is the framework with which we view geopolitics. I think aggression should be a last resort and I think a proper classification of aggression is required. A lot of people out there try to exclude certain things from "aggression". Building an alliance with contracts and then parking weapons on someone's border is aggression. We wouldn't tolerate it here. Sanctions, financial attacks, and trade disputes can also be seen as aggression. But your view seems to be more of be as strong as possible and always make sure you have the pressure on. I don't think you need to prod borders and keep the pressure on to maintain peace. 

 

Geographically speaking it makes sense for Russia to want Ukraine as a defensive position. So between NATO pushing up against Russia and Ukraine basically becoming a NATO nation by proxy it kind of forced Russia's hand. Their demographics are shit. Their border "defendabiliy" is shit and they see their "enemies" banning together along all of their borders. 

 

Imagine if instead of excluding Russia from NATO post WWII we found a way to integrate them. What would Europe look like today? America needs to come to terms with the idea that not every world leader has to fit our values to a T. You can have some bad actors out there and live and let live. We've done it with China for along time now and to our great benefit. 

 

I still see no clear way for this conflict to end. Do you? 

 

 
I don’t totally follow your logic but that’s ok. I believe in deterrence as a military strategy. The Russia is indeed an aggressive neighbor that wishes to rebuild the great Soviet empire of the past - is perhaps where we differ. I don’t think it’s any secret that Putin has always been furious about the dismantling of the empire by Gorbachev. 
 

Sovereign nations have a right to defend themselves. That former satellite nations, once under the control of the Soviets, wish to protect themselves from Putin , by joining NATO- makes total sense.

 

Putin doesn’t fool anyone.

 

It’s never been about the defense of Russia. That’s just an excuse. It’s always been about rebuilding Russia’s former greatness.

[shhughes1116]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

 

Putin doesn’t fool anyone.

 

It’s never been about the defense of Russia. That’s just an excuse. It’s always been about rebuilding Russia’s former greatness.

Your second point is absolutely correct.  
 

But I must quibble with your first point.  There seem to be many out there fooled by Putin, even to this day.  

[formthirteen]

4 hours ago, Castanza said:

NATO expansion in the 90's was unchecked because for the first time the US was the lone Superpower.

 

Russia is the only country with unchecked territorial expansion: Donbas, Crimea, largest country on Earth, fucking LOL.

 

However, the US is the only country with unchecked cultural expansion.

 

Europe has plenty of useful and weak politicians (Macron, Scholtz, Merkel, Schröder, etc) who support the "triumph of evil".

 

Quote

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

It's all pretty simple (until it isn't).

 

Here's what one Russian thinks:

Do we love freedom enough?

[Castanza]

1 hour ago, formthirteen said:

 

Russia is the only country with unchecked territorial expansion: Donbas, Crimea, largest country on Earth, fucking LOL.

 

However, the US is the only country with unchecked cultural expansion.

 

Europe has plenty of useful and weak politicians (Macron, Scholtz, Merkel, Schröder, etc) who support the "triumph of evil".

 

 

It's all pretty simple (until it isn't).

 

Here's what one Russian thinks:

Do we love freedom enough?

Where has Russia expanded in the last 30 years? It’s been the exact opposite. I mean Ukraine was a part of Russia not long ago. A lot of you guys act like Ukraine has been a sovereign nation for a 100 years. 
 

If California or Texas decided to succeed from the US would you support that? Because I bet my life’s worth that US troops would be taking over whichever state chose to leave in 24hrs. Who would you support there? 
 

People are Hell bent on turning a land dispute civil war into WWIII by constantly comparing it to WWII. Putin is a shit bag as I’ve said. Clearly his troops or Wagner had committed war crimes against Ukrainian civilians. But let me remind you the US is responsible for over 1m innocent deaths in the Middle East. Roughly 2m+ from Vietnam.

 

Putin currently is not even close to being in the same league as Stalin or Lenin….at this time it’s a bad comparison. 

 

Also what evidence is there to say Putin wants to push beyond Ukraine? Could he? Yeah maybe, but then he is in actual NATO territory and that would be the end of it. 
 

I think you’re jumping the gun when people say he’s trying to take over Europe or rebuild the empire. I think it’s simpler than that. The evidence suggest he is either:

 

1. Going to leave Ukraine in ruins so that NATO cannot effectively utilize the country as a threat to Russia

 

2 Take over Ukraine so that they have a much better geographically defensible position. 
 

Solzhenitsyn and Dostoyevsky both have a lot of good things to say. Like the quote but are we really there yet? What does the evidence actually show? Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like a lot of people aren’t being honest with what caused this or influenced this conflict and what the desired outcome is. 
 

Still nobody has answered. What is the outcome of this? If Ukraine expels Russia or if Russia takes Ukraine? Russia is a failing empire which can barely sustain itself. But they’ve also never stopped a conflict until they’ve had near a million deaths. So if that holds true then there is a long way to go. 
 

Is it worth it to keep up the bloodshed? Or is it better to push for negotiations? 

[cubsfan]

14 minutes ago, Castanza said:

Where has Russia expanded in the last 30 years? It’s been the exact opposite. I mean Ukraine was a part of Russia not long ago. A lot of you guys act like Ukraine has been a sovereign nation for a 100 years. 
 

If California or Texas decided to succeed from the US would you support that? Because I bet my life’s worth that US troops would be taking over whichever state chose to leave in 24hrs. Who would you support there? 
 

People are Hell bent on turning a land dispute civil war into WWIII by constantly comparing it to WWII. Putin is a shit bag as I’ve said. Clearly his troops or Wagner had committed war crimes against Ukrainian civilians. But let me remind you the US is responsible for over 1m innocent deaths in the Middle East. Roughly 2m+ from Vietnam.

 

Putin currently is not even close to being in the same league as Stalin or Lenin….at this time it’s a bad comparison. 

 

Also what evidence is there to say Putin wants to push beyond Ukraine? Could he? Yeah maybe, but then he is in actual NATO territory and that would be the end of it. 
 

I think you’re jumping the gun when people say he’s trying to take over Europe or rebuild the empire. I think it’s simpler than that. The evidence suggest he is either:

 

1. Going to leave Ukraine in ruins so that NATO cannot effectively utilize the country as a threat to Russia

 

2 Take over Ukraine so that they have a much better geographically defensible position. 
 

Solzhenitsyn and Dostoyevsky both have a lot of good things to say. Like the quote but are we really there yet? What does the evidence actually show? Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like a lot of people aren’t being honest with what caused this or influenced this conflict and what the desired outcome is. 
 

Still nobody has answered. What is the outcome of this? If Ukraine expels Russia or if Russia takes Ukraine? Russia is a failing empire which can barely sustain itself. But they’ve also never stopped a conflict until they’ve had near a million deaths. So if that holds true then there is a long way to go. 
 

Is it worth it to keep up the bloodshed? Or is it better to push for negotiations? 

My take: Eastern Ukraine stays a smoking pile of rubble and Russia retains Crimea.

A DMZ is established in Ukraine.

 

The damage is done, Putin’s expansion is stopped for good, since the Europeans wake up for good for the benefit of the rest of Europe.

 

it’s a real tragedy that didn’t have to happen, but that’s how I see it.

I hope I’m wrong 

[Spekulatius]

@Castanza long list of conflicts prove one thing : no NATO country was ever attacked

(exception was the 1974 internal conflict about Cyprus between Greece and Turkey- both NSTO members at that time ). 
 

The problem was not that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, the problem was that NATO did not let join Ukraine. Had Ukraine been able to join NATO, this conflict had never happened.

 

I am also convinced that if Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia had not been able to join NATO, they would be either puppet regimes or just be part or Russia by now ( similar to Belarus ). These countries know a thing or two about oppression and we’re happy to join NATP as quickly as they could. It is already telling that even counties like Sweden who were neutral for decades including WW1 and WW2 feel compelled to join NATO. That tells you all you need to know.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Spekulatius]

Interesting that the Russian lines north and south of Bakhmut seem to crumble. The plan was to encircle Ukraine forces, I think.

I do not think that Ukraine really attacks in size at Bakhmut. That location has little strategic value. 

 

[Sweet]

18 hours ago, shhughes1116 said:

The leadership of NATO is shifting.  The NATO of past years was led by the United States and Germany and France.  The pain of WW2 was recent for leaders and citizens of these countries.

Germany was not even an original signatory of NATO.

 

The three pillars of NATO was France, USA and the UK.  That’s not to undermine the others, it’s just that those were the main powers at the time.

 

A precursor to NATO was France and the UK signing a mutual defence Treaty from that spawned NATO in some respects.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Sweet

[Sweet]

22 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

@Castanza,

 

What the heck is it with you today?

Think you should ask that of yourself.

 

You are being rude.

[Dinar]

55 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Think you should ask that of yourself.

 

You are being rude.

John is very emotional when it comes to the Russia/Ukraine war, and like many people immediately gets angry when he hears something that he disagrees with.   I know quite a few family friends with whom I avoid discussing the war since I don't want to get into a fist fights.  People cannot separation passion/what they wish would happen, from reality.

[Xerxes]

Nuclear deterrence held the Reds at bay in Europe. Not NATO. However people are free to think whatever they like. 
 

Re-run the post 1945 scenario without NATO, while keeping everything else constant, you will see that there was very limited wars post-1945 in Europe in the atomic age. Because at some point there would have a red line where US/UK/France strategic interests would have been breached (with or without NATO), and they would have responded. 
 

Case in point:  Ukraine. Is it part of NATO. No. Is West doing everything it can to help it, even though not bounded by Article 5 Yeah. No need to respond with technicalities of proxy/indirect vs. direct help.  
 

That said I think the world is in a better place with NATO than without. At least for the optics.

NATO is not the only military alliance in the world. There is nothing magical about Article 5, other than being a call option, to formalize a military response. Treaties are what they are. A piece of paper to formalize your resolve. If your resolve is there you don’t need that piece of paper. But you can have it there as well. 
 

For all of you fine folks taking the other side, ask yourself this =>. How many wars would Europe have had since 1945 if NATO was there but neither side had nuclear weapons. Run that scenario. Now I dare you to tell me, that is NATO and not nuclear deterrence that has been the cause of peace (I.e void of full scale wars)

 

 

————-
How many wars Pakistan/India had fought since the nuclear testing in the late 90s. Zero. Did the multi-decade Pakistan/China treaty of alliance “deeper than ocean” prevented wars between India and Pakistan prior to Pakistan’ atomic tests in the late 90s. The answer is no. 

[Xerxes]

I never seen this dude so animated and excited. He is cool. 
 

 

[Spekulatius]

@Xerxes The situation in Bakhmut reminds me of Stalingrad.

 

The second part about the Russian ship allegedly carrying  weapons from South Africa is also interesting.

 

Michael Clarke is well informed and worth listening to. He is der better informed than most mainstream commentators.