Will the 800 million in USA be enough to turn the tide?

[Carol]

How many billions have we been giving them for how many years?

And why?

 

[Temujin]

Tell them to muster everything they've got, and then muster some more, and here is some ammo. Ok.

No. Don't tell them. Ask them. Consult them. Support them. Telling them is what Russia is doing. Good grief, you would think that an American would get what it is like to be told what to do by other countries.

 

[Thistle]

No, I don't think that Russia will just get over it. I expect that the end of this crisis will come about only after cataclysmic upheavals in the lives and well-being of the citizens of many countries.

There is cataclysmic and there is cataclysmic. The shortage of wheat caused by this war is probably going to cause the government of Egypt to fall, because that almost always happens when that government faces famine. And very likely Egypt will not be the only government fall as a direct result of this war and its effects on the world. That is definitely cataclysmic. But as far as Russia goes, before they face a absolute cataclysm they will launch a nuclear strike. That's the difference between being a "great power" and being Egypt. What's happening in Ukraine is already a cataclysm.

The aim is to make sure that the main burden is felt by Russia.

If you really believe that it is the job of your country, the UK, to visit this cataclysm on Russia that makes you a target in a nuclear strike. Other than being targeted in a nuclear strike there's no reason that this war should cause a cataclysm in the UK. Displacement inconvenience shortages yes but not a cataclysm.

More particularly that Russia foresees that the main burden will fall on her. Don't make excuses for Putin.

Discussing how the realist foreign policy approach bears on this particular circumstance is not making an excuse for Putin.

There is nothing defensive about this war at all. He has been acting in this way for years.

He's been acting this way since he invaded Georgia. He made it very clear that Georgia and Ukraine are red lines and his actions and his words have told one unmistakable story which is impossible to misinterpret.

The failure of the west was the lack of reaction over Crimea.

If the West had fought the war in Crimea that you were cheerleading for, we'd all be dead now. The one thing that we got right during the Cold War, and there was no guarantee that we would survive the Cold War, is that we can't have a nuclear conflict. Nobody can win! We are alive today to have this conversation specifically because we avoided a nuclear conflict.

If this war was started to prevent NATO influence from expanding, it has already failed. NATO is stronger now than it ever was, and poised to pick up both Sweden and Finland. Putin cannot be allowed to get away with this.

When you say "Putin cannot be allowed to get away with this." You were making a direct appeal to fairness. There's nothing fair about great power foreign policy. Great powers use multilateral organizations to achieve their ends when those organizations serve the ends that they have. When multilateral organizations do not achieve their ends the great powers ignore them. That is reality. That's what Cuba ignored. That approach that you're advocating has been tried by Cuba now for 60 years and it hasn't worked yet.

Because if he does, he won't stop.

Won't stop? The discussion about Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO started in 2008 which is exactly when Russia drew a red line and invaded Georgia! Not stopping is what redlines are supposed to mean. One thing I give Putin credit for is being consistent. If you want to be understood make your words and actions tell exactly the same story. So what does Vladimir Putin have in his tool chest for enforcing red lines? Unfortunately one of the things that he has is the largest nuclear arsenal on planet earth. Trusting the survival of the human race to the Goodwill of people with bad intentions is not a plan.

And because if he does, he hands a working play book to China, whose actions in the South China Sea mirror Putin's land grabs.

So far Putin has not drawn any redlines other than Ukraine and Georgia. This can be contained without going nuclear. If Ukraine decides that peacefully coexisting between the east and the west is something they can live with we should not encourage them to fulfill the nightmares of Russia to become an existential threat on there border.

Nuclear weapons are meant to deter both sides.

Kennedy picked up the telephone and told Nikita Khrushchev that he would remove the Jupiter missiles in Turkey if they would simply pull back respect in Cuba. That is the actual reality of how we avoided a nuclear war.

They won't be used because Russia is more than just one selfish, embittered and miscalculating old man. He cannot act without the support of others. Those who are in the positions to press the firing buttons are not as doped to the eyeballs with propaganda as the rest of the population.

I am not going to pretend like there aren't lots of people in Russia who because of the interconnected nature of the World Wide Web believe this is a terrible policy and the terrible war. What I think you should not discount is the fact that nationalism is stronger then liberal democracy which is exactly why we failed in Vietnam and in Iraq and in Afghanistan because when a liberal democracy goes up against nationalism liberal democracy loses every time. If you were to pick 10 people off the street in Russia and suggest to them that they should become a liberal democracy like the United States eight of them are going to tell you that we tried that in the 1990s and it didn't seem to work for us we like the security that we're getting from our current president; "It's my country right or wrong!" That's a problem for the scenario that you've just laid out.

Don't get me wrong. I thank God that I was born and live in a liberal democracy, where individual rights reign supreme. But there are a lot of places in the world where that has not worked out where security blood and soil is more important to them than individual liberty. And don't forget the Democratic liberalism is not necessarily at odds with nationalism. What do you think Madeleine Albright meant when she said "America is the indispensable nation!" That my friend is a statement of nationalism. When Americans talk about American exceptionalism that is a statement of nationalism. It just so happens in America that nationalism and liberal democracy do not come into direct conflict.

 

[Furion]

No. Don't tell them. Ask them. Consult them. Support them.

Ok, dear Ukraine, do you need lawyers, guns and money?

 

[Temujin]

Ok, dear Ukraine, do you need lawyers, guns and money?

The three things that the US has a massive surplus of.

 

[Thistle]

The three things that the US has a massive surplus of.

If boots on the ground and Ukraine means sending them all of our ambulance chasers, put me down as a yes!

 

[Furion]

The three things that the US has a massive surplus of.

So?

If Wales is so concerned, why haven't you lived up to it?

Oh lookie, england doesn't care enough, neither does Wales. Such a shame. Have you even sent any troops?

 

[Temujin]

So?

If Wales is so concerned, why haven't you lived up to it?

Oh lookie, england doesn't care enough, neither does Wales. Such a shame. Have you even sent any troops?

What on earth are you talking about? The UK, which is presumably what you are talking about, has sent more to Ukraine than any other European country, and a much larger percentage of both GDP and military hardware than the US. But so what? The important thing is that the whole of NATO has reacted and the whole of NATO is united. Frankly, it is good to see the US showing a bit of leadership for once.

 

[Furion]

But so what?

Indeed, so what.

 

[Temujin]

Indeed, so what.

Nothing you have a coherent thought about, clearly.

 

[Furion]

Nothing you have a coherent thought about, clearly.

So what you're saying is so what to the so what because, so what.

Nice.

 

[Thistle]

Will the 800 million in US aid be enough to turn the tide?

Seriously?

Russia has tactical nukes, and ICBMs; they literally never have to give up, and they're never gonna stop fighting the longest day that the country survives.

At some point Russia may "negotiate" a peace deal with the offer that's already on the table, which is a neutral Ukraine.

It seems to me that we should be figuring out how to get to that peaceful situation ASAP.

I really hate to be the Debbie Downer here, but it seems to me that getting to peace in as few steps as possible is the only play that is humane to the Ukrainian people.

Does anyone know how many people have been killed in Ukraine since I first posted this on April 22? Is anyone of the opinion that their deaths were really necessary?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

You didn't answer the question. To repeat:

Ask Satan.

Do you believe that Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States are doing the will of Satan by supplying Ukraine with weapons?

Was Satan proud of punishing a preacher in Edmonton?

Pastor Artur Pawlowski

 

[David1701]

Will the 800 million in US aid be enough to turn the tide?

Seriously?

Russia has tactical nukes, and ICBMs; they literally never have to give up, and they're never gonna stop fighting the longest day that the country survives.

At some point Russia may "negotiate" a peace deal with the offer that's already on the table, which is a neutral Ukraine.

It seems to me that we should be figuring out how to get to that peaceful situation ASAP.

I really hate to be the Debbie Downer here, but it seems to me that getting to peace in as few steps as possible is the only play that is humane to the Ukrainian people.

That's what the appeasers thought, in the run-up to WWII. Just accept a few annexations by Hitler, and him "liberating" German speaking areas in other countries, then agree a peace treaty - best all round really. This means peace in our time...oops!

 

[Thistle]

That's what the appeasers thought, in the run-up to WWII. Just accept a few annexations by Hitler, and him "liberating" German speaking areas in other countries, then agree a peace treaty - best all round really. This means peace in our time...oops!

I understand this argument and at a superficial level it has some persuasive effect. But consider for a moment how old you were when the United States put its embargoes on Cuba. If you live in Cuba and you're lucky enough to have an automobile it was manufactured in the 1950s.

Theoretically Cuba is an independent country and it is free to self determine and make alliances with the USSR and host nuclear missiles aimed at the United States, etc., etc., etc. That logic got you exactly nowhere for the last 60 years. Do you not think that maybe a realist approach might be worth considering? Because in Ukraine the cost is not driving old cars, it's thousands upon thousands of people being slaughtered. A little bit of flexibility in thinking might be an order. If it could simply save a few thousand lives. Isn't it worth at least a consideration?

Is there no chance that Russia views Ukraine in a similar way that we view Cuba? They have been saying that ad nauseam since 2008. Are there no circumstances where we might compare or what they have said to what they have subsequently done, and ask ourselves whether or not we believe that these are consistent?

 

[Reepicheep]

Will the 800 million in US aid be enough to turn the tide?

Your estimate is way out of date. I believe the latest figure for US aid to Ukraine is around $54 billion, including the $40 billion aid bill which should be approved by congress within a few days.

 

[David1701]

I understand this argument and at a superficial level it has some persuasive effect. But consider for a moment how old you were when the United States put its embargoes on Cuba. If you live in Cuba and you're lucky enough to have an automobile it was manufactured in the 1950s.

Theoretically Cuba is an independent country and it is free to self determine and make alliances with the USSR and host nuclear missiles aimed at the United States, etc., etc., etc. That logic got you exactly nowhere for the last 60 years. Do you not think that maybe a realist approach might be worth considering? Because in Ukraine the cost is not driving old cars, it's thousands upon thousands of people being slaughtered. A little bit of flexibility in thinking might be an order. If it could simply save a few thousand lives. Isn't it worth at least a consideration?

Is there no chance that Russia views Ukraine in a similar way that we view Cuba? They have been saying that ad nauseam since 2008. Are there no circumstances where we might compare or what they have said to what they have subsequently done, and ask ourselves whether or not we believe that these are consistent?

Cuba is not equivalent to Ukraine, by any stretch of the imagination. No-one intended to put nuclear missiles, aimed at Russia, in Ukraine; in fact, Ukraine got rid of its entire nuclear arsenal (from the Soviet era), in return for guarantees that America, Britain and Russia would protect its territorial integrity.

If we give Ukraine over to Putin, which is, in effect, what he demands, then he will simply be free to turn his gun-sights on Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, not to mention the horrors he is likely to inflict on the population of Ukraine (he claims that the country is riddled with Nazis).

I very much doubt that appeasing Putin would reduce the number of lives he takes.

 

[Thistle]

Cuba is not equivalent to Ukraine, by any stretch of the imagination. No-one intended to put nuclear missiles, aimed at Russia, in Ukraine;

If Ukraine becomes a member of NATO it's protected by the US nuclear umbrella. Furthermore in all of the invasions of Russia that have failed, failed because they had to start on the outer borders of states in Eastern Europe, and the invading forces were swallowed up in the vastness of the area. If an invasion was launched from the borders of Ukraine it's 230 km to Moscow. That means that Russia will cease to exist the next time it's invaded.

in fact, Ukraine got rid of its entire nuclear arsenal (from the Soviet era), in return for guarantees that America, Britain and Russia would protect its territorial integrity.

It is completely immaterial that the old Cold War dated nuclear arsenal was surrender to Russia if it's going to be replaced by the US nuclear umbrella.

If we give Ukraine over to Putin, which is, in effect, what he demands, then he will simply be free to turn his gun-sights on Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, not to mention the horrors he is likely to inflict on the population of Ukraine (he claims that the country is riddled with Nazis).

This is a false choice. Zelenskyy has on several occasions expressed willingness to come to an amicable negotiated settlement with Russia. Do you think he really envisions placing all of his citizens on the chopping block as part of the negotiated settlement? I don't think so.

I very much doubt that appeasing Putin would reduce the number of lives he takes.

If we continue down the maximum death road we're not apt to find out either.

 

[David1701]

If Ukraine becomes a member of NATO it's protected by the US nuclear umbrella. Furthermore in all of the invasions of Russia that have failed, failed because they had to start on the outer borders of states in Eastern Europe, and the invading forces were swallowed up in the vastness of the area. If an invasion was launched from the borders of Ukraine it's 230 km to Moscow. That means that Russia will cease to exist the next time it's invaded.

There is no sign of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. In any case, NATO (the organisation itself, not individual countries within it) is purely defensive; unlike Russia, it has never attacked anyone.

It is completely immaterial that the old Cold War dated nuclear arsenal was surrender to Russia if it's going to be replaced by the US nuclear umbrella.

The NATO (not the U.S., which is only one country within NATO) umbrella is defensive.

This is a false choice. Zelenskyy has on several occasions expressed willingness to come to an amicable negotiated settlement with Russia. Do you think he really envisions placing all of his citizens on the chopping block as part of the negotiated settlement? I don't think so.

Zelensky is not the problem: Putin is. He wants to annexe large chunks of Ukraine, which is, of course, completely unacceptable to Ukraine. He also wants to purge Ukraine of what he calls "Nazis", which is presumably why hundreds of Ukrainian civilians have been found executed, with their hands tied behind their backs.

If we continue down the maximum death road we're not apt to find out either.

Begging the question: what is the "maximum death road"? Appeasement almost never stops a bully; in fact, it encourages him to keep going.

 

[Thistle]

There is no sign of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. In any case, NATO (the organisation itself, not individual countries within it) is purely defensive; unlike Russia, it has never attacked anyone.

You need to read the Bucharest declaration of 2008. It says that NATO is in the process of inviting Georgia and Ukraine into the fold. Russia drew a red line in front of Georgia and Ukraine and said "look we didn't say anything in 1999 in the first round of Eastern Europe admissions in to NATO, or in the second round in 2003, but we're drawing a line here at Georgia and Ukraine are not going into NATO." Russia prove they were serious by immediately invading Georgia, then during the Obama Administration they invaded Ukraine and took Crimea, and now under the Biden Administration they've invaded Ukraine again. So what on earth makes you think that they're not serious? Russia has clearly stated their position, they have proven it by their actions, I don't see how anyone can rationally say that there's any ambiguity here.

The NATO (not the U.S., which is only one country within NATO) umbrella is defensive.

You don't think Russia might argue that they've never used Ukraine to invade western Europe?

Zelensky is not the problem:

No I think he's the victim. On the one hand Russia is prepared to squash him like a bug, but on the other hand all the Western nations won't take peace for an answer. Zelinskyy is in the absolute definition of a no-win scenario.

Putin is. He wants to annexe large chunks of Ukraine, which is, of course, completely unacceptable to Ukraine.

If it were completely unacceptable to Ukraine then Zelenskyy would not have been saying as he has said several times that he's willing to engage in settlement talks with Russia. Don't project your attitude onto Zelenskyy because they're two different things.

He also wants to purge Ukraine of what he calls "Nazis",

There's a very good reason he calls them Nazis. Because they're Nazis. This is not a point concerning which there is any dispute at all! When left-wing kooks accused the US Army of being racist, they're being hyperbolic. But Ukraine literally has an entire battalion of certified Nazis. And believe me these guys are just as horrible as any Nazis who ever lived. Thankfully this battalion does not represent the entire Ukrainian army, but there's no excuse for having these guys around.

which is presumably why hundreds of Ukrainian civilians have been found executed, with their hands tied behind their backs.

It's widely reported that the Ukrainian Nazis have been shooting the genitalia off of Russian prisoners. It's also been reported that they've been shooting Russian speaking Ukrainians, who have been welcoming Russian troops into these largely Russian speaking areas as liberators. So you're welcome to take your pic the first casualty of war is the truth. I'm not believing anybody's propaganda at this point. We may not know the truth for decades.

Begging the question: what is the "maximum death road"?

If memory serves I believe you pointed out that thousands of Ukrainians have been killed. A lot of Russians have also been killed. If this is not the maximum death Road it's very close to it.

Appeasement almost never stops a bully; in fact, it encourages him to keep going.

I don't agree with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But I'm not sure that your characterization is particularly useful either. If Russia were truly the bully that you would have us believe, why didn't they invade anybody in 1999? Why didn't Russia invade anybody in 2003? Russia drew this red line in 2008. It's now 2022. if Russia is being a bully they are the slowest bully off the line I've ever heard of.