DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus War in Ukraine

So, trying to assist a country, with a right to self determination, against a foreign invader is just us “Trying to wear down Russia?”

If anything, if you are justifiably opposed to the Iraq invasion, you would also be opposed to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Also, we are not overturning a government. We are trying to preserve one. It’s also not a repressive dictatorship. It was a self-imposed democracy.

So you're trying to compare a war we started based on faulty intel, which we most certainly did and I opposed it at the time, to a nation being attacked and overtaken by Putin? And trying to compare one war where we had troops deployed to a war where we are giving aid to a nation under attack? Maybe I'm missing the actual comparisons here between the two.

If I had to speculate, Russia realizes that it’s initial strategy was poor on multiple levels. My speculation is that they will reallocate forces where they are getting their butts handed to them to other territories in the south and East in an effort to almost take a defensive position and press for a bifurcation, or at least a buffer of some sort.

I see what you're saying, but all I can say is that I'd be much more inclined to agree with you if we weren't 1 month into the invasion.

We did help overthrow the government of Ukraine and install a government that was friendly toward our ambitions. And the previous government was a democratically elected government. The new government is a democracy as well (as is Russia) but a part of Ukraine did not want to recognize the new government and has called for their own independence (self-determiniation) and we have been assisting the Ukranian government with preventing that part of the country from separating.
And people justify our feelings toward Russia by pointing out that they are invading another country and overthrowing it, and dropping bombs, and so on. Well, nobody does that more than the United States. We invade and overthrow governments all over the world, not just on our border, and we drop more bombs than anyone else.

I am not writing this to say that the U.S. is somehow the bad guy, but I am also not willing to say that Russia is the bad guy and we are the good guy. Every country can justify their actions in response to some prior action by another country, but if we look at the arc of history, we also find out that we are often guilty of the exact same things that we are accusing others of being guilty of.

There are lots of conflicts around the world and we don't need to get involved in every single one and when the people telling us that we need to get involved have a track record of lying to us and promoting interventionism and weapons sales, we should recognize that they are probably still lying to us.

I said from the beginning, that the best way to achieve peace was to stop talks of expanding NATO but preserve the possibility of allowing Ukraine to eventually enter the EU and allow the regions of the Donbas to become independent (self-determination). In fact, they could have prevented a Russian invasion in the first place by not even offering that much, but eventually, it will end up something close to that. The only variables remaining is the amount of destruction to Ukraine and to the Russian military and Russian economy.

There area lot of people that don't actually care about the Ukraine that would benefit from weakening Russia, and it is in there benefit for this conflict to drag on. It is definitely in the U.S. strategic interest for Russia to be weakened by this conflict.

Us doing it in the past doesn't make it any more right as it does make it any more wrong. It's wrong. This argument (IMO) is no better than the "well Trump/Biden/Obama/Bush did X that was same/worse".

I do understand what you're saying, though. For me, the main difference between what Russia is doing and much of what we did is that I have slowly grown to dislike being the world police... influencing other countries as we have (tried).

If you think Russia is a democracy, then I don’t think it’s worth talking about this further, but, here goes…

Like oober said, our previous wrongs don’t justify the actions of another. It’s akin to a parent not punishing their kids because they themselves had done that very same thing in the past.

Even despite that, the two situations are distinguishable.

Also, on the details of what you were saying, Yanukovych was elected, yes, but he was also corrupt as hell. Ukraine and it’s parliament tried to move toward the EU and away from Russian influence. Russia pulled Yanukovych’s puppet strings and be balked, which caused the Maidan revolution, not us trying to stick in our own puppets. Poroschenko and Zelensky succeeded after running against each other. So I’m not sure if you’re saying one or both of them was installed by us. Either way, it doesn’t jive.

In either event, Ukraine should be free to decide on its own memberships. Russia is bordered by other NATO members and did not invade them. Blaming Ukraine and us for strengthening ties as a cause for Russian invasions is akin to blaming the girl who wore a skimpy dress for being groped.

It doesn't matter that the situations are different. There is always a situation, always a set of circumstances that can be used to justify these interventions. All countries and leaders have done things that could be criticized and used as a justification for another country to act toward them in a hostile manner.

5 years ago, I maybe would have a 50% chance of finding Ukraine on an unlabeled map, I would have recognized the name Yanukovych, but I would not know specifically why I recognized the name, and I would not have know that there was a separatist region in Ukraine.

Now, I have the same media companies and State Department that have lied us into supporting wars in the past are telling me that I need to care about this more than anything. All of a sudden, we are all experts on Ukraine-Russia relations based off the information we receive from them? I think a little more skepticism is due given the history of these organizations and their track record. The tone and rhetoric around this conflict and Putin is very similar to what it was with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that should make us all very suspicious because in that case they were able to get 85% of the populace to support a foreign war that the vast majority ended up regretting.

For this reason, I generally agree with Gabbard. I just don't trust the people that are pushing for intervention because they have consistently betrayed the trust of the American people. The best approach in the face of this is for the American people to be steadfast in there opposition to any unnecessary foreign meddling and require mountains of evidence and a clear strategy to successful and peaceful outcomes before being swayed.

I’m dumbfounded.

Edit - maybe that’s just me, but I’ve been tuned into world affairs through far more than just the media because of my job. I put Ukraine in a similar boat to Belarus 8 years ago, before the Maidan revolution happened. I figured that they would always be somewhat an extension of Russia.

It was never about us trying to topple a regime there. As their form of government shifted to incorporate more democratic reforms, they realized the economic advantage of pivoting toward Europe with stronger ties, because at the end of the day, Russia is a pretty bad economic partner to latch onto. That really ticked Russia off, who then took Crimea and fomented unrest in the east. Because of Russia making those incursions, Ukraine sought greater protections and military aid. Estonia was a NATO member. Same with Latvia and Lithuania. Two Russian neighbors and one very close to the Russian border(Lithuania actually does border that one Russian satellite area). No invasions there. So why should Ukraine be any different?

So, on that front, if we’re not putting boots on the ground, why shouldn’t we provide assistance to a country whose civilians are being shelled and war crimes are being committed? It’s United us and our allies, while protecting a country’s right to self determination. All this without any of our boots on the ground in the territory.

Also, when it comes to Gabbard, Trump, Carlson, etc. my intuition lends far more than any of this correlating to their core beliefs and genuine inclinations for the US’ best interests. If that were the case, I don’t think she would have done the gymnastics in that interview that she did.

One of the things that Gabbard is now criticized for by Democrats is being like Republicans. This is a ridiculous talking point. Gabbard pushed out of the DNC because she was willing to fight harder for Bernie Sanders than Bernie Sanders. Ever since then, she has become a pariah to the Democrats, particularly to the ones that are tight with the military industrial complex (which is 80% of both parties). I think you can argue that a lot of other people are insincere in their positions on the Ukraine, but her position is consistent with her historic positions. Opposition to the "Reagan or Bush Doctrines" is what she is really known for.

The reason to support these doctrines is that they do spread western control and influence. And in theory "democracy".
The reason to oppose these doctrines is that they lead to a lot of death, destruction, and displacement within the civilian population that inhabits the war zone. We can look at Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan (both U.S. and Russian invasions), Yemen as examples where things have gone horribly wrong. Even in countries where it was less destructive like Niceragua and Honduras, these aren't countries that have prospered because of it. The only countries that I can think of which really benefited from these doctrines were the ones in Eastern Europe, like Poland, which were able to break away from the USSR without having to actually go through armed conflict inside their borders.

Our efforts to deploy weapons and training to Ukraine and talking about NATO expansion is the primary factor that escalated tensions and there is a abundance of support for that. Putting additional weapons into Ukraine will prolong the conflict and lead to further destruction. This will weaken and potentially destabilize Russia, but there will be a cost.

The primary factor that escalated tensions is Russia invading Ukraine.

Just saw on CNN one of the military analysts say that the troop morale and determination among the Ukrainians is so high that Zelensky would have difficulty selling a compromise, since the Ukrainian troops feel they can win outright. I obviously question their ability to do so - especially without any offensive capabilities - but that’s still a far cry from what I expected when this all went down.

Like Liz Cheney?

After years of lies and underhanded skullduggery by CNN, you have learned nothing about poor sources?

Shame!

I prefer networks that aren’t pro-Putin.

Sounds like you want to do a Trump, roll over and give Putin whatever he wants?

And yeah - your talk about Gabbard is funny in the light of the ever growing list of life long republicans and actual conservatives branded RINO by the lunatic Trump faithful.

You see this same argument in any conflict/war debate.
If we do nothing then Saddam/Bashar/Putin will win. Essentially, this is true. But often, the alternative is everyone loses more. We lose, Putin loses, average Ukranians really lose.

Yes, it is exactly the same. They stuck to a certain set of principles or positions that put them at odds with the RNC. Now, Fox will not give the airtime just like CNN will not give Gabbard airtime.

I really wish we hadn’t invaded France in 1944. Things would have been so much better if we just let Hitler have his way. Could have saved a lot of American and French lives that way.

I hope I don’t need purple there.

these things are not the same.

You’re correct. The biggest difference is that one has a counterbalance at the onset of its invasion. That, and the fact he was incredibly poor on both a strategic and tactical level.

Other than that, you have two despots who took their country’s previous failure very personally, rapidly rose to power through brutal means, looked to regain previous territories lost, began that campaign on the exhausted, splintered and passive nature of potential adversaries, spread misinformation, and committed war crime atrocities against civilians in the process.

Also, the logic applied is the same. Less people would have died in battle if we had just let Germany take over, right? I mean, why were France and England so punitive on Germany after WWI. It’s really their fault that Germany invaded Poland (obviously just being said to make a point on the logic).

Hell, I believe it was you that said something along the lines of Red Dawn becoming a reality, so I’m surprised you take issue with this rationale.

A lot of this is said with hyperbole, obviously, but had we not taken Ukraine’s side and helped arm them, Russia does end up rolling them, what do you think happens next?

Chamberlain advocated for a non-interventionist strategy. Didn’t really work out. Now that’s not to say I’m advocating we should invade or out boots on the ground, but to circle back to the original point, to infer that we were the primary cause of the invasion, or that we should totally uninvolve ourselves seems asinine to me.

j/c...

Lol.