DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Russia tells US ambassador it will retaliate over Sevastopol missile strike

That notion happened on the day DT withheld arms from the Ukraine, and held them hostage for dirt on the Biden’s.

Hey Keith,

Don't have time to reply to everything, but just wanted to get to one point. I don't think that a strong American or European leader could have deterred Putin before the invasion. The timeline from warning of the invasion to the actual invasion itself was very short. Putin wanted to invade Ukraine and take it over in a matter of days. He was willing to do that and then leverage that position in terms of any negotiations. At that point, I also think he very poorly estimated what was initially a very strong response. I think he thought Europe was far more dependent on Russia for natural resources than they ended up being. The whole situation actually shows how poorly informed - perhaps willfully - Putin was prior to the invasion.

Agree leaders could have been stronger. Most of the lack of strong leadership is in Europe right now, especially Germany. They I think have reached a point of trying to maintain status quo due to Pax Americana. However, despite the lack of a more forceful initial response, especially from Western Europe, I think that Putin still would have proceeded. Trump really tipped his hand during the debate when he said that Putin disclosed to him that invading Ukraine was "his dream." I separately think that's a knock on Trump, but for the sake of this conversation, I'm saying that just because I think Putin had a definite timeline and I don't think he was going to be deterred. In fact, I don't really think it. I'm pretty darn sure of it.

I can respond to Trump in another thread if that's cool. I don't want to clog this one. Bottom line - I think the Republicans as a whole - especially MAGA - have really drifted away from conservativism in a "boiling a frog" kind of approach. It's just really reached a breaking point now.

That's awesome about Kennedy. I went there as a kid. I wish I could say I had relatives in D-Day. I didn't though. I interviewed a bunch of people from Patton's Third Army when I was in college as a senior for my thesis and that was awesome. That really piqued my interest in Europe's WW2 history.

Thank you sir! I sincerely appreciate that.

But that's apples and oranges from what happened here.

To make your scenario more likely, it would be that the United States previously invaded Mexico and controlled it, then gave Mexico its country back. Then the United States meddles around in Mexico's politics and installs a puppet regime. Eventually, Mexico's people elect someone we don't like. Then Mexico just wants to explore the possibility of joining USAN. At various points they then hold conversations here and there about exploring the possibility of being protected by Russia. No troops from Russia ever even come close to entering Mexico and Russia actually rebuts the idea. Then we invade anyway, because it's "our dream" to get that territory back.

Then, after the invasion, a sotball reporter from Russia asks our President if we invaded Mexico because we feared Russian invasion and we actually decline that several times. Then we start talking about the history of Mexico from the Aztec era and how they've turned into Nazis.

That would be a more direct comparison.

There is zero sympathy for Russia's actions here outside of selfish gain.

I get what you're saying, but I also get what he's saying. There are allies and there are ALLIES. I think it's a matter of degrees. There are countries that you have diplomacy and relations with, and then there are countries like NATO partners (England, France, etc.) who are at a whole different level.

I meant they aren't in NATO, and so we were not automatically compelled to send to troops when they were attacked (same for other NATO countries).

That makes no sense. Even by your logic, signing a freaking NUCLEAR ARMS AGREEMENT that says we come to their aid if they’re attack so long as they agree to not have nukes sounds like ALLIES, not allies.

And since when is being part of military alliances the only aspect to being an ALLY?

Is Israel part of NATO? How bout Colombia? Egypt?

Y’all tripping hard right now.

We literally ARE compelled to come to their defense. I literally just gave you the agreements that says as much.

You and 05 just be making stuff up.

J/C

Putin knows if he retaliates and attacks a NATO base, it’s over for him. He’s not stupid. We should be calling his bluff. Hit US with your best shot.

Lol, I think you're thinking too hard about this, bro.

Tell that to the dead Ukrainians.

Huh???? I have been one of the most outspoken Ukrainian advocates on here...

My post pertained to the varying degrees of semantics when referring to allies.

I'll bow out with comments like that one, though.

But there is no varying degree of semantics regarding Ukraine. I posted the agreements that showed Ukraine being just as much as an ally as anyone else. You can bow out all you want, but just remember you tried to make it about semantics when there is none based on your own standard of what an ally is.

I’m not arguing about your support or lack of support for Ukraine. I already know where you stand. We’re talking about a specific topic of conversation relating to what an ally is or isn’t, right?

So what part of this specific topic do you disagree with me on?

Edit: for example, there’s minor agreements we have with Pakistan, but we have no agreements that state we gotta come to their defense if they’re attacked. That would be an example of some being maybe an ally vs ALLY, correct?

Keith,

Likewise. The conversation has been fantastic and that's mostly because we have multiple people with differing views constructively arguing. I appreciate everyone involved.

Regarding your hypothetical related to stronger leadership... maybe. I think, through the lens of the hardening NATO has done vs Russia (Europe and USA drawing together more in opposition to Putin) that that speaks to what you're saying. That said, we are talking about Putin here. From Crimea to Ukraine and what he's trying to do in Moldova, the guy has a clear and definite plan that he has had in effect for a VERY long time... and while he's clearly banking on the West's weariness of conflict I think that was a gamble he made a clear decision on and he's going to double-down every time.

On the topic of weak leadership, I'm going to pivot to the question you asked DL05. I was also a Republican earlier on. I still consider myself conservative, but am realizing that I may be moving closer to center, especially on specific topics.

Again, I consider myself conservative, but absolutely not a Republican. I don't think Republicans are as fiscally conservative as they try to seem. They seem to like to spend just as much as liberals (ex. they give tax cuts vs govt spending and drive up the deficit just the same as Dems).

Policy-wise, I have a huge problem with how they've handled the border issue. We have a serious problem with illegal immigration in this country, and while neither party has actually done anything about it, the GOP has had plenty of opportunities over the past few decades and have absolutely nothing to show for it. I already know I disagree with Dems' stance on the border, but I find Republicans' inability/unwillingness to make any headway (despite non-stop squawking) to be far more troublesome.

They have also turned the "Party of Family Values" shtick into a joke. The cast of characters in the Republican party (not just the personalities but the people that the party props up and will circle the wagons for) makes my stomach turn and is indicative of what the party is about. You have guys like Vance, Gym Jordan, DeSantis who do very very little but are allowed/encouraged to keep going because they've built a base around "owning the libs". I understand you said you only want to talk policies, but IMO this part of the GOP has woven itself into the fabric of the party. Further, they try to position themselves as proponents of small government but then will wield state and federal power when/if they don't agree with something (DeSantis is the poster-child of this).
Similarly, I find their more recent alignments with Russia disturbing. None of them will outright say it, but more and more often you find them trying to push in directions that seem to consistently benefit Russia. Those occurrences are becoming to frequent to ignore.

They try to trumpet patriotism but are getting too cozy with Russia, they say they're about family values but have Gaetz, Jordan, Trump as prominent figures. They are becoming a party of hypocrisy. Democrats, at least, are more consistent.

I think that's why I stated you are reading too much into this, or perhaps it's that I am missing your point. We don't disagree.

I think we've perhaps already spent too much time on this. I do think we're allied with Ukraine, and I think Oober does too. I am struggling the appropriate way to express this, especially on a message board. Ukraine is not a "traditional" ally that we have arising to the level of our alliance, diplomatic relations, long history, and abundance of formalized documentation, like you would see with the U.K. That is what I referred to as ALLY. That does not mean we are not allied with them, however. Clearly, we don't have the same type of alliance with them that we do with Poland or any of the other NATO countries, though, given there is clearly no Article V activation following the Russian invasion.

I am at a loss - at least currently - to explain beyond that.

My reason for bowing out was perhaps a false sense on my part that your emotions were rising.

The Russia thing is a HUGE problem among Republicans (at least the MAGA wing), especially when it comes to Ukraine. Early on in the debate thread, I mentioned how squirmy Trump was when Putin came up. The moderators were very soft on him, but that was one time they actually went back and tried to pin him down. Something really stinks when it comes to Trump and Putin, and nobody talks about it. I'll reiterate a challenge I've given before to the general "you" - find me one time where Trump confronted Putin.

As it stands right now, Junior, MTG et al have actually openly mocked Zelensky on social media. The guy's country gets invaded and his people get killed to the level of crimes against humanity, but the guy stays put and the country and most of the world rally around him. So what do they do? Disparage and mock him.

It really burns me up.

From my perspective 05, that sounds less like traditional and more like you view requirements for allies as a specific length of time. The UK has been around since before we even gained our independence, while Ukraine and other ex Soviet states only gained their independence 33 years ago.

Israel has only been our ally since what? 47 or 49? Are they not considered allies because of length of time?

The reason why I’m asking about this specifically is because once again, I showed you the formalized documents that meets your requirements, which automatically includes the diplomatic relations requirements you also mentioned.

All i ever ask is what’s the standard? It’s like Ukraine meets the standard but you don’t wanna give them the label? That’s like when dudes say this girl meets all their requirements but for whatever reason still don’t wanna commit. Is it really they don’t meet the requirements, or people searching for reasons not to commit?

That's the thing, dude. I do want to give them the label. That's what I've been trying to say - perhaps ineffectively - this whole time. They are allies. I think I've obfuscated this by making it wider in scope than it should have been. Ukraine is an ally. Ukraine is not a NATO ally.

This is such a good way to put it. I found the difference in response from the US to Ukraine and Israel to be jarring. Israel already had an incredibly well-equipped military and we had all the equipment and military presence (ships shot down those missiles) in record time, while they drag their feet on Ukraine.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really understand the standard either, I'm just calling it like I see it.

So just give them the label since they already have it.

That’s what I’m saying to you and Oob. There isn’t any debate about them being an ally in the purest sense of the word, they meet all our official and unofficial requirements to me labeled as such. There’s no conversation where you and Oob have to give ground to anyone trying to make a bogus claim that Ukraine isn’t an ally.

You don’t need a major military pact in order to meet that definition. It certainly helps, but that only goes so far anyway. Who do you think is a better ally? Ukraine, a non NATO country, or Hungary, a NATO country?

Russia has all those security pacts signed with central Asian countries, their own version of NATO. you think Armenia and Georgia consider Russia a good ally right now?

Those diplomatic documents only matter if people actually follow them when crap hits the fan, not when things are peaceful and we aren’t worried about anything.

And why are you so damn worried about spending too much time on this? This is a message board. We go down rabbit holes and go back and forth all the time. There’s only one way to get to understand each others point, even if we don’t agree.

I feel you bro. But that’s all I’m saying. The standard is there so it’s no question anymore.

Like if people ask if you and 05 are my homies, the answer is yes. It’s not “well they meet the requirements for being homies, but I don’t wanna put a label on it”.

It’s just yes.

I think you agree far more than you disagree. It's rather common that people consider the NATO pact the ultimate highest degree of allied nations and other separate agreements aren't as strong or meaningful as NATO. I'm no so sure I agree with them but it's something that people consider the ultimate pact. I don't think 05, and Oober just made it clear to me, they aren't saying we aren't supposed to uphold our agreement with Ukraine.

My concern includes NATO. We now have a former president who is running for re-election that is known for breaking pacts and agreements the United States has entered into on a whim. I think much of the globe is finding the United states is no longer a reliable allie because the outcome of a single election could change everything. We are seeing the party of trump attempting to do that exact thing in Ukraine. People shouldn't pretend the rest of the world isn't watching.

Lol, it's because I'm in a meeting on another screen (a dumb meeting) and I can't reply as much as I'd like - for now at least. I wouldn't say I'm "so damn worried" though.

To answer your question, I can't stand Hungary and definitely consider Ukraine to be the better ally. The problem is we have a signed agreement to defend one and not the other.

For the record - I also found the difference in response between Israel and Ukraine to be jarring, especially from the Republican side. Makes no sense.

I also don't want to give ground to anyone who says that we're not allies. What I can't argue with is that we don't have a signed Article V provision calling for the defense of Ukraine. I wish we did. I'd gladly trade them for Hungary. Orban irks me like no other. Another friend of Trump's by the way.

Considering at one point in time Russians were our allies. So the term is being thrown around fairly loosely here.

No retaliation? Or is holding Americans hostage and trying them on trumped up charges of espionage is the retaliation?

If that's his retaliation he started retaliating for many years before this even happened.

Looks like Russia attacked a children's hospital.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...issile-attack-kyiv-officials-2024-07-08/

Putin is a human POS. Die already.

This is surprisingly getting less attention than it should - maybe not surprisingly anymore...

I agree. Not only is it surprising how little attention it gets I also find it surprising how differently people look at things like this depending on who is dropping the bombs.

Bombing targets like schools, refugee camps and hospitals are atrocious, inhumane and criminal acts no matter who does it.

I gave Biden credit for his strategy in Ukraine at the start of the war, cause I was wrong in wanting us to go in there immediately and show the Russians what’s up.

That being said, this is what happens when conflicts drag out like this.

Yeah agreed. The only way IMO to end this conflict sooner would be for NATO to wrap in the Ukraine ASAP and tell Putin hands off or else.

I worry that Russia has been given enough time to establish a strong enough foothold (thanks Vance and co.) that just supplying Ukraine may not be able to get the job done anymore. Other posters were arguing this to me a little bit ago, but as more time goes on without a decisive shift in the conflict, this becomes more apparent.

This is a bummer because avoiding direct conflict was one of our priorities the whole time, and so (by definition) NATO getting dragged into direct conflict with Russia is kind of an 'L'.

I don’t agree that NATO would be dragged into this. They are in it. Most of the NATO countries are near Russia. If those countries aren’t willing to be part of the fighting force in a direct conflict then Putin wins plain and simple. The US isn’t going to go alone and Putin knows it.

When military aid gets held up to the point a nation can't possibly defend itself against a military like Russia, it will lose ground. It will suffer losses. The delay on the part of congress holding up aid to Ukraine made this a self fulfilling prophecy.

Yeah that’s what happens when congress is controlled by a few trump lovin right wing nuts.

It doesn't take many hairballs to clog up the drain.

Is it really an L though, bro?

3 day operation turned into 2 years and counting. Russia, the big bad bear, can’t successfully take Ukraine, who is being supplied with hand me downs.

We now have 2 new SERIOUS NATO members in Finland and Sweden. Ukraine most likely being the third.

Russia has dedicated so much resources to this invasion that they can’t uphold their own security agreements with their central Asian allies, causing massive rifts.

Russia is at the point where they have to rely on horribly made North Korean and Iranian ammo and equipment to sustain their efforts.

If NATO was to get directly involved, how long does this go on? I highly doubt we push into Russian territory. It would be wiping them out of Ukraine, establishing a strong security border against Russia, and officially brining Ukraine into the biggest military alliance in world history.

I didn't like Vance before all this because of his opportunistic, self-serving turn-coating, not to mention his air of fakeness throughout his campaign. The way he has responded to Ukraine though has made me seethingly angry at him. He has said so many untruths about the situation there and our aid packages to them that it is mind-blowing. His followers eat it up, though, because truth be damned.