Ukraine II: The Fight Against Russian Aggression

#452
#452
volprof said:
As far as Ukraine/Russia are concerned, we need reserved firmness. We're never going to outdo Russia in Ukraine. It doesn't mean to us what it means to them. We need soft power in Ukraine and not any hard power, crazy-ass gung-ho conservative "arm Ukraine" nonsense, like what we've heard here and in congress.
Click to expand...

You're right that Ukraine means more to Russia than it means to America. But we don't have to match the RF to deter its aggression. As the State Department says, it's about increasing the costs of its behavior.

If Russia is having its tanks, vacationing fighters being blown up in Donbas, it's going to have to think harder about sending more.
 
#453
#453
volprof said:
Thus far, Obama is doing very well. In fact, I think his foreign policy has been nothing short of magnificence, especially in wake of the W. **** upon everything in site years.
Click to expand...

Oh? I voted for him twice, and I don't know I'd give him more than "B."

He's largely taken a managerial/caretaker approach, primarily focused on not screwing things up more. We needed some of that, but it doesn't work as well when hot spots flare up (e.g., Ukraine, Syria).
 
#455
#455
Velo Vol said:
You're right that Ukraine means more to Russia than it means to America. But we don't have to match the RF to deter its aggression. As the State Department says, it's about increasing the costs of its behavior.

If Russia is having its tanks, vacationing fighters being blown up in Donbas, it's going to have to think harder about sending more.
Click to expand...

This is a sound policy: make things too costly for a potential opponent to act contrary to your wishes. This is what we need to be doing in Ukraine and in East Asia. And I think we largely are. It seems, however, that, at the moment, at least, both sides are content with a frozen conflict. In the meantime, people die, but perhaps that's better than any other perceivable alternative (Iraq 2003 gives us this awareness.)

Velo Vol said:
Oh? I voted for him twice, and I don't know I'd give him more than "B."

He's largely taken a managerial/caretaker approach, primarily focused on not screwing things up more. We needed some of that, but it doesn't work as well when hot spots flare up (e.g., Ukraine, Syria).
Click to expand...

This post was largely hyperbole. I should have checked myself at the gate before making such a claim, but, similar to you, I give Obama no worse than a B on foreign policy, although A+ is too bold.

His two biggest foreign policy mistakes are as follows:

1. Syrian "red line" - this was just a flat out stupid boast on his part. It definitely had repercussions, and perhaps he still faces them today, but he acted sucessfully in the long-term, which is to say that, unlike what former President Dick would have done, he didn't decide to take on the Syrian regime as well. We have our hands full to the brim from President Dick's follies. We don't need more.

2. Lack of a clear ISIS strategy. Now, this is multivalent. Obama has done very well not to entangle us in another winless endgame with troops on the ground. At the same time, no one seems to be exactly sure what this bombing campaign is going to ultimately achieve and how long it will take. We're going on a year now, and we only have miniscule results.

To aid the view of Obama, we Americans tend to demand transparency of our governments that other nations would scoff at. And, in fact, this very transparency tends to get us in trouble at times. There are running jokes in media and even amongst terrorists how learning about US strategy and military plans merely require one to turn on CNN or follow social media.

So maybe they have something up their sleeves and are smarter than us simpletons, but I admittedly don't see much progress at the moment.

But it's like this - it could always be worse: Obama could think, like President Dick, that boots on the ground are the solution.

At least he has better sense than that for now.
 
#457
#457
volprof said:
This is a sound policy: make things too costly for a potential opponent to act contrary to your wishes. This is what we need to be doing in Ukraine and in East Asia. And I think we largely are. It seems, however, that, at the moment, at least, both sides are content with a frozen conflict. In the meantime, people die, but perhaps that's better than any other perceivable alternative (Iraq 2003 gives us this awareness.)
Click to expand...

So why doesn't selling Ukraine anti-armor weaponry fit into this calculus?
 
#458
#458
volprof said:
This post was largely hyperbole. I should have checked myself at the gate before making such a claim, but, similar to you, I give Obama no worse than a B on foreign policy, although A+ is too bold.
Click to expand...


I said I'd probably give him a B, not I'd give him no worse than a B.

Ukraine has not been satisfactorily resolved.

I think he's just trying to kick the ISIS can down the road for the next president.

It remains to be seen how Iran will turn out.

But we've avoided becoming embroiled in new wars, so there's that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#459
#459
Velo Vol said:
I said I'd probably give him a B, not I'd give him no worse than a B.

Ukraine has not been satisfactorily resolved.

I think he's just trying to kick the ISIS can down the road for the next president.

It remains to be seen how Iran will turn out.

But we've avoided becoming embroiled in new wars, so there's that.
Click to expand...

Don't agree much but I agree that with a republican(which I vote) that we'd have Americans dying on multiple fronts right now....
 
#462
#462
Velo Vol said:
So why doesn't selling Ukraine anti-armor weaponry fit into this calculus?
Click to expand...

Making it clear to Russia through diplomatic backchannels that an escalation of the conflict outside of its current parameters in the Donbass will be too costly doesn't necessarily require that we already be selling/providing arms to Kiev.

I typically don't frame responses with questions, but let me ask you what you think Russia's response would be to our providing Kiev arms, even just anti-tank weapons.
 
#463
#463
#464
#464
Well, it may not be the cesspool of racial animosity, tension, and violence that the US is, according to Russian media and 24/7 news hornblowers, but it's evidently got its issues:

FIFA asks Russia why it banned player for reaction to racism

Honestly, I've researched quite a bit about Russia and tourism, and, from what I've read, if you're black, you should scratch-out that "Trip to Russia" from your bucket list.

People like Putin, Dugin, and the Eurasianists blowhards get to tout qualities like diversity, multiethnicity, self-determination, etc. (notice tolerance or individual liberties are never a part of the narrative) simply because, in countries like Russia (as in China), every group pretty much has its own sector. The republic peripheries are all designed for certain ethnicities (although Russification is always at play, so that they can never stray too far from the Kremlin orbit), while very little penetration from the periphery is seen in major Russian urban centers like Moscow or Petersburg.

Some might say this is a good model that keeps violence between the groups minimal, at least during the last few decades. And, it is hard to argue with that. However, as jobs become scarce and the peripheral population grows (which is the only one growing in Russia, because the ethnic Russian center is not), and as foreign immigration increases (because Russia can't be choosers with its population in decline) the periphery will start encroaching more and more upon the center.

Up until this point, all the groups have largely enjoyed the benefit of not having to really deal with the other, but that is changing. Racial and ethnic unrest will become more and more common over the next decades in Russia. Who knows, maybe we'll eventually be watching a Russian version of the US 60s on our televisions.
 
#465
#465
volprof said:
I typically don't frame responses with questions, but let me ask you what you think Russia's response would be to our providing Kiev arms, even just anti-tank weapons.
Click to expand...

It would give them more fuel for their propaganda machine, but I don't think it would up the ante beyond what they already planned to do in Ukraine.

Part of me suspects the administration has resisted this in hopes of keeping Russia on board with the Iran agreement.

Meanwhile, I learned that the "I am a Ukrainian" video babe now has a government position in Odesa.

Reform Agenda in Kyiv on Slow Burn, But in Odesa, Saakashvili Already Delivers
 
#467
#467
Velo Vol said:
West Flirts With Fascism – Again
Click to expand...

Holy wow.

Of all the articles in all the world that I've read over the past couple of years concerning anything, in fact, this may be the dumbest, most ill-informed of them all.

The only thing that came remotely close to accuracy was stating that US elections are determined by wealth. Yes, this is true, but this is also like pointing out to a toddler that the grass grows. Wealth rules elections everywhere. Nothing novel going on in America, in this regard. At least in America a leader doesn't have to come to power with a 3 percent approval rating on the eve of elections by blowing up 400 fellow countrymen.

Jesus H. Christ.

What saddens me is that we have people who should be on our side (although I don't blame them for being critical - that's what makes the West great) that have completely flipped to the other side. Why? Well, we have no exact clue, although I blame it on some sort of combination of poor educational systems here and on the 24/27 news cycle that mostly just looks to rip those who purport to do something good (like the US and unlike Russia) a new one whenever they come up short. (Sells better. Face it, everyone and their brother knows Russia is a ****hole, so when the US, for instance screws up, it's actually news.)

Meanwhile, Russia continues to fund far right organizations throughout Europe. My hope is that the system that was established right after WWII, mostly by the US, and that has kept peace in Europe relative to its history, will maintain, but I have a feeling that the likes of Putin and his shadowy allies who both skulk about like a bunch of weiner dogs (just like a true KGB man would do) will eventually subvert it. And back to war Europe goes, but I guess as long as it doesn't hit Russia directly, Putin and his allies will be fine with that.

But lots of things we do have unintended consequences, and this often works doubly in the deadly game of espionage and statesmanship.

Russia better be careful what it asks for. Subverting (and potentially disintegrating) NATO and the EU, the biggest challengers to Russian hegemony in Europe, may seem like fine goals right now, but if I were an advisor to Putin, I'd be reminding him of where Europe and Russia have been in the past. NATO and the EU, while hegemons in their own right, have not attacked (nor will they, Russia). The balance of power between members of these organizations keep them in check. Once they're gone, a balance of power system west of Russia will no longer exist.

Assuming Putin gets his way (and I'm not sure he will, but just assuming), it's very unlikely he'll ever see the outcome of what he's done. That will be left for a Russian president some years from now (say, 15-30 years or so). And that particular president and those declining Russian people (declining in numbers) aren't going to like what they see).

The bright side is that you can always blame it on America or someone else, so they'll at least have that still going for them. If it happens again though, this time, I hope we just let them rot. Don't help. Just watch.
 
Last edited:
#468
#468
Velo Vol said:
It would give them more fuel for their propaganda machine, but I don't think it would up the ante beyond what they already planned to do in Ukraine.

Part of me suspects the administration has resisted this in hopes of keeping Russia on board with the Iran agreement.

Meanwhile, I learned that the "I am a Ukrainian" video babe now has a government position in Odesa.

Reform Agenda in Kyiv on Slow Burn, But in Odesa, Saakashvili Already Delivers
Click to expand...

You're probably right about the Iranian deal. Russia and China were already threatening to leave the current sanctions model (they don't give a damn who they do business with - what are human rights to regimes who clearly don't give a damn about them in their own countries?) unless a deal was sketched out. We know for certain that S-300 missile defense systems were already slated for delivery within the next couple years.

And yes, certainly propaganda fuel. If you think Russian propaganda influencing "Westerners" like Ras and Pacer is bad now, you just wait till the West actually acts like it wants some sort of war, instead of what Kremlin prissy-pots have made up those far.

I agree that things are a gamble. No one knows for certain how Russia would react. That's part of the beauty and fascination of international relations, yet part of its horror as well.

I just think that you can't beat Russia in Ukraine. Europe is too weak through its in-fighting, and the US is too far away and with too many divergent interests. If, for example, you decide to cross that Rubicon, into arming Kiev with anti-armor, than you'd best be willing to meet Moscow's counter. I don't think we're ready for that, and things have pretty much frozen, so best leave well-enough alone.

You may be right: Moscow is certainly involved in the war in the east (only reason why it can even persist), yet you don't want to mess with what they're capable of there. Say we provide anti-armor weapons. There are only two possible scenarios then:

1. Kiev starts beating the hell out of the "rebels." Moscow, claiming human rights violations (mostly trumped up), then decides to send in the guard without any of the skulking business they've been doing thus far. The Donbass turns into Russia - West, regardless of whether or not they annex it ultimately.

2. Kiev, whether or not it's beating the rebels, is seen as a danger to human rights. Bull****, I know, but you get the Kremlin bull**** line just like I do. The US is perceived as adding aggression, and Russia is provided with the perfect excuse for "overt" (honestly, it's overt anyhow, but finally open, at least) counters.

I just think arming Kiev gives Russia the excuse it's perhaps been looking for (I think it's fine with frozen conflict, but wouldn't reject escalation either).

You ain't going to outdo them there. Just forget about it.

Next question?
 
#469
#469
volprof said:
The only thing that came remotely close to accuracy was stating that US elections are determined by wealth. Yes, this is true, but this is also like pointing out to a toddler that the grass grows. Wealth rules elections everywhere. Nothing novel going on in America, in this regard.
Click to expand...

Is this true?

Take the U.K., for example. Their elections require far less money because of their campaign rules (short election seasons, rules on political advertising).

I assume this has the effect reducing the role money has in their system. Sure, wealth has an ordering effect on society, to some degree. But I don't read about money over there the same way it shapes politics here.
 
#470
#470
Velo Vol said:
Is this true?

Take the U.K., for example. Their elections require far less money because of their campaign rules (short election seasons, rules on political advertising).

I assume this has the effect reducing the role money has in their system. Sure, wealth has an ordering effect on society, to some degree. But I don't read about money over there the same way it shapes politics here.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole gets the best of me again. Yes, you're right - over the last couple of decades, in particular (and it will only accelerate with the Citizens United ruling, but hey, rights!), American national political campaigning has been going down a bad route.

This is something I'd like to see change in the American political structure but, unfortunately, it will require both Congressional backing and a Supreme Court reversal (since the latter has basically legalized it).
 
#473
#473
Since you're such a big fan, pictures of the President and Bush.

Inside the White House on 9/11 - in pictures | US news | The Guardian

e2fa5d8e-01f2-461a-a78f-6a3143be6802-2060x1373.jpeg
 
#475
#475
Velo Vol said:
??? You moved?
Click to expand...

Yes. I live in Northern California now, near the coast and the Cascades. One day, a giant earthquake is supposed to completely change the landscape and cause a giant tsunami that kills us all in the process (think Fukushima on steroids), but I'm enjoying it for now. Just got back from camping under the Redwoods on the Gualala River, right at the coast and in Mendocino County, where the Russian bombers apparently where right off of on the Fourth. This area is really special. Incredibly beautiful and so much landscape/vegetation variety. I'd hate to see either a nuke or a mag 9.0 plus do us in, but, if it happens, it happens, and we'll go the way of history.

Velo Vol said:
Since you're such a big fan, pictures of the President and Bush.

Inside the White House on 9/11 - in pictures | US news | The Guardian

e2fa5d8e-01f2-461a-a78f-6a3143be6802-2060x1373.jpeg
Click to expand...

Yes, one can only imagine how President Cheney was salivating that day. Bush probably had to ask him once or twice at least why he kept getting slobber on his suit as he had to go on live TV later.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top