War in Ukraine

#29,801
#29,801
EasternVol said:
An important part of the future of Turkey is keeping the straits secure.
NATO will exist in one form or another as long as Russia is deemed to pose a thread and probably after then.
Do you mean the future of Turkey is with China?
Click to expand...
Not just China, but Russia, India, the Eurasian continent as a whole. Western Europe will obviously play a role, but it will be a more diminished one as time goes on simply because the Europeans demographically have issues and the energy decisions they are making right now will severely cripple their economies.
 
#29,802
#29,802
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why do you all always have to the most extreme hypotheticals to try to make a point? But when I provide actual, real world events, that is "whataboutism"?
Click to expand...
He made a better analogy that you have in the last few pages. Or pretty much ever when it came to attempting to equate Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to any action by the West in the region.
 
#29,803
#29,803
IluvdoubleD's said:
I don't see how this war, in it's current state, can last longer than the summer. Russia is simply running out of everything it needs. At this point UK are saying Russia's intelligence is no longer reliable.
Click to expand...
If Russia is running out of everything, then where are the 3elensky regime's supply levels at?
 
#29,804
#29,804
NorthDallas40 said:
He made a better analogy that you have in the last few pages. Or pretty much ever when it came to attempting to equate Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to any action by the West in the region.
Click to expand...
So Texas, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus and Northeast Syria are poor analogies to Donbas? Why?
 
#29,807
#29,807
volgr said:
I'm not offended by it, I'm offended by the stupidity of it. You don't support ground troops in Ukraine but you support measures which very well could lead to ground troops in Ukraine. I could stomach your poor reasoning if the risk had any value to the US, but it doesn't. There is no value in our intervention in Ukraine, for the average American citizen. Zero. I've asked repeatedly for those of you supporting this intervention to explain the value and I have yet to receive an answer....because THERE IS NONE!!
Click to expand...

We'll have troops on the ground eventually, (if we don't have them already). It's scary how both establishment parties are supporting this. Anyone who asks any questions against Ukraine is now some crazed Putin lover.
 
#29,809
#29,809
tvolsfan said:
But Nuland’s cookies!
Click to expand...
Oh dude, dont get them started. I just love the logical dissonance they display when it comes to the lead up to the events at Maiden.

Yanukovich was the pro west candidate. The people who supported him the most were the areas in the south and east. Including Donbas and Crimea. They didnt want to be closer to Russia. They had to be invaded, occupied, had the government kicked out, the Russians dump a whole bunch of weapons and equipment into their hands, for them to take an "anti Ukraine" stance, mostly run by people Russia brought in and not locals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN and tvolsfan
#29,810
#29,810
Rasputin_Vol said:
Not just China, but Russia, India, the Eurasian continent as a whole. Western Europe will obviously play a role, but it will be a more diminished one as time goes on simply because the Europeans demographically have issues and the energy decisions they are making right now will severely cripple their economies.
Click to expand...
The east has ALWAYS had a demographic advantage over the west. That has never been an issue. The east has always had resources the west didnt have. That's never been an issue. The east has usually had a technological advantage, and has really only once been an issue with the Mongols.
 
#29,812
#29,812
AM64 said:
Seems like the ones in the Middle East (all the way back to the Crusades) and Eastern Europe (after the Soviet collapse) were generally more about religion.
Click to expand...

That is very bad media reporting on events.

The Middle East conflicts are typically more about race/ethnicity than religion but the media finds it simple to just use religion.

For example, in the conflicts in the Caucus. They call Armenians Christian and Azerbaijanians Muslim. The wars, however, are more about ethnic makeup than an actual Christian vs. Muslim conflict. Keep in mind, our media just sucks.

The Crusades were about land. Ultimately, Crusades started out of a conflict with the Seljuk Turks entering the Middle East to steal land, notably Anatolia which bears the name Turkey after them as they ultimately won and took the land from the Greeks, Armenians, etc.). The Byzantine Empire asked Catholic West for help. The Catholic West, eager to end local squabbles, thought it might be easier to get the warrior class to fight foreign enemies and so signed up for it to take (once again) land from the Turks. The Catholics also preceded this off the Arab wars in the 600-800 AD time period which saw the Arabs take most of North Africa and the Middle East from Christians (primarily Byzantine Rome) as well as Spain (from the Visigoths).

Once again, the primary exchange in ALL of these Conflicts is land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Rickyvol77
#29,813
#29,813
@AM64

One thing that I will say is don't fall for soundbites. I love the whole "religions cause all wars" sound bite which is totally ludicrous.

Nearly all of the major conflicts involving the United States had nothing to do with religion: American Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, American Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War, 1991 Desert Storm.

You can maybe argue the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because of Al Quadi/War on Terror mess. Still when it comes to total US deaths, these wars don't even fit in the grouping above. We lose more Americans every year to homicide or traffic accidents than total number of Americans that died in 20 years of military engagement in Afghanistan.

The most violent wars in human history were definitely not fought over religion. Take the top 5 conflicts in human history:

1. World War II - Land was primary factor. Hitler citied Lebensraum as the justification for war. Japan wanted natural resources not available in Japan and therefore invaded China which started off the events that led to the Pacific War

2. Mongol Invasion of China - Mongols were looking to conquer land and plunder resources. Once again, non-religion

3. World War I - Only the Ottomans cited religion in the war (calling for Jihad) and it was primarily a motivating factor rather than reason for war. Ottomans wanted back lost territories in Middle East and Balkans. The other powers either wanted land or prestige from the war. Entire Conflict was predicated on Austria-Hungary's occupation of Bosnia (Serbians wanted, once again, land)

4. Manchu Conquest of China - Land

5. Napoleonic Wars - Napoleon conquered lands in Europe for France so I would say it was a major factor although French Revolution played a part as well (and just drive for one man's glory).

National Pride/Prestige also seems to cause a lot of wars. Religion is often just used as a tool to get more support for the war and is often not the reasoning behind the war or even a war aim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, Hunerwadel, InVOLuntary and 2 others
#29,814
#29,814
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why do you all always have to use the most extreme hypotheticals to try to make a point? But when I provide actual, real world events, that is "whataboutism"?
Click to expand...
How is it extreme?

And real world events my a55. Are you still calling 200 US troops in Syria an “occupation”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top