Ukraine / Russia

[XtremeJibber2001]

Well if that's the case then Obama emboldened Putin with his response to the annexation of Crimea and Trump was dealt a shitty hand by his predecessor.

I think not. Obama imposed sanctions, and got Europe to do the same. Before you claim that these sanctions did nothing, maybe read this analysis of the impact of those sanctions:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-dept ... on-russia/

The TLDR conclusion is that the sanctions probably deterred further expansion into Ukraine by Putin. That's a pretty decent outcome considering nobody wanted to go to war with Russia. The article also highlights the fact that Trump weakened the Euorpean coordination over these sanctions, making it harder to keep the pressure on Russia (and probably contributing to the current mess).

If you read the Navalny analysis I linked to above, he contends that this entire Ukraine situation is an attempt by Russia to get U.S. and Europe to ease sanctions. If that analysis is correct, then it suggests Putin cares about these sanctions very much.

I think you have to accept there is no acceptable solution for Republicans.

Biden could bomb Russia - GOP would say Biden has lost his mind.
Biden could punish Russia economically - GOP would say Biden is weak
Biden could support Ukraine with arms and vehicles - GOP would ask why Biden is supporting Ukraine
Biden could stay out of it fully - GOP would say Biden supports Russia and point out Nord Stream

Like I posed to Mister Moose last week - has the GOP grown more or less supportive of Russia? I think the answer is clear.

I'm just saying Putin is going to do what he is going to do and who the president of the US is makes no difference. History is pretty clear on this.

While I agree with the statement overall, Presidents can make what Putin is going to do easier or harder. Over the last four POTUS, we've made it quite easier $02. He knows we won't go to war with him and this by itself emboldens him.

[easyrider16]

I'm just saying Putin is going to do what he is going to do and who the president of the US is makes no difference. History is pretty clear on this.

So you disagree with the analysis I posted above that U.S. and European sanctions deterred further expansion into Ukraine? Because I think history is pretty clear that the president of the US has a tremendous impact on foreign policy around the globe, including Russia. One might argue that US policy is what led to the fall of the Soviet Union. I mean it almost sounds like you're saying the U.S. should do nothing. Is that your position? Because I think that's the kind of isolationist thinking that led to world wars.

I think the only way the West can deal with states like Russia and China is to have a united front against them. When we unite in our policies against these countries, we can have a significant effect. If we are not united, then these states can get around any sanctions or tariffs by trading with our trade partners, and the net effect of sanctions or tariffs becomes insignificant. Trump's biggest mistake was taking unilateral action and alienating our allies. This had an impact, and the Ukraine situation was made worse by it.

[daytripper]

Well if that's the case then Obama emboldened Putin with his response to the annexation of Crimea and Trump was dealt a shitty hand by his predecessor.

I think not. Obama imposed sanctions, and got Europe to do the same. Before you claim that these sanctions did nothing, maybe read this analysis of the impact of those sanctions:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-dept ... on-russia/

The TLDR conclusion is that the sanctions probably deterred further expansion into Ukraine by Putin. That's a pretty decent outcome considering nobody wanted to go to war with Russia. The article also highlights the fact that Trump weakened the Euorpean coordination over these sanctions, making it harder to keep the pressure on Russia (and probably contributing to the current mess).

If you read the Navalny analysis I linked to above, he contends that this entire Ukraine situation is an attempt by Russia to get U.S. and Europe to ease sanctions. If that analysis is correct, then it suggests Putin cares about these sanctions very much.

I think you have to accept there is no acceptable solution for Republicans.

Biden could bomb Russia - GOP would say Biden has lost his mind.
Biden could punish Russia economically - GOP would say Biden is weak
Biden could support Ukraine with arms and vehicles - GOP would ask why Biden is supporting Ukraine
Biden could stay out of it fully - GOP would say Biden supports Russia and point out Nord Stream

Like I posed to Mister Moose last week - has the GOP grown more or less supportive of Russia? I think the answer is clear.

I'm just saying Putin is going to do what he is going to do and who the president of the US is makes no difference. History is pretty clear on this.

While I agree with the statement overall, Presidents can make what Putin is going to do easier or harder. Over the last four POTUS, we've made it quite easier $02. He knows we won't go to war with him and this by itself emboldens him.

I agree.

[boston_e]

All you need to know about Trumps incompetence in dealing with Russia was summed up in McCains statement after the disastrous summit in Helsinki.

“Today’s press conference in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake."

“President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.

“It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout – as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience. But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician. These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties, and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world.
“Coming close on the heels of President Trump’s bombastic and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in Brussels and Britain, today’s press conference marks a recent low point in the history of the American Presidency. That the president was attended in Helsinki by a team of competent and patriotic advisors makes his blunders and capitulations all the more painful and inexplicable.

“No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are—a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed. Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain.”

[throbster]

McCain had a hair across his ass.

Wow, "Orangeman bad for not getting the US into another pointless war". Words I never thought I'd hear from the libtards in this forum.

[easyrider16]

I know you probably read next to nothing in this thread, throbster, but to clarify - no one suggested going to war over Ukraine. There are lots of options between doing nothing and declaring war.

[easyrider16]

Report today suggests Germany is willing to nix the Nord Stream 2 pipeline if Russia violates Ukraine's sovereignty. I think this is a big deal - it demonstrates that the current administration has been able to work with Germany to impose sanctions that will actually hurt Russia, even when those sanctions are going to negatively impact Germany. Though I am not sure Putin was ever serious about invading Ukraine, this should provide a powerful deterrent.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/we ... d=msedgntp

[throbster]

Report today suggests Germany is willing to nix the Nord Stream 2 pipeline if Russia violates Ukraine's sovereignty. I think this is a big deal - it demonstrates that the current administration has been able to work with Germany to impose sanctions that will actually hurt Russia, even when those sanctions are going to negatively impact Germany. Though I am not sure Putin was ever serious about invading Ukraine, this should provide a powerful deterrent.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/we ... d=msedgntp

Yeah well if Sleepy didn't stupidly okay the pipeline, Putin wouldn't be in the position to invade Ukraine.

You can't over state how stupid it was to curb US energy production while encouraging energy production by our enemies. Sleepy is a f*** fool!

[Mister Moose]

Though I am not sure Putin was ever serious about invading Ukraine, this should provide a powerful deterrent.

Of course he's serious.

Isn't it a win win draw for Putin?

If he encounters minimal resistance, increase his occupied territory in Ukraine. Doesn't have to be the whole country.
If he encounters resistance, bargain for concessions for him to go away.

Putin only has a draw if he gains nothing. Putin will outlast the next president.

[easyrider16]

Of course he's serious.

Isn't it a win win draw for Putin?

If he encounters minimal resistance, increase his occupied territory in Ukraine. Doesn't have to be the whole country.
If he encounters resistance, bargain for concessions for him to go away.

Putin only has a draw if he gains nothing. Putin will outlast the next president.

I'm not so sure. If Putin invades Ukraine, he's going to face a determined population that hates him and will fight a guerrilla war against his troops using NATO and U.S. weapons. If his troops get bogged down, it makes him look weak at home and he might even lose the support of his troops. He's not likely to extract many concessions if it looks like he's bogged down or losing, and if he gets too few, it looks like surrender. That's the kind of failure that prompts rivals to make a move for his job. It'd be a very risky gambit, and Putin's a smart enough guy to see that.

No, I think this is brinksmanship, in the style the old Soviet Union used to practice on a regular basis. I linked to an article written by Alexei Navalny above where he posits that Putin is basically doing this as a ruse to get the West to ease sanctions. I think the argument has merit.

[Mister Moose]

Of course he's serious.

Isn't it a win win draw for Putin?

If he encounters minimal resistance, increase his occupied territory in Ukraine. Doesn't have to be the whole country.
If he encounters resistance, bargain for concessions for him to go away.

Putin only has a draw if he gains nothing. Putin will outlast the next president.

I'm not so sure. If Putin invades Ukraine, he's going to face a determined population that hates him and will fight a guerrilla war against his troops using NATO and U.S. weapons. If his troops get bogged down, it makes him look weak at home and he might even lose the support of his troops. He's not likely to extract many concessions if it looks like he's bogged down or losing, and if he gets too few, it looks like surrender. That's the kind of failure that prompts rivals to make a move for his job. It'd be a very risky gambit, and Putin's a smart enough guy to see that.

No, I think this is brinksmanship, in the style the old Soviet Union used to practice on a regular basis. I linked to an article written by Alexei Navalny above where he posits that Putin is basically doing this as a ruse to get the West to ease sanctions. See above I think the argument has merit.

Just spit-balling, but Ukraine is not homogenous. The eastern section is Russian speaking and more supportive. They may not offer as much resistance, and there may be actions that happen well inside the border, not just on the defended border. With Taiwan on the horizon, how willing will the west, especially the US be to engage in yet another Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan? That goes both ways.

[easyrider16]

This is just my take based on what I've read, but I think Ukraine would be Russia's Vietnam, not NATO's. The man-portable antitank and anti-air weapons that NATO is providing are likely to make any incursion costly for Putin's forces. Ukraine might not be homogeneous, but Crimea was the most pro-Russian part and that low hanging fruit has already been taken.

On top of that, if Putin does invade, he's going to incur more sanctions. It seems to me that there are a lot more downsides than upsides to a further incursion into Ukraine, and I think Putin sees that, too. That being said, Putin is just one guy with almost total control over his country, and it's hard to predict what any given individual might do in that situation.

[easyrider16]

Here's some analysis by General Jack Keane on the issue. He suggests that Putin is unlikely to conduct a full-scale invasion because it would mean a protracted insurgency and high casualties, but suggests Putin may order some limited military action just across the border to demonstrate capability and intimidate Ukraine further.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ge ... d=msedgntp

[Bubba]

A fairly long read but well worth it.

From the latest issue of Time Magazine

The Untold Story of the Ukraine Crisis
BY SIMON SHUSTER/KYIV
FEBRUARY 2, 2022 7:00 AM EST

https://time.com/6144109/russia-ukraine ... edvedchuk/

[easyrider16]

Anyone else see the stories about Tucker Carlson blatantly lying by claiming Ukraine's democratically elected president is a dictator? It's pretty bad that Fox keeps this guy on the air when he's spreading such obviously false information.

https://news.yahoo.com/tucker-carlson-c ... 30848.html