Not our war. Don't see anything in it in our national interest. If the war could end next week then I don't really care who the winner is as long as the winner is benevolent in the aftermath. End the madness.
1. When does it become our war? Do we pull a Munich Betrayal of 1938/39 with the Ukraine being this century's Sudetenland? Where do you draw the line? We didn't draw it at the Crimea How about the Bug? The Oder? The Rhine? The English Channel? Maybe Key West?
2. When has ever becoming a Fortress America (Neutrality), retreating behind the walls of the Pacific and Atlantic ever worked for us? We are a maritime international power (Ignoring the deplorable state of our maritime industry, 19th in the world and the 2nd best Navy based on hull count, magazine count, and pronoun proficiency) We depend on and need foreign trade. To protect those trade routes requires an international presence. Far less costly in men and material to be in a position to keep those sea lanes open now than to have force them open later. Those strategic sea lanes include the Bosporus Strait and the The Dardanelles- handling 7%-10% of world's grain shipments. You think that does not impact the price you pay for bread? It is the same when Iran attacks' tankers in the Strait of Hormuz hits you at the gas pump
3. This is the type of war we should be fighting. A proxy war by a a country with "democratic principals and manageable levels of corruption". Most importantly- a population wiling to fight. Three traits lacking in our failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
4. What message does our sitting on the sidelines send to other enemies like China or Iran and what doe sit say to our allies?
5. It is always better to fight a war in somebody else's backyard than your own
1. Never. Your strawman argument has no factual basis. As the last 18 months have shown in Ukraine, Russia doesn't have the resources or the political power to go farther militarily than Belarus & Ukraine.
2. 1815 -1917. Your maritime argument is better used against China. The US can feed itself.
3. Not a war we should be fighting, no vital US interests at stake. "Democratic principals" doesn't mean what you think it means anymore. Now some corruption is tolerable? If the Ukrainians want to try to kill Russians, let them have at it, not our circus, not our monkeys.
4. Sitting on the sidelines where? Does the US have to involve itself militarily everywhere? Because if it does, it signals China & Iran to have some patience, the US will eventually exhaust itself.
5. True, but we're losing that war too.
6. Do better than propagating simplistic propaganda points.
1.You don't think the acquisition of Ukrainian economic/industrial/natural resources/territory would extend their reach? They would no longer sitting on the Dnieper but the Bug along with all those missiles launch sites etc. moved forward. Strategic depth has value.
2.You don't think international prices affects what you pay domestically, what about our allies?
3. We accept manageable corruption in Washington DC, Chicago, Baltimore, the Rio Grande Valley. Are we really going to point fingers?
4.We sort exhausted ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan, by sort of I mean we exhausted public opinion is all. We never fully mobilized the nation's resources into those fights, same with Vietnam. There was no national mobilization with rationing. etc. Our ROE had us fighting with one hand tied behind our back playing prevent defense. A lot of stuff we are sending Ukraine we were paying to maintain in storage for an American Army that will neve be that big again, for at for least a couple for generations if ever based on population demographics. So what are we exhausting? If nothing else this war has exposed short comings that need addressing like our ammunition manufacturing capacity.
5..I don't think "we" are losing this war. Evidence says otherwise
6.Facts are not Propaganda
7.The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783 is as as valid now as when written.
1. Good point. They can springboard from Ukraine right into St. Louis. But seriously, if that's the case, it's an European problem for Europe to resolve.
2. 7-10% including transportation costs? Insignificant.
3. We shouldn't.
4. Check our national debt vs GDP. Unsustainable.
5. When thousands can cross our border unencumbered, we're losing.
6. The "Putin is Hitler" talking point is tiresome simplistic propaganda.
7. Sea power is good. Of little relevance in Ukraine.
Carl, you're spot on. I'd rather we provide weapons to kill these clowns in Ukraine instead of having US forces fight them in the Baltics or eastern Europe. Once they move towards Poland or the Baltics or west towards Berlin then it really does become our fight. Smashing their equipment and eliminating their most experienced troops in Ukraine means we won't be fighting their best forces under the Article Five for quite some time, something Dale, Billy and their head in the sand Charles Lindberg nitwit book of the month club members seem to have conveniently forgotten.
Again I ask the question where would you draw the line? Chicom control of the Strait of Malacca? Or when a world said "never again" back in 1945 after the Holocaust, would millions of Taiwanese being sent off to "reeducation camps" or simply disappeared like the Uyghurs genocide be enough?
Did we get involved when Turks walked over a million Armenians into the desert to die? How about in Cambodia or Rwanda? Have we stopped trading with China because of the Uighurs?
We should have and it is to our national shame we did not and I blame the not our fight, no more Vietnam's mentality along with getting the latest iPhone is more important that slave labor mentality.
Of course to be fair we did not have the power projection ability to get involved in the Armenian genocide.
Something about not going abroad in search of monsters to destroy have served us well. We are not the world's policeman, and it can get more complicated that good guys & bad guys.
You reflect the thinking of the late Professor Harold Rood of Claremont McKenna College.
His fundamental idea was America is an island nation surrounded by the Eurasian landmass. We were to man the ramparts to fight our wars outside our borders. The exigencies of war don't mix well with the Bill of Rights in close quarters. Better to separate the two by an ocean.
"Fortress America" is a foolish concept since, having the longest coastline in the world, an impossible task to defend it all. Unless you anticipate the foe on the ramparts.
Let me wade into this. We have borders to defend--a given. The question is how. For the coast line a Navy. And my mantra, a 600 ship Navy. That's the blue water component to contend with an enemy perhaps well over the horizon and on the other side of the ocean.
And , when we finally rid ourselves of the irrational panic of "climate change" and get serious about extracting oil including offshore on our continental shelves we will need plenty of patrol craft, perhaps something on the order of a PT boat for that job.
The southern border? A fence is probably a good start. Fortunately what's generally south of the border is desolate desert.
Garrison it with ROEs to match. Unless the Empire 'sinks the boats' it is a waste of time to chase foolish dreams. War is not a philosophy class, and allowing modern day Goths to infiltrate the borders shows a weakness that the East will have to exploit on GP
Instead of propping up a tottering Europe, better to march South. Eliminate the immediate threat. Take over the Mexican oil fields, and the same with Venezuela. War should pay for itself; supporting vassals is what ran the USSR out of resources and into bankruptcy. Same with our Greatest Ally. The Crusades ended a long time ago, and the West lost. Better to make peace with the Hajis and concentrate on enemies at the gates
What killed the Soviets Union more than any single other factor was $10 a barrel oil, it didn't do our domestics oil industry much good either, but or economy was not a one trick pony. Even if this crazy idea were doable the cost of revitalizing the Venezuelan oil industry, after years of mismanagement , would hardly be worth the cost at current oil prices. Venezuelan crude is some of the most expensive to extract and refine. China is taking a bath on the money they have loaned to Venezuela. If the price of a barrel goes up so does your price of gas at the pump. Mexican oil production is not that great, their production is almost half what it was 10 years ago. Essentially the are running out of oil
Tottering Europe? The EU has a GDP about equal to US. The only thing tottering in Europe is Russia.
The cost of supporting Ukraine is minuscule to the money we have wasted in this country. The fraud, waste and abuse in the covid relief and PPP program alone is believed top $500 billion. California High speed rail is spending $22 billion just for a partial segment from Bakersfield to Merced. The East Side Access project in New York (subway ) cost $3.5 billion per mile, over 7 times the average for other cities around the world
I would also add to this that you invade a country you become responsible for it. Venezuela's economy is broke. Since your plan is not a short term military adventure but a long term occupation you get to take on the care and feeding of approx. 25 million Venezuelans. How much do you think that will cost? Would have to also do the same for Mexico. You really think we have military big enough for all that? You whole idea is a money losing venture
"experts believe it will take $110 billion to $250 billion invested over a decade to rebuild Venezuela’s energy infrastructure and restore production to over 2 million barrels per day"
" it will take billions of dollars and years to clean up existing spills, with the damage in many places, such as Lake Maracaibo, considered irreversible."
F...k Experts. Pump the crude and screw the locals. Taking care of the enemy is foolish. Clean up nothing, kumbaya is over. The winner takes all and to hell with those peons.
So we should be concerned about the thoughts of a dead academic. Unless he commanded troops in the field, he opinions are that of an amateur. Only those that have served matter. Combat is the true test of a Man. Not arguing with intellectual idiots and freshman.
1. I don't see there is a line that needs to be drawn here. I see this as a "Let's you and him fight" war. One that was set up by us. If there is such a thing as the Domino Theory, I do not see that it applies here.
2. Have we ever really sat on our hands in Fortress America? Not much. We seem always to be ready to go to war, many times with the loftiest motives. Kind of like a Friday night of drinks with friends that turns into a lost weekend and an STD. I see no threat to our freedom to navigate the seas and conduct trade in what is happening north of the Black Sea right now. Am not too sure how much Ukraine wheat we use to bake our bread. Anyway, I believe we provoked this war and if some chickens come home to roost then, well, that is karma.
3. I disagree with your 3 points. I doubt either of us will change our minds, as we both "know" we have the facts on our side. I'm just more confident in mine.
4. To China and Iran? Electing Biden in 2022 says it all and not much since changes that except to cement the message. Our allies? They probably have private opinions that don't jive with the public pronouncements that we bully out of them. Modern messaging is spin. Smoke & mirrors. These days messaging has become perverted. Look at how many folks get offended by the slightest thing.
5. True. But, how self-serving and cowardly is it to be the puppeteer of foreign young men being sent into the meat grinder and all that collateral damage to civilians and infrastructure? We helped cause this war. We kibosh its end at every step. I served 26 years and fought in 2 wars. Used to be a very reliable hawk, Republican and conservative. Was about as pro-war as a man could get, as long, in my mind, it was a just war. I believe if we had have sat this one out they'd have had a short 3-4 month war and the world be in a better place. Even Ukraine.
6. "A benevolent Putin??? Seriously???". Never picked the winner. Seriously, you are trying to put words into my mouth.
----------------------------------
I dunno...maybe I should have said, "Not my war" and "Don't see much in it..." instead. Regret triggering you. There are at least a 100 ways I could have parsed my short post. See how messaging works?
People thought sacrificing the Czechs would make the world a better place in 1939
Is your willingness to sacrifice a nation of over 40 million any more a guarantee of your version of a better place any better than back then or better than the alleged puppetry going on now?
The majority of Ukrainian people obviously disagree with you.
It is not cowardly to equip the equip a people willing to fight for themselves. They are asking for the means to defend themselves not for us to fight for them. A marked contrast for what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
As a nation you can either be a driving force in international events or be driven by them.
We need to be far smarter about how we use our military's power than we have in the past and the Ukraine is a good example how do do it. While Iraq/Afghanistan and Vietnam are how not do do it. The problems with those three wars was not the why's but the how's.
It was the why's and the how's, just like this. I march to the beat of a different drum now. Call me jaded. But please don't call me overzealous or emotive.
"sacrifice a nation of over 40 million" another strawman argument that doesn't take into consideration the ethnic realities on the ground, especially East of the Dniper.
And not all "ethnic Russian support Russia and even if they did you are still talking about over 30 million ethnic Ukrainians. You really think and other groups like the Tatars have any love for the Russians given their past treatment by them?
"training of Ukrainian troops" what Ukrainian troops? At the rate Ukraine is sacrificing its population, there won't be enough military aged males to train.
NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Last time I looked at a map Ukraine is nowhere near the Atlantic so why are we pouring billions in weapons nto that country? And if those billions are not enough what then? Are we willing to pay any price and bear any burden to keep the Russians out of Odessa? I think not. Time to negotiate in good faith and recognize Russia's legitimate concerns before they conclude that they will have to retake all their former republics.
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
We're good at that. South Vietnam. Cambodia. Somalia. Lebanon. Afghanistan. Libya. Iraq. Cuba. Venezuela. We did however restore democracy in Haiti. Ha ha ha.
Ever actually look at a map? Is Turkey closer to the north Atlantic?
Legitimate concerns of what kind? That Ukraine and NATO and the EU will put an end to the fat cat exploitation and enslavement of millions of people n Asia and Europe? That they will prevent the spread of these Russian concerns? Are those the concerns you're defending?
Please investigate whether Ukraine, giving up its nuclear weapons for security was really what it was said to be. I am very skeptical that Russia in reality would have turned over its nuclear weapons in Ukraine to the control of the Ukrainian government. (just as we do not turn over our nuclear weapons in Europe to control of the countries in which they are situated.) I suspect they were always under Russian control. Your comment?
I have always understood that Ukraine had physical possession but not operational control (i.e., ability to credibly threaten use) of the weapons. Had they kept them, could they eventually have cracked whatever codes were required; or found a way to dismantle, remove intact cores, and build their own weapons around them? No idea – I think they're inventive and determined, the Russians are inventive and highly untrusting, and I don't know which wins out after 20+ years. But I agree with you, I think there's a tendency to assume they gave up being an actual nuclear power because we made them a promise, and I don't think that's so.
Certainly, Ukraine should not join NATO while the conflict is going on. Not even Biden is stupid enough to agree to this. Even after the conflict Ukraine should not join NATO, if Russia still controls any part of Ukrainian territory, since that will almost guarantee a future war.
Well, indeed we are spending $billions in support of Ukraine, and just consider that $$$ being spent in defense of Russia's next target nation, and surely more after that until Putin has had his fill. He has a long way to go to reestablish his empire dreams; the Europeans know that, Pres Biden knows that, and most Sovietologists swear by that. Any kind of 'settling matters with Russia' in dialogue is a pipedream. It is Putin, not Russia, whose manifest destiny is being sought. Thoughts to the contrary are Chamberlain-ian in the 10th degree.
We are wasting/wasted more on the High Sped Rail project in California or the Navy's LCS program than spending in the Ukraine. IMHO we get better return on the investment in Ukraine. THE US Federal government alone will spend over $200 billion on food and nutrition programs(Across 15 federal agencies/programs) and we we still have hunger. We will spend about $1.5 TRILLION (Combined Federal State and local) on means tested welfare including MEDICAID and we still have poverty. Puling M- 1s and of Bradleys and other excess equipment out of storage is hardly a factor.
Russia has been, at heart, a paranoid nation back to at least the time of Ivan the Terrible. Poking a paranoid bear usually leads to really bad results. Urging a country directly on the Russian border is a big poke. My guess is that he reason Putin didn’t attack Poland when it became part of NATO is that he didn’t feel strong enough at that time. Whatever the reason, he didn’t. Everyone in DC that can read should understand that if Ukrainian were to join NATO at this point, we would instantly be involved in a continent-wide war. That was a big part of why Russian attacked Georgia. Not a good plan. The Georgians I talked to a few years ago understand that problem, even if Zelensky and Biden don’t.
The Poles and Ukrainians are tired of getting overrun by Germans or Russians every hundred years or so.
Many -- especially in Poland -- saw the chance for a more permanent nation with the collapse of the USSR. In Ukraine, because of geography, IMO, things took a bit longer to develop.
Even so, the point remains. Poles and Ukrainians want to create their own nation as they see fit. They are tired of outside meddlers. If the US government can respond with competent statecraft, I'd say we could pull more ground forces out of Europe, and focus on naval power projection in the Pacific west of Wake.
Ukraine was and is so corrupt that they wasted the thirty years to get ready for Russia's invasion. Poland used the time wisely. Ukraine has largely earned what they have gotten.
First reducing Russia to a second rate conventional military power. Or maybe it merely exposed Russia as a second rate conventional power. It will take decades and a lot of money to recover from this misadventure.
Second Poland might become the defacto conventional military power in Eastern Europe if not the continent.
Poland now has 4 times as many tanks (1000 versus 250) as Germany. Poland's tanks work, as does its artillery. Apparently the German AF is slightly larger, but I question their readiness rate
Maybe Russia was a second rate conventional power when this started, one can argue that's no longer the case. They're holding their own against a Western trained and equipped army, not being run out of town by a bunch of sheep herders with Lee-Enfield rifles.
As for Poland, that economy won't support the levels of militarization they aspire to.
"Holding their own" against a country they were supposed to conquer in 3 days is hardly a resounding endorsement. Remember it was Russia who invaded Ukraine not the other way around, now they are on the defensive after failing to reach their objectives." Holding their own" if you don't count assistance of Iran , Norths Korea, China, Chechen Mercenaries, Wagner prison recruits etc.
I would have quickly cut our support to a minimal amount and told Europe either they protect a fellow European country or deal with Russia being even nearer to Western Europe. I'm tired of us protecting Europe.
East or West. Russian was pushing the concept in the Cold War that eastern Europe was Slavic and therefore belonged to Russia, then the Warsaw Pact. Problems there.
Actually, look to where they turn religiously. To the Orthodox Church or to Rome. And, there you see, at least, how Poland and the Balts line up. East Germany as well.
Ukraine is right in the middle. I only need to point to the Ukrainian Catholic Church. There one in my home state, in Cody, Wyoming.
In order to accurately place it, you'd need confidence in both its GDP # and its Defense spending #. IIRC the CIA was seriously wrong about the Soviet #s in 60-90
Of course you could also plot spending against 'distance from Russia'.
Or plot spending against 'years since Russian conflict'.
Not our war. Don't see anything in it in our national interest. If the war could end next week then I don't really care who the winner is as long as the winner is benevolent in the aftermath. End the madness.
I would argue/ask the following points/questions
1. When does it become our war? Do we pull a Munich Betrayal of 1938/39 with the Ukraine being this century's Sudetenland? Where do you draw the line? We didn't draw it at the Crimea How about the Bug? The Oder? The Rhine? The English Channel? Maybe Key West?
2. When has ever becoming a Fortress America (Neutrality), retreating behind the walls of the Pacific and Atlantic ever worked for us? We are a maritime international power (Ignoring the deplorable state of our maritime industry, 19th in the world and the 2nd best Navy based on hull count, magazine count, and pronoun proficiency) We depend on and need foreign trade. To protect those trade routes requires an international presence. Far less costly in men and material to be in a position to keep those sea lanes open now than to have force them open later. Those strategic sea lanes include the Bosporus Strait and the The Dardanelles- handling 7%-10% of world's grain shipments. You think that does not impact the price you pay for bread? It is the same when Iran attacks' tankers in the Strait of Hormuz hits you at the gas pump
3. This is the type of war we should be fighting. A proxy war by a a country with "democratic principals and manageable levels of corruption". Most importantly- a population wiling to fight. Three traits lacking in our failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
4. What message does our sitting on the sidelines send to other enemies like China or Iran and what doe sit say to our allies?
5. It is always better to fight a war in somebody else's backyard than your own
6. A benevolent Putin??? Seriously???
1. Never. Your strawman argument has no factual basis. As the last 18 months have shown in Ukraine, Russia doesn't have the resources or the political power to go farther militarily than Belarus & Ukraine.
2. 1815 -1917. Your maritime argument is better used against China. The US can feed itself.
3. Not a war we should be fighting, no vital US interests at stake. "Democratic principals" doesn't mean what you think it means anymore. Now some corruption is tolerable? If the Ukrainians want to try to kill Russians, let them have at it, not our circus, not our monkeys.
4. Sitting on the sidelines where? Does the US have to involve itself militarily everywhere? Because if it does, it signals China & Iran to have some patience, the US will eventually exhaust itself.
5. True, but we're losing that war too.
6. Do better than propagating simplistic propaganda points.
1.You don't think the acquisition of Ukrainian economic/industrial/natural resources/territory would extend their reach? They would no longer sitting on the Dnieper but the Bug along with all those missiles launch sites etc. moved forward. Strategic depth has value.
2.You don't think international prices affects what you pay domestically, what about our allies?
3. We accept manageable corruption in Washington DC, Chicago, Baltimore, the Rio Grande Valley. Are we really going to point fingers?
4.We sort exhausted ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan, by sort of I mean we exhausted public opinion is all. We never fully mobilized the nation's resources into those fights, same with Vietnam. There was no national mobilization with rationing. etc. Our ROE had us fighting with one hand tied behind our back playing prevent defense. A lot of stuff we are sending Ukraine we were paying to maintain in storage for an American Army that will neve be that big again, for at for least a couple for generations if ever based on population demographics. So what are we exhausting? If nothing else this war has exposed short comings that need addressing like our ammunition manufacturing capacity.
5..I don't think "we" are losing this war. Evidence says otherwise
6.Facts are not Propaganda
7.The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783 is as as valid now as when written.
1. Good point. They can springboard from Ukraine right into St. Louis. But seriously, if that's the case, it's an European problem for Europe to resolve.
2. 7-10% including transportation costs? Insignificant.
3. We shouldn't.
4. Check our national debt vs GDP. Unsustainable.
5. When thousands can cross our border unencumbered, we're losing.
6. The "Putin is Hitler" talking point is tiresome simplistic propaganda.
7. Sea power is good. Of little relevance in Ukraine.
Excellent counterpoints. I'll offer some or my own.
1. 😂
2. LMAO
3. ?!
4. It's just numbers
5. Demographics
6. Haha
7. Lol wut
Your arguments are getting lazy and wrong.
4. Just numbers. Let's revisit that in a few years.
Carl, you're spot on. I'd rather we provide weapons to kill these clowns in Ukraine instead of having US forces fight them in the Baltics or eastern Europe. Once they move towards Poland or the Baltics or west towards Berlin then it really does become our fight. Smashing their equipment and eliminating their most experienced troops in Ukraine means we won't be fighting their best forces under the Article Five for quite some time, something Dale, Billy and their head in the sand Charles Lindberg nitwit book of the month club members seem to have conveniently forgotten.
Again I ask the question where would you draw the line? Chicom control of the Strait of Malacca? Or when a world said "never again" back in 1945 after the Holocaust, would millions of Taiwanese being sent off to "reeducation camps" or simply disappeared like the Uyghurs genocide be enough?
Did we get involved when Turks walked over a million Armenians into the desert to die? How about in Cambodia or Rwanda? Have we stopped trading with China because of the Uighurs?
We should have and it is to our national shame we did not and I blame the not our fight, no more Vietnam's mentality along with getting the latest iPhone is more important that slave labor mentality.
Of course to be fair we did not have the power projection ability to get involved in the Armenian genocide.
Something about not going abroad in search of monsters to destroy have served us well. We are not the world's policeman, and it can get more complicated that good guys & bad guys.
You reflect the thinking of the late Professor Harold Rood of Claremont McKenna College.
His fundamental idea was America is an island nation surrounded by the Eurasian landmass. We were to man the ramparts to fight our wars outside our borders. The exigencies of war don't mix well with the Bill of Rights in close quarters. Better to separate the two by an ocean.
"Fortress America" is a foolish concept since, having the longest coastline in the world, an impossible task to defend it all. Unless you anticipate the foe on the ramparts.
Defending the longest coastline is not what the US is having a problem with. How about we address the southern border?
The Southern Border reinforces his point
Let me wade into this. We have borders to defend--a given. The question is how. For the coast line a Navy. And my mantra, a 600 ship Navy. That's the blue water component to contend with an enemy perhaps well over the horizon and on the other side of the ocean.
And , when we finally rid ourselves of the irrational panic of "climate change" and get serious about extracting oil including offshore on our continental shelves we will need plenty of patrol craft, perhaps something on the order of a PT boat for that job.
The southern border? A fence is probably a good start. Fortunately what's generally south of the border is desolate desert.
Fence is a good start, a five mile wide buffer zone with obstacles in between would be better.
I'm not a "client change" nutbag, nor do I see us leaving fossil fuels as an energy source anytime soon, but more should be done in nuclear.
But I agree, the best guarantor of our national security is a strong Navy.
And a ruthless Army. The borders should be a kill zone, not an intake for social services for the needs of subhuman parasites.
I was arguing agsint the Fortress America idea.
Are you saying the southern border is indefensible?
Garrison it with ROEs to match. Unless the Empire 'sinks the boats' it is a waste of time to chase foolish dreams. War is not a philosophy class, and allowing modern day Goths to infiltrate the borders shows a weakness that the East will have to exploit on GP
Instead of propping up a tottering Europe, better to march South. Eliminate the immediate threat. Take over the Mexican oil fields, and the same with Venezuela. War should pay for itself; supporting vassals is what ran the USSR out of resources and into bankruptcy. Same with our Greatest Ally. The Crusades ended a long time ago, and the West lost. Better to make peace with the Hajis and concentrate on enemies at the gates
What killed the Soviets Union more than any single other factor was $10 a barrel oil, it didn't do our domestics oil industry much good either, but or economy was not a one trick pony. Even if this crazy idea were doable the cost of revitalizing the Venezuelan oil industry, after years of mismanagement , would hardly be worth the cost at current oil prices. Venezuelan crude is some of the most expensive to extract and refine. China is taking a bath on the money they have loaned to Venezuela. If the price of a barrel goes up so does your price of gas at the pump. Mexican oil production is not that great, their production is almost half what it was 10 years ago. Essentially the are running out of oil
Tottering Europe? The EU has a GDP about equal to US. The only thing tottering in Europe is Russia.
The cost of supporting Ukraine is minuscule to the money we have wasted in this country. The fraud, waste and abuse in the covid relief and PPP program alone is believed top $500 billion. California High speed rail is spending $22 billion just for a partial segment from Bakersfield to Merced. The East Side Access project in New York (subway ) cost $3.5 billion per mile, over 7 times the average for other cities around the world
Love amateur thoughts. Maybe some serious study instead of whatever the Dems come up with.
I would also add to this that you invade a country you become responsible for it. Venezuela's economy is broke. Since your plan is not a short term military adventure but a long term occupation you get to take on the care and feeding of approx. 25 million Venezuelans. How much do you think that will cost? Would have to also do the same for Mexico. You really think we have military big enough for all that? You whole idea is a money losing venture
Caedite Eos. No need to prop them up. That's what WMAs are for.
"experts believe it will take $110 billion to $250 billion invested over a decade to rebuild Venezuela’s energy infrastructure and restore production to over 2 million barrels per day"
" it will take billions of dollars and years to clean up existing spills, with the damage in many places, such as Lake Maracaibo, considered irreversible."
F...k Experts. Pump the crude and screw the locals. Taking care of the enemy is foolish. Clean up nothing, kumbaya is over. The winner takes all and to hell with those peons.
So we should be concerned about the thoughts of a dead academic. Unless he commanded troops in the field, he opinions are that of an amateur. Only those that have served matter. Combat is the true test of a Man. Not arguing with intellectual idiots and freshman.
Professor Rood served in the Third Army in WWII.
Let me see...
1. I don't see there is a line that needs to be drawn here. I see this as a "Let's you and him fight" war. One that was set up by us. If there is such a thing as the Domino Theory, I do not see that it applies here.
2. Have we ever really sat on our hands in Fortress America? Not much. We seem always to be ready to go to war, many times with the loftiest motives. Kind of like a Friday night of drinks with friends that turns into a lost weekend and an STD. I see no threat to our freedom to navigate the seas and conduct trade in what is happening north of the Black Sea right now. Am not too sure how much Ukraine wheat we use to bake our bread. Anyway, I believe we provoked this war and if some chickens come home to roost then, well, that is karma.
3. I disagree with your 3 points. I doubt either of us will change our minds, as we both "know" we have the facts on our side. I'm just more confident in mine.
4. To China and Iran? Electing Biden in 2022 says it all and not much since changes that except to cement the message. Our allies? They probably have private opinions that don't jive with the public pronouncements that we bully out of them. Modern messaging is spin. Smoke & mirrors. These days messaging has become perverted. Look at how many folks get offended by the slightest thing.
5. True. But, how self-serving and cowardly is it to be the puppeteer of foreign young men being sent into the meat grinder and all that collateral damage to civilians and infrastructure? We helped cause this war. We kibosh its end at every step. I served 26 years and fought in 2 wars. Used to be a very reliable hawk, Republican and conservative. Was about as pro-war as a man could get, as long, in my mind, it was a just war. I believe if we had have sat this one out they'd have had a short 3-4 month war and the world be in a better place. Even Ukraine.
6. "A benevolent Putin??? Seriously???". Never picked the winner. Seriously, you are trying to put words into my mouth.
----------------------------------
I dunno...maybe I should have said, "Not my war" and "Don't see much in it..." instead. Regret triggering you. There are at least a 100 ways I could have parsed my short post. See how messaging works?
People thought sacrificing the Czechs would make the world a better place in 1939
Is your willingness to sacrifice a nation of over 40 million any more a guarantee of your version of a better place any better than back then or better than the alleged puppetry going on now?
The majority of Ukrainian people obviously disagree with you.
It is not cowardly to equip the equip a people willing to fight for themselves. They are asking for the means to defend themselves not for us to fight for them. A marked contrast for what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
As a nation you can either be a driving force in international events or be driven by them.
We need to be far smarter about how we use our military's power than we have in the past and the Ukraine is a good example how do do it. While Iraq/Afghanistan and Vietnam are how not do do it. The problems with those three wars was not the why's but the how's.
It was the why's and the how's, just like this. I march to the beat of a different drum now. Call me jaded. But please don't call me overzealous or emotive.
I understand being jaded I did 24 years myself but honestly this is one of those I can get behind on both the why's and the how's
"sacrifice a nation of over 40 million" another strawman argument that doesn't take into consideration the ethnic realities on the ground, especially East of the Dniper.
And not all "ethnic Russian support Russia and even if they did you are still talking about over 30 million ethnic Ukrainians. You really think and other groups like the Tatars have any love for the Russians given their past treatment by them?
What I or any other American thinks or virtue signals about is of little relevance to the people there. Their issues to sort out.
Driving force…
Professor Rood’s aphorism was “you run the show or the show runs you.”
I feel the current Western leadership is not capable of the subtleties you suggest. At this point any thinking would be more thinking.
"training of Ukrainian troops" what Ukrainian troops? At the rate Ukraine is sacrificing its population, there won't be enough military aged males to train.
NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Last time I looked at a map Ukraine is nowhere near the Atlantic so why are we pouring billions in weapons nto that country? And if those billions are not enough what then? Are we willing to pay any price and bear any burden to keep the Russians out of Odessa? I think not. Time to negotiate in good faith and recognize Russia's legitimate concerns before they conclude that they will have to retake all their former republics.
So JFK was wrong?
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Different era. I suspect he was having second thoughts about Vietnam after the murder of Diem. We shall never know.
You could have peace this second with the words "we surrender"
https://youtu.be/wpVvgNs8tqI
We're good at that. South Vietnam. Cambodia. Somalia. Lebanon. Afghanistan. Libya. Iraq. Cuba. Venezuela. We did however restore democracy in Haiti. Ha ha ha.
and you can't help people who won't help themselves.
Not total wastes, lots of dead commies, Islamic fascists etc.
Ever actually look at a map? Is Turkey closer to the north Atlantic?
Legitimate concerns of what kind? That Ukraine and NATO and the EU will put an end to the fat cat exploitation and enslavement of millions of people n Asia and Europe? That they will prevent the spread of these Russian concerns? Are those the concerns you're defending?
Please investigate whether Ukraine, giving up its nuclear weapons for security was really what it was said to be. I am very skeptical that Russia in reality would have turned over its nuclear weapons in Ukraine to the control of the Ukrainian government. (just as we do not turn over our nuclear weapons in Europe to control of the countries in which they are situated.) I suspect they were always under Russian control. Your comment?
I have always understood that Ukraine had physical possession but not operational control (i.e., ability to credibly threaten use) of the weapons. Had they kept them, could they eventually have cracked whatever codes were required; or found a way to dismantle, remove intact cores, and build their own weapons around them? No idea – I think they're inventive and determined, the Russians are inventive and highly untrusting, and I don't know which wins out after 20+ years. But I agree with you, I think there's a tendency to assume they gave up being an actual nuclear power because we made them a promise, and I don't think that's so.
Perhaps. But we did make a promise. If they didn’t actually believe it, that says something about us.
Great article Sal. Had no prior knowledge of the 2008 events. Very critical events at that.
Your NATO map needs some updating.
Certainly, Ukraine should not join NATO while the conflict is going on. Not even Biden is stupid enough to agree to this. Even after the conflict Ukraine should not join NATO, if Russia still controls any part of Ukrainian territory, since that will almost guarantee a future war.
Shorter solution. Disband NATO. It has outlived any plausible usefulness.
LOL Russia still invading other countries last I checked.
Well, indeed we are spending $billions in support of Ukraine, and just consider that $$$ being spent in defense of Russia's next target nation, and surely more after that until Putin has had his fill. He has a long way to go to reestablish his empire dreams; the Europeans know that, Pres Biden knows that, and most Sovietologists swear by that. Any kind of 'settling matters with Russia' in dialogue is a pipedream. It is Putin, not Russia, whose manifest destiny is being sought. Thoughts to the contrary are Chamberlain-ian in the 10th degree.
"Sovietologists" need to accept that the Soviet Union died decades ago and reform how they view things.
We are wasting/wasted more on the High Sped Rail project in California or the Navy's LCS program than spending in the Ukraine. IMHO we get better return on the investment in Ukraine. THE US Federal government alone will spend over $200 billion on food and nutrition programs(Across 15 federal agencies/programs) and we we still have hunger. We will spend about $1.5 TRILLION (Combined Federal State and local) on means tested welfare including MEDICAID and we still have poverty. Puling M- 1s and of Bradleys and other excess equipment out of storage is hardly a factor.
It's all waste to placate interests and buy votes. Unsustainable.
Russia has been, at heart, a paranoid nation back to at least the time of Ivan the Terrible. Poking a paranoid bear usually leads to really bad results. Urging a country directly on the Russian border is a big poke. My guess is that he reason Putin didn’t attack Poland when it became part of NATO is that he didn’t feel strong enough at that time. Whatever the reason, he didn’t. Everyone in DC that can read should understand that if Ukrainian were to join NATO at this point, we would instantly be involved in a continent-wide war. That was a big part of why Russian attacked Georgia. Not a good plan. The Georgians I talked to a few years ago understand that problem, even if Zelensky and Biden don’t.
How many times must I repeat this?
The Poles and Ukrainians are tired of getting overrun by Germans or Russians every hundred years or so.
Many -- especially in Poland -- saw the chance for a more permanent nation with the collapse of the USSR. In Ukraine, because of geography, IMO, things took a bit longer to develop.
Even so, the point remains. Poles and Ukrainians want to create their own nation as they see fit. They are tired of outside meddlers. If the US government can respond with competent statecraft, I'd say we could pull more ground forces out of Europe, and focus on naval power projection in the Pacific west of Wake.
Change my mind.
Ukraine was and is so corrupt that they wasted the thirty years to get ready for Russia's invasion. Poland used the time wisely. Ukraine has largely earned what they have gotten.
Wait, I thought we were blaming the West and NATO expansion, forcing Russia to defend itself. Now it's Ukraine's fault that they got invaded? 🤣
Two things this war has accomplished.
First reducing Russia to a second rate conventional military power. Or maybe it merely exposed Russia as a second rate conventional power. It will take decades and a lot of money to recover from this misadventure.
Second Poland might become the defacto conventional military power in Eastern Europe if not the continent.
Poland now has 4 times as many tanks (1000 versus 250) as Germany. Poland's tanks work, as does its artillery. Apparently the German AF is slightly larger, but I question their readiness rate
Maybe Russia was a second rate conventional power when this started, one can argue that's no longer the case. They're holding their own against a Western trained and equipped army, not being run out of town by a bunch of sheep herders with Lee-Enfield rifles.
As for Poland, that economy won't support the levels of militarization they aspire to.
"Holding their own" against a country they were supposed to conquer in 3 days is hardly a resounding endorsement. Remember it was Russia who invaded Ukraine not the other way around, now they are on the defensive after failing to reach their objectives." Holding their own" if you don't count assistance of Iran , Norths Korea, China, Chechen Mercenaries, Wagner prison recruits etc.
Ukraine would have lost the war long ago if they didn't have massive outside help (primarily U.S. help).
Good thing we helped them then.
I would have quickly cut our support to a minimal amount and told Europe either they protect a fellow European country or deal with Russia being even nearer to Western Europe. I'm tired of us protecting Europe.
Schrodinger's Russia: it can not defeat Ukraine, but poses an existential threat to the world.
Russia's inability to win a war does not seem to serve as a deterrent to it starting one.
US' inability to win a war does not seem to serve as a deterrent to it starting one.
There, I fixed it.
Either way my point is proven
"one"?
Got redirected here when checking on “Schrödinger’s Russia” remark!
https://bigserge.substack.com/p/russo-ukrainian-war-schrodingers
He's a good read.
East or West. Russian was pushing the concept in the Cold War that eastern Europe was Slavic and therefore belonged to Russia, then the Warsaw Pact. Problems there.
Actually, look to where they turn religiously. To the Orthodox Church or to Rome. And, there you see, at least, how Poland and the Balts line up. East Germany as well.
Ukraine is right in the middle. I only need to point to the Ukrainian Catholic Church. There one in my home state, in Cody, Wyoming.
Intresting article--also informative. I wonder where China falls on that chart?
In order to accurately place it, you'd need confidence in both its GDP # and its Defense spending #. IIRC the CIA was seriously wrong about the Soviet #s in 60-90
Wonder how things would have turned out if the Smart People included Russia as a future NATO member in 2008?
We might be in better shape versus CCP
CIA & FSB teaming up to rid the world of globalist scum is not the worst outcome I can think of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DksCR9_Zqfk&ab_channel=Saint
You think that inviting the fox to live in the henhouse is the key to preventing predation?
Might have eased tensions somewhat. Not entirely sure it would have worked, but it would have been worth a try.