Reply to US has no good options in Ukraine

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "US has no good options in Ukraine"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable.  You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now.  Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him.  Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do.  Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.[/quote]

So I take it that you think no children and pregnant women were killed by US airstrikes in Iraq?

The 30,000 bombs we dropped during the air campaign didn't hit any civilians whatsoever?
------------------
There is a lot of speculation as to why Putin invaded Ukraine. We cannot be sure of his motivation. It is either (1) he wants to expand Russian territory or (2) he is worried about potential NATO expansion into Ukraine and is unwilling to share a 1500 mile border with a NATO country.

We don't know his primary motive (and no, his believe that Ukrainians and Russians are one people isn't proof that he wants an empire), but my sense is that his motivate is (2) rather than (1) given that, for the last 15 years, he has stated that the Russian government views expanding NATO to include Ukraine as an unacceptable security risk.

In regard to Crimea -- I believe the US would have done precisely the same thing were we in danger of losing a critical military base and port. The motive was not an expansion of the Russian "empire", but rather making sure Russia has a warm-water port.

I can't read Putin's mind, nor can any of us. But it is possible that he views the invasion of Ukraine as a form of proactive defense against potential NATO expansion. Yes, an invasion is a sick, twisted form of "defense", but Putin certainly wouldn't be the first leader to apply this sort of logic.

[/quote]

Why would you take it that way?  I've said nothing even remotely resembling that, and this isn't a thread about Iraq.

---‐-------

How is Russia making sure it has a warm water port not an expansion of its empire?  You're really doing to logical pretzel twisting to accomodate Putin.  If Putin really wants NATO to back off, there are other things he can do beaides targeting innocent civilians, like disarming his nukes.[/quote]

I would take it that way because it is what our current head of the CIA, Wiliam Burns, told our government after his years in Moscow as a diplomat -- he stated that it isn't just Putin that views Ukraine's potential NATO accession as a security risk, but rather the entire Russian government. Burns repeatedly cautioned us that the closer Ukraine gets to NATO, the more likely Russian retaliation would become.

In addition, Putin has repeatedly told us, over the last 15 years, that Ukraine entering NATO would constitute crossing a red line, and Russia would be forced to make a strong countermove.

Disarming his nukes? That would require a huge amount of trust -- we don't trust Russia, and they don't trust us, so Russia disarming their nukes isn't a plausible way forward. How about we first disarm our nukes, so that the Russians feel comfortable? Would you be OK with that? Who should lower the barrel of their gun first?

He has tried other things. He has certainly tried to influence Ukrainian po[/quote]

That's not what I was asking about, but it's nice to not have Iraq whataboutism for a change, so I'll just leave it at that.  What do you get out of carrying so much water for Putin?[/quote]

And it's truly astounding that anyone would even try something as lame as "yabut the US is worse than Russia" given Stalin murdered at least 6 million of his own people plus hundreds of thousands more in Russia's expansionism and proxy wars around the globe.  FOH!

Not to mention, that when the US did go into Iraq, I don't recall the US threatening to kill millions by saying "STAY OUT OF IT OR THERE WILL BE REPRISALS LIKE THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN" while raising nuclear readiness levels.  But Russia certainly DID do that.

Russia is FAR worse than the US, by any measure.[/quote]

There were also 49 countries in the coalition that invaded Iraq.[/quote]

This is key.  Everyone wanted to be our friend and help us.  Russia can't even get Belarus to help them.[/quote]

The US is the only country that has stepped up as a global leader. There is also high trust in US competence.

This crisis was a chance for many countries, including ambitious ones like China, to step to the plate. None want the responsibility, the expense or the hard work of relationship building. So the US remains, warts and all, the best alternative. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics