Will Russia invade Ukraine?

[WarDamJagFan]

WarDamJagsFan, (Oh the irony)

No need to argue with the Troll about foreign policy or DoD matters.  He is a fully indoctrinated veteran of the war machine and military industrial complex.  You are just wasting your time.

Message boards are no place for changing people's opinions but I don't mind a little back-and-forth banter as long as its civil. But juuuust in case people wonder where my Jaxson name comes from. War Dam is Auburn's battle cry, short for "War Damn Eagle!"   But we just got murdered at home by New Mexico State so we have that going for us.

[BridgeTroll]

WarDamJagsFan, (Oh the irony)

No need to argue with the Troll about foreign policy or DoD matters.  He is a fully indoctrinated veteran of the war machine and military industrial complex.  You are just wasting your time.

I'm just looking for someone who can actually articulate a position. I respect war dams opinion even though I disagree. You on the other hand...

[JPalmer]

I'm just looking for someone who can actually articulate a position. I respect war dams opinion even though I disagree. You on the other hand...

I've been pretty succinct in pointing out that you love shilling DoD propaganda on a website that you should be moderating with objectivity.

[Tacachale]

I'm just looking for someone who can actually articulate a position. I respect war dams opinion even though I disagree. You on the other hand...

I've been pretty succinct in pointing out that you love shilling DoD propaganda on a website that you should be moderating with objectivity.

That's enough. Either stop making personal attacks, or find something else to do.

[BridgeTroll]

While I might understand your frustration... isolationism has always failed as a foreign policy... not just here but around the world throughout history. It is doomed to fail before it even begins because we are now incredibly interconnected in the 21st century.  We cannot isolate ourselves from problems in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. Their problems are unavoidably our problems. Walking away or ignoring them only exaberates the problems and let's the world's bad actors enslave more of humanity.

LOL. Isolationism has failed? Compared to what? Our intervention-first foreign policy approach the last 60+ years has been a total failure all the way from Vietnam to present day. While I agree we can't go full-stop isolationist given global interconnectivity simply from an economic perspective, drastic changes must be made to put an almost infinitely larger focus on the homeland than we currently have. But to think we have to go to war every damn time there's a dust-up in another part of the planet is asinine - which is our current foreign policy directive.

Getting back on topic... I  would counter that ours and the collective free countries foreign policy has been a huge success. NATO successfully held the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union at bay. Following the collapse of the Soviets the number of free countries increased by a large number.  North Korea has remained in the north. The Pacific has remained calm. Of course there were failures Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq... but even those achieved success on some level.

The world is a safer more stable place with the US engaged. I'm certainly not suggesting that we engage militarily... but military preparedness and deterrenting aggression are something our adversaries respect.  We can do this by supplying the weapons and means for free countries to defend themselves. For me... telling Taiwan or Ukraine or South Korea... too bad you're on your own is not what this country is about.

[JPalmer]

The world is a safer more stable place with the US engaged.

Tell that to the people of Libya and Syria...A utter fallacy of your Pax-Americana BS.

[Tacachale]

While I might understand your frustration... isolationism has always failed as a foreign policy... not just here but around the world throughout history. It is doomed to fail before it even begins because we are now incredibly interconnected in the 21st century.  We cannot isolate ourselves from problems in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. Their problems are unavoidably our problems. Walking away or ignoring them only exaberates the problems and let's the world's bad actors enslave more of humanity.

LOL. Isolationism has failed? Compared to what? Our intervention-first foreign policy approach the last 60+ years has been a total failure all the way from Vietnam to present day. While I agree we can't go full-stop isolationist given global interconnectivity simply from an economic perspective, drastic changes must be made to put an almost infinitely larger focus on the homeland than we currently have. But to think we have to go to war every damn time there's a dust-up in another part of the planet is asinine - which is our current foreign policy directive.

Getting back on topic... I  would counter that ours and the collective free countries foreign policy has been a huge success. NATO successfully held the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union at bay. Following the collapse of the Soviets the number of free countries increased by a large number.  North Korea has remained in the north. The Pacific has remained calm. Of course there were failures Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq... but even those achieved success on some level.

The world is a safer more stable place with the US engaged. I'm certainly not suggesting that we engage militarily... but military preparedness and deterrenting aggression are something our adversaries respect.  We can do this by supplying the weapons and means for free countries to defend themselves. For me... telling Taiwan or Ukraine or South Korea... too bad you're on your own is not what this country is about.

Seems like there are two parts here: whether the world is better off with the US (and democracies) as the most powerful faction, and whether the US isn't fulfilling domestic obligations due to its obligations overseas.

Obviously, I think the answer to the first one is a resounding yes. It's better for more people across the world than if Russia and China were the most powerful block, or earlier powers like the communists, fascists, European colonial empires, or whatever. The answer to the second is more nuanced. Yes, we've made huge errors in our foreign policy. Iraq and Vietnam are the obvious examples. And while I expect both BT and WDJF would disagree with me on what exactly we haven't fulfilled, I certainly agree that we haven't fulfilled our domestic obligations.

But I think looking at this specific instance, Ukraine isn't a drain. There are no US troops in danger, it's a fraction of our military budget, and we're defending a friendly nation while containing the most dangerous regime in the world today. It's pennies on the dollar, and meanwhile, we're making historic bipartisan investments in infrastructure, the economy and wages are improving (especially on the lower income levels) and hey, even border security spending is up. Clearly, we're able to walk and chew gum at the same time, whether or not it's always appeared that way historically.

[BridgeTroll]

The world is a safer more stable place with the US engaged.

Tell that to the people of Libya and Syria...A utter fallacy of your Pax-Americana BS.

The root cause of the people's misery in those countries are the absolute dictators that still control or once controlled them.

[JPalmer]

The root cause of the people's misery in those countries are the absolute dictators that still control or once controlled them.

Wrong on both accounts, it was the US intervention.  I'll do you the favor and let you know Barrack Obama has long since admitted the assassination of Gaddafi was in fact his worst "mistake" as president.  Gaddafi had been in power for thirty years and was no threat, however, after his assassination Libya has become a failed state and created refugee crisis. 

Syria, we also intervened and enflamed a civil war.  We armed the rebels who ultimately formed Isis and have been occupying 1/3 of the country, oh and Donald Trump has already admitted on camera that the only reason we are in Syria is for the oil.

Links for Citation:

https://youtu.be/U10p3Tn9V5Y?si=S17claXpiO5Ow5wW


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

[BridgeTroll]

The root cause of the people's misery in those countries are the absolute dictators that still control or once controlled them.

Wrong on both accounts, it was the US intervention.  I'll do you the favor and let you know Barrack Obama has long since admitted the assassination of Gaddafi was in fact his worst "mistake" as president.  Gaddafi had been in power for thirty years and was no threat, however, after his assassination Libya has become a failed state and created refugee crisis. 

Syria, we also intervened and enflamed a civil war.  We armed the rebels who ultimately formed Isis and have been occupying 1/3 of the country, oh and Donald Trump has already admitted on camera that the only reason we are in Syria is for the oil.

Links for Citation:

https://youtu.be/U10p3Tn9V5Y?si=S17claXpiO5Ow5wW


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

How appropriate you pick a video of Trump and Erdogan... with Trump doing all the talking. Lol.  Assad should be overthrown and his Russian/Iranian coalition sent home.

In the Atlantic article Obama seems to say that the error was with planning post kaddaffi Libya than the effort to liberate Libya.

[W]e [and] our European partners underestimated the need to come in full force if you're going to do this. Then it's the day after Qaddafi is gone, when everybody is feeling good and everybody is holding up posters saying, 'Thank you, America.' At that moment, there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies that didn't have any civic traditions."

I  appreciate your adding citations to your discussion...

[JPalmer]

Typical deflection of the facts.

Syria and Turkey are bordering countries, so yes, Trump is speaking with Erdogan about our intervention in his neighboring country.

With Libya, you are trying to use our lack of foresight and operational planning as a perfectly good excuse for the suffering of millions of people, that is just shameful and disgusting.

Also, what Barrack and that Atlantic article failed to mention.  Gadaffi wasn't assassinated for being a dictator.  He was killed because he was looking to move away from the PetroDollar.  Again, destroying sovereign governments for oil and nothing more.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/gaddafis-prophecy-comes-true-as-foreign-powers-battle-for-libyas-oil

This is not a matter of left and right, both of our political parties can burn.

[BridgeTroll]

You are clearly avoiding the fact that both Assad and Gadaffi were/are murderous dictators aligned with Russia and Iran. Both were causing instability and threatening neighbors.

Didn't Gaddafi blow up a airliner over Scotland??? Hmmmm... among other atrocities...

[BridgeTroll]

Moving forward this thread will concentrate on events in the war in Ukraine. All others will be deleted.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-november-24-2023

European states are responding to Russia's continued orchestration of an artificially created migrant crisis on its northwestern borders. The Finnish government announced on November 22 that Finland will close three more checkpoints on the Finnish-Russian border from November 23 to December 23, leaving only the northernmost checkpoint open.[31] Norwegian Prime Minister Johan Gahr Store stated on November 22 that Norway would also close its border to Russia "if necessary."[32] Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur stated on November 23 that an increased number of migrants have also arrived at the Estonian-Russian border and that Russia is organizing the arrivals as part of an effort to "weaponize illegal immigration."[33] Reuters reported on November 23 that the Estonian Interior Ministry stated that Estonia has undertaken preparations to close its border crossings with Russia if "the migration pressure from Russia escalates."[34] Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silina stated on November 24 that Latvia has experienced a similar influx of migrants on its border with Russia, and Silina and Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo stated that these are Russian and Belarusian "hybrid attacks."

[Jax_Developer]

Russia has & will continue to be driven for the need for warm deepwater & submarine capable ports. It is and will continue to be their #1 national security threat post 1950.

The aggression for accessible ports began in the 1800's under the Tsar... St. Petersburg, is a formerly Finnish city. Very few people know that area's true history. That city also happens to be one of Russia's oldest, and most populated Naval bases. The entire Ukraine war can be analyzed back to this very idea. Sevastopol is an old, storied naval port for the Russians. That port belongs to the Russian's virtually anyway you look at it due to conquest of the Little Tartary in the 1700's. That is Russia's only "real" warm water port. They have others in the Black Sea that can be utilized, but those are worthless in comparison because of the depth or positioning of the fort in the Black Sea.

So, the real conversation about the aggression in the Ukraine/Russia conflict, is how one-sided your perspective is on geopolitics. If you were Russian, there's a laundry list of reasons why this war makes sense. Not having swift deployment of their nuclear submarine fleet tops the list by far. Compound that with a shrinking buffer-zone from NATO, and yeah I can see the Russian POV.

From the American side of things, we want countries to have self-determination. We're not involved in Belarus, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan and those three countries are probably in the top 5 for worst dictatorships on the planet right now. We have 100% declined as a policing state in that way. Nonetheless, brass still sees Russia as a major threat, and will work to maintain strategic advantages around the world, by any means it seems.

I wouldn't for a second believe that this war wasn't provoked, and really started by NATO "aggression" in the region. Russia also has a storied history of starting wars with neighboring countries because they feel like they got the short end of the stick with water access. Very much a situation in which the people of Ukraine are paying for the geopolitical buildup of these dynamics for hundreds of years. The people of Georgia are very familiar with this reality. Many refer to that conflict as a test run. Not sure who is really "right" here, and I don't think there is a clear answer.

Russia will continue to decline in the geopolitical perspective.. Russia faces demographic issues, but more importantly technological issues. They have boasted capability claims of their Su-57, and have proven their surface vessels are a floating target. It's hard to imagine that Russia doesn't recognize this growing gap. Their nuclear submarine fleet is their tip of the spear, manned by mostly middle-aged officers with years of experience. Their nuclear submarines have also been proven to be "as" capable as their NATO counterparts. As long as that last sentence remains true, Russia will not need to recognize this growing gap due to obvious nuclear deterrence. Hence making these proxy wars, all the more feasible moving forward. I wouldn't be surprised to see conflicts arise in some of the neighboring states to Russia further north. It was actually where much of this conversation began, a hundred plus years ago.

Map of Europe 1700 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe,_1700%E2%80%941714.png (0 ports)
Map of Europe 1800 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_1783-1792_en.png (many ports)
Map of Europe 1900 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe-map-1900_mapa-de-europa-1910.jpg (many more ports)

[BridgeTroll]

Awesome post and welcome to the discussion!
Your maps illustrate Russian aggression over the centuries... whether seeking warm water ports or simply territorial aggression... Finland, Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and  Latvia know all about Russian intentions.
You mentioned Belarus, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan... none of these countries are trying to exit the Russian sphere of influence. All of those countries have dictators sympathetic to Russia... they are not comparable to Ukraine.
Regarding NATO  provocation... if provocation includes accepting countries into the NATO protected umbrella then I  agree... Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia and later Finland and Sweden are provocateurs.

You fail to mention the security assurance from the West in exchange for returning nuclear warheads, missiles, tanks, warships to Russia in exchange for security from Russian aggression. In 1991... Ukraine was in possession of the THIRD LARGEST NUCLEAR ARSENAL ON EARTH.

The gave them up for peace and security... this very simply a country that wants to escape the Russian sphere of influence.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world's third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine and Russia. The result was the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain; compensation for the economic value of the highly-enriched uranium in the warheads (which could be blended down and converted into fuel for nuclear reactors); and assistance from the United States in dismantling the missiles, missile silos, bombers and nuclear infrastructure on its territory.