|
Post by marsatax on Apr 24, 2024 17:27:22 GMT
People argued the same way before WWII. Japan grabbed Manchuria from China in 1931, then invaded the rest of China later in the 1930s. But a war in faraway China doesn't threaten us, right? Around the same time, Fascist Italy under Mussolini conquered Ethiopia. Ethiopia's leader spoke at the League of Nations, warning that successful aggression against Ethiopia will lead to aggression against others, but to no avail. When Hitler wanted to take land from Czechoslovakia in 1938, Britain's PM Neville Chamberlain said, "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing!" Chamberlain gave Hitler the land on a silver platter. The following year, when Hitler started threatening Poland, some Brits had the slogan "Don't die for Danzig". America thought it could stay out of the conflict. After all, we were protected by two vast oceans from the fighting in Europe and Asia. Dec. 7, 1941 was rude awakening. America finally learned its lesson. When North Korea invaded the South in 1950, America decided to fight for the South. Similarly, when Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, again America went to war against the aggressor. We have a bargain in Ukraine, since we do not have to do any fighting; all we have to do is supply the Ukrainians with weapons, and they will do the fighting. Which of course, the situation is completely different from WW2 but I know, people have to always justify war with WW2. Interesting that they never use one of the conflicts that the US has been involved since then. Could it be that almost all the wars that the US has been involved since then weren't morally justifiable? Maybe. Europe was one of the biggest economic centers back then so it was definitely important for US interests to get involved in Europe back then and the US was attacked directly by Japan which justifies self defense. The idea that Russia is going to attack the US directly after taking the entire Ukraine which is probably not even the goal of Putin is asinine. Another difference is that there was no risk of generalized nuclear war unlike now, which is why comparisons with WW2 are completely misguided. The lessons of WW2 don't apply to this conflict. The lessons of the Cold War do. And I don't recall the US intervening when the Soviets invaded Hungary or Czechoslovakia, a much better comparison. A bargain that is measured in the loss of Ukrainian lives, sure. Especially given the recent reports that the war could've ended right in the beginning if the US and allies were willing to do diplomacy. Now it's looking that Ukraine is on the backfoot and extremely unlikely to recover the lost territory. So in short, this war might end with Ukraine in a worse position than it was before. Which of course, the situation is completely different from WW2 but I know, people have to always justify war with WW2.
The lesson we learn from WWII is that there are always going to be bullies and aggressors in the world, and it is better to deal with them and keep them in check rather than withdraw into isolation and hope that they don't bother us. This lesson still applies. Interesting that they never use one of the conflicts that the US has been involved since then. Could it be that almost all the wars that the US has been involved since then weren't morally justifiable?
No, it could not. In the Korean War, we reversed a North Korean invasion of the South. Today, South Korea is an economic powerhouse and a free democracy, while North Korea is pretty much a giant concentration camp. We lost in Vietnam, but even today Vietnam is unfree. In the Gulf War, we reversed Saddam Hussein's brutal takeover of Kuwait. It was like WWII on a miniature scale. The later Iraq War may have been a mistake, but I am not sorry to see Saddam Hussein gone. We lost in Afghanistan. I was in favor of it, even though I knew even at the time that our chances there were a longshot at best. Our involvement there was fully justified in response to 9/11. The idea that Russia is going to attack the US directly after taking the entire Ukraine which is probably not even the goal of Putin is asinine.
I never said Russia is going to attack the U.S. But if Putin gets away with conquering Ukraine, it may wet his appetite for more aggression in Europe. And I don't recall the US intervening when the Soviets invaded Hungary or Czechoslovakia, a much better comparison.
Hungary and Czechoslovakia were members of the Warsaw Pact, and therefore satellites of the Soviet Union. When Russia invaded Ukraine, my reaction was "Oh, the poor Ukrainians". I was very surprised when the Ukrainians successfully fought back. It was only then that I decided that we should support Ukraine with weapons. A bargain that is measured in the loss of Ukrainian lives, sure. Especially given the recent reports that the war could've ended right in the beginning if the US and allies were willing to do diplomacy. Now it's looking that Ukraine is on the backfoot and extremely unlikely to recover the lost territory. So in short, this war might end with Ukraine in a worse position than it was before. I say it is up to the Ukrainians themselves whether to continue to fight or not. As long as they are willing to fight, I say we should support them with weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 26, 2024 8:46:41 GMT
Which of course, the situation is completely different from WW2 but I know, people have to always justify war with WW2. Interesting that they never use one of the conflicts that the US has been involved since then. Could it be that almost all the wars that the US has been involved since then weren't morally justifiable? Maybe. Europe was one of the biggest economic centers back then so it was definitely important for US interests to get involved in Europe back then and the US was attacked directly by Japan which justifies self defense. The idea that Russia is going to attack the US directly after taking the entire Ukraine which is probably not even the goal of Putin is asinine. Another difference is that there was no risk of generalized nuclear war unlike now, which is why comparisons with WW2 are completely misguided. The lessons of WW2 don't apply to this conflict. The lessons of the Cold War do. And I don't recall the US intervening when the Soviets invaded Hungary or Czechoslovakia, a much better comparison. A bargain that is measured in the loss of Ukrainian lives, sure. Especially given the recent reports that the war could've ended right in the beginning if the US and allies were willing to do diplomacy. Now it's looking that Ukraine is on the backfoot and extremely unlikely to recover the lost territory. So in short, this war might end with Ukraine in a worse position than it was before. Which of course, the situation is completely different from WW2 but I know, people have to always justify war with WW2.
The lesson we learn from WWII is that there are always going to be bullies and aggressors in the world, and it is better to deal with them and keep them in check rather than withdraw into isolation and hope that they don't bother us. This lesson still applies. Interesting that they never use one of the conflicts that the US has been involved since then. Could it be that almost all the wars that the US has been involved since then weren't morally justifiable?
No, it could not. In the Korean War, we reversed a North Korean invasion of the South. Today, South Korea is an economic powerhouse and a free democracy, while North Korea is pretty much a giant concentration camp. We lost in Vietnam, but even today Vietnam is unfree. In the Gulf War, we reversed Saddam Hussein's brutal takeover of Kuwait. It was like WWII on a miniature scale. The later Iraq War may have been a mistake, but I am not sorry to see Saddam Hussein gone. We lost in Afghanistan. I was in favor of it, even though I knew even at the time that our chances there were a longshot at best. Our involvement there was fully justified in response to 9/11. The idea that Russia is going to attack the US directly after taking the entire Ukraine which is probably not even the goal of Putin is asinine.
I never said Russia is going to attack the U.S. But if Putin gets away with conquering Ukraine, it may wet his appetite for more aggression in Europe. And I don't recall the US intervening when the Soviets invaded Hungary or Czechoslovakia, a much better comparison.
Hungary and Czechoslovakia were members of the Warsaw Pact, and therefore satellites of the Soviet Union. When Russia invaded Ukraine, my reaction was "Oh, the poor Ukrainians". I was very surprised when the Ukrainians successfully fought back. It was only then that I decided that we should support Ukraine with weapons. A bargain that is measured in the loss of Ukrainian lives, sure. Especially given the recent reports that the war could've ended right in the beginning if the US and allies were willing to do diplomacy. Now it's looking that Ukraine is on the backfoot and extremely unlikely to recover the lost territory. So in short, this war might end with Ukraine in a worse position than it was before. I say it is up to the Ukrainians themselves whether to continue to fight or not. As long as they are willing to fight, I say we should support them with weapons. And the lesson of the Cold War is that nuclear weapons made wars between great powers not possible without risking human civilization. Then why not use any of the conflicts of the Cold War instead of WW2? Nuclear weapons didn't exist until very late in the war so the considerations of nuclear war don't apply unlike what happens in Ukraine. Like said the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia are far more similar to this conflict than WW2. The US was completely justified in going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Once Bin Laden was dead, there was no reason to say in Afghanistan. Overthrowing the Taliban and nation building was giant mistake and that should be the main considerations in going to war. Even before the withdrawal, the Taliban controlled more territory in Afghanistan than before the US invasion. We need to apply realism to conflicts instead of ideological fantasies. And some might say that Ukraine was in the Russian sphere of influence. Surely the US would react if Mexico was in the process of joining a military alliance with China or Russia. Assuming that Putin conquers the entire Ukraine, which is a big assumption given that he needs to mobilize way more people to keep a country of that size occupied, attacking the rest of the former Soviet states requires Putin to have a war with NATO. He's not suicidal. Just remember, the initial invasion force, before thing went wrong for him was around 190K. A number not even close to the required number to conquer Ukraine. The US invaded Iraq a smaller country with almost half million people and there was no annexation planned in that case. Support them what end? I mean are we really expecting that the Ukrainians, a country with less manpower and no industrial base compared to Russia is going to achieve the maximalist goal of "pushing the Russians completely out of Ukraine, including Crimea"? Right now, Russia is outproducing the West in ammunition and weapons and by all accounts only in 2025 we might get parity which is enough to hold the line not actually win. Ukraine is desperate to recruit more men while Russia is having a steady flow of volunteers. The Western strategy also pushed Russia and China together which is going to be a big issue if things in Taiwan flare up. Contrast again, with the Cold War when the US took advantage of the Sino-Soviet split and ended up having better relations with China and the Soviet Union than they had with each other. So back to my original point, Ukraine is not a core interest of the US. But it's a core interest of Russia and my guess is that Russia will be willing to go further to prevent Ukraine from aligning completely with the West.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Apr 26, 2024 18:35:38 GMT
Which of course, the situation is completely different from WW2 but I know, people have to always justify war with WW2.
The lesson we learn from WWII is that there are always going to be bullies and aggressors in the world, and it is better to deal with them and keep them in check rather than withdraw into isolation and hope that they don't bother us. This lesson still applies. Interesting that they never use one of the conflicts that the US has been involved since then. Could it be that almost all the wars that the US has been involved since then weren't morally justifiable?
No, it could not. In the Korean War, we reversed a North Korean invasion of the South. Today, South Korea is an economic powerhouse and a free democracy, while North Korea is pretty much a giant concentration camp. We lost in Vietnam, but even today Vietnam is unfree. In the Gulf War, we reversed Saddam Hussein's brutal takeover of Kuwait. It was like WWII on a miniature scale. The later Iraq War may have been a mistake, but I am not sorry to see Saddam Hussein gone. We lost in Afghanistan. I was in favor of it, even though I knew even at the time that our chances there were a longshot at best. Our involvement there was fully justified in response to 9/11. The idea that Russia is going to attack the US directly after taking the entire Ukraine which is probably not even the goal of Putin is asinine.
I never said Russia is going to attack the U.S. But if Putin gets away with conquering Ukraine, it may wet his appetite for more aggression in Europe. And I don't recall the US intervening when the Soviets invaded Hungary or Czechoslovakia, a much better comparison.
Hungary and Czechoslovakia were members of the Warsaw Pact, and therefore satellites of the Soviet Union. When Russia invaded Ukraine, my reaction was "Oh, the poor Ukrainians". I was very surprised when the Ukrainians successfully fought back. It was only then that I decided that we should support Ukraine with weapons. A bargain that is measured in the loss of Ukrainian lives, sure. Especially given the recent reports that the war could've ended right in the beginning if the US and allies were willing to do diplomacy. Now it's looking that Ukraine is on the backfoot and extremely unlikely to recover the lost territory. So in short, this war might end with Ukraine in a worse position than it was before. I say it is up to the Ukrainians themselves whether to continue to fight or not. As long as they are willing to fight, I say we should support them with weapons. And the lesson of the Cold War is that nuclear weapons made wars between great powers not possible without risking human civilization. Then why not use any of the conflicts of the Cold War instead of WW2? Nuclear weapons didn't exist until very late in the war so the considerations of nuclear war don't apply unlike what happens in Ukraine. Like said the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia are far more similar to this conflict than WW2. The US was completely justified in going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Once Bin Laden was dead, there was no reason to say in Afghanistan. Overthrowing the Taliban and nation building was giant mistake and that should be the main considerations in going to war. Even before the withdrawal, the Taliban controlled more territory in Afghanistan than before the US invasion. We need to apply realism to conflicts instead of ideological fantasies. And some might say that Ukraine was in the Russian sphere of influence. Surely the US would react if Mexico was in the process of joining a military alliance with China or Russia. Assuming that Putin conquers the entire Ukraine, which is a big assumption given that he needs to mobilize way more people to keep a country of that size occupied, attacking the rest of the former Soviet states requires Putin to have a war with NATO. He's not suicidal. Just remember, the initial invasion force, before thing went wrong for him was around 190K. A number not even close to the required number to conquer Ukraine. The US invaded Iraq a smaller country with almost half million people and there was no annexation planned in that case. Support them what end? I mean are we really expecting that the Ukrainians, a country with less manpower and no industrial base compared to Russia is going to achieve the maximalist goal of "pushing the Russians completely out of Ukraine, including Crimea"? Right now, Russia is outproducing the West in ammunition and weapons and by all accounts only in 2025 we might get parity which is enough to hold the line not actually win. Ukraine is desperate to recruit more men while Russia is having a steady flow of volunteers. The Western strategy also pushed Russia and China together which is going to be a big issue if things in Taiwan flare up. Contrast again, with the Cold War when the US took advantage of the Sino-Soviet split and ended up having better relations with China and the Soviet Union than they had with each other. So back to my original point, Ukraine is not a core interest of the US. But it's a core interest of Russia and my guess is that Russia will be willing to go further to prevent Ukraine from aligning completely with the West. The US was completely justified in going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Once Bin Laden was dead, there was no reason to say in Afghanistan. Overthrowing the Taliban and nation building was giant mistake and that should be the main considerations in going to war. Even before the withdrawal, the Taliban controlled more territory in Afghanistan than before the US invasion. We need to apply realism to conflicts instead of ideological fantasies.
I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan even though from the beginning our chances there were a longshot at best. We did manage to destroy al-Qaeda, or at least make it so we do not hear much about al-Qaeda anymore. And the Taliban has to know that if they again start hosting actively anti-American terrorists, we will return to their country, and will be ruthless this time. And some might say that Ukraine was in the Russian sphere of influence. Surely the US would react if Mexico was in the process of joining a military alliance with China or Russia.
Ukraine did not join NATO, not even after Russia grabbed the Crimea from Ukraine. Russia got Crimea; wasn't that enough for them? Assuming that Putin conquers the entire Ukraine, which is a big assumption given that he needs to mobilize way more people to keep a country of that size occupied, attacking the rest of the former Soviet states requires Putin to have a war with NATO. He's not suicidal.
Assuming this German guy with the funny mustache conquers all of Czechoslovakia, which is a big assumption, attacking Poland would require him to have a war with Britain and France. He's not suicidal. (Well, he actually turned out to be, in 1945.) Support them what end? I mean are we really expecting that the Ukrainians, a country with less manpower and no industrial base compared to Russia is going to achieve the maximalist goal of "pushing the Russians completely out of Ukraine, including Crimea"? Right now, Russia is outproducing the West in ammunition and weapons and by all accounts only in 2025 we might get parity which is enough to hold the line not actually win. Ukraine is desperate to recruit more men while Russia is having a steady flow of volunteers.
I leave it to the Ukrainians themselves to decide when and whether to keep fighting or accept a deal. They are the ones who will suffer any consequences either way. The Western strategy also pushed Russia and China together which is going to be a big issue if things in Taiwan flare up. And, at the same time, I can argue that China is watching the Ukraine War closely, and if, in the end, it proves that aggression pays, China will have that much more incentive to invade Taiwan.
|
|
|
Post by pathfinder on Apr 26, 2024 19:31:41 GMT
Yes, it didn't take long for our Left to forget what happened on 10.7 and that most of the victims were from their camp. The left was targeted on Oct 7th for the worst atrocities and Hamas knew who they were, according to some of the materials found in the tunnels. One of the plans for Oct 7th was to occupy part of southern Israel in this strong left wing area and to rule over Jews who were known as people who hated the current Israeli government. Hamas expected these Jews to accept Hamas rule. Hamas and their civilians who followed them into Israel on Oct 7th raped, mutilated and killed them instead. It’s heartbreaking regardless of their politics, of course. Israelis have been quite shaken and the grief will go on for a long time. And Jews don't have stupid people? It is too easy to ridicule those dumbasses. That doesn't mean I hate Jews.
They are well meaning very foolish people. Sorry if that offends you but they are.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Apr 26, 2024 19:46:53 GMT
Left wing Jews don’t thrill me. We still have them in Israel although the solid majority of the Jews here in Israel identify as right wing.
One-third of the Jews here have shifted more rightward since Oct 7th, too, per a poll here.
Everyone feels bad about all the Jews caught up in the Oct 7th massacre. The stories keep coming out.
Today, I saw a story where a released hostage said that her keeper bought a ring and proposed marriage after 14 days in captivity. I suspect that he was captivated by her pale blue eyes.
He said he was going to bring his mother over to the captivity place to approve of the marriage (although the hostage girl didn’t agree).
A woman in a hijab showed up and the girl (17 or 18 years old) realized that the woman was her own mother who she thought was dead.
The captor kept saying that the girl would stay in Gaza to give him children and the girl would laugh. Finally, her mother just said no. Making the captors angry made the guns come out and the two women expected to be shot in the head at any moment.
The captors gave them cards to play and played with them at times while threatening to shoot them in the head off and on for 50 days until they were released.
Every story that comes out is as strange or stranger than the last.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on May 3, 2024 10:19:42 GMT
And the lesson of the Cold War is that nuclear weapons made wars between great powers not possible without risking human civilization. Then why not use any of the conflicts of the Cold War instead of WW2? Nuclear weapons didn't exist until very late in the war so the considerations of nuclear war don't apply unlike what happens in Ukraine. Like said the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia are far more similar to this conflict than WW2. The US was completely justified in going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Once Bin Laden was dead, there was no reason to say in Afghanistan. Overthrowing the Taliban and nation building was giant mistake and that should be the main considerations in going to war. Even before the withdrawal, the Taliban controlled more territory in Afghanistan than before the US invasion. We need to apply realism to conflicts instead of ideological fantasies. And some might say that Ukraine was in the Russian sphere of influence. Surely the US would react if Mexico was in the process of joining a military alliance with China or Russia. Assuming that Putin conquers the entire Ukraine, which is a big assumption given that he needs to mobilize way more people to keep a country of that size occupied, attacking the rest of the former Soviet states requires Putin to have a war with NATO. He's not suicidal. Just remember, the initial invasion force, before thing went wrong for him was around 190K. A number not even close to the required number to conquer Ukraine. The US invaded Iraq a smaller country with almost half million people and there was no annexation planned in that case. Support them what end? I mean are we really expecting that the Ukrainians, a country with less manpower and no industrial base compared to Russia is going to achieve the maximalist goal of "pushing the Russians completely out of Ukraine, including Crimea"? Right now, Russia is outproducing the West in ammunition and weapons and by all accounts only in 2025 we might get parity which is enough to hold the line not actually win. Ukraine is desperate to recruit more men while Russia is having a steady flow of volunteers. The Western strategy also pushed Russia and China together which is going to be a big issue if things in Taiwan flare up. Contrast again, with the Cold War when the US took advantage of the Sino-Soviet split and ended up having better relations with China and the Soviet Union than they had with each other. So back to my original point, Ukraine is not a core interest of the US. But it's a core interest of Russia and my guess is that Russia will be willing to go further to prevent Ukraine from aligning completely with the West. The US was completely justified in going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Once Bin Laden was dead, there was no reason to say in Afghanistan. Overthrowing the Taliban and nation building was giant mistake and that should be the main considerations in going to war. Even before the withdrawal, the Taliban controlled more territory in Afghanistan than before the US invasion. We need to apply realism to conflicts instead of ideological fantasies.
I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan even though from the beginning our chances there were a longshot at best. We did manage to destroy al-Qaeda, or at least make it so we do not hear much about al-Qaeda anymore. And the Taliban has to know that if they again start hosting actively anti-American terrorists, we will return to their country, and will be ruthless this time. And some might say that Ukraine was in the Russian sphere of influence. Surely the US would react if Mexico was in the process of joining a military alliance with China or Russia.
Ukraine did not join NATO, not even after Russia grabbed the Crimea from Ukraine. Russia got Crimea; wasn't that enough for them? Assuming that Putin conquers the entire Ukraine, which is a big assumption given that he needs to mobilize way more people to keep a country of that size occupied, attacking the rest of the former Soviet states requires Putin to have a war with NATO. He's not suicidal.
Assuming this German guy with the funny mustache conquers all of Czechoslovakia, which is a big assumption, attacking Poland would require him to have a war with Britain and France. He's not suicidal. (Well, he actually turned out to be, in 1945.) Support them what end? I mean are we really expecting that the Ukrainians, a country with less manpower and no industrial base compared to Russia is going to achieve the maximalist goal of "pushing the Russians completely out of Ukraine, including Crimea"? Right now, Russia is outproducing the West in ammunition and weapons and by all accounts only in 2025 we might get parity which is enough to hold the line not actually win. Ukraine is desperate to recruit more men while Russia is having a steady flow of volunteers.
I leave it to the Ukrainians themselves to decide when and whether to keep fighting or accept a deal. They are the ones who will suffer any consequences either way. The Western strategy also pushed Russia and China together which is going to be a big issue if things in Taiwan flare up. And, at the same time, I can argue that China is watching the Ukraine War closely, and if, in the end, it proves that aggression pays, China will have that much more incentive to invade Taiwan. Oh great, the US will return to Afghanistan to try the same thing and expecting different results. The very definition of insanity. Good luck with that. Another 20 years of wasted money and lives. Ukraine didn't join NATO but process to join wasn't stopped which was in fact something that not only Putin had warned against, even diplomats on the West had been warning against. Since the 90's actually. 2 million people invaded Poland. Russia original force against Ukraine was 190k. Not enough to pull that off. But I know, every enemy is Hitler. Also people forget that parts of Czechoslovakia, in addition to having parts annexed by Germany, were also annexed by Poland, Hungary and the part of it split up to form up the Slovak Republic which existed until 1945. So no, technically, he didn't conquer all of Czechoslovakia. But that's thing, the only reason why they keep fighting is in part because the West has rejected any sort of diplomatic will and has been receiving financial and military support. For how long? Who knows. So it's not really up to them. It's up to the West actually. I think whatever happens in Ukraine is irrelevant. What will matter is US forces in the Pacific region. The Chinese and pretty much the rest of the world actually, see Taiwan as China. One China policy after all. The wish for reunification predates the conflict in Ukraine. Hell if anything they might be more secure now that Russia is basically on their side.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on May 3, 2024 16:12:49 GMT
The US was completely justified in going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Once Bin Laden was dead, there was no reason to say in Afghanistan. Overthrowing the Taliban and nation building was giant mistake and that should be the main considerations in going to war. Even before the withdrawal, the Taliban controlled more territory in Afghanistan than before the US invasion. We need to apply realism to conflicts instead of ideological fantasies.
I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan even though from the beginning our chances there were a longshot at best. We did manage to destroy al-Qaeda, or at least make it so we do not hear much about al-Qaeda anymore. And the Taliban has to know that if they again start hosting actively anti-American terrorists, we will return to their country, and will be ruthless this time. And some might say that Ukraine was in the Russian sphere of influence. Surely the US would react if Mexico was in the process of joining a military alliance with China or Russia.
Ukraine did not join NATO, not even after Russia grabbed the Crimea from Ukraine. Russia got Crimea; wasn't that enough for them? Assuming that Putin conquers the entire Ukraine, which is a big assumption given that he needs to mobilize way more people to keep a country of that size occupied, attacking the rest of the former Soviet states requires Putin to have a war with NATO. He's not suicidal.
Assuming this German guy with the funny mustache conquers all of Czechoslovakia, which is a big assumption, attacking Poland would require him to have a war with Britain and France. He's not suicidal. (Well, he actually turned out to be, in 1945.) Support them what end? I mean are we really expecting that the Ukrainians, a country with less manpower and no industrial base compared to Russia is going to achieve the maximalist goal of "pushing the Russians completely out of Ukraine, including Crimea"? Right now, Russia is outproducing the West in ammunition and weapons and by all accounts only in 2025 we might get parity which is enough to hold the line not actually win. Ukraine is desperate to recruit more men while Russia is having a steady flow of volunteers.
I leave it to the Ukrainians themselves to decide when and whether to keep fighting or accept a deal. They are the ones who will suffer any consequences either way. The Western strategy also pushed Russia and China together which is going to be a big issue if things in Taiwan flare up. And, at the same time, I can argue that China is watching the Ukraine War closely, and if, in the end, it proves that aggression pays, China will have that much more incentive to invade Taiwan. Oh great, the US will return to Afghanistan to try the same thing and expecting different results. The very definition of insanity. Good luck with that. Another 20 years of wasted money and lives. Ukraine didn't join NATO but process to join wasn't stopped which was in fact something that not only Putin had warned against, even diplomats on the West had been warning against. Since the 90's actually. 2 million people invaded Poland. Russia original force against Ukraine was 190k. Not enough to pull that off. But I know, every enemy is Hitler. Also people forget that parts of Czechoslovakia, in addition to having parts annexed by Germany, were also annexed by Poland, Hungary and the part of it split up to form up the Slovak Republic which existed until 1945. So no, technically, he didn't conquer all of Czechoslovakia. But that's thing, the only reason why they keep fighting is in part because the West has rejected any sort of diplomatic will and has been receiving financial and military support. For how long? Who knows. So it's not really up to them. It's up to the West actually. I think whatever happens in Ukraine is irrelevant. What will matter is US forces in the Pacific region. The Chinese and pretty much the rest of the world actually, see Taiwan as China. One China policy after all. The wish for reunification predates the conflict in Ukraine. Hell if anything they might be more secure now that Russia is basically on their side. Oh great, the US will return to Afghanistan to try the same thing and expecting different results. The very definition of insanity. Good luck with that. Another 20 years of wasted money and lives.
No, we have learned not to try nation-building there. If there is another major attack on the U.S. by a group based in Afghanistan, we will go in, destroy the terrorist group, destroy as much Taliban infrastructure as possible, and then leave. Total time: a few weeks or months. 2 million people invaded Poland. Russia original force against Ukraine was 190k. Not enough to pull that off. But I know, every enemy is Hitler.Straw man. Not every aggressor is Hitler. Some are more like Mussolini, or the Japanese militarists, or the North Koreans, or Saddam Hussein. But that's thing, the only reason why they keep fighting is in part because the West has rejected any sort of diplomatic will and has been receiving financial and military support. For how long? Who knows. So it's not really up to them. It's up to the West actually.
The Ukrainians are the ones who are most affected by this war, who suffer the casualties, and who suffer the destruction of property. I say we support them as long as they are willing to fight. Putin's aggression should not be rewarded. I think whatever happens in Ukraine is irrelevant. What will matter is US forces in the Pacific region. The Chinese and pretty much the rest of the world actually, see Taiwan as China. One China policy after all. The wish for reunification predates the conflict in Ukraine. Hell if anything they might be more secure now that Russia is basically on their side.The people of Taiwan know that if Putin's aggression in Ukraine succeeds, it will encourage Chinese aggression against Taiwan. That's why some Taiwanese have volunteered to fight in Ukraine.
|
|