Colors of Blue and Gold

[Richard Smith]

The Ukrainians aren't destroying a country. Russia is the one trying to do so.

Question:

How are your arguments fundamentally different than the arguments made by the "America Firsters" of the 1930's and early 1940's. They argued that sending military aid aboard won't help defend Democracy.

But they were wrong. Just as you are wrong.

As usual, just like CTers often do, you will most likely dodge my only question.

Sending lots of military aid to a people who support Democracy has promoted Democracy. In the right circumstances. When the people under siege support Democracy. The aid sent to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan allowed peoples who wanted to establish Democracy to establish it. And Democracy still stands there to this day. In France, Belgian, Denmark, etc. and even including Germany and Japan. Because even Germany and Japan were not totally filled with Nazis and Military fanatics. Both countries had tried Democracy and had millions who wanted to give it another go.

In contrast, spending on Afghanistan and Iraq is pouring money into a black hole because the people of those countries, for the most part, do not and never had supported Democracy.

Does Ukraine really contain powerful people who want to destroy the newly establish Democracy of Ukraine? It sure does. Some of them want to become the Putin, or the Trump, of Ukraine, or to serve such a man, and be rewarded. But the people of Ukraine, who, if successful against Putin, will succeed against these lesser Putins. Just as the people in France, Belgian, Denmark, etc. who after the World War II managed to defeat the dictator want-a-be in their countries. The people of Ukraine deserves this chance. And I'm betting on them, both during this war, and the coming internal war afterwards.

There are conflicts going on all over the world that the US does not involve itself in. Ukraine is a situation in which the politicians contrived a narrative to promote support for involvement (as they did to justify decades of war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq) to justify the expenditure of billions in taxpayer dollars.  The narrative is an extension of the fake "war on democracy" claim by anti-Trump establishment politicians (both republicans and dems).  This desired narrative is vague (somehow and for some unknown reason democracy is threatened).  It is laughable but enough to convince those that want to be convinced (i.e. the anti-Trump conspiracy theorists who bought "Russian collusion").   There is no direct US interest in this conflict.  In fact, the US economy has suffered greatly.  More than the Russian economy.  Getting all your information from You Tube and the US state armed sponsored propaganda arms like CNN and MSNBC is no more reliable than Russian propaganda.  In fact, it is often worse.  This is like a made for Disney version of American history.  Where do you think the US bombs and weapons are being used?  The war is in Ukraine.  They are being dropped on Ukrainian cities, buildings, people etc.  Do you think CNN publicizes the events in which Ukrainian citizens are killed by American bombs?

[Joe Elliott]

Excellent article on whether we should force Ukraine to negotiate a peace treaty with Russia, without retaking all the lands Russia stole from Ukraine in 2014 and 2022.

Have we forgotten what motivates Putin’s Russia?
The Hill
Opinion by W. Robert Pearson, Opinion Contributor - 3h ago
Tuesday, November 15, 2022

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/have-we-forgotten-what-motivates-putin-s-russia/ar-AA149dog?ocid=a2hs&cvid=0e9c89a663c64bebab8939fce1f4e587

Points made by the author:

Have we forgotten:

Has it been forgotten that Russia promised to recognize the independence of the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, when Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994?

Have they forgotten that after the United States made clear in 2013 that it would not intervene in Syria, Russian forces arrived in 2015 and aided in the slaughter of thousands, deliberately bombed hospitals and deliberately created a Syrian refugee crisis?

Have they forgotten that Vladimir Putin in 2007 in Munich targeted NATO as an aggressor for accepting the free choices of former Warsaw Pact nations to join the alliance and renew their democratic journeys?

Have they forgotten that Putin has explicitly targeted all the former Warsaw Pact states, plus the independent countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — all current NATO members — as destined for reincorporation into the Russian sphere?

Have they forgotten that the multiple failures to act in the past have led inexorably to the decision by Russia to invade Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022?

Which of these points made by the author are false?

Russia is at least as aggressive as Nazi Germany in the 1930's. We have the same pattern.

Promise not to invade Austria. Demand to take over all of Austria. This will be Germany's last demand. Takes over Austria.

Demand to take over just part of Czechoslovakia. Gets the west to agree in return for a promise not to demand any more land. Takes over the part of Czechoslovakia agreed upon. Then takes over all of Czechoslovakia.

Demand to take over a part of Poland. England and France got plunged into a war because Germany could not believe that England and France wouldn't back down. Who could blame Germany for thinking this?

etc.

How is this different than Russia with it's promises, broken promises and invasions of Ukraine and other countries?

What should be done?

I'm not arguing we should definitely support Ukraine. After all, the danger of Nuclear War if pretty severe. What I am arguing, for now, that it's not just a part of Ukraine, or all of Ukraine that is at stake. It's all of Europe. Russia has said repeatedly over the years that Ukraine should be absorbed by Russia. And it has said the same about the Baltic States, Poland and all the former Warsaw Pact nations, which also means Germany, or at least a large part of Germany. It repeatedly invades, takes a chunk of land, promises not to take any more in the future, then takes another large chunk a few years later.

If we back down supporting Ukraine, Russia is going to think we did so, merely from the threat of using Nuclear weapons. So when it comes back for the rest of Ukraine, or the Baltic States, if we decide to make a firm stand then, they are liable to think "The threat of a nuclear attack was enough to scare them off then. Surely a real nuclear bomb over the Black Sea or the Baltic will cause them to cave again.

Right now, the have the perfect situation. It will never get any better:

1. Russia's army and air force are at their weakest. Much more incompetent than in the 1980's.

2. We have a brave people putting up great resistance against Russia, even driving them back, and likely to continue to do so if we continue to support them.

If we back down now, Russia will be convinced we will always back down. Other people will find it hard to find the courage the Ukrainians have shown when it will be all for naught because the West will always back down. If we decide to back down now but to make a determine stand later, it will be a lot more expensive, and much more likely to face the use of real nuclear weapons, not just the threat.

If a stand is going to be made, the earlier the better. Defeating an aggressive Germany in 1936 would have been done at a small fraction of cost of doing so in 1939. And it encouraged Russia to follow Germany's example. Just as backing down now will likely encourage China to follow Russia's example.

Also, while we have spent a lot on Ukraine, it is just a fraction of what we spend for our own defense. What happens to most of our equipment spent on our defense? It gets used in more questionable minor wars. Or never gets used and eventually mothballed and then discarded. Every dollar spent on Ukraine is used very effectively, stopping Russia from taking over Europe. A much more worth while goal than any war we have fought since the Korea War.

And at what cost in American casualties? Let me get out my spreadsheet. Ah, yes, zero.

Should we instead spend money on our southern wall? Well the wall that Trump built seems to work pretty well. About as well as the Maginot Line worked for France in 1940. Perhaps we should continue to spend more on it. Although I don't know why? It doesn't seem to be much of an invasion. I never heard of Hispanics launching an assault against our Capitol or doing anything else to betray American Principals. They just seem to come in, learn English, work hard and adopt American values. But I don't know. I suppose a Southern Wall might prevent the darkening of Americans complexion over the coming century so that might be a good argument for it.

What I want:

At a minimum, I want everyone to realize that what's at stake is not part of Ukraine, or all of Ukraine, but all of mainland Europe and possibly other places like Taiwan. If we don't make a stand now it will be much more dangerous to make a stand later. If we should back down than we should back down. But people should understand what the total price will likely be. Russia has not shown a tendency to threaten invading a country but never following through. They will be coming for the rest later. So if all of Europe and Taiwan and South Korea is not worth it, maybe we should back down. But let us understand the true cost.

So, our two best options:

1. Make a determined stand now.
2. Give up on Ukraine and let Russia take some of the land it took in 2014 and 2022. And let Russia take the rest of Ukraine and Europe in the coming years.

Our worse option:

3. Give up on Ukraine now, but make a determine stand when Russia comes for the Baltic States.



Finally, here is Mr. Pearson's last paragraph:

The Ukrainians are winning battles in this war. With enough help, they plan to enjoy further successes. In 1776, Thomas Paine famously fingered the “summer soldier and sunshine patriots” ready to abandon the American independence struggle. He reminded Americans that “tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.” Now would not be the time to abandon our friends, described euphemistically by pundits as the United States “helping” Ukraine define its strategic goals. If Russia emerges from this conflict having faced down the West, the world is going to become ever more dangerous. And recall that China will be watching.

Question:

When did negotiating with tyranny work well? Worked better than standing up to it and fighting like hell, as the Ukrainians are doing?

Can someone give me a historical example?

[Richard Smith]

Now that Ukraine has struck Poland (a NATO country) with a rocket, when will Old Joe declare war on Ukraine?  Isn't that his policy to defend every inch of NATO territory?  Quite a few inches and a couple of people were blown to pieces in Poland.

[Richard Smith]

Biden and NATO are claiming that the missile that hit Poland was not fired by Russia.  President Zelensky, however, is insisting that Ukraine did not fire the missile.  Either Biden is lying to avoid WWIII or Zelinsky is lying in an attempt to escalate the war by drawing NATO into the conflict.  It's astounding either way.  Imagine after giving Ukraine billions of dollars in aid they are now lying in an attempt to draw the US into a war with Russia.  And no one in the media cares.  If Trump were President in this situation, they would be going ballistic.

[Joe Elliott]

Biden and NATO are claiming that the missile that hit Poland was not fired by Russia.  President Zelensky, however, is insisting that Ukraine did not fire the missile.  Either Biden is lying to avoid WWIII or Zelinsky is lying in an attempt to escalate the war by drawing NATO into the conflict.  It's astounding either way.  Imagine after giving Ukraine billions of dollars in aid they are now lying in an attempt to draw the US into a war with Russia.  And no one in the media cares.  If Trump were President in this situation, they would be going ballistic.

Either Biden is lying or Zelenskyy is lying. Or neither is lying because it's hard to tell. Both Russians and Ukrainians use a lot of Soviet weapons.

If it was Ukraine it is no big deal. Everyone understands that Ukraine has nothing against Poland. It would clearly be a missile which they tried to knock down a Russian missile or drone. As long as Russia keeps insisting on attacking Ukraine, under the desperate illusion that one more day of missile attack will break Ukraine's will, accidents will happen from time to time. The U. S. Army Air Force bombed Switzerland from time to time because accidents do happen in war. This did not result in a war between the United States and Switzerland.

[Richard Smith]

Either Biden is lying or Zelenskyy is lying. Or neither is lying because it's hard to tell. Both Russians and Ukrainians use a lot of Soviet weapons.

If it was Ukraine it is no big deal. Everyone understands that Ukraine has nothing against Poland. It would clearly be a missile which they tried to knock down a Russian missile or drone. As long as Russia keeps insisting on attacking Ukraine, under the desperate illusion that one more day of missile attack will break Ukraine's will, accidents will happen from time to time. The U. S. Army Air Force bombed Switzerland from time to time because accidents do happen in war. This did not result in a war between the United States and Switzerland.

WWIII is not a "big deal"?  Unreal.  The Ukranians intentionally lied about the missile in an effort to escalate their regional conflict into a war between NATO and Russia.  The remnants of the missile were found.  They have been identified as the type being used only by Ukraine.   No one suggested they intentionally attacked Poland.  What they did was fire a missile that landed in Poland killing people and then lied about it to blame Russia in an attempt to force the US and NATO to join the conflict starting WWIII.  This demonstrates that the Ukranians are willing to falsify information in an effort to start WWIII.  Incredibly dangerous and exposes Ukraine as a corrupt country willing to do and say anything to escalate this war.  It's astounding that anyone would attempt to excuse this behavior.  The US taxpayers have already paid TWICE the annual amount that we were paying to stay in Afghanistan.  Three times the entire military budget of Russia has been spent in Ukraine with no end in sight.  The Ukranians desperately want a war between the US and Russia.  They will say or do anything for that objective.  Zelensky continued to lie and insist it was a Russian missile even after the US presented him with evidence to the contrary.  Every bit of information coming from our media out of Ukraine should be suspect.

[Joe Elliott]

WWIII is not a "big deal"?  Unreal.  The Ukranians intentionally lied about the missile in an effort to escalate their regional conflict into a war between NATO and Russia.  The remnants of the missile were found.  They have been identified as the type being used only by Ukraine.   No one suggested they intentionally attacked Poland.  What they did was fire a missile that landed in Poland killing people and then lied about it to blame Russia in an attempt to force the US and NATO to join the conflict starting WWIII.  This demonstrates that the Ukranians are willing to falsify information in an effort to start WWIII.  Incredibly dangerous and exposes Ukraine as a corrupt country willing to do and say anything to escalate this war.  It's astounding that anyone would attempt to excuse this behavior.  The US taxpayers have already paid TWICE the annual amount that we were paying to stay in Afghanistan.  Three times the entire military budget of Russia has been spent in Ukraine with no end in sight.  The Ukranians desperately want a war between the US and Russia.  They will say or do anything for that objective.  Zelensky continued to lie and insist it was a Russian missile even after the US presented him with evidence to the contrary.  Every bit of information coming from our media out of Ukraine should be suspect.

WWIII is not a "big deal"? Unreal.

WWIII is a "big deal". But so is the Russian occupation of Europe right up to the borders of France.

If the threat of WWIII is enough for us to stand down and allow Ukraine to be occupied, why couldn't the same threat be made against:
The Baltic States?
Poland?
Germany?
The low countries?
Scandinavia?

Yes, our NATO treaty obliges us to help these other countries. But couldn't it be argued it would be better to break our treaty then to have WWIII?

Indeed, since Russia could tell France: "You don't have enough nuclear weapons to devastate all of Russia. It would be better to live under us than to die from nuclear war.",
I don't see why Russia couldn't use the same arguments against France, Great Britain, or even the United States.

Backing down from Russian doesn't make it less likely for nuclear bombs to be used. It makes it more likely, in the long run. Success will encourage Russia to not only make more threats of WWIII in the future, but if we do back down now but stand up to them later, more likely to actually use some nuclear bombs. If threats alone caused us to back down before, surely using a few nuclear bombs, not just threats, would cause us to back down in the future.

Question:

Why don't you admit that it's not just Ukraine that is at stake? It's all of Europe. And maybe more.

[Richard Smith]

WWIII is not a "big deal"? Unreal.

WWIII is a "big deal". But so is the Russian occupation of Europe right up to the borders of France.

If the threat of WWIII is enough for us to stand down and allow Ukraine to be occupied, why couldn't the same threat be made against:
The Baltic States?
Poland?
Germany?
The low countries?
Scandinavia?

Yes, our NATO treaty obliges us to help these other countries. But couldn't it be argued it would be better to break our treaty then to have WWIII?

Indeed, since Russia could tell France: "You don't have enough nuclear weapons to devastate all of Russia. It would be better to live under us than to die from nuclear war.",
I don't see why Russia couldn't use the same arguments against France, Great Britain, or even the United States.

Backing down from Russian doesn't make it less likely for nuclear bombs to be used. It makes it more likely, in the long run. Success will encourage Russia to not only make more threats of WWIII in the future, but if we do back down now but stand up to them later, more likely to actually use some nuclear bombs. If threats alone caused us to back down before, surely using a few nuclear bombs, not just threats, would cause us to back down in the future.

Question:

Why don't you admit that it's not just Ukraine that is at stake? It's all of Europe. And maybe more.

The only NATO country to be attacked is Poland by Ukraine.  There is zero indication that Russia intends to invade any NATO country.  The difficulties that the Russians are having dealing with just Ukraine lend themselves to the conclusion that they are unable to invade any other countries.  It's a dangerous premise to suggest that WWIII should be risked based on a regional conflict in which the US has no direct interest.  The US taxpayers have already paid THREE times the total annual Russian military budget to finance this war. 

Do you ever ask yourself why the US always involves themselves in these endless conflicts and pays for them while other countries do little or nothing?  Don't you find that odd?  If Europe is at risk, why aren't they carrying the burden of this war instead of the US?  How long are US taxpayers going to fund this war?  Will it be like Afghanistan in which the military and politicians lied for decades about the progress being made to obtain billions of dollars only to have the entire situation fall apart within a week.  You have no concern about the Ukrainians lying to try to bait the US and NATO into WWIII?