Cory1848

Well, I think Ukrainian capacity versus Russia is greater than the Finns’ versus the USSR. The Ukrainians HAVE managed to push the Russians out of large chunks of territory (around Kharkiv and Kherson, and away from Kiev), although the current offensive seems to be very slow. Some news sources say they’re making progress; others not so much. On demographics, for sure the Ukrainians have fewer people to fight, but I don’t think their casualty figures are as high as the Russians’. And the Russian will to fight will diminish far more quickly than the Ukrainians'. At this point, I would still bet on continuing to arm the Ukrainians as the best course ...

I think the basic contention here is, you don’t believe the Ukrainians can win the war without NATO boots on the ground, and others here (myself included) think they can, provided they continue to receive military aid from the West (and more of it, and more quickly). The Ukrainians are far more motivated, and Putin is very vulnerable, especially as Russia’s staggering losses continue to mount. He can’t continue to throw hundreds of thousands of troops into battle, with tens of thousands coming home in body bags. Regardless of his grip on power in Russia, it’s not sustainable, any more than it was in Vietnam, or Afghanistan, or the nascent United States (for the British redcoats), or any other colonial war. You think there’s a risk of escalation and “WWIII” if the war continues; I think there’s a bigger risk of “WWIII” by appeasing the aggressor. There are legitimate arguments on both sides, and history doesn’t always repeat itself, but it seems clear to me that giving Putin what he wants would be a huge mistake, and despite your saying that you have little personal interest in the conflict, the conflict would start to become very interested in you.

Technically, Estonia has been independent since 1920 and was occupied by the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991; the United States and many other countries never recognized that occupation and maintained some form of diplomatic representation with all three Baltic states throughout that period. But of course, in reality, Estonia was under the complete control of Moscow, and 1991 marked a “restoration” of independence. The country’s PM, Kaja Kallas, has been very visible and outspoken at least in Europe and North America, particularly on the subject of Ukraine. I don’t know how one defines “global leader,” but I would rank her as one.

Estonia punches above its weight. Thanks for being so dismissive.

You wrote, “Ukrainian land and people are not worth the life of one NATO soldier.” You also wrote, “Yes, if necessary,” to the question “I assume you also want to let Russia keep the tens of thousands of Ukrainian children it kidnapped as well.” Saying that it’s not your problem doesn’t mask the fact that you’re devaluing a whole people. Before the abolition of slavery in the US, the US government set the value of an African American at three-fifths that of a white person. I don’t know who your “one NATO soldier” is, but he must be some kind of superman. The kind of crass appeasement you are advocating has never worked, regardless of the kind of weaponry in the stockpile. As someone else said, get your head out of the sand.

Your posts here are the funniest things I've read all day -- stop, you're killing me!

A government is not a business. The latter focuses on the profit motive, the former on its civic responsibility. Sure, a government needs to be able to manage a budget, but their respective "mission statements" couldn't be more different.

OK, so that’s where you’re coming from. A Ukrainian is less than human. How about this: we give the Ukrainians everything they need to chase the Russians off their soil, let Putin be hounded from office for his stupidity and failure, and let the chips fall where they may. I think, following this strategy, the chips may fall more favorably all around.

False equivalence. The current system in Russia, an increasingly tyrannical dictatorship, is not like the system in Ukraine, which may be corrupt but in the “normal” ways (the United States is deeply corrupt and undemocratic, with all that money in politics). What I find tiresome about so many Russian apologists is that they entirely discount what the Ukrainians themselves want. If Ukrainians wanted to be like Russians, they would have rolled over. What the hell do you think they’re fighting so hard for? They have seen relative prosperity in their neighbors like Romania and Poland who have joined Western institutions, and that’s what they want for themselves. And why shouldn’t they. It’s like the old joke. After the war, officials were delineating the new border between Poland and Russia, and the initial survey had the border running straight through the middle of a farm belonging to an old woman. Not wanting to split the woman’s property between two countries, the officials decided to ask her which country she would like to belong to. “I think I will choose Poland,” she said. “The Russian winters are so hard!”

No no, I meant that *my* suggestion that everyone around the world be allowed to cast actual ballots in US elections was a bit of a stretch (although a serious argument could be made for it!). Your comment that people around the world have a very big interest in the outcome of US elections is spot-on; I couldn't agree more.

Well, to the degree that high-level Russian leaders be allowed to cast legitimate ballots in US elections, along with all people of voting age in Sweden, Denmark, etc. But the original suggestion was obviously silly ...

Right. As I said, I expect there would be some resistance to the idea!

Absolutely. Sometimes I think the entire world should be allowed to vote in US elections, but I expect there would be some resistance to that ...

Stopping the fighting is indeed something to aim for, but it depends on where Ukraine would be made “smaller.” It ought to be up to the people who actually live in those currently Russian-occupied areas, but the Russians would never allow a fair referendum, so you’re back to square one. There may be some pockets in the far east of Ukraine where the residents would prefer to be in Russia; and Crimea is a case apart, having been transferred from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR only in 1954, apparently because Khrushchev had a soft spot for Ukraine. In the end, allowing an aggressor to get away with it, even partially, is almost always a mistake. And I don’t think anyone should care a whit whether Putin loses face; if this costs him his job (or more), that’s his own fault. It very much is the US’s job to come to the aid of European NATO, as per NATO treaty obligations. Given the profit-seeking nature of the US defense industry and its outright purchase of, I mean close ties to, Congress, the US is going to spend 3 percent of GDP on defense whether NATO is in a war or not. And you’re right, only about a third of other NATO countries are meeting the 2 percent minimum (they include all the front-line states). So that’s an issue for sure, but not enough of one for the US to renege on its own obligations.

That is a big difference, and I hope you're right, but I wouldn’t bet on it with the aggressor thinking he’s Peter the Great. Fresh off a victory in Ukraine after the US and EU grew tired of sending money, Putin might see some openings. The Suwałki Gap (a modern-day Danzig Corridor?) is 60 km wide; secure that and the Baltic States become vulnerable, and would the rest of NATO really come to their defense, with their civilian populations (read: voters) already tired of all this? Maybe this scenario sounds nuts, but it makes so much sense to just give the Ukrainians everything they need right now to end this thing.

No, it’s not a waste. The “big-picture payback” is stopping unprovoked aggression, and you’re right, the US isn’t giving enough, or the Europeans. Seriously, sending boatloads of money and arms to the Ukrainians and letting them do the fighting (and dying) is a bargain at this point. Ever hear of Munich, or Neville Chamberlain?

I wouldn’t dismiss Smith because he’s a stand-up comic (hell, so was Zelensky) or a libertarian (which is a long-standing political position, as extreme as I often find it). No, I dismiss Smith for allowing the likes of Nick Fuentes and Richard Spencer into his studio and giving them airtime; if he calls Fuentes a “fellow traveler,” I assume it was a friendly interview. For this, he is disgusting; he is stupid and wrong, and I would never waste time listening to his podcasts. Sorry. All sides *aren’t* worth listening to, and sometimes it’s not hard to make quick judgments.

My post was actually dripping with sarcasm. In all seriousness, it *is* important to know a little bit about someone like Fredrick Töben and the Adelaide Institute, but I have no intention of rooting out his documentary.

OK, I was curious and Googled “Judea Declares War on Germany.” Turns out it’s a documentary film by a gentleman named Fredrick Töben, founder of the Adelaide Institute in Australia who has a Wikipedia page that tells you all you need to know. Seriously, I had no idea, and I thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. It’s important to know these things.

Are you a woman? Do you have any idea what it's like to go out in public in a woman's skin? Didn't think so.

What really funny about this is Republicans getting all excited about prosecuting someone on gun charges, and not very serious ones. If it were absolutely anyone else, they’d crying about Second Amendment rights.

<sigh> I sometimes wonder why I fall into online arguments with complete strangers; at best, it’s useless. Cats are supposed to help reduce blood pressure, so at least I have a cat ...

If you want to call the Israeli settlements on the West Bank “genocide,” go for it. You wouldn’t be the first, the word has lost all real meaning anyway, and it’s a boring argument. What I object to is people using a word like “genocide” to equate what the Israelis are doing with what the Nazis did, in terms of actual magnitude of the crime. There’s another word for that.

Don’t be absurd. “Not holocaust numbers” indeed. There are several magnitudes of evil between what Nazi Germany did and what the Israelis have been doing. Nazi Germany, as a matter of state policy, rounded up six million civilians in the entirety of the territory they controlled and murdered them, simply based on the perceived “race” of the victims. I am in no way diminishing the crimes and excesses of the Israeli government in the occupied West Bank. What *you* are doing, however, is watering down the real meaning of words like “genocide” and “Nazi.”

Oh c’mon, now you’re just throwing stuff at the wall. Netanyahu is an actual criminal who needs to stay in power to stay out of jail and has aligned himself with religious zealots to do so (sound familiar?). Some earlier Israeli PMs negotiated with the Palestinian leadership. And the Palestinian Authority have not always been the easiest negotiating partners, and the leadership of Hamas in Gaza has been atrocious. Neighboring Arab countries have treated Palestinian refugees like political pawns, not allowing them to assimilate into their own societies (for how many generations now?) based on unrealistic promises of a “right of return.” Sure, and when is the Jewish refugee in Israel going to get his flat in Basra back again? There’s plenty of bad behavior all around. I’ll repeat myself: Those who focus exclusively on the *very real* crimes of the Israeli state while ignoring the *very real* crimes of, for instance, Israel’s neighbors, may have a world view that’s less than objective.