Biden administration announces additional $325 million in military aid to Ukraine

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

Some things are worth fighting for. I guess we have a difference of opinion on that.

Are they worth YOU going and fighting for YOURSELF, or is it just for other people to do the fighting?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

Oh good heavens, I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you. You're doing nothing but deflecting.

So, you don't want to pay more tax to support Ukraine, OK.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are they worth YOU going and fighting for YOURSELF, or is it just for other people to do the fighting?

 

either

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, billd766 said:

No.

 

As in most countries, you would have to ask the government in power at the time, and the people who opposed the enemy at the time.

 

Many French troops (more of whom were evacuated from Dunkirk than British troops) at the time would disagree with you. So would millions of French men, women and children who either joined or assisted the French Resistance, not to forget all the free French forces.

OK then, ask the French government of the time.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, JCauto said:

Your libertarian concepts extend to policing other people's conversations? Bit odd if you ask me.

 

When someone raises a quotation of interest, describes the speaker as being "wise" and asks us to discuss, it is reasonable to ask "who said this and why should we pay attention to it?" as a first query when it isn't obvious whom we are talking about or that they're well known to be "wise" in society's view. If this had been said by Einstein or Bertie Russell, we'd already understand that it was a wise old head who had said it. I hadn't heard of this person (although of course it's quite a common name) before, and it seems he's not that widely known hence I wished to understand what makes his knowledge authoritative or worthy of interest. That is relevant to the conversation. Otherwise I could simply counterpoint by saying "a wise man said this" when it was in fact me who said it or my drinking buddies or anyone else under the sun.

Did I denigrate the person? Please point out to me where that was.

 

That's a lot of words to deflect from the point he was making.

[ozimoron]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

That's a lot of words to deflect from the point he was making.

why can't you answer questions if you want to participate in good faith?

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, JCauto said:

They had to concede territory to maintain their independence from a hostile and much larger neighbour but were able to build leverage through their resistance that allowed them to maintain their identity and the vast majority of their territory when the war ended. This is also probably the likeliest result for Ukraine - an eventual agreement to settle on the pre-war lines where Russia keeps the Crimean peninsula.

You may be correct, but IMO it is more likely that the Russian aligned eastern areas will also be ceded to Russia.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, impulse said:

Putin never wanted Kiev, Karkiv, or Kherson.

Whatever Putin's faults, IMO he isn't insane and IMO it would be insanity to try and take the entire Ukraine, so I agree that he went into it to get what he has now.

All he has to do is hold the present line till the west gives up and stops supplying Ukraine at huge financial detriment to their economies. Poland has already announced that they have given all they can.

IMO it's just a matter of time.

[ozimoron]

15 hours ago, JCauto said:

Odd argument. The Finns fought the Russians in the Winter War in 1939 and then settled the dispute by ceding 9% of its territory in 1940 with limited assistance from any allies other than Estonian refugees and the Swedes. The Finns and Germans started cooperating before the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa to invade Russia, but this was primarily an offensive operation where the Finns were able to achieve their objectives to recover the territory they had lost and some additional land from Russia. The Finnish front was mostly quiet through June 1944, but then the Russian counter-offensive was able to recover the land and an armistice was eventually settled in September 1944 on the 1940 lines that became the final territorial boundaries. This was not what Finland wanted, but was a compromise that enabled them to continue their independent existence.

So the Finns were able to maintain their territory (although with the significant loss of Karelia) by fighting for it with some material and economic support from allies, but the fighting was done mostly by the Finns. They had to concede territory to maintain their independence from a hostile and much larger neighbour but were able to build leverage through their resistance that allowed them to maintain their identity and the vast majority of their territory when the war ended. This is also probably the likeliest result for Ukraine - an eventual agreement to settle on the pre-war lines where Russia keeps the Crimean peninsula.
 

The Russians will never be permitted to keep the Crimean peninsula. That would allow Russia to maintain a blockade on Ukraine exports forever. Apart from it being contiguous with Ukrainian and not Russian, it is of massive strategic importance to Ukraine.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

It isnt ignorant at all. The money to fight has to come from somewhere, which means the pockets of taxpayers in the US and other countries. Money that could otherwise be spent within those countries to help their own citizens (Maui wildfire rebuilding etc). 

The war has largely stalemated. The Russians are dug in and will be hard to dislodge without significant manpower help from NATO, which means expanding the war.  You willing to trade London or Berlin or Paris for Kiev? Or the Donetsk?  I'm not. 

Thank you for your sensible reply on my behalf. I have that poster on ignore, so I didn't see it myself.

 

Of course when I said someone has to pay I was referring to money, and the Ukrainians are not buying western munitions.

One wonders if they will have pay after it's all over, just like Britain had to pay for the US aid during WW2?

[ozimoron]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Thank you for your sensible reply on my behalf. I have that poster on ignore, so I didn't see it myself.

 

Of course when I said someone has to pay I was referring to money, and the Ukrainians are not buying western munitions.

One wonders if they will have pay after it's all over, just like Britain had to pay for the US aid during WW2?

No, it's Russia that will have to pay reparations to Ukraine to rebuild. Ukraine will become a modern, rich country and Russia will descend into a feudal morass.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

As of now, the US has spent $1,000 per household on the Ukraine war.  I think most people would rather have that money in their pockets, use it to buy food for their kids, pay the inflated prices to put gas in their cars, etc.  

 

NATO doesn't need to be renewed. It lost its purpose once the USSR and Warsaw Pact dissolved. Europe has more than enough money to defend itself without relying on Uncle Sugar. 

IMO NATO seized on the Ukrainian conflict in an attempt to keep themselves relevant in a post Soviet era. Without a purpose, the money might stop, which would upset the US military industrial complex somewhat. We saw that when a certain US president lambasted the NATO allies for not paying their agreed share.

[ozimoron]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO NATO seized on the Ukrainian conflict in an attempt to keep themselves relevant in a post Soviet era. Without a purpose, the money might stop, which would upset the US military industrial complex somewhat. We saw that when a certain US president lambasted the NATO allies for not paying their agreed share.

NATO was declining because it had successfully kept Russia in check. When Putin invaded Ukraine everybody got a wake up call.

[Danderman123]

47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You may be correct, but IMO it is more likely that the Russian aligned eastern areas will also be ceded to Russia.

Watch and Learn.

[Danderman123]

12 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

It isnt ignorant at all. The money to fight has to come from somewhere, which means the pockets of taxpayers in the US and other countries. Money that could otherwise be spent within those countries to help their own citizens (Maui wildfire rebuilding etc). 

The war has largely stalemated. The Russians are dug in and will be hard to dislodge without significant manpower help from NATO, which means expanding the war.  You willing to trade London or Berlin or Paris for Kiev? Or the Donetsk?  I'm not. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/23/ukraine-breach-verbove-zaporizhzhia/

 

Ukraine breaches Russian defensive line on southern front

[billd766]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

OK then, ask the French government of the time.

Why would I need to ask the French government at the time? I should think that they are all dead by now, as that was in 1940, some 83 years ago  and I wasn't born until 1944.

[placeholder]

On 9/22/2023 at 12:47 AM, Hanaguma said:

A wise podcaster often says, "if you want to know who America's enemies will be in the future, look at who we are funding today."

A silly generalization like this seems reflexive and superficial rather than wise. How in the future would Ukraine and America's interests come into major conflict? Ukraine is a country where support for joining the EU is overwhelming. Where support for joining NATO is also overwhelming.