|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
If the invasion does happen, will Biden's stated response of just sanctions be sufficient?
|
On February 12 2022 08:32 plasmidghost wrote:
If the invasion does happen, will Biden's stated response of just sanctions be sufficient? Well, its the same response as after the Crimea annexation, We're here now, so.... no. Obviously its not sufficient.
No one here wants an armed conflict with Russia, when global powers collide it can get terrifying very fast. But if at this point you let Putin waltz into Ukraine without attacking the invading force and driving them back out you might aswell hand him the keys to the entire former USSR.
Germany didn't settle for Czechoslovakia, Russia isn't settling for Crimea. Something about learning from history and the effectiveness of trying to appease dictators.
|
Exclusively sanctions would be idealism determining policy. If sanctions were enough, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If Putin actually invades Ukraine, it means we can't treat the situation like a bunch of rational actors. Appeasement won't work. I hope it doesn't come to that, but you can only put your head in the sand for so long. We have -999% reason to assume Putin will be a saint as soon as he's done invading Ukraine.
|
On February 12 2022 08:22 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 08:10 Dan HH wrote:On February 12 2022 07:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 12 2022 07:36 Dan HH wrote:
Nothing new happened since the initial troop deployment on the border, which is a yearly tradition at this point. I don't know why the imminent invasion headlines keep falling down and coming back up every few days as if there's been a development.
Russia's goal in Ukraine is to keep them too tainted for NATO/EU accession, for that it's more than enough to keep Donbas and Crimea hashed on maps and make some noise banging pots and pans from time to time to remind everyone that Ukraine still has herpes. That's already pretty expensive but I can see why they see it as necessary, anything more though would give extremely diminished returns, so I haven't been too fussed about it even though we're right next to it. Isn't this a new sort of military buildup though? They are now in a position to actually launch a full scale invasion. If you use a custom range on google from 2015 to 2021 for "russian troops ukraine border" you will find similar movements from every year. And it makes sense to me, I don't see this as Russia being irrational. When the population of one of their friendly neighbours turns pro-western they're dealing with it as a natural disaster. It worked in Moldova where Transnistria has been the infected zone for 30 years now and we'll probably see it in Belarus as well during our lifetimes. Here we can appreciate the full work of the russian propaganda. Russia threatening another country is in no way related to this country becoming pro western. Fully agreeing with JimmiC on this, bizarro world. Putin is refusing to state any demands as he moves his army forward, but hey he's totally justified into w.e he's doing bc _the west_. Russia is a decadent state waiting to get pushed out of relevancy, he's just trying to hold onto power and steal as much of its ressources before it all breaks down.
By makes sense I didn't mean "they're in the right", I meant their goals and reasoning aren't as esoteric as they appear to people in this thread from outside the area.
I value Ukrainians' and Moldovans' right to self determination infinitely more than Russia's want of not having former puppet states join EU/NATO.
But that is what this is about. It would have been absurd to do this before Euromaidan and it's pretty obvious why it started immediately after it.
PS to no one in particular: I have long periods of activity and inactivity in this in thread and this whole re-proving yourself everytime to people that want to assume the worst about you is kinda cultish.
|
Northern Ireland26341 Posts
On February 12 2022 09:21 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 08:22 Erasme wrote:On February 12 2022 08:10 Dan HH wrote:On February 12 2022 07:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 12 2022 07:36 Dan HH wrote:
Nothing new happened since the initial troop deployment on the border, which is a yearly tradition at this point. I don't know why the imminent invasion headlines keep falling down and coming back up every few days as if there's been a development.
Russia's goal in Ukraine is to keep them too tainted for NATO/EU accession, for that it's more than enough to keep Donbas and Crimea hashed on maps and make some noise banging pots and pans from time to time to remind everyone that Ukraine still has herpes. That's already pretty expensive but I can see why they see it as necessary, anything more though would give extremely diminished returns, so I haven't been too fussed about it even though we're right next to it. Isn't this a new sort of military buildup though? They are now in a position to actually launch a full scale invasion. https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1490041589078581252 If you use a custom range on google from 2015 to 2021 for "russian troops ukraine border" you will find similar movements from every year. And it makes sense to me, I don't see this as Russia being irrational. When the population of one of their friendly neighbours turns pro-western they're dealing with it as a natural disaster. It worked in Moldova where Transnistria has been the infected zone for 30 years now and we'll probably see it in Belarus as well during our lifetimes. Here we can appreciate the full work of the russian propaganda. Russia threatening another country is in no way related to this country becoming pro western. Fully agreeing with JimmiC on this, bizarro world. Putin is refusing to state any demands as he moves his army forward, but hey he's totally justified into w.e he's doing bc _the west_. Russia is a decadent state waiting to get pushed out of relevancy, he's just trying to hold onto power and steal as much of its ressources before it all breaks down. By makes sense I didn't mean "they're in the right", I meant their goals and reasoning aren't as esoteric as they appear to people in this thread from outside the area. I value Ukrainians' and Moldovans' right to self determination infinitely more than Russia's want of not having former puppet states join EU/NATO. But that is what this is about. It would have been absurd to do this before Euromaidan and it's pretty obvious why it started immediately after it. PS to no one in particular: I have long periods of activity and inactivity in this in thread and this whole re-proving yourself everytime to people that want to assume the worst about you is kinda cultish.
In what sense?
|
On February 12 2022 06:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 06:05 Sermokala wrote:The collapse in Afghanistan was something that Trump explicitly negotiated for and should be blamed on him because it was his agreement and treaty he pushed for. Although trump was going to do the same thing that Biden did (withdraw hastily), Biden was in no way bound by trumps plan, and Biden affirmatively chose the path he took. Biden adopted Trump’s plan, which dems would ordinarily fault Biden for - but in this case, there is a partisan need to deflect blame from Biden for something that obviously went very poorly.
He wasn't found by trumps plan? He negotiated the us exit from the country the only option would have been to stay against the afgan peoples wishes.
It was trumps plan and timetable to leave the country. At that point the only thing to do would be to stay as a full on military occupation as the government collapses.
What kind of nonsense were you spun on that.
|
On February 12 2022 09:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 09:21 Dan HH wrote:On February 12 2022 08:22 Erasme wrote:On February 12 2022 08:10 Dan HH wrote:On February 12 2022 07:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 12 2022 07:36 Dan HH wrote:
Nothing new happened since the initial troop deployment on the border, which is a yearly tradition at this point. I don't know why the imminent invasion headlines keep falling down and coming back up every few days as if there's been a development.
Russia's goal in Ukraine is to keep them too tainted for NATO/EU accession, for that it's more than enough to keep Donbas and Crimea hashed on maps and make some noise banging pots and pans from time to time to remind everyone that Ukraine still has herpes. That's already pretty expensive but I can see why they see it as necessary, anything more though would give extremely diminished returns, so I haven't been too fussed about it even though we're right next to it. Isn't this a new sort of military buildup though? They are now in a position to actually launch a full scale invasion. https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1490041589078581252 If you use a custom range on google from 2015 to 2021 for "russian troops ukraine border" you will find similar movements from every year. And it makes sense to me, I don't see this as Russia being irrational. When the population of one of their friendly neighbours turns pro-western they're dealing with it as a natural disaster. It worked in Moldova where Transnistria has been the infected zone for 30 years now and we'll probably see it in Belarus as well during our lifetimes. Here we can appreciate the full work of the russian propaganda. Russia threatening another country is in no way related to this country becoming pro western. Fully agreeing with JimmiC on this, bizarro world. Putin is refusing to state any demands as he moves his army forward, but hey he's totally justified into w.e he's doing bc _the west_. Russia is a decadent state waiting to get pushed out of relevancy, he's just trying to hold onto power and steal as much of its ressources before it all breaks down. By makes sense I didn't mean "they're in the right", I meant their goals and reasoning aren't as esoteric as they appear to people in this thread from outside the area. I value Ukrainians' and Moldovans' right to self determination infinitely more than Russia's want of not having former puppet states join EU/NATO. But that is what this is about. It would have been absurd to do this before Euromaidan and it's pretty obvious why it started immediately after it. PS to no one in particular: I have long periods of activity and inactivity in this in thread and this whole re-proving yourself everytime to people that want to assume the worst about you is kinda cultish. In what sense?
In the sense that one shouldn't have to outline their worldview before talking about a topic just to avoid having the conversation turn to assumptions about their motivations/potential brainwashing.
|
There are sanctions and then there are sanctions. Cutting any sort of gas going to Europe, removing them from international banking, cutting them off from international sports, refusing to do business in Russian currency, radio free russia, paying for uncensored satellite TV and internet into the country.
There are a lot of levers to pull in the modern world against a modern nation. 200k troops are not enough to garrison Ukraine and the cia is panting the corner looking to start funding and arming resistance organizations. The Russians may reach and surround kiev but they will never take it.
|
On February 12 2022 09:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 06:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 12 2022 06:05 Sermokala wrote:The collapse in Afghanistan was something that Trump explicitly negotiated for and should be blamed on him because it was his agreement and treaty he pushed for. Although trump was going to do the same thing that Biden did (withdraw hastily), Biden was in no way bound by trumps plan, and Biden affirmatively chose the path he took. Biden adopted Trump’s plan, which dems would ordinarily fault Biden for - but in this case, there is a partisan need to deflect blame from Biden for something that obviously went very poorly. He wasn't found by trumps plan? He negotiated the us exit from the country the only option would have been to stay against the afgan peoples wishes. It was trumps plan and timetable to leave the country. At that point the only thing to do would be to stay as a full on military occupation as the government collapses. What kind of nonsense were you spun on that.
You mean to stay against the Taliban's wishes. Something we had been doing for 20 years. Biden is not bound by the things Trump did with his executive power. That's why Biden nixed a bunch of Trump’s executive orders and got back into the Paris Agreement. It's also why Biden chose his own timetable for the Afghan withdrawal (later than Trump’s), saying publicly that we would withdraw before 9/11/21.
|
Odd that Putin waited until after the term of the president with whom he colluded to invade Ukraine huh?
|
|
|
Voting Trump over Biden is not the issue. It's voting for "who can we get who is the most conservative who isn't Trump" vs. electing Trump (or someone similar). If someone campaigns to give me cat food for dinner vs. arsenic, of course I'd rather have the cat food. I'm not going to passionately go to the voting booth for that option though. Talk about voter suppression...
|
On February 12 2022 10:02 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 09:48 Sermokala wrote:On February 12 2022 06:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 12 2022 06:05 Sermokala wrote:The collapse in Afghanistan was something that Trump explicitly negotiated for and should be blamed on him because it was his agreement and treaty he pushed for. Although trump was going to do the same thing that Biden did (withdraw hastily), Biden was in no way bound by trumps plan, and Biden affirmatively chose the path he took. Biden adopted Trump’s plan, which dems would ordinarily fault Biden for - but in this case, there is a partisan need to deflect blame from Biden for something that obviously went very poorly. He wasn't found by trumps plan? He negotiated the us exit from the country the only option would have been to stay against the afgan peoples wishes. It was trumps plan and timetable to leave the country. At that point the only thing to do would be to stay as a full on military occupation as the government collapses. What kind of nonsense were you spun on that. You mean to stay against the Taliban's wishes. Something we had been doing for 20 years. Biden is not bound by the things Trump did with his executive power. That's why Biden nixed a bunch of Trump’s executive orders and got back into the Paris Agreement. It's also why Biden chose his own timetable for the Afghan withdrawal (later than Trump’s), saying publicly that we would withdraw before 9/11/21.
What do you think trump did? He made an agreement with the government of Afghanistan to leave the country and didn't get permission to stay in the country. Biden left later because he was trying to minimize the damage.
What kind of nonsense are you being fed. There was a government in Afghanistan did someone tell you there wasn't? What did they tell you we did the whole time just sit around occupying the country like a colony?
|
On February 12 2022 10:06 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Odd that Putin waited until after the term of the president with whom he colluded to invade Ukraine huh?
Odd that he waited until someone who would allow Ukraine into nato without forgetting the military alliances and treaties we signed?
|
On February 12 2022 10:23 mierin wrote:
Voting Trump over Biden is not the issue. It's voting for "who can we get who is the most conservative who isn't Trump" vs. electing Trump (or someone similar). If someone campaigns to give me cat food for dinner vs. arsenic, of course I'd rather have the cat food. I'm not going to passionately go to the voting booth for that option though. Talk about voter suppression...
This is why the communists voted for trump.
|
United States43667 Posts
On February 12 2022 10:06 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Odd that Putin waited until after the term of the president with whom he colluded to invade Ukraine huh?
Did you somehow miss the Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine for the last 8 years?
|
Northern Ireland26341 Posts
On February 12 2022 09:53 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 12 2022 09:21 Dan HH wrote:On February 12 2022 08:22 Erasme wrote:On February 12 2022 08:10 Dan HH wrote:On February 12 2022 07:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 12 2022 07:36 Dan HH wrote:
Nothing new happened since the initial troop deployment on the border, which is a yearly tradition at this point. I don't know why the imminent invasion headlines keep falling down and coming back up every few days as if there's been a development.
Russia's goal in Ukraine is to keep them too tainted for NATO/EU accession, for that it's more than enough to keep Donbas and Crimea hashed on maps and make some noise banging pots and pans from time to time to remind everyone that Ukraine still has herpes. That's already pretty expensive but I can see why they see it as necessary, anything more though would give extremely diminished returns, so I haven't been too fussed about it even though we're right next to it. Isn't this a new sort of military buildup though? They are now in a position to actually launch a full scale invasion. https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1490041589078581252 If you use a custom range on google from 2015 to 2021 for "russian troops ukraine border" you will find similar movements from every year. And it makes sense to me, I don't see this as Russia being irrational. When the population of one of their friendly neighbours turns pro-western they're dealing with it as a natural disaster. It worked in Moldova where Transnistria has been the infected zone for 30 years now and we'll probably see it in Belarus as well during our lifetimes. Here we can appreciate the full work of the russian propaganda. Russia threatening another country is in no way related to this country becoming pro western. Fully agreeing with JimmiC on this, bizarro world. Putin is refusing to state any demands as he moves his army forward, but hey he's totally justified into w.e he's doing bc _the west_. Russia is a decadent state waiting to get pushed out of relevancy, he's just trying to hold onto power and steal as much of its ressources before it all breaks down. By makes sense I didn't mean "they're in the right", I meant their goals and reasoning aren't as esoteric as they appear to people in this thread from outside the area. I value Ukrainians' and Moldovans' right to self determination infinitely more than Russia's want of not having former puppet states join EU/NATO. But that is what this is about. It would have been absurd to do this before Euromaidan and it's pretty obvious why it started immediately after it. PS to no one in particular: I have long periods of activity and inactivity in this in thread and this whole re-proving yourself everytime to people that want to assume the worst about you is kinda cultish. In what sense? In the sense that one shouldn't have to outline their worldview before talking about a topic just to avoid having the conversation turn to assumptions about their motivations/potential brainwashing.
In general I think that’s absolutely a problem these days, I don’t think this particular thread is that bad for it, and when misconceptions arise they generally could be avoided by a better phrased initial post, on whatever it may be.
I dunno, I make many stupid points here and when I do I feel suitably chastened for making stupid points, not that people are extrapolating beyond what I’ve actually said.
But that’s very much a personal perspective, some may feel differently.
I don’t feel the thread is very tolerant of whatsboutery or equivocation, and that may be novel to some but I’m alright with it.
|
|
|
On February 12 2022 10:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 10:02 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 12 2022 09:48 Sermokala wrote:On February 12 2022 06:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 12 2022 06:05 Sermokala wrote:The collapse in Afghanistan was something that Trump explicitly negotiated for and should be blamed on him because it was his agreement and treaty he pushed for. Although trump was going to do the same thing that Biden did (withdraw hastily), Biden was in no way bound by trumps plan, and Biden affirmatively chose the path he took. Biden adopted Trump’s plan, which dems would ordinarily fault Biden for - but in this case, there is a partisan need to deflect blame from Biden for something that obviously went very poorly. He wasn't found by trumps plan? He negotiated the us exit from the country the only option would have been to stay against the afgan peoples wishes. It was trumps plan and timetable to leave the country. At that point the only thing to do would be to stay as a full on military occupation as the government collapses. What kind of nonsense were you spun on that. You mean to stay against the Taliban's wishes. Something we had been doing for 20 years. Biden is not bound by the things Trump did with his executive power. That's why Biden nixed a bunch of Trump’s executive orders and got back into the Paris Agreement. It's also why Biden chose his own timetable for the Afghan withdrawal (later than Trump’s), saying publicly that we would withdraw before 9/11/21. What do you think trump did? He made an agreement with the government of Afghanistan to leave the country and didn't get permission to stay in the country. Biden left later because he was trying to minimize the damage. What kind of nonsense are you being fed. There was a government in Afghanistan did someone tell you there wasn't? What did they tell you we did the whole time just sit around occupying the country like a colony?
You seem to be confusing the Taliban (with whom Trump hastily made the agreement that democrats roundly criticized) and the Afghan government at the time. The Taliban was our enemy.
As for whether we were occupying Afghanistan like a colony, well, just look how long that "government" lasted after we left.
On February 12 2022 10:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 10:06 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Odd that Putin waited until after the term of the president with whom he colluded to invade Ukraine huh? Odd that he waited until someone who would allow Ukraine into nato without forgetting the military alliances and treaties we signed?
We actually currently have an agreement with Ukraine to defend them militarily. Putin is apparently about to invade. Does it look to you like Putin is going to encounter military resistance from Biden?
On February 12 2022 10:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 10:06 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Odd that Putin waited until after the term of the president with whom he colluded to invade Ukraine huh? Did you somehow miss the Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine for the last 8 years?
No one is talking about the existing situation in Eastern Ukraine. The potential Ukraine invasion that the whole world is talking about right now is something else entirely.
|
On February 12 2022 10:06 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Odd that Putin waited until after the term of the president with whom he colluded to invade Ukraine huh?
Why in the world do you treat this thread like we’re political talk show hosts trying to get zingers in? It’s incredibly obnoxious and also weird. You aren’t running a campaign and neither is anyone else here. Just be normal and have conversations with people rather than pretending there is some score board floating over your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
