Europe at War

[Madiel]

Please stop conflating Taiwan/China, where for decades there were 2 rival governments claiming the same territory, with Ukraine/Russia, where the boundary between 2 countries was set during the period that both were part of the Soviet Union.

The issues are quite different.

[MusicTurner]

A few updates:

The Ukrainian attack on the Russian airbase on Crimea today, not sabotage or accidents it seems (since for instance there were two large explosions occurring simulatenously in separate areas), suggests that they have now got the long-range missiles that can go up to 300 km, also making places like the Sevastopol naval base and possibly the Crimea Bridge vulnerable.


Some analysts are suggesting that all the hype about re-conquering Kherson, and the resulting Russian concentration there, is a decoy for an attack elsewhere, such as at Melitopol, where the Ukrainians getting access to the seashore would split the Russian zone into two, making logistics much more difficult for the invaders.

[Todd]

China's New Vassal

How the War in Ukraine Turned Moscow Into Beijing's Junior Partner

[Florestan]

The concern that in a prolonged war more and more Ukrainians will be killed is legitimate, nay even admirable --- and I doubt there is any one of us who doesn't share it. Nevertheless, a school of thought seems to have developed whose GMG representative is Todd, which suggests that it really doesn't matter whether Ukraine is an independent state, a puppet state of Russia or even a Russian province, as long as Ukrainians are alive. Crudely expressed, better to be a living donkey than a dead lion. While the proposition has its merits and can certainly be argued for, it's not hard to see that, had it been consistently applied all throughout history, the world would have been a much worse place than it is now because every aggressive tyrant would have had their way unopposed. Liberty comes at a price and national liberty's price is sometimes blood. This is a lesson that history teaches us time and again.

[Todd]

Liberty comes at a price and national liberty's price is sometimes blood.

It is easy to advocate spilling the blood of other people.  And cheap.

Also, Ukrainian liberty is not necessary for American peace and prosperity.

[Florestan]

It is easy to advocate spilling the blood of other people.  And cheap.

You speak as if the US forced the unwilling Ukrainian government and the reluctant Ukrainian people to fight the Russians. No, it's exactly the other way around: ever since the Russian invasion, Zelensky and his government, for better or worse the only legitimate, democratically elected representatives of the Ukrainian people, have been  consistently and continuously asking for help and the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainian people at large have been consistently and continuosuly fighting and opposing the Russian invaders.

Also, Ukrainian liberty is not necessary for American peace and prosperity.

Why, of course, had Russia invaded Oregon, the Americans would have been entitled to fight, no matter that American lives would have been lost in the process, because the liberty of the US and the freedom of Americans are sacred. But Russia invaded Ukraine and you just expressed in plain English that for you the Ukrainians are second hand people because you don't care a fig about their liberty and freedom: they may be the slaves of Russia till Judgment Day, it's no concern of yours and it should be no concern of the US. They are not even entitled to ask for, and receive, help in their fight.Their peace and prosperity can be trampled under foot by anyone, they are not important. And this is actually valid for 90% of the nations in the world.

American exceptionalism in a nutshell.

[Karl Henning]

The concern that in a prolonged war more and more Ukrainians will be killed is legitimate, nay even admirable --- and I doubt there is any one of us who doesn't share it. Nevertheless, a school of thought seems to have developed whose GMG representative is Todd, which suggests that it really doesn't matter whether Ukraine is an independent state, a puppet state of Russia or even a Russian province, as long as Ukrainians are alive. Crudely expressed, better to be a living donkey than a dead lion. While the proposition has its merits and can certainly be argued for, it's not hard to see that, had it been consistently applied all throughout history, the world would have been a much worse place than it is now because every aggressive tyrant would have had their way unopposed. Liberty comes at a price and national liberty's price is sometimes blood. This is a lesson that history teaches us time and again.

By Huggy Bear's  logic, the American colonists should just have paid the damn Tea Tax.

[Florestan]

the American colonists should just have paid the damn Tea Tax.

The case can surely and rationally be made. They were not invaded, they were not required to give up their governing system(s), they were only required to pay a tax which I bet wasn't even ruinous to most, if not all, of them. They refused to pay it and as a result thousands of them died and the US was born. Was the death toll a price worth paying for that birth, Todd? Also, was France right in helping militarily the rebel colonies? After all, their independence from UK was not necessary for France's peace and prosperity.

[BasilValentine]

Yes, one can argue that countries close to Russia that have endured a history of Russian oppression may exhibit a rational fear of Russia.  The farther away from Russia one gets, the less and less rational the fear becomes.  Finally, for the US, there is no rational basis for Russophobia, and there never has been.  The various bouts of Russophobia starting in the Wilson years, and waxing and waning since, have always been severe overreactions. 

This is where people far removed from direct Russian threats have to assess the importance of confronting Russia in an effort to ostensibly protect small, weak countries prone to Russian domination.  Irrational Russophobia is informing policy right now.

Interesting how you shoehorn Russophobia into this discussion. Taking precautions, like joining regional defensive alliances against a known criminal state and bad actor, doesn't necessarily denote fear. It's just rational caution.

On the broader historical points: Hardliners on both sides of the US-Soviet rivalry maintained a symbiotic relationship of mutual antagonism because it politically and materially profited the fear-mongers and military-industrial interests on both sides. On the other hand, only idiots weren't afraid that missteps in this grotesque political theater might lead to nuclear annihilation. Your weird incomprehension on such points makes me wonder if you aren't in fact some sort of alien emissary from another galaxy trying to pass yourself off as human. Or weren't you around for the Cold War?

[Todd]

You speak as if the US forced the unwilling Ukrainian government and the reluctant Ukrainian people to fight the Russians.

You misinterpreted what I wrote, so I will try again.  Various folks from all around the world rely on romanticized notions of liberty and war as it pertains to Ukraine, which is very easy to do when other people do the dying.

Why, of course, had Russia invaded Oregon, the Americans would have been entitled to fight, no matter that American lives would have been lost in the process, because the liberty of the US and the freedom of Americans are sacred.

Sacred is not the correct word.  American territorial integrity is a necessary condition for American peace and prosperity. 

Also, Oregon is a very unlikely target for a hypothetical west coast invasion, unless for some reason Intel's fabs were a primary target.  I would think a hypothetical west coast invasion would focus on California.  I would expect the US military to react the same in either case.  Actually, neither scenario is plausible, so I will sleep soundly knowing that your rhetoric is hollow.

But Russia invaded Ukraine and you just expressed in plain English that for you the Ukrainians are second hand people because you don't care a fig about their liberty and freedom: they may be the slaves of Russia till Judgment Day, it's no concern of yours and it should be no concern of the US. They are not even entitled to ask for, and receive, help in their fight.Their peace and prosperity can be trampled under foot by anyone, they are not important. And this is actually valid for 90% of the nations in the world.

The same applies to almost all other countries from an American standpoint.  The same comparative, perceived indifference is common all over the world.  The moral outrage exhibited over Ukraine is an artifact of Eurocentrism.  Racism is also involved.  There is no similar outrage on this forum, or anywhere else, regarding the fate of the people of Yemen or Syria, let alone African countries.  There is no rational basis for considering Europeans more important than anyone else.  I will say that Americans take precedence for Americans.  The US federal government agrees.

American exceptionalism in a nutshell.

Incorrect.

Interesting how you shoehorn Russophobia into this discussion. Taking precautions, like joining regional defensive alliances against a known criminal state and bad actor, doesn't denote fear. It's just rational caution.

On the broader historical points: Hardliners on both sides of the US-Soviet rivalry maintained a symbiotic relationship of mutual antagonism because it politically profited the fear-mongers and military-industrial interests on both sides. On the other hand, only idiots were not afraid that missteps in this grotesque political theater could lead to nuclear annihilation. Your weird incomprehension on such points makes me wonder if you aren't in fact some sort of alien emissary from another galaxy trying to pass yourself off as human. Or weren't you around for the cold war?

What?

[drogulus]

     Crimea is under missile attack. Explosions are seen at an airbase. Also, the US has sent Ukraine missiles that can attack Russian SAM sites, which defend against planes and missiles.

"We've included a number of anti-radiation missiles that can be fired off of Ukrainian aircraft that can have effects on Russia radars and other things," Kahl told a news briefing, without specifying the exact type.

     That's from WAPO, reporting on a DOD briefing.

     I think Ukraine has the right of self defense regardless of who else benefits.

[Florestan]

Taking precautions, like joining regional defensive alliances against a known criminal state and bad actor, doesn't necessarily denote fear. It's just rational caution.

My point exactly.

[Karl Henning]

     I think Ukraine has the right of self defense regardless of who else benefits.

You starry-eyed romantic!

[drogulus]

     The missile the US sent to Ukraine to attack the air defenses is the AGM-88 HARM. HARMs attack air defense radars (Anti Radiation Missile), rendering them blind. The H means high speed.

     

[Florestan]

You misinterpreted what I wrote, so I will try again.  Various folks from all around the world rely on romanticized notions of liberty and war as it pertains to Ukraine, which is very easy to do when other people do the dying.

That would be correct if the other people did the dying unwillingly and reluctantly. When a people willingly, bravely and fearlessly fight for their freedom, they are to be commended and aided, not told to cease and desist.

American territorial integrity is a necessary condition for American peace and prosperity. 

Correct. Why then do you deny the same condition to Ukrainians?

Also, Oregon is a very unlikely target for a hypothetical west coast invasion, unless for some reason Intel's fabs were a primary target.  I would think a hypothetical west coast invasion would focus on California.  I would expect the US military to react the same in either case.  Actually, neither scenario is plausible, so I will sleep soundly knowing that your rhetoric is hollow.

I just love how you take rhetorical questions / figures of speech literally and refute them at length, while at the same time you don't even bother to respond, or respond in a mocking one-liner, to questions pertaining to real concerns.

There is no similar outrage on this forum, or anywhere else, regarding the fate of the people of Yemen or Syria, let alone African countries. 

Syria, Yemen and most, if not all, African wars are mostly cases of civil wars, if not inter-tribal wars. It's very difficult to ascertain which side is right and which one is wrong. If you asked any of the warring parties, they'd tell you they are right and all others are wrong except those who happen to momentarily be their allies.

In the Syrian case, though, it's precisely Russia that razed the city of Aleppo to the ground. Was that city on the short list to NATO membership, pray tell?

I'll give you Lybia --- a great and bloody blunder of both US and EU.

[Florestan]

          I think Ukraine has the right of self defense regardless of who else benefits.

Absolutely.

[BasilValentine]

What?

Read slowly. Think. You might learn something about Cold War politics.

[Florestan]

Various folks from all around the world rely on romanticized notions of liberty and war

Had it not been for romanticized notions of liberty and war, there'd have been no US. Just saying.

I know, I know, you'll reply :"Incorrect".

[Herman]

When he was a younger man, he would have despised anyone who thought that being rich means that one's opinion is necessarily important.

Not so sure about this.

[Todd]

That would be correct if the other people did the dying unwillingly and reluctantly. When a people willingly, bravely and fearlessly fight for their freedom, they are to be commended and aided, not told to cease and desist.

You are more convinced than I am about the willingness of the population to fight.

Why then do you deny the same condition to Ukrainians?

I have never done any such thing.  They should do it without US support. 

I just love how you take rhetorical questions / figures of speech literally and refute them at length, while at the same time you don't even bother to respond, or respond in a mocking one-liner, to questions pertaining to real concerns.

The example you offered is detached from reality.

Syria, Yemen and most, if not all, African wars are mostly cases of civil wars, if not inter-tribal wars. It's very difficult to ascertain which side is right and which one is wrong. If you asked any of the warring parties, they'd tell you they are right and all others are wrong except those who happen to momentarily be their allies.

Yemen has long been a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with significant regional implications, which given the region, has implications for the economic and strategic interests of many countries.  Syria was, and remains, more than a civil war and pulled in a variety of powers, including the US, which illegally maintains a military presence there today and which committed war crimes when it destroyed Raqqa.  (Perhaps Amnesty International is lying and/or is in the pocket of Assad and/or Putin, who knows.  If you should have evidence indicating that, please share it.)  The multiple conflicts in Africa are not quite so simplistic and free from interference as you imply, and reliance on the old chestnut "tribal" contains hints of racism.  Don't feel bad, lots of people everywhere succumb to that approach.  The US has been "engaged" with Sudan and now South Sudan for decades and has meddled in Congo for even longer, stretching back to the second world war.  Indeed, the US has massively expanded its military engagement in the continent this century, first by establishing Africom, then by building a massive base in Djibouti, all the while engaging in various covert and military actions, typically while pursuing various anti-terrorism operations.  This would imply that US intelligence agencies do have some knowledge, albeit incomplete, about various actors and motives and goals.   

Even given the messiness in the region, why shouldn't the millions of dead people in Syria, Yemen, and African nations take precedence over Ukraine?  More people have died, are dying, and will die.  Your response demonstrates indifference.

Had it not been for romanticized notions of liberty and war, there'd have been no US. Just saying.

That is a rather quaint view of the causes and consequences of the American Revolution.

Read slowly. Think. You might learn something about Cold War politics.

Huh?