Russia invades Ukraine *** READ RULES IN POST 6 BEFORE POSTING ***

zrinkill

Cowboy Fan
Messages
46,380
Reaction score
26,597
Just watched the HBO Chernobyl series again.

Its crazy how much it reflects on the events of the day.
 

Montanalo

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,272
Reaction score
11,215
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
For those old enough to remember, does this feel like the Vietnam Domino Theory? The rhetoric from the WH and Congress seems to be, "... we must protect Ukraine at all costs".

Other comments seem to be preparing the American public for "a long haul" conflict.

Lindsey Graham recently made a comment along the lines of the sooner Putin is defeated, the more stable the world will be. Seems to be an overt call for regime change.

While I should not be surprised at the creeping US involvement and commitment, this all seems terribly wrong
 

JJHLH1

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,312
Reaction score
14,627
No easy answers.

Letting Putin take over Ukraine would obviously embolden him to consider further expansion into old Soviet territories, which would send the wrong message to the rest of the world. Putin wasn’t satisfied with annexing Crimea in 2014. Tyrants always want more until they are stopped.

Every scenario entails risks.
 

BleedSilverandBlue

Curator of Excellent Takes
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
5,307
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
For those old enough to remember, does this feel like the Vietnam Domino Theory? The rhetoric from the WH and Congress seems to be, "... we must protect Ukraine at all costs".

Other comments seem to be preparing the American public for "a long haul" conflict.

Lindsey Graham recently made a comment along the lines of the sooner Putin is defeated, the more stable the world will be. Seems to be an overt call for regime change.

While I should not be surprised at the creeping US involvement and commitment, this all seems terribly wrong
Vietnam (at least at the onset) was actually still fighting to find its way as an independent nation after throwing off French Colonial rule. The United States getting involved in what you almost certainly can chalk up to an internal Vietnamese matter of civil dissonance was misguided from the start. The United States was propping up a hugely unpopular dictatorial regime in a strategically unimportant country. The South Vietnamese were also not going to win against the North without American boots on the ground no matter how much military aid you threw at them. It became increasingly difficult for the US to claim it was attempting to "save" the nation's people as it turned to enormous strategic bombing campaigns that slaughtered millions of Vietnamese.

There were also no realistic victory conditions that could be defined. The only thing that would have kept Vietnam from falling to communism would have been a massively costly long term American occupation of the nation which forcibly kept the unpopular South Vietnamese government in power.

No matter how you slice it, Vietnam was very strange place for the US to make its stand but American politicians continued to double down on their idealogical crusade on a road to nowhere. Even an American "victory" would have yielded almost nothing of worth.

There are quite a few differences in Ukraine. Putin is very clearly fighting an unprovoked war of aggression against a US friendly nation with the sole purpose of territorial expansion. What we have here is basically an analog of the start of WWII with an expansionist totalitarian state invading a peaceful neighbor under the pretense of reclaiming "historical territories". If Ukraine was to fall, you would now have Russian troops looking over the border at Slovakian, Polish, Hungarian, and Romanian troops along with a Russian leader who has plainly stated numerous times that all former territory of the Soviet Union with Russian speakers rightfully belongs to the Russian Federation. If Russian forces were to take a single step into any NATO territory, and it is likely they eventually would, The United States would be bound by Article 5 to come to the defense of their allies and find itself in a direct confrontation with Russia. You combine this with the fact that Russia, China, and Iran have essentially formed a three headed alliance of totalitarian, depot governments, and it makes too much sense for NATO and the Western allies to prevent Russia from moving into position to come into direct conflict with Western troops.

In straight up dollars and cents, Ukraine long term is the least costly place for the West to stand up to Russia. No Western troops will be killed and the price of supplying the Ukrainian army is infinitely smaller than what it would cost to wage a full scale ground campaign against the Russian Federation. You also minimize the risk of nuclear escalation with the conflict taking place on territory belonging neither to Russia or NATO. The Ukrainian army has proven to be very capable of winning and highly motivated. The Ukrainian public also has shown massive support for the war effort. You are not fighting public opinion here in the same way you were in Iraq and Vietnam and you are supporting a faction that has a very good chance to win. While victory for Ukraine in this conflict is a little more difficult to define, for the Western allies, just keeping Russia off of your doorstep is unquestionably a W. Every dollar spent by the West in Ukraine is a wise investment which minimizes the chance of direct conflict with Russia, saps the Russians of military strength, and sends a message to China that the Allies would make any attempt to grab Taiwan extremely costly.
 

teamrican1

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
30
Vietnam (at least at the onset) was actually still fighting to find its way as an independent nation after throwing off French Colonial rule. The United States getting involved in what you almost certainly can chalk up to an internal Vietnamese matter of civil dissonance was misguided from the start. The United States was propping up a hugely unpopular dictatorial regime in a strategically unimportant country. The South Vietnamese were also not going to win against the North without American boots on the ground no matter how much military aid you threw at them. It became increasingly difficult for the US to claim it was attempting to "save" the nation's people as it turned to enormous strategic bombing campaigns that slaughtered millions of Vietnamese.

There were also no realistic victory conditions that could be defined. The only thing that would have kept Vietnam from falling to communism would have been a massively costly long term American occupation of the nation which forcibly kept the unpopular South Vietnamese government in power.

No matter how you slice it, Vietnam was very strange place for the US to make its stand but American politicians continued to double down on their idealogical crusade on a road to nowhere. Even an American "victory" would have yielded almost nothing of worth.

There are quite a few differences in Ukraine. Putin is very clearly fighting an unprovoked war of aggression against a US friendly nation with the sole purpose of territorial expansion. What we have here is basically an analog of the start of WWII with an expansionist totalitarian state invading a peaceful neighbor under the pretense of reclaiming "historical territories". If Ukraine was to fall, you would now have Russian troops looking over the border at Slovakian, Polish, Hungarian, and Romanian troops along with a Russian leader who has plainly stated numerous times that all former territory of the Soviet Union with Russian speakers rightfully belongs to the Russian Federation. If Russian forces were to take a single step into any NATO territory, and it is likely they eventually would, The United States would be bound by Article 5 to come to the defense of their allies and find itself in a direct confrontation with Russia. You combine this with the fact that Russia, China, and Iran have essentially formed a three headed alliance of totalitarian, depot governments, and it makes too much sense for NATO and the Western allies to prevent Russia from moving into position to come into direct conflict with Western troops.

In straight up dollars and cents, Ukraine long term is the least costly place for the West to stand up to Russia. No Western troops will be killed and the price of supplying the Ukrainian army is infinitely smaller than what it would cost to wage a full scale ground campaign against the Russian Federation. You also minimize the risk of nuclear escalation with the conflict taking place on territory belonging neither to Russia or NATO. The Ukrainian army has proven to be very capable of winning and highly motivated. The Ukrainian public also has shown massive support for the war effort. You are not fighting public opinion here in the same way you were in Iraq and Vietnam and you are supporting a faction that has a very good chance to win. While victory for Ukraine in this conflict is a little more difficult to define, for the Western allies, just keeping Russia off of your doorstep is unquestionably a W. Every dollar spent by the West in Ukraine is a wise investment which minimizes the chance of direct conflict with Russia, saps the Russians of military strength, and sends a message to China that the Allies would make any attempt to grab Taiwan extremely costly.
Ukraine is the same situation. Us intervening in what is essentially a Civil War (East vs West this time rather than North vs South) and it looks like it is going to play out in exactly the same way.
 

BleedSilverandBlue

Curator of Excellent Takes
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
5,307
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
Ukraine is the same situation. Us intervening in what is essentially a Civil War (East vs West this time rather than North vs South) and it looks like it is going to play out in exactly the same way.
Without American boots on the ground (this would be a massive mistake), I fail to see how the two can be reasonably compared.

Let us not forget what happened in Central Europe in the fall of 1938 through the spring of 1939. Germany assured the world that if they would just be allowed to swallow up the Czechs and the Sudetenland (historically German peoples) that their territorial ambitions would cease. It turns out they were lying. In this case, the Russians have made it no secret that the rest of the former eastern bloc nations would come next.

I am against American military adventurism as much as the next guy, but I feat that we have all seen this movie before and know how it will end without intervention.
 
Last edited:

gtb1943

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
2,634
Without American boots on the ground (this would be a massive mistake), I fail to see how the two can be reasonably compared.

Let us not forget what happened in Central Europe in the fall of 1938 through the spring of 1939. Germany assured the world that if they would just be allowed to swallow up the Czechs and the Sudetenland (historically German peoples) that their territorial ambitions would cease. It turns out they were lying. In this case, the Russians have made it no secret that the rest of the former eastern bloc nations would come next.

I am against American military adventurism as much as the next guy, but I feat that we have all seen this movie before and know how it will end without intervention.
The REAL joke is that Europe could handle the Russians IF THEY HAD THE STONES TO DO SO which they do not and they expect us to do it for them.

I say no more.

Europe is always claiming how much better they are than us; well let them prove it.
 

nobody

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,419
Reaction score
18,528
The REAL joke is that Europe could handle the Russians IF THEY HAD THE STONES TO DO SO which they do not and they expect us to do it for them.

I say no more.

Europe is always claiming how much better they are than us; well let them prove it.
Let's ignore the fact that most of those nations are NATO and would thus allow Russia to shout up and down that all of NATO planned this and use it for further justification for their actions..... If NATO-involved countries actually joined in and started fighting Russia, how long before tactical nukes started being used by Russia? Sure, several European nations could join Ukraine and summarily beat Russia on the battlefield but that might back Russia into enough of a corner that they'd actually use small-scale nukes against those countries, which would invoke article 5 of NATO and get a full-scale nuclear war going. Good plan.
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,572
Reaction score
11,165
Let's ignore the fact that most of those nations are NATO and would thus allow Russia to shout up and down that all of NATO planned this and use it for further justification for their actions..... If NATO-involved countries actually joined in and started fighting Russia, how long before tactical nukes started being used by Russia? Sure, several European nations could join Ukraine and summarily beat Russia on the battlefield but that might back Russia into enough of a corner that they'd actually use small-scale nukes against those countries, which would invoke article 5 of NATO and get a full-scale nuclear war going. Good plan.
This is the real answer. Once a NATO country goes in, they all have to, don't they? That then becomes 30 countries and would certainly be justification for Russia to launch a nuclear attack. It so simple as to say "go in and kick his ***" because he has the means and mentality to really start something that could end things.
 

BleedSilverandBlue

Curator of Excellent Takes
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
5,307
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
This will be a wrong move by NATO
Ukraine (particularly the younger demographic in the country) has been pushing for membership in the EU since the popular Maidan uprising in 2014 forced the Pro-Russian president out of power. In fact, Ukrainian pro-EU sentiment that manifested itself in Maidan is among the main factors that convinced Russia to kick off the conflict in Donbass by backing DPR rebels. I would hardly characterize the pro-EU movement in Ukraine as part of NATO meddling.

Ukrainian desire to ascend into the EU is hardly a new development and is extremely popular among Ukrainian citizens who desire a continued modernization of their economy. Ukraine historically is one of the most corrupt nations on the planet and its people have expressed a desire for reform to eventually look more like Poland (a former Eastern Bloc success story) than Belarus (a Russian satellite state) and I do not blame them for that.
 
Last edited:

gtb1943

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
2,634
This is the real answer. Once a NATO country goes in, they all have to, don't they? That then becomes 30 countries and would certainly be justification for Russia to launch a nuclear attack. It so simple as to say "go in and kick his ***" because he has the means and mentality to really start something that could end things.
Yep, as usual the graduates of the Neville Chamberlin school of International Relations are easy to find
 

teamrican1

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
30
Ukraine (particularly the younger demographic in the country) has been pushing for membership in the EU since the popular Maidan uprising in 2014 forced the Pro-Russian president out of power. In fact, Ukrainian pro-EU sentiment that manifested itself in Maidan is among the main factors that convinced Russia to kick off the conflict in Donbass by backing DPR rebels. I would hardly characterize the pro-EU movement in Ukraine as part of NATO meddling.

Ukrainian desire to ascend into the EU is hardly a new development and is extremely popular among Ukrainian citizens who desire a continued modernization of their economy. Ukraine historically is one of the most corrupt nations on the planet and its people have expressed a desire for reform to eventually look more like Poland (a former Eastern Bloc success story) than Belarus (a Russian satellite state) and I do not blame them for that.
The issue is not so simple and the split is more along geographical lines than age lines. Extreme Western Ukraine has always been in Poland's orbit while extreme Eastern Ukraine has always been part of Russia and it is that geographical and historical divide which divides the country. The elected President who was overthrown in the 2014 coup was a former Governor of Donetsk and was voted in to office by the Eastern half of the country. And so you are going to have a very hard time convincing anyone in Eastern Ukraine or Russia that a coup doesn't constitute "meddling".

Also, Ukraine looks nothing Belarus (which is extremely authoritarian but also extremely clean and low crime country). Lukashenko basically kept the Soviet system in place after the fall of the USSR and became a Belarussian version of Stalin. What Ukraine resembles the dysfunction and chaos of 1990's Russia. Ukraine suffered the same fate as Russia when the USSR collapsed, but unlike Russia, they never found their own Putin to escape that mess. It has been the 1990's for them for the past 30 years.

The war itself has finally broken the back of the Oligarchs as Russia has seized most of their mineral deposits in the East and the overall economy of Ukraine has come to a standstill, robing the Oligarchs of their income stream, but the question is what will replace them when the war ends? The best outcome may be to simply re-incorporate postwar Ukraine in to the three functional countries (Poland, Hungary, and Russia) that used to govern the area but within the framework of an International Treaty which ensures Ukrainian language and cultural rights are respected.
 
Top