Russia begins moving troops into eastern Ukraine

[Bengalzona]

(03-03-2022, 01:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the effectiveness of these sanctions is dependent on the country. Because of the propaganda machine in Russia, the people are not going to see this as the government being punished for doing wrong. They also don't have a real mechanism to do anything about it. Russia is only nominally democratic and they are oppressive of free speech beyond just about any western nation and even if there were avenues to do something, the majority of the country has been fed this propaganda for so long that they believe Russia is still in the right on this. Meaning, of course, that the sanctions are seen as attacks on Russia and not a justified retaliation.

I suspect that, like most of the rest of the world, Russian people are divided. Some will always believe what the gov tells them. Some will always distrust what the gov tells them. Most, like folks here, are not really sure what to believe. They know the gov lies to them sometimes. At the same time, they know the West cannot always be trusted. They trudge off to their boring jobs to make a living, buy groceries, and come home to watch TV or make new little Russians. The war is distant for most of them. And when the bite of the sanctions impacts them more fully, most will probably go into 'survival mode' rather than 'blame mode'.

[basballguy]

(03-03-2022, 01:48 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: So don't boycott them because their government will spin it as our fault. You are right. You don't have better ideas.

People are having their homes destroyed. Most of these homes had video games. Maybe show some concern for them?

I'm struggling to figure out where in my comments I've indicated i do not have concern for them.  Excellent contribution though.  

[basballguy]

(03-03-2022, 05:08 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I suspect that, like most of the rest of the world, Russian people are divided. Some will always believe what the gov tells them. Some will always distrust what the gov tells them. Most, like folks here, are not really sure what to believe. They know the gov lies to them sometimes. At the same time, they know the West cannot always be trusted. They trudge off to their boring jobs to make a living, buy groceries, and come home to watch TV or make new little Russians. The war is distant for most of them. And when the bite of the sanctions impacts them more fully, most will probably go into 'survival mode' rather than 'blame mode'.

Quite literally, lol.  Southeast Russia is 5000 miles away from the action.  Some of us in the US are closer to the action than a chunk of their citizens.  

[Bengalzona]

I think the main impact of the sanctions is on the overall economy of Russia, thus degrading its ability to wage war. Wars have always been expensive, modern wars exceedingly so.

[GMDino]

Just throwing this in this thread to avoid starting another.  

Despite the impeachment over Trump's attempt to withhold aid from Ukraine this was new information to me.

More:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html






[/url]

Quote:[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions]Opinions
Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine


By Josh Rogin
July 18, 2016

The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.

Still, Republican delegates at last week’s national security committee platform meeting in Cleveland were surprised when the Trump campaign orchestrated a set of events to make sure that the GOP would not pledge to give Ukraine the weapons it has been asking for from the United States.


Inside the meeting, Diana Denman, a platform committee member from Texas who was a Ted Cruz supporter, proposed a platform amendment that would call for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing aid for Ukraine and “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military.

“Today, the post-Cold War ideal of a ‘Europe whole and free’ is being severely tested by Russia’s ongoing military aggression in Ukraine,” the amendment read. “The Ukrainian people deserve our admiration and support in their struggle.”


View Photos
Delegates and party leaders gather in Cleveland to name their presidential nominee.

Trump staffers in the room, who are not delegates but are there to oversee the process, intervened. By working with pro-Trump delegates, they were able to get the issue tabled while they devised a method to roll back the language.

On the sideline, Denman tried to persuade the Trump staffers not to change the language, but failed. “I was troubled when they put aside my amendment and then watered it down,” Denman told me. “I said, ‘What is your problem with a country that wants to remain free?’ It seems like a simple thing.”


Finally, Trump staffers wrote an amendment to Denman’s amendment that stripped out the platform’s call for “providing lethal defensive weapons” and replaced it with softer language calling for “appropriate assistance.”

That amendment was voted on and passed. When the Republican Party releases its platform Monday, the official Republican party position on arms for Ukraine will be at odds with almost all the party’s national security leaders.

“This is another example of Trump being out of step with GOP leadership and the mainstream in a way that shows he would be dangerous for America and the world,” said Rachel Hoff, another platform committee member who was in the room.

Of course, Trump is not the only politician to oppose sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. President Obama decided not to authorize it, despite recommendations to do so from his top Europe officials in the State Department and the military. The United States has provided Ukraine with non-lethal equipment and aid.

Trump’s view of Russia has always been friendlier than most Republicans. He’s said he would “get along very well” with Vladimir Putin and called it a “great honor” when Putin praised him. Trump has done a lot of business in Russia and has been traveling there since 1987. Last August, he said of Ukraine joining NATO, “I wouldn’t care.” He traveled there in September, and he told Ukrainians their war is “really a problem that affects Europe a lot more than it affects us.”


For Trump, the biggest threat to Europe is not Russia, according to people familiar with his thinking. He believes the United States should focus on helping Europe fight Islamist terrorism and open borders, not confronting Putin. He has called for a reduction of the U.S. commitment to NATO. He simply doesn’t see Russia as a dangerous threat.

For Denman, the Trump campaign’s actions betrayed the U.S. commitment to supporting struggling democracies around the world, which she considers a core Republican value.


“The Ukrainian people are trying to come out of the past and stay free. We owe to those who are fighting for freedom still to give them a helping hand,” she said.

“I’m very passionate and supportive of the Reagan foreign policy of peace through strength.”

Trump too often invokes Ronald Reagan when talking about America’s role in the world. But although Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union, he also stood up to Russian aggression in Europe and defended democratic principles abroad.

When the platform comes out, Republicans will see how far from the Reagan doctrine their party has drifted, thanks to Trump.

As the article states Obama didn't want to authorize sending some weapons also, though I don't think it was part of the party platform.

[basballguy]

(03-03-2022, 10:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just throwing this in this thread to avoid starting another.  

Despite the impeachment over Trump's attempt to withhold aid from Ukraine this was new information to me.

More:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html






[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions][/url]

As the article states Obama didn't want to authorize sending some weapons also, though I don't think it was part of the party platform.

I'm struggling to find words to respond to such utter nonsense.  

[GMDino]

(03-03-2022, 11:12 PM)basballguy Wrote: I'm struggling to find words to respond to such utter nonsense.  

It never gets old when something is posted to this forum with videos and citations and is used to further the discussion about, say, one party's complete turnaround on policy to please one man and the first response is "nuh uh".

Always good way to have a conversation about how we got where we are.

Thanks.

[NATI BENGALS]

Glad I woke up to the news of that fire at the nuclear plant being out this morning.


Damn it man. Taking over Chernobyl and bombing then taking over the largest nuclear plant in Europe.....

This escalation from putin is really pushing it. .

I mean are you serious with this shit..

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-fire-after-russian-attack-mayor-2022-03-04/

[HarleyDog]

(03-04-2022, 08:15 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Glad I woke up to the news of that fire at the nuclear plant being out this morning.


Damn it man. Taking over Chernobyl and bombing then taking over the largest nuclear plant in Europe.....

This escalation from putin is really pushing it. .

I mean are you serious with this shit..

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-fire-after-russian-attack-mayor-2022-03-04/

I was watching it on the news last night with Sheppard Smith, then switched and heard a different take. Our media sucks. Sorry for throwing that in there but I'm exhausted by the L/R news outlets. It's frustrating we get lied to with so-called facts everyday. Soooo...

I really think we need to just go in and take care of this situation. I know, I know, it's going to create WWIII. But, I'm not sure about that. The stuff that is going down right now is going to eventually lead us to war anyway if the Ukrainians are able to keep the fight because Putin is going to be Putin and (many have said he's different and maybe losing his mind) continue to lie to his people while bombing civilians. Our best strategy might be to act now instead of later. Our military can outfight these guys easily. Our strategies and tactics are more advanced. 

I also think this would shrug China off the Taiwan idea. Of course, it's not entirely our decision and NATO is involved. Yet, remember, General Patton wanted to fight the Russians at the end of WWII because he knew in his heart days like today would come. Even though we were supposedly allies, they were snakes in the grass and proved it by dividing Berlin.

Rereading my post, I see I sound slightly like an American version of Putin. However, do we really want more bloodshed and death of innocent women and children again like Nazi Germany? We took too long getting involved in WWII. The history of human suffering and death is too great to even grasp. I don't want a repeat. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-04-2022, 10:44 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I was watching it on the news last night with Sheppard Smith, then switched and heard a different take. Our media sucks. Sorry for throwing that in there but I'm exhausted by the L/R news outlets. It's frustrating we get lied to with so-called facts everyday. Soooo...

I really think we need to just go in and take care of this situation. I know, I know, it's going to create WWIII. But, I'm not sure about that. The stuff that is going down right now is going to eventually lead us to war anyway if the Ukrainians are able to keep the fight because Putin is going to be Putin and (many have said he's different and maybe losing his mind) continue to lie to his people while bombing civilians. Our best strategy might be to act now instead of later. Our military can outfight these guys easily. Our strategies and tactics are more advanced. 

I also think this would shrug China off the Taiwan idea. Of course, it's not entirely our decision and NATO is involved. Yet, remember, General Patton wanted to fight the Russians at the end of WWII because he knew in his heart days like today would come. Even though we were supposedly allies, they were snakes in the grass and proved it by dividing Berlin.

Rereading my post, I see I sound slightly like an American version of Putin. However, do we really want more bloodshed and death of innocent women and children again like Nazi Germany? We took too long getting involved in WWII. The history of human suffering and death is too great to even grasp. I don't want a repeat. 

I don't trust him. I feel like he is a Bond villain or something and would destroy the world if he doesn't get his way. Attempting to cut off communication to the outside world and making a fake news law to throw critics in jail is some scary stuff.

Ukraine was letting people out of jail to fight, Chechen kill squads being sent over, Russian mercenaries, Russian forces, Belarusian forces, volunteers coming from all over to fight for Ukraine. An evil dictator with a nuclear fetish who took over two major nuclear sites. Thinking about putting American troops into that mess makes my head spin.

[HarleyDog]

(03-04-2022, 11:05 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I don't trust him. I feel like he is a Bond villain or something and would destroy the world if he doesn't get his way. Attempting to cut off communication to the outside world and making a fake news law to throw critics in jail is some scary stuff.

Ukraine was letting people out of jail to fight, Chechen kill squads being sent over, Russian mercenaries, Russian forces, Belarusian forces, volunteers coming from all over to fight for Ukraine. An evil dictator with a nuclear fetish who took over two major nuclear sites. Thinking about putting American troops into that mess makes my head spin.

Once nukes are fired, they won't just be in Ukraine. It will force the world to respond likewise. 

[kalibengal]

I cant help but think Russia will be using these Nuclear plants as threats if their demands arent met. ie. in russian voice: "surrender and drop sanctions or we blow up nuke plants"

[HarleyDog]

(03-05-2022, 12:54 PM)kalibengal Wrote: I cant help  but think Russia will be using these Nuclear plants as threats if their demands arent met. ie. in russian voice: "surrender and drop sanctions or we blow up nuke plants"

Attacking nuclear plants with gunfire and flares (flares are not attacking, but can cause fires) is irresponsible. If he's willing to do this, he is not afraid of the consequences of a likely accident. He's losing it because if 1 nuke is fired, it will be the end of the world as we know it. Millions of people will die. No, not from 1 nuke, but from the response. If he's past the point of giving a shit because he really has no friends now? Well, this is why I think we should go in prior to the "What If we had done something sooner" scenario. Dude is a lunatic and a narcissist. 

We really need to figure a way to end his life before his grandeur diseased brain goes even further across the line of decency and violations against humanity increase worse than he has already displayed.

[CKwi88]

Só talks to resume tomorrow, but I think you can hardly say Russia is acting in good faith. If their reported demands are to be believed, recognition of Crimea and the 2 breakoff regions as Russian, complete demilitarisation (and denazification ) of Ukraine and maintaining neutral status, it's probably a waste of time.

Ukraine will not capitulate, and Russia won't retreat. When the civilian bodies start piling up, Europe/NATO/The West is going to have to make a decision to either sit on the sidelines or act. Two absolute shit choices to have.

Seems to be trending towards Russia's Afghanistan 2.0. Russia can overpower Ukraine, but they will have to waste incredible resources on an occupation while being a pariah state.

China has to be thrilled. Russia will be their ***** for the next century as they help prop them up through the sanctions.

[Dill]

(03-04-2022, 10:44 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I was watching it on the news last night with Sheppard Smith, then switched and heard a different take. Our media sucks. Sorry for throwing that in there but I'm exhausted by the L/R news outlets. It's frustrating we get lied to with so-called facts everyday. Soooo...

I really think we need to just go in and take care of this situation. I know, I know, it's going to create WWIII. But, I'm not sure about that. The stuff that is going down right now is going to eventually lead us to war anyway if the Ukrainians are able to keep the fight because Putin is going to be Putin and (many have said he's different and maybe losing his mind) continue to lie to his people while bombing civilians. Our best strategy might be to act now instead of later. Our military can outfight these guys easily. Our strategies and tactics are more advanced. 

I also think this would shrug China off the Taiwan idea. Of course, it's not entirely our decision and NATO is involved. Yet, remember, General Patton wanted to fight the Russians at the end of WWII because he knew in his heart days like today would come. Even though we were supposedly allies, they were snakes in the grass and proved it by dividing Berlin.

Rereading my post, I see I sound slightly like an American version of Putin. However, do we really want more bloodshed and death of innocent women and children again like Nazi Germany? We took too long getting involved in WWII. The history of human suffering and death is too great to even grasp. I don't want a repeat. 

I always appreciate your take on stuff, H-Dog, but I disagree with some of your reasoning here, so some quick points in response: 

1. So long as we have a decentralized "free press" separate from the government, then there will be "different takes" on news events. This should be regarded as a strength of our system, as opposed to the current system in Russia, where different takes from the government are not allowed.

2. That the "facts" presented by Fox et al. do not always jive with the rest of the US/international media does not mean that ALL news sources are equally unreliable. It is a goal of propaganda to create uncertainty about news sources, to foster an inability to vet them effectively.

3. You do sound rather like Putin, in the sense that your solutions are authoritarian and presume a capability we may not have. If we go to WWIII, we will not have stopped "more bloodshed and death of innocent women and children," we will have moved the numbers from hundreds and thousands to millions, perhaps hundreds of millions or even a billion. The world on the other side of that conflagration will probably have no UN and no international legal system. 

4. NOT following Patton's advice led to 50 years of peace in Europe and 70+ years without a world war. Very doubtful the US could have won a land war against the USSR, in any case. In any case, the president who started Patton's war would be out of office quickly enough. 

5. Putin, I think, is not Putin anymore. The first 15 years of his political life showed a shrewd and effective leader. The last 2-3 years we have seen a rather different Putin emerge, one isolated and erratic, no longer good at assessing risks and reading his own citizens. The steps the US and allies have taken in response to Putin's aggression seem a better alternative to WWIII at the moment, and have good chance of effecting regime change in Russia.

[Dill]

(03-05-2022, 12:54 PM)kalibengal Wrote: I cant help  but think Russia will be using these Nuclear plants as threats if their demands arent met. ie. in russian voice: "surrender and drop sanctions or we blow up nuke plants"

If they blow up the nuke plants they will destroy the country they want to annex,

while launching WWIII.

Were Putin in a bunker in Moscow, surrounded by advancing Ukrainian force as his regime fell, maybe he would do something like blow up nuke plants, but otherwise that is very doubtful.

[HarleyDog]

(03-08-2022, 06:25 PM)Dill Wrote: 3. You do sound rather like Putin,

Damn.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

In all fairness to both political parties Reagan and Kennedy were the only 2 presidents that did anything to keep Russia in check. Kennedy got assassinated and Reagan had term limits.

[*Nately120*]

(03-09-2022, 12:11 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: In all fairness to both political parties Reagan and Kennedy were the only 2 presidents that did anything to keep Russia in check. Kennedy got assassinated and Reagan had term limits.

I'd credit wasting time and money meddling around in Afghanistan for Reagan being able to push over the USSR, but I'm getting too many flashbacks to my early 2000s arguments to continue. 

[Dill]

(03-09-2022, 12:11 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: In all fairness to both political parties Reagan and Kennedy were the only 2 presidents that did anything to keep Russia in check. Kennedy got assassinated and Reagan had term limits.

"Russia" didn't exist while Kennedy and Reagan were in office, did it?

From the Soviet side, the only premiers who kept the US in check were Stalin and Kruschev.