04-09-2024, 05:50 PM
(04-09-2024, 05:35 PM)samhain Wrote: I'd like to agree but can't. I think there are many in the conservative media such as Carlson and even Joe Rogan (who sadly has really swallowed this one hook, line, and sinker) who very openly paint Russia as a nation surrounded by NATO enemies with hostile intent.
Russia is surrounded by NATO nations. I've stated for years, well over twenty, that keeping the alliance name as NATO, while simultaneously expanding membership towards Russia, was unnecessarily antagonistic. You'll note, because some people need to actually be told this, that this doesn't excuse a single action taken by Russia towards their neighbors. But it's not hard to see how Russia, and the Russian people, could perceive it the way you state. NATO was created to counter the USSR. When the USSR ceased to exist the Russian view is that the need for NATO ceased to exist. Again this all could have likely been avoided with a simple rebranding.
Quote: Putin has always been a venerated figure on the far right, or at least since it became apparent that he openly despised Hillary and Obama. He's not "woke" after all, and he's also kinda churchy and that's the only real requirement to appeal to much of that crowd. To them, Russia was bullied into this situation and had no choice but to invade. To me this line of argument (not saying it's your argument) is a pile of horseshit that you'd have to be stupid or just plain apatheic to speak into being. Russia thought as many did that it would be a walk to take Ukraine. They had no idea of how much resistance they'd encounter, and they most definitely did not expect the West to coalesce in support as they have. It was never a "forced" military action due to an existential threat. It was a misread situation that looked like a layup and became a meat grinder.
There's not a single thing in here I disagree with.
Quote:As for the line, I don't see it as important short of losing actual American lives in combat. The cost of war has mattered little to most outside of the far left and maybe Pat Buchanan in this country right up until isolationism came back into vogue. I'd actually posit that the situation in Ukraine has the potential to become a tangible threat to the security of NATO and even eventually to the US itself. If we're willing to dump trillions on nation-building in places where it's been demonstrably impossible throughout history, then I'd expect that we'd be willing to spend quite a bit on a proxy war that could smother the threat of Russian aggression towards the west in the crib
Finally, a well worded and argued statement on this topic. I, again, have nothing to argue with here. I would add the following question though, can you see why some people find the dollar amount unpalatable, even unacceptable? Additionally, is being of that opinion an automatic indicator of support for Putin or the invasion of Ukraine? To me the answer is an easy no to both.
Quote:Now, would I be fine with a negotiation to end the conflict? Well, yeah. That's the only real desirable outcome. I just don't see it as terribly likely. Putin has to salvage his reputation. I don't mean internationally. I mean as the Russian head of state. If he negotiates terms that the Russian people view as anything close to concession, they'll depose his ass as soon as the remaining Russian troops return to Moscow. They've lost too many lives to tolerate him telling them that he lost. He's cornered and has no choice but to gut this out regardless of whether Ukraine or the West want to negotiate a compromise.
I honestly believe that a guarantee that Ukraine will never be extended NATO membership will be enough, at least it Trump wins in November. If Biden, or another Dem, does it will likely have to include territorial concessions, which I agree would be unacceptable.
