War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[atoll]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

Attachment 253418

Are these not both weapons of mass distraction

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Here is the question of the day relating to the sentiment expressed by some in this thread that US lost the moral high ground, etc.

Does a corrupt cop still have the right or duty to arrest a suspected murderer? Or the fact that he is corrupt totally negates his duty?

You don't get to be a cop just because you say you are. Anyway, the "cop" analogy breaks down when you can't or won't enforce the "law" you claim to be championing.

The larger point is that, when it comes to global politics, right and wrong seldom enter into it. Countries have needs and wishes that often compete with other countries' needs and wishes, and these differences get worked out by negotiating, competition... or by force.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Here is the question of the day relating to the sentiment expressed by some in this thread that US lost the moral high ground, etc.

Does a corrupt cop still have the right or duty to arrest a suspected murderer? Or the fact that he is corrupt totally negates his duty?

I'd say that depends on whether the peace officer is acting within his own jurisdiction or not.

[Island Time O25]

To all of you disagreeing with my cop analogy - I'll still prefer a cop out of his jurisdiction even possibly corrupt to a perp with proven convictions for violence.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

To all of you disagreeing with my cop analogy - I'll still prefer a cop out of his jurisdiction even possibly corrupt to a perp with proven convictions for violence.

I didn't disagree with your analogy, I understood it and then I commented on it.

[OldAlaskanSalt]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

To the Eastern Med? Zero.


The Northern Coast of the Black Sea has been problematic for cruisers since 2014. The Western and Southern coasts should be fine.
...
If it does come to a shooting war in Ukraine, it will be nasty, brutal and short. It will be very unpleasant for the Ukrainians, but cruisers have nothing to worry about, I think, provided they stay out of the Northern Black Sea.

The Ukrainians have hated the Russians for a thousand years. They have said that if Russia invades, they can expect a constant and overwhelming insurgency from armed Ukrainians that will be far worse than the defeat Russia suffered in Afghanistan. Even with Russian reluctance to participate in polls, latest polling shows that the Russian people don't support a war with Ukraine.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by OldAlaskanSalt

The Ukrainians have hated the Russians for a thousand years. They have said that if Russia invades, they can expect a constant and overwhelming insurgency from armed Ukrainians that will be far worse than the defeat Russia suffered in Afghanistan. Even with Russian reluctance to participate in polls, latest polling shows that the Russian people don't support a war with Ukraine.

I mean, what's in it for them? Nothing.


The Ukraine isn't a threat to Russia.


This is all about Putin doing Putin things.

[Muaddib1116]

Found the russian?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The larger point is that, when it comes to global politics, right and wrong seldom enter into it. Countries have needs and wishes that often compete with other countries' needs and wishes, and these differences get worked out by negotiating, competition... or by force.

Hence, the establishment of the United Nations, with an agreed set of principles, and an agreement of their membership to follow them.

It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.

Of course it doesn't work when a member blatantly disregards it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Antun Comb

. . . Maybe you will like this one from Canadian study that Americans since ww2 killed and displaced . . .
In 250 years of existence as a nation, the US has fought . . . .

Originally Posted by Antun Comb

And how about this.....

This is a bit of a rant and wanders far from the topic.


HOWEVER, the facts are mostly correct and this is somewhat relevant as it goes to a "pattern of behavior" -- for better understanding what our real motives were in passing out $5 billion in Ukraine in 2013. If one assumes that we are angels and that when we get involved in other countries' internal affairs, that the motives are always angelic, you will make grave errors in judgement. We play this game ruthlessly and for our own advantage, and always have. Sometimes other countries benefit -- in WWII our allies did benefit from our participation. But since WWII it's hard to see a case where we used military force or interference in other countries internal affairs for anything which was clearly good. What is worse is that during this century we play the game without any skill, and not only harm other countries, but harm our own interests -- every single time. When we were at least benefitting ourselves, sometimes some other countries, not necessarily the one we were messing with, got some collateral benefit out of it, but now we just wreak destruction everyone, benefitting neither us nor anyone else. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya are classic cases, especially Iraq. And Ukraine is absolutely no different from any of this. We've created a big, big mess which may destroy Ukraine, and give us another cold war with Russia.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I mean, what's in it for them? Nothing.

The Ukraine isn't a threat to Russia.

This is all about Putin doing Putin things.

You never understood even the most basic things about the situation, and this results in error after error.


Of course Ukraine is no threat to Russia, never has been. That has never been the question. It is the hostile U.S., working relentlessly against Russian interests, starting from the 90's when Russia was still very friendly towards us, undermining previously friendly governments in Russia's neighbors, giving billions to anti-Russian elements in countries which are not generally unfriendly to Russia, isolating them, surrounding them with hostile forces. That's our policy and we've followed it relentlessly. THAT is what is a threat to Russia, and why they've put their foot down. Why is this so hard to understand? Without understanding how they think and why they think that, you'll never have a clue about what this is about or how it can be solved. You may disagree with them, but you don't have a right not to understand them. None of it justifies their actions, but it EXPLAINS them, and without that understanding you're just lost in this situation.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

Not sure how short such an endeavor would be. The Ukrainians are promising a homegrown insurgency should Putin invade. Those kind of wars take a long time and tend to bleed out in the other countries. If the United States decided to make it a proxy fight the Ukrainian resistance would not lack for materials for a very very long time. I am thinking specifically about the Russian experience in Afghanistan.

Yes, we really don't know at this point. It could be like that. Or not. We'll see.

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You never understood even the most basic things about the situation, and this results in error after error.


Of course Ukraine is no threat to Russia, never has been. That has never been the question. It is the hostile U.S., working relentlessly against Russian interests, starting from the 90's when Russia was still very friendly towards us, undermining previously friendly governments in Russia's neighbors, giving billions to anti-Russian elements in countries which are not generally unfriendly to Russia, isolating them, surrounding them with hostile forces. That's our policy and we've followed it relentlessly. THAT is what is a threat to Russia, and why they've put their foot down. Why is this so hard to understand? Without understanding how they think and why they think that, you'll never have a clue about what this is about or how it can be solved. You may disagree with them, but you don't have a right not to understand them. None of it justifies their actions, but it EXPLAINS them, and without that understanding you're just lost in this situation.

There are no forces hostile to Russia surrounding them. Russia is a nuclear power with the second largest arsenal in the world. If one of the Baltic nobodies invaded Russia they would be wiped out to the man and counter invaded and occupied likely for the next half century if not longer.

If by some miracle a coalition of European nations invaded and "beat" the Russians all their cities would turn to radioactive glass. Nuclear peers don't get occupied.

Stop being a Putin apologist. Russia isn't in danger from anyone about anything other than not being able to conquer its neighbors and forcibly annex enough territory to rebuild the soviet union.

If literally every nation in Europe was a member of NATO Russia would be under no threat at all. Their ability to annex territory that doesn't belong to them would be at an end though.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You never understood even the most basic things about the situation, and this results in error after error.


Of course Ukraine is no threat to Russia, never has been. That has never been the question. It is the hostile U.S., working relentlessly against Russian interests, starting from the 90's when Russia was still very friendly towards us, undermining previously friendly governments in Russia's neighbors, giving billions to anti-Russian elements in countries which are not generally unfriendly to Russia, isolating them, surrounding them with hostile forces. That's our policy and we've followed it relentlessly. THAT is what is a threat to Russia, and why they've put their foot down. Why is this so hard to understand? Without understanding how they think and why they think that, you'll never have a clue about what this is about or how it can be solved. You may disagree with them, but you don't have a right not to understand them. None of it justifies their actions, but it EXPLAINS them, and without that understanding you're just lost in this situation.

Russia has isolated itself.

By not wanting to join the international community.

By letting their pride get in the way of participation.

It's really not so much your analysis that's flawed, as your assumptions.

It's not so much that I don't have a clue as that I don't accept your premises, just like I don't accept those of Putin.

Yes, there are power dynamics at play. Russia is throwing it's regional power around. They miss the good old days of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately for them, the other countries who were in it don't.

The United States/Europe is winning because the idea of cooperation, community, free trade, and self-determination is more appealing than the idea of sandpiling and stealing each other's land. Russia lost not just the Cold War, but the battle of ideas. There isn't a huge lineup of ex-Soviet countries wanting to get the band back together.

What's more threatening to Russia than NATO is the idea that Ukraine might actually better their situation, and that would be more proof of Russia's failure.

Sure, there are evils of capitalism. But the benefits are better than whatever it is you call what Russia is doing.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is a bit of a rant and wanders far from the topic.


HOWEVER, the facts are mostly correct and this is somewhat relevant as it goes to a "pattern of behavior" -- for better understanding what our real motives were in passing out $5 billion in Ukraine in 2013. If one assumes that we are angels and that when we get involved in other countries' internal affairs, that the motives are always angelic, you will make grave errors in judgement. We play this game ruthlessly and for our own advantage, and always have. Sometimes other countries benefit -- in WWII our allies did benefit from our participation. But since WWII it's hard to see a case where we used military force or interference in other countries internal affairs for anything which was clearly good. What is worse is that during this century we play the game without any skill, and not only harm other countries, but harm our own interests -- every single time. When we were at least benefitting ourselves, sometimes some other countries, not necessarily the one we were messing with, got some collateral benefit out of it, but now we just wreak destruction everyone, benefitting neither us nor anyone else. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya are classic cases, especially Iraq. And Ukraine is absolutely no different from any of this. We've created a big, big mess which may destroy Ukraine, and give us another cold war with Russia.

I would argue the Donetsk separatist's are only a minor consideration,his prime motivation are the shale gas oil ,coal ,iron ore and other mineral reserves in the east,along with Mariupol a deep water port and perhaps a corridor to Crimea.

Probably already has a deal lined up with Xi for coal and iron ore.

what ever,it looks like it will kick off this evening,with amphibious landings in the south and tanks from the north to the east of kharkiv.
Then a break out from Donetsk once the noose joins up.