Who'd Have Thought (back in 1984)?

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by stilleto69

@Raellus I don't think that it's so much that some of us in the US want to stop funding Ukraine and thereby "appeasing" the Russian dictator, it's more of a "what's in it for us". I look at it this way 1) America should have never forced Ukraine to give up it's portion of the old Soviet equipment after 1989. 2) The Democrats should have never forced the military to deactivate forces in Europe as part of the "Peace Dividend". 3) I find it funny that the party that told us Americans to "Trust the Russians", "reset our view of them", "Hey Mitt, the 1980's are calling and they want their Foreign Policy back (Laughs)", etc. are now the party of "let's get those Russkies". 4) I find it very disingenuous having said politicians trying to scare Americans with "if Ukraine falls, Poland is next." Considering that Poland is a NATO member and any attack would automatically trigger Article 5, so now Russia would be facing not just 1 country, but most of NATO. And 5) Even if he wins in Ukraine, I don't see his forces be "welcomed" any more than we were in Iraq. I see nothing but partisan attacks on his forces until it becomes too much for them. I have more points, but this is just small sample of some of my thinking.

I agree with a lot of it. Again in the 1990's we kind of blew it where we should have engaged Russia more to get her on our side. I say the real threat is Red CHina and even though the Russians are with them now, I foresee the Chinese screwing them at some point and they will be Jonesin for help. I always felt as a trump card, Ukraine should have held on to all or some of their nukes, *I mean we promised to protect them in the future, but many times we write check with our mouths we can cash and that leaves them in the lurch. We need to work to get all sides to the peace table.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

I always felt as a trump card, Ukraine should have held on to all or some of their nukes, *I mean we promised to protect them in the future, but many times we write check with our mouths we can cash and that leaves them in the lurch.

Well of course. In hindsight, Ukraine absolutely should have held onto its nukes. The other signatories have basically used the Budapest Memorandum as toilet paper.

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

I agree with a lot of it. Again in the 1990's we kind of blew it where we should have engaged Russia more to get her on our side. I say the real threat is Red CHina and even though the Russians are with them now, I foresee the Chinese screwing them at some point and they will be Jonesin for help. I always felt as a trump card, Ukraine should have held on to all or some of their nukes, *I mean we promised to protect them in the future, but many times we write check with our mouths we can cash and that leaves them in the lurch. We need to work to get all sides to the peace table.

The problem is, Russia was/is a mafia state. The realistic post-USSR choices for Russia were either an extremely corrupt democracy or a return to autocracy of some form. From a Russian perspective, the US and the West used and abused Russia even when Russia acted in good faith (like after Sep 11). Then again, the US isn't forcing countries to join NATO. That kind of thing happens when you invade your neighbors and murder and rape their civilians.

The ironic thing is, the US and Russia share many of the same geopolitical threats (China, radical Islam), and Russia is under much more of a direct threat from both.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

The problem is, Russia was/is a mafia state. The realistic post-USSR choices for Russia were either an extremely corrupt democracy or a return to autocracy of some form. From a Russian perspective, the US and the West used and abused Russia even when Russia acted in good faith (like after Sep 11). Then again, the US isn't forcing countries to join NATO. That kind of thing happens when you invade your neighbors and murder and rape their civilians.

The ironic thing is, the US and Russia share many of the same geopolitical threats (China, radical Islam), and Russia is under much more of a direct threat from both.

Point taken. Not sure how we can get them to the peace table, but I think really when we had Yeltsin in power, we did lose some opportunity to work with them somehow. Maybe if we did somehow we could have avoided Putin, I do not know. There are some differences between the West and Russia, but I think overall we share a lot of the same values and have similar enemies and potential enemies.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

I agree with a lot of it. Again in the 1990's we kind of blew it where we should have engaged Russia more to get her on our side.

I don't get "the USA was mean to poor Russia in the 1990s and that's why Putin is so antagonistic to the West these days" takes. That's the narrative Putin's propaganda machine has been spitting out for decades now. What does the USA stand to gain by kowtowing to an autocrat who's goal in life is to become the next Peter the Great and rebuild the Russian Empire, one former SSR at a time? The guy is a ruthless sociopath. Putin ordered the FSB to bomb a couple of Moscow apartment blocks as a frame-up and fait accompli for his revanchist invasion of Chechnya. He's imprisoned scores of political opponents had had at least a dozen assassinated (R.I.P. Navalny). He's been up to no good re Ukraine since the Orange Revolution in 2004. Time and again, Putin's told the world who he is- an opportunist who's only interested in rapprochement with the West if and if and when it gives him leeway him to pursue his expansionist agenda- and we'd be foolish not to believe him.

Originally Posted by stilleto69

@Raellus I don't think that it's so much that some of us in the US want to stop funding Ukraine and thereby "appeasing" the Russian dictator, it's more of a "what's in it for us". I look at it this way 1) America should have never forced Ukraine to give up it's portion of the old Soviet equipment after 1989. 2) The Democrats should have never forced the military to deactivate forces in Europe as part of the "Peace Dividend". 3) I find it funny that the party that told us Americans to "Trust the Russians", "reset our view of them", "Hey Mitt, the 1980's are calling and they want their Foreign Policy back (Laughs)", etc. are now the party of "let's get those Russkies". 4) I find it very disingenuous having said politicians trying to scare Americans with "if Ukraine falls, Poland is next." Considering that Poland is a NATO member and any attack would automatically trigger Article 5, so now Russia would be facing not just 1 country, but most of NATO. And 5) Even if he wins in Ukraine, I don't see his forces be "welcomed" any more than we were in Iraq. I see nothing but partisan attacks on his forces until it becomes too much for them. I have more points, but this is just small sample of some of my thinking.

How is allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine in the USA's national interest? If NATO turned a blind eye to the Russian conquest of Ukraine in 2022, would Putin really have believed that NATO has the stomach to go to war for Latvia or Estonia? Putin's proven that he's an aggressive expansionist again and again (Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Eastern Donetsk, Ukraine). If we don't learn from history- namely, the failure of Appeasement in the late 1930s- then we're doomed to repeat it. Hitler didn't stop after the Sudetenland, or even the rest of Czechoslovakia, despite strongly worded warnings against doing so from Great Britain and France. Consequently, he felt comfortable ignoring their "red line" of attacking Poland in 1939. Poland in 2024 has every reason to be concerned about Russia. Even if Putin stopped at conquering the Ukraine, should Poland and the rest of Europe be expected to take in millions more refugees, or rest easy whilst a grinding guerilla war festers on its doorstep?

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

I think China is where the US was in 1935. Depending on how you want to measure it, half of the world's industrial output is produced in China. They are aiming for strategic nuclear parity with the US and Russia by 2030 or 2035, and are increasingly modernizing their navy. They have a long way to catch up, but, they produce 35% of the global naval/marine tonnage. US is way down on the list of global ship producers. China's main problem is lack of energy and food security...which are not small problems to be sure.

Interesting comparison. I think China is closer to the USA in 1942 than 1935, and we're becoming like 1942-'43 Japan (in terms of naval building and capabilities). I hate to say it because I come from a USN family, but our navy is slipping. Our last two major surface warfare classes have been unmitigated disasters and the new Constellation-class frigate project is off to a very rocky start.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-n...rigates-2023-5

We lost our numerical advantage years ago; our fleet is getting old and we're quickly losing our qualitative advantage. We can't continue to lean on our illustrious naval tradition and superior operational experience, in lieu of new construction and upgrades of aging platforms. That's the mistake the IJN made during WW2 and look what happened to Japan.

-