Jump to content

Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)


chasfh

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, romad1 said:

I understand the Crimea is similar

 

If you look at history, you could argue that as a practical matter, empires are too expensive to maintain over disaffected populations without chattel slavery or at least feudalism, it's what held up most empires. Short of enslavement, captive populations will not be economically vibrant given that their ambitions become so crimped.

Of course Xi thinks he is clever enough to find the way around that - we'll see what Hong Kong looks like in another 10 yrs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

this from an Atlantic article  a few yrs ago when the Russians moved into Donbass. There has been time enough that there has no-doubt been some shifting, but you see the basis of Putin channeling Hitler's Sudetenland ambitions.

image.png.3e5da7943256cfe33c804cba970d8ffc.png

Erdogan is interested in all this because of the Turkish minorities in these territories.  He could give a fig about Russian majorities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

US is urging Americans to get out of Ukraine now. Russian invasion appears imminent and the US will not help rescue stranded Americans. You know some Americans will stay behind despite the warnings for weeks and Jake Tapper will become obsessed with it. 

Some discussion about how the media will broadcast this.  During 2003 and 1991 attacks in Baghdad, the US networks had very shrewd workarounds.  Vladdie doesn't want to show his mayhem on TV.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

US is urging Americans to get out of Ukraine now. Russian invasion appears imminent and the US will not help rescue stranded Americans. You know some Americans will stay behind despite the warnings for weeks and Jake Tapper will become obsessed with it. 

You know it is not a simple as that. There were Americans left behind in Afghanistan because they were making sure families of diplomats and other soft targets were evacuated ahead of them. The Taliban are systematically slaughtering anyone who worked with us including their families still today.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

You know it is not a simple as that. There were Americans left behind in Afghanistan because they were making sure families of diplomats and other soft targets were evacuated ahead of them. The Taliban are systematically slaughtering anyone who worked with us including their families still today.

 If Vlad the Hammer destroys Kiev in order to save it he is going to kill some Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

You know it is not a simple as that. There were Americans left behind in Afghanistan because they were making sure families of diplomats and other soft targets were evacuated ahead of them. The Taliban are systematically slaughtering anyone who worked with us including their families still today.

The most complex cases were/are always dual nationals, primarily people born in country that have become naturalized US citizens and are back either because of family, NGO or US sponsored work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Look, I question the extent and role that the US should be involved and all...

But come on... doesn't what Ukranians today want matter in all of this? Who cares about 1790 to 1971?

I wouldn't let the statement "history isn't relevant" pass without a comment on the fact that it's an asinine thing to say. History is ALWAYS relevant. Whether it should be determinative in any given case may be an open question, but not the relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I wouldn't let the statement "history isn't relevant" pass without a comment on the fact that it's an asinine thing to say. History is ALWAYS relevant. Whether it should be determinative in any given case may be an open question, but not the relevance.

Fair enough... I just really wish that people arguing the position highlighted above would just freely admit that they do not care about the wishes of the majority of 43 million Ukranians. Don't couch it in history or sphere of influence or anything like that, just admit that one doesn't give a shit.

That never happens with the Putin apologists tho... 

Edited by mtutiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Fair enough... I just really wish that people arguing the position highlighted above would just freely admit that they do not care about the wishes of the majority of 43 million Ukranians. Don't couch it in history or sphere of influence or anything like that, just admit that one doesn't give a shit.

That never happens with the Putin apologists tho... 

still MTU - there is still a universe of space from the extremes of not caring about something (giving a shit) and being willing to start WWIII over it. Case in point was a story today in the NYT about Finns rejecting 'Finlandization' as positive historical outcome. But no-one bothered to challenge those Finns who thought that Finlandization was so bad with the comparison with the actual alternative of having been forced into occupation and Soviet satellite status and how much further ahead Finland is today for not having suffered that fate. 

You push back as hard as possible with every tool possible and you make is as costly for them as possible, but in the end if the Russians are willing to start shooting on a large scale, we can't opt for a cure that will both be worse than the disease because it will destroy the country, and which also presupposes American's care enough about Ukraine to see their sons and daughters die there, which is again a much higher bar than simply 'not caring',  If it's the welfare of Ukrainians we value, than destroying the country is certainly a worse outcome than anything the Russians will do it between now and Putin's eventual demise. That may be cynical, but it's also true.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After WWII, so the story goes there was some dinner party in England and some chinless wag lifts his glass and says  "its so nice to finally get back to all the things we've been fighting for" and his companion looks at the table of upper class twits and asks "are they all poles?"

Its a story i've seen in multiple forms.   Ukraine has paid a packet since 1917Just like Poland did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

You push back as hard as possible with every tool possible and you make is as costly for them as possible, but in the end if the Russians are willing to start shooting on a large scale, we can't opt for a cure that will both be worse than the disease because it will destroy the country, and which also presupposes American's care enough about Ukraine to see their sons and daughters die there, which is again a much higher bar than simply 'not caring',  If it's the welfare of Ukrainians we value, than destroying the country is certainly a worse outcome than anything the Russians will do it between now and Putin's eventual demise. That may be cynical, but it's also true.

Who is talking about sending American kids to war in Ukraine? I start from the position that will never happen.

What I'm seeing from the Ryan Grim types, however, is that pushing back as hard as possible with every tool possible and you make is as costly for them as possible is the same as instigating a war or sending kids to die. And that's a load of crap. They'd all rather we did nothing and let Ukraine be subjugated with no support, regardless of their wishes.

I just wish people who held that position wouldn't wax on about spheres of influence or the status quo 100 yeas ago... just admit that you dont think we should do anything and that you don't care. At least that would be intellectually honest.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Who is talking about sending American kids to war in Ukraine? I start from the position that will never happen.

What I'm seeing from the Ryan Grim types, however, is that pushing back as hard as possible with every tool possible and you make is as costly for them as possible is the same as instigating a war or sending kids to die. And that's a load of crap. They'd all rather we did nothing and let Ukraine be subjugated with no support, regardless of their wishes.

I just wish people who held that position wouldn't wax on about spheres of influence or the status quo 100 yeas ago... just admit that you dont think we should do anything and that you don't care. At least that would be intellectually honest.

[chef's kiss]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its crazy to think this...but Biden and Sullivan have played this pretty well.  They have judiciously leaked intel that I won't tell you how dear that stuff is because of sources and methods.  But,the intel is use or lose.  They won't save Ultra by letting the Germans conquer Britain.   Letting the Japanese conquer Australia wouldn't save the analogous US code breaking operation against Japan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Who is talking about sending American kids to war in Ukraine? I start from the position that will never happen.

What I'm seeing from the Ryan Grim types, however, is that pushing back as hard as possible with every tool possible and you make is as costly for them as possible is the same as instigating a war or sending kids to die. And that's a load of crap. They'd all rather we did nothing and let Ukraine be subjugated with no support, regardless of their wishes.

I just wish people who held that position wouldn't wax on about spheres of influence or the status quo 100 yeas ago... just admit that you dont think we should do anything and that you don't care. At least that would be intellectually honest.

I'll be honest, at the time of the Crimean annexation I thought the issues were much more grey. Ukraine's gov was barely any better than Moscow's and Crimea is/was majority ethic Russian and Russian speaking and the history was that Stalin only made Crimea part of Ukraine in one his made for show federation moves - it had been core Russian for a long time prior. My view then was that if Putin weren't so ham handed (and loath to do anything democratic) he probably could have won a Russian preference plebiscite in Crimea.  So I wasn't particularly then and really still am not all that worked up over Crimea. But Ukraine has morphed into a bigger issue for the overall future of Europe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, romad1 said:

Yeah, History...that cuts both ways.

Correct.

Prior to 1790 they were part of a Polish-Lithuanian Empire (not I believe as a co-equal but at least with some autonomy and dignity rather than being raped as Stalin did to them). Prior to that they were an Independent Nation, prior to that, they WERE the Rus empire (loose term based on the day and age) based in Kiev; and Moscow didn't even exist. From the first Viking settlers in the late 800's AD until 1790 (900 years of history), they were either Independent, or controlled all of the territory surrounding them.

But that doesn't mean anything because Russia defeated the Polish-Lithuanian Empire and took control of Ukrainian territory in 1790.

Putin... go F yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...