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

[1984Echoes]

19 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

I don't see Afghanistan as a comparison.  It wasn't a NATO member.  It was invaded though...by NATO.

The United States was attacked by terrorists on 9-11 whose leadership had sanctuary in Afghanistan, who in return refused to hand them over (hence the sanctuary...).

The United States convened a NATO Article 5 meeting and multiple (I don't remember if it was every NATO nation, it might have been...) NATO countries supported military operations against Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. Which meant militarily taking over Afghanistan.

If Estonia is attacked, the favor will be returned.

I know Russia isn't Afghanistan, but the NATO compact will work the same. Not a full invasion of Russia; but troops on NATO soil attacking Russian troops on NATO soil. Until they are no longer there.

[mtutiger]

 

[1984Echoes]

10 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Erdogan coming down on the side of Ukraine in all of this is another surprise...

Blockade the Bosphorus Straits from all Russian ships. That hits them economically, and restricts their movement militarily.

There are several Russian warships hiding in the Mediterranean, waiting to rush in and support the invasion on Ukraine's southern coast. Lock them out of the Black Sea with a naval blockade.

 

10 hours ago, romad1 said:

he helped Azerbaijan against Russian puppet Armenia

It's a little more complicated than that.

Turkey committed a genocide against the Armenians.

It's difficult to know which side to come down on when considering the Armenian nation.

[Jim Cowan]

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

The United States was attacked by terrorists on 9-11 whose leadership had sanctuary in Afghanistan, who in return refused to hand them over (hence the sanctuary...).

The United States convened a NATO Article 5 meeting and multiple (I don't remember if it was every NATO nation, it might have been...) NATO countries supported military operations against Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. Which meant militarily taking over Afghanistan.

If Estonia is attacked, the favor will be returned.

I know Russia isn't Afghanistan, but the NATO compact will work the same. Not a full invasion of Russia; but troops on NATO soil attacking Russian troops on NATO soil. Until they are no longer there.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here or where Afghanistan fits in.  All I said was that the United States has never entered an armed conflict when a friend or ally was invaded.  I am hoping that your congress acts differently this time, and approves a declaration of war.  

If I were you, I would be emailing my congressional representative right now, making clear what my expectations would be in the event that Russia invades a NATO country and asking for written confirmation that the requirements of Article 5 will be adhered to.

[1984Echoes]

1 minute ago, Jim Cowan said:

I'm not sure what you are arguing here or where Afghanistan fits in.  All I said was that the United States has never entered an armed conflict when a friend or ally was invaded...

When did this happen?

[clark1mt]

3 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

I'm not sure what you are arguing here or where Afghanistan fits in.  All I said was that the United States has never entered an armed conflict when a friend or ally was invaded.

When was the last time a friend or ally was invaded on a scale that said friend or ally required US assistance?

[1984Echoes]

10 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Garry is right, the stakes are sky-high here. 

"We choose by action or inaction which world we want to live in."

[Jim Cowan]

1 minute ago, 1984Echoes said:

When did this happen?

That is the point, it did not happen.  I can not think of a time when the United States entered an armed conflict to support a friend or ally who had been invaded.  If you can, I stand corrected.

[Jim Cowan]

1 minute ago, clark1mt said:

When was the last time a friend or ally was invaded on a scale that said friend or ally required US assistance?

1914 or, especially, 1939.  

[1984Echoes]

9 hours ago, chasfh said:

Shush, the grownups are talking now.

Archie Bunker ALWAYS thought that he was the grownup...

[1984Echoes]

5 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

1914 or, especially, 1939.  

Those are invalid examples.

The United States was a friend or ally to all countries in those years. We weren't a part of any Allied or Axis agreements at the time. We were not beholden to supporting one ally over another in any Security Treaty. We were free to choose our destiny. And we did. Even if it came belatedly. 

You do NOT have any examples of the U.S. refusing to support or come to the aide of an ally because there are none.

Edited February 25, 2022 by 1984Echoes

[CMRivdogs]

France 1784-1789,

OK, It doesn't exactly fit because it was the French Revolution. The US however did not return Lafayette's earlier favor

Edited February 25, 2022 by CMRivdogs

[clark1mt]

6 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

1914 or, especially, 1939.  

The U.S. was far more isolationist then, especially at the beginning of WWI and further extending right up until WWII. As such, the U.S. basically had no formal "allies" really until WWII and the aftermath. So there was no opportunity for the U.S. to fail to uphold their obligations there.

It could be argued that the very existence of alliances like NATO have been enough to deter attacks on alliance members, thus serving their purpose.

[Motown Bombers]

23 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

That is the point, it did not happen.  I can not think of a time when the United States entered an armed conflict to support a friend or ally who had been invaded.  If you can, I stand corrected.

Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait. 

[1984Echoes]

5 hours ago, ewsieg said:

... Would have loved to have heard more about SWIFT.  In looking online right after that question, it looks like there are some concerns that could backfire where just yesterday I was hearing that was the 'nuclear option' in terms of sanctions.  

 

Europe still gets I think 40% of their natural gas/ energy from Russia. They use the SWIFT interbank communication codes to pay Russia for their gas. Dropping Russia from SWIFT would be a "nuclear option" against Russia. It would hammer them. But it would also cause major problems in the EU in getting/ paying for their natural Russian gas. That is the crux of the SWIFT problem.

The EU cannot let go of their Russian nipple.

 

5 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I didn't find the speech that bad, but yes, the Q&A was not good.  Not even just the dazed and confused look when trying to select who to call on, but he didn't seem to confident in some of his answers....

 

I'm wondering if he's had much sleep the past two weeks. 

Making a not-very-good speaker even more not very good.

[1984Echoes]

3 hours ago, mtutiger said:

That seems like a big deal.... 

 

This is what I was really hoping for....

 

3 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Here's what I don't understand:

In terms of their stated objectives, clearly Russia has the resources to take out the government in Kyiv and install a puppet. But we're talking about a country of 43 million and, while early, there is little to no indication of Ukraine soldiers laying down arms. 

How does this work without a long counterinsurgency that will result in a lot of loss of life for the Russians? And does that counterinsurgency, seeing the tepid response by the oligarchs and the much larger-than-expected protests, cause additional domestic problems?

The whole thing kinda looks like an overreach, but he may not care.

 

Surely.

Work up the numbers: Roughly 200,000 Russian soldiers, split about 10 different ways, against 40 million passionate anti-Russian armed Ukrainian Patriots. I'm not certain how many are actually armed. 

But Ukraine is not just going to roll over.

 

 

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

which depend on the Ukrainians maintaining some kind of corridor or protected airfields for resupply....

That corridor is Poland to Western Ukraine. If Putin wants to win, he has to commit 10 times the forces he has so far, and take the western region of Ukraine, blocking this corridor. He has Crimea, the Black Sea, Byelorussia, and his own border with Ukraine. He can't outright win if he cannot block the Poland to Ukraine border (~330 miles. Nearly impossible. = almost unwinnable guerilla war against Putin.)

[1776]

I thought Biden done pretty well overall regarding his speech. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by 1776

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

 

All the Russian babushkas and wives and daughters will be wondering where their men disappeared to, never to be heard from again. And they will never find out.

[Jim Cowan]

44 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

 

The United States was a friend or ally to all countries in those years. We weren't a part of any Allied or Axis agreements at the time. We were not beholden to supporting one ally over another in any Security Treaty. We were free to choose our destiny. And we did. 

Eisenhower disagrees with you in "Crusade in Europe".  But let's leave it.

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

A month late.  Still good

An entire country mobilized against Putin's armies.

We'll take it.

If Putin actually gets his ass whupped, the humiliation will be world-shaking...

[Tigeraholic1]

1 minute ago, 1984Echoes said:

All the Russian babushkas and wives and daughters will be wondering where their men disappeared to, never to be heard from again. And they will never find out.

Awful, The world is seeing just how evil Putin is…

[1984Echoes]

3 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Awful, The world is seeing just how evil Putin is…

I really freaking hate fascists.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

Turkey committed a genocide

but that is also part of the complexity, because 'Turkey' also didn't exist when the genocide occurred.

[1984Echoes]

Right, but the Ottoman Empire was basically Turkey and all the surrounding territory that it controlled.

I don't think you can get around that with a technicality...